said, he perceived by the notice paper that the hon. Member for Finsbury intended to present a petition from Dr. M'Douall this evening, and to submit a motion to the House upon it. The hon. Gentleman had submitted his motion in this particular form, in consequence of the Standing Order adopted in April last, which made it competent to the House to discuss any petition complaining of a personal grievance, which pressed for a remedy. He understood that the person whose grievance was intended to be brought under the consideration of the House was not in custody, but at large on bail. At present, therefore, there was no personal grievance suffered; had there been, he would not have asked the hon. Gentleman to postpone his motion. But as the parties were at large, it would be a great convenience if he would adhere to the customary usage in presenting petitions, and give notice of the precise motion he intended to make. As a point of form, there would be greater advantage in adopting that course. He would state that he had yesterday written to the magistrate, requesting to be furnished with a full report of the proceedings in the case. He had not yet received the report, but he expected to receive it by Monday. It would, therefore, be more conducive to the ends of justice, if the hon. Member would postpone any motion he might be desirous of bringing forward until Monday, on which day her Majesty's Government would give him every facility for bringing forward his motion. He requested as a personal favour to himself, that the hon. Member would postpone his motion to Monday.

would be happy to accede to the proposal of the right hon. Baronet, and would postpone his motion, on condition that he should have precedence on Monday. He would now confine himself to presenting two petitions. He thought certainly that those petitions came within the rule which allowed a discussion to be raised on the presentation of a petition, complaining of an immediate public and personal grievance. The petitioner had been held to bail for six months when he had committed no offence, but had merely exercised his right of attending a public meeting. which the police, acting upon the law laid down by the right hon. Baronet, had chosen to interpret as illegal. The first petition which he would present was signed by the chairman of a public meeting consisting of),5000 or 6,000 of the inhabitants of Deptford, complaining of the conduct of the police in arresting Dr. M'Douall; and the other was from Dr. M'Douall himself, a surgeon, residing in Hampton-street, Walworth, complaining of the conduct of the police in interrupting a public meeting, and arresting him—of the hardships which he had endured in the station-house, and of the obstacles which had been thrown in his way, to prevent his procuring evidence to show that the charges of the police were unfounded. After the petitions were brought up, he should move that they be printed.

presented a petition from Puntaub Shean, the deposed Raja of Sattara, who was now a state prisoner at Benares. He had last year offered a petition to the House on the same subject, but as it was written in the Mahratta language, and unaccompanied by an English translation, it had been withdrawn. He now presented a petition from the same individual, written in the English language. The petition was signed at Benares, on the 8th of January, 1842, and was sealed with the seal of the Mahratta kingdom of Sevajee. It was attested by four inhabitants of Benares, and by a magistrate. The petitioner stated that he was the lineal descendant of Sevajee, the founder of the Mahratta empire; that he was now the legitimate head of the Mahratta empire; that in 1819, on the deposition of the Peisshwa, he had been restored by the British Government as a feudatory of the British empire; that from that period up to the year 1835, he had enjoyed the unlimited confidence of the Court of Directors, who, in that year, had sent him a sword of honour, and stated that his conduct was worthy of the imitation of the other native princes; that since that period he hail been deposed, under the circumstances related in the petition. In 1836 he was accused of plotting against the British Government, but his whole life ought to have been a sufficient answer to such an accusation; that the Governor of Bombay was empowered to procure evidence against him, as having violated the treaty which he had entered into, but he referred to Presidents Duff, Bing, and Robinson, in testimony of its faithful observance; that he was accused of conspiring against the British Government, and entering into a treaty with the Portuguese Government to procure 3,000 troops from Goa; that an inquiry was instituted which was kept a secret from him; and that notwithstanding, the whole evidence against him was declared to be worthless. He stated that his principal servant was seized and imprisoned; that he was kept for twenty-two months in prison, in a state of torture, till he signed a document to save his life; that the charge of procuring 30,000 troops from Goa was so absurd, that the House could not give it credence; that he never had mote than 1,500 troops, and that to attempt any such proceeding as he was charged with, was totally at variance with his character; that his brother was placed in his stead on the throne, who was proved, under his own hand-writing, to have conspired to injure the interest of the India Company; that he (the Raja of Sattara) had private property to the amount of 350,000l. taken from him; that he was seized by the orders of Sir J. Carnac in his palace, to which he was never after allowed to return; and that he suffered all these losses upon the vague charge of bringing troops from Goa, whilst he was never heard in his own defence. He therefore solicited from the House a consideration of his case, and an investigation into the treatment which he had received; that the vast power of England need fear no alarm, and that it would tarnish the glory of her Majesty's reign if an individual, once her Majesty's faithful ally, now her prisoner, did not receive her protection. That was the petition; and as it was one of importance, he begged to bring it up, and to move that it be printed.

said, he would detain the House very short time. He could assure the House that it was width considerable reluctance that he had been led to bring on a new subject, at so late a period of the Session. but the parties who had entrusted the case to his hands, felt that their interests would be prejudiced by delay. The Danish claims had existed since 1807. In that year an expedition was fitted out, for the purpose of guarding the Danish fleet, by this Government. The Danish Government naturally felt exasperated by such a proceeding, and reprisals took place, and the Danish government; confiscated the book debts of certain British subjects; and, proceeding further, they seized all British vessels and British cargoes which they were enabled to lay their hands upon. In regard to the first of these, compensation had been granted; but the Crown had refused to make compensation to the other parties, on the ground that they were involved in the same situation as the subjects of all other nations, whose property fell into the hands of enemies at the first outbreak of a war. On the mother hand, these parties said this was net a true description of the case, as the war had not taken place at the time of the capture of their property, and they were not apprised whether they were reprisals. That was the view taken by the claimants themselves, and that was the light in which he looked at that subject. The point for the consideration of the House was, whether or not the course that had been pursued was a declaration of war. It had been maintained that the Government of Denmark was, at the period to which he alluded, at war with the Government of this country; that the Danish Government had seized upon British property by way of reprisals, and that, therefore, war had commenced between the two states. The late Attorney-general, the Member for Worcester, who had made the most elaborate and complete defence of this case, was of opinion the war had actually commenced. Bat, unfortunately for his learned Friend's argument, no such document as had been alluded to had been found in the office. It was true that a document had been found in the office which was considered as a declaration of war, but the document was not looked upon by the Sovereign of Denmark, or the people of that country, as such a declaration. That document emanated from a small town in Denmark, and it was signed only by the authorities of that town, It was, therefore, with great astonishment that he had heard his learned Friend, the late Attorney- general, describe that document as a declaration of war. It was not considered so by Denmark, nor by the authorities in this country. Now, with respect to the facts of the case. A Danish vessel, called the Orion, was captured in the year 1807, and the subject of the legality of the capture was brought before the Admiralty shortly afterwards. Lord Stowell had decided, that any vessel taken previous to the month of November was not a prise of war. Neither the Danish Government nor the British Government had ever considered that we had been at war, previous to the declaration of war by the Government of Denmark. If that were the case, he contended that the parties now in question were justly entitled to the compensation which they sought. But, even though they had not such a title as could be strictly enforced, the House would recollect, that the equitable right of the parties had been admitted by themselves upon various occasions. He really thought they would, now, be hardly justified in reversing their own repeated decisions. And, after the House had allowed the claims, it would not become the Government of this great country to shelter themselves under forms or technicalities in refusing them. They should consider what was due to the dignity of the House of Commons, and not decline to accede to the repeated manifestations of its wishes. He would not press the subject further upon that occasion. He should only say that, if compensation were denied to these parties, such a course would be discreditable to the Government, unworthy of the character of Parliament, and would remain a scandal on the annals of this country. He would say no more upon the subject, and would not press any motion respecting it. He should not have brought the matter under the consideration of the House that evening, in the midst of the many public questions which called for their immediate deliberation, and, in the present unsettled state of their finances, were it not that the parties interested felt that their case might be prejudiced by observing a total silence. He had introduced the subject, principally for the purpose of reserving the rights of parties, and, in order that it might not be supposed, upon any future occasion, that they had abandoned their claims.

was glad that his hon. Friend did not intend to press his motion, at the same time he was anxions to make one or two observations. This question was one in which the national honour was concerned, and it had been longer before the House than any other. Twenty-three years ago he had first divided in favour of these claims. Then the whole of the claims were refused. Since then, after a lapse of twenty years, two-thirds of those claims had been granted, and one third only now remained. After three decisions of the House in favour of those claims, faith ought to have been kept with the claimants. He thought that both the late Government and the present Government in refusing the demands of these claimants, were wrong. If there were any error in regard to dates, that ought not to stand in the way of their doing justice. In the estimates for the present year they bad voted a sum of 10,000l. to settle some Portuguese claims, which were due in 1810. Therefore, the length of time which had elapsed ought not to prevent justice from being done. Her Majesty's Government were willing to pay away money where there was no claim, but they refused to pay a just claim. This obstinate denial of justice was discreditable to the Government. They had voted a sum to liquidate the claims of M. Sampayo, which had accrued from 1808 to 1814. There had been no objection made to pay foreigners why should there be any objection to pay English claimants? He hoped that the Government would see the propriety of taking the question into their serious consideration before the next Session, and would pay the last third due to the Danish claimants; who would, even if that was paid, suffer severe loss, inasmuch as they would only have been paid the principal, and have lost the interest for thirty-five years

said, he should be perfectly ready, when the hon. Gentleman brought the subject forward, to express his views upon it. At present it could not have been discussed without causing the delay of other business. He had already expressed his opinion on those claims, which expression of opinion had not been given merely since he sat on that side of the House, for when he had sat on the other side he had supported the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opposition to these claims. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose that if a claim was a just one, length of time could be no bar to its admission, but he could not agree that because they had voted a sum of money to Mr. Sampayo, therefore, they ought to vote a sum of money to the Danish claimants.

was admitted; the only question in debate was as to amount, in the ascertaining of which time, of course, had been occupied. The discussion of the Danish claims rested upon a different footing. He could not admit the justice of those claims. The concession of them would involve the country in incalculable expense on some future occasion.

wished to know from the right hon. Baronet whether Government were prepared to give the sanction of the Crown to an application of some portion of the education grant to the encouragement of the singing classes in Exeter-hall. When the question was before addressed to the right hon. Baronet, he understood the right hon. Baronet to express himself disposed to afford that encouragement, but to require further time for consideration. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet would now say whether he had sufficiently considered the subject.

said, he had not yet been able to give sufficient attention to the subject, and would scarcely be able to bring forward any specific vote in the present Session. The subject was not yet sufficiently matured, but his own feeling was in favour of affording public aid.

wished to say he had received statement from several merchants connected with the American trade, begging him to communicate them to the House. It seemed that they had learned from the reports of the ebates in Parliament, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R Peel) had lately asserted on the authority of Mr. M'Culloch, that no great amount of corn could be import from America, and that the principal imp portation into this country would be from Dantzic. This they affirmed was incorrect These merchants stated they laboured under great disadvantages from the operation o the sliding-scale. They also wished t Government to be reminded that there was a paper laid on the Table of the House in February last, from which it appeared that the exports of the United States, from the, year 1790 to the year 1838, of wheaten flour alone had been 1,100,000 barrels peannum; and they state that if they were exempt from the operation of the sliding scale they could supply this country wit a considerable quantity of provisions. On of these Gentlemen stated that he would import corn if there were a fixed duty, but that now not knowing whether the duty would he 8s. or 18s. per quarter, he did not venture to import it. It had been said, on the authority of Mr.M'Culloch, that America herself had imported corn, but that occurred only in the year 1837, and then it imported only 500,000 quarters. That was an unusual circumstance, and even at that time exportation was going in many of the American ports. He had thought it right to make these statements because many gentlemen had been under the apprehension that the Government had not properly considered the subject. He was sure that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government must he as anxious as any to increase our trade with the United States of America.

said, of course he could only answer for himself, anti this would be admitted by the hon. Gentleman, that supposing in any one year, from particular circumstances, there should be a failure of the harvest in America, and they should import corn to any great extent, no inference could be drawn from this casual; circumstance. It was of great importance that they should extend their trade with the United States; but there was this in- convenience in discussing these questions in the House of Commons, that when any one corrected what he considered an exaggerated statement, he was supposed to entertain an opinion the very opposite to it. ! Thus, because he had doubted some statements of the probable amount of the importation of corn from America, it was ! thought lie had been represented as believing that no corn would be imported at all, from that country, and that he had told the t agricultural interest that no such incorportation would take place. He believed the - statement to be an exaggeration, and that was all the observation he had made. He did not entertain the opinion that had been discribed to him, for he believed that flour f would be brought into this country from the United States under the existing law, and in considerable quantities; and he should be sorry if the law should interfere with the trade in flour and provisions between the two countries.

said, he had understood the right hon. Baronet to say, that considerable quantities of corn and flour would be ported from America under the existing h law. Now if the law did not have that feet, they should have a claim on the right d hon. Baronet for the reconsideration of that law. He should bear in mind the declaration the right hon. Baronet had made this day.

said, that from what he had seen of the country, he believed that a considerable quantity of flour and provisions, the produce of the western States, would be brought in. But of course the cost of the transit would be very great. It was not generally known, that the Americans were the largest consumers of articles of clothing in the world. They were the best clothed people he ever saw, and he had been through most of the countries of Europe. An American would deprive himself of almost any comfort rather than not be well dressed according to the average opinion. There never was a more favourable period for their entering into a commercial treaty with America. America was on the eve of making a change in her tariff, but there was a strong party there most anxious for an increased intercourse with this country; and if her Majesty's Government encouraged that disposition, they could establish a favourable treaty of commerce.

moved that 70,000l. be granted for the civil contingencies for the year ending in 1843.

said, he felt it to be his duty on behalf of the distressed people of this country, to protest against many items in this grant. He thought many of the items were discreditable to those by whom they were claimed, and an insult to the distress of those who were called to pay them. The first to which he would call attention was an item of 961. for the entertainment of the Bishop of Exeter and his suite, during a passage from Plymouth to the Scilly Islands in 1838, a passage which was only of a few hours' duration. He thought it would be well if the Bishop of Exeter would read the Scriptures, and see how his divine Master and the Apostles travelled. He pretended to be the servant of the one and the follower of the others; and yet, though he received about 6,000l. a year from his bishopric, and the charge for the suite of the Bishop of Jerusalem all the way to Jaffa was only 201. 5s., he (the Bishop of Exeter) charged 48l. a day for visiting places in his diocese. Another was an item of 65l. 6s. 7d., " for the entertainment of the Duchess of Kent and suite, during a passage to Ostend and back." Her Royal Highness was allowed 30,000l. a-year, and such charges should not be made. Another was an item of 235l. 10s for the entertainment of Lord Sydenham, Governor-general of Canada and suite, during certain passages on the lakes in Canada. He believed Lord Sydenham's salary was 7,000l. a year, and consequently, there was no necessity for such charges. Other items were those of 394l 10s. 6d. for incidental expenses of the embasy at Wirtemberg, and 800l. 8s. 9d. for those of the embassy at Tuscany. As their only functions being to entertain the nobility of this country, he maintained that these embassies were of no political or commercial service whatever, and their abolition would, therefore, effect a saving of useless expenditure to the amount of 6,5001. a-year. Another was an item of 871. 10s. " for the entertainment of the Crown Prince of Bavaria and suite, diuring a passage from Athens to Ancona," places not even in her Majesty's dominions. Another was an item of 73l. 10s., " for the entertainment of certain foreigners of distinction on board her Majesty's steam-vessel Vesuvius. What for? Why should they not pay their own expenses? Surely it was enough to find them ships, without taxing the country to pay for their entertainments. Another was an item of 3341. 15s., for the passage of Robert Steuart, Esq., her Majesty's charge d'affaires at New Granada, from Liverpool to Boston." He had come from Boston to Liverpool, and had been as well entertained as any gentleman could wish to be, and it did not cost him more than 351., while Robert Steuart, Esq., charged 3341., though his income of 1,6001. a-year was going on all the time. Other items were " 800l. for passage-money due to Mr. S. M'Kenzie on returning from the government of Ceylon;" " 242l. 4s. 3d. for the passage of the Bishop of Barbadoes and Chaplain to Antigua, and for the hire of a schooner during his visitations through the archdeaconry of Antigua," and " 530l.8s. to Sir G. Arthur, late Governor of Upper Canada, for his passage home." These charges were all exorbitant and unnecessary. It was impossible the money could be spent in the manner alleged. Another item was one of 422l. 14s. 9d., "for robes, collars, badges, &c., for knights of the several orders." Surely the country ought not to be called upon to pay for these. He thought, also, that the item of 350l. " for investigating certain points relative to the charter of incorporation of Sheffield," ought to be de- frayed by that city, and not by the people generally, who had no interest in the matter. The items of 2,2701. for the salaries and expenses of the officer for carrying into effect the regulations of the penny postage, and of 550l. " to the civil engineer, for services on works connected with the Caledonian Canal," ought to be carried to the respective accounts of those undertakings. There was also an item of 5001. to Captain J. W. Pringle, " for services in Canada." He should like to know what those services were. To mention one more only among many others, there was also one of 923l. 1s. 6d. to Lord Campbell, "being the usual allowance on his appointment as Lord Chancellor." He should like to know why the people were to pay that? He believed Lord Campbell had been very anxious to get the office, and was well paid for his services. The hon. Gentleman concluded by requesting some information from the Government respecting these items, and protesting against their being defrayed by the public.

said, these things were the acts of the late Government, and the hon. Gentleman had supported them in and out of office. Look at the expenses they had caused. He had often complained of their innumerable commissions. He had a great objection to the whole of those commissions, and he could wish to see them burnt, as some of them had been. He never saw such a profligate Government, and he hoped he never should see another. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Coventry should still sit behind that Government when they were disgraced. The hon. Gentleman had missed one item of their work, and that was the imperial penny postage job. Then there was the item to Mr. Rowland Hill of 1,500l., and the item to Mr. Cole. But the greatest of all was the Monteagle job, added to the Campbell job—a pretty pair. With regard to the outfit for Lord Campbell, he thought that the articles purchased with that money ought to be returned and sold. They would produce but little, but in the present exhausted state of the Treasury the smallest donation would be thankfully received — or they might be kept as an exhibition, to show the job which had been perpetrated. If the hon. Gentleman would divide the House against that vote, he would divide with him. Doubtless, he should be told, as he had been when he had objected to the vote of 16,000l. to the Member for Bolton for his expenses in his travels, that the money had been paid. The grant was a gross and unpardonable grant, and he looked for something better from her Majesty's present Government. If they did not do better, they should not have his support. He was not for a low, niggardly economy, but he was for a proper economy. This expense had been incurred after that House had come to a vote of want of confidence in the late Government, and it was disgraceful.

With reference to the sum of 96l. for the entertainment of the Bishop of Exeter on board of one of her Majesty's ships, observed, that the sum appeared to be considerable. He should say that about 30s. or 40s. a-day ought to be sufficient for such a purpose. There was no one who had any experience of naval matters could deny that it would be most inconvenient and disagreeable, if captains of the navy were to be under the necessity of demanding payment from those persons of distinction whom they might be ordered to take on board their vessels; but, though it was quite right that the State should defray those charges, he did think the sum now demanded was beyond reasonable limits. He also thought that there was another objectionable charge, namely, 235l. for the passages of Lord Sydenham on the lakes.

said, that captains of ships of war were frequently directed to take persons of distinction on board, with the full understanding, of course, that the expenses of their entertainment should be defrayed by the Government. Those expenses had been fixed according to certain specified rates, which rested, it was supposed, upon just principles. Those rates or scales were, of course, regulated by the rank of the parties and the number of persons in their respective suites. The charge for entertaining the Bishop of Exeter and those by whom he was accompanied, on his visitation of the Scilly Islands, was a charge actually incurred so far back as the year 1838, though not paid till 1841. The occurrence took place four years ago—he was not prepared to say what length of time was occupied in the visitation, but he did not hesitate to affirm that it took a much longer time than the hon. Member for Coventry appeared to suppose. With respect to Captain Pringle, the officer who accompanied Lord Sydenham, he was a gentleman who had rendered considerable service, and it was the opinion of all to whom the question had been submitted that he was fairly entitled to the sum granted him, the more especially as he was not in the receipt of any salary. As to the sum payable to Mr. Rowland Hill, he was quite ready to admit that it would be convenient in all cases to have sums estimated for beforehand, and not left to be introduced into the civil contingencies, but he thought that this case might fairly be considered an exception to the general rule. Mr. Hill was originally engaged for a period of two years; since then the arrangement with him had been extended to a third year, ending in the month of September next. Intimation had been given to Mr. Hill that after the termination of the third year the Post-office and the Treasury would be able to carry on the business of the department without his assistance.

said, that there was no accommodation for the Bishop of Exeter in the Scilly Islands, and that the captain who took him out there was under the necessity of accommodating the right rev. Prelate and all who accompanied him on that, his first, visitation, which occupied a much longer time than had been stated by the hon. Member for Coventry.

believed, that no individual who was ever employed in the public service had been worse paid than his hon. Friend, the Member for Bolton. He was only paid at the same rate as other commissioners, but, contrary to the usual practice, he never was paid a shilling, except when on actual duty; and he knew that there was a balance now due to the hon. Gentleman, who never had been paid, very much, as he thought, to the discredit of the late Government. He objected to many of the items included in this grant, but he requested an explanation of certain of them, more particularly the sum of 20,000l. for postages, and the extra expenses of the Foreign Ministers.

said, if hon. Members were aware of the practical utility of civil missions, they surely would not object to any expenses that might be incurred in carrying them out. With regard to foreign missions, it had been his lot to increase our relations with foreign states. He had accredited some of the smaller German states, with whom, before, we had no direct communication, to some of our foreign missions, available for that purpose; and the most valuable information, as to European affairs, frequently came collaterally from those smaller states. As to the " passages " which formed part of this vote, some of the sums seemed large; but he believed they were justified by the occasions which had given rise to them. One of them was a charge for the passage of the Crown Prince of Bavaria to his own kingdom, on the throne of which he had been placed by England, in conjunction with other European powers. With regard to what had been said, relative to the claim of his hon. Friend for Bolton, it was quite true that there was a sum due to him, which had not been paid by the late Government. He was not aware of any reason for not satisfying the hon. Gentleman's claim, and he, for one, should support any vote for his payment. The House was, probably, aware that the amounts fixed on the civil list were only the salaries of the Ministers, and did not include any incidental expenses, such as messengers, carriers, postages, &c. He had, when in office, reduced the salaries of those employed on the diplomatic service considerably, and, he believed, their salaries were now quite as low as those of the Ministers of France, Austria, and other parts. He was firmly convinced, with regard to our diplomatic services, that no Government in Europe—no Government in the world, was so well served as the Government of this country had been, during the time he had a knowledge of the manner in which they had performed their services. The expenses of postage were also fixed according to a certain regulation.

wished to call the attention of the House to the importance of having direct communication with the Turkish Government. He believed, at that moment, they had no means of holding any intercourse with the Sovereign, except by the agency of strangers, and he thought that was a state of things which ought to be remedied. The state of things, at present, was very unsatisfactory. Many of the families from which the dragomans were taken had reached a state of opulence, and the interests of the country, and one or two others, were entirely in their hands.

said, that there was a vote for the education of youth in the eastern languages; and there was, moreover, a remedy against the dragomans. An instance had, not long ago, occurred of a mistake made by a dragoman, upon which he had founded an answer in that House; in consequence of which the dragoman had been suspended.

was convinced, if English feelings were represented by English manners, in oriental countries, the best results would be effected.

said, that he agreed with the views of the hon. Member for Bolton; but he must say, that he found the dragomans very faithful in the discharge of their duty. Before he left office, he proposed that attaches should be added to the Turkish embassies, for the purpose of learning the Turkish language; and he accordingly wrote to the Vice Chancellors of the two Universities to nominate a Gentleman from each University for those appointments. The Universities had accepted that proposal, and one Gentleman from each University had been, accordingly, appointed; and there were now four persons attached to the embassies, who understood the Turkish language.

said, he observed that a sum of 1,600l. was set down as an allowance for the Commissioners for the settlement of Portuguese claims. It appeared to him, that it would be better to allow those gentlemen a certain sum, in case the claims were finally adjusted, than to grant them a yearly allowance.

had heard many complaints of delay and dilatoriness. He had requested his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to make inquiries on the subject, and he believed that no unnecessary delay had been interposed. In fact, he was satisfied that the at most diligence had been used by the commissioners. The claims were, some of them, of a very peculiar nature. Some most extravagant demands had been made. It was but just, both to the claimants themselves, and to the Portuguese Government, that these claims should be strictly examined and scrutinized, before they were admitted. He was not inclined to interfere with the Commissioners.

expressed his surprise, that the Hon. Member for Montrose had not objected to the additional sum of money which it was proposed to pay to the hon. Member for Bolton. He (Colonel Sibthorp) did not wish to derogate from the merits of the hon. Gentleman; but he had objected to the former grants, and as the late Government had not brought the grant forward last year, he hoped the present Government would object to it, and leave the Members of the late Government to pay it themselves. He should certainly oppose the grant.

asked, whether it was the intention of the Government to make a grant for national singing. The right hon. Gentleman, the other night, mentioned with eulogium Mr. Hullah, but he did not allude to the exertions of Mr. Mainzer, who had done wonders upon this very interesting subject.

reminded his hon. Friend, that on a former occasion, the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had declared, that it was not the intention of the Government to ask for any grant upon the subject during the present Session. He believed there were many funds existing available for the education of the people, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would direct his attention to the subject.

had, with pleasure, on a former occasion, heard the right hon. Gentleman express the intention of Government to give encouragement to the education carried on at Exeter Hall. He hoped, that that would not be a mere barren promise. Objections had been made on account of this mode of instruction not being connected with religious instruction; but he could not suppose, that the mode of education imparted at Exeter-hall, could ever become the subject for a normal school. It could only be a school of method. He thought it was exceedingly injudicious on the part of those who supported education upon the principles of the Church of England, to obstruct the efforts of other schools. Why not adopt the school of method at the diocesan schools, and at King's College, for instance? He hoped next year a grant would be proposed for encouraging this sort of education.

wished something done for the Roman Catholic schools. The Roman Catholic Members had been more liberal than the Protestants, having concurred, without cavil, in many votes for purposes exclusively Protestant, while a party of the Protestants had resisted even the small grant yearly proposed for the College of Maynooth.

said, that this was a grant to which every individual in the community was called on to contribute, and from which, as it was at present distributed, no Catholic could benefit. There were two societies authorised to superintend the distribution of this grant, the National School Society, and the British and Foreign School Society. The first was a society connected with the Established Church, and the second was connected with the Protestant Dissenters. The Catholics were, therefore, necessarily excluded from deriving any benefit from this grant, not by any direct rule, but because they could not conscientiously send their children to the schools under the superintendance of these societies. The want of a participation in this grant was felt most severely by the Catholics in England —a large portion of the lower orders were Catholics. A great many poor Irish Catholics who came to England for employment, were absolutely deprived of the means of educating their children. It was not fair, nor just, nor reasonable, that the benefit of the grant should be confined to Protestants, it ought to be for the education of the children of the people of England generally. He had pressed the noble Lord, late at the head of the Government, on this subject, and he believed that noble Lord had been as ready to resist him as Gentlemen on the other side. Some years ago, in the State of New York, the educational grant had been given to a Voluntary Society, constituted on somewhat similar principles to this society; and in consequence the Catholics had been able to participate in it; but during the last Session, a law had been passed, putting all Christians on a footing of equality. That example ought to be followed. He hoped, that for the future, a portion of the grant would be devoted to the Catholic schools. They did not wish to escape from superintendence; on the contrary, they invited the utmost vigilance, and were willing to conform to any regulations that might be laid down in matters of literature, morals, and manners. All they asked was, that Catholics should be educated in their own religion.

must have further explanation before he agreed to the vote. At present the House knew nothing of this expenditure. There was plenty of land in South Australia, which might be sold by degrees in order to pay this money, and why, therefore, should the people of England be taxed to pay it.

said, poor individuals had gone out to the colony on the faith of their proceedings in Parliament, and were unable to support themselves when they arrived there, and the bills had been drawn for maintaining such of the population as were absolutely destitute of any means of support. The Governor had not thought it right to refuse to sanction those bills, when the lives of so many persons depended on it as a means of subsistence.

should like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary fur the Colonies whether this was to be a gift or a loan. [Lord Stanley: A grant.] This sum, together with the sum voted last year, amounted to 355,000l. Were they to have any more grants or loans of this kind this year? [Lord Stanley: No more will be required.] He was very glad to hear that. Why were not all these sums charged upon the colony, to be paid hereafter when the colony was able? The present mode of proceeding appeared to him to be merely squandering money. Governor Gawler had drawn the bills because he saw this country would pay them. The grant was one which the House ought not to be required to make.

said, he would not enter into the question of the grant made to the colony last year, which there was no prospect of its repaying. A part of that sum, 85,0001., lent on bonds in the colony, and for which this country paid interest, would be repaid whenever the colony was able to repay it. With regard to this vote of 59,0001., it was part of the debt under which the colony was labouring. 155,0001. had been advanced to the colony by Parliament; there was 85,0001. bond debt advanced from the colony, and 56,0001. due to the land fund. The committee appointed to inquire into this question had reported that the ordinary revenue of the colony was 30,0001. a-year, and that the ordinary expenditure, which had been increasing, was about 70,0001, a-year, and though the committee hoped that some reduction might be made in this item, they could not speak with any confidence on the subject. They hoped that in due time the colony would yield an ample revenue, but some time must elapse before the revenue would be sufficient to make up the deficit without an appeal to the mother country. At the time of Captain Grey's arrival out in the colony its expenditure was at the rate of about 90,0001. over and above the interest of the debt. But Captain Grey had reduced it from 90,000l. to between 30,0001. and 40,0001., and it was hoped that next year it would be necessary to call upon Parliament for little or nothing to assist them. It had been for the immediate purposes of the colony, and to cover the distress occasioned partly by the debt, that Captain Grey had been obliged to incur a heavy expenditure for the maintenance of persons absolutely in a state of pauperism. He (Lord Stanley) repeated that he had every expectation that next year a very trifling sum, if any, would be required in aid of this colony. He had given directions to reduce the expenditure, but those reductions must be the work of time, and if Parliament refused assistance at present, the colony would be seriously injured. He had even gone so far as to send out instructions to the Governor of Australia, that if the additional labouring emigrants could not find employment there, it would be his duty to have them removed to New South Wales, where there was employment, (and those instructions had been communicated also to the Governor of New South Wales), and that they should not be kept upon the resources of South Australia or of this country. Time must be allowed to carry out these instructions; and he trusted the committee would not, by refusing to sanction this vote, leave the colony in the meantime in a state of embarrassment. He did not mean to justify the former expenditure, but this vote was necessary to the prosperity of the colony.

attributed the increase of the debt to the mismanagement of the commissioners. If the colony had been kept under the control of the Colonial Department the debt would never have been incurred, and the colony would have been now in a prosperous state. Still, the fault was not so much attributable to the commissioners as to the Colonial-office, for they had represented to the Colonial Department that the powers with which they were invested, were insufficient to enable them to conduct the affairs of the colony with success. He was glad, however, now to hear that a change was to take place.

expressed a hope that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies would take the land in the colonies as a security for the repayment of the debt.

said, this debate became exceedingly irksome, inasmuch as the subject had been already discussed totidem verbis three times already. He could not agree with his hon. Friend behind him, (Mr. Hume), for if the land was taken as a security, it would upset the principle on which the colony was founded. He should vote with the noble Lord, on the principle of making the best of a bad bargain. He believed there had been gross mismanagement, but for it the House of Commons was in part responsible in having passed a bad bill in the first instance. He concurred with the hon. Member for Southwark, in thinking the noble Lord ought to furnish the House with a return of the names of those hon. Members on both sides of the House who were interested in these loans. For himself, he never had an acre of land in the colony, neither was he interested in the colony beyond a desire to see it prosper. He desired to see such a return, and if it was made the subject of a substantive motion he should second it; but at present he should vote with the noble Lord, as for the most just plan that could be adopted to extricate the colony from the difficulties in which it was placed.

said, he had opposed the first bill, and therefore did not paritcipate in the blame cast upon the House for having passed it. The mismanagement had arisen from the authority being divided between the Colonial Department and the commissioners. If the noble Lord meant to apply this vote as a gift, he would take the sense of the committee against such an application.

thought that nothing was more impolitic than to depreciate this colony in the public estimation. The course which had been taken by his hon. Friends around him was one which would prevent the colony emerging from its difficulties. He felt convinced that Government had taken a manly and patriotic course in sanctioning this grant. He trusted they would not be deterred by the Opposition, from granting that moderate support which would aid the efforts of their predecessors. There was no doubt that a great part of the money was employed in taking labourers to South Australia who, if they had remained here, would have been thrown on the poor-rates and become the victims of penury.

inquired what part of this expense belonged to India? it seemed to him to relate only to China.

n answer to an hon., Members said, that six regiments had been sent out to India to replace the regiments that had been sent thence to China. This had been done at the request of the East- India Company, who would bear the whole of the expense. These six regiments had been replaced by other regiments raised in England since. The extra expenses which appeared in the vote were chiefly for China.

said, that every regiment in the service was supplied with new arms and accoutrements every twelve years; whether the East-India Company would bear the expense of the arms and accoutrements of the six regiments that had been sent out, would depend upon whether they were near the time for their receiving new arms and accoutrements or not.

should like to see some explanation of the large promotion that had been made in the navy since the 1st of January of this year. He had by him a long list of a number of mates who had been many years in the service, and though he did not at all quarrel with the fifty-nine mates who had been made lieutenants, he did not see why some of that list had not been promoted, as they ought to have been. Some of the mates in that list had passed their examinations as long ago as 1820, others in 1827, and so on down to 1835. He should recommend that the Governs:. meat should come forward boldly and manfully and make out two lists, one of efficient and the other of inefficient officers, and rigidly abide by that arrangement.' They ought to take care when vacancies took place that they should be filled up on a rule, that one vacancy should always be given for long services, and the other to favour interest and influence. He said they should be given in this proportion, because, though of course he would much prefer that all vacancies should be given to merit, yet, in the present state of this country and under a representative Government, the First Lord of the Admiralty would always find it impossible to resist his political Friends. He did not blame the Admiralty for this; as human nature was constituted it could not be avoided at present; but he thought the plan of supplying vacancies which he had proposed would be beneficial to the service, advantageous to the navy, and good for the country. In general, he must say that hitherto the present Government had carried on things in the navy very fairly. He said this without reference to any but public considerations; the Government had nothing to give that he wanted, and he must say that he believed there was a disposition to inquire fully into the condition of the navy during the ensuing recess. He hoped and trusted, and he was almost perfectly certain, that the Government, now they had got a full exchequer, meant to set things to rights in the navy. Mr. Perceval used to say, " Give me a full exchequer and a good navy and 1 defy the world." That was his sentiment; and he hoped it would be borne in mind, for if, something was not done in the navy he believed the country would be in imminent danger in case of a war.

said, the handsome terms in which the gallant commodore had spoken of the Government would render it necessary for him to say but a few words. The gallant Commodore had found fault with the promotions that had been made this year; but if he looked into the subject he would find that nobody of the younger class of officers had been promoted except for gallant deeds. Among the promotions were some officers who had been six or seven years off the coast of Africa, and who came home, the only officers that were left, the rest having all died. The Admiralty having considered that these were peculiar circumstances, and that they should be justified in promoting officers so situated. They had been anxious to make a large promotion of mates, and they laid down a line which had the effect of excluding all those who had passed only six years, and then they took those who had been most at sea. Many of the young officers who had been promoted, were those who had served in China. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the utmost attention was paid at the Admiralty to the claims of persons, whether for length of service, or for service afloat, and he did believe that if he were required, he could give a satisfactory reason for every promotion that had taken place.

said, great as was the zeal of the hon. and gallant Officer on behalf of the navy, he, at least, showed that he was not an efficient guardian of the public purse. Out of 4,000 officers who were on the navy list, not more than 800 were really employed. He had moved for returns by which he would be able to show that in many cases mere boys had been passed over the heads of 3,000 officers of old standing, when they had not served three months over and above the six years. The great evil of our system with regard to promotion in the navy was that we allowed interest to supersede services. The navy was little more than a mere pension list for the aristocracy. He did not mean to say that there was one officer in 500 but was desirous to do his duty to his country; but there were too many of them, and the system of promotion was bad. I low many had they seen promoted who were mere boys of 10 or 12, scarcely able to walk, but who were now actually taking a lead in the service. He did enter his protest against the wholesale system of promotion recommended by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. However just such a system might be to individuals it was unjust to the public, and in that view he opposed it. Why should the Admiralty have an unlimited power of promotion? Why not limit the number of officers as in the army?

said, there the officers were, and they must be provided for. He did not see how the country could get rid of them, unless, indeed, a little prussic acid were administered. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken knew nothing at all of what he was talking about. If, instead of moving for all those nonsensical returns, the hon. Member would assist him to get the Government to make out a list of efficient and non-efficient officers, and to give a pledge that they would not increase the number beyond the wants of the service, he would be of much more use.

It is very easy for the gallant officer to get up and say I know no. thing about the matter, but I think that looks much more like the answer of an ignorant man, who knows nothing at all what he is talking about. He should have thought the hon. and gallant Member had had more shot in his locker. The hon. and gallant Member talks about nonsensical returns. It is very foolish to talk in that way. He says, 1 moved for nonsensical returns—what does the hon. Member mean by that? He says, I moved for foolish returns. I know the gallant officer thinks I am a fool. I am a fool. But is not the man who supports a fool a greater fool than the fool himself? Did not the hon. and gallant Member support me in four or five divisions for the purpose of getting these very same nonsensical returns? [Sir C. Napier: Just to show you were wrong.] Then the hon. Member supported him just to show he was wrong. He could tell the hon. and gallant Member that he had not properly considered what he said when he said that. The object of those returns was to show what had been the services of officers, and he defied the hon. Member, with all his experience, to get at the actual services without such returns as he had moved for. All he would add was, that the hon. and gallant Member had undoubtedly made a very foolish speech.

said, that the promotions which had taken place had all been richly deserved, and that the Government were entitled to the thanks of the service for what they had done. They had not acted niggardly in reference to the navy as the Whigs had done, and the course they had taken had given the utmost satisfaction throughout the service. It should be borne in mind that no officer had been promoted who had not served ten years, and this was not all, for if they had not certificates of good conduct during the whole of that period they would not have been advanced in the service. The hon. Member for Montrose had always evinced great niggardliness towards the navy, but he was quite wrong in supposing that promotion was the result of patronage. He had, with one exception, obtained all his steps by service, and if the Chiltern Hundreds were granted to him to-morrow, he had no doubt if he went to the Admiralty and asked for a ship he would get it. His observations did not apply to himself individually, but to the service generally.

understood it was the privilege of every admiral on a station, on resigning his command, to recommend an officer for promotion. He wished to know how many such appointments, on an average of years, were usually made?

said, the only restrictions attending these recommendations were, that the officer must have served under the admiral recommending, and that his conduct whilst employed must have given satisfaction to the Admiralty. It had formerly been the practice to allow admirals to make two recommendations, one of a lieutenant to be commander, and another of a mate to be lieutenant. Now, however, the admiral was only allowed to make one nomination. With respect to the main question of the hon. Gentleman, he would at once see that the promotions upon those recommendations could not be very extensive, for we had only five admirals commanding on foreign stations, and they could be only entitled to the nomination once in every three years.

wished to remark, before this vote was put, that as they had already assented to several votes of money for the prosecution of the war hi China, he thought it would be well if the Government would give them some means of judging as to when they might anticipate the probable termination of that war.

said, that of this war like many other wars, it was not easy to foresee exactly how long or how short might be its duration. All he could say was, that every effort should be made to terminate the war. Indeed, they had shown their anxiety on this point by not disregarding temporary exigencies, but by asking for supplies in the hope of bringing the war to an end.

observed, that it was a fact that this war was carried on on a principle utterly erroneous, because it was a war against the government of China, and not against the people. Had they made war on the nation the dispute would have been terminated long since.

said, the only question was if, whilst they were carrying on a war against the commerce of China, they would not be also carrying on a war against the commerce of England. It certainly seemed to him to be our best course to abstain from making such a war.

wished to ask in what manner it was proposed to apply the 6,000,000 of dollars received for the ransom of Canton. Were they in voting these estimates in fact applying that money, or would the Government give any explanation as to how they intended to dispose of it?

said, he hand already in an early part of the Session explained the application of the money alluded to. A portion of the sum —about he believed, 680,000l.—had been applied to our service in India, and the remainder had been brought home and paid into the consolidated fund, to be made available for our services in India and China.

said, he wished to put a question to the Chairman on a matter of privilege. He was informed, that in the division on the South Australia vote, the vote of an hon. Gentleman who came into the House just before the division was objected to on the ground that he was not present when the question was put. This was to him a matter of considerable personal importance, for of all the Members in the House, there were few, perhaps, more regular in their attendance than himself, whilst also there were few whose names so rarely appeared in the division list. The fact was, that he never gave a vote unless he distinctly understood the question, and he should certainly like to know what the rule was as regarded Members who were not present when the question was formerly put.

observed, that he was very similarly situated to the Member referred to by the hon. Gentleman. He had entered the House before the strangers had left the Gallery; but yet he was prevented from voting on the ground, that he had not been present when the question was put.

said, the fact was, that he had put the question before clearing the Gallery, being under the impression, that it was not intended to divide the committee upon the vote. Had he known, that the hon. Member for Montrose intended to divide, he should certainly have cleared the Gallery in the first instance, and then time would have been given Members to re-enter the House.

said, that in moving that a new writ should issue for the borough of Nottingham, he wished to call the attention of the House to the reasons which induced him to take an interest in this question. A petition had been committed to his charge, signed by 1,700 electors and inhabitants of the borough of Nottingham, which petition he presented to the House last week. This petition complained of the grievance which the borough of Nottingham suffered in not being permitted to have its due proportion of Members during the discussion of most important measures relative to the interests of the country. The petitioners prayed the House immediately to issue a writ to supply the deficiency in the case of Nottingham. Those who did him the honour to intrust this petition to his hands, requested that he would make a motion founded on that petition, that a new writ be issued for the borough of Nottingham. In making this motion, he should not trespass on the time of the House by offering many observations, but he thought it right to submit a very few points to the consideration of the House. He admitted, that this question should be viewed as a general one with reference to the writs of other boroughs in a similar situation, and he conceived, that the House was in a position which did not justify it in any longer withholding the writs from those boroughs, and from the particular borough in whose behalf lie now spoke. He was the last person to give any countenance to those practices which the report of the Election Proceedings Committee had disclosed, and he conceived, that he was authorised to say, for those on whose part he was now endeavouring to persuade the House to issue the writ for Nottingham, that they disapproved of such practices as much as any Member of that House could. He conceived, that the object of the petitioners was not to promote any corrupt practices or improper compromises, but that they wished by the fair exercise of the elective franchise, to defeat any corrupt return or practice. He felt he was justified in saying, that the persons who signed the petition he presented would not, whatever candidate they might support, permit any unlawful practices, but would rather suffer the election to be lost, than join in such practices, trusting to an appeal to that House to set them right. Such he believed to be the sentiments of the petitioners whose petition he had presented; and he thought there could be no reason for withholding the writ, except it were to punish the borough, to disfranchise it, or to suspend the writ until a remedy were adopted. Now, the report of the Election Proceedings Committee itself conveyed the impression, that it was not the object of the House to enact a punishment as the result of that report; but, nevertheless, if they continued to suspend these writs, they would be practically punishing the electors without their being tried. Another motive for suspending the writs might be suggested—namely, that some remedial measure should be adopted, previous to their issue. There was a bill in progress through the House, the object of which was to provide a remedy against corrupt practices, but he wished the House to observe, that that bill would, by the 19th clause, operate on the elections. The 19th clause provided that all the provisions of the act should apply to any election which might have taken place, or might take place, after the 1st of June. Therefore this bill, if it should pass the Legislature, would apply to any election for the borough of Nottingham. Under these circumstances it would not appear just any longer to with hold the issue of the writ for the borough of Nottingham. If it was the intention of the House to disfranchise the borough, then let an open course be taken for the purpose of disfranchisement; but let not the House practically disfranchise the borough without taking the regular means for doing so. He should not contend whether the borough ought to be disfranchised or not; but he was undoubtedly of opinion that the House ought not practically to disfranchise the borough in the manner he had described. He would not further trespass on the time of the House. His object had been to state his motive for moving for the issue of the writ, and he should reserve to himself the right to reply, should a reply be rendered necessary by any observations in opposition to his motion. He now moved

"That the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the election of a burgess to serve in the present Parliament for the borough of Nottingham, in the room of Sir George Gerard de Hochepied Larpent."

said, he was one of those who voted against the writ being issued on a former occasion, but after the proceedings of last night, when the House stultified itself, he thought there was no use in refusing the issue of the writ any longer. He had expected that the right hon. Baronet opposite, consistently with the opinion he expressed when the hon. Member for Bath moved for a committee of inquiry, would not have stopped short of declaring that the practices for which the Nottingham writ had been temporarily suspended were an offenee against the privileges of the House. But the right hon. Baronet had concurred with the majority in thinking that they ought not to express any opinion as to whether those practices were a violation of the liberties of the people, and a breach of the privileges of the House. The majority of the House having so acted, he now thought it better that the whole of the writs should be issued without further delay. This was acting fairer than holding out to the public the pretence that they were desirous of punishing and correcting those abuses. They had fallen far short of that, and he for one was unwilling to be a party to hold out the appearance of doing something and yet to do nothing.

said, that if he had been present last night he should not have voted in favour of the resolutions of the hon. Member for Bath. He thought it was perfectly idle (and so far he agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose) to suspend this writ for Nottingham, or the other writs for other places, which had been hung up lately in that House; but there was another more important consideration. He was not one of those who looked with so much horror at these compromises which were spoken of; he would not throw stones at the unfortunate people who had been the victims of these disclosures; but there was another matter which affected him-more deeply, and which filled his mind with disgust, fear, and apprehension for the consequences. He feared that that House might accumulate about itself more disrespect than it was at present subject to, in consequence of the result of that committee, which had been moved for by the hon. Member for Bath, and in consequence of the facts there detailed in evidence. He knew well enough that the existence of those circumstances were suspected before; but now that they were dressed up with the authority of the House, they assumed a different aspect in the eyes of the people. Taking the case of Nottingham, he found that 16,0001. or 17,0001. had been spent in that election, though it was concluded in the short space of an hour, or less than an hour, and 2,000 out of 5,000 persons had accepted bribes. Every species of disgraceful enormity was committed, so much so, that a noble Lord, whom he now saw in his place, and who felt so strong a desire to purify the representation, took extraordinary measures with the view of lessening the evil. Now, when these elections were to commence de novo, it was a painful reflection for a man, after quitting that House, where he had been attempting to discharge his duty, to think that no remedy was applied (for at that period of the Session there was no prospect of applying a remedy) to the abuses which had been disclosed. There were more serious considerations than these, arising from what were designated corrupt and disgraceful compromises. He spoke not only in reference to Nottingham, but other boroughs; and in the case of Harwich, out of 182 electors 80 or 90 received bribes of no small a nature. He was aware that the report of the Briber. Bill was standing on the Order Paper, and they had been told that there were to be some clauses to have the magical effect of putting an end to treating and other corrupt practices by the end of the Session. God knew what the fate of that bill would be ! But at this period of the Session, when so near its close, nothing had yet been done to suppress those enormities. He called the attention of the hon. Member for Montrose, who was so sore at what appeared to him (Mr. Bernal) a more light part of the case, to this fact. He wished the hon. Member to direct his indignation against what was more serious. It was therefore with sorrow and disgust he quitted this subject, because he saw no one positive step taken to provide a remedy for repressing enormities which it was the duty of the Legislature to put a stop to.

said, he thought there was in the House a strong tendency to stultification. He must, however, make an exception for himself. He had the highest regard for the 1,700 petitioners, but knew that they were not the majority; and, therefore, with all his admiration for them, he must, until there had been adopted more effectual means for purifying the borough from the impurities that had been exposed— he must oppose the issuing of the writ. As touching the law on the subject, he might observe, that though the new bill had been discussed, perhaps decided, in that House, it had yet to pass through another ordeal, and that, therefore, the House was in the same situation substantially as when they had started. When they had commenced these proceedings they had opposed the writ, and now he knew not on what grounds the writ should be issued.

Sir, when the House resolved to inquire into the alleged corrupt compromises affecting the borough of Nottingham, and the committee had power to inquire into the extent of bribery which had been practised, I willingly consented to the postponement of the writ; for I thought that it would have been inconsistent to support a committee with very extraordinary powers, and immediately to issue the writ for a new election. But now the committee have made their report, and there is nothing in that report which induces me to suppose that it is their opinion that measures ought to be taken for the purpose of disfranchising the borough. You have no recommendation in the report of ulterior proceedings. So far as Nottingham is concerned, that being the case, I think it would be unconstitutional to consent to the indefinite postponement of the writ. But then it is said, there will be more corrupt practices. Now, let us take the case of treating. I apprehend by the law, as it at present stands, any treating now, even before the test of the writ, would be illegal. In the case of a general election, treating before the test of the writ might not, under certain circumstances, conic within the act; although, on general principles, it is illegal, yet it might not come within the statute 7th and 8th William. But in the present case, there being now a vacancy, I apprehend any man who treats at Nottingham before even the test of the writ is liable to forfeit his seat, and would be disqualified. The hon. Member seems to contradict me? [Mr. Bernal: was only listening.] At all events, I am certainly right in my view of the law, that if at this moment, even before the writ is issued, any candidate is treating at Nottingham he is liable to forfeit his seat. But so far as treating. is concerned I think the distinction in point of time is an unwise one. It tends to raise an impression, that treating is not objectionable until after the test of a writ. Suppose, now, you remove this distinction of time, and make all treating an offence against law, I confess you will then have carried the law as far as it is possible. It is said there should be a new law on treating. Why, the law existing on the subject is as strong as it is possible to have it, Let us see now what the law here really is. There is an excellent preamble (exceedingly applicable to the present period), couched in language as strong as possible:—

" whereas, great and grievous complaints are made, and do manifestly appear to be true, that elections are carried with excesses and outrages contrary to the free and pure representation of the Commons of England, &c."

It is then enacted,

" That any person who shall by any means before his election give, directly or indirectly, any meat, drink, provision, &c., or make any gift or reward, or any promise of such meat, drink, &c., or of any gift or reward, &c., any such person shall loose his seat, and be declared incapable of serving in Parliament."

Could there be stronger words? If there were any error, it was in superfluity of language: unless it were the error, of appearing to draw the distinction as to time and I cannot help thinking, that it would be best to abolish that distinction altogether, and to enact that whosoever shall treat, either before or after an election, shall be liable to loose his seat, leaving it to the committee to determine the animus of any particular entertainment; in some cases perhaps a breakfast, &c., may not be of a corrupt character; but leaving it to the committee to determine that, it would be well to abolish altogether any distinction of time. The punishment is certainly severe enough, including, as it does disqualification as well as loss of seat. I hope, within the present Session, the bill under our consideration will pass, with useful clauses respecting head-money, and providing that in cases of compromise the committee may conduct the investigation at the public charge. That measure will have a retrospective effect, and will apply to the ensuing election. I cannot help expressing my conviction, that on a bill so intimately connected with our own proceedings and constitution, the House of Lords will pay sufficient deference to our judgment to pass the main provisions of the measure: of course I cannot answer for the decisions of the other House, but, at all events, it may be relied upon that I will be no party to the defeat of the bill. Therefore, if the election took place within the next few days, any description of treating now going on would be subject to investigation. If the House were to sit for six months longer we could do no more, so far as enactments go. Nor do I see any sort of inconsistency in having, when the committee was about to be appointed, voted for the suspension of the writ; and now, finding no recommendation in the report of disfranchisement, refusing to be a party to the indefinite suspension of the elective rights of some 50,000 people; I shall therefore cordially join in issuing the writ. Now, really I cannot help just adverting to the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose—of course it were impossible and useless to be angry with anything he says; but certainly if any Gentlemen differ from him in opinion, he reproaches them with "stultifying the House," and being influenced by the worst motives, and so on; giving no credit to them for honourable feeling, but rising immediately after a division adverse to his own opinions and denouncing all others in most unmeasured terms. If his disposition at all corresponded (which I believe it does not) with the harsh language he employs, and if he were vested with despotic power, he certainly would be one of the most tyrannical of men. No man who ever was the judge of an inquisition—no arbitrary tyrant could ever display more intolerance of bigotry than does the hon. Gentleman towards his political opponents. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that when others differ from him it would be more charitable and tolerant to give to all equal credit for good and honourable motives, and to avoid acting on the principle, which is the essence of all bigotry, that you must necessarily be quite right and everybody else quite wrong. [Mr. Hume had merely remarked on what seemed to him the inconsistency of the right hon. Baronet.] Now, that convinces me, Sir, how little the hon. Member minds what he says, for assuredly he last night accused me of countenancing all sorts of abominations, and said that I had acted quite inconsistently, and had stultified the House.

said, that if the right hon. Baronet had not shown reasonable grounds to lead to the conclusion that the bill now in progress would be passed during the present Session,—if it were not shown that that measure would receive the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, as well as the honest support of her Majesty's Government, he thought there would be sufficient reason for still suspending the writ for Nottingham; but having proceeded so far with the Bribery Bill, he did not see that any ground longer existed which would prevent an acquiescence in the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale. He, therefore, would consent to the motion, receiving the speech of the right hon. Baronet as an understanding that the Bribery Bill would receive the support of the Government in the other House. If the arguments used by the hon. and learned Solicitor-general against the resolutions of the hon. and learned Member for Bath were to stand good—if those resolutions were to be got rid of on the plea then put forward, and if the Bribery Bill were to to be thrown overboard by a manoeuvre, then he should come to the conclusion of the hon. Member for Montrose, that the House would only stultify itself by such a course of proceeding. Thinking thus, he would assent to the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale, on the understanding that the Bribery Bill should pass during the present Session, and that all which occurred within the Session should come within the operation of the nineteenth clause of the bill. This, coupled with the doing away with the limitation as to the time of treating, would, in his opinion, strike at the root of the evil.

said, that as the general opinion appeared to be in favour of the motion he should not object to it. His own inclination, however, would be for a postponement of the writ for a short time until the bill now in progress had passed into a law. He did not say this from any doubt of the bill passing; on that point he thought the House mighty, make itself quite at ease; but every person could perceive the influence which the present state of things would have upon any election which might immediately take place, and the different effects which would be produced by a bill which had become law, and a bill which was still pending. He thought it would better answer the purpose which they all had in view to postpone the issuing of the writ for a week until the bill became a law, or nearly approached to being so; but, as the will of the House seemed otherwise, he should offer no objection.

opposed the motion on the ground that he did not see why this country should be called upon to pay the interest of a million and a half of money.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman had read with attention the papers which had been laid upon the Table with respect to this loan, he would have found that the expense would not be thrown upon the mother country. It was a loan necessary for the colony, and for the fulfilment of an honourable pledge given by her Majesty. Some public works had been commenced in Canada upon the faith of this loan, and there was not the slightest doubt that it would be of the greatest advantage to the colony, in improving its navigation, and promoting its commercial facilities.

complained, that in spite of the pledges of the Government, and the decision of a majority of forty-four Members of that House, similar assistance had not been extended to the public works of Ireland. He did not know why such a distinction was made in favour of Canada.

thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to state what those public works were, which he stated to be going on in Canada.