moved the order of the day for the House to go into committee on the Exportation of Machinery Bill.

thought it was not a fair or manly course to bring in a measure of this kind while the majority of the county Members were absent. If the right hon. Gentleman went on in this way, he must be called the President, not of the Board of Trade, but of the Board of Free Trade. As the bill was a dangerous step towards that free-trade, which he hated, he would move that it be committed that day three months.

supported the amendment. He was opposed to the bill, because it would deprive this country of all the advantages it possessed in superior ingenuity and superior machinery, and the result would infallibly be, a free-trade in corn.

warmly approved of the bill, and agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in the principles laid down in his very able speech of last night in support of the measure. Therefore, he should not have troubled the House on the subject had not the right hon. Gentleman alluded in his speech to the export duty on coal. The right hon. Gentleman appeared conscious that the arguments with which he supported this bill were at variance with those made use of by the right hon. Baronet at the head Government in defence of the export tax on coal; and he endeavoured to get out of this difficulty by saying that the coal-tax was a revenue measure and solely to be defended on that ground. But, on turning to the speech of the right hon. Baronet on introducing the measure he (Mr. Forster) found that the right hon. Baronet defended it, among other grounds, as—

"A tax levied on an article produced in this country—an element of manufactures, necessary to manufactures, tending by its export to increase the competition with our own manufactures."

And further, he recommended it as—

"Operating as few taxes do, to the encouragement of native industry."

Now, the doctrines laid down in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman last night were altogether inconsistent with those urged by the right hon. Baronet in defence of the coal-tax; therefore, he begged to give the right hon. Gentleman notice, that whenever the question of the coal duty should come on he should claim the right hon. Gentleman's support of the repeal of that duty, on the principles he has laid down in defence of that bill.

thought the exportation of machinery rested upon grounds peculiar to itself, and had no connection with any other question. There was no other article the export of which was prohibited, and the prohibition in this instance had entirely failed to prevent foreign countries obtaining machines, while it deprived this country of a valuable branch of trade. The export of machinery already took place under the authority of orders of council, and there was no reason why the House should not sanction the exportation as a direct general principle.

had opposed the bill in the first instance, but, as the House had so far sanctioned it, he should vote for its being considered in committee; he con- ceived that the question was intimately connected with the abolition of the Corn-laws, and he trusted to see the Government follow this measure out with others, repealing the Corn-laws, and giving full freedom to trade.

said the bill related to a branch of manufactures purely domestic, the materials for which were produced in this country, and which carried on entirely by British artizans The object was one which we all had in view, the increase of employment and the improvement of the trade in this country.

complained that the treaty, which had been entered into with France, for regulating the fisheries of the two countries was most unequally advantageous to the French fishermen, so much so that the French press had loudly congratulated their countrymen upon the advantages they had obtained from Lord Aberdeen. He wished to know how far the House had the power of altering that treaty?

said, the House, though it might refuse to carry a treaty into effect where an Act of Parliament was necessary for that purpose, could not alter or modify a treaty itself. Lord Aberdeen had made the most favourable arrangements for this country that he could. Though England, no doubt, had made concessions, France had made others in return of much value to our fishermen.

thought that the third regulation was opposed to the articles of the treaty, which gave to the fishermen of each country the exclusive right witin three miles of their respective shores. The third regulation, however, permitted the French fishermen, during the herring season, to come within the limits of the British fisheries. This permission would practically put an end to the limitation laid down by the treaty, as far as the French fishermen were concerned. It was said that the concession was reciprocally advantageous; but there was no reciprocity in the matter, for our fishermen never required to go within the French zone. It was an unwise and unnecessary concession; and indeed, in his opinion, the commissioners, in making it, had exceeded their powers.

said, that there had been reciprocity, to all intents and purposes; for, in return for allowing the French boats to anchor, during the herring fishery, within three miles of our coast, our fishermen were to be allowed to anchor their oyster boats within the port of Chaussée, a concession of which they had been greatly desirous. Whether the one concession was a return in full for the other, was a different question.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Treasury respecting the transactions of Scinde. The hon. Member for Bath having abandoned his motion, there was no chance at this period of the Session of having a discussion of the question. He did not mean to express any opinion on the papers which the right hon. Baronet had laid on the Table. He only wished to elucidate the question he meant to ask by reading a passage from the last paper but one of that collection—the notification of the Governor-general of India. The last paper in the collection was an extract from the Governor-general says, after adverting to the success of the army:—

"Thus has victory placed at the disposal of the British Government the country on both banks of the Indus, from Sukkur to the sea, with the exception of such portions thereof as may belong to Meer Ali Moorad of Khyrpore, and to any other of the Ameers who may have remained faithful to his engagements."

He wished to ask then, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not be surprised at his anxiety, as there could be no discussion, whether it were the intention of the Government to retain all that territory, or what it purposed to do? He did not ask that the right hon. Baronet should lay the instructions he had sent out on the Table, but he wished to know what was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman.

had stated to the House on a former occasion, in answer to a question whether he would lay on the table the instructions, in order to enable the House to form an opinion, that he did not consider it consistent with the duty of the Government, to lay before Parliament the instructions sent to the Governor-general of India respecting the operations of Scinde. He had said that he would take an opportunity to give a full explanation, but that then there were some points on which the information was defective, and some points on which it was altogether wanted, and that he could not go into the subject. The right hon. Gentleman now asked him to state his opinion, as he could not lay the instructions on the table; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman must have sufficient acquaintance with public business to admit that it was not possible to answer his questions, and he must, therefore, decline.

said, what his right hon. Friend wished was not that the right hon. Baronet should give his opinion prospectively as to the operations, but to learn what opinion the Government had formed of the operations which had taken place, and whether it thought the advance on Scinde was justified by the circumstances of the case.

was sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord must be aware, from their knowledge of public business, that he must postpone answering the question till be had had a full communication with the Governor-general of India.

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet a question. He had learned from the ordinary sources whence they derived their information of what occurred in another place, that a noble and learned Lord had introduced a bill, for the purpose of reviving a portion of the Coercion Bill for Ireland, and giving to the Government the power of changing the venue on the trial of any description of offences from one county to another. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government meant to take up that bill, he asked whether the Government meant to support it, and, if it did mean to support it, whether it supported it on the military reasons which had been assigned for it by the noble and learned Lord? He asked the question because most of the Irish Members had left town, and it was a matter of necessity, on a question of such importance, that the speediest information should be obtained of the intention of the Government.

said, the hon. Member had given him an intimation of his intention to ask him a question respecting a bill which had been introduced into the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman was better informed upon the bill than he was; for until the hon. Gentleman told him of the bill he was himself ignorant of its existence. The hon. Gentleman would no doubt take that as a complete proof that he was no party to the introduction of the bill. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, that if, in the opinion of her Majesty's Government, such a measure was necessary—that if they thought it proper that a measure of that nature should be proposed to Parliament, they would propose the measure themselves, and take on themselves the responsibility of introducing it and conducting it through Parliament. He must also say, that if her Majesty's Government had thought it expedient to introduce such a measure, they would certainly have deemed it ad- visable to present it to the consideration of the House at an earlier period of the Session, and they would not have permitted the Members for Ireland to depart from town without giving them some intimation of their intentions upon the subject. He trusted he should not be called upon to pronounce an opinion with respect to the bill, but he felt under no obligation whatever to support it as a Government measure, or to state the general opinions of the Government on the subject. He thought the hon. Gentleman might infer what would be the course the Government would take, should the bill come before that House.

could not feel otherwise than satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. But, at the same time, as the bill was in the other House, he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, whether it should be proceeded with in the absence of the leading Irish Members.

said, that he thought he could undertake to assure the hon. Gentleman that it would not be necessary for him to call his friends to London on account of that bill.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary at War, respecting the bill which was read a second time last night, and which he considered a bill to augment the standing army. He begged to ask how many men this bill would enable the Government to place under arms?

said, he conceived that the bill would only enable the pensioners to be called out in the different localities, and he believed that the number which might be armed were about 5,000 for England, 2,000 for Scotland, and between 1,000 and 2,000 for Ireland, making in all between 8,000 and 9,000. He repeated that these persons would merely act in case of a local demand for their services, in the towns where they reside.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman relative to the General who commanded and relative to the army in Scinde. After the termination of the war in Affghanistan, the army and Generals Pollock, Nott, and Sale, received the public thanks of the two Houses of Parliament. At the same time the officers received several different rewards. It was also the case that the officers and men employed in China had been thanked. He thought that was just and proper. He wished, however, that such honours should be extended. The General commanding the army on the Indus had received no other reward than a ribbon and a regiment, to which he was well entitled for his services in the Peninsula. All agreed that the General and the army had displayed great courage, and had conducted themselves in a most exemplary manner under great disadvantages. With respect to the General himself, he knew that the General was foremost wherever the battle raged, and that to his valour and skill much of the success was due. He asked, therefore, whether it were intended to bestow the thanks of the House on the General who commanded in Scinde? It might be said, that the war in Affghanistan and the war in China were ended before the thanks of Parliament were voted, and the operations of Scinde were not yet ended. He did not think that a sufficient reason for the distinction, and he hoped that he should, for the honour of his family, receive a satisfactory answer.

said, that there was not one word which the gallant officer had used, in reference to the brilliant exploits performed by General Sir Charles Napier, in Scinde, respecting his great military skill and courage, and respecting his great devotion to the public service, in which he did not most cordially agree. He could not but feel that the gratitude of the country was due to the general, officers, and troops, for the achievement of one of the most brilliant exploits that was to be found in military annals. He did not say anything as to the rewards that should be given to such merits as those of Sir Charles Napier. It was true that a command of a regiment had been given to him, and the grand cross, the highest order of the Bath, had been conferred upon him. He hoped, then, that he had said enough to prove to the gallant commodore, that her Majesty's Government recognised on the part of Sir Charles Napier, that he had the strongest claims on the gratitude of his country for his great military skill and merits. He did not believe that there was an instance in all the records of our military engagements where greater praise was due to the commander for an engagement attended with such brilliant success. It was invidious to make any distinction in such a case, but he could not avoid referring to the bravery of the Sepoy regiments, and the gallant conduct of the officers of the native army. It was, he thought, impossible to draw distinctions, where a victory was won by the exhibition of personal valour in so many instances; but, in considering this, they could not but be conscious, that the example was given by a chief, who, in his readiness personally to front danger, almost forgot the results that depended upon his personal safety, but who was resolved that by his example all should be animated, and that every one under his command, being filled with his spirit, could not but ensure for him and for them a glorious victory. He could not but give the highest credit to the man who had thus acted. He expressed that opinion in the face of the country; but, still, he did think it would be a great advantage that the expression of the public gratitude should be delayed until the operations were concluded. This was the course that had been pursued on other occasions. It was done in the case of the operations of China; for of the victory at Canton, it might well be said, that it was of the most brilliant description. So, as to the battle of Assaye, the thanks were not voted on receiving the first intelligence; the expression of Parliament was postponed until the operations were concluded. He hoped, in what he had said, that he had relieved the mind of the gallant officer from any impression, if he had any such, that there was in the minds of her Majesty's Government, any insensibility as to the high and distinguished merits of Sir Charles Napier. When the operations were closed, he should have no hesitation in proposing the thanks of Parliament for the manner in which these operations had been carried on. He should, however, be acting more consistently, and evincing more respect to the individuals engaged in these operations, by opposing a vote of thanks until he had the opportunity of stating to Parliament that those operations were concluded.

said, that he had given notice of a question regarding the Irish Registration Bill, and that it would be necessary for him to refer to some documents, relating to it. The Longford Committee, on the 10th of April, 1842, reported,

"That the Committee desire to call the instant and serious attention of the House to the state of the law, as it materially affects a very considerable portion of the parliamentary franchise in Ireland. They allude especially to the conflicting decisions which are so frequently given by Committees of this House, in respect to the issue technically termed, the opening of the registry, and to the impracticability of affirming, with the contradictory opinions of learned judges before them, the right meaning and application of the words 'beneficial interest,' with the terms 4 'clear yearly value.' That the Committee are unanimously of opinion, that without some declaratory act, it will be impossible for any future Committees to arrive at any consistent or satisfactory conclusion."

The report was made on the 10th April, 1842. The Government not having brought in a Bill, the noble Lord, the Member for London, on June 17, 1842, asked whether it were intended to introduce any measure this Session as to Irish registration. The right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, said, it would be much better to determine the principle of English registration before they proceeded to that of Ireland. During the entire Session nothing was done. On the 9th February, 1843, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Smith O'Brien) asked whether the Government intended to bring in a Bill for regulating the elective franchise in Ireland. The right hon. Secretary of State (Sir James Graham) said, he had already announced that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill respecting the registration of voters in England. In that Bill the Government would deal with the franchise as they might deem expedient. February 10, 1843, the hon. Member for Kildare, (Mr. O'Ferrall) asked when the Irish Registration Bill would be brought forward. Sir James Graham said, it was not his intention to introduce the Irish Registration Bill until the English Registration Bill should pass through all its stages. On the 10th of April, 1843, the English Registration Bill passed, yet nothing whatever was done in respect to the Irish Registration Bill. He asked the Government what course they meant to take, and the Secretary for the Home Department stated, that the Irish Arms Bill must have precedence. Afterwards, it was stated, that the Poor-law must also have prece- dence. The hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. O'Ferrall) observed on the 27th of July, that the valuation under the Poor-law was to be discretionary and mutable, and that the franchise, if intended to be fixed and stable, could not be erected upon it. He justly observed, that the Poor-law afforded no justification for the delay of the Registration Bill. The Secretary for the Home Department then declared that he would not bind himself to adopt the resolution under the Poor-law, as the basis of the franchise. Under these cirumstances, it was most strange that no Retration Bill had been introduced. He, therefore, begged to inquire, first, whether a Registration Bill was to be brought forward this Session; next, whether the right hon. Baronet would state the outlines of the measure; thirdly, whether the Bill was to be brought forward early next Session?

said, he did not propose to lay on the Table a Registration Bill for Ireland during the present Session. Early next Session it was his intention to submit the question to the consideration of Parliament. The Right hon. Gentleman had referred to a declaration made last Session, with respect to this measure, and he was prepared to state to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House, that during the last recess, the attention of Government was directed to this subject, more particularly to increasing the county constituency, which would be inevitably narrowed by the direct rule of beneficial interests, according to the legal construction which had been put upon them. The effect of that construction, combined with a more rigid scheme of registration, would inevitably be productive of a diminution of the county voters; and that being the case, her Majesty's Government found it necessary to apply their minds to some scheme of compensation. The Government had directed their attention to the Poor-law valuation, and the result of that consideration, led them to the conviction, that it was impossible to found any uniform scheme of franchise on the valuation as it existed at present, since, under circumstances perfectly identical, they found the valuation to vary frequently as much as twenty-five per cent. The right hon. Gentleman asked, what was the intention of her Majesty's Government as to any future measure; and whether the Government would give any general outline of the mea- sure. He was prepared to state, that a general Registration Bill was contemplated for Ireland, and that all its main provisions were analogous to those of the measure relating to England, which had now received the sanction of the Legislature. With regard to the franchise, he repeated what he had stated, that the enforcement of a rigid scheme of registration would greatly narrow the county franchise. Her Majesty's Government thought that was not desirable. The Bill, therefore, would define the franchise in respect to the beneficial interest, and there was no definition which the Government could propose, but an adherence to the strict law as laid down by competent authority, in conformity with the law of England, which he believed to be the only sound one. The Government then thought that some compensation was necessary, and an enlargement of the county constituency in Ireland desirable. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to what had passed before the Committee on the Irish Poor-law. Fearing the prevalence of any party motive, he had entreated that Committee to separate the valuation for Poor-law purposes, as contradistinguished from valuation for Poor-law franchise; but he by no means pledged the Government to adopt that valuation, neither did he preclude himself or the Government from bringing forward a measure founded upon it, nor did he now pledge himself either way. The right hon. Gentleman, then, would understand that the Registration Bill, quoad registration, would be founded on the model of the English Bill; it would contain a declaration of franchise, founded on a beneficial interest, according to the strict definition of that term; and as the effect of this would be to narrow the constituency without compensation, it was the intention of Government to advise some mode of compensation to meet that deficiency. He did not consider it consistent with his duty to say more at present.

had to move the adoption of the clauses of which he had given notice, they related to the mode in which persons in Ireland, entitled to receive rent-charge in lieu of tithe, were at present assessed for the relief of the poor. As it happened, however, that the parties principally concerned in these clauses were the Irish clergy, and seeing the hon. Gentlemen, the Member for Sheffield, opposite, he would just say that he hoped the matter would be discussed, as every other clause in the bill had been, apart from all party considerations. It was simply a question of justice, whether in point of fact one class in the community had to complain that the principle upon which they had to contribute towards the relief of the poor was not unfair and unequal, as compared with other classes. And with a view to this, it was necessary to call the attention of the House to the present position of all parties, whether lay or clerical, entitled to receive rent-charge in lieu of tithe in Ireland, and to the principle upon which the poor rate was made. If he understood the principle of the Poor Law right, it was this, that the net annual letting value being in all cases ascertained, and a rate being struck upon that net annual value, one-half the poundage is made payable by the occupier, by reason of, and in consideration of, the profits of occupation; and the other half by the landlord, in consideration of the profits of ownership. In this respect the principle of the Poor Law in Ireland was different from that in England. While the original character of tithe property remained, he could easily understand that the tithe owner might be considered as the proprietor, pro tanto in occupation; but since tithe in Ireland had been converted into rent-charge, with a heavy deduction, he thought the character of the property was altered, and the proprietorship divided into two parts, one of which belonged to the landlord, and the other to the tithe rent-charger. It appeared to him, that it followed from this that the landlord and the tithe rent-charger stood on nearly the same grounds, each being liable to a moiety of the poundage, according to his respective interest. Certainly this was the opinion of many persons in Ireland, who had transmitted through him petitions to the House. They thought that the rent-charger ought not in future to be called upon to pay more than a person receiving rent to the same amount. But how is the tithe rent-charger circumstanced? In the first place, by what he could not but consider a mere omission in the Poor Law, a lessee of tithes is not entitled to make any deduction from his lessor, like all other lessees of property. The tithe rent-charger whether lay or ecclesiastical, has further to complain that he has to pay upon an extreme, while all other persons pay upon a very low, valuation. This will, of course, be remedied in a great degree by a more correct valuation, but the tithe rent-charger pays upon a gross, while others pay upon a net valuation, and in many cases, in point of fact, the clergy pay upon incomes which they do not possess. They further have reason to complain, that one-half the deduction which the landlord allows, is clear gain to the landlord, in addition to the 25 per cent. which he has already received under the tithe rent-charge act. He was aware that this part of the question was involved in some difficulty; but whatever it might be in theory, he was quite sure that what he had stated was the case in point of fact. Many instances had been given him—he would select one furnished by a clergyman. This gentleman mentions a property in his parish of 1,200l. a year in rents, the valuation being the same, the rent-charge 50l. a year, the poor rate 1s. in the pound. In this case the occupier pays collector 60l., the landlord pays the occupier 30l., the clergyman pays the landlord 2l. 10s., so that the position of the parties is as follows:—the occupier pays 30l.; the landlord 27l. 10s.; the clergyman 2l. 10s.—60l. In this case the landlord has manifestly the advantage, of one half the rate paid by the clergyman, for the landlord's income, after deducting the rent-charge payable to the clergyman, is 1,150l.; half the poor rate upon 1,150l. is 28l. 15s. But the landlord pays only 27l. 10s. and has consequently the advantage of 1l. 5s. Another case had been put to him by way of showing the injustice of the present system, from which it appears that a landlord might virtually receive from the tithe rent-charger as much or more than he himself has to pay to the tenant. This would, in point of fact, happen in any case in which from any circumstance, as in the case of an unexpired term of an old lease, the tithe rent-charge is equal or larger in amount than the rent. Tithe rent-charges are subject also to this inconvenience, that the landlord deducts the entire poundage upon the annual rent-charge from the half-yearly payment. With respect to the operation of the present law upon the clergy peculiarly, the House is aware that the clergy of Ireland are liable to an eccle- siastical tax under the Church Temporalities Act. Now the clergy have to pay poor rate upon the amount, which goes in the shape of this tax to the ecclesiastical commissioners, and they have to pay ecclesiastical tax upon the amount which they pay to the poor rates. They have also in many cases in Ireland to pay to their predecessors, or to lay out themselves, under the Irish laws, upon their glebe houses, sums of money, by which the rateable value of those glebe houses is increased, and yet no allowance is made for that expenditure. The clergyman is thus paying twice—1st.—His rent-charge is rateable without deduction for sums so expended, or for the interest of sums so expended on his glebe house. 2nd.—His glebe house is rated at an increased value on account of the sums so expended. The remedy which the clauses he had to propose would apply to these hardships, was this—With regard to lay rent-charge, it would be made a rateable hereditament, subject to all the deductions which other property was subject to under the existing law. With respect to clerical rent-charge, the case would be somewhat different. Under the 3rd and 4th William IV., chap. 17, the Church Temporalities Act, a certain principle was laid down for the taxation of ecclesiastical property in Ireland—a valuation of the gross income of each benefice was made in the first instance; from that gross income a deduction is made of the sums necessarily payable by the incumbent out of his benefice—the salaries of perpetual curates—interest of money which he is compelled to lay out upon his glebe, or to pay to his predecessor; by which expenditure the rateable value of the glebe is enhanced, and the ecclesiastical tax is struck upon the net value—the sum which actually comes into the clergyman's pocket as income after these deductions. It was the object of the clause he had to propose, to apply that principle of taxation to the poor rate payable by the clergy. He was aware of the objection that might be made against his proposition, on the grounds that the system in England is different—but then he had already remarked, the whole system of the Poor Law in Ireland was different from that in England, and he did think it could not be considered unreasonable that rate payers in Ireland should call upon the House to tax them for what they had, and not for what they had not.

said, that a report had recently been made by the Poor-law commissioners, which would make it necessary next Session to introduce a measure for the purpose of regulating the whole question of tithe rent charge. He admitted there was some disadvantage to the Irish tithe owner, in consequence of his not being rated on the books, and he should have no objection pending the general measure which would be brought in next Session to put the Irish tithe owner on the same footing as the English one, but these clauses went further, and claimed deductions on account of curates' salaries and other charges for which no deduction was allowed in England, and to this he could not consent.

proposed a clause, to take away from Poor-law commissioners the power to appoint or dismiss any assistant Poor-law commissioner in Ireland without the consent of the Secretary of State. He wished to prevent the recurrence of such a transaction as that which occured in the dismissal of Dr. Phelan, with respect to whom it was a general feeling in Ireland that he had been sacrificed to prejudice.

said, that he would much rather see the appointment vested in the Executive Government, who would be responsible for the manner in which power was exercised by them, than by the Poor-law commissioners, who afforded a proof of their irresponsibility in the manner they had treated Dr. Phelan.

thought it extremely inconvenient, at the present advanced stage of the bill, to introduce a clause so closely bearing upon its principle, and the constitution of the Board by which it was carried into effect. The proper remedy in cases of abuse in these appointments would be by address to the Crown. If it were proposed to add the labour of all the details of the Poor-law upon the Home Department, he apprehended that that duty alone would fully occupy all the time of the Secretary of that department. He must, therefore oppose the clause.

rose to move the omission of the 16th clause, which enabled the guardians of the poor to assist destitute poor persons to emigrate. Looking at the title of this bill, nobody would have supposed that any of its provisions could have had reference to the subject of emigration; and he had not the most remote notion that emigration came within the scope of the bill until his attention had been drawn to the fact by an article which appeared in The Times newspaper. He should not trouble the House at this advanced stage of the bill, did he not think the subject of considerable importance, not merely in reference to the direct object of the clause, but also with reference to its effect upon other measures which were actually in operation under the authority of her Majesty's Government and a board especially appointed for that purpose. He had two objections to the clause. In the first place he greatly objected to the mixing up emigration at all with the administration of the Poor-laws. These laws had already sufficient odium attached to them, and if emigration, on a system which many would consider as a sort of transportation, were added, their unpopularity would be increased. The clause was compulsory, and, if adopted, would bring upon the Poor-laws the imputation that transportation was the penalty for being poor. Now, what he wished was that emigration should be held out to the people as a great and substantial means for bettering their condition; but if it was connected with pauperism, it would be regarded as a mere alternative for, and have all the degradation attached to, the workhouse. But if this clause was calculated to be odious to the paupers, it was equally so to the rate-payers, inasmuch as the emigration rate could, under its provisions, be raised by the commissioners without the consent of the rate-payers at all. He had another objection even stronger than that he had already stated to the clause. That objection was founded upon the effect of the operation of the clause upon the colonies. What would the working of the system be? By this clause parishes were empowered to send out emigrants. Where would they send them to? Too much humanity must not be ascribed to the parochial authorities. Their object would doubtless be to inquire to what colony they could transport their emigrants cheapest, and they would have no regard to the benefit of the emigrants or the advantage of the colony, and practically the result would be that emigrants would be sent to Canada, and to Canada alone. It was not probable that the parochial authorities would go to the expense of 18l. or 20l. to send a man to Australia, when they could send him to Canada at an expense of 5l. That being so, what would be the effect upon Canada, as well as the emigrants so sent out? The noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, on a former occasion, stated that Canada was not the place to which to send emigrants who had nothing to carry with them but their labour; and he begged to ask the noble Lord how he could give his sanction to this clause until some provision had been made in Canada for the reception of the paupers to be sent out to that colony under its provisions? He understood, also, the Government had a specific object in view, namely, to send out to Canada a number of young women. To this he objected, because they were not wanted; in Canada there was no inequality of the sexes. What would be the effect of pauper emigration on the colony? What had been the effect before on Canada? So bad that the Assembly resolved to check it by a tax. Instead of any benefit, it would be a disgrace and disadvantage to the colony. At present emigrants were selected, they were examined, and unless fit for labour and in good health, they were not sent out. There was no provision of that nature in this bill. It was proposed to assist any poor persons desirous of going out. [Lord Eliot.—Under the superintendance of the commissioners.] Yes, under the superintendance of the commissioners; but still there were no regulations as to age, health, sex, or qualification for labour. He might appeal to Irish Gentlemen on both sides of the House whether it were not the duty of Government to relieve the population of Ireland by a large and well regulated system of emigration. He wished to have this clause omitted, because he objected to the mixing up of emigration with the Poor-laws; and, though he might occasion the stoppage of some slight relief to Ireland during the next six months, he should lead the way for a proper system of emigration.

said, the subject had been fully discussed before with respect to colonization to which the hon. and learned Member had directed so much at- tention, and the importance of which he did not underrate. He thought that while the interests of the colony should be regarded, no opportunity of relieving the mother country should be neglected. In the existing Poor-law there was a power given to send out emigrants. Under the working of the emigration clause and the English Poor-law Bill 10,575 emigrants had been sent out during the last seven years—6,737 to the North American colonies, 864 to the United States, 114 to the Cape of Good Hope, and 2,860 to the Australian colonies. There was nothing compulsory in the clause, as the hon. Gentleman supposed; and the absence of the abuse of their present power on the part of the guardians under the existing laws was a proof that the power now proposed to be given might be safely intrusted to them. He had no objection to take a large view of the subject of emigration, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman; and if he thought this clause would interfere with such an object he would not insist upon it. Upon general grounds he was determined to adhere to the clause.

said, he had understood, that however large and general were the terms of the clause, the Government had a specific object in view—the emigration of young women. But if it was not the intention of Government to send them to Canada, but to the Australian colonies, still his objection to the principle of the clause was not removed

begged the hon. Gentleman not to run away with the notion that the clause was confined to any specific object. The design was to benefit parties desiring to emigrate, and at the same time to confer no mean advantage on the colony. The hon. Gentleman could not condemn more than he did the shovelling out of the pauperism of this country upon the shores of its colonies. It would be most cruel and barbarous. He had in the course of the present year had to complain of, and remonstrate with, certain emigration societies who had sent out emigrants who were in a state of destitution and not likely to be able to obtain their living by their industry. By the same post that he wrote to those parties, pointing out the cruelty of their proceedings, he wrote out also to the governors of the colonies to which the emigrants were bound, warning them of the circumstance, and entreating them on the arrival of the emigrants to provide means for their sustenance or employment. Under these circumstances, he trusted the motion would be withdrawn.

should be glad if it were possible to exclude fugitive slaves altogether from the operation of this bill; but he did not see how it could be done. He should confine some suggestions he wished to make to amending those clauses which related to fugitive slaves, hoping that he should induce some expression of opinion from her Majesty's Government, as likely to have effect in the interpretation of the bill across the Atlantic. It appeared to him that a fugitive slave about to be committed by a magistrate should have some opportunity of offering exculpatory evidence. He thought too, that it should not merely be discretionary on the part of the Governor of a colony to send the documents relating to the committal of a slave to the Colonial Secretary, but compulsory. Again, it was said that the slave might be committed for every species of robbery and theft. What was to constitute these offences? Was it to be said that the clothes which a slave had on when he escaped, the boat he came in, or the horse that enabled him to effect his flight, were stolen? Again, supposing he was really guilty of some crime, was he, when taken back, to be treated as a slave or a freeman? The conditions of trial were very different, and so were the punishments of slaves and freemen. In the case likewise of a slave committed by a magistrate unjustly (and he supposed magistrates in the colonies were not wiser than any where else), and afterwards acquitted, what became of him? All the vindictive feelings of the owner might be exasperated against him on account of his flight, and he might be inclined to wreak his vengeance on him when thus restored to his possession. There was a great apprehension entertained by one who had devoted his life to mitigating the horrors of slavery—he meant Thomas Clarkson—that slaves who had been long inhabitants of free countries would have their settlements disturbed by false charges being preferred against them. For himself, he did not apprehend there was any such danger; but he owned that for the future he thought it not unlikely that slaves escaping would be prosecuted on groundless charges. Any one who paid attention to the quarrels which arose between the slave-holding and free states of America must see the necessity of having the provisions of this bill as little doubtful as possible. He hoped some such declaration would be made by the Government as Lord Aberdeen had expressed some time back, as to (we believe) the case of the Creole.

said the object of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be to exempt fugitive slaves wholly from the operation of this bill. He did not see how, if any attention was paid to the law of nations, such a general exemption should be made. In the case of the Creole it was the opinion of the law officers of the Government, that, according to our law, it could not for a moment be permitted that the slaves should be restored. They were as safe in the Bahama islands as they would be in the exchange; and whatever were the consequences her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to act up to the law. He thought he might pledge the Government to the declaration, that on any similar occasion they would pursue a similar course. The right hon. Gentleman had put the case of a slave effecting his escape in a boat, and asked whether, if he were charged with stealing the boat, he would be surrendered to the American Government? He did not hesitate to say that under such circumstances the man would not be surrendered; and for this reason, that it was a principle of our law that a slave was not guilty of theft in taking and using the property of another, be it a horse or a boat, for the purpose of assisting him in effecting his escape. But even if a fugitive slave should take property not with the view of aiding his escape—suppose he should steal the property—still that would not form a ground for delivering him up to the American Government, because theft was not one of the crimes enumerated in the treaty. No crime was recognised in the treaty except such as were acknowledged to be such by the universal assent of all civilized nations, namely, murder, assault with intent to commit murder, piracy, arson, robbery, forgery, and the utterance of forged paper. It was urged that cases would be got up, that false charges would be preferred against fugitive slaves for the purpose of procuring them to be surrendered to the United States. That certainly was possible, though he did not think it was very probable. It, however, was not fitting that in dealing with a foreign nation, with whom we were on terms of amity, we should assume that its citizens would commit perjury to such an extent as to render it necessary to make special provision against it. Would it be decent on our part to say to the United States, "we will give up any man whom you charge with murder unless he be a slave; but him we will not surrender?" Would not that be a plain declaration that a slave might commit any crime in America without incurring the risk of being delivered up if he should succeed in making his escape into the British territories? It would be unbecoming the character of the British nation to pursue such a course. If we could for a moment suppose that the Americans were capable of foreswearing themselves, it would be far better for us to abstain altogether from entering into treaties, or even forming commercial relations with a people in whose good faith we could put no confidence. The right hon. Gentleman had adverted to the difference in the punishment inflicted on a slave and a freeman in the United States; he said, for instance, that the crime of arson was punished by death in the case of a slave, and by imprisonment in that of a citizen; and then the right hon. Gentleman asked whether a fugitive slave was to be delivered into the hands of the Americans as a slave, or in his new character of a freeman, which he had acquired by placing his foot upon British soil? His answer to that question was this, that we had nothing whatever to do with the circumstance of the person delivered being a slave or a freeman. We should deliver him up as a criminal. The word "slavery" was not mentioned either in the treaty or the bill. We had nothing to do with it. All that we insist upon is, that before any man shall be delivered up to the Americans, he shall be charged with one of the crimes mentioned in the treaty. If that were done, we did not care whether the man had been a slave or not; if it were not done, we were equally indifferent as to whether the man had been a slave or not. We said, in effect, "If you charge the man with the commission of one of the crimes enumerated in the treaty, you shall have him, whether he has been a slave or not; and if you do not so charge him, you shall not have him, whether he has been a slave or not. Under these circumstances he could not see that the subject of slavery had anything to do with the question. If he were acting as a magistrate, and any person stated that a man claimed to be surrendered had been a slave, he would desire the person not to mention the word in his presence. The magistrates would have to deal with a man charged with having committed an offence in a foreign state, and his status in that state had nothing to do with the case. That was a point to be settled on the man's return to America; all the magistrate would have to do was to determine whether the man had committed one of the many crimes mentioned in the treaty. Suppose the American law inflicted differ-punishments for the same offence when committed by bachelors or married men—that would be a case precisely parallel to that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; but would it be a circumstance of which we could take cognizance in framing a bill to carry into effect the stipulations of a treaty for the reciprocal surrender of persons, charged with certain classes of crimes? There would be the greatest practical difficulty in taking any other course than that prescribed by the bill. He begged to call the attention of the House to the following provision in the first clause:—

"Provided that this should only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged should be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment."

This was a great security against commission of injustice. It was clearly provided that a person charged could be delivered up only on the production of such evidence as would warrant his committal for trial according to the laws of this country. Now, the laws of this country require that a person shall not be committed for trial on suspicion, but only on such evidence as, if uncontradicted, would lead to the conclusion that the party was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. In what he had said, he had endeavoured to explain the feelings which animated the Government with respect to this bill. He hoped he had Succeeded in convincing the House that, under the provisions of the measure, a fugitive slave would incur no peril except from false testimony, against which it was impossible to guard, except by the exercise of prudence and caution on the part of the magistrates. False swearing was the besetting sin which clogged and impeded the course of justice; but he knew no practical remedy for it except that which was applied under our system of jurisprudence. In conclusion, he believed that in framing this bill the Government had taken the best course for carrying out an object of the highest importance to the maintenance of friendly relations between this country and the United States.

had hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would have given such an explanation as would have rendered it unnecessary for him to address the House on the question; but, with great concern, he must declare, that, after listening to the observations of his hon. and learned Friend, he felt more uneasiness respecting the bill than he did when the discussion commenced. He could assure the right hon. Baronet opposite that he had not the smallest intention of making any charge against the Government on this occasion. He was aware that a similar treaty was in contemplation when the late Ministry was in office, and he gave the present Ministers full credit for having intended nothing, but to connect more closely the relations of amity between the two countries, and the promotion of justice. He, however, looked with some anxiety to some portions of the bill, and he seriously entertained an opinion, which would probably startle his own Friends as much as the hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, that the best course the Government could take would be to drop the bill, and cancel that part of the treaty to which it referred. He could not concur in the fundamental principles which his hon. and learned Friend had laid down on the subject of extradition—a word, by-the-bye, which seemed to be introduced into the English language, and which, therefore, he might be excused for employing. No doubt it was a great evil that murderers and robbers should escape punishment—it was an evil to the country from which they fled, as well as to that in which they sought refuge; but, nevertheless, he must be allowed to observe, that in another part of the world in which he had had an opportunity of hearing the matter discussed, it was considered essential to a good scheme of extradition that there should be between the two contracting states a general assimilation of laws, manners, morals, and feelings, as would make it impossible that any conduct should be pursued by one state which would be grossly shocking and startling to the other. This had been the course pursued in India under successive governments. Our Government in India never delivered a fugitive criminal to a power which was likely to try him upon principles which, according to our views, were grossly unjust, nor to a power which was likely to inflict a punishment shocking and horrible to civilised men. Those were the principles on which they acted in India. Suppose there was a country so barbarous and absurd as to punish offenders by the ordeal of red-hot ploughshares, would it be proper to establish extradition with it? Should we give up offenders to be subjected to that punishment? And, taking his hon. and learned Friend's illustration, if any nation were to be so utterly absurd as to enact that a bachelor should be broken on the wheel for an offence for which a married man would be merely fined, would his hon. and learned Friend contend that we should have a treaty of extradition with that nation? As regarded the treaty with France, he saw no objection to it; and if such a treaty as the one under consideration had been entered into with the Northern States of America, in which the reports of our law courts were quoted, and the very details of our legal proceedings were adopted, it would have been productive of advantage. But in the Southern States the unfortunate relations between master and slave came into operation. He meant to give no opinion on the subject of slavery in the United States. He thought that it was in the highest degree improper for Members of that House to pass censures on the institutions of foreign countries, and if he wanted a warning to deter him from that course, he should find it in the exhibitions which American orators had made when descanting on internal questions appertaining to these islands. He alluded to the question of slavery merely for the purpose of observing that there was a fundamental difference in that respect between the law of England and America, and that difference in the law occasioned a difference in manners, usages, and habits, which would create difficulties almost insuperable, to the execution of a treaty of extradition between the two countries. Now, a word with respect to the law. He did not wish to misrepresent his hon. and learned Friend, and begged it to be understood that he was seeking for information on the question he was about to put. He earnestly wished to know in what sense his hon. and learned Friend understood the words murder and piracy? His hon. and learned Friend would say that those words must be interpreted according to the law of the country in which the offences are committed. Now, there are many acts which would be classed as murder or justifiable homicide, accordingly as the relations of slavery might be recognized or not in the place in which they were committed. He would give one instance of this. A woman in England, attacked by a ravisher, had a right to defend herself, and if she should kill her assailant, the act would be declared justifiable homicide; but if a woman in Georgia should slay her ravisher, or if a Quadroon girl should act so, she would be held guilty of murder. Take the case of a slave who had committed murder in his own defence. Suppose a man scourged him, pursued him, the slave had surely a right to resist, and in his defence, to kill his assailant, by the law of England that would be justifiable homicide, by the law of Georgia it would be wilful murder. In the case of the Creole, his hon. and learned Friend said he had recommended the Crown not to give up the slaves; and, no doubt, he was quite right in doing so; but what would his hon. and learned Friend have done under this act? He (Mr. Macaulay) should like to hear a definition of piracy. Suppose any person were to lay hold of us, clap us under hatches, and take us to sea with a view of selling us, there could not be a doubt that, by the law of England, individuals so held in confinement would have a perfect right to seize upon the ship, and to take it into the first port where they thought themselves likely to be secure. But if the persons held in confinement on board of such a ship were convicts, in the legitimate charge of officers appointed to take care of them, the same act would be piracy. There could not, surely, be any objection to the insertion in the bill some clause to this effect: Provided always, that in any case of a charge against a slave, he should not be delivered up if the offence with which he was charged would be one justifiable if committed by a freeman. He did not mean to propose these as the precise terms of the clause. That his hon. and learned Friend would be much better able than he to draw up. The next point on which he felt anxiety was the mode of trial to which a fugitive slave would be subjected. He could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend that England had nothing to do with the mode of trial that might be adopted; nor could he believe that the nature of the punishment to be awarded was unimportant. Another question presented itself to him. Suppose the man was acquitted in America, what was to be done with him then? Was he to remain a slave in the hands of a master incensed by the attempt to run away? Would the slave's life in such a case be safe, even after his acquittal? No; for in some states of the American Union the law held it no crime to cause the death of a slave by what was called legitimate correction. And, be it remembered, he was talking now, not of a guilty but an innocent man, and he must say that he could not contemplate such things without the greatest dread as to the effects they were likely to have on our national character. We had nothing to do, certainly, with the laws of America, but we must not on that account make ourselves the slave-catchers of the Americans. Suppose, even, her Majesty's Government put a liberal construction on this bill, the question was, what construction the Government of the United States would put upon it? He believed that the view taken of the treaty in the United States was, that if a case similar to that of the Creole were to occur again, that the "pirates and murderers," as they were called, in America, would be delivered up under this act. But was this country prepared to submit to such a thing? If her Majesty's Government had made up their minds that they would not be the slave-catchers for the United States; and if the United States Government persist in taking a different view of the obligations of the treaty from that taken by her Majesty's Government, would it not be better to cancel this treaty at once? By doing so, they would be guilty of no breach of engagement, for the power of doing so was expressly reserved in the treaty itself. If, however, her Majesty's Government waited till another case like that of the Creole occurred, and then while they put one interpretation upon the treaty, and the Government of the United States put a different interpretation upon it, it was very possible that the most serious consequences might arise.

said, that in all the cases put by the right hon. Gentleman no doubt could arise. The bill expressly said, that the fugitives must be tried by the laws of the country where they were found.

asked, whether he were to understand, then, that an action not criminal in a free man, could not be held to be criminal in a slave?

said he was of opinion that an English magistrate would not be at liberty to enter into the question as to whether the fugitive brought before him was a slave or not. He could only enter into such questions of common law as might arise out of the case, and if the accused person was not shown to be a criminal, no extradition could take place.

did not go so far as some of his friends in his apprehensions as to the effects of this bill, and the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had gone far to remove the apprehensions which he might have entertained. He understood that in no case where a slave was charged with the offence of murder or robbery, would any English magistrate be justified in delivering him up for trial, unless the offence he was charged with was one that was looked on as a murder or robbery by the law of England; and he apprehended that any act that a slave might commit in resisting the coercion of his master, could not amount to murder, and would not justify a magistrate in giving up the fugitive. His chief object in rising was to touch on a subject connected with this bill, a subject on which, on a former occasion, he had endeavoured to obtain some explanation from her Majesty's Government, and on which he now wished to receive some clearer information than he had then been able to obtain. In the correspondence which had passed between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster, and which had been laid before Parliament, there were several letters on the question what was to be done in an English colony if a ship with slaves on board was to be driven into the colony by stress of weather. America demanded that in such a case no "officious" interference was to take place on our part, for the purpose of setting those slaves free. His opinion was, that in such a case there ought to be interference, in order to give to the slaves the enjoyment of the liberty to which they were entitled. Mr. Webster's doctrine was, that the duties of good neighbourhood ought to prevent the authorities of the West Indies from interfering in such a case, and Lord Ashburton seemed in some degree to admit such a doctrine. In such a case he thought that the slave ought to be looked on as a nearer neighbour to us than the master, for the slave so circumstanced had rights which we were bound to give him the full enjoyment of; and he hoped that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, would now be able to state, that if a cargo of slaves were driven, either by stress of weather, or by any other cause, into a harbour belonging to an English colony, the slaves would in that case be immediately placed in the enjoyment of the liberty to which they were entitled. There was another point on which he wished to have some information. When he and his friends were in office, on one or two occasions the slave barracoons on the coast of Africa were destroyed, the slaves rescued, the barracoons burned, and the property found in them handed over to the chiefs of the territories in which the barracoons were found. Since he had been out of office, he had heard that the present Government had expressed it as their opinion that there were objections to such a course, and that the proceedings were not strictly legal. He should wish to know what was held to be the law of nations on this subject. He could understand, that if a landing were effected for such a purpose, without the consent of the Government of the State to which the territory belonged, such a landing might be a violation of international law: but in this case the consent of the chiefs had been obtained; the chiefs were glad to see parties put down whom they were themselves unable to control, and were very willing to pay their debts by taking possession of the stores round in the barracoons. The first instance of such an interference arose thus: the garrison of one of these slave barracoons had fired upon the boats of one of our cruisers, and the boats effected a landing to revenge this outrage. It was a case very similar to that of the Caroline. The territory was that of another state, but in the temporary occupation, not of the proper authorities of the country, but of intruders stronger than the authorities. He should be glad to hear that it was not the intention of the Government to abandon this practice. In the papers laid before Parliament this Session, there would be found a report, by Captain Payne, of the American navy, who said, that of all measures this was the most effectual way of putting down the Slave-trade. He (Viscount Palmerston) hoped that whenever it could be done with the consent of the chiefs, no opportunity would be lost of destroying the barracoons. To that part of the treaty more immediately under discussion, he could not on principle object. The construction put upon the treaty by the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney-general) would no doubt have the effect of preventing abuses; but if abuses should arise out of the treaty, he could not entertain a doubt that her Majesty's Government would, without hesitation, avail themselves of the power reserved by the treaty, and immediately put an end to it.

, before be proceeded to speak of the treaty itself, would say one or two words in answer to the noble Lord who had just sat down. He (Lord Stanley) had not been aware that the noble Lord intended to put any questions on matters so remotely connected with the subject under discussion, and not having the papers now before him, it was not in his power to give as complete an answer as he would have done if he had known of the noble Lord's intention to put these questions. With respect to the destruction of the barracoons on the coast of Africa, the noble Lord seemed to believe there was some difference of opinion between the present and late Government. He believed that no such difference existed, for if he understood the noble Lord aright, the noble Lord admitted that if the destruction took place against the consent of the state in the territories of which the barracoons were situated, the act would be an offence not justifiable by any international law; but where the chief or the sovereign of the country lent his sanction, an officer destroying the barracoons would of course not be guilty of any violation of territory, and he agreed with the noble lord that no step could be more effectual in putting down the slave trade. So far, therefore, as, the law of nations went, there was no difference between the noble Lord and himself. But the noble Lord's reference bore upon a case now before the legal tribunals, in which the question arose, whether the requisite consent of the state had been obtained. This case was pending at that moment; the officer concerned in it was defended on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and under such circumstances, he should not consider it consistent with his duty to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The noble Lord did not go so far as the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, in condemnation of the treaty; indeed, the Government of which the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman were members, had endeavoured to negotiate with the United States a treaty to precisely the same effect as that now the subject of discussion. [Viscount Palmerston: Robbery was not among the offences mentioned in the treaty which the late Government sought to negotiate.] The noble Lord seemed to found an objection on the insertion of the word "robbery;" but let it be remembered a broad distinction had been drawn between that offence and the supposed cases put by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh differed so much from them on the fundamental principles of the treaty, that even at this late period he would have Her Majesty's Government declare this part of the treaty null and void. The right hon. Gentlemen said that that the laws of two countries ought to be similar, before such a treaty were agreed to. Now, the principle of the treaty was this. Here were two conterminous nations, divided by an imaginary boundary. In Canada the law had allowed persons guilty of grave offences in a foreign country to be proceeded against, but the United States said that their common law prohibited every kind of extradition, and every scoundrel was at liberty to cross over into their country, and by law they could not deliver him over to the authorities of this country where he had been guilty even of the gravest offences. A treaty had been agreed on with a view to remedy this defect. Now came the question, whether by the terms of the treaty injustice might be done to a certain class, and whether the apprehension of that was in itself a sufficient reason for not carrying out the treaty. He did not go so far as to say that because a man was a slave he should therefore enjoy complete impunity, whatever his offence might be. The treaty they were told might be liable to abuse. What law had ever existed that was quite free from such a liability? Every precaution, however, had been taken to prevent abuses. The noble Lord said he should like to hear a definition of the offence of piracy. He said that under this treaty the case of the Creole would have been one of piracy. Now, what was the case of the Creole? The demand on that occasion was that the parties should be surrendered to take their trial in the United States. The answer of the English Government was, "No; we have no option. The law does not allow us to do so. But, if you wish to try these parties for piracy, we will give you every facility for having them tried in our courts, and you shall have the services of our officers in carrying on the proceedings." At the same time, the Government did not fail to make known that the opinion of the law officers of this country was, that the parties accused could not, by our laws, be held to be guilty of piracy; their offence having been committed without any felonious intention of stealing the ship, but merely with a view of escaping from slavery. The question was then asked, whether it would be the duty of our Custom-house officers at Nassau, if they believed slaves to be in confinement on board of a vessel, to refuse a clearance to the vessel on such a ground? The answer was, that it was no part of the duty of the Custom-house officers to make any such officious interference; but if they were informed on credible testimony that on board of any foreign vessel then in a British port there were persons detained in slavery against their own will, then it became the duty of the authorities of that port to take care that such persons should not be deprived of the benefits of British law. The case had been put of a female slave who, in resisting an attempt to commit a rape, killed her master. Why, the only mode that could be contemplated of dealing with such a case would be according to the terms of the treaty. Now the words of the treaty on this point were clear, and admitted of no ambiguity. The words were:—"Provided that this should only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged should be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment." Beyond this, it was impossible that any demand could go or be complied with. Another case that had been put, was that of a slave who had stolen a boat or a horse, to help him on in his flight. His hon. and learned Friend, however, had drawn a broad distinction between robbery and theft, and had stated that theft must be committed with intimidation, or with an apprehension of violence to constitute robbery. No doubt it was possible that persons, whether guilty or not, if sent back to a country where slavery prevailed, might be returned to a state of slavery. What were the practical directions of the Government of the noble Lord himself no longer ago than 1839? In the latter part of 1838 a complaint was made by the Danish Government to the Government of Her Majesty, that the proximity of the British West India Islands to the Danish Islands was so great, and the facilities for the escape, not of criminals, but of fugitive slaves, so numerous, that they must entreat Her Majesty's Government to take steps to co-operate with the Danish Government for the punishment of slaves escaping from their own country, by bringing them to trial before the British tribunals. What was the answer given by Lord Glenelg, who then held the office which he had now the honour to hold, after communication with the noble Lord opposite, then Secretary for Foreign Affairs? It was this;—

"You will remark that I have considered as inadmissible the proposal that fugitive criminals, flying from the Danish colonies, shall be tried by the British colonial tribunals for the crimes committed by them in the Danish colonies. It has appeared to me, however, that where the criminals whether slaves or freemen, shall be satisfactorily proved to the British colonial authorities to have been guilty of murder, or any other heinous crime, which the laws of all nations visit with condign punishment, the safety of society demands that such a criminal should be brought to justice, and that it will become the duty of all governors of colonies to afford every assistance for his apprehension and restitution, to take his trial in the foreign colony in which the crime may have been committed."

That was the principle laid down by Lord Glenelg, after communication with the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, only the noble Lord went further, for the law did not then justify what he advised to have done.

"You will be guided by this principle in any case of this description which may come under your consideration, and should the law of the colony under your government offer any obstacle to the adoption of the course I have laid down, you will take an opportunity of recommending such a revision and amendment of the law, as may be required to attain the object in view."

Here was a principle laid down, not in fulfilment of a general engagement, or a reciprocal treaty between free states, but to be acted upon in the neighbourhood of territories in which all the criminals spoken of were slaves, surrender all persons accused of crimes, if you are satisfied they are properly accused, to take their trial in the slave colony, and if the law as it stands does not justify you in so doing, amend it. On a subsequent occasion, when a similar question was again raised, the noble Lord opposite wrote:—

"It cannot be denied that cases may possibly arise in which the slaves may have committed crimes demanding exemplary punishment, and in such cases the servile character of the offender cannot properly be admitted as an excuse for shielding him from that punishment."

Thus this class of offenders, according to the instructions of the noble Lord, were to be handed over to countries in which there was a different system of punishment for offences committed by slaves, and offences committed by freemen. [Mr. Macaulay: If satisfactorily proved.] It was required in the treaty that there should be such an amount of evidence as—if the person were not a slave, and a British subject, and residing in the dominions of this country—would justify a magistrate in putting him on his trial. What further evidence did the right hon. Gentleman suppose could be required by the instructions he had read? They required those to whom they were addressed to be satisfied on that evidence of the criminality of the person, and being satisfied to return him, slave or no slave, to be tried by the laws which regulate the punishment of his offence, not your legislation, but the legislation of another country; and if acquitted by those laws, still under those instructions he would be subjected to this penalty, that being acquitted of the crime with which he was charged, he would, notwithstanding, be restored to the condition of slavery. Lord Normanby again said:—

"To render our colonies the place of refuge for persons guilty of such offences, would be to violate the principles on which all civilised communities regulate their relations with each other. It is doubtless true, that the words murder, rape, arson, and, indeed, all the words employed to characterize crime, are vague and susceptible of erroneous meaning, but for the present purpose they must be understood according to the definitions they have received from the laws of England."

Now, this treaty laid it down that the committal must take place only on such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive is apprehended, would justify his apprehension and committal. No fugitive, for instance, could under it be surrendered as a murderer, unless his offence were such as our laws would qualify with that epithet. Lord Glenelg's circular required that the officers administering the colonial laws must be satisfied, on proper evidence taken before a competent British magistrate, that the crime imputed had really been committed. Why, that was what the treaty said. Could the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman show any difference in its conditions? He did not hesitate to say that in point of reciprocity this treaty was of infinitely greater advantage to the people of Canada than to those of the United States. We should obtain by this treaty the surrender of offenders without reference to the state of slavery, when their guilt was satisfactorily made out according to the evidence required by the laws of the country in which they might be found. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Give up this treaty, it may lead to difficulties." He saw no reason to apprehend that different constructions would be put on the treaty by the two countries; but if that should prove to be the case, the treaty contained a distinct stipulation that it was to be held binding so long only as neither country remonstrated against its operation. But on the demand of either party, if either government was satisfied that justice was not done to their own subjects under the treaty, the bill provided that there should be power to either the British or American Government to put an end to the treaty. He hoped the noble Lord and the members of the late Government would feel that not only on account of the long period that had elapsed without any settlement of this branch of international law, but on account of the great inconvenience of negativing a bill brought in to give effect to a treaty which had been concluded and laid before Parliament, since the treaty would tend to the mutual advantage of both parties, and since security was provided against abuse, they ought not to persist in their objections to the bill, and, that it would obtain the general assent of the House and the country.

explained, that he did not object to the principle of the treaty, nor did he wish that this country should afford impunity to slaves who had really committed offences. The noble Lord had imputed to him rather too broad a construction of international law, as to the destruction of slave barracoons. He said, that, as between independent states, it was contrary to international law that the forces of one should land on the territory of the other, for the purpose of committing violence and making war; but, that if persons were abstracted from the territory of a state by third parties who took forcible occupation of it, and if these parties committed acts of violence against you, you would be justified in redressing the injuries.

feared, that although between free states these treaties might be very beneficial, yet between free states and slave-holding states, they would produce continual subjects of dissension. When a fugitive slave was charged with committing a robbery, the question of slavery must necessarily be raised. He was apprehensive, that the treaty would lead to an encroachment on the principle to which England owed so much of her glory—the principle, that a slave, the moment he touched her soil, became a free man. He should feel it to be his duty to vote against the bill on this ground.

said, it was quite clear, under the 10th article of the treaty, that the instructions given to the naval officers of the two squadrons on the coast of Africa were to be in the possession of each government, and, therefore, the right hon. Baronet must be in possession of the instructions issued by the United States government to the officers of their squadron. He wanted to know whether America had, equally with England, fulfilled the tenor of the 8th article, and whether in the instructions given by that Government, this passage was not to be found? He would not say they were the precise words, but he believed this to be the sub- stance of the passage, which he had received from an authority that he had not the slightest doubt was correct,—

"That the primary considerations with the American government was not the suppression of the slave-trade, but the protection of their own flag, and the assertion of their own rights."

If they had stated this in substance, he said that was sufficient ground for believing the assertions which had appeared in the public journals of this country and America, that the United States were not sincere in their professed desire to suppress the slave-trade. The question he wished to put to the right hon. Baronet, was this—and it was due to the American Government, if his information was incorrect, that a direct and unequivocal contradiction should be given to a charge implying insincerity in the American Government, and also base connivance on the part of the British Government at the conduct of the Americans in contravening the 8th article. He should like to know whether the British Government had protested against such instructions being given to the American cruisers, because, if such had been given, it was a perfect mockery in them to send their men-of-war in pretended co-operation with England, which had well evinced the sincerity of its efforts to put down the odious traffic in slaves. He wished to know also if the right hon. Baronet had any objection to lay these instructions on the Table of the House?

certainly did not consider himself bound to lay on the Table of the House the instructions which the Government of the United States had given to its officers for the suppression of the slave-trade. It was for the government of the United States to determine whether or not it would publish those instructions. They had in compliance with the 8th article communicated those instructions to the British Government, but he conceived it to be no part of his duty to communicate those instructions to Parliament. Those instructions contained a reference to the various devices by which vessels engaged in the slave-trade, might attempt to elude discovery, and carry on the trade, and that alone, would be a reason for refusing to produce their instructions. As he did not consider himself entitled to give the instructions, he certainly should not consider it his duty to answer any question respecting their contents. The hon. Member had not named the authority on which he had made his statement; but the hon. Member had drawn an inference, that the government of the United States was not sincere in its endeavours to suppress the slave-trade. He must say, he saw nothing whatever in the conduct of that government, which bore out the view the hon. Gentleman had taken. He should state generally, that being in possession of the instructions issued by the government of the United States to the officers in command of the squadron fitted out under the 8th article, he thought that any imputation on the honour and sincerity of the government of the United States, in respect of its desire to suppress the slave-trade, would be unjust and unfounded. He had read those instructions with great care, and he was bound in justice to the government of the United States to declare, that the inference he drew from them was, that there was an earnest desire on the part of that Government, faithfully to suppress the slave-trade. They had acted in conformity with the 8th article; the British instructions have in return been communicated to the Government of the United States, and there was nothing in all that passed between the Governments since the signature of the treaty called the Ashburton treaty, which diminished the hope he (Sir R. Peel) had entertained that this joint action on the part of the united squadrons would very powerfully aid in suppressing the slave-trade. With respect to the observations of the hon. Gentleman who sat next to the hon. Member for Finsbury, he should be sorry indeed to come to the conclusion at which he seemed to have arrived, that it would be impossible for the two Governments of Great Britain and the United States to enter into a reciprocal treaty for the extradition of offenders. He should very much regret if difference in the laws of a free and a slave-bolding I state, should preclude any arrangement being concluded between two countries, each of which had the strongest possible inducements to come to such an arrangement, speaking as they did a common language, and carrying on the greatest commercial intercourse of any on the face of the globe. Look at the boundary between the United States and Canada, at the vicinity of the West Indies to the conti- nent, and the great facility which existed for intercourse between the dominions of the two states, and lamentable must be the condition of feeling, if treaties of this kind could be made between this country and France, or Belgium, but not with the United States. The hon. Gentleman had heard the instructions of the late Government read by his noble Friend, in which it was shown that it would be quite impossible to exempt a person from punishment for an offence, merely because he was in the condition of a slave. The hon. Gentleman illustrated his views by reference to the case of a slave being charged with robbery, because he had taken a horse or something else to assist in his escape. The hon. Gentleman asked, was the fugitive to be charged with robbery, if he took the horse not animo furandi, but to facilitate his escape. But this did not illustrate the difficulties connected with slavery in the least. Suppose a man committed to prison, who escaped, and took a horse which he found by the way to aid him in making his escape, the same question would arise in the case of the slave, if he were charged with stealing the horse; and if he brought conclusive evidence to show that he did not mean to appropriate it to his own use, but took it that he might be enabled to effect his escape, there would be an end of the charge of robbery. He trusted the House of Commons would give its assent to a bill which enabled them to make great advance in civilization, of preventing two great countries from becoming places of refuge for each other's criminals.

said, the right hon. Baronet had evaded his hon. Friend's question. It was invariably the practice to attach the instructions issued by both Governments to the treaties and conventions formed between two powers for the suppression of the slave-trade. He contended that the right hon. Baronet was bound to follow the rule that had hitherto been observed, and let the country know clearly and distinctly whether or not the Government had given up the right of visit that had been so long contended for, and whether or not it was perfectly true, as he (Sir C. Napier) sincerely and conscientiously believed it was, that we were to go to the African coast, and hunt in couples, yet that the English cruisers were not to interfere with the American vessels, or the American cruisers with English ves- sels. Unless the right hon. Baronet could state that the British Government had not given up one single iota of their right to visit vessels suspected to be pirates or slave traders, he (Sir C. Napier) must say that the Government had given up a point they had no right to yield. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman, however, would be able to say that that point had not been given up, but that we stood in precisely the same position as before. There was a great difference between the right of visit and the right of search; and for the latter he (Sir C. Napier) did not contend, for we had no right to it. But on the coast of Africa, or any other coast where there was suspicion of slave-trade or piracy, the British officer had the right of visit. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would furnish the instructions given to the British cruisers, and also copies of the instructions of the American government to their cruisers, so far as those documents could be given without furnishing the slave-trader with information.

said, he was precluded, by the rules of the House, from answering the observations of the hon. and gallant officer, but he trusted that the House would allow him to say a few words. The hon. and gallant Member had said, that on the signing the convention concluded by Lord Ashburton, the Government had relinquished their principles in regard to the right of visit. That question was brought under the consideration of the House at an early period of the Session, when some language that had been used by the President of the United States was adverted to, and he (Sir Robert Peel) then stated to the House most distinctly, that in acceding to that convention, the Government never meant to relinquish, and never had relinquished, any one of the principles in regard to the right of visit which this country had maintained, and he stated that a communication had been made by this Government to the Government of the United States maintaining the principles which he had always avowed. He apprehended that in consenting to that convention neither country had waived the principles they had maintained, but as they could not agree as to those principles, they thought that by having squadrons acting in union on the coast of Africa, important progress might be made by such a co-operation in putting down the slave-trade. That, he apprehended, was the object of both countries, and, although neither country had waived its principles, they yet occupied a neutral ground in the course they had adopted. He had already stated his belief that the American government were sincere in their exertions to put down the slave-trade. They had communicated to this Government their instructions to their cruisers, and the instructions to the British cruisers would be communicated to the American government, but so erroneous was the hon. and gallant officer in his notions of the nature of the general instructions to the British officers, that he (Sir R. Peel) might mention the fact that they had actually not yet been communicated, but had been delayed until the committee of which Dr. Lushington was a member, should have made their final report. If there should be further delay in the preparation of those general instructions, the instructions in regard to the eighth article of the treaty should be given. When they were so given he should still reserve to himself the right of withholding such parts of them, the disclosure of which might enable the slave-trader to carry on his traffic with impunity. As the instructions, however, were not yet communicated to the United States it was not in his power to lay them on the Table of the House.

moved the insertion of the word "free" in the ninth line, before the word "persons."

moved the insertion of a clause in lieu of clause 14, to render manufactures of Gibraltar, Malta, and Heligoland, made of materials of foreign produce liable to duty, like the produce of a foreign country.

contended that the clause would have the effect of making the Corn Bill of last Session more restrictive than it was at present, by subjecting corn from Heligoland to a duty; and proposed the insertion of the words, "Provided that nothing in this clause shall be deemed to affect flour or meal."

objected to the amendment, which was withdrawn, and clause agreed to.

said, that by the 147th clause of the Irish Municipal Bill it was enacted that all the advowsons should be sold, and the proceeds applied to the purposes of the corporations. Till the sale be completed, it was enacted that the patronage of these places should remain in the hands of the Bishop. But there were certain exceptions to the rule. The Irish Society was one of these. The corporations of Ireland were not allowed to present, because it was supposed that they might be Roman Catholics. But the Irish Society was a fluctuating body, and might be composed of Roman Catholics or of men who were of no religion at all. He thought, therefore, that such exceptions ought not to exist. The noble Lord moved a clause to carry this view into effect.

said, he believed that the object of the clause was to put a stop to the litigation which had so long been carried on between the Irish Society and the Bishop of Derry. Now, this had nothing whatever to do with the bill before the House, which was intended for the better regulation of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland. He must strongly object to the question of the right of the Irish Society being opened one way or the other in this bill.