gave notice, that, to-morrow evening, on the motion that the House go into a Committee on Ways and Means being

wished to know in what manner the amendment was to be moved?

said, that the amendment would be moved as he stated yesterday.

said, that, he supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would move that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and upon that question his noble Friend (Lord Sandon) would move his amendment. The question would then be, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. In case that proposition were affirmed, the House would then go into committee; in case it were negatived, the noble Lord would then move his amendment.

said, it seemed to him that that was an extremely inconvenient course, as it would lead to two debates and two divisions. If it was meant to take the sense of the House upon which of the two resolutions should be adopted, it appeared to him that, instead of his noble Friend moving the ways and means, the noble Member for Liverpool should be allowed precedence, and upon that motion that his noble Friend could move his resolution, upon which the sense of the House could be taken.

said, that, of course, the noble Lord would first bring forward the general question, which would enable his (Sir R. Peel's) noble Friend to take the sense of the House on the sugar duties. If the noble Lord were to withdraw his motion, his noble Friend would not have an opportunity of submitting his resolution, as many might object to vote for his noble Friend, if his proposition were merely volunteered and not introduced, in consequence of the course adopted by the Government. He was sure the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would adhere to the announcement which he had already made as to his plan of financial policy,—Subject at an end.

wished to ask the noble Lord if it was his intention to persevere with the bill for the amendment of the Poor-laws.

said, that it was his intention to persevere with the bill, and that he should bring it on, on the 17th of May.

would give notice, that on that day he should submit a motion to the House, the object of which would be to arrest the further progress of that measure.

wished to know whether there had been any recent arrivals from China which would enable the noble Lord to give the House any information as to the present state of our relations with that country?

could not say whether there had been any arrivals yesterday, but the previous arrivals had not enabled him to furnish any additional information.

said, that information brought by recent arrivals, had appeared in the papers of that day.

referred to the Gazette accounts, and wished to know if the Government had ratified the treaty which had been said to have been entered into between the Plenipotentiaries of the two countries?

said, that the Government had received information of certain preliminary arrangements which had been entered into by the Plenipotentiaries of the two Powers. Those preliminary arrangements, however, did not appear to have been ratified by the Emperor of China—indeed it did not appear that they had been finally settled between Captain Elliot and the Plenipotentiary appointed by the Chinese government. That arrangement was generally disapproved of by her Majesty's Government, but no further steps could be taken until they received further accounts, stating more particularly what that treaty contained.

was desirous of knowing, considering the distance of the scene of operations, whether hostilities had already been discontinued?

said, a truce had been entered into, and by the last accounts, that truce had not been put an end to, but he could not say, that hostile operations might not be recommenced.

said, he wished to know whether a report that had been circulated was correct, namely, that the Government had recalled Captain Elliot, and appointed Sir Henry Pottinger in his stead? The public were anxious to know whether such were the case.

said, that it was true that Sir H. Pottinger had received the appointment of Plenipotentiary to China, and was about to depart immediately for that country, Captain Elliot having beeen recalled.

wished to know if there were any despatches from Egypt to the effect that matters were adjusted between the Pacha and the Porte, according to the plan to which England was pledged.

could not, while negotiations were in progress, enter into any account of what had been done recently.

wished to put a question to the Under-secretary of State for the Home Department. He had seen in the public papers accounts of the increased mortality in the hulks, and that great numbers of convicts had died; and it was stated, that the governor had attributed the cause of the disease to the accumulation and crowding together of the convicts by the direction of the noble Lord. He wished to know whether the Government had received any official information regarding this? He also wished to know whether any evidence could be given of the former coroner's inquests which had been ordered to be given to that House two months ago?

said, it was true, that there had been a considerable increase of disease amongst the convicts; but he had been given to understand, that that had occurred not only at the hulks, but also amongst the military. He could assure the noble Lord and the House, that there was no place in which greater attention was given, or where there was greater capability of attending to the convicts when overtaken with sickness, than in the hulks. It was impossible to prevent epidemics at times coming amongst those unfortunate people. He should be quite ready to furnish the noble Lord and the House with any information which they might desire on this or any other point. With reference to the evidence taken by coroners, the noble Lord must be aware, that that rested entirely on their discretion, and that their notes were private. He believed, that there was no authority which could compel a judge to give up his private notes; so there was no authority to compel a coroner to surrender his private notes. There was no doubt whatever but that the coroner would be most happy to furnish a copy of his notes.

wished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman why the present mode of ascertaining the Value of Exports and Imports was preserved, and what was the difference between the Official and the Declared Value.

said, that with regard to the manner of making out the official value in the Customs, as calculated in the returns, he believed, that the data on which they were calculated had been the same for the last 150 years. Those data did not represent actual value, but quantities. With regard to the declared value, it was stated on the declaration of the exporting merchant, or broker on oath.

said, that motions relating to matters still in course of negotiation with foreign governments were so entirely unusual, and so much inconvenience to the public service would attend the production of the correspondence now moved for, that he was sure the House would not support the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who, in fact, required the production of the most confidential portion of the correspondence between the Governors of Upper and Lower Canada and the Secretary of State. He did not think the hon. Member was precisely aware how the matter stood. The Government of the United States had made a complaint of the conduct of certain individuals and officers belonging to Upper Canada, who were said to have taken a part in the destruction of the steam-boat Caroline. The result of that complaint was the transmission of a great quantity of correspondence, and various statements made by the Governor of Upper Canada and several individuals who were concerned in the transaction. The American government sent counter-statements, but they did not persist in asking for a final answer to their demand; the effect of which was, that the acts of the British Government ceased to be matter of discussion between the two Governments. It was not for the British Government to follow up these negotiations by saying to the American. Government, that they must desist from their former demands; or for the United States to say, that they had been in the wrong in making such demand. All that could be expected was, that the United States Government should have allowed the subject to drop; and he was convinced, that it would have dropped, and no longer have been discussed between the two Governments, had it not been for the unfortunate arrest of Mr. M'Leod, which completely revived it, and the discussions regarding it. With regard to the correspondence now moved for, he could only say, that the production of it would be inconvenient to the public service—would tend to embarrass the negotiations which were now going on between the countries in a most amicable spirit, and might have the effect of weakening the friendly relations of two mighty and intelligent nations.

said, that if the papers he moved for were laid upon the Table they would prove the reverse of what the noble Lord the Secretary for the Foreign Department had stated. That noble Lord had asserted, that the American government, had not persisted in demanding an answer to their communication of the 22nd of May, 1838, whereas, Mr. Forsyth distinctly stated, in the correspondence which was before the world, that Mr. Stevenson would not be instructed to press for an answer, because Mr. Fox had told him, that he expected an answer direct from this country in a few days. What he wanted was, to have on the Table of the House those papers which would convince the House that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who on a former occasion stated, that he had transmitted an answer to the American government, never had transmitted any answer up to that hour. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth stated, some time ago, that there must be a limit to the patience of the House regarding the refusal of public documents; and, in his opinion, that time had now arrived. Had the documents connected with the affairs of Syria been produced, when he had moved for them he was convinced that the affairs of the East would have been settled much sooner, and much of the loss which the country had since sustained would have been avoided. He only wanted, in the present case, the printed correspondence; he wanted no secrets, and he hoped the House would support him in endeavouring to compel the noble Lord to produce it. Had he been furnished with it sooner, the question would have been forced upon the attention of the Government, and might before this have been completely settled.

said, that the production of the correspondence in question would not enable the hon. Gentleman to attain the object he had in view. The American government had asked for redress for the burning of the Caroline, and to that demand her Majesty's Government had deliberately, and not through any neglect, thought it proper not to give a formal and final answer. But his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had since informed the American Minister at the Court of London, that the British Government had justified the destruction of the Caroline; upon which the American Minister made a communication to his government, which communication had not yet transpired. His noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) was therefore perfectly justified in the statement he had made on a former occasion.

said, that since the 22nd of May, 1838, when the American Government sent a communication to Lord Palmerston, requesting satisfaction up to the present, or, at least, up to the period at which he (Mr. Hume) last introduced the question to the notice of the House, no answer had been given, verbally or by letter, to that communication; so that the House had been entirely misled and abused by the allegation of the noble Lord, that in answer had been given.

understood the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies to meet the motion of the hon. Member by declaring, that negotiations connected with the subject were now pending, that they were conducted on both sides in an amicable spirit, and that the production of the correspondence moved for would be prejudicial to the public service. Now, he confessed that a statement of that kind, coming from the Minister of the Crown, was, with him (Sir Robert Peel), conclusive. Without offering any opinion upon the unfortunate state of ignorance they were in at present respecting our foreign relations; he must say, that it would be most unwise to attempt to force a Minister of the Crown to produce a correspondence after such a declaration as the noble Lord had made. He wished to ask the noble Lord what position Mr. M'Leod himself was in at present. He understood that the British Government had avowed the destruction of the Caroline as a public act, and had called on the Government of the United States to release Mr. M'Leod. In what position did the matter now stand? Would he be released, or would the law be allowed to take its course?

said, that the statement made in answer to Mr. Fox was, that the attorney-general of the United States government had proceeded to the place at which the trial of Mr. M'Leod was expected to take place, and would there act according to certain instructions he had received from the American government, which he (Lord John Russell) did not deem it necessary to state to the House; that the Attorney-general had not himself taken any steps in the matter; but that the counsel for M'Leod having stated, that one of his defences was, that the act had been authorised by the British Government, applied to have the case removed to a federal court, and that that application was granted. He trusted that the American government would, when in a federal court, do that which he was told they could only do in a federal court.

hoped the noble Lord would not refuse those documents which had already appeared in the American papers. Surely no inconvenience would arise from their production.

hoped the noble Lord would refuse them, as he thought that the application for or granting of just so much information as another country published would be very derogatory to the British Parliament. The statements already pub- lished were of an ex parte character, and might give a most unfavourable view of the case as regarded this country. So that by agreeing to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, they might be giving their sanction to these unfavourable and perhaps unjust statements.

could not understand the object of pressing for papers which hon. Gentlemen had already read, after the declaration of the noble Lord.

thought, that at a time when this country, as well as the United States, were deploring the loss of the able chief magistrate of that country, it was highly indelicate to press such a motion us this just as the new governor was under-taking the management of the United States. He believed that there was a strong feeling on both sides of the Atlantic for the preservation of the amicable relations between the two countries. The great commercial body was particularly anxious on the subject, and was particularly desirous that the greatest deliberation should attend the conducting of those negotiations. He trusted the motion would not be pressed.

observed, that according to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, this country should not possess the same information as was possessed by other countries. They only asked for the papers relating to the arrest of Mr. M'Leod, and why the British Parliament should not have them as well as the Congress of the United States, he was at a loss to conceive. Whether that information were withheld or not, he wished to know if the Government intended to allow the trial of Mr. M'Leod to be proceeded with; because the feeling throughout the country was this—that our national honour was compromised by the detention in prison of Mr. M'Leod. The guilt or innocence of Mr. M'Leod had nothing to do with the question, as it was notorious that the Government would escape from the dilemma by the proof of Mr. M'Leod's not having been present at the destruction of the Caroline. But Mr. M'Leod had been arrested and detained in prison, and if they had a right to detain him, they had a right to try him, and if to try him, to execute him, should he be found guilty. What he wanted to know, therefore, was, whether, in the event of such a verdict, the Government intended to allow Mr. M'Leod to be executed? Because, if not, they should have stopped the matter in limine, and not al- lowed him to be thrown into prison. Suppose Captain Drew was travelling in the United States, was arrested, tried, and found guilty, would it be borne, that an English officer was so to be treated by a foreign country for obeying the orders of his own Government? He asked, therefore, did the Government mean to allow Mr. M'Leod's trial to proceed? He had been already imprisoned for six months, and the people of England had a right to know why.

observed, that the question was; not whether Mr. M'Leod—respecting whose arrest and imprisonment he (Sir R. Peel) would give no opinion whatever—ought to be released or not, but whether these papers, the production of which the noble Lord had told them, would be prejudicial to the negotiations which were now being carried on in an amicable spirit between the two countries, should lie laid upon the Table of the House.

rose to call the attention of the House to the appointment of Mr. William Vizard as Solicitor to the Home department. He had intended to bring the matter forward on the proposal of the miscellaneous estimates, but when he found the vacillating conduct of the Government with respect to the time of moving those estimates, he felt it his duty to the country to introduce this as a substantive motion, and he was supported strongly in taking the sense of the House on this appointment by the correspondence laid on the Table. First, he must remark on the period selected by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home department for making the application to the Treasury for this appointment. That application was made on the 6th of August, 1840—Parliament was prorogued on the 11th, and the answer was not given till the 13th, two days after that prorogation This of itself did seem extraordinary. No doubt the secret appointment of this individual had taken place before, but it was kept from the public till Parliament was up. The next thing was, that the noble Lord thought the best way of paying i this gentleman was by professional bills; why the noble Lord should fix on this method of payment, would probably never come before the House; but the Treasury thought this mode of proceeding would not be satisfactory to the public, and they, not the noble Lord, fixed the payment of 1,500l. a-year as salary. Again, there was no formal warrant for the appointment; and he might have his suspicions as to the cause of withholding that formal appointment. Upon what grounds did the appointment take place? The noble Lord said, for the more convenient despatch of the legal business of this department, which had considerably increased of late years, and which ought to be conducted by a gentleman whose exclusive services might be secured. From the Government of the Duke of Portland in 1798, during forty-three years, with eighteen changes, down to 1840, including the period of the Manchester riots under Lord Castlereagh, the state of excitement of the trial of Queen Caroline, and the Newport riots, he found that the duties of the Home-office were carried on satisfactorily to the public, without imputation as to the manner in which those duties were performed, and there had been no exclusive solicitor to the Home-office. There was nothing extraordinary in the circumstances of 1840 that required a change, except, indeed, the conduct of the Chartists, arising from a want of caution and firmness on the part of the Government. They had heard a great deal of the improvement of the people, and yet last year was the first time for the creation of this new office. Then it was said that this gentleman was to hold no other office, and yet this very gentleman, against whom he (Colonel Sibthorp) would say nothing, as he was personally unknown, had held for eleven years, and did still hold, the office of secretary of bankrupts under the Lord Chancellor. By one of the returns, too, it appeared that a Mr. Vizard was deputy-registrar of bankrupts but he was informed that it was a Mr. John Vizard, and whether he was a son or brother he did not know. He had inquired into the emoluments of Mr. W. Vizard, and he found that, as secretary of bankrupts, he received since 1835, a salary of 1,200l. a year, and he also received the 1,500l. a year from his present appointment. He had received, since his appointment as secretary of bankrupts, during a period of eleven years, no less than 18,141l.17s.9d for fees and salary. The gentleman, therefore, was pretty well paid without any further appointment; yet he was to have an additional 1,500l. a year from the period of his first appointment, when there was no knowledge of the appointment. As a guardian of the public purse, no necessity for the office being shown, he(Colonel Sibthorp) must pursue the straight-forward course of objecting to the appointment. The noble Lord ought to have come down to the House, and asked its sanction to the creation of this new office. It had been promised that Mr. Vizard would resign his former appointment in the Bankruptcy Court, but he (Colonel Sibthorp) was prepared to assert, that that Gentleman had no intention of doing anything of the kind. He should conclude by moving, that it is the opinion of the House that the creation of a new office, as Solicitor to the Home Department, is unnecessary, and that no sufficient reason has been shewn to the House for the appointment of Mr. W. Vizard to that office. He should certainly take the sense of the House upon this resolution, and if he were defeated upon it, he should reserve to himself the opportunity of again opposing this appointment on the salary being voted in the estimates.

said, that in meeting the motion of the hon. and gallant Member with a direct negative, he should occupy the attention of the House for as short a time as possible, whilst he stated the grounds upon which he considered the appointment of Mr. Vizard, as Solicitor to the Home Department, was justified. For some time past a great increase of business had fallen to the share of the Home Department, arising out of a great number of new acts of Parliament Which had been passed of late years, as, for instance, the Municipal Corporations Act. For the convenience of the. public applications and questions relative to the construction of these enactments had been submitted to that department, and the points involved in those applications were such, that although it was not considered necessary to refer them to the law officers of the Crown, still it was considered absolutely necessary that they should be referred to some one competent to give a legal opinion upon them. For some time the Home Department availed itself of the services of the Solicitor to the Treasury, but at length it was represented to his noble Friend, that such matters did not properly fall within the duties contracted for by that Gentleman; and that he could not, consistently with the due discharge of his regular duties, undertake them in addition. It was then found that almost every other department of Government had a solicitor of its own to conduct its business, and it was determined that the Home Department should, in like manner, appoint a solicitor of its own. With respect to the expenses of such appointment, he would only state two important items which the solicitor appointed would have to undertake, and the amount of which alone would nearly pay the salary allotted to that appointment, namely, the drawing of contracts, amounting in the last five years to an average of 300l, and expenses connected with the police commissions, amounting to about 800 l a-year. Now, with respect to the charge made by the hon. and gallant Member, that this appointment was hurried to completion immediately after the close of the last Session of Parliament, lie would only state, that the subject had been for a long time under discussion, and that the appointment only bore date the 1st of January. The appointment was such, that the whole of the time of Mr. Vizard, was at the disposal of the Home Department. With respect to Mr. Vizard's holding at the same time another office under the Crown, he would observe, that it was no new practice for a person holding the office of Secretary to the Bankruptcy Court to hold another appointment under the Crown. When, however, Mr. Vizard received the appointment of Solicitor to the Home-office, it was put to him that he should give up his office as Secretary to the Court of Bankruptcy; and it was only on account of the unsettled state of the whole of the question relating to the affairs of the Court of Bankruptcy, that Mr. Vizard had not yet made his election between the two offices. A bill, however, was about to be brought in very soon by the Lord Chancellor, which would regulate the whole of the business of the Bankruptcy Court. By that means, the office of Secretary to the Court would be altogether abolished, and it was only for the convenience of the public that Mr. Vizard held the office in the interim. He thought he had now said sufficient to establish the expediency of the appointment of Mr. Vizard as Solicitor to the Home-office, and was content to leave the question entirely in the hands of the House.

, before the House came to a division, wished to ask the Attorney-general, whom he saw in his place, whether he had. correctly understood the fact from the hon. Member, the Under Secretary of the Home Department, that a bill to regulate the Court of Bankruptcy was about to be brought forward by her Majesty's Government.

said, he believed it was true, that the Lord Chancellor would, in the course of the present Session, bring forward a bill to regulate the proceedings of the Court of Bankruptcy, and he hoped when it was before the House, it would be such as to meet with general approbation. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Vizard as Solicitor to the Home-office, he (the Attorney-General) had taken no part, directly or indirectly, in that appointment, but, at the same time, he felt bound to say, that he knew of no person who could more efficiently perform the duties of that office than that person, who was a gentleman of the highest honour and integrity.

suggested to his hon. and gallant Friend, that the question could be more conveniently brought forward when the time came for voting the money to be paid to the officer of whose appointment he complained. Without intending to say anything in the slightest degree disparaging to Mr. Vizard, he did not consider that sufficient grounds had been made out for the appointment by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he (Mr. Goulburn) would rather have the opinion of the Attorney-general on important points relating to the municipal law and other matters of a like nature, than the opinion of any solicitor whatever. He would, however, advise his hon. and gallant Friend not to press his motion for the present, but reserve it until the estimates were brought forward, though, if his hon. and gallant Friend did divide, he should vote with him.

said, that at the present hour, when hon. Members were all so anxious to get home to dinner—he should not trouble the House by a division, but comply with the suggestion of his right hon. Friend.