moved the second reading of the National Floating Break water Bill.

said, he felt it necessary to call the attention of the House to this bill, by which a national floating breakwater company was proposed to be established, and to give a brief description of the sort of breakwater the formation of which was contemplated, for the purpose of inducing those who were at present favourable to the project to inquire further into the subject, and to consider what would be the probable effect of the plan. He was of opinion that no structure in the nature of a breakwater could last for more than three or four years in the sea, unless it was formed of some very solid substance. A wooden structure would not continue to float for more than three or four years. It would be subject to the action of worms, which would bore through and through it in a few years, and destroy its buoyancy. Another objection was, that the chains by which it must be moored would, by the constant friction in the water, and by the action of the water itself, wear away very fast. As an instance of this, he might refer to the chains laid down by the Trinity-house at the different buoys, which were inspected every six months. It was found with respect to them, that the ironwork, the chains, and rings, never lasted more than six or seven years at the utmost. In seven years it was found that the chains were worn through. Now, he could not see howa breakwater formed of wood, which would soon lose its buoyancy, and the chains of which in a few years would be unserviceable, could properly answer the purpose for which it was intended. He did not think it would last for more than five years at the utmost. With these impressions he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to the bill.

moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the St. Marylebone Parish (Paving) Bill. After the presentation of some petitions for and against the bill, the hon. Member proceeded to move the second reading, and said, he did not wish to raise any discussion on this occasion, by entering into any protracted observations on the measure. But he thought it right to state that two points, which were considered most objectionable by those who opposed the bill, had been abandoned by its supporters—a circumstance which he hoped would give satisfaction to those parties by whom the measure was resisted. The provision with reference to the salary of the treasurer and that which related to raising the qualification of the voter, had been abandoned by the supporters of the measure. These objections being removed, he could not see any grounds for opposition to the second reading of the bill. It never was intended to be a job, but was designed rather to prevent jobbing and to amend the errors and faults in the present Act by which the parish was governed. If there were any objection to the different clauses remaining in the bill, the committee would be the proper place to discuss them. He should reserve himself for any objections that might be thrown out on the other side. Having made this statement, he trusted, that no further opposition would be offered to the second reading of the bill.

was certainly surprised at the statement just made by the hon. Gentleman. He had now heard for the first time, that two of the clauses to which much objection had been made were abandoned by the promoters of the bill. He, however, thought, that before the hon. Gentleman brought in a bill which so materially affected a very large and important parish, he ought to have stated some reasons for introducing it. He ought to have enlighted those who were interested in the measure as to the why and wherefore which had induced him to bring forward a bill, the effect of which would be most extensively to alter, and almost to repeal, certain existing acts. He should wish to know on what grounds the hon. Gentleman wished to repeal certain important clauses of the bill carried through Parliament by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hobhouse). It was a bill, in fact for the repeal of all the local acts referring to the parish of Marylebone. He would call the attention of the House to the petition presented by the hon. Gentleman in favour of the bill. No person could be more desirous than he was to pay the greatest attention to the petitions presented to that House, but he felt himself bound to say, that the petition to which he referred on the present occasion was got up under gross fraud and false statements. He had received several letters which would show that such was the case. The hon. Member read ex tracts from letters addressed to him by several individuals, stating that they had been induced to sign the petition by misrepresentations of its purport, it having been stated to them that its object was to obtain a reduction, or an equalization of the rates; they would not have signed it had they been aware that its object was to do away with the local acts. One writer said, that had he known its true character he would not have given his sanction to so infamous a bill. These letters he would place in the hands of his hon. Friend, and he apprehended, after what he had stated, that little credit would attach to the signatures to the petition. Before his hon. Friend brought in a bill of this description he should have stated the grounds on which it was proposed, he particularly objected to the clause in the bill which made the rates payable in advance. He understood that by the bill the vestry was to be compelled to levy a rate for the entire year on the 1st of January, and to that he objected. He also objected to the bill, because there was no provision made for the relief of the poor. The sense of the parish had not been fairly taken in reference to the present bill. He believed that a large majority of the parishioners were opposed to the bill; and as he saw no justifiable reason for its introduction, he should move that it be read a second time that day six months.

opposed the amendment. He would put it to the House whether the time had not come for introducing some such change as that contemplated by the bill. The hon. Baronet had expressed his satisfaction with the late and the present vestry of Marylebone; but was the hon. Baronet aware that the late vestry had been obliged to borrow a large sum? and that the present vestry had contracted a debt of 20,000l. That vestry was now paying an interest upon the sum they had borrowed of 1,200l. per annum. One of their body had been prosecuted for a libel, and the expenses of the defence were not paid out of that individual's pocket, but the parish was made liable by the vestry for the entire sum. Now, nothing in his opinion, could be more monstrous than such a mode of proceeding. The object of the bill was to place the mode of election by ballot in the vestry on the same footing as the election of members of corporations. The object of the bill was to adopt the principle of the Reform Bill in the parish affairs of Marylebone, and he was satisfied that his hon. and gallant Friend was himself aware that would be its effect. The opposition which had been offered to the bill was entirely of a political character, as its framers only contended for the principle adopted by the Reform Bill, of apportioning votes in a compound ratio of population and property.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down expressed his astonishment that the hon. Member for Marylebone was not supplied with a great number of arguments against the bill. He marvelled at the hon. Member's modesty; he asked the House to allow the second reading of the bill, without stating one reason why the bill should be carried. Besides, this was the cast-off bill of another hon. Member, the Member for Middlesex, who, with an honourable feeling, had abandoned the measure. The hon. Gentleman opposite had taken it up, and he (Mr. Wakley) hoped it might prove a source of torment to him before he had done with it. He hoped the House would express some sentiment on the question at issue between the petitioners for this bill and the vestry. The petitioners to the bill had met in private; they had not dared to call one public meeting. The vestry was a popular one elected by bal- lot; every rate-payer had a right to vote, but a qualification for vestrymen was necessary; and so it was, that out of 120 vestrymen, sixty were noblemen or gentlemen of liberal professions; yet the vestry did not work well. Was the hon. Gentleman opposite aware that the vestry to which he belonged, bequeathed a debt of 120,000l. to the present vestry, who had reduced that debt to 53,000l., and had reduced the rates from 4s. 4d. to 3s. in the pound. The fact was, however, the vestry had committed two unpardonable offences in the eyes of the supporters of the bill— they had attended to the wants of the poor, and had obeyed the law. Those were the grave and unpardonable offences they had committed. If the House permitted the second reading of this bill without one word being addressed in favour of it, they would be despised by the people. This case really did demand the attention of Parliament, and he implored hon. Gentlemen opposite, before they gave their votes, to reflect well on what they were doing. They called themselves Conservatives, and he could not object to the term at all, because he was as anxious as they were that everything should be preserved that was good, at the same time that everything should be destroyed which was bad. But what kind of conservatism was the support given to this bill? Hon. Gentlemen opposite conformed to the Reform Bill, and the Reform Bill gave two Members to Maryle bone—the gallant Commodore and another hon. Gentleman. There was a furious contest at the election for the borough, and those two hon. Gentlemen were returned to that House. Did either of those two hon. Gentlemen support that bill? No. The parish was represented in that House, but both the representatives were hostile to the bill, and yet the hon. Gentleman expected his supporters to vote for it. That was not the way to support the Reform Bill, and if that were the nature of the support they could all calculate what would be its fate, if they had the opportunity of destroying it. This case ought to impress upon Members of the House the necessity of looking at private bills. The present bill proceeded from a reckless band of parochial jobbers. The old defective and incompetent vestry, who wished to get a reinstatement into power, and to defeat the authorities of the parish who had violated no law—had obeyed every legal enactment, and bad managed the affairs of the parish in a frugal and prudent manner. But, says the hon. Gentleman, have they not been exposed in the newspapers—have not condemnatory paragraphs appeared against them? Yes, they have, and be hoped that the hon. Gentleman did not know the author of them. There were hon. Gentlemen opposite connected with literature, and they must know how easy it was to get inflammatory paragraphs into newspapers. There was no difficulty in that. But where were the facts—were there any facts? The hon. Member said, that the mode of election ought to be changed, and he complained that there were five places fixed where parties could poll, while the law only gave the power to appoint four inspectors—in fact, that there was one limb of the system incomplete. What was the hon. Gentleman's demands? Why, to cut off the other four. That was bad surgery—and he could tell him that, as a professional man. He trusted the House would reflect on what they were asked to do in this case, and unhesitatingly reject the present bill. He was in the parish of Marylebone almost every day, and was in the habit of meeting hundreds of the rate-payers, and he could declare positively that he had not found a single individual who supported the bill, or believed that there was the slightest necessity for the introduction or adoption of that measure. Had not the hon. Gentleman some misgivings as to the motives of those who prompted him to introduce the bill? There had only been one small skirmish, and yet he says there are two parts of the bill which he consents to give up. One of these was a nice little job for giving a treasurer 1,000l., in order to provide for some cousin or relation, or some noodle who could not get his living by his own ability; the other was the qualification, and the present bill proposed that the qualification should be raised from 40l. to 60l., and no person could act as a guardian of the poor who had not 60l. a year. He hoped and trusted that the hon. Gentleman, and those who prompted him to bring in this most flagitious and flagrant bill would be defeated, and that it would be rejected by the House of Commons.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had stated that no persons in Marylebone were to be found favourable to the bill, but he had met with several who supported it; and the only question now was as to the details. A bill had been passed forty-seven years ago on the subject, and certain other acts had been passed to explain that bill. Then came the act called Hob house's Bill, and then the Police Act, and then Mr. Taylor's Act, all of which affected the provisions of the original bill; and, in consequence, forty-eight clauses of it had been rendered useless. He was himself a recent ratepayer, and he could find nothing definite on the subject, unless he went through the various bills. With respect to Hobhouse's Bill, it required eight inspectors, and appointed five polling places. The next thing was, that the auditors of the parish were in alms-houses, and he asked if that did not require alter ration. With respect to the vestry the inhabitants of Marylebone had been obliged to file a bill against it, and they succeeded.

said, that the old vestry had left a debt on the parish of 168,000l., and that the present vestry reduced it by 53,000l. On what just grounds then, he wanted to know, should they seek to turn out the vestry which had effected so much good.

said, that there were two or three parishes in the borough which he had the honour to represent, which felt deeply interested in the measure; and he trusted he would therefore be allowed to say a few words upon the subject. He would first state his doubt as to the accuracy of some of the statements made by the hon. Member for Lymington. He understood that the facts mentioned by the hon. Member were not facts at all, but were mere statements taken from an article in the Morning Post. He trusted that the House would not be led away by accusations of that kind. They were now called upon to repeal an act, under which the parish of Marylebone had been well governed, and a large part of its debts paid off; and they were asked to pass the present bill, which was called a private bill, but which in reality materially affected public interests and great principles. The bill under their consideration contained 275 clauses, and it was impossible that the House could now be prepared for entering into a full consideration of their merits. If they assented to the second reading of the bill, they would subject the parish of Marylebone, and the parishes of St. James's and St. George's, Westminster, to very great and needless expense; because he could assure hon. Members, that though the bill was now read a second time, there would not be the slightest chance of passing it through committee before the end of the Session, in consequence of the opposition it would meet with, and the number of clauses it contained. It would therefore be a mere waste of time, and be only to send the bill before a committee. He believed the bill had been got up by a few interested parties, who wished to see restored the old self-electing vestry system. The measure was not called for by the parish at large, and, instead of doing good, he believed it would create a great deal of mischief. It appeared to him to be a mere caricature of legislation, and he hoped the House would not consent to the second reading of such a bill.

asked, whether it were intended to lay a duty on the importation of metallic tin; whether a duty were to be laid on foreign copper ore imported for smelting; and, if so, whether the duty would apply in proportion to the metal contained in the ore, or merely on the value of the ore as imported?

said, that metallic tin had been omitted from the tariff by error. It was intended to alter the present law, which admitted metallic tin at a duty of 2l. 10s. the cwt., to 10l. the ton, or 10s. the cwt. A higher duty was imposed on the importation of tin, in proportion to other metals in the same state of preparation, on account of the duty levied for the duchy of Cornwall. With respect to copper ore, it was intended to do away entirely with the system of smelting in bond; and to make all ores liable to a duty of 5 per cent, ad valorem, whether imported for exportation or consumption. With respect to the other question put by the hon. Member, it was intended to take the 5 per cent, duty on the ore, and not on the copper extracted. As might have been expected, there were one or two errors of the press in the tables which bad been printed; and with reference to the fourth schedule, relating to seeds, he might mention that it was intended to continue the duty on linseed, rape, and flax at 1s. per quarter; and on gypsum, or plaster of Paris, the present duty would continue.

said, I rise to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite of which I have given notice. I shall punctiliously adhere to the practice of not introducing any matter for discussion, but confine myself to what is merely necessary for the purpose of explaining to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman the object of my question. The House will recollect that, in the full statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to the House on Friday last, there was one point—and I do think one point only—on which he afforded to the House no information, and that is, the machinery which he intends to employ, and the powers which he means to exer- cise, for the collection of the tax which he proposes. A question was put to the right hon. Baronet, for the purpose of eliciting this information; but there was an evident wish not to press him to make further disclosures on that occasion. I do think, however, that this is a point on which the public have a fair right to be heard, and with that view I venture to put a question to the right hon. Baronet, for the purpose of remedying the omission in the announcement which he has already made. I do not wish the right hon. gentleman to go through all the small details of his arrangement; what I wish to hear from him is, some information as to what forms the essence of the tax now before Parliament, because I apprehend that, in all taxes, an essential subject of consideration is the mode in which they are levied; and the question, whether a tax is good or bad, is, whether it takes money out of the pockets of the subject in a convenient or inconvenient manner. I wish, therefore, to ascertain what is the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce; what are the powers he intends to give to the officers employed under this system; whether those officers are to be commissioners; what is the mode of investigation (for that is one of the main points) to which the party who is obliged to pay the tax will be compelled to submit, and what is the mode of compulsion proposed to be exercised towards any person who refuses. I do not wish to detain the House, but I was desirous merely to state what my view was in asking this question. I do trust that the information I have sought will be afforded, more especially after the announcement you, Sir, have made from the Chair, that after the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is once before the House, our doors will be shut to any petition or remonstrance that may come from the country as to this tax.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has put to me seven questions, to which he requires an answer. As I stated to the House, I shall bring forward a measure embracing the general principles which I have already disclosed, and on which the present Government proposes to found a bill for the purpose of supplying the enormous deficiency which has been occasioned by the disproportion which has been suffered to accrue between the revenue and expenditure. In the bill for raising the property-tax, there are about 218 clauses; and the right hon. Gentleman thinks it convenient for me to state, in answer to his question, what is the general purport of those clauses. Consistently with my public duty, I do not feel I could give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman without entering into explanations which cannot be properly made in replying to a single question, or a series of questions. The House, I am sure, must feel, that it is extremely difficult for any one who labours under the responsibility of proposing a great measure to Parliament, and upon which it is of the utmost importance that the intentions of the Government should be kept perfectly secret as regards its operation on the commercial and manufacturing interests, to disclose the principal provisions of his scheme in an imperfect shape before Parliament. The records of whole proceedings of the old property-tax commissioners were destroyed by a vote of this House. Almost all the officers employed under it have ceased to exist. I do not deny the importance of the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman's question applies, and I think the machinery under the proposed tax a question of grave consideration. But it is the first privilege, as I hold it, of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to have an opportunity of explaining in detail the provisions of an all-important measure of this nature. It is perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to debate this question on Friday; but I do not think it fitting that I should explain, in answer to a mere question, what are the general provisions of a bill so complicated as one for levying a tax of this nature must be. I must, therefore, beg leave to decline answering the question of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, that as the right hon. Baronet objected to state, in answer to a question, the nature of the machinery he proposed to adopt, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would take some mode of giving the required explanation before the House was called on to discuss the measure; because it appeared to him that the propriety of granting or refusing the tax turned to a considerable extent on the nature of the machinery to be employed for its collection. It was a little too hard that they should be expected, after hearing for the first time on Friday next what the machinery was, to give a vote, in a few hours afterwards, which, if once given in favour of the proposition, so far committed the House that no further petitions on the subject could be received. He, therefore, wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would object to take some mode of explaining the nature of the machinery he proposed to employ, so as to allow some interval of time to elapse before the House was called on to vote upon the proposition?

said, that the noble Viscount and every hon. Gentleman would have the fullest opportunity, during the progress of the bill, of discussing the matter if the machinery should appear to them unsatisfactory, or so unsatisfactory as to constitute a fatal objection to the measure. Acceding to the preliminary resolution would not bind the noble Viscount to support every part of the bill. He was sure the House would not expect, in reference to a bill which might contain about 218 clauses, any Member should be bound to all the details. He would at the earliest period, whenever there was an opportunity of entering into an explanation (but not in answer to a question), state to the House the general principle on which he proposed the machinery should be constructed. He would do so when he had an opportunity of replying to the comments that might be made by various hon. Gentlemen, but not when he was limited to a mere answer to a question.

said, that as the right hon. Baronet had alluded to a bill with 218 clauses, he wished to explain that all he asked for was the principles of his proposed machinery. Mr. Pitt, when he announced the income-tax, thought it his duty on that occasion to explain the principle and mode of levying it. He certainly did not think he had asked an improper question.

apprehended, that Mr. Pitt made his explanations in the committee on the bill, and not in answer to questions. The right hon. Gentleman would be at perfect liberty to ask for details on Friday next; but how was it possible for him to enter into explanations of the sort required, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's seven questions, as to who were to be the commissioners, what powers they were to exercise, what officers of excise or other department were to collect the tax, what powers each were to have, and so forth?—Conversation at an end.

begged to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the British and Portuguese Commission had effected any settlement of the claims of the Portuguese Auxiliary Legion, and whether any division had been made of the funds allotted to that purpose? He regretted to say, that most of the men who had engaged in the expedition were at the present time in utter destitution, and that many of the officers were suffering extreme privation.

assured the hon. and gallant Officer that he sincerely sympathised in the misfortunes of those concerned in the Portuguese expedition. The commissioners had already adjudicated on many of those claims, and he hoped that before long the rest would be settled. With respect to the question put by the hon. and gallant Officer as to the division of the money, he (Sir R. Peel) was unable to afford an answer. The recent disturbances in Portugal had interposed some obstacle in the way of a settlement of the claims referred to, but he hoped that before long they would be completely adjusted.

inquired, whether the Secretary for the Home Department had made an inquiry, or whether with or without inquiry, he had received information on the subject of certain charges made against the chaplain of Salford Gaol, Mr. Bagshawe.

said, that he had received from the chaplain of Salford Gaol a letter contradicting in the most positive terms the charge that he had on more than one occasion preached sermons offensive to the feelings of the Roman Catholic prisoners. He thought the hon. Gentleman opposite must have made his statement under some misapprehension.

said, that as he regarded the question put by the noble Lord opposite, with reference to the ease of the rev. Mr. Bagshawe, as put against himself, he would trouble the House with a short explanation of the facts on which his statement was made. No one would wound the feelings of another with more regret than himself, and if he found that he had unintentionally done so, he should always be ready to offer an apology and any reparation in his power. But before he considered it due to make this apology and reparation, he thought it was but right to find whether or not it really was due. He must be satisfied that he had misrepresented before he made an apology for misrepresentation. His hon. Friend the Member for Kendal had told him the other day, that a correspondence was going on upon the subject of the charges which he had preferred against Mr. Bagshawe; and in consequence of this he had made further inquiries, and he would read to the House the result of those inquiries. In the first place, he would read a letter from the rev. Mr. Macartney, a Roman Catholic clergyman, who was licensed by the Bishop of Lancashire to attend gaols, and give spiritual advice to the members of the Roman Catholic communion within his diocese:—

said, that he had on former occasions abstained from mentioning names, but he would then observe that the Rev. Mr. Macartney was as respectable a man as any among the Roman Catholic body. He should give notice that after Easter he would bring the case of Roman Catholic prisoners confined in gaols within the united kingdom before the House.

merely wished to state to the House, that the Gentleman respecting whom this discussion had been raised had thought it his duty, through him, to deny the matters of fact charged. There were three charges respectively made against the chaplain. First, with reference to the permission given to Roman Catholic priests to attend prisoners, the chaplain declared, that it was not the part of the chaplain to admit, or to exclude, or to send for any Roman Catholic clergymen; but, at the same time, he stated the case of two men who had committed to the gaol for burglary, who appeared not desirous to see their priest as a minister of religion, which would have been authorised according to rule; that so far was the chaplain from preventing the admission of such clergyman, that he told the prisoners if they wished to communicate with him, they would be allowed to do so. He was informed there was no answer. He had to add, on the part of the chaplain, that these charges had come before him merely from what had accidentally passed in that House, and that he was otherwise totally unaware that such complaints were to be made against him. He would further beg to state, that there had been a unanimous resolution come to by the visiting magistrates of the gaol—a body of gentlemen of various political and religious opinions—acquitting the chap- lain of blame; and the governor who was by his duty compelled to be present at the sermons which were preached, and who was a dissenter, averred that the rev. gentleman had never made sermons of a controversial character. This was the resolution of the magistrates:—

"Resolved, that after diligent inquiry, it is the opinion of the visiting justices that the charges against the chaplain are unjust, and they consider the rev. gentleman has always displayed a most benevolent spirit; and also, that they can find no instances in which the application of a Roman Catholic prisoner to receive the visits of a minister of his own communion had not been acceded to."

He had produced this document to show that if there was a statement on one side, there was a counter-statement on the other; though he was unacquainted with the rev. gentleman himself, yet he had understood from one of the visiting justices that he bore a most irreproachable, character.

begged to ask his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Chippenham, (Captain Boldero), whether it was the intention of the Ordnance Department to issue muskets with percussion locks to the 6,000 troops who were about to be sent out to India? And also, whether it was the intention of the same department to issue the same species of muskets to the depots which were to form the new battalions for the colonies.

said, that the Ordnance would be able to furnish the troops with effective and efficient percussion arms. With respect to the second question, he had to state that when the battalions were formed, it would be necessary to furnish them with the same description of arms, and it would be done.

wished to know whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had given directions for the payment of a sum of 2,000l. to the Dublin Royal Society, and whether it was proposed to take this money out of the civil contingencies; also, whether the Government approved of this course being taken without the certainty of the House sanctioning it?

said that her Majesty's Government did intend to move a vote for the usual grant. He did not then know what would be the precise amount, but it would be in the nature of an advance on account.

brought up a bill for making further provision for the holding special petty sessions.

said, that seeing the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. G. Bankes) and the Secretary for the Home Department(Sir J. Graham) in their places, he wished to call their attention to an important point in the administration of justice, which had been mentioned to him as occurring on the Western Circuit at the present assizes. Since the Prisoner's Counsel Bill had passed, there had been a disposition, and properly so, on the part of the judges to avoid the examination of witnesses against the prisoner, lest, on reexamination, after the prisoner's counsel's cross-examination, they should be compelled to assume a tone apparently more unfavourable to the prisoner than was consistent with the strict impartiality of the bench. And the judges had introduced a practice of throwing down briefs to counsel desiring them to conduct the prosecutions; but, as counsel had a laudable habit of never doing anything for nothing, the county of Dorset had been charged a guinea in each case. The magistrates had felt it a great grievance that they should have to pay for promoting the ends of justice, and had endeavoured to evade it by a practice entirely subversive of the very principles of justice — the committing of prisoners over the assizes to take their trial at the next ensuing quarter sessions, these magistrates actually thus incurring the additional expense of prison maintenance for the interval rather than pay counsel their guinea fees, and keeping prisoners in confinement for an unlawfully long period previous to trial. He had always considered the commission of the judges to be one of gaol delivery, and that they were bound to deliver every prisoner in gaol. He therefore said, that it was unsound in principle, and unjust and unconstitutional in practice, to commit prisoners over the assizes to take their trial at the ensuing sessions. He moreover understood that in one case in which an immediate trial was applied for to one of the judges, it was not granted without the imposition of certain conditions. He, therefore, thought it right to call attention to the subject, and he trusted if the right hon. Baronet was not able to do so at present that he would make inquiries and give the House some explanations respecting it.

said, that it was in his power to give an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, though not to the full extent which he required. He (Mr. C. Buller) had not stated the grounds of the information which he had laid before the House, nor whether he had any better information than the public at large received from the newspapers of the day. His (Mr. G. Bankes's) attention had been directed that afternoon to a statement in the Morning Herald, which certainly contained a charge to the effect adverted to by the hon. and learned Member. But he should conceive that his hon. and learned Friend's practice and experience might have satisfied him that the statement, as it had been published, could not be true; because it was well known that the magistrates could not (even had they had the disposition so to do) prevent prisoners from taking their trials at the assizes, as the judges had not only the full power of general gaol delivery, but the imperative duty imposed upon them of effecting that delivery; so that it could not be supposed that the judges should have neglected the performance of so plain a duty, in the discharge of which the magistrates had no power whatever to interfere. He thought, therefore, that on this point there must be some misapprehension in the statements. Now, as to the other points, it had been observed by the magistrates of Dorsetshire that the expenses of the prosecutions had increased most enormously; and he, as chairman, had requested of the treasurer to furnish him with a comparative statement of those expenses; that return evinced that the average expense of a prosecution at the sessions was about 6l, 10s.; whereas, the average expense of a prosecution (for a similar offence) at the assizes was not less than 16l.10s. A great degree of this enormous increase arose from those fees to counsel to which his learned Friend had alluded It was true that the judges had generally consigned the prosecutions to counsel, and at first—not that counsel refused anything, but a guinea fee had been offered,—in a short time, however, this fee had increased from one to two guineas; then other fees to solicitors and expenses of briefs were added, till at last these expenses amounted to 3l. or 41. in each case. Now, certainly, the magistrates had respectfully requested of the judges not to require the service of counsel except in such cases as it was necessary. For this the magistrates had been assailed by strong paragraphs in the newspapers, representing them, because they wished to save the rate-payers unnecessary burdens, as sordidly disposed to obstruct from views of expense, the due administration of justice. But surely it was not more than fair to represent to the judges, as he (Mr. Bankes) had respectfully done, that if they, the learned judges of the realm, required the aid of counsel, much more must the less learned and less experienced magistracy require such aid, which, if applied in all cases, would involve an expenditure utterly unsustainable by the counties. Already the expenses of prosecutions were heavy enough. On the particular inquiries which had been made he would certainly direct investigation; but he was persuaded that no such practice could prevail as had been alluded to by his learned Friend, for anxious as the magistrates were to prevent the burdens of the ratepayers being unnecessarily increased, they never could have descended to indirect or improper means of relieving the country of such charges.

said, to show that he had not over-charged the statement, he begged to read an extract from a letter of a barrister on the western circuit, from whom his information had been derived:—

"Application was made to the court of quarter sessions that some prisoners might be sent to trial at the assizes instead of being detained till the next sessions, and the application was acceded to on condition," &c.

The application was acceded to.

Yes; but the existence of the practice of keeping prisoners over the assizes is clear, else why have a special application for their trial at next assizes?

Inquiry shall certainly be made into the subject.

said, he had to make an inquiry of the right hon. Baronet as to the Income-tax—whether he proposed to levy the tax on pensions secured on the consolidated fund by acts of Parliament?

said, he apprehended that as salaries of public officers—so pensions —would be subject to the tax. But really so many questions were administered to him on the subject, that desirous as he was of answering all proper enquiries, he thought it would be best if the hon. Member postponed his question.

said, perhaps as the debate was to come on on Friday, and people had hardly time to judge which way they ought to vote, the right hon. Baronet would allow him to put the question tomorrow?

Certainly. If the hon. Member had given me notice I should have been able to answer him to-night.

said, it must truly be very annoying and perplexing to the right hon. Baronet to suffer such questioning. The best way to get rid of it, however, would be to abandon the Income-tax and propose a property-tax.

said, he wished to ask a question of great importance to those trading in the Chinese seas. He wished to know whether the Government had made up their minds permanently to occupy the island of Hong Kong.

We are still engaged in hostilities with China, and the hon. Gentleman asks me whether the Government have made up their minds to permanently occupy the island of Hong Kong. I must decline to give an answer to such a question.

rose, according to notice, to move a resolution to the effect, that her Majesty may be graciously pleased to continue the inquiries made in foreign countries as to the efficacy of the Quarantine system, and to carry out any negociations which may have for their object such modifications as are consistent with the public safety and the interests of commerce. Also, to lay on the Table of the House, any correspondence, or extracts of correspondence, which has taken place since the last papers were ordered for presentation. He knew the subject was not of an entertaining or at- tractive nature, but it was of great importance, and he besought the patience of the House whilst he laid before them the grounds on which he proposed this resolution. A doubt as to the infectious character of plague, had been prevalent for some time previous to 1815, when a committee of the House was appointed to inquire into the allegations of Dr. M'Lean, a physician of eminence, who had written much to prove, that the plague was not infectious, and that quarantine laws were unnecessary and mischievous. That committee reported that it was not advisable to repeal those laws. In 1822, another committee was appointed, which made at least one important concession, that since the year 1665, there had been no instance of infection from plague in England, though plague existed, and was annually reported in the bills of mortality, for very many years after that period. In 1838, the subject was brought before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and that important body referred it to the medical section, which recommended, that an attempt should be made to induce the Government to appoint a commission for the purpose of prosecuting and completing a thorough investigation of the subject. The question had lately acquired great importance, and when he considered the position of Egypt, which stood midway between this country and its possessions in the East, and that in British India there existed no quarantines or lazarets—no impediment to the communication of travellers, or the conveyance of goods — he thought the fact was strong against the system. There was no difficulty in the way of a person travelling through Egypt to Bombay, Madras, or other parts of India. In the East Indies the opinion was against the doctrine of contagion, and it had never been averred, still less proved, that any evil consequences had resulted from the total absence of quarantine regulations in British India. If you start from Egypt or Turkey, towards the east, there are no lazarets—no impediments to your progress—and no mischief from the absence of those precautions, which the credulity of Europe had provided against the invasion of the plague. Had India suffered in consequence? She was rid of the vexations and the expense of the quarantine system, yet was more secure from the plague than the countries which had imposed upon themselves the burthen of quarantine establishments. The in- quiries made in British India led to a conclusion, that the establishment of quarantines was DO security whatever against the progress of the plague. He understood, that when the plague appeared in Northwestern India a few years ago, a medical commission of five gentlemen was appointed by the Indian Government, who unanimously report against the introduction of lazarets upon our Indian frontier. They were not introduced—the cost and the annoyances were avoided—and their absence instead of an evil, was a positive benefit. Now, if the plague require no lazaret-precautions in the east — if such precautions are both useless and pernicious why should they be employed in the west? It is obvious, that the quarantine system is a great embarrassment to commerce, and that the pecuniary losses caused by it were beyond the power of accurate calculation. But they were enormous. He had heard the annual loss from the quarantine system estimated at between two and three millions, and he believed if the losses in the Mediterranean were added together, they alone would make up that amount. And now look at the absurd consequences of the existing system. If two vessels started from the same port, and one of them occupied two months longer than the other in this voyage, they were subjected to the same quarantine, though it was well known that the longer the vessel was at sea the less was any plague likely to be conveyed by it. But the length of the voyage reckoned as nothing, the quarantine counted from the time of the arrival in port. To the losses occasioned by delay, by fluctuations of markets, by deterioration of cargoes, are added another loss, that of quarantine detention, which, in a variety of cases, was a gratuitous infliction of injury. Every body allowed there was some period beyond which there was no danger from the development of incipient plague. All our legislation was grounded upon the supposition that after a certain absence from the seat of supposed contagion there was nothing to be feared. Sometimes the distance was great, sometimes it was small, but that consideration was wholly lost sight of when we reckoned the days of quarantine from the time of the arrival in the port of destination, and not from that of departure. He begged to read an extract or two from a letter written by one who was a high authority—Captain Basil Hall, and written at Malta:— "On the morning of the 7th of this month (September, 1841), we sailed into Valetta harbour in company with the Vanguard, 80, from Candia. As we were from England we got pratique at once, but the poor Vanguard, though fully as healthy as we were, and coming from a place as healthy, was put into quarantine till the 23rd, that is for seventeen days. In the meantime she had to refit, and within two days after she got pratique she was sent to sea in company with the Indus: the officers and crew of one ship having enjoyed all the advantages of the shore, the others having been kept close prisoners. It is much to the credit of both men and officers, the patience with which they submitted to these severe and totally unnecessary privations. I need not speak of the extreme inconvenience of refitting a ship under quarantine, arising out of the difficulty of getting new stores and returning old ones; but every one knows the irksome delays which are caused thereby, and the consequent retardation of the service. It does not signify to say that this is of little moment just now, for it is impossible to say when the time may arrive when it is important to re-equip our ships smartly. And I can assure you it is bad policy to try the patience of the sailors too long when in sight of the good things of the shore, with no better reason for their detention on board than some fantastic fears of an antiquated Board of Health-office. Rear-Admiral Sir John Ommanney, in command of the Mediterranean fleet, sailed from Corfu on the 19th of last month (August) in company with the Howe and Ganges, and the Cyclops, steam-frigate. The steamer being sent on ahead, arrived on the 23rd at Malta, and was put into quarantine for seven days, that is to say, she got pratique on Sunday the 29th. The admiral arrived on the 26th, and, as a matter of favour, he was subjected to six days' quarantine only. Still it was not till Tuesday, the 31st, that he could land, two days after the junior officer, who had sailed with him at the same hour, was walking about on shore. On Saturday, the 28th of August last, her Majesty's steamship Stromboli sailed from Beyrout, and reached Malta on the 2nd of September. She was placed in quarantine, which lasted eighteen days, including the day of arrival and that on which she got pratique —viz., the 19th instant. Her Majesty's ship Powerful sailed from the same port (Beyrout) within twenty-four hours after the Stromboli, but not having steam to help her, she did not arrive till the 18th at Malta, that is the day before the Stromboli got pratique. The Powerful's eighteen days then commenced, and they will not expire till the 5th of next month (October)! The Powerful had no sick on board, had touched nowhere, and was in all respects as healthy as the Stromboli, and yet, although she sailed within one day of the other ship, she is 'tabooed' for nearly three weeks time after her consort was let out of this terrestrial purgatory! At any time this would have been irksome, but just at the period when it occurred it was attended with great inconvenience to the public service. The Britannia, bearing the admiral's flag, being ordered home, it was necessary to shift the flag into some other ship; for various reasons the Powerful had been assigned for this purpose. Had the admiral himself gone into the new ship, however, he would have been imprisoned, of course; so he went on shore, while his captain went on board, in exchange with the captain of the Powerful, who, by going into the Britannia, necessarily put that ship into quarantine, while the secretary, clerks, and other persons attached to the admiral's staff had to repair on board a steamer, the Gorgon, till the embarrassment caused by all these restrictions should be over. There surely is much tomfoolery in all this, for there seems to be no good reason why a ship of war might not work out her quarantine time at sea as well as in port. It is stated by some, that there are many families supported at Naples, Leghorn, Marseilles, and elsewhere, solely by the salaries derived from the quarantine, and paid for by the unfortunate ships forcibly subjected to its tyranny. If this be true, as I really believe it is, I am convinced it would be money cheaply spent to pension off every soul of these functionaries and their children to the third and fourth generation; for the delays, loss of markets, and the numerous other evils to commerce which attend the system—to say nothing of the intolerable personal annoyance, the absolute imprisonment, the inquisitorial discipline, the smoking, and other mockeries, called, forsooth, purification, are of such number and extent as to render the whole utterly inconsistent with, and even quite repugnant to, the sentiments of the age; and I do earnestly hope, that by patience and perseverance, you will get it done away with. A very intelligent Maltese, high in office here, remarked drily enough to me the other day 'One of two things must happen, either the quarantine laws must be done away with, or the march of intellect must be stopped.'" The hon. Member then proceeded to read a communication from Sir J. Ommanney, stating many particulars illustrative of the irregularity of the practice respecting quarantine in the ports of the Mediterranean, showing the injury to commerce, the great inconvenience to merchants and other persons frequenting those ports, and proving the tyranny and the frauds which were perpetrated under the pretence of enforcing those laws. The information which he had received upon the subject entitled him to say, that a prodigious number of individuals were employed to carry into effect the laws relating to quarantine, and that their sinister interests operated most materially in maintaining a system which ought long since to have been abolished. The social position, the opulence, the influence of a great number of public functionaries were intertwined with the maintenance of a state of things at once oppressive, expensive, and unjustifiable. Considerable salaries were paid to the persons so employed, but he must be allowed to say, that he thought exemption from the annoyance of quarantine regulations would be cheaply purchased if the persons to whom he referred were pensioned off to the third and fourth generation. For any purposes of protection against the plague, those people were wholly useless, and there could not be a greater mockery than the modes of purification which they adopted. Fumigation, change of garments, bathing, and various other ceremonies were employed as securities against a disease which if it existed at all, must have possession of the human frame, and certainly not be removable by the removal of vestments, or external transformations of any sort. It was worthy of observation, that in those ports of the Mediterranean which were not under the government of Austria, the regulations were more strict; while in those which were, those regulations had been considerably relaxed; yet there was no reason to believe, that the people in the latter class of ports had found any cause to regret the less stringent practice of their rulers. He hoped and believed, that the opinions which he entertained upon this subject were shared by many hon. Friends of his in that House, and he thought he could confidently appeal to those around him to confirm the views and sentiments which he had thought it his duty to express. He knew, that there were many in that House who could bear testimony to the miseries and the privations to which a despotic, uncontrolled, and most irresponsible power subjected them when visiting ports were those absurd regulations prevailed. Amongst the mischievous absurdities of the system he might notice this, that if a man wanted to proceed from Algiers to Malta, the easiest mode of accomplishing his object would be to go in the first instance to Toulon, and thence take his passage for Malta; because though the British authorities imposed a quarantine on vessels from Algiers, the French allowed them free pratique. From the correspondence which he held in his hand, were he to read the whole of it, the House would see, that even the Government of this country was interested in putting an end to a system clearly inter- fering with the intercourse subsisting between them and their agents and allies. Official dispatches were opened, perforated with awls, incised by chisels, dipped in vinegar, and subjected to a variety of absurd modes of purification, and at length transmitted to their destination in a mutilated, and scarcely legible condition. There was no doubt that political objects were sought for in the maintenance of quarantine in the east; and it was equally certain that political interests were promoted by them, and that these, and not the health of nations, were the principal motives for the great severity with which the regulations were enforced abroad. See how quarantines and sanatory regulations are trampled on when they interfere with political objects. There is in the Levant correspondence lately published, a letter from Mr. Wood, the British consul at Damascus in the following terms:—

had no objection to offer to the motion. He was prepared to lay the papers desired by him on the Table of the House. He suggested the proper form in which to shape the motion would be an address to her Majesty.

said, that the public, and the commercial world in particular, were greatly indebted to his hon. and learned Friend for the ability and research he had brought to the discussion of this question. As a commercial man, he had long witnessed with regret the inconvenience and sacrifice entailed on the public and on commerce by this absurd system, which he believed to be founded entirely on prejudice and delusion. He trusted, that the time had now arrived when public opinion, aided by science and inquiry, would put an end to the absurdity. The suggestion of the right hon. Baronet was adopted, and motion agreed to in the form of an address to her Majesty.

considered it his duty to call the attention of the House to the present unfortunate position of the Church of Scot- land, and he begged to assure the House, that he did so in no spirit of partisanship, or from any spirit of party—he did it from a sincere feeling that the circumstances which had now existed for some years in that country with which he was so intimately connected were most detrimental to the Established Church, to the people, and, unless they were put an end to, they would tend most eminently to break down the best interests of society. He felt compelled to call the attention of the House to the subject, in consequence of the very unsatisfactory answer given by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in the first week in the Session to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Perth (Mr. F. Maule). The right hon. Baronet then said, that it was not his intention to legislate on the subject, or, if he did, he would give ample notice of that intention; nor was he prepared to pledge himself to support any effort at legislation on the part of any hon. Member. Living as he did in the very centre of the heats, the animosities, and the confusion caused by the present state of the law, he could conceive nothing so derogatory to the station to which he had been elevated by his constituents, as to sit down silently when he had an opportunity of bringing the state of that unfortunate Church under the consideration of the House. He was not going to enter into an historical detail of the circumstances which had placed the Established Church in Scotland in her present predicament; but he was prepared with documents to show, that there were persons of great weight in the country, who had expressed themselves with admiration of that establishment—persons who thought it was an establishment worthy of the utmost protection of the law. In the report of a committee of which the right hon. Baronet was a Member, it was stated, that they had in the course of their long and laborious duties,—

"Become impressed with no feeling so strong as that of veneration and respect for the Established Church of Scotland."

And in the progress of the debate which followed the right hon. Baronet said, he considered that establishment as a most important and useful instrument for propagating true religion, and securing the peace and welfare of society. Now, was that an establishment which ought to be allowed to exist in circumstances that must destroy her usefulness? It was not for him to point out any particular line of duty which the Government or the Legislature ought to adopt; but he would say, that it was necessary, absolutely necessary, that there should be some legislation on the subject, and that without the least delay. Hon. Gentlemen generally might be aware, that the Church in Scotland was established under the 10th of Queen Anne in 1711. That act regulated the manner in which ministers were to be inducted to their parochial charges. That act was carried into execution for many years without question; indeed, until the right of patronage was called in question, and an anti-patronage society was formed in Scotland in 1824. The members belonging to that society increased greatly within the next ten years, and in 1834 the General Assembly of the Church passed what was called the Veto Act, for the purpose of giving the people a voice in the choice of their ministers. That act was wholly inconsistent to, and could not co-exist with the law of Anne, and ever since that year there had been no peace in Scotland. Was it possible that the Government and the Legislature would allow Scotland to remain year after year under circumstances which were tending to shake the very foundations of society, under a state of things in which the people became lawbreakers under the sanction, and in the company of their ministers? He was not pressing the question on the attention of the House without being backed by high authority. The Earl of Aberdeen, on March 31st, 1840, said,—

"It appeared to be so clearly the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to undertake to propose measures to Parliament upon such a question—it was one so immediately affecting the peace and good order of the community, that he took for granted, that the responsible advisers of the Crown would not abandon a duty so imperative."

And again, on the 19th of June, in the same year, he said, in speaking of the case of the Strathbogie ministers,—

"This is a state of things which he thought justified their Lordships and the country in looking to her Majesty's Government for some interference or redress."

These were strong expressions, and they had fallen from one who was now her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But he had another authority, and it was one whom he could never name without a feeling of deep respect—he alluded to the Duke of Wellington. In the same debate the noble Duke said,—

"That such a state of things ought not to be allowed to exist, and the whole weight and influence of the Government ought to be exercised to put an end to it."

He was fortified then by strong testimony, and he did not think after citing such opinions any blame attached to him for calling the attention of the House to the subject. Many hon. Members present would recollect, that it was in the cause of a presentation to the parish of Auchterarder, that the ecclesiastical and the civil courts first came in collision. That case was long litigated in the civil courts, and upon the question of the temporalities an appeal was had to the House of Lords, where the judgment of the civil court was affirmed. The next case which arose was, that of Marnoch. In that case there was the settlement of a minister against nearly the unanimous wish of the parishioners, without any reference to the act or the orders of the General Assembly. Then followed the deposition of the seven clergymen by the General Assembly for disobedience to the orders of that, the highest ecclesiastical court. The consequence was, that that court conceiving that they had a bounden duty to perform, and according to the ecclesiastical law, appointed ministers to preach the gospel in the seven parishes. Those ministers did not preach in the churches, because the civil courts prevented that, but they preached in other places, to the great scandal of the people. This collision between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities had a tendency to produce upon the minds of the people an effect which they could not but lament. It led to a disregard of the law of the country; men were undecided whether or not they ought to obey the law; and were such a state of things allowed to exist, the worst consequences would ensue. He might be permitted to allude to one circumstance respecting this dispute, which had reference to Dr. Candlish, a minister of Edinburgh, one of the most learned and eminent men in the church of Scotland. That gentleman was on the eve of being appointed to the chair of Biblical Criticism in the University of Edinburgh, when it was discovered that, in conformity with the orders of his ecclesiastical superiors, he had gone into the parish of Huntly, and had there performed divine service in opposition to the interdict of the Court of Session. Dr. Candlish was, compelled to make his election whether he would act in opposition to his ecclesiastical superiors or to the law of the land; he chose to obey the directions of his ecclesiastical superiors, and in consequence of adopting that line of conduct he did not receive his appointment to the chair of Biblical Criticism. Dr. Candlish was, he believed, with the exception of the deposed clergymen, the only person who had suffered punishment—if he might use that term—for his opposition to the civil law in this contest. He thought that this question ought long since to have received the serious attention of Government, with a view to its final decision. He regretted that her Majesty's late advisers had not taken measures for the early settlement of these unfortunate disputes, and he thought they had acted injudiciously in neglecting to do so. He was also of opinion, that it would have been well had the right hon. Baronet now at the head of her Majesty's Government brought this subject under the consideration of the House at an early period of the Session. The next case to which he would call the attention of the House, was one which had recently occurred in the parish of Culsalmond, in the presbytery of Strathbogie. There being a vacancy, Mr. Middleton, a gentleman who had acted as assistant-minister in the parish, was appointed by the patron. The presentation was opposed by the people; but the majority of the presbytery obtained the assistance of the civil power, the sheriff, ma gistrates, and police officers, and proceeded to the settlement of the presentee. This proceeding took place on the 11th of November last; and a riot was the consequence, of which the church was the principal scene. Information of the occurrence was forwarded to the Home-office, by whom an investigation was directed, which took place on the 21st of December; and the result was, that four persons, including a minister, were committed on the charge of riot, and were now, he believed, on bail to appear before the Court of Justiciary for trial. He thought both parties might be chargeable with acting inconsistently; but he mentioned these facts to show the working of the system which now existed. In the parish of Glass, in the presbytery of Strathbogie, the clergyman had lately died, and the Duke of Richmond, who was the patron, had appointed a Mr. Dubois as his successor. This appointment had been regarded with dissatisfaction by the people, and there was reason to suppose that the settlement of the minister would occasion some commotion. In consequence of this apprehension a number of her Majesty's troops had been removed from Huntly to Glass, a distance of thirty or forty miles, in order to repress any disturbance to which the settlement of the minister might give rise. He was aware that it was necessary that the civil power should be protected; but he would ask if such a state of affairs as this ought to be permitted to continue? The settlement might in this case be accomplished without any popular commotion which might require the interference of the military; but there was no doubt that if Mr. Dubois was inducted he would be deposed by the general assembly, and it was absolutely necessary that it should be decided how far the power of the patron could be controlled by the assembly, or whether he could exercise that power independently of its interference. He himself was the lay patron of two parishes, and certainly, if he should have the opportunity of doing so, he would exercise his right of presentation, and if the General Assembly deemed it their duty to suspend the parties he might present, he would take measures to vindicate his privileges. There were, he believed, at this time seventy parochial ministers in Scotland under the ban of the General Assembly, in consequence of their having opposed the claims advanced by the Assembly in reference to this question. The feelings of the people of Scotland, he could assure the House, were strongly excited on this subject, and they were most anxious to learn what course it was the intention of Government to pursue. He might observe, that the general impression in Scotland was, that when the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) occupied the post of Secretary of State for the Home Department, he exercised the right of patronage to which he was entitled by virtue of that office in a most judicious and satisfactory manner. As related to the parish of Elgin, which more particularly formed the subject of his motion, he must say that the people, in the appointment of the minister, had not been treated with the consideration that was due to them. When the vacancy was declared as about to take place, four-fifths of the communicants sent him (Sir A. Leith Hay) a memorial, requesting that a particular clergyman might be appointed as their minister. He transmitted the memorial to the Secretary for the Home Department for the time being. Coming to London soon afterwards, he went to the Home-office to ascertain what effect the appeal had produced. He was met by this answer: "We have received your memorial; but there is no vacancy." This was in August last, when the late ministry were on the point of leaving office. The moment that he received this reply he sent to the Tiend's Court in Scotland to ascertain whether the vacancy had taken place or not. It so happened that the clergyman who was to make the vacancy in Elgin had been removed to another parish; and the presbytery, whether by design or otherwise, put off declaring the vacancy until the present Government came into office. The majority of the proprietors of Elgin, and the majority of the town council also, petitioned the Minister of the Crown for the appointment of the same person in whose favour he had previously transmitted the memorial. A short time after the vacancy had been declared, he wrote to ascertain what determination her Majesty's Ministers had come to. He received an answer, stating that they were not prepared to say what step they intended to take. He never subsequently wrote to them upon the subject, believing it would be useless. He heard reports that another person was appointed, and at length it appeared that a person really was appointed—a person wholly unknown to the inhabitants of the parish—a person whom none of them had ever previously seen. This showed a strong determination on the part of the Government not to comply with the wishes of the people. In other parishes appointments had been made in the same manner in direct opposition to the feelings of the inhabitants. In one case the patron of the parish having recommended a person to the right hon. Baronet, he (Sir James Graham) for a long time returned no answer to the letter of the patron, but desired the Presbytery to examine into the character of the individual recommended, and give him information as to his feelings and principles. And what did the right hon. Baronet then do? Before the report of the Presbytery could reach him, the presentation was sent down, but not to the person for whom the patron, or for whom the majority of the parishioners, wished. He found no fault with this step. He did not say that it was not a judicious one. His desire was, that every possible concession should be made to the wishes of the people. He did not stand up for the intrusion of Ministers into parishes, contrary to the religious feelings of the people; and he thought the people of Scotland were competent to judge who should be their spiritual guides. But while he said this, he had no hesitation in adding, that as he had been, so he should continue to be, a strenuous advocate for the support of the law, as long as that law existed on the statute book. But there was no reason why the statute book should continue to retain a law that was inconsistent with the good of the country. It was said, if the statute of Anne were repealed, what would be substituted? and would he place the whole power of the appointment of ministers in the hands of the people without any control whatsoever? His answer was, that he would support no such system, but he would give the people their undoubted right of a voice in the appointment of their Ministers. He had felt it a duty to bring this subject before the House. If the Government thought that the evils of the case would cure or ameliorate themselves—if they thought that, by any possibility, the feelings that had been stirred up in the minds of the people of Scotland would be calmed down and done away with, without legislative interference, they laboured under a grievous error. The question might certainly have been settled two years ago much more easily than it could now. But he had no doubt that a Government so powerful as the present could, if it made the attempt, effect a settlement of the question in a manner correct as regarded the law, equitable with regard to the courts, and judicious and satisfactory in the eyes of the people. If he had not taken the course pursued by him to-night he should have thought that he was not fulfilling his duty; and if the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had been present, he should have asked him for his support. He should have asked the hon. Baronet for his support as a means of preventing the foundation of the Church establishment from tottering. He would point out to the hon. Member, that while the Government and the Legislature were looking on at the conflagration, some of the burning embers of discord might fly across the Tweed, and might produce fatal effects in England. He would conclude by entreating the right hon. Baronet to proceed to settle the question boldly, calmly, and firmly—leaning neither to the opinions of the over zealous and presumptuous, nor to those of ultra-liberalism, but to effect a settlement accordant with the dictates of reason, justice, and common sense, and the people of Scot- land would be ready to support him. The hon. Member concluded by moving,

"That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, copies of correspondence in the Home Office since the 1st day of July, 1841, relating to the appointment of a minister to the vacant charge of the parish of Elgin."

assured the House that he never approached any subject with a greater consciousness of the important duty he had to perform, than that to which he was now about to address himself. For he felt that a heavy responsibility rested upon him, lest any thing that fell from him on that occasion, should have the effect of aggravating the mischief, and increasing the danger which unhappily existed in reference to the question which the hon. and gallant Officer had brought under the consideration of the House. He confessed that when the hon. and gallant Officer gave notice of the motion, he had very great doubt as to the course he should probably pursue; for he could not help remembering that upon former occasions he and the gallant Officer had very much agreed in their views upon this subject. He remembered particularly that in 1834, when Sir George Sinclair brought forward his motion, the hon. and gallant Officer was one of the most strenuous opponents of the doctrine then put forward that the appointment of the Minister was in all instances to be governed by the expressed opinion of the majority of the inhabitants. He remembered that on the 9th of June, 1834, the hon. and gallant officer expressed in very strong terms opinions with which he then coincided, and to which he was still disposed to adhere. On the 9th of June, 1834, the hon. and gallant Officer said that he had several petitions entrusted to him to present, all praying that no alteration might take place in the present law of church patronage in Scotland, that he was certain, notwithstanding the outcry raised on the subject, that all the more rational and more numerous portion of the inhabitants of Scotland were not only attached to the Established Church, but also that the way in which the establishment was conducted was most just and satisfactory. That was to say, that after the veto had been passed by the General Assembly, the hon. and gallant Officer was perfectly satisfied with the mode of inducting ministers—with the manner in which the patronage of the church was exercised—with the whole state of the law, and with the way in which it was executed. Upon the present occasion the hon. and gallant Officer had passed a glowing eulogium upon the Church of Scotland. He was not a member of that church; but, from his earliest youth, living near the borders, he had had opportunities of observing the influence of the Scottish church upon the people of Scotland, and he was bound to say that he could never speak of that church but with heartfelt respect. He had seen its ministers content with moderate endowments, active in the daily performance of their parochial duties, and sedulous in the prosecution and advancement of a happy system of parochial education. He thought that parochial duties so performed by an honest and upright ministry, had produced a most salutary influence upon the character, morals, and habits of the people of Scotland, and if he could ascribe to any one cause so general a good, he should say that to that influence might mainly be attributed the high moral and trustworthy character of the people of Scotland, which made them one of the finest races of men to be found in the range of the whole civilized world. He entertained, therefore, towards the Church of Scotland the strongest and warmest feelings of respect. But, at the same time, he was bound to admit that an unhappy division had arisen in its bosom, which had made a rent in the sacred edifice, and he agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer, that it was hardly possible to overstate the degree of danger which would result if the present state of things were allowed to continue. Upon all those points he agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer, but then he must say, having listened with all the attention in his power to the speech of the gallant Officer, that he had never in his life heard an address which gave him less satisfaction. The gallant Officer stated, all the difficulty and danger of the case, said that things could not be allowed to remain as they were, and that it was indispensably necessary that something should be done without the delay of another day. But what course did the hon. and gallant Officer recommend as the best to be pursued? Something he said, must be done consistent with justice to all the parties concerned; something that should produce peace, harmony, and content, in the midst of all the disorders which had sprung up. But what that "something" was to be the hon. and gallant Officer did not give the House the slightest inkling or sight of. The hon. and gallant Officer talked of the late Government, and referring to the speeches made by the Earl of Aberdeen, the Duke of Wellington, and the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Government, he let drop an expression in which he very much agreed. The hon. and gallant Officer said, that this question might have been settled two years ago much more easily than it could, possibly, be settled at present. In matters of this kind, time, no doubt, was everything. That which it was possible to do in a case two years ago, might, by the lapse of time, be rendered impossible and impracticable in the existing day. The hon. and gallant Officer referred to what the Earl of Aberdeen said; but he omitted altogether to refer to what the Earl of Aberdeen did. The Earl of Aberdeen not only advised the late Administration to attempt to settle this question—not only exhorted them to make an effort for that purpose; but upon their declining to propose any legislative measure, introduced a measure himself with the hope of bringing about a settlement of the question. He must say, that the experiment so made by his noble Friend, was not in its result very encouraging. The Earl of Aberdeen endeavoured so to frame his measure as to satisfy the just expectations of all moderate men. The result, as often happened in moderate councils, where adverse parties entertained strong and violent opinions was, that the moderate party in Scotland turned out to be the weakest, and the measure did not receive support. What was the observation of the Duke of Wellington, when the subject was under discussion in the House of Lords in 1840? The noble Duke said,

"If moderate councils are attended to, it will not be difficult to settle the question; it is because moderate councils are not attended to that the difficulty arises."

His right hon. Friend now at the head of the Government said, in the same year, that an attempt should be made to settle the question before the end of the Session, and he exhorted her Majesty's Government to make the effort. Finding that the Government declined to do so, his right hon. Friend and himself became parties to the introduction of the bill proposed by the Earl of Aberdeen. That measure, as he had already stated, did not succeed. In the following year, 1841, no advice was pressed upon the Government to interfere in the matter by any legislative enactment. The hon. and gallant Officer now said, that the question was, whether the law was to be obeyed or not, or whether it was to be allowed to remain in a doubtful state. He agreed with the hon. and gallant officer, that that was the true question to be considered; and it was the firm conviction of her Majesty's Government that the law must in the first instance be obeyed. It was the firm resolution of her Majesty's Government steadily to act upon that principle, and without violence, but with a fixed determination to insist on obedience to the law. The hon. and gallant Officer had made another remark, which was exceedingly apposite, as following the observation he had just made. The hon. and gallant Officer said, that the Veto Act could not co-exist with the act of Anne. It must be borne in mind, that that which was called the Veto Act was not an act of the Legislature. The Ecclesiastical Court of Scotland, some years ago, adopted a form of discipline, popularly called the Veto Act, which had subsequently been declared by the Civil Courts of that country, and by the House of Lords in the last resort, to be illegal. He agreed, therefore, with the hon. and gallant Officer that the Veto Act could not co-exist with the act of Anne. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer, that the Veto Act could not co-exist with the law of patronage; and it was the duty of the Government to see that the veto of the General Assembly did not prevail over the law of the land. The hon. and gallant Officer said, that it was necessary to legislate promptly upon the subject, and asked, whether it was the intention of the Government to delay legislating upon it. He begged to ask the hon. and gallant Officer wherein existed the necessity for legislation? He took it, that the law of the land was sufficient to attain all the ends that could possibly result from additional legislation. The veto had been pronounced to be illegal. If there were any doubt upon certain points of the law of the land, they were now in a fair way of being settled. Actions of the greatest importance arising out of this controversy were at the present moment pending in the courts of Scotland; and the decision of those actions, by competent tribunals, would go far to clear up the state of the law, so that if there were any instant of time at which it would be more particularly inappropriate than another to embark in a coursé of legislation upon the subject it was the present, pending the decision of the questions now in the course of litigation. The hon. and gallant Officer would appear to insinuate, that whilst the Government hesitated as to the course it would pursue in respect to legislation, there was something variable and uncertain in their conduct which had led them into acts of indiscretion and injustice in several particular instances, out of which very serious disturbances had arisen. He could only say, that in all these cases her Majesty's Ministers had acted uniformly upon the principles they had laid down as the rule by which their conduct should be governed upon this subject; in every instance, the regular legal proceedings had been adopted, and all necessary steps taken to prevent a breach of the peace. The hon. and gallant Officer referred particularly to the case of Elgin. He was certainly surprised to hear that the hon. and gallant Officer had any objection to make to the course which her Majesty's Government had pursued with respect to the appointment of the Minister in that case. It appeared, that there was a decided division of opinion in Elgin as to the person who should be appointed to the vacant benefice. That being the case, he acted upon the principle laid down on a former occasion by the hon. and gallant Officer himself, and concurred in by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and finding that the parishioners were divided as to which of two particular clergymen should be appointed, be appointed neither, and nominated a stranger. That stranger, he was happy to say, notwithstanding the previous heat that had existed, had succeeded in restoring a feeling of harmony to the parish. He was prepared to say, that every effort had been made by the Government during the recess, as before in 1840 by the Earl of Aberdeen, to try whether any declaratory law could be framed, which might satisfy the reasonable expectations, and which might receive the general support, of that portion of the community in Scotland who felt interested in the subject. Having reason, however, to believe that no such measure could in the present temper of the people of that country be produced with any fair prospect of success, the Government had come to the decision, deeply regretting the necessity which had compelled them to do so, that it was at present most advisable for them not to attempt legislating on the question, and that it was incumbent on them to stand by the law of the land as laid down by the civil tribunals of the country. This was the decision which the Government had come to, after having given the subject their best consideration and reflection, and, for his own part, he could not reconcile it with his sense of duty to take any other course. He agreed with what had fallen from the noble Viscount at the head of the late Government. He was prepared to stand by the law of the land, and to defend the opinion of Government on the responsibility of Government, nor could he consent to the delegation of that responsibility to a committee. Believing that the hon. and gallant Officer had brought forward the motion merely that he might have an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on the subject, it was certainly not his intention to assent to the motion.

said, that he also was prepared to stand by the law of the land, but he took a very different view from the right hon. Baronet, of what really was the law of the land in relation to the Church of Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member, in introducing this motion had opened up a wide field, and as Government had intimated their intention of not legislating on the subject, pending the questions before the Court of Session, he was afraid, that the present occasion would be the only opportunity afforded him, during the present Session, of expressing his opinion on this important subject. In entering on the question, he begged to remind the House, that a party in Scotland—since party they chose to call it, but which he denominated the Church of Scotland-maintained, that by the statute-law of Scotland, from 1567 down to the present time, the Church of Scotland, by her Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assembly, possessed a distinct, independent, spiritual jurisdiction, secured to them by various acts of Parliament, and by the Act of Union—a jurisdiction with which neither law nor Parliament could interfere. With the permission of the House, he would very shortly trace the various statutes through which this power had been conferred on the Church. In 1567, the first care of the General Assembly was to secure the establishment of the exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Church Courts in spiritual matters, and they addressed certain articles to the Scottish Parliament. One of the articles was to this effect:—

"That to this our kirk be granted, and by this present Parliament confirmit, sic free-some privilege, jurisdiction, and authoritie, as justly appertains to the true kirk, and that na other face of religion be permittet; and that na jurisdiction ecclesiastical be acknowledgit within this realme, other than that quhilk as sal be within this kirk, or flows frae the same."

This, evidently, formed the basis of the act of 1567, in reference to which he begged the attention of the House to the extract he was about to read. It begins:

"Anent the article proponet and given in be the kirk to my Lord Regent, &c, anent the jurisdiction justly appertaining to the true kirk, &c."

The enactment is:—

"The Kingis grace, with auise of my Lord Regent and thre estatis of this present Parliament, hes declarit and grantit jurisdictioun to the said kirk, quhilk consistis and standis in preicheing of the trew word of Jesus Christ, correctioun of maneris, and administratioun of holy sacramentis: and declaris, that there is na other face of kirk, na other face of religioun, than is presentlie by the favour of God establischeit within this realme, and that their be no other jurisdictioun ecclesiasticall acknawledgeit within this realme, other than that quhilk is and sal be within the same kirk, or that quhilk flowes thairfrae concerning the premisses."

In this manner was the Presbyterian Church first established as the law of the land. The act 1579, in the sixth Parliament of James 6th, repeats the above act; 1581 ratifies and approves all freedoms, whatever privileges or immunities given by his Highness, or his Regent, to the true and holy kirk presently established, and especially enumerates the act of 1567. Then came the act 1592, on which the Church founds her spiritual jurisdiction, and which repeats all the preceding acts relating to the Church. Chap. 116 of that act expressly enacts, with reference to a prior statute, as to the jurisdiction of the King and his courts, that it should—

"Noways be prejudicial, nor derogate anything to the privilege that God has given to the spiritual office-bearers of the Church, concerning heads of religion, matters of heresy, excommunication, collation, and deprivation of ministers, or any such like essential censures, specially grounded, and having warrant of the word of God."

It is true, that the same act, when appointing presentations to be directed to Presbyteries—

"With power to give collation thereupon and to put order to all matters and causes ecclesiastical within their bounds, according to the discipline of the kirk."

Adds this proviso, that they be "bound, as restricted to receive and admit" qualified Ministers presented by the lawful patron. Nor did their ancestors in those days not foresee in establishing such a jurisdiction the possibility that it might interfere with matters of civil right falling under the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The very next statute of that year, cap. 117, enabled the civil courts to give the stipend to the patron, enacting, as it did, that

" In case the Presbytery refuses to admit any qualified minister presented to them by the patron, it shall be lawful to the patron to retain the whole fruits of the benefice in his own hands."

The case of Auchterarder seemed to be here anticipated, for the statute clearly provided for the independent spiritual jurisdiction of the church to collate and ordain ministers on the one hand, while, on the other, it gave compensation to the patron for the injury which he might sustain in the rejection of his presentee. He thought, that that act fully established the independent jurisdiction of the church, and provided for the collision that had taken place. He might be told, that no case had ever occurred in Scotland, in which the benefice had been separated from the cure of souls, but—

"In the case of Culross, in 1748, a patron attempted, by bill of advocation, to stop the ordination of another man than his presentee, but the court unanimously ' refused the bill as incompetent.'"

Again, in the case of Dunse, in 1749, an application to a similar effect was made to prevent the moderation of a call at large, with which the court" would not meddle," because

"That was interfering with the power of ordination, or the internal policy of the church, with which the Lords thought they had nothing to do."

Accordingly, Lord Prestongrange, an able lawyer of that period, acknowledgesߞ

"There is no law in Scotland, no practice or precedent for an action before the Lords of the Session to compel a Presbytery to ordain the presentee—no quart impedit lies against them."

So also, Lord Kames—

"The person authorised by their sentence, even in opposition to the presentee, is, de facto, minister of the parish, and as such, entitled to perform every ministerial function. It belongs, indeed, to the Ecclesiastical Court to provide a parish with a minister, but it belongs to the Civil Court to judge whether that minister be entitled to a stipend, and the Court of Session will find that a minister wrongously settled, has no claim to a stipend."—(Law Tracts, Tract 7.

It would thus appear, that in 1749, the Court of Session recognised the independent spiritual jurisdiction of the church courts in the collation and ordination, and that all the court could do, when the civil right was interfered with, was to separate the fruits of the benefice from the cure of souls. He must admit, that it would be rather inconvenient to have one man drawing the stipend and another performing the spiritual duties; but such was exactly the state of the law in Scotland. That might be contrary to the notions which hon. Gentlemen opposite held of the establishment, but such was the way in which the question had been dealt with by the authorities of the land. He would just allude to what followed the act 1592. The latter acts of James, who endeavoured to restore prelacy, and the headship of the sovereign, were rescinded by acts 1649; and this act was rescinded by the act of Charles 2nd, 1662, establishing episcopacy. By the act 1689, episcopacy was abolished, and in 1691, the act was passed, which established the Presbyterian religion with all its privileges, and nothing occurred to interfere with this act until the act of Anne, 1711. There never was a law more foully imposed than the act of Anne. When he considered the character of those by whom it was passed, and the manner in which it was passed, he could not help feeling convinced that the opinion, pretty current at the time, had some foundation in fact, that the act of Anne was a deep laid conspiracy to overturn the Protestant religion in the country. That act passed so rapidly through the Commons, that there was scarcely time to communicate with the people in Scotland, in reference to it, and it was only when the bill was before the House of Peers that the general assembly had the opportunity of being heard against it. How was it dealt with in the Lords? Mr. Carstairs, one of the deputed ministers, was heard against the second reading, but the Lords took no time to consider his argument. The bill was read a second time, committed, reported, and read a third time in the same evening. Instead, therefore, of its being a well considered plan for the government of the Church, it appeared to him to be an act of treason and treachery to the people of Scotland, and a direct violation of the treaty of union. He considered that these were the strongest grounds for the repeal of that statute, but he feared that the principle of non-intrusion had now taken such root, that the mere repeal of that act would not prove satisfactory. He for one was not yet prepared to vote for the total abolition of patronage, but he was anxious to see the Veto Act of Assembly of 1834, or something tantamount to it, become the statute law of the land. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department could not, therefore, accuse him of not proposing a remedy. The right hon. Baronet was wrong in supposing that the decision in the Auchterarder case had settled the whole question in dispute. From the decision of Lord Cottenham, the right hon. Baronet might learn that only one-half of the question was decided in that case. But it mainly related to the civil side, and did not touch the spiritual jurisdiction of the church court. It merely decided that the presbytery ought to have taken Mr. Young on his trial. No more. And in consequence of their not having done that, he was entitled by the act 1592, ch. 117, to draw the fruits of the benefice. The question of ordination the church would never consent to refer to any civil tribunal, and in maintaining the spiritual jurisdiction of the church, the General Assembly had no doubt been actuated by a strong sense of duty, and not by any factious motives. Whatever might be done out of doors, he hoped the House would take the views of both sides into their consideration, and, without disparagement to either, judge fairly between them. He regretted, that the Government had not taken up the subject with the bold hand of legislation. How could they expect to tranquillise the public mind of Scotland on this subject by taking the course which they proposed, or how could they yield satisfaction to those who looked for some measure far more extensive than Government were inclined to give. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department stated, that he had had intercourse with various parties during the recess for a settlement of this question. He, believed, that when the right hon. Baronet had fully comprehended the terms of the non-intrusion party, the negotiations were broken off. He would never consent to see the rights of the people transferred to the hands of the clergy; he would rather prefer the absolute patronage of the patron. If they looked back on past times, when the schism took place in 1734, he thought they would perceive the great danger of another schism at the present time. The late Government had not proposed any settlement of the question, but they had studiously consulted the wishes of parishioners in the bestowal of their patronage, and they had only met with one or two difficulties during the time he was Under Secretary of State in the settlement of nearly one hundred vacancies. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, had alluded to the case of Elgin, and had told the House, that he had followed in the footsteps of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in filling up the vacancy. He would take the liberty to contrast the presentation to the same church by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, with that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in 1824, when he held the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department. He held in his hand a copy of a letter addressed on that occasion by the right hon. Baronet to Colonel Grant. It was to the following effect:—

"Mr. Peel presents his compliments to Colonel Grant, and has the honour of informing him that Mr. Peel must adhere to the decision which he has come to with respect to the church of Elgin. The course pursued on this occasion, has been the same with that which was pursued under similar circumstances in the year 1818. In that year Colonel Grant forwarded an application from the magistrates and the town council of Elgin in behalf of Mr. Gordon, which application was attended to. On the occasion of the late vacancy, a memorial was forwarded to Mr. Peel, signed ' in name and by appointment of the town council of Elgin,' by the Provost, recommending the rev. Alexander Walker. This memorial bears date the 1st July, and up to this day, when he received Colonel Grant's letter; no intimation has been made to Mr. Peel that the proceedings of the town-council were not perfectly regular. In addition to the memorial from the town-council, Mr. Peel received a letter from Lord Fife, in behalf of Mr. Walker, in which Lord Fife stated, that he was chief heritor of the parish of Elgin, and that his family possessed half the parish. Under these circumstances, Mr. Peel conceives it would have been a departure from the principles on which the Crown usually acts in regard to church preferment in Scotland, if the application on behalf Mr. Walker had been rejected. Mr. Peel must add, that he received assurances from very disinterested authority, that Mr. Walker's character was perfectly unexceptionable."

Such was the very creditable way in which the right hon. Baronet had filled the vacancy in 1824; but how had the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, proceeded in regard to the same parish? A petition was presented to the right hon. Baronet, signed by three-fourths of the communicants, heads of families, by all the elders, except one, by the magistrates and town-council, by a majority of the burgh proprietors, and by six out of the eight landward heritors of the parish, representing a valued income of 4,682l. out of 6,329l. All these persons petitioned for Mr. Stewart, but notwithstanding this the right hon. Baronet had given the appointment to Mr. Wylie. How, then, could he be said to have followed in the footsteps of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth? The right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department said, that Mr. Wylie had been harmoniously received. He was glad to hear of it; but in reference to what had taken place in the parish, he thought that, on the whole, the non-intrusionists were rather to be praised than blamed. He could not tell what would be the result of Mr. Wylie's appointment, but he believed, that the non-intrusionists were about building a new church for the minister of their choice. In regard to what had taken place at Cupar, he must say, that he could not approve of what had been done. Mr. Birrell died suddenly at Cupar, while acting as clerk of the Presbytery meeting, on Tuesday, 1st February. Mr. Birrel was buried on the 7th February, and, on the 8th February, his successor was appointed, contrary to all precedent and to the practice of the Home-office, considering the great excitement existing on the subject. This hurry had left an indelible impression of feeling against the right hon. Gentleman, which he would have been sorry to have incurred. But the right hon. Gentleman's rule seemed to be in no case to attend to the wishes of the parishioners. If the right hon. Gentleman did not hold that opinion, he would be glad if he would give some evidence to the contrary in his public acts, for, with the exception of Locklee, there had been a studious indifference in all cases to public opinion. His hon. and gallant Friend had alluded to several cases, and he said, that if all the cases were examined, the General Assembly and the Commission of the General Assembly would be found to have bowed to every decision of the superior courts in civil cases; they had only differed in those cases where the Civil Court intruded within the pale of the Ecclesiastical Court. He held, that the Ecclesiastical Courts had never interfered with the civil rights, and he was ready to maintain that opinion of the ablest lawyers in Scotland. With these opinions, he could not regret that his hon. Friend had brought forward the motion, though he knew that in the shape in which it stood it could not be granted, the documents moved for not being in possession of the Home-office, because it had given full opportunity for discussion.

said, that this question was one of so much importance, that he wished to trouble the House with a few observations. No man could be so ignorant of the state of the country to which it referred as to imagine that it interested the inhabitants of that part of the empire only; that the sacrifice of the vested interests of the patrons of Scotland would not be fraught with danger to the interests of the patrons in England, or that the Established Church of Scotland could be overthrown without the Church Establishment of England being shaken by the fall. It was immaterial to inquire whether the Church was at first ruled by bishop or Presbyters, or to allude to the cruelties inflicted on the Church of Scotland by the Episcopal party, or the treasons of the Knoxes or Melvilles of the other. The question here was one of fact and of law, and so it should be looked at. When he heard the hon. Member for Perth quote the Acts of Parliament relating to the question, he (Mr. Cochrane) was curious to see how they could be made to support the opinions he advanced, for having looked most carefully at them himself, he could not but come to the conclusion, that they supported his view of the question, widely different as it was from that of the hon. Member for Perth. It was said, that they declared, that when the majority of con- gregations objected to a clergyman, that objection was conclusive without an appeal to the Presbytery. The first Act to which it is necessary to allude is that of 1567, which never received the sanction of the Crown; it was passed under the Government of the Regent Murray; it ordained, that the examinations and admissions only were under the control of the members of the Church, but the rights of patrons were strictly reserved. By the Act of 1592, presentations were directed to the Presbytery, with full power to collate, provided they admitted qualified ministers appointed by the patrons; if not, all the profits were to revert to the patrons. Then followed the Act of 1549, which also was passed at a time of rebellion. The Act of 1549 ordained, that the Kirk Session should elect the minister, and intimate their choice to the congregation; if a majority dissented, the presbytery were to judge of the same, and unless they found the dissent to be founded on causeless prejudices, another election was to take place. No absolute veto was given to the people by the Act of 1769, on the contrary, it expressly declares, "that if the presbytery disapprove of their minister, they are to give in their reasons, in order that the affair may be cognosed upon." The authority on which the Church of Scotland relied was their own books of discipline, which never received the sanction of the State. It was said, that although the spirit of what was denominated the "call" was lost, yet the form of it was kept up. But by preserving even the form, the Church of Scotland was acting in opposition to the acts of Parliament. The Act of Queen Anne expressly declaring "that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be continued to extend to repeal or make void the aforesaid Act of William and Mary, except in so far as relates to the calling or presenting of ministers;" besides, even if such had not been the case, a mere form could be accounted for little; it will be remembered, that until the union with Ireland the English Sovereign was termed king of France, and quartered the royal arms of that country, but no one would on that account urge pretensions to the throne of France. Lord Aberdeen had prepared a bill which gave full power to the members of the Church to make all objections to ministers, only providing that the reasons for refusal should be stated, and that the questions should be first referred to the Presbytery, and from thence to the Su- preme Ecclesiastical Court. This bill was rejected by Scotland. He was gratified to hear the determination of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, to adhere to the law, for the variances which arose between ministers and congregations were productive of great evil. Sir, I believe that no one who has paid any attention to the few observations which 1 have made, for I have attempted little more than to submit to the House a full statement of the facts of the case, can consider that the course at present pursued by the Church of Scotland is founded upon any law; it is to the law that the patrons appeal, it is by every consideration of justice, of public advantage, that they enforce their claims. The wild pretensions of the Scotch churchmen must at once be overruled, and the Court of General Assembly must learn to respect the majesty of the law. In truth, this is a question which cannot be lightly regarded or carelessly overlooked; you cannot postpone it for future consideration, each moment of delay increases the evil, and renders the remedy more difficult. In the nineteenth century a Church court has presumed to get itself in opposition to the State, to claim privileges unknown even in the worst periods of ecclesiastical tyranny. Mr. Dryden prophetically observed, that the time would come when

"The Presbyter puffed up with spiritual pride,

Should over the necks of the great nobles ride."

But even he never contemplated, that in times of peace and sunshine, the church would dare to over-ride the authority of the law. I, Sir, cannot forget, that it was owing to some of the members of the Church of Scotland that one Sovereign was driven to exile and death, while their descendants commenced that revolution which terminated in the martyrdom of King Charles the 1st. Years have not subdued their fanaticism, time has not served to appease their agitations, it is still carried on in a systematic manner, while every village and hamlet of Scotland is disturbed by conflicting interests, and party strife. It was but yesterday, that taking up a Scotch newspaper, I observed among the advertisements, "the Anti-patronage Catechism for the Young;" the circumstance of such a work being advertised for sale may in itself be of little moment, but still it serves to shew the feelings of the country, as a feather will tell how the wind blows. Dr. Chalmers has said a good deal about "peaceful parochial agitation," but I can tell him, that it is this which is ruining his native land, by setting landlord against tenant—minister against congregation. He would do well to remember the words of Lord Clarendon, "That men cannot so easily fix what they have unnecessarily shaken." "The law is to the church what the bridle is to the horse—the price of food and shelter." I would not, however, be understood to express myself in any manner against the doctrines of the Scotch church or its own interior discipline. There is a party still existing in Scotland, who, refusing all inducement, all temporary advantage, have ever remained true to their ancient faith, and worshipped the Lord after the manner of their forefathers. Such are Cameronians, otherwise called, the hills people, and in them we may well esteem the simplicity and unpretending character of their religion. But it is when men, who have sold everything to the patronage system, come forward to overthrow it; when they strike away the hand which has nurtured and protected them, that we cry aloud against ingratitude and deceit, and should determine to compel that obedience which is denied to us. By using energetic measures, by showing a fixed determination to uphold the vested rights and privileges of the Scotish proprietors, we shall find our efforts crowned with success in the destruction of that wanton insolence and inordinate ambition which threatens the religious welfare and moral happiness of the people.

expected that the first occasion on which he addressed the House he should be compelled most thoroughly to condemn the line of conduct her Majesty's Ministers were about to pursue. The right hon. Baronet had declared in the most emphatic terms that he would enforce the law against the Church of Scotland. He begged leave to tell that right hon. Baronet that he could not do what he had declared he intended to attempt. He defied him to do it. The united voice of Scotland would be against him; and he was convinced that on such a question Scotland would meet with the hearty sympathy of the rest of the empire. He earnestly requested hon. Members to divest themselves of any other feeling than the conviction that the present was a question of national justice. Those who, on the abolition of the Scotch Parliament, had entrusted the Presbyterian Church to the vast majority of Episcopalians in the united Houses, well knew and foresaw what must be the result. With respect to what had been said of such Reformers as Knox and Melville, he begged to assure the hon. Member that those names would be remembered when that of the hon. Member was utterly forgotten. The same hon. Member had said, that the people claimed the veto, and not merely that, but he had had the audacity to add that they claimed it without appeal. [Cries of "Order."] He would not, then, use the word audacity; but he would say, that the hon. Member had had the ignorance to assert that there was no appeal. He hoped that the House would excuse his warmth, for the subject excited the strongest feelings in Scotland. Scotch Members, therefore, ought to be borne with while discussing a topic of such vital importance, not only to the people, but actually to the cause of spiritual religion. After the declaration of the right hon. Baronet he felt bound to state his views. As a Conservative he had long held his peace, and had thereby suffered much in the opinion of many of his church friends. It was his hope, until he heard the right hon. Baronet, that a Government which on many occasions had acted so wisely would on this question have seen that their duty lay in the very opposite direction to that which they intended to take.

explained what he had meant to say respecting the veto. In 1834 Dr. Chalmers and others changed their views with respect to an appeal to the Presbytery, and the only hold now upon the majority was, that they were to declare that they were not actuated by political motives.

requested the hon. Member to examine the point again; if he did, he would find, that an appeal lay first to the Presbytery, then to the synod of the province, and finally to the General Assembly.

knowing the circumstances connected with the parish of Elgin, felt himself bound to declare, that no conduct could have been more calculated to throw oil on the animosity existing in the breasts of the parishioners, than that pursued by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department. The majority of the heads of families, by far the greater number of the most respectable inhabitants, were opposed to the views of the violent non-intrusion party. But his right hon. Friend, seeing that the great- est animosities would arise from the appointment of either of the candidates proposed by the different parties, appointed neither, and sought out a person who, he thought, was eminently qualified to perform the duties of the sacred office. He (Mr. C. Bruce) had had the honour of receiving a letter from his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham), in which he distinctly stated that no political considerations should ever influence his decision in appointing to the crown preferments in Scotland. He regretted to say, that Lord Fife had not acted upon the same principle, and had ultimately signed a requisition, which he at first refused to sign, with reference to the appointment of Mr. Stewart, through a desire to promote the views of some of his political friends in the borough. Had his right hon. Friend appointed the person named by the non-intrusion party, he would have offended a great majority of the parishioners. He had avoided that evil, and appointed a gentleman who he (Mr. Bruce) was happy to say had been received with great unanimity. No attempt had been made to exercise the veto against him, and there was every reason to believe that he would discharge his duty with advantage to the parishioners and the cause of religion. He believed, on the other hand, that political views and motives were discoverable in the conduct of the non-intrusion party, and apprehended that they wished to make the question one merely of a political character. Her majesty's Ministers were blamed for not bringing forward a new law on the subject, but he would ask what encouragement they had received to introduce a new law? Before it could be expected that Ministers would bring forward a new law, it ought to be shown that there was some chance that it would be obeyed. The General Session called upon the Government to pass a new law to enable them to settle this question; but before they did this they ought to have shown the Government that that new law would be obeyed, by their showing obedience to the law as it now stood. What was it that the Church of Scotland now made pretensions to? It was pretended that the ecclesiastical courts were possessed of a power — a power for which he never had heard any pretensions advanced by any reformed church, and only during the ecclesiastical tyranny of the tenth century—that they were possessed of a power to declare what was civil and what was ecclesiastical; and that they alone, and not the civil courts, were empowered to say what the interpretation of the law should be. What did that involve? It involved this—that an unfortunate individual might, on the one hand, be found guilty and punished for the violation of a law as interpreted by the supreme civil tribunal; while, on the other hand, he should be declared guilty of a violation of the same law by an ecclesiastical tribunal, which had, nevertheless, put a totally different interpretation upon it. This was no imaginary evil; for it had actually occurred in the case of the Strathbogie ministers. What had they been punished for? They had been punished by the Ecclesiastical Court with the highest, most cruel and most unjust punishment to which men had ever been subjected. He knew that many Scotchmen were afraid to declare their feelings on this subject. But if he were called upon to conceal his feelings, and his seat depended upon it, he should throw his seat to the winds, and do justice. Seven ministers of the presbytery endeavoured to evade obedience to the law; but, impelled by their consciences and by the declaration of the civil court, they did give effect, and they rendered obedience to the civil law and the statute law of the land as it stood now unrepealed. What happened? The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, represented by its majority—for, thank God! there was a large portion of that Assembly not affected by this strange infatuation—first suspended those seven ministers from their benefices, and finally deposed them from their sacred functions. And for what? Because they obeyed the civil law of the land, which they were bound by their oaths of allegiance to obey. This was certainly a state of things which ought not to be suffered to exist. He would not trouble the House with any arguments on the subject of the veto law, but would mention one instance to show how it worked. He knew of one parish with a population of 1,700, where the presbytery consisted of six old men, three of whom could not sign their names, and yet they, by the veto law of the General Assembly, had the power to reject the presentation of a person against whose character and attainments not the slightest objection existed, or was made in any of the competent courts. He therefore felt that her Majesty's Government were fully justified in the course they were pursuing; and that before any legislation took place upon the subject, the Church of Scotland must place itself in a position to render legislation of any avail. The hon. Member for Argyll had stated his views with regard to the condition of the Church in 1640. The writers in that period of our history, however, were entirely at issue with the hon. Gentleman. Dr. Chalmers had particularly dwelt on the dreadfully excited state of Scotland at that time, in consequence of religious enthusiasm, and the church feuds in which the then Duke of Argyle had borne so prominent a part. He could not but remark, that it was a rather singular circumstance that the lineal descendant of that nobleman should, at the present time, be also so warmly engaged in the advocacy of one of the parties to the existing dispute. However, he did not at all intend to impugn the motives of the nobleman he had referred to, who, he was convinced, was actuated by motives of the purest patriotism. Whatever might be his opinion on the policy of the matter, he was convinced the noble Duke had no other object in view than the promotion of the welfare of the Church.

wished to say a word as to a charge which the hon. Member who had just sat down had made against the character of his noble relative Lord Fife. The hon. Gentleman had said that Lord Fife had been actuated by political motives in the course which he had pursued with regard to Mr. Stewart. Now he (Mr. Duff) utterly denied the truth of that statement. It was entirely false, and the hon. Member well knew it to be false. [Cries of "Order," and "Chair."]

was sure the hon. Member would, on reflection, see that his language was quite unparliamentary.

would at once retract the expression he had used, and begged to express his regret for having so far deviated from the rules of the House. It was well understood, however, in the hon. Member's neighbourhood, that Lord Fife at all times carefully abstained from political interference: and he was sure that the hon. Member well knew that his noble relative would have taken no part whatever in the matter on any political consideration.

was quite aware that the hon. Member (Mr. Duff) did not, in using the word "false," intend to accuse him of making a statement which he did not believe to be true. He had made the statement upon authority on which he believed he could rely, that his noble Friend and relative, the Earl of Fife, had refused to sign a statement relative to the case of Mr. Stewart, and that the general impression was, that having so refused, he afterwards did sign it; and that it was believed he had been influenced to do so by a desire to forward the political views of the party to which the noble Lord was himself attached. He (Mr. C. Bruce) had stated this upon authority which he had every reason to believe, and which he did still believe, to be correct.

moved, that the House should resolve itself into committee, to take into consideration a resolution to permit flour, or flour and biscuit to be substituted for foreign wheat secured in warehouses.

said, the hon. Gentleman had asked him whether he should object to his (Mr. Hutt's) bringing in this bill, and having it printed and circulated throughout the country; to which he replied, that he had no objection, but, at the same time, he had not expressed in the slightest degree any approbation of the measure, or the least concurrence in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman. The House went into committee. In committee, Mr. Hutt moved the following resolution:—

"That the chairman be directed to move, That leave be given to bring in a bill to permit flour, or flour and biscuit to be substituted for foreign wheat secured in warehouses."

moved for a

"Select committee to consider the constitution and principles of the Church of Scotland, and to inquire into the causes of the collision between the Supreme Courts of that Church and the Supreme Civil Courts, and to report their observations thereon to the House; with power to send for persons, papers, and records."

He should not occupy the attention of the House for any length of time upon this subject, for the real object which he had in proposing the present motion was, to ascertain the feeling of the House upon it. He would venture to assert, that there were many hon. Gentlemen in that House representing English constituencies, who, notwithstanding the lengthened debate of that night, were still but slightly acquainted with the real merits of this question. He submitted to the House that they could adopt no better mode of getting rid of this difficulty, and of reaching the real merits of the case, than by agreeing to this motion. Such a course would at once put an end to all controversy on the subject, and he had the greater confidence in calling upon the House to adopt this motion, when her Majesty's Government had declared their intention not to introduce any measure upon the subject, asserting that the law of the land was sufficient to meet every difficulty which might arise. He thought, however, that when the courts of law in Scotland were at variance upon the effect of the existing statutes upon this subject, the House would agree with him that the time was come when the interference of Parliament was called for.

was one of those English Members to whom the hon. Member had referred, and he undoubtedly was free to admit, that he had gained little advantage from the debate of that night. He thought that it was highly desirable that the Government should accede to this motion, not only that what he was sure might be taken to be the prevailing ignorance which existed upon the subject might be removed, but that the whole question should be sifted. It appeared to him that the confidence of the country was wanted in the present law. The law which the Church asserted was said by the Civil Courts to be opposed to the statute law of the land. The General Assembly on the other hand contended, that the law set up by the Civil Courts was opposed to the fundamental laws of the Church, and to the Act of Union. The question of nonintrusion was sufficiently narrow and simple. It was allowed by the Civil Courts that the congregation had a right to reject a minister, But those Courts asserted that reasons must be assigned for the exercise of that right. But, he would ask, was it reasonable that that House which had a right to refuse its confidence to a Minister of the Crown, as he refused his to the right hon. Baronet opposite, was bound to give the Crown such reasons as would satisfy the Sovereign judicially, that the reasons were well founded? It was not sought to take from the patron the power of nominating, but to apply to it such checks as would require them to consult the wishes and the religious feelings of the congregations; and what in fact had been the working of the veto? Amidst all the excitement that had prevailed, out of two hundred and thirty appointments, only seventeen had been vetoed. He thought that if the Government would concede the point of non-intrusion, which the Church had declared to be one of her fundamental points of doctrine, that the question might be easily arranged. As to all claim of the Church to entire freedom from all interference of the civil jurisdiction, he thought that claim unmaintainable; but he thought the Government ought to concede the point of non-intrusion. He should vote for the committee.

said, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had declared that he had no confidence in the Government of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel). It was probable, however, that his confidence had been accorded to the Government of the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne), who had in the course of the last year quitted office. Viscount Melbourne, when this subject had been under discussion, had declared that he was perfectly satisfied with the law which regulated the Church of Scotland, and after all the discussions upon this question which had taken place, looking at the whole case, and at all the circumstances surrounding it, he (Sir James Graham) and his Colleagues had come to the same conclusion. It was true, that in matters of ecclesiastical law arising in Scotland, the General Assembly was supreme, and that in civil matters the Court of Session was supreme, and that these two courts were at variance upon this subject; but the House of Lords was the court of the last resort, and upon the decision of that House, which had declared the civil tribunal to have given the proper decision, and which had decided that the veto law was inconsistent with the law of the land, he was prepared to rest. Her Majesty's Government thought, that, entertaining this opinion, it was not inconsistent with their duty to resist this motion. But he begged the attention of the House to the form of the motion. It proposed a committee to inquire into the "constitution and principles" of the Church of Scotland. He thought that this was not a time to submit to the decision of a select committee a question involving the whole system of church government in Scotland, but that to accede to such a proposition would be inexpedient and highly dangerous. It was to be observed that it was not an inquiry into any law or any statute which was proposed, nor an investigation into any matter of fact, but the motion was for a committee to inquire into great principles recognised by the Act of Union itself; and therefore he thought that the House would agree with him that this committee should not be granted.

was perfectly able to reconcile the vote he was about to give in favour of the motion, with those Presbyterian feelings to which the right hon. Gentleman had appealed. He had come down to the House rather inclined to vote against the motion, but having heard the instructions of her Majesty's Government, and knowing the committee could only inquire into facts relating to the constitution of the Church of Scotland he should vote in favour of it. They could not give power to any committee to alter the constitution of the church in any way, because that was a power which the legislature itself did not possess. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the difference between the power of the Courts Ecclesiastical and Civil. He (Mr. F. Maule) thought it right that the public in England should thoroughly understand what was going on in the North, which they did not understand at present, although the effects of it might soon reach their own firesides. With regard to the Church of Scotland itself, he felt convinced that it was fixed upon such solid foundation that it would emerge from all its difficulties and be more triumphant than it had ever been, even in its brightest days. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that in the Auchterarder case the church had agreed to refer the question of jurisdiction to the House of Lords, and he said, that if the decision had been the other way, they would not have heard about it. The church had referred that question to the House of Lords only for the purpose of determining how far the Court of Law could go with regard to the temporalities of the living, and the moment that was decided to be a matter subject to the cognizance of the Civil Court, the church had succumbed and had directed the Presbytery of Auchterarder, not to take advantage of what had occurred. So far as this had gone they had bowed to the decision of the law, and would do so in all others relating to their civil rights. Then, again, a great deal had been said of the rebellion of the church and of the prosecutions of the seven ministers. Now what had those seven ministers done? Mr. Edwards had been presented by the patron to the living of Strathbogie; personally, he was unexceptionable, but having acted as a political agent in the parish, he certainly ought not to be appointed. The appointment was vetoed, and Mr. Edwards appealed to the Court of Session, to order the Presbytery to admit him, which they had no power to do. What did those seven gentlemen do? Did they appear in court? Did they appear to bow to the authority of the superior Church of Scotland? No such thing. They entered the Civil Courts, and by their own application obtained a decree against them, in order to that which they held to be necessary to their ordination. They could no more compel a Presbyterian to ordain any person, any more than a churchman. These men were ordained, and the commission of General Assembly proceeded to summon them to the court; eighteen months elapsed; every opportunity was given them to make an apology, but they did not adopt that course. The church had been driven from corner to corner by those who ought to protect her. He warned the Government that if they did not legislate on this point they must take the consequences that must ensue from the great confusion that must inevitably result from letting things remain as they were.

was surprised that the hon. Gentleman had said anything decidedly in support of the motion—and above all, after the time that he had been in office, and in an office so nearly connected with this subject—for a select committee, on the supposition that that would settle the question. It was the opinion of the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottingham), expressed on the motion of the Earl of Aberdeen on this subject, that it would be only a fruitless proceeding to attempt to legislate under present circumstances on this question. If, therefore, this was the opinion of the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged in 1840, and if they would not aid and support his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) in the plan which he proposed, and if they would not adopt or propose a measure of their own, because they thought that, in the then existing temper of the people of Scotland, it was impossible to settle the matter in a satisfactory manner, they might have adopted a proposition for a select committee, if they had thought proper, but they refused to do so. He must, therefore, express his surprise that, after the conduct of the hon. Gentleman on former occasions, and after the doubts which he had expressed in the earlier part of the evening, he should have lent any countenance to the present motion. If a Government wished to evade any difficulties on a question of this kind, or on any other, the best course for it to pursue was to go to a select committee; this was a temporary sort of arrangement, which was befitting a shabby Government. He attached great importance to the settlement of this question; and it was impossible, for too many reasons for him to state, not to do so. He was too deeply interested in the moral and social welfare of Scotland not to feel deeply any matter which must interfere so much with it, for before these unfortunate dissensions had arisen, he had enjoyed communications and feelings of uninterrupted harmony with that country. He apprehended that his right hon. Friend never intended to say, that be was satisfied with the state of things which existed with reference to the Church of Scotland, but that he had stated that, after having opened communications with all parts of the country, the impression in his mind was similar to that which actuated the predecessors in office to the present Government, namely, that there did not exist that feeling in Scotland which was likely to lead to a satisfactory settlement of the question. He would at once state, that, immediately after the present Government had been appointed to office, they took the subject into their consideration with the view to its settlement. As to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, that it was desirable that a select committee should be appointed, to allow English gentlemen to obtain information on the subject, he would only observe, that there were ample sources of information without resorting to such a means of obtaining it. If any hon. Gentleman wished to get information on this subject, he might, after reading the full and learned judgments before the Court of Session, and the arguments and judgments in the House of Lords, take up the multitudinous pamphlets written on the subject, and then he believed that he would find ample sources of information. When a similar proposition as the present was made to the noble Viscount the late head of the Government, he did not acquiesce in the proposition, but said that it was for the Government to determine when the time had arrived for legislation, and he distinctly refused to transfer the duties of the Government to a select committee. If the matter was referred to such a tribunal, witnesses would be called up, who would make charges of crimination and recrimination, and the result would only tend to prolong the unfortunate dissensions which now existed in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman saw any chance of quieting the disputes in the Scotch church, why not bring in a bill for that purpose? If, in the present temper of Scotland, he saw any opportunity for the adjustment of the question, why not bring in a measure for its settlement? If he thought a bill resting upon just principles would be accepted, would it not be better to bring such a measure forward, and submit it to the temperate discussion of Parliament, rather than bring up the contending parties to London, and enter into long details and counter-statements on either side of the question. He had no other motive in taking the course he was adopting than the settlement of the question. Its settlement would be a relief to Government. He believed that the appointment of a committee could produce no satisfactory result. It would widen instead of healing those breaches which already unhappily existed. He knew that, if he came down to the House and said that he bad nothing to propose on the question, but that he hoped the House would assist him by means of a committee in acquiring that information on which he might found a measure, he knew that were he to do so, he would be told that he was not acting as a minister or a statesman ought to act, and he felt, therefore, that as he could not agree to adopt such a course himself, he could not acquiesce in it when proposed by another. He hoped that the House would pause; he hoped that the House would look to the practicable results which could be expected to follow from the adoption of the proposition embodied in the motion before its notice, before it gave that proposition its sanction.

said, that there had existed no reasonable grounds for hoping that any measure which would have the effect of permanently settling the discussion, could be carried through when he was in office.

said, he would only detain the House while he read five lines of a letter he had received from a clergyman of the Scotch church, proving the interest taken by the people of Scotland in the success of his motion. The letter stated,

"Your motion is looked forward to with the greatest interest by every friend of the church, and I can only say, God speed you."

This was the alleged dismay with which his motion had been received by the people of Scotland. The party whose cause he advocated did not shun inquiry; they courted investigation, for their cause was the cause of truth. He did not bring forward a bill upon the subject, because he did not believe that it would experience fair treatment. What he wished for was a patient investigation into the merits of the question in the calm of a committee room, and he thought that the agreement of the House to his proposition would be only doing justice to the people of Scotland and to itself.

rose, in pursuance of a notice which he had given. He begged to say a few words relative to a declaration which an hon. Member, whom he did not then see in his place, had lately alluded to in that House. The declaration had been stated by that hon. Member to emanate from Manchester, and to be signed by seventy-two manufacturers residing there, who were subscribers to the Anti-Corn-law League, who in that document denied that they had employed the truck system in the payment of the wages of their workpeople, or that they paid them through any other medium than the current coin of the realm. Now he begged distinctly to state, that the hon. Member had been most fully deceived in the representations which had been made with reference to this declaration. Instead of those seventy-two signatures being the signatures of seventy-two manufacturers residing at Manchester, they were the signatures not only not of persons residing at Manchester, but of persons who were many of them not manufacturers at all. The first name on the list was the name of a man who had been proved to have paid his workpeople in milk, and who had also been convicted of gross tyranny towards his workpeople. In that list, too, were the names of five foreigners. Now, what right had those foreigners to come over here and subscribe to a fund which was raised for the purpose of stirring up excitement, setting class against class, and giving support to a party which already was endeavouring to overawe the Government? These persons ought to be aware, that by coming over here and carrying on their business, they were depriving the British merchants of their market; and because our merchants did not wish to dispute the right of these foreigners to pursue their avocations here, therefore they ought to remember the forbearance which was shown, and abstain from proceedings like those with which he charged them. He was quite sure that, if natives of this country went abroad and interfered as these foreigners had done, they would speedily come under the operation of the laws of the countries where they resided, and be obliged to leave. He protested, in the name of the workpeople of the North of England, in the name of justice and decency, against these proceedings. The House, he was sure, would visit with condign punishment persons proved to be guilty of the offences of which he complained, and as he was a living man he would use every effort to see such well-merited punishment inflicted. He begged to read a circular, which was dated "Manchester, March 5, 1842," and was signed "J. Higgins, secretary." The person who signed this letter was the secretary of the branch of the National Anti-Corn-law League established at Manchester, and the circular was forwarded to the members of the League. The letter was as follows:—

"Dear Sir,—It has been suggested that a declaration by the workmen on each establishment would tend to complete the exposure of Mr. Ferrand's charges; and as a discussion is likely to take place during the early part of the week, it might be well to direct the foremen of works to obtain declarations signed by a few of the men, on behalf of the whole, and to forward them to us at the earliest opportunity"

"Now where are those declarations?" exclaimed the hon. Member. "Have they appeared?—they have not; and what is the reason?—because the working men have at last shown a proper spirit. They have found that there has been a kind feeling expressed towards them in this House—they have, many of them, written to me, telling me so—they have rebelled against the attempt to make them sign what they knew to be false. This I can prove before any committee that may be appointed. They have had too much respect for themselves, and the position they hold, even as poor working men; they would not sign the declarations, which have not, therefore, been presented. And if they had been presented, I should have been ready for you. You cannot move an inch without my being ready to meet you; and in a way, perhaps, you may not be aware of. 1 have received another letter: listen as I read it, and say if there ever was—in a country professing itself the land of liberty—such a system of fraud and tyranny towards the poor as that which I am exposing. This is from a oor working man:—

"A statement was put into my hands (which I enclose) from one who holds a station in a cotton-mill, which enables him to know that men are compelled to sign declarations known to be false. Your exposures, Sir, have driven the grinding Anti-Corn-law Leaguers frantic, as they know every charge you have brought against them to be true. Your exhibitions of their fraud and tyranny have delighted working men of all politics, for they know how well founded they are; and they have gone far to abolish the infamous truck system, which is so notorious that the only wonder is, how Members can be hardy enough to deny it."

I have a further letter to read, still further exposing this accursed system, which prevails to a frightful extent, and has been carried on by men holding a situation in society which ought to have made them ashamed of such disgraceful proceedings. And I take this opportunity of repeating, that it is my determination fearlessly, in spite of all opposition, to do my utmost to ferret out the whole of this cruel, abominable tyranny, which is practised upon the working classes. I care not by whom—I care not to what party the guilty may belong—I have but one course, a fair and open one, to pursue; that is, to search out with determined resolution, as an independent Member—to search out and expose this system; and when the day comes, after Easter, when I shall move for the committee of inquiry, backed by the enormous mass of evidence which I am daily receiving; and when before that committee there shall come out all the robberies, and plunders, and oppressions which have been and are perpetrated on the manufacturing workmen, the complaints of these unfortunate men will find a response, not only within these walls, but throughout the country. Sir, a magistrate of Lancashire writes to me thus:—

"A friend begs to state a few facts. A great many convictions have taken place in this district within a very short period for a use of the truck system. At one village, where flannels are made, such is the extent to which it is carried, that a man has been known to go to a barber with a piece of candle instead of a penny, not having even that small coin in his It is hoped, that in order to a complete exposure of these practices, a committee of inquiry may be appointed."

I have, Sir, another letter from Chorley, where the hon. Member for Stockport's works are situated, and where he must have known, when the other night he so loudly denied the charges made, that the manufacturers were robbing their men most infamously. The writer says,—

"The magistrates have convicted some of the chief manufacturers here in penalties to the amount of 25l. for robbing their workpeople by paying them in goods instead of money."

The other night, the hon. Member for Stockport said, he had inquired whether in his mills or "printing works" the truck system prevailed, and that he had found it did not, whereas the fact was, that the hon. Member himself kept cows, and forced his people to buy milk from him. Sir, after the statements I have made, I am sure every one will see the propriety of facilitating the inquiry by furnishing the returns for which I beg to move—

"Copy of all the convictions in the counties of York and Lancaster by magistrates in petty sessions assembled, of persons who have been guilty of illegally paying the wages of their work-people in goods, instead of the current coin of the realm, since the 1st of January, 1835, contrary to the provisions of the Act 1st and 2nd William 4, c. 37.