said, perhaps he might now be indulged in stating, that he had yesterday declined giving an answer publicly to that question which had been put to him, because he did not think that any hon. Member had a right to put the question, having previously stated that he did not intend to move the same question on which he had been defeated before. He had stated privately to a noble Lord his motive for postponing the third reading, and would have done so to any hon. Member who asked him.

begged to ask the noble Lord opposite when he intended to proceed with this important bill for the administration of justice? He must say, that if the bill should be pressed through the House, at that late period of the Session, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.

said, he thought it most desirable that those bills which had originated in the House of Commons should be sent up to the House of Lords, before they took into consideration bills that had come down from the other House. He therefore did not intend to proceed with the Administration of Justice Bill till next week.

said, that this was an unusual course to take with respect to so important a bill. He should certainly oppose the passing of the bill this Session.

begged to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the treaty with France upon the subject of our fisheries had been definitively agreed to?

feared he had not been sufficiently understood on a former occasion. The regulations to be carried into execution by an Order in Council were not regulations applicable to the space between three miles of the shore on either side. That space was by the treaty preserved to each party, and each party would therefore exercise its own jurisdiction within that space. The regulations, to give effect to which, if they should be made, an Act of Parliament was required, were to be prepared by commissioners, one on the part of France, and one on the part of England, for the guidance of the fishermen of the two countries when they met on that part of the sea which was beyond the three miles on either side, and which was the highway of all nations. The House would perceive that, except by mutual consent, no regulations could be made binding upon the fishermen of the two countries when they met in that situation; but as it often happened that he long-line nets and trawl nets of the one party interfered with the other, each country had, on its own authority, made regulations for the guidance of its own fishermen, but the consent of both parties was necessary to apply such regulations to the fishermen of the two countries. Within the prescribed distance from shore, England would apply its own regulations to its own fishermen, and France would apply the regulations of its own Government to its own fishermen, but beyond the three miles he hoped that the commissioners would be able to frame such regulations as would best protect the mutual and reciprocal interests of the fishermen of both countries. These regulations could not receive the force of law until the next meeting of the French Chamber of Deputies, which would probably take place about the beginning of December, but they would be given effect to at the earliest moment.

begged to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he had the honour of holding the seals of the Home Department, it happened that the office of Dean of the Chapel Royal of Scotland and King's Chaplain was vacant. He made inquiry, with a view to ascertain who in Scotland was the most eminent person and the best qualified for the situation, in order that he might submit the name to his late Majesty. He found that some communication had already been held by his predecessor with Dr. Macgill, an eminent divine, and he had reason to believe that his predecessor, from the good opinion which he in common with all acquainted with his merits entertained of Dr. Macgill, intended to have recommended him to his Majesty. Under these circumstances, and having convinced himself of the fitness of Dr. Macgill, he submitted his name to his Majesty, and Dr. Macgill received the appointment, in the usual form, of one of his Majesty's chaplains for Scotland, upon which he was appointed Dean of the Chapel Royal. The Treasury, however, refused to pay Dr. Macgill a salary under the appointment, and Dr. Macgill applied to him, he being the individual that recommended that rev. gentleman to the Crown. On receiving this intimation, he addressed a letter to the First Lord of the Treasury, pointing out the circumstances of the case, but although he had again written subsequently, that noble Lord, for some reason or other, had not thought fit to return a reply; and he was, therefore, under the necessity of troubling the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation. He found that there was no irregularity in the form of the appointment, and he was utterly ignorant of the grounds upon which the Treasury had thought fit to withhold Dr. Macgill's salary. That salary had been confirmed by a decision of the committee that sat upon the civil charges of Scotland. The subject was brought before the committee, and had been decided in favour of the King's chaplains. Under these circumstances, considering himself in honour bound to see this appointment, which had the sanction of his late Majesty when he had the honour of holding the seals of office, carried into effect, and having no means of obtaining information from the Treasury, he hoped to be favoured with some explanation by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having communicated his intention of putting this question. There was nothing irregular in the form of this appointment, and no objection whatever was made to the rev. gentleman. The case stood thus: Subsequently to the Civil-list Committee, some discussion took place in that House, in which it was stated that it was the intention of the Government, that on future appointments to this office no salary should be given. In accordance with that declaration, he understood that the Treasury had refused payment of salary, the appointment being one unaccompanied with duties, to which, consequently, no salary was attached. He had not been able to refer to the particular debate on which such a declaration had been made.

did not consider the answer of the right hon. Gentleman at all satisfactory. The imperfect recollection of an unknown debate, of which there was no record, was set up against the recommendation of a committee, and against uniform practice.

said, that a discussion took place in that House, during which it was stated that salary should not be withdrawn from the parties who then held office, but that in case of any future appointment, no salary should attach to the office. That discussion took place before Dr. Macgill's appointment, and when that rev. gentleman applied for his salary, the answer was that no salary attached to the office.

happened to be in office at the time this question was discussed, and his recollection of it was this:—Very shortly after coming into office, the question was raised as to the salaries of the chaplains in Scotland, there being at that time four vacancies. The warrant appointing Dr. Macgill had been sent to the Treasury, and application had been made for the salary, but that had been done previous to the right hon. Gentleman opposite leaving his situation as First Lord of the Treasury, and the question was then raised whether the salary of 50l. a year should issue to Dr. Macgill. There was a distinct understanding, that this was one of the offices which was not to receive any salary. That was the real state of the case. The warrant issued from the Home-office then did not carry any salary.

was in office when the appointment of the reverend gentleman was made. and he did think that after the recommendation of the Civil-list Committee, that reverend gentleman had everything on his side. He had the favour of his Majesty and the recommendation of a committee of the House of Commons, and considering that the appointment was one made by a deceased monarch, he thought it was bad taste to refuse the salary.

had taken some trouble in this matter, having written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, reminding him that the Sinecure Committee had decided that no salary should be attached to this office. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserved the thanks of the House and the country for his conduct.

begged most respectfully to call the attention of the House to the resolution which was passed in the last Session of Parliament. It was this:—

"That it appears by certain papers laid before this House,' that John Thorogood, a Protestant Dissenter, has been confined in her Majesty's county gaol of Essex, since the 16th day of January last, for neglecting to appear in the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. being the amount of Church-rate assessed jupon him for the parish of Chelmsford; and whereas, during this period, the said John Thorogood has been treated with uncalled for severity,' it is the opinion of this House, that the imprisonment of the said John Thorogood is not only cruel and unjust, but reflects great discredit upon those at whose instigation these proceedings were instituted, and under whose sanction they are so pertinaciously and vindictively continued; and while this House laments that it has not the power of affording immediate relief to the said John Thorogood, yet it is of opinion that it will lie the duty of the Legislature, at the earliest possible period of the next Session of Parliament, to make such alterations in the existing laws for levying Church-rates as shall prevent the recurrence of a like violence being ever again inflicted upon the religious scruples of that portion of her Majesty's subjects who conscientiously dissent from the rites or doctrines of the Established Church."

This resolution was not only condemnatory of the imprisonment of John Thorogood, but it amounted to a declaration that the House pledged itself, during the present Session, to bring forward some measure that would prevent a like violence being ever done to the conscientious scruples of Protestant Dissenters. How had the House redeemed that pledge? Had it taken any step whatever to redeem it? No; on the contrary, it had taken the very opposite course. He had proposed to introduce a bill which would have had the effect contemplated by that resolution, but he was not permitted to bring it in. He was told by many hon. Members, that although they objected to any bill, yet they would vote in support of any motion for the release of John Thorogood if put in the shape of an address to the Crown, or in any other form that would effect the object. He was now therefore, about to give the House an opportunity of carrying their wishes into effect by moving an address, praying that her Majesty would be pleased to take into her merciful consideration the case of this unfortunate man, with a view to his release. He knew that he had first to establish the fact that the Crown possessed the power to liberate this individual; and next to show that John Thorogood was a worthy object, in whose favour that power might be exercised. He was well aware that there was no precedent whatever for the Crown interposing in a case of this sort, but that was no fault of his; because he believed that for the last 150 years there was no instance upon record of such a gross persecution as that which had been evinced towards Mr. John Thorogood. But although there were no precedents of late years, there were precedents in former times for the Crown so interfering. But before mentioning them, he begged to ask what was John Thorogood guilty of? He was confined for what was called a contempt of the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, for not putting in an appearance to a citation from that court. After all, it was no actual contempt of the court, but was merely what the lawyers would call a constructive contempt. He had not insulted the judge, nor the process of the court; he had merely not put in an appearance, and there was no necessity whatever either for the judge of the court, or for the Bishop of London, or the churchwardens or rector of the parish, to take the cruel and vindictive course they had done. They might have adopted the same course as was pursued in the case of an individual of the name of Baines, in Leicester. He was cited in the Bishop's Court—he never entered appearance—a monition was issued against him, calling upon him to show cause why judgment should not be signed against him: he disobeyed that monition, and the court proceeded, and execution was now out either against his person or his goods, for a church-rate of 21. 5s. 3d., and 125l. costs. But Mr. John Thorogood had been treated in a very different manner. He was in prison for contempt, and unless the House interfered, by an address to the Crown, there was no wav whatever by which he could get out of prison, unless he should be carried out a corpse from the dungeon where the church had incarcerated him. But he would now advert to the precedents. They occurred in the time of the Stuarts. The declaration for the liberty of conscience, which was published by Charles the 2nd, clearly laid it down, that the Crown had the power of interfering in these sort of cases. It was published on the 15th of March 1671–2 by the advice of the Privy Council. After stating his Majesty's care for the preservation of the rights of the Church, it proceeded thus:—

"But it being evident, by the sad experience of twelve years, that there is very little fruit of all those forcible courses, we think ourselves obliged to make use of that supreme power in ecclesiastical matters, which is not only inherent in us, but hath been declared and recognised to be so by several statutes and Acts of Parliament. We do, in the next place, declare our will and pleasure to be, that the execution of all, and all manner of penal laws in matters ecclesiastical, against whatsoever sort of non-conformists, or recusants, be immediately suspended, and they are hereby suspended. And all judges, sheriffs, justices of the peace, &c, are to take notice of it, and pay due obedience thereunto."

Under this declaration 460 Quakers were released from prison, where they had been committed for non-payment of tithes. He was quoting from "The Christian Progress of George Whitehead," who in his observations upon the effects produced by this declaration, stated that "the King discharged and delivered of many of our suffering friends out of the prisons, remitting their fines, and releasing their estates." It was rather an extraordinary fact, that there were several individuals committed to the very county gaol in which poor Mr. Thorogood was now confined. Mr. White-head gave an account of his visiting that gaol for the purpose of releasing his suffering friends there, and he stated that the magistrates did all they could then, as they did in the present case, to retain them. In the subsequent reign an order was sent down by Lord Sunderland, then Secretary of State, requiring the goods of certain dissenters to be given up that had been seized, but not offered for sale, a disposition prevailing in that day, as well as in this, among the people not to purchase goods seized from persons under such circumstances. The letter was in these terms:—

"Whitehall, Dec. 14,1687.

"Gentlemen—The King being informed that some goods belonging to John Wales, and other Quakers of Leeds, which were seized and taken from them upon the account of their religious worship, do remain unsold in the hands of John Todd, who was constable at the time of the seizure, or in the hands of some other persons: and his Majesty's intention being, that all his subjects shall receive the full benefit of his declaration for liberty of conscience, his Majesty commands me to signify to you his pleasure, that you cause the goods belonging to the said John Wales, and all other Quakers of Leeds, which were heretofore seized upon the account of religious worship, and are unsold, in whose hands so ever they remain, to be forthwith restored to the respective owners without any charge.—I am, gentlemen, your affectionate friend and servant,

"SUNDERLAND."

It was quite clear, therefore, that at that period, the Crown had the power of interference for which he was contending, and he had yet to learn when that power was taken from the Crown. Unless Gentlemen could prove that the Crown had, since the time of the Stuarts, been deprived of this power, and were prepared to say that the Queen was not the supreme head of the Church, any attempt to argue away the inherent power of the Crown to interfere in this case would be of no avail. Admitting, then, that the Crown had this power—was John Thorogood a fit and worthy object for having it exercised towards him? He would maintain, that John Thorogood was a fit and worthy object. He was a most humane, kind, and amiable individual, and was now suffering purely for conscience sake: he had been already eighteen months in a cold, unhealthy gaol, and he should be glad to know when the vindictive feelings of the Church would be satisfied with this unfortunate man's sufferings. All sorts of reports had been circulated about John Thorogood, every one of which, if specifically brought forward in that House, were capable of being rebutted. He understood that the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, had paid a visit to Mr. Thorogood in Chelmsford gaol, and lie had the opportunity of finding that Mr. Thorogood existed there, and that there he was likely to remain. The hon. Baronet went as a sort of illustrious visitor, totally and entirely incognito, and the individual whom he went to see had not the least idea of who the personage was that did him the honour of a visit. A short colloquy took place between these two distinguished men, and at its termination, Mr. Thorogood was made acquainted with the name of the mysterious stranger. Mr. Thorogood had written to him a letter, in which he observed that as it was quite possible that Sir Robert Inglis might refer to what passed between them the other day, he was desirous of making him acquainted with the particulars; therefore, with the permission of the House, he would read Mr. Thorogood's own words. The hon. Member read the following letter:—

"Chelmsford Gaol, July 17, 1840."

Dear Sir—I thought I would take the liberty of sending you word what passed between Sir It. Inglis and myself on his visit to me, as probably he may refer to it on your motion for the 21st. He came in with the turnkey, who knocked at my room door. I said 'Walk in.' They then walked in. Sir Robert commenced by saying, 'I am no friend of yours, but I hope I am no enemy.' I then said, 'I hope not, I beg you will be seated.' He saw a bird in the room, and said, 'Oh, this is your bird.' I said, 'Yes, Sir.' He then said, 'How is the state of your health? I replied, 'Not very good,' for I had got rheumatism down the whole of my left side, and I felt a numbness, which I thought appeared like paralysis, and I had suffered dreadfully in my head, from rheumatism. He said, 'Oh, they are quite different complaints.' I said, 'I must beg to differ, for I thought they both proceeded from stagnation of blood, pro- duced by cold, but I don't understand it much.' He observed, 'it is a good thing you are allowed to have your wife backwards and forwards.' She happened to be in the room at the time. I said, 'Yes, it is; I am thankful for it.' He then said, 'Have you no other room but this?' I said 'No.' He replied 'A very good room.' I said 'Yes, but very cold.' He then said 'Do you have it to yourself?' I said 'Yes, but I should not mind having company, as mine was like solitary confinement.' He next asked 'Have you anything to complain of?' I replied 'Oh, yes, a great many things: first, of the unmercifulness of the system that had thrown me into prison, for we read, Sir, in the Bible—"Be ye merciful, as your Father who is in heaven is merciful;"—and I thought my prosecutors had not shown me much mercy by imprisoning me eighteen months for 5s. 6d. 'He said,' I don't mean that (I suppose he did not like scripture quotations, for I took him to be a parson, knowing, as I do, that not many of them are spiritual minded). He said, 'I mean as it regards your treatment here.' I said, 'Yes, I have complaints to make about that; I did not like being locked up at nine o'clock every night in the summer time, as an hour later in the yard would be pleasant in the cool of the evening, and I complained of being prevented from working likewise. The distinction made between rich and poor debtors, if he could call me a debtor—for rich men come here and pay 8s. per week for a front room—but because I could not afford to pay, I am not allowed one, and they had access to the yard until ten or eleven o'clock every night. The law was rigorously enforced in my case, and why not in theirs?' He said, I think it is not right.' I said, 'I know it is not.' I then complained of having no coals allowed me when I was dangerously ill, and my life almost despaired of, although I made repeated applications for them, and knew that others had them allowed, with extra allowance of food.' He said, 'I must bid you good day.' I said, 'Good morning, Sir,' and when he had got partly down stairs, I asked him to favour me with his name, when he came back, and said, 'I told you I was no particular friend of yours, my name is Robert Inglis (up to this time I did not know who my visitor was). I said,' I am glad to see you, and as I have Sir R. Inglis before me, I shall take the liberty of saying something more. I wish to ask you, Sir Robert what is your opinion respecting my persecutors, whether their conduct has not been most unmerciful towards me? He said 'You know my opinion.' I said 'Perhaps you are aware I gave 1l. towards erecting a chapel of ease built on the voluntary principle.' He said, 'Yes, I am aware of it.' I said, 'I feel it to be a case of cruel oppression, after having laboured hard to benefit my fellow creatures, both temporally and spiritually ever since I knew the truth as it is in Jesus, that I should be cast into this prison because I could not pay to a system which supported murder, robbery, and idolatry, and these three charges can be proved against all establishments when connected with the state' He said, 'That is your opinion.' I said 'Yes, and of brighter minds than mine.' I then pressed him for his opinion as to the unmercifulness of the churchwardens, for I had not acted like a bigot towards them; for I promised them another pound, if they needed it, as no force was used to obtain it. He calmly said,' Well, if I must tell you, John Thorogood gave the sovereign, but his house must pay the 5s. 6d.' I replied my agreement was to pay 14l. per year for my house, and I had always done so, and all her Majesty's taxes for civil affairs, and even Mr. Gepp (who is one of the churchwardens) had considered me worthy to be trusted as assessor and collector of the same, and I had filled the office, having collected the half year's, within 10s., for the parish of Chelmsford, the hamlet of Momshan, a thing which those who preceded me had not done for years. He said, 'I do not think it right to discuss the question here; it is the law of the land.' I said, 'Yes, it was the law that one-fourth of the tithes should be appropriated to the repairs of churches, to the maintenance of the poor, to support the minister, to entertain the pilgrim and stranger; but the state priests had embezzled the whole, and thrown the burthen on the industrious classes.' He said,' No, no.' I said 'I beg your pardon, but I say yes, it is true.' He immediately bade me good day, and left.

"There are rooms empty in the front of the gaol. I told Sir Robert I had written to the Secretary of State that I might be allowed to occupy one, but was refused by the magistrate, although I believe Lord J. Russell wished it. I believe he said, 'Very likely,' but it was to that effect: and Sir, the high sheriff visited me yesterday, when I made the same complaints to him, and being locked up alone every night from nine until six o'clock asked him to grant me the use of a room unoccupied, when Mr. Neal, the gaoler said, yes, if I would pay 12s. a week I might have it. Dr. Prichard saw the spirit manifested towards me by Mr. Neal.

"This, Sir, is as near as possible what was said. I have distinguished what Sir Robert said by putting a dash under it, that you might easier refer to it. I hope you will not consider me troublesome; but believe I am greatly indebted to you for your kind exertions on my behalf,

"And believe me to remain,

Your humble servant,

"JOHN THOROGOOD."

He considered that John Thorogood was right in refusing to pay the money endeavoured to be extorted from him merely to gratify the malice and persecuting spirit with which he had been visited. It was well known that his persecutors sought to subdue the firmness of Mr. Thorogood, but he believed that they would find themselves in error. It had been attempted to turn the scruples of this conscientious individual into ridicule. He knew not what the hearts of the ecclesiastical authorities in the neighbourhood of Chelmsford could be made of to pursue Thorogood so unrelentingly, or what the heart of the Bishop of London could be made of to be capable of looking on at his sufferings without taking any steps to remedy the evil. He believed that unless the House interfered, John Thorogood would never come out of gaol alive, for there was no power on earth that would induce him to pay an exaction to which he conscientiously objected, or adopt a course of which he could not approve. Would, then, the House of Commons suffer such a man to undergo perpetual imprisonment? He trusted that as professors of the Christian religion they would not; but that those hon. Gentlemen who were about to return to their homes, their property, and their friends, would, as far as they were able, remedy this grievance, and lay at the foot of the throne their opinions of this hard case. Those persons who were attached to the Church of England might depend upon it that by acting in the spirit of an enlightened toleration towards this man, they would gain more affection and respect for the establishment than by the incarceration of a thousand such individuals. It was not only humane and just, but it was the imperative duty, on the part of the House, after the resolution of last year, and after the pledge then given, to endeavour to terminate this persecution against John Thorogood—a persecution which was not only a scandal to the religion they professed, but a disgrace to the country in which they lived. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following resolution:—

"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to take into her Majesty's merciful consideration the case of Mr. John Thorogood, a Protestant Dissenter, confined in her Majesty's county gaol of Essex, since the 16th day of January, 1839, for neglecting to appear in the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. church-rate, with a view to his release."

took the liberty of rising early, in order that those hon. Members who had heard the statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury, might also hear his statement? It was some time ago stated in a newspaper having a very great circulation, that the health of John Thorogood was sinking, slowly but surely; and, it was also observed, that it was in the power of certain individuals, one of whom was himself, to release, if they pleased, Mr. Thorogood from his imprisonment. This appeal having been made to him, he felt that at any rate, it was his duty to ascertain what was Mr. Thorogood's state of health. The course he pursued enabled him in a few hours to receive from the person who, he believed he might say, had the charge of Mr. Thorogood, a statement which satisfied him that that individual's health was not in such a condition as had been represented. Subsequently he had the opportunity of visiting the gaol in person. His object simply was at that time to satisfy himself by ocular inspection—and that as a stranger, and not as a professional man—that Mr. Thorogood's health was not so bad as it was stated to be. His first words to Mr. Thorogood were:—"I am not one of your friends." This, he said in the course of conversation, and also at the close of it, and he did so, lest Mr. Thorogood should have been led by the appearance of a sympathy on his part, in calling upon him, of concluding that he was Mr. Thorogood's friend; and he might, therefore, have committed himself by some observation, which he might perhaps have made if he had not been 30 informed. He added that he hoped he was not his enemy, as he hoped he was not the enemy of any man, but he was not one of his friends in that sense in which the House would understand the expression. Of course he thought it would not have been becoming in him to enter into a discussion with Mr. Thorogood, his object being simply to learn what was the state of his health. As to the room in which Mr. Thorogood was confined, it appeared to him to be a very good room for a prison. The hon. Member for Finsbury had animadverted upon the conduct of the Bishop of London; but the Bishop of London had no more to do with the proceedings of the Consistory Court, than the Chief-Justice of England had with respect to any technical proceeding that passed through the court over which he presided. It was true the Bishop of London was at the head of the court before which Mr. Thorogood was cited, but he did not sit in it, and had no more cognizance of what took place in it than the Queen had of the proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench. He had no wish to enter into the general question, but having been called upon so paticularly by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he felt it his duty to offer the explanation to which the House had been kind enough to listen.

had certainly no more wish than the hon. Baronet to enter into the general question; but with respect to the question immediately before the House, he thought it was a decisive answer to the motion for recommending the case of John Thorogood to the merciful consideration of the Crown, to state that it was not in the power of the Crown to discharge that individual from imprisonment. Mr. Thorogood was not confined within a prison from which any interposition on the part of the Crown could remove him. Therefore he considered it was not proper for the House to entertain the motion that had been made. He believed his hon. Friend was quite right in saying likewise that the Bishop of London, in whose court the proceedings against John Thorogood took place, had nothing to do with the continuance of his imprisonment. At the same time, as the question had been brought before the House, he would say that he believed there were some parties in authority in the parish to which this sum was due as a portion of the church-rates, who could interfere to procure the discharge of John Thorogood; and for himself he must say he thought those parties would act very wisely if they were so to interfere. He did not know whether those who agreed with him in that sentiment would concur with him in the grounds on which he rested it. He thought that those persons who, from a conscientious feeling, sought to make the laws respected by enforcing the punishment of imprisonment against those who violated the laws, did no good whatever in the way of maintaining a respect for the law when they acted not in accordance with the general feeling of the community. Another ground upon which he thought that it would be perfectly safe and highly expedient to put an end to the imprisonment of John Thorogood, was, that he considered that this poor man, who no doubt had been actuated by a very conscientious feeling, had been entirely mistaken in the notion of the sympathy which his sufferings had created. He had no doubt that those who acted with this poor person thought that if he consented to remain in prison for a certain time, for conscientiously opposing the payment of church-rates, the result would be such a general feeling in his favour, and such a strong opposition to church-rates, as would induce the Legislature to put an end to them, He considered that the attempt to excite the sympathies of the public had entirely failed. A great portion of the people of this country—he believed a majority—were attached to the Established Church. There was another portion, undoubtedly, who thought that there ought not to be an Established Church: but the portion that thought there should be a resistance to the law, and that parties should go to prison, was very small, and their conduct excited no great degree of sympathy. At the same time, he believed that John Thorogood was acting upon conscientious scruples. He believed, therefore, that if the parties who had sent John Thorogood to prison because he had put himself into contempt with the court, should now think fit to discharge him, they would relieve a worthy and an honest man, who was suffering an imprisonment which, if continued, might excite feelings of compassion for his sufferings, and thus, ultimately, identify them with a cause that did not in itself excite public sympathy.

was very much disposed to agree in the observations of the noble Lord. He could confirm what the noble Lord had said as to the Bishop of London having nothing to do with this case, and he thought that if the parish should see no chance of the repetition of the offence, they could not do a more wise or a more popular act than to take the advice of the noble Lord, and release Mr. Thorogood from prison. He had been always opposed to a continued confinement for a contempt of court. He had himself introduced a bill to relieve persons in prison for contempt of the Court of Chancery, which had passed into an act, and which had been found to work well. He thought that there could be no difficulty in extending, as far as they were applicable, the provisions of the Chancery Court to the other courts, so that the judges might have the power in all proper cases to discharge a person in the situation of the prisoner. In such a case as the present, for instance, he would give a power to the Bishop of London, as the judge, a power to release. He conceived that John Thorogood had not, as a matter of right, a claim to be discharged, because it had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), and had never been contradicted, that John Thorogood had voluntarily placed himself in the present situation, and that he had no real cause for complaint. The Legislature ought to say to these parties, "If it answers your purpose to remain in prison a victim, it will not be agreeable to our views or our notions of the law to keep you there as a victim." He would, therefore, ask his right hon. Friend (Dr. Lushington) to perform the duty of introducing a measure to extend the provisions of the present law.

said it was very satisfactory to have heard the speeches of the noble Lord on that side of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman on the other side. It was evident in what direction the feelings of the House went. Because, while the noble Lord contended that the party was legally confined, he could not approve of the length of time of the imprisonment. After the very liberal sentiments which had been expressed, he had altered the opinion which he had originally formed as to the propriety of going to a division, and he would now recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw the motion. They had been informed that her Majesty had not the power to give relief in this case; but he knew that about eighteen years ago he brought forward the case of parties who were in prison for contempt of court, that in the end relief was given. Until the right hon. Gentleman opposite brought forward his bill, there was, he believed, no legal method of giving a discharge; the public were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the remedy he had carried, and he hoped that the method which the right hon. Gentleman had recommended for getting rid of the difficulties in the case of Thorogood would be adopted.

knew nothing of the case of Baines, which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Finsbury; but he presumed that the party was before the court, that the court came to a decision, and that the party was committed upon that decision of" the court; but the case of John Thorogood had never been before the court at all, the party having refused to appear. On the general question he concurred very much in the observations that had fallen from the noble Lord; but when the hon. Member for Middlesex talked of the sympathy which had been expressed for this individual, the parties would have shown it more clearly by paying the 5s. 6d. into the hands of the churchwardens, and he would thus have been released from prison. John Thorogood might have a conscientious conviction against the payment, but those who sympathized with him might have done what he had done himself in a case that he had taken up. He happened to know a conscientious and excellent dissenting minister, who would not pay a rate that was imposed, from conscientious principles, and he felt that he was doing nothing improper in paying the money that was due from that minister for the church-rate. He would not have done so, however, if he had not thought that the refusal originated in an opinion formed among certain parties that if they resisted payment at that time, when there was considerable excitement upon the question of church-rates, and if they brought their cases before the courts, they would get up such a state of excitement throughout the country as would effect their object of getting rid of church-rates. When he found such a delusion operating upon the minds of some persons that they might, by becoming victims, carry on the agitation, he thought, that he was counteracting the bad effects of this delusion by paying the rate, and having a personal good will towards the individual, he had stopped the cause of agitation. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, who felt so much for the sufferings of John Thorogood, would send the 5s. 6d. to the churchwardens, whether they liked it or not, the churchwardens must let this person out of prison tomorrow.

said, it appeared to him, that the learned Gentleman who had just sat down was wrong as to the state of the law. It was rather difficult for him to offer a legal opinion against that of a judge of an ecclesiastical court, but in the case which the learned Gentleman referred to be had paid the rate before the party was sent to prison. John Thorogood, however, had been some time in prison, and he went there under circumstances which would prevent his discharge upon payment of the original sum. If the payment would have discharged him there would be ten thousand persons who would be ready to make it, and they could do nothing that would be more serviceable to the Church, by preserving it from public odium, because the feeling which was excited in the country, whether right or wrong, was most injurious to the Church. The noble Lord had now made a suggestion, which he (Mr. Baines) wished had been made last year; it was most valuable. He knew that many Quakers had been liberated who were imprisoned under the same circumstances as John Thorogood; and if the Quakers were released, he did not see why the same rule would not apply to John Thorogood. He had written to Mr. Thorogood to advise him, after the last discussion in the House, to advise with his friends, and the answer received was, "No power on earth shall cause me to yield to what I believe is not right, and, under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty, I am determined to remain in prison till I am discharged without any violation of my conscience." That was the determination of a martyr, and it would be wise to act upon the suggestion and the general understanding on both sides of the House. With respect to the notice of his hon. Friend, thinking, that after this discussion and the observations which had been made the imprisonment of this party would be put an end to, he would advise his hon. Friend rather to withdraw the motion, seeing that he had accomplished, and that in the most unobjectionable way, the purpose he had in view.

rose to make but one single explanation. The hon. Member had referred for a precedent for his motion to the time of the Stuarts, and said, that he wondered there was not as great liberty in the time of Victoria as in the days of James 1st and of Charles 2nd He believed, that the release from the imprisonment was a gross violation of the law, by the exercise of the dispensing power of the Crown. It was one of the acts that brought about the Revolution; and it was specifically declared to be illegal by the Bill of Rights. By passing the hon. Member's motion, the House of Commons would be addressing the Crown to violate the law.

had seen so much inconvenience arise from a misunderstanding as to what was called the general feeling of the House, that he was anxious to express his opinion of what the general feeling of the House upon this point was. When the hon. Member for Leeds said, that he hoped there would be an end to all imprisonments for the non-payment of church-rates, he was afraid that he could not concur in that hope; for if a demand were made in pursuance of the law of the land, and there was a refusal to pay that demand, it would be impossible to determine whether that refusal arose from a conscientious feeling or from contumacy. It was impossible for them—as they could not dive into the heart of man—to say from what cause the refusal arose; and it was necessary to punish the party refusing by a penalty. Suppose he purchased property in Scotland, he would be obliged to contribute to the support of an Established Church from which he dissented, and he must say, that that appeared a very extraordinary ground for complaint. He would have received an abatement of the price for this very payment when he made the purchase; it would be among the in cumbrances upon the property which he would have found there, and, therefore, he could hardly claim exemption from the contribution. He thought, therefore, that the general feeling of the House did not go to a disapproval of the original commitment of John Thorogood, and he did not think that the result of the general understanding of the House was, that there should be no future committals for the non-payment of church-rates. If that were the general understanding, he for one would not concur in it. Whilst the law remained the same, authorising the imposition, he saw no alternative but to obey the law, and if parties refused that obedience they must take the consequences, otherwise there would be a dissolution of the bonds of society. At the same time, however, that he gave this general opinion as to the law, he must state the satisfaction it would afford him to hear of the discharge of John Thorogood. He must give to John Thorogood the credit of acting from conscience, and he thought, that as a punishment for his offence, the imprisonment had been sufficient, whilst it had been adequate for the vindication of the law. Whether, therefore, he considered the offence, or the great object of punishment, the vindication of the law, he thought that the imprisonment which Thorogood had suffered had been sufficient for either object. He thought, that with two years' imprisonment for parties violating or contumaciously opposing the law, they would find few who would oppose it. He believed, that if those who could do so were to take such a course as would lead to the discharge of John Thorogood, without causing him to make any concession, it would be for the interest of all parties that the discharge should take place. While, then, he expressed his opinion that it was desirable to discharge Thorogood, he was anxious to state, that if there were again a refusal to pay church-rates by any party, whether through contumacy or from mere scruples of conscience, he could see no alternative but to subject the second John Thorogood to the punishment of the first.

after the recommendations which had proceeded from such high authority, he hoped that some mode would be adopted without the necessity of any further proceedings on the part of the Legislature to allow this party to go free; but if there should be no power to effect that object without the aid of an Act of Parliament, he trusted that the noble Lord would proceed without any hesitation to legislate on the subject.

said, that in consequence of the opinions which had been expressed by the right hon. Baronet opposite, and other hon. Members of the House, he thought that he should best attain the object which he had in view by requesting permission of the House to withdraw his motion.

proposed a vote of 2,000 extra men for the sea service for the ensuing ten months.

rose to object to the vote, and he did so because he did not think that any increase of the navy was necessary, and because he was of opinion that our navy was employed for purposes undeserving the character of the British empire. It had been stated, that this country had despatched a fleet to Syria to encourage and foment the insurrectionary feelings which had already been excited there, and he should like to hear whether the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs could afford any satisfactory explanation upon the subject. He conceived, that in truth, Great Britain was now the power which, by its proceedings) prevented Mehemet Ali from obtaining peace with the Porte. He looked with great jealousy to the insidious attacks and to the unvarying progress which Russia was making against the rights of Britain. He considered the noble Lord as the person who had kept up these anti-English proceedings, and who had excited a war between the British people and foreign powers. Two millions of extra taxation were required in the course of the year to support that war, and he could not now agree to the increase of a force which had been so improperly employed. He had seen statements made in the most positive manner, that the insurrection in; Syria had been favoured by the British authorities, but he hoped that the noble Lord would give a distinct denial of the truth of those allegations, for he should hold it to be discreditable to the Government and to this empire that such should be the case. There had been a statement published on that morning in one of the newspapers, in which the noble Lord was accused of having formed a treaty with Russia, Prussia, and Austria, excluding France, to compel concessions to be made by Mehemet Ali. He thought that England ought to have taken no steps in the matter without the assistance of France, with which power Parliament was told, at the commencement of the Session, it was intended to co-operate in order to secure peace. He sincerely hoped that the noble Lord would be able to say, that there was a cordial co-operation between France and this country to secure this object, and he put it to him whether it was fit or proper that the British public should be put to so large an expense as was proposed, in order to increase our naval force, with a view to the violation of that compact which was understood to exist. He had always staled his objections upon this point, both publicly and privately, and he hoped that the noble Lord would give a satisfactory answer to the suggestions which he had made.

felt bound to say, that nothing could be more frank and open than the declaration by the hon. Member of the difference of opinion which existed between them upon this subject, because the hon. Member, both in public and private, had for very many months past expressed his opinion that our foreign policy was exceedingly injurious to the interests of the country; and had endeavoured to impress upon him strongly the expediency of adopting a course of a contrary description. He must be allowed to say, however, with all respect to the hon. Member, that he never felt a conviction more strongly upon any point than that the line of conduct advocated by the hon. Member, if adopted, would produce those very consequences, which the hon. Member had attributed to the steps which he had taken; and when the hon. Member said, that our policy was calculated to serve the exclusive views of Russia, and to injure the interests of England, he must be allowed to say, that he thought that if Russia was actuated by those feelings which the hon. Gentleman suggested, and if we wished to support her in the views which she entertained, we ought to adopt that very line of proceeding which the hon. Member himself had, throughout these discussions, held up as the proper and correct one, because we should render the Porte practically dependent on Russia, and we should thereby create the very mischief of which he complained. He protested strongly against the opinion of the hon. Member being generally entertained, because he thought that that opinion would be highly dangerous to peace, and injurious to the interests of Great Britain, and he hoped that such views would not be introduced by any parties who might have the power of carrying them into execution. When the hon. Member said, that the course which had been pursued had brought upon this country an expense of two millions a-year, the House must be well aware that that statement was founded on error. A great portion of the deficiency which had called for the increased taxation was the result of the hon. Member's own measure—the postage reform, and was produced also by the state of things in Canada. A very small portion of it, indeed, really belonged to the naval establishment of England, and by far the greater part of this division of the charge arose, not so much from any increase of the navy, as from the necessity to lay in stores, and other matters necessary to keep the ordinary in a state of preparation. The hon. Member, therefore, had taken an erroneous view of the financial facts, upon which he had addressed the House. As to the general question, upon which the hon. Member wished that an explanation should be given, he should submit to him and to the House, that the great powers of Europe being engaged in a complicated and difficult matter of arrangement upon this subject, it would be very inconvenient to the public interests, and as respected the great object which the five powers had alike at heart, that he should be compelled at this stage of the transaction to enter into an explanation of what was going on. He could only say, that when the matter should have arrived at that point, at which it would be proper and safe to make a communication to Parliament upon the subject, according to the established usage, the Government would not shrink from submitting their conduct to its consideration, and he was of opinion that they should succeed in convincing the hon. Member and the House, that they had not been actuated by any such intentions as those which the hon. Member had pointed out. The hon. Member had asked whether any British agents had been employed to incite insurrection? In the first place, perhaps, he might object to the use of this word with regard to the recent disturbances in Syria, because it signified an opposition to a lawful state of authority. Syria being subject to the Sultan, he did not see how its having taken up arms against an oppression which every one believed to have been of the most severe and intolerable description, could be said to fall within the description of insurrection; but he could assure the hon. Member, that British interests had nothing on earth to do with it; but that it was the natural result of causes which had preceded it, and that it was only another recurrence of that resistance which the people were sometimes compelled to oppose to a tyranny which had become intolerable. The only difference was, that upon this occasion, the resistance was far more general—far more formidable—and far more united and concerted, amongst those who made it, than was usually the case. Undoubtedly, where this state of things was known to exist, the admiral, who was stationed at Smyrna, immediately sent ships to watch the events which might occur. He felt that he had not entered into so full an explanation as the hon. Member might wish. He was undoubtedly at the command of the House, because a Minister of the Crown was at all times bound to give any information, consistently with his duty, which the House might require; but be put it to the hon. Member whether, in the present state of things, it was expedient that he should be called upon to enter into this explanation. It was well known to the hon. Gentleman, that the five powers were agreed as to the general object to be obtained. France had declared her firm determination, in a speech delivered from the Throne, to maintain the integrity and independence of the Turkish empire under its present dynasty; but it was well known, that on the minor points connected with this great question, that unanimity did not exist between the Five Powers which was desirable, but unless the House compelled him to go into a premature explanation upon that subject he thought he should best serve the interests of the public by saying no more upon this subject.

did not think, that any grounds had been stated which could authorize the House in resisting the vote proposed; but he did wish that the noble Lord had responded more satisfactorily to the perhaps irregular demand made upon him by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He wished that the noble Lord had been able to assure the House that all the Five Powers were now in a position of cordial co-operation. He could not but express his most earnest hope, that no policy of the noble Lord would tend to promote war in the East. He agreed, however, that in the midst of negotiations of this kind, it would not be proper for the noble Lord to enter into any further explanation than that which he had given.

could not think, that keeping up a civil war in Syria, was strengthening the Turkish empire, and he distinctly charged the British Government with having prevented the conclusion of peace on satisfactory terms. Within the last two months, the interference of our authorities at Constantinople had prevented an amicable settlement, and such measures would make Turkey dependent upon Russia. The noble Lord had charged a portion of the deficiency in the revenue to the operation of what the noble Lord was pleased to call his postage plan, but he begged to remind the noble Lord, that notwithstanding the deficiency which he admitted to have arisen from the new Post-office regulations, the revenue of the present year had amounted to 47,883l., or 600,000l. more than that of last year, and 1,500,000l. more than the average of preceding years. Again he urged upon the House to pause, and to consider the consequences that had ensued, and must hereafter ensue, from the course of policy pursued by the noble Lord in the East.

In the few words which he was about to say, was without the advantage enjoyed by the hon. Gentleman—that of having read the Morning Post. With regard to our policy on the Egyptian question, however, he must repeat that there was still between him and the hon. Gentleman the same difference of opinion that existed at the commencement of the Session. The hon. Gentleman said, that we had nothing to do but to allow amicable relations to be established between the two parts of the Turkish empire, and that the interference of this country had prevented those amicable relations from taking effect. But so far from the relations between them being amicable, they were really these:—a vassal of great power and force was attempting to impose terms upon his Sovereign, which he expected would be received by his weakness or his fears. Our interference, so far from preventing those relations from tending to an amicable result, would only tend to prevent the Sultan from throwing himself into the arms of Russia. We had already seen him in some degree before, yielding to the force opposed to him, and seeking support from the strength of Russia; and the continual interference of Russia at Constantinople, and the manifest dependence of the Porte on that power, would only lead to the result of causing the other powers of Europe to look at the preponderance of Russia with so much jealousy as to endanger the general peace. The hon. Member had also referred to France. France and this country had the same objects in view, but no doubt there had not been an agreement of views as to the best mode of attaining that object. He believed, however, that he was speaking the sentiments of his noble Friend and of the Government, when he said that they valued, quite as much as the hon. Gentleman or any one else could do, the continuance of the amicable relations between this country and France. For himself, he wished that those amicable relations might long endure, and he felt quite sure, that there were no nations on the face of the globe, whose mutual interest it was to cultivate amicable relations in a greater degree than France and England. If there ought to be any rivalry between these countries, it was only the peaceful rivalry of commerce, and emulation in the arts of peace. The hon. Gentleman had also charged it against the Government that they had fomented insurrection in Syria. It appeared, however, while there had been an insurrection every year under the Porte, there had been only three under Mehemet Ali. It would seem, therefore, that if the British Government were really bent upon getting up an insurrection in Syria, they had not used very much exertion in so doing.

called the attention of Government to the expediency of allowing the seamen who had pensions to retain them while in service.

This vote, to woich I beg to call the attention of the House, is one of 21,600l. for carrying letters for seven months from Falmouth to Alexandria; and is, if I am not in error, in addition to a sum of above 30,000l. per annum, paid the Peninsular Steam Company for carrying the mails to Vigo, Lisbon, Cadiz, and Gibraltar; and one of 3,000l. per annum given for the same service between Alexandria and Beyrout; and these combined would make yearly a sum of upwards of 70,000l. given for the exclusive purpose of carrying letters. Now, when this sum is added to 300,000l. a-year about to be given to another company for carrying letters across the Atlantic, these sums together will amount to nearly 400,000l. per annum, exclusive of the sums paid to the French government for carrying letters through France destined for India and the Levant, and which must be a considerable charge, if I may judge by what has happened to myself, having had last week 16s. to pay for a letter from Smyrna. I cannot help thinking, Sir, that so large a sum of money as this had far better be laid out in increasing the Royal steam navy, an object that may not be inopportune at the present time, and I trust this House will concur with me in this opinion. Having very recently, Sir enjoyed opportunities of hearing the opinions on the spot of many able officers serving in the Mediterranean, as well as those of the principal British merchants trading in the Levant, I became impressed with the magnitude and importance of the interests, commercial and military, that are at stake in those regions. I beheld the Mediterranean traversed in all directions by the armed steamers of other powers. I heard of the subjects of one of those powers declaring, with their accustomed boasting, that the Mediterranean was becoming what it ought to be—a French lake. I witnessed the creation of a formidable array of French armed steamers under the denomination of packets; I saw them in operation, and the expense of them very much defrayed by English travellers; while, on the other hand, I found that the British had but one communication monthly between Alexandria and Marseilles, one monthly between Alexandria and Beyrout, and one twice a month between England and Malta, which were chiefly for the transmission of public documents and returns between the Ionian Islands and Malta with the War and Colonial offices at home. It is to alter this state of things, Sir, unless valid reasons can be given why it should not be altered, that I am anxious. I am desirous of improving our communications in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, not by contracting with private companies for temporary purposes, but by the employment of a greater number of the gallant officers and men of her Majesty's navy, and by the putting in commission of a greater number of steam-vessels of a superior class, that would be available, should unfortunately any event occur that could endanger the peace of the world, and that could in the mean time carry on the Post-office and packet service in a far more satisfactory and efficient manner than is the case at present. A first good that would be obtained, Sir, would be the avoiding the evils of all contracts. Instead of the Government having nothing to show for its money at their termination, it would remain in possession of its own vessels—they and their engines belonging to the country; and thus a foundation would be laid for the creation of a numerous and formidable steam fleet under martial law, that would require but the addition of a few marines to make it available and competent for any service. I think, Sir, that the House will concur with me in opinion that it is becoming the dignity of this nation that it should be the British navy in all its branches that should ride predominant in all seas; and that, above all, she should possess a long list of scientific officers, and a powerful force in armed steamers, such, for instance, as the Gorgon and Cyclops, and vessels of their class, of which the country may be justly proud, although I believe they have not answered all the expectations formed respecting them, and that we should not again have recourse to altering ten-gun brigs into steamers, some of which, it is now notorious, can neither sail nor steam. As I have before said, Sir, our communications within the Mediterranean are limited to one monthly steamer between Marseilles and Alexandria, and between the latter place and Beyrout. The communication between Malta and the Ionian Islands is now kept up by ten steam-vessels, which are maintained for that particular purpose, at a vast expense, without any adequate return or result whatever, because almost all passengers and letters take the route of Italy instead of Malta, and are conveyed by Austrian steamers from Ancona to Corfu and to Athens; and I will here observe, that on a sea that is studded with the steamers of other nations the means of communication by British steamers is so scanty, that our Admiral at Malta having to communicate with his fleet has to send vessels expressly for that purpose—an expense that would be very much curtailed did British steamers start from Malta once a fortnight in all directions within the Mediterranean, as had been proposed in plans laid before the Board of Admiralty. If the Government would consent that all plans and calculations laid before the Board of Admiralty, with a view to improve our communications in the Mediterranean, should be presented to this House, I have little doubt that most, if not all, the suggestions contained in them would be carried into effect. The case would appear so strong a one, that the money wanted, but a very small sum, if the transatlantic contract be finally completed, would be cheerfully given, and a stop at once be put to the hiring of private vessels. There is one branch of this subject, Sir, that has an important bearing, and is calculated, I think, to induce many hon. Gentlemen who now hear me to concur with me in my opinions. It is an old adage, that the readiest way to preserve peace is to be prepared for war, and they will, I am sure, think with me, that in adopting measures for carrying out this worldly maxim, no alarms, no apprehension of exciting the jealousy of other powers, who are notoriously well prepared for either attack or defence, ought to induce us to abstain from adopting such precautions as would prove our security and bulwark in times of war, should not the knowledge of our being in such a state of preparation become the happy means of preserving peace. I call upon all gentlemen connected with India to lend me their assistance. They will, perhaps, be surprised to learn, that after all that has been said respecting the speed with which letters are conveyed between Bombay and England, that speed, according to my own experience, may be augmented by four or five days by the employment of a more efficient class of steamers, such as the Alecto and Prometheus, which have recently been placed on that station. Then, Sir, the correspondence with India, the commerce of the Levant, and the convenience of the numerous public servants who, with their families, are daily passing to and fro between India and England, and who are now very generally taking the route of Egypt, demands from this House some attention to the subject; and to this list I will add that of the numerous travellers in the East, chiefly British, who, were other arrangements made, would contribute very materially to defraying the expense of them. I hold in my hand an authentic list of passengers in the Mediterranean, and by this it appears that by English steamers, on an average of fifteen moths, the numbers have been as follows:—

Between	Gibraltar and Malta	19	monthly.
	Malta and Alexandria	24
	Malta and Corfu	6
		49

By French steamers, on an average of the last eighteen months:—

Between	Malta and Alexandria	62	per month
	Malta and Marseilles	68
		130

And, during the last six months, 500 of these were English; and to give the House some idea of what will be the probable increase of our commerce in the Levant, I can state, from information received on the spot, that the Austrian. Steam Company, running between Constantinople and Trebisond, carried goods during the last year of the value of upwards of a million, chiefly British. All commercial men, all insurance-offices, all owners of colonial property, are deeply interested in the question. I will ask, and I think, Sir, the attention of the public ought to be called to the matter, particularly at the present time, when the position of the East has placed us in so delicate a position with other powers, what in the event of any misunderstanding with our more immediate neighbours, or with our northern allies, would be the amount of danger by which our coasts and commerce would be threatened. Is there any protection anywhere but at Portsmouth and Plymouth? Is Sheerness protected from a coup de main?What is there to protect our trade at Dungeness, or off the South Foreland? And may not the same question be put, and answered equally unsatisfactorily, respecting all the coasts of this island? Then, Sir, to what has this country to look in cases of emergency, as I suppose this House is not prepared to vote large sums for the purpose of erecting works on shore, but to a formidable force of armed steamers, that ought ever to be held ready, and which might be made to spring out of an establishment such as had been proposed to the Admiralty to form, in place of hiring vessels, on board of which neither martial law nor discipline would be found to exist, if wanted on an emergency for the purpose of war? The adoption of this plan would be doubly beneficial. It would add to our national dignity in all parts of the world: it would encourage and increase a class of scientific officers of which the country is every day becoming more and more in need. If we could get a sight of these recommendations, Sir, I have no doubt it would be demonstrated that the efficiency of this branch of the service might be increased to a very considerable extent at pretty much the same annual cost as the present system; and I think it would then be seen, that if a first outlay were required, the sum would not be large, or that, even if large, the House would not hesitate to vote the money when the honour and advantage of the British navy were at stake. If these papers could be got at, Sir, it would be seen that plans have been laid before the Board of Admiralty in the course of this year, prepared by able officers, and recommended, I believe, very strongly for adoption by the highest officer on the Mediterranean station, by which it was suggested that communication should take place twice a month between Portsmouth or Southampton and Malta, touching at Lisbon and Gibraltar, to be carried on without any delay from Malta to Zante, then to drop the Ionian Islands mails, then to the Piraeus with the letters for our Minister at Athens, and then on to Smyrna and Constantinople with the despatches for the fleet and our Ambassador at that port. By this arrangement the two steamers kept to run between Malta and Corfu would be discontinued, and a considerable saving would be effected, because the Ionian Islands have steamers of their own that could meet the Government boats at Zante. A second communication would take place twice a month between Alexandria and Marseilles instead of once, as at present, by which messengers and letters could reach Constantinople in fifteen or sixteen days, and Alexandria in fourteen—a considerable saving of time when compared with the present system, whether by French or English steamers; and these same steamers could be made to keep up the same communication that now exists between Alexandria and Beyrout at about one half the sum now paid annually for a sailing vessel for that service—viz., 3,000l. per annum. By the adoption of this plan, the necessity for sending expressly steamers to communicate with the fleet would be very much discontinued, as also that for sending messengers overland from London to Constantinople—a very expensive article in diplomatic accounts. The convenience of this mode, Sir, would be such, that all comers from India would adopt it, because it would give them time to pass leisurely through Egypt. All British travellers would, for reasons well known in the Levant, but which I shall forbear to mention here, naturally prefer national vessels to French ones, as affairs are marching so fast in the East, that it is probable the adoption of this plan would lead to a more perfect communication between Suez and Bombay. I think, Sir, I may with confidence assert that all our ambassadors, consuls, and all commercial men in the Levant, are anxious that this or some such plan should be adopted. And that the House may form some idea of the class of vessels that ought to be built or adapted for the service, I can state, on the authority of persons well competent to give an opinion, that vessels of the size of the Alecto and Prometheus, and of 200-horse power of steam, would be fully equal to carry on all the duties of the packet and Post-office service, and would at the same time be able to carry in their holds, until wanted for use, and without straining the vessels, two eight-inch Paixhans guns, which commercial vessels, were even their scantling strong enough, could not do in the efficient manner of vessels built for the purpose, lam informed that the present complement of officers and men would suffice, and that they would only require the addition of one officer and 25 marine artillerymen to each vessel to render them fit for war; and the necessity for having these men ready for service would lead to what many Members of the House have much at heart—the increase of that admirable and gallant corps the Royal Marine Artillery, In conclusion I have to state, that if the information I have received be correct, 150,000l. would more than suffice for a first outlay in establishing such a system, and that if the transatlantic contract were not completed, 700,000l. would be enough to build a sufficient number of vessels of the size of the Cyclops and Gorgon, to carry out all the objects of that contract. Thus the country would get rid of ruinous bargains. It would not again have the mortification of seeing so large a sum as 3,000,000l. given to a private company for carrying letters, and the Government have little or nothing to show for so lavish an expenditure at the expiration of ten years, and for purposes which, if they can be beneficial to private companies, need not be a losing concern to the state. In closing these observations, I beg to inform the House and the public, that within the last month the French Government has contracted in this country for 16 pairs of engines of the largest size. This inform a don I have obtained from a party to whom this contract was proposed, and requires no comment from me. This statement is fully borne out by the publication of the French budget for the next year, by which it appears that the French have now at sea 30 armed steamers, of from 120 to 450 horse power, and are taking such vigorous means for adding to this branch of their service, that the steam power, which is at present that of the average power of 3,140 horses, will in the course of the next year be nearly doubled, or 5,780.

said, the question raised by the hon. Member did not relate to practical details, but to great principles, whether the course of policy which this Government had always pursued, of employing vessels by contract, should be continued, or whether it should do as the French Government did, take the communication into its own hands. The policy of England had always been entirely different from that of France in this respect. He was not there to criticise the policy pursued by other countries, but to defend the principle we had adopted—that it was not for this Government to occupy the lines of communication by armed steamers, but rather to encourage and assist the private enterprise of the country—to aid it, but not to interfere with it. And if the time should come when vessels which were employed in peace were required for war, the country would find, that by having encouraged commercial enterprise and private speculation, a sufficient supply of steamers would be obtained when occasion occurred. That he believed to be the real policy of England, and the reason why a different policy was pursued in France might be, that the Government was forced to do what it could not find private companies able or willing to do. With respect to the Mediterranean, all these objects were matters of contract; but the Mediterranean was not the whole world; it was a small space, and not of such great importance. All that was required was, that there should be a certain amount of communication for India and the Levant, and we had not thought it necessary to employ our energies there. But you must look at the relative importance of different objects. If England did not employ her energies there, look at other parts of the world—the communication with India and North America, the great lines of communication with the West Indies and the western coast of America; these were more important points than the small ports of the Mediterranean, and these great lines of communication had not been neglected by the Government. He was bound to tell the hon. Gentleman, that there were much greater lines and objects than those of the Mediterranean. The communication with the Brazils was of far greater importance than the convenience of gen- tlemen travelling in the Mediterranean. These objects the Government were quietly pursuing. But the French were benefitting the world, and English commerce in particular, by their steamers. The trade with Trebisond was chiefly in English goods. All the great lines of communication in the Mediterranean were beneficial to English commerce. With regard to India, a mail had arrived in India, on the 4th of April, in 32 days from England. His experience had been different from that of the hon. Gentleman. The mercantile interest in this country, so far from wishing that the communication should be taken into the hands of Government, in their communications with him, had said, "You manage your letters, and leave commerce and private enterprise to us;" and he believed it to be far better to leave the whole plan in the hands of a company to manage.

said, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, who did not mean that Government should interfere with commercial communications, but he thought that armed steamers might be made the means, in the event of a war arising, of affording a ready armament, and enabling us to compete in this respect with other nations. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the availability of the steamers engaged in the execution of the contract, it would be desirable to ascertain whether that would be an economical mode in case of an emergency. Would it be economical to make purchase in such case of vessels not built for warlike operations? What plan had been resorted to at the commencement of the late war when there happened to be a deficiency? Ships were then purchased, which, after having considerable sums expended upon fitting them out, were afterwards found to be inefficient. It was the bounden duty of those who had the administration of the naval department to show that an available force was ready in the event of an unexpected breaking out of war, and to prove that the country, in such an event, had an adequate means of defence corresponding with the naval force of the enemy.—Vote agreed to.

wished to know under whose taste and judgment these pictures were bought? He had heard very severe critiques made on the pictures that were last purchased.

said, the pictures that were last bought were purchased at a public sale, on the recommendation of the trustees of the National Gallery.

said, if the hon. Gentleman would state what the pictures were, he had no doubt he could give him a satisfactory explanation. He had no objection whatever to these questions being put; on the contrary, he thought they tended to public advantage. But let them take the case of the pictures they had just bought. In this case, Sir Simon Clark's pictures were advertised for sale. The trustees of the National Gallery met and considered whether they should advise the purchase of any of them. They had not a shilling at their disposal, and they therefore were obliged to apply to the Treasury for permission to purchase certain of the pictures. The collection was attended by circumstances that were peculiar, as it was made during the French revolution. As to the condition of the pictures, the trustees had the opportunity of referring to a person of high authority—he meant Mr. Seymour, the secretary of the National Gallery. There were in the collection two Murillos which were perfectly well known to connoisseurs and artists, and the trustees advised the Treasury to make a certain offer for them. But they did not ask much from the Treasury, for all they asked to be allowed to purchase out of the whole collection were three pictures, two being the Murillos he had mentioned, and the third a Guido—all works of very great excellence, and such as the trustees thought it desirable to procure for the National Gallery. For one of the Murillos, a picture known by the name of "The Good Shepherd," they proposed to offer 2,500 guineas. It was purchased, however, by Messrs. Rothschild for 3,000 guineas. For the other Murillo they also proposed to offer 2,500 guineas, but Lord Ashburton, one of the trustees, purchased it at 2,000 guineas for his own private collection. Finding, however, there was some misapprehension on the subject, he very handsomely ceded it to the National Gallery at the price he had given for it. For the Guido they gave only 410 guineas, and he believed that if they were to offer it for public competition now, it would obtain double the price they gave for it. He only mentioned this to show that the pictures were not purchased for the National Gallery without care, or without being considered to be works of the highest merit.

wished to know whether there was any report made on the subject; for, if the right hon. Gentleman were not in the House, who was to give any account of it?

said, these things were all matters of record, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether these matters did not pass between the trustees and the Treasury. There were some arrangements now going on; and he really hoped the hon. Gentleman would not oblige any premature disclosures to be made.

wished the right hon. Baronet and his colleagues would direct their attention to the exterior of the building of the National Gallery, for certainly it was not satisfactory to the public taste.

said, he quite agreed with the gallant Officer that the building, standing in the situation it did, was not very creditable. When the estimates for it were brought forward, the House was in an economical fit, and the first sum voted was 40,000l. That was afterwards extended to 70,000l. And there the building stood. But whether they should pull it down and erect one that was really worthy of the arts on its site, which was the finest in London, he must leave it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say.

doubted what the right hon. Baronet said, on the score of economy; because when the estimates were brought forward, he was not aware of any objection being made to them.

thought this charge required explanation; it was an enormous sum for one year's expenditure in carrying into execution one act of Parliament.

assured the right hon. Gentleman that the charge had excited the attention of the Treasury, but it com- prehended the whole expense, including 1,512 valuations, upwards of 1,000 conveyances, and 300 judgments and awards. He was assured that under the ordinary powers of inland navigation acts, the expense would have been five times as great.

was surprised at the amount of the charge for conveyances, since every one knew that the principal expenses of a conveyance were the charge for drawing and the cost of the stamp. Now, a short form of conveyance, consisting of only ten lines, was prescribed and set out in the act, and no stamp duty was payable.

thought he could explain the amount of the charge. The river ran by the property of Lord Monteagle, and his solicitor, Mr. Barrington, was the solicitor employed by the commission. The ordinary routine of business was set aside, and instead of Mr. Stewart, the solicitor of the Board of Works, being employed, a new office was created for Mr. Spring Rice's attorney, to whom the committee was now asked to vote this sum of 11,300l.

said, he had never heard a more unjustifiable attack made upon parties who were not present to defend themselves. He was surprised that an hon. Member in an assembly of gentlemen should suffer himself to be so far carried away. He begged to give a distinct contradiction to the inference which the hon. Member had drawn. Mr. Barrington was employed in the original inquiry, and when the work was undertaken he was continued in the performance of the services which were then required. The same expenses were paid to Mr. Barrington as would have been paid to the solicitor to the Board of Works, and no saving would have been effected by employing the latter. No hon. Member who had had any experience in canal or railway companies would consider the charges unreasonable.

said, that in the whole of this large bill of costs the money out of pocket did not exceed 250l; the balance, 11,050l., was received by Mr. Barrington, but in making these observations he begged to say that he did not mean to cast the slightest imputation upon that Gentleman. He found fault with the system, not with Mr. Barrington, of whose character he could not speak too highly.

said, that the reason Mr. Barrington had been preferred to Mr. Stewart was, that he had all along been employed in the works connected with the improvement of the Shannon.

considered the whole of this proceeding a downright humbugging job. He thought that the country had great reason to complain of the manner in which the business of Parliament was hurried over at this period of the session, and especially he thought there was reason to complain of the manner in which the miscellaneous estimates were disposed of; for his part, if no one more competent to the task than he was, took up the subject, he should in a future session move that the miscellaneous estimates be referred to a select committee.

observed, that Mr. Stewart's charges would have been equally high with those of Mr. Barrington, had the former gentleman been employed in preference to the latter. The charge as it now stood was a reduced charge, and the expenses had certainly been estimated on the most economical scale. There could be no doubt that Mr. Stewart considered the duties connected with the river Shannon to be quite distinct from his duties as solicitor to the Board of Works, for he came to this country and made interest to obtain the appointment, which had eventually been given to Mr. Barrington, which he certainly would not have done if he had not thought that he was to receive a separate remuneration for the business connected with the Shannon.

said, that if the solicitor to the Board of Works received a salary from the state, the public were entitled to the whole of his time, and that gentleman was bound to render all the service in his power to the Government. If the legal business of the Board of Works were conducted like that of the Stamp-office, for example, the solicitor would not be entitled to charge costs as between attorney and client.

agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the Government in employing a public officer did purchase the whole of his time; but the improvement of the Shannon had been intrusted to a body of commissioners quite distinct from the Board of Works.

hoped, that as these expenses had been actually incurred, and as the disbursements would have to undergo the supervision of the regularly constituted boards, the committee would not agree to reduce the vote.

wished to know the exact proportion of this expense to be borne by the East India Company and this country. He did not think that the sum now proposed would do more than pay the amount of tonnage employed for the conveyance of troops from India to China.

understood that shipping to the extent of 3,500 tons had been taken up from Bengal, and 3,149 tons from Madras, which would probably cost about 100,000l. for six months: he also wished to know how the estimate had been framed.

said, the arrangement which had been made with the East India Company was, that this country should pay the extra expenses of the expedition. A confidential communication had been received by the East India Company from Lord Auckland, which was the basis of his estimate. Another estimate was forwarded to him by the East India Company, which came very nearly to that of Lord Auckland. But such estimates must necessarily on all occasions be loose. With respect to tonnage, it was impossible for him to do more than state the expense already incurred, and the rate at which it was estimated to be carried on. The estimate had been sent over to this country by Lord Auckland.

said the estimate, which was certainly a very rough one, had been sent home by the Governor-general of India, and certain amount of tonnage had been taken up for the conveyance of troops, and the question was how much money the country should be asked to pay in the present year. There had been some little difficulty upon that point; but whatever deficiency there might be, he hoped there would be no difficulty in making it up when the accounts should be finally laid before Parliament. The Governor-general was to keep a separate account of every extra charge. That account was not to extend to the pay of the Queen's troops, nor to ordinary pay of the troops belonging to the East India Company, but only to the expenses incurred by the extra services arising out of this expedition. The Governor-general had sent over the present estimate in compliance with orders sent to him in October last, and though it was a rough one, he believed that it would be found, upon the whole, a fair one.

said, that after the discussion which this vote underwent on a former occasion, he felt it impossible to let it pass without making one or two observations. He admitted that by the new arrangements made known by the minute in council recently laid before the House, particularly with respect to the inspection of schools, there had been, since the last discussion, the greatest possible improvement made. So also with respect to another point—namely, the necessity of submitting to Parliament cases which might be deemed extraordinary, in which the pecuniary assistance was not to be proportioned to the contribution made by the party applying for the assistance, was also a great improvement, and removed many of the objections he had formerly entertained against the vote. At the same time, although he felt that the system was so altered as to render it possible for him to give his willing acquiescence to the grant, he still retained those objections he formerly expressed as to confiding the management and superintendence of the whole education of the people to a lay commission, composed upon the principle of recommendations by the Government. He felt that on a question involving the interests of all classes it would have been expedient and more advisable that it should have been regulated rather by an act of the Legislature, than by a discretion vested in a board, constituted as that was by which this pecuniary grant was to be administered.

said, that the few observations made by the right hon. Gentleman, rather applied to the plan of last year. He had spoken of it as a plan to regulate the whole education of the country. It certainly was not such. If it were, he should agree with him that it would be matter for legislation rather than for a vote in a committee of supply. The present plan was based on this—that they should take care that those schools to which the public money was given, were under proper inspection. Objections having been made to the former schemes proposed, it had been finally arranged, that no person should be appointed an inspector without the approbation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the concur- rence of the Archbishop of York in respect to appointments in his province. These two most rev. Prelates had, upon this arrangement, agreed that the inspection should extend to the whole matters of instruction taught in the schools, as well religious as secular. His belief was, that although this plan did not extend to the whole education of the people, great advantages would be derived from such inspection, and that the greatest possible benefit would ultimately accrue to the country by the gradual extension of education among the people.

complained of the very limited benefit to be derived from this grant to that religious part of the community with whom he was more immediately connected. There were upwards of 100,000 poor Irish belonging to the Roman Catholic religion within this metropolis who were entirely destitute of the means of education. These were neglected in their youth, and yet it was complained of in the public prints that the gaols were crowded with Irish adults, who were said most unjustly to participate in this grant. But the natural consequence of neglecting youth was to fill the gaols. What was the resolution which had been come to by the Middlesex magistrates, as it appears in the prints of the present day? In the last Session, he had proposed a measure to enable the Catholic clergy to receive a salary as chaplains of gaols, but it was objected to in another place. A memorial had been since presented to the Home Department, showing that nearly one-third of the persons in the metropolitan gaols, were of the Roman Catholic religion, and praying that a minister might be appointed for those prisoners that were subjected to restrictions for the purpose of reformation. The same reason that had induced them to refuse the benefit of education to these unfortunate men in their infancy, induced them also to refuse religious instruction to those in prison. If there was any remnant of good in these individuals, it was their adherence to the faith of their ancestors; and then, instead of availing themselves of the opportunity afforded of fostering this remnant of good, the first thing they made them do was to apostatize from their religion, and then they were surprised that they returned to society the same miserable individuals as they entered the gaols. They knew that their gaols were filled with persons of one particular class of religion, and they knew that it was one of the principles of their faith, that they do not accept the religious services of other religious bodies; and yet they only allowed the interference of their own clergymen, upon the special application of the prisoners themselves. Upon the apprehension of death, these parties might send for a minister; but it could not be supposed, that under other circumstances, they would voluntarily send for him who was their dread. Instead of this course, they ought to give every facility for religious instruction. These were the grounds on which he felt it his duty, however painful it might be, to make these observations; he knew the opprobrium that was cast upon those with whom he was connected, and the petitions that had been presented against this grant last year had but one burden, and that was to attack the Roman Catholics most undeservedly. He did not blame the Government for not doing more; he knew the fear, the danger, and the apprehension they had of the very name of Roman Catholics; but he did not wish it to go forth to the public, that they were sharing in this bounty equally with others, and then that these very parties formed a great portion of that community which remained in the unfortunate situation already described. In regard to the last minute of the council, he thought it was perfectly right that the clergy of the Church of England should have the superintendence of the religious instruction of those that belonged to their body; but whilst he admitted that, he claimed for himself the same right which he was ready to give to another; and, considering the situation in which a large class of the poorer portion of the community were placed, not only in the metropolis, but in the large manufacturing towns, he thought that something might be done.

said, they had heard much of Church destitution, but of Catholic destitution they had heard little, and, considering the condition of a large part of the population, he thought that they ought to have heard much more. There was one question, however, which he wished to ask before the vote was agreed to, and it was—whether the inspectors of schools, over whose appointment the archbishops were to have a veto, were to inspect the schools conducted by religious denominations not belonging to the Established Church?

said, that the appointment of inspectors with the concurrence of the archbishops, related entirely to such schools as stated themselves to be in communion with the Church of England. There would be other inspectors appointed for other schools, but at the same time, if the inspectors appointed for the Church schools should visit districts in which there shall be other schools, and if the managers of the schools should not object, he could see no reason why the inspectors of the Church schools should not inspect the others.

wished to express his own satisfaction, and he believed the general and united feeling of every religious society, at the arrangement which had been made between the noble Lord and the head of the Church. He was only too gratified at being able to state the united feeling of the committee of the National Society, that the heads of the Church, in whose hands, without reserve, they had placed the arrangement, should have made an arrangement which to their minds was so satisfactory. He was sure that they were all imbued with one common object.

objected to the grant.

defended it as necessary, and as being consistent with the promises of the Government.