was glad that the hon. Member for Oxford, the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, was in his place; as he wished to assure him and the House, that in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, he did not mean to question the correctness of their decision in respect to the Irish Great Western Railway. On the contrary, he considered that they could not, consistently with their public duty, have arrived at any other decision; that although the omission of numbers on the plans laid before them were in themselves trifling and unimportant, they were so numerous that had they of their own authority recommended the Standing Orders to be dispensed with, they would have created a precedent which must of necessity prove most embarrassing to them in their future proceedings. He therefore again repeated, that he neither impugned nor complained of their conduct; but he would respectfully submit to the House, that there were circumstances connected with the case before them which rendered it an exception to the general rule; and that the interests of the public, for whose protection the Standing Orders themselves were framed, imperatively demanded that permission should be given to proceed with this Bill. This was, indeed, a peculiar case; no landowner, occupier, or lessee, complained of injury or offered any opposition to the progress of this measure. The landowners of the province of Con-naught had almost to a man declared in its favour. He held in his hand a declaration in approval of this line, signed by hundreds of the principal proprietors, headed by such men as Lords Sligo and Clancarty, who, differing as they did in politics, concurred in support of this measure. The inhabitants of the different towns and districts through which it was to pass had petitioned in its favour: its sole opponent was a canal company; and when the House was put in possession of the nature and circumstances of that opposition, he very much doubted whether they would consider that body entitled either to their regard or respect. The petitioner was a Mr. Macmullen, secretary to the canal company. This gentleman, having, as he stated, full powers, had entered into an agreement with him (Mr. French), that if certain conditions for the protection of the interests of the canal were acceded to by the promoters of the Irish Great Western Railway, all opposition should be withdrawn. The agreement was drawn by the Parliamentary agent of the canal company, and was assented to by the provisional committee of the Great Western Railway, without the alteration of a single word; and an intimation was conveyed to him, as chairman of the company, that the opposition was withdrawn. To his great surprise, at the moment the Committee, having examined into the case, were about to report that the Standing Orders had been complied with, Mr. Macmullen entered on his opposition. Had the canal company, as in honesty they were bound to do, adhered to the arrangements made by their authorized representative, the case was an unopposed one; or had they not deceived him, by entering into an agreement they had no intention to fulfil, he should not have been under the necessity of appealing to the indulgence of the House. He would then have been, as he now was, in a condition to show, to the satisfaction of the Committee on Private Bills, that the allegations made by the canal company were unfounded, and that the Standing Orders had been fully complied with. These allegations were all of one nature—that certain fields, or angles of fields, within the limits of deviation, were without numbers. By an error of their draughtsman, on the plans lodged in the county of Kildare, (through which county the railroad was not to run,) the limits of deviation were drawn on each side at one hundred and ten yards; whereas by this Bill they were restricted to one hundred yards, and to ten yards in towns. The angles of those fields did come within the apparent limits of deviation as drawn on the map, but not within the actual limits as designed by the Bill. In addition to this, it must be remembered that, as these lands were not required for the purpose of the railway, no notice had been given to their owners; their names did not appear in the book of reference; there was, therefore, no power to take any portion of them; and no injury could by possibility arise to any single individual. Would the House, under such circumstances, suffer the canal company to profit by their violation of agreement; or would they not rather show, by their decision, that faith must be kept by public companies as well as private individuals? It was not possible to exaggerate the importance of this project to Ireland; it had truly been called a national one, connecting the Irish sea with the Atlantic ocean, opening a district in Ireland the most neglected, but probably more abundant in resources than any other portion of the Empire. It had been approved of by the Board of Trade; it had been most favourably received by the public; 54,000 deposits on upwards of a million of money, all of which would be expended in the employment of the people, had been paid up; the Cashel Company, a great portion of whose line would be available to the public next spring, had agreed to invest 100,000l. in the undertaking. Four gentlemen of great experience in railway matters, directors of the Birmingham Railway, had agreed to act on their board; and if the House would sanction the Motion with which he was about to conclude, there could not be a shadow of doubt entertained that this line would be speedily and effectually executed. He (Mr. French) should not detain them by dwelling on the necessity of employment for the people, as the first step towards the pacification of Ireland; without it all other measures, no matter how well intended, were valueless. Both Houses of Parliament had pledged themselves to make any sacrifice for the tranquillization of Ireland: he now tested the sincerity of their declarations. He asked not for a sacrifice of principles—he asked not for a sacrifice of privileges—he asked not for a sacrifice of money—he alone required at their hands a sacrifice of a few technicalities; and in the full assurance that it would not be denied, he begged leave to move—"That Leave be given to proceed with the Irish Great Western Railway."

was not acquainted with the merits of the proposed railway, and therefore he could not go into them. It was sufficient for him, as a Member of the Committee on Standing Orders, to know, that in more than 300 instances, in the proposed plans and surveys, the Standing Orders had not been complied with. Many of these Standing Orders were of importance; and the Committee found that it was their duty to report, as they had done, that in this case the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with, and that the parties ought not to be allowed to proceed. To set aside this Report of the Committee, would be to establish a very dangerous precedent, which would have the effect of rendering the Reports of Committees on Standing Orders of very little value in the House.

supported the Motion, which did not imply any, the slightest, imputation against the Committee on Standing Orders, which had only adhered, rigidly adhered, to its duties; but, if it could be shown that a too rigid adherence to the Standing Orders in this case would work great injustice to all concerned in promoting the measure, he hoped the House would interpose its authority, and allow the parties to proceed. This was not a new case. There were several on the Journals of the House in which it had complied with similar Motions under similar circumstances. Let the House also bear in mind, that in this case there was no complaint by landowners on the line of not having received due notice. In fact, the objections were in a great many instances technical; and, if the House adhered strictly to its Standing Orders, it would happen that, besides the great inconvenience of delaying the railway to another Session, its promoters would have to incur again all the expenses which they had been at from the commencement to the present moment. Under these circumstances, he did hope that the House would accede to the Motion.

was opposed to the Motion. So far from the Committee having strained the Standing Orders against the proposed measure, they had done all in their power to help it on. Indeed, they had even gone out of their way to do so; but the instances of noncompliance were so numerous and so glaring, that it was impossible they could be passed over.

was sorry that any measure should be lost which was calculated to benefit Ireland; but, as a Member of the Committee on Standing Orders, he must say that no other course was left to them but to report that those Orders ought not to be dispensed with. It would establish a very dangerous precedent, if the House should set aside the Report of that Committee.

felt the force of the objections against interfering with the Committee on Standing Orders; but if it should happen that the House should extend its indulgence to this project by assenting to the Motion before it, he trusted it would, should the case require it, extend a similar indulgence to a rival line—he alluded to the Dublin and Mullingar, Longford and Sligo line. He did not say this from any knowledge that there were any material defects in the plans and surveys of that line; but should there be any, and that project stand in the position in which the present now stood, he did hope it would obtain similar indulgence. For himself, he was disposed to adhere to the Standing Orders.

thought the safest course would be to adhere in all cases to the decision of the Committee on Standing Orders. If the present Motion were carried, its principle ought to be made retrospective, and applied to all the projects which had been rejected for non-compliance with the Standing Orders. If this were not done, the promoters of those projects would have much cause for complaint.

stated that he was certainly very averse to expressing any opinion that might appear contrary to the judgment of the Standing Orders Committee. But he could not avoid saying that he did feel that the question of a line of railway to the extreme west of Ireland might, and ought to be, looked upon rather as a national question, than as one merely relating to a Private Bill or a private railway. He must, however, add, that he entered fully into the considerations urged by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, with respect to the Railway Bill from Dublin to Mullingar. He thought that both projects ought to be submitted to a Committee of the House; that the whole question of a western railway in Ireland ought, if possible, to be disposed of by Parliament during the present Session. It was a matter of the utmost public importance that it should. He had himself, on a recent occasion, visited the West of Ireland, and when he recollected the feeling which prevailed among all classes in that part of Ireland, and their anxiety with regard to a railway, he earnestly hoped the House would pause before it rejected the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon.

did not wish that the vote which he should give in this case should influence that of any other hon. Member. He would vote in favour of the Motion. In the situation which he had the honour to hold, he thought it very desirable that every encouragement should be given to projects of this kind in Ireland. He should be very unwilling in ordinary cases to advise the House to decide against the Report of the Committee on Standing Orders; but considering how desirable it was that measures such as that to which the Motion referred should be encouraged in Ireland, he was anxious that both this and the competing line to which the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) referred, should be sent to a Committee, where their merits might be examined, and both eventually sanctioned by the House if it saw good ground for it. At all events, if the House should extend its indulgence to the line then before them, he trusted it would grant a similar one to the rival line.

said, that if the House acceded to this Motion, the Standing Order Committees should be spared the trouble of going into cases for the purpose of ascer- taining whether Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; or perhaps it might be desirable that the House should agree to a Resolution that the Standing Orders should not be applied to Irish railway projects.

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last had completely anticipated what he was about to observe on the Motion. Of course he fully concurred in what the right Gentleman had said.

said, that he never saw a case which furnished so many strong arguments against such a Motion as that before the House, as did the project to which it referred. There were in it not less than 300 instances of noncompliance with the Standing Orders. If the House agreed to this Motion, he did not see how it could refuse similar Motions in other cases.

wished to asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Railway Committee to which the first batch of Railway Bills had been referred (Sir G. Grey), on what principle the Committee had fixed the tariff of tolls and charges for goods and passengers?

said, the rule which the Committee had taken for their guidance was, to inquire into the existing charges on several lines of railway, and to ascertain that the rates and charges proposed by the promoters of the Bill were not exorbitant. He was afraid that no uniform system could be adopted; but he thought it was desirable that before the House passed the Bills, it should know what were the actual rates and charges in the separate Bills which came under consideration. It would be extremely convenient if there were a clause in each Bill containing the table of fares.

appeared at the Bar, and stated that he had to Report from the Select Committee QQ, that the Committee having met that day at twelve o'clock, Mr. Bickham Escott, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present, and did not attend the Committee.

said, if it was the wish of the House, he was perfectly ready to state the reasons why he had not been present. If he had been aware that such notice would be taken of his non-attendance, he would certainly have been prepared with the correspondence which had passed between himself and the officer of the Select Committee on that subject; and he was quite sure that that correspondence would have satisfied any hon. Member that he had pursued the only course which, consistently with his duty, he could take. He would endeavour to state the substance of what had passed. He received a letter from a gentleman of the name of Creed, the officer, he believed, of the Committee of Selection, informing him that he had been appointed on a certain Committee for that day. He wrote back to Mr. Creed, stating that he should be unable to attend on that Committee, inasmuch as he was already engaged on two Committees, and that attendance on two Committees, added to his other Parliamentary duties, would not admit of his attending to any other business. He was informed by a second letter from that gentleman, that his letter had been submitted to the Committee of Selection, and that that Committee did not consider the excuse given for his non-attendance a suffi- cient one. In reply to that letter he said, that he did not desire to be excused from performing any duty whatever, but that he thought he was the best judge as to whether he could discharge this additional duty, consistently with the proper performance of the other duties which devolved upon him. After making that second statement, he told his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who, he believed, took a prominent part in the Committee of Selection, that it was utterly impossible for him to attend the Committee on that day; and had hoped that his simple statement that he was engaged on other Committees would be sufficient. He would only add, that he had not the slightest wish to get himself excused from any duty which the House in its wisdom thought fit to impose upon him; and if the House said that he ought to attend a Railway Committee, instead of attending the Committee on Scotch Prisons, he would be prepared to accede to their wish. It was quite impossible that he could attend both.

was not sorry that this subject had been brought forward, as it was one of considerable importance with reference to the proper carrying out of the plan which the House had adopted with respect to Railway Bills. If his hon. Friend had objected to the panel, a great deal of inconvenience might have been saved. It must be apparent to the House that if a Gentleman deferred the announcement of his inability to serve on a Committee till a late period, it was impossible that he could be excused. The Committee of Selection having taken into consideration the hon. Gentleman's statement that he was serving on another Committee, thought, that though technically an excuse, it was not a sufficient one. All that the Committee wished for was, that the House would express its opinion on the subject, and by that opinion they would be ready to abide.

said, it was perfectly obvious that the House had intended that attendance on these Committees should be compulsory; and an hon. Member's being upon another Committee, therefore, did not form the slightest excuse for his non-attendance. It would introduce great doubt and uncertainty to allow the reason which had been assigned as a sufficient excuse for absence.

differed from the right hon. Gentleman altogether on this subject. There were two kinds of duty which hon. Members had to perform—one of a public nature, relating to Bills in which the public at large were interested; the other affecting private Bills and private individuals. He could not understand why public business should stand still, in order that private Bills might be proceeded with. He had felt the inconvenience of a system by which Members who were on a Public Committee were obliged to leave it, in order to attend a private one. He thought that no Member appointed to serve on a Public Committee ought to be put on a private one while that Public Committee was sitting. In his opinion there should be a call of the House, and every Member who was absent should be compelled to attend. It was not right to allow the public business to stand still while more than a hundred Members were absent, without, as far as he knew, any reason being assigned.

said, that if what had occurred was to be considered as an indication that there was a short supply of members for the Select Committee to resort to, and if an impartial rule were to be adopted, those Members who were in Ireland should be called upon to take their fair share of duty.

thought it was extremely desirable that this matter should be settled by the House on fair terms to all parties. He did not consider it a sufficient excuse that a Member was engaged on a Public Committee, because they all knew that attendance on Public Committees was not compulsory, and that Members after being appointed on them were at perfect liberty to leave London, and to absent themselves during the time of their sitting, and thereby might escape compliance with that Order, which the House intended should be compulsory. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose that, as they had adopted the rule of compulsory attendance, to say to one class of Members, "You shall attend on these Railway Committees, and your attendance shall be compulsory," while other Members, without any leave of absence, or any known and recognised cause, were absent from the House, was unjust; for it was obvious that their absence rendered the duties of other Members more onerous. He thanked the hon. Gentleman very much for raising this question; and he hoped that if compulsory attendance were to be continued, some means would be adopted to secure the attendance of those who were absent without leave, and without any known reason or excuse.

said, that as he was the original Mover of the Resolution, the House might expect him to say something on the subject. He certainly did understand, when that Resolution was carried, that the attendance on Railway Committees was to be compulsory, although it was true that Members had small thanks and very great trouble in attending those Committees. The attendance of the hon. Member for Winchester on the Committees he had mentioned, was not in his opinion of that stringent character which prevented his attendance on the Railway Committee; and he thought the hon. Member ought to give up his attendance on the other Committees, and obey the requisition of the Committee of Selection. There were no inquiries of more importance at present to the public than the various inquiries pending before Railway Committees; and, therefore, he thought it was not asking too much of the House to require the attendance of Members on Railway Committees, although they might be members of other Committees of a public character.

would put it to the House to consider of what value would the inquiries before Public Committees be, and what weight the Reports would have with the public, if the best Members were draughted off to serve on Railway Committees. It was plain Public Committees in such circumstances could not do their duty. He thought Public Committees ought to be constituted of a less number of members than at present.

urged the importance of adhering to the rule already laid down with respect to attendance on Railway Committees.

thought this rather a tantalizing discussion to some hon. Members. He thought the question had been settled some time ago. He had been on the Scotch Prisons Committee, and the Colonial Accounts Committee, when he received the Order of the Committee of Selection, which plunged him into a Railway Committee, where there were ten bills and twenty lawyers. The Chairman of the Committee of Selection told him that he had no locus standi as a Member of Public Committees to claim exemption from serving on Railway Com- mittees. If the House reversed their judgment, he trusted the operation of the reversal would be retrospective, so as to include himself and hon. Members who had been placed in similar circumstances. The best course, however, would be for the House to support their previous determination, and put their shoulder to the wheel, as had been said in moving the Resolution, otherwise the business could not be got through.

said, however anxious hon. Members might be to do their duties, the willing, certainly, ought not to be called to take a distasteful duty, because the unwilling kept out of the way. It seemed to him extraordinary that those hon. Members who thought proper to attend the Repeal Association, had not been summoned on one of these Railway Committees.

thought some decision ought to be come to with respect to the hon. Member for Winchester, before the House proceeded further.

was of opinion that unless the Resolution were continued, and the attendance on Railway Committees made compulsory, it would be impossible to get through the business during the Session of Parliament.

said, that as the Chairman of the Committee would, according to the Orders of the House, have to report the absence of the hon. Member again tomorrow if he did not attend the Committee, he should move, if the noble Lord opposite did not, that the hon. Member be ordered to attend the Railway Committee of which he was a Member.

said, that if the hon. Member would not make a declaration that he would attend, he should be ready to make a Motion to that effect.

wished to ask the noble Lord what course would be pursued with respect to those Members who had thought fit not to attend this Session; and whether he would be prepared to call on the House to order the Sergeant-at-Arms to take into custody such Members as refused to attend the Railway Committees on which they might be placed by the Committee of Selection, and whether the Sergeant-at-Arms would be sent over to Ireland take Members into custody. He agreed entirely that some understanding ought to be come to as to the mode of enforcing these attendances; and he could not help expressing his opinion that it was extraordinary that no name from among those who absented themselves had been appointed by the Committee of Selection.

thought it would be very well if the House understood, without any possibility of misapprehension, what would take place if a Member refused to attend.

said, that if any hon. Member refused to obey the Orders of the House, he ought to be committed by order of the House to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The question had not arisen, and therefore the House had not made any Resolution on the subject of the question now before them; but the House undoubtedly had the power, and if it should be necessary to call upon the House to put that power in motion, he was sure he should be supported by a very large majority in making that appeal.

said, his question was, whether, in the event of any of those Members who were now in Ireland refusing to attend, the Sergeant-at-Arms would be ordered to take them into custody?

said, that if any Member, whether in Scotland, Ireland, or England, did so refuse, he should be ready to move that such Member be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

said, as the hon. Member for Winchester did not seem disposed to make any declaration, he moved that the hon. Member be ordered to attend the Railway Committee on Group Q to-morrow.

thought his explanation had not been understood. It was not that he preferred serving on one Committee rather than another, but that he found his attendance on the Railway Committee would be absolutely incompatible with his other duties. If the House, on dividing, should direct him to attend this Railway Committee, he would be most willing to do so.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which he had given him private notice. He wished to know whether any intention existed to alter the arrangements under which the sum to be granted for education in England had hitherto been appropriated? There was some little uneasiness on the subject in the public mind.

was not aware that there was any uneasiness in the public mind on this subject; but he was happy to state that there was no intention to alter the regulations under which the Vote for Education in England had been applied.

said, that the House would be pleased to recollect that in the month of March last, on the occasion of a Motion on the subject of New Zealand, an opportunity had been taken of making a severe attack on his gallant friend, Captain Fitzroy, the Governor of that Colony. He was absent when that fierce and unexpected attack was made on the character of his gallant friend; but he consoled himself with the idea—["Order, order!"]

intimated to the hon. and gallant Member that he was out of order.

proceeded to state that he had heard with great pain that his gallant friend, Captain Fitzroy, was about to be superseded in the Government of New Zealand; and it was an additional pang that he had no opportunity of defending his gallant friend; and he, therefore, took that opportunity of asking a question on the subject. There were hon. Members on both sides of the House who knew Captain Fitzroy perfectly well; and he appealed to them, whether they had not found his gallant friend, both in his public and private capacity, a most honourable man? ["Order!"]

again intimated to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was quite out of order, when there was no question before the House, to make any statement, except what was necessary by way of explanation, to render the question he was about to put intelligible.

would ask, then, whether the report that Captain Fitzroy was about to be superseded in the Government of New Zealand was true or not?

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend having given him notice of the question, he was prepared to give an answer. The hon. and gallant Member, in giving notice of the question, stated his pur- pose was to inquire whether the grounds on which it was proposed to supersede his gallant friend were such as in any way to affect his character as a gentleman and an officer in Her Majesty's service? In the first place, he (Mr. Hope) might state that it was intended to appoint a successor to Captain Fitzroy in the government of New Zealand. The determination to take that step had been communicated to no one beyond the Members of the Government, except to Captain Fitzroy's nearest friends. He presumed, therefore, it was from them the hon. and gallant Member had obtained the information. The grounds on which that step was proposed to be taken, were such as in no way affected the honour and character of Captain Fitzroy as a gentleman, or an officer in Her Majesty's service. They were, moreover, in no way connected with the charges made against him as Governor of New Zealand, to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred; nor had the determination come to by the Government on the matter been communicated to any persons, except those before stated; and it had no reference whatever to any charges brought against Captain Fitzroy, in regard of those negotiations in which a slur had been cast upon his honour and character. The House would not wish him to go into a statement of the grounds on which it was proposed to supersede him; and, in fact, no public communication could be made of the circumstances, until the Government were prepared to give a full explanation of them. He might, however, be permitted, for the satisfaction of the hon. and gallant Member, to read a passage from the despatch sent out by the last New Zealand mail, which would show that the grounds on which Captain Fitzroy was superseded were not derogatory to his personal character. In that despatch of his noble Friend, it was stated:—

"The concern with which I announce this decision is greatly enhanced by the remembrance of the public spirit and disinterestedness with which you assumed this arduous duty, and of the personal sacrifices which you so liberally made on that account; nor can I omit to record that in whatever other respect our confidence in you may have been shaken, Her Majesty's Government retain the most implicit reliance on your personal character, and on your zeal for the Queen's service. You will, therefore, readily believe that I have acted on this occasion in reluctant submission to what I regard as an indispensable public duty."

said he had received a communication, in which Mr. Cams Wilson stated he had been consigned to a felon's cell in Jersey, supplied with felon's food, and that all communication from outside with him was entirely stopped; that his wife had been unable to obtain admittance to him; and, in short, that he was shut out from all human converse, except with the gaoler. He (Mr. Roebuck) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had had any information on the subject, or whether he had made inquiry upon it; and, if so, whether those statements were correct?

had received a letter containing complaints on the subject from Mr. Carus Wilson, as had also his right hon. Friend at the head of Her Majesty's Government; and he (Sir J. Graham) had thought it his duty to send copies of those letters to the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey, and he had directed him to inquire into the accuracy of the allegations contained in them, and to report to him immediately on the subject.

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether it was the intention of the Government this Session to bring in an Act on the subject of the franchise and registration of voters in Ireland; and also, whether it was their intention to alter the Irish Municipal Reform Act, so as to place the municipal bodies of Ireland on a footing of equality with those of England?

said, he felt great difficulty in giving any assurance as to the time a particular Bill would be brought in. He could, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that it was the intention of the Government that business connected with Ireland should have full consideration. He intended to proceed in the first instance with the Maynooth Grant Bill; and on Friday next his hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would state to the House the general outlines of the measure which the Government proposed with respect to academical education. He thought it desirable to give that Bill precedence over every other measure, excepting the Maynooth Grant Bill. He was much pressed the other night by the hon. Member for Kerry, who wished to know his intentions with respect to the introduction of a mea- sure founded upon or connected with the Report of the Landlord and Tenant Commission in Ireland. He hoped at an early period after the recess some measure on the subject would be brought in, either in that or the other House of Parliament, In addition to these measures, they had prepared a measure on the subject of registration and municipal corporations in Ireland; but they thought it would be better first to proceed with those which he had first mentioned, as of most importance. With regard to the Municipal Corporation Bill, it was founded on the principle of giving the same equality of franchise with respect to municipal corporations in Ireland which existed in this country.

said, as he understood from the right hon. Baronet a Registration Bill was prepared for Ireland, he wished to know whether the franchise would be contained in it?

Yes.

begged to call the attention of the Home Secretary to a subject which had excited great interest in the parish in which he resided. A gentleman named Mayer had been carried before Mr. Twyford, a police magistrate, for an assault which he had committed under very extenuating circumstances. Bail to any amount was offered by a number of individuals, but was refused; and Mr. Mayer was carried to prison, where he remained for three days, when the matter was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, and bail was allowed. The circumstance having excited a strong sensation, he begged to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to re-consider, with a view to its amendment, the extraordinary Act of Parliament under which the magistrate was said to have acted.

said, he should to-morrow receive a deputation from the parish of Marylebone, on the subject, consisting of the rector and a deputation from the vestry; but at present he knew nothing of the case, except from the accounts in the public papers. When the matter should be brought before him, he would institute an inquiry; but he begged the House and the hon. Member to bear in mind that at present they had only an ex-parte statement before them, and had not yet received the explanation of the magistrate.

said, a matter had occurred during the Private Business, that evening, which he thought it important they should take into their consideration. There was a private Bill, the Irish Great Western Railway Bill, with respect to which the Standing; Orders Committee had reported that it ought not to be proceeded with. Nevertheless, in the Paper of the Private Business of that day, there was a Notice by the hon. Member for Roscommon, that the promoters of this Bill should be permitted to proceed with it. That Notice came under discussion that evening; and the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, and several other Members, in speaking on the merits of the Motion, stated that in 300 cases they found the Standing Orders had not been complied with by the promoters of this Bill, and that of these thirty-four were of great importance. Other Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Motion, stated that it was a matter of the greatest importance for the welfare of Ireland, that, in spite of this non-compliance with the Standing Orders, the Bill should be proceeded with. The House then came to a vote on the Motion, and affirmed it by a majority of 97 to 81. He would not have called attention to the subject, except that a Member of the Government, the Secretary for Ireland, had spoken in favour of the Motion, and had voted for it. Now, when private solicitations had been made to him (Mr. Warburton) by many of his constituents to support similar Motions, and particularly in the case of the Birkenhead and Manchester Railway, when all parties admitted that there were only two or three cases in which the Standing Orders had not been complied with, his course had always been to endeavour to persuade them to accede to the Reports of the Standing Orders Committee, because in his opinion that House did not, and could not, decide such questions on the merits, but merely in favour of that party which had made the strictest canvass. He thought this was a question affecting the whole conduct of Private Bills in that House. He looked upon it that "chaos would come again," if, when the Repor of the Standing Orders Committee came before that House, such conduct was adopted by a Member of the Administration. He, therefore, rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, what course he would recommend to those Gentlemen who came there anxious only to perform their duties, but who, when attempts were made in future to overthrow the Reports of the Standing Orders Committee, would be much less able to resist them after such a precedent had been set by a Member of the Government? He thought the greatest injustice would be done to the supporters of other Private Bills if such a gross infraction of the Standing Orders were overlooked; particularly after they had been so strictly enforced in the Birkenhead and Manchester, and other Railway Bills in a similar situation.

said, he was sure the hon. Member would feel that it was not in his power to control the course of any Members of the Administration with respect to any Private Bill. That must necessarily be left to his own sense of duty. But as an exemplification of his own opinion he would state, that when a gentleman much interested in favour of this Bill applied to him, saying that as he (Sir R. Peel) had always expressed a strong interest in Irish railways, he came to solicit his forbearance; he replied that he thought the Order of the Committee a judicious one, and as he had every confidence in the purity of their intentions and the justice of their conduct, he must refuse all interference. He would state also that he that morning had an interview with the Vice President of the Board of Trade on the subject, and being told that although this was a Private Bill, it had been usual for the Vice President of the Board of Trade or some other Member of the Government to support the general authority of Committees of that House; under such circumstances he (Sir R. Peel) requested his right hon. Friend to be in attendance, and vote in favour of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee. That was all he knew on the subject.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the complaint of his hon. Friend. The complaint was, not that the Secretary for Ireland, or any other Member of the Government, had taken his own view of a Private Bill, but that the Secretary for Ireland had come there in his capacity of Secretary of State for that country, and had thrown into the scale the weight of his official authority; that he had acted separately from the Government at large, and had advocated a measure which had been opposed by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and which the Government, as a Government, were not prepared to support. In saying this, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland must not think that he was speaking harshly. He wished him to use all fair means of gaining popularity in Ireland; but he hoped he would take it in good part, if he assured him he did not think the course he had taken was calculated to raise his consideration in the eyes even of those he had supported on that occasion. He thought the course the right hon. Gentleman had taken was very objectionable; and he did not recollect any precedent for it. He remembered, indeed, that when a former Secretary for Ireland had recommended a particular course with respect to a Bill, the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had supported it; but here the Secretary for Ireland took a course not supported, but opposed, by the rest of the Government. He repeated, he thought this was most objectionable; and that they ought to apply the same rules to railways in Ireland as in this country. He had always thought it right to support as much as possible the decisions of the Standing Orders Committee; for he thought to make that House a Court of Appeal from that Committee, would produce nothing but confusion. Some of his Irish friends had canvassed him on this matter; but he replied that unless the Chairman of the Committee approved of the course proposed, he should feel it his duty to vote against it.

thought the Secretary for Ireland had exercised a sound discretion on this subject. His hon. Friend seemed to forget that the difficulty of complying with the Standing Orders was multiplied a hundred-fold in Ireland, in consequence of the middleman system, and other peculiarities of the tenure of land in that country. For this reason, he thought there was no analogy between this case and that of the Birkenhead and Manchester Railway; and that if they were to enforce the Standing Orders strictly, it was impossible to pass any Railway Bill for Ireland.

said the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) was mistaken in supposing the Secretary for Ireland had acted in his official capacity. He himself heard that right hon. Gentleman state he did not wish to use any influence as Secretary for Ireland; and doubtless he had as much right to vote on the question as any other hon. Member who voted for it.

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Osborne) appeared to think that projects of this kind could not be brought before Committees if they strictly enforced the Standing Orders. Now, it might be right, in consequence of the peculiarities of the tenure of land in Ireland, not to require strict compliance with the Standing Orders; but then there should be some rule of the House on the subject. It could not be right that the authority of this Committee should be strictly enforced with regard to all Railway Bills in England and Scotland, but should be set at nought with respect to Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the House would either come to some special Resolution with respect to Irish Railway Bills, or that in future the authority of the Committee would not be allowed to be set at nought by a Member of the Government.

could not remain silent under the imputation that he came down to that House to use his influence, as a Member of the Government, with respect to this Bill. If the noble Lord had been present, he would have found that the course he took did not justify such imputation. What his hon. Friend the Member for Winchester had stated was true. He stated to the House, that he rose merely as a private individual; that this was a matter on which every man should exercise his own discretion; and that he did not wish to say anything to affect the judgment of any person. He had merely mentioned that he was Secretary for Ireland to show his interest in the subject. He took the course he did, knowing that there was another competing Bill from the east to the west of Ireland; and believing that it was of great importance that they should both go before the Committee, in order that either, or both, might be passed in the present Session.

was a Member of the Standing Orders Committee; but he had been accidentally prevented from attending when this Bill was under discussion. If the same rule was not to be applied to Irish railways as to English railways, then it would be better not to waste the time of the Committee in dealing with Irish railway matters at all. If the House, by reversing the decisions of the Committee, threw discredit on that Committee, it would be far better to do away with the rule appointing such Committee; but if the House were determined to continue the Committee in their functions, and to make their decisions of proper value and weight, let them lay down certain rules for their guidance, and let these rules in all cases be impartially adhered to. If such things as had just occurred were to be done, public confidence would be entirely lost. There was the Bill for the Manchester and Birkenhead Railway lost for this Session from noncompliance with the Standing Orders. Now, this undertaking was not so faulty by 50 per cent., as the Dublin and Galway Railway project. If the House wished to preserve a character for consistency, they must apply the same rule to all alike—they must not have one system for England, and another for Ireland.

said, the grounds on which the Dublin and Galway matter had been brought forward in that House, were wholly distinct from the question of noncompliance with the Standing Orders. The authority of the Committee on Standing Orders had never been questioned. The supporters of the Motion for leave to proceed with the Dublin and Galway Bill, had submitted a case of gross fraud to the House; they did not dispute the propriety of the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, but they were prepared to show that none of the Orders had actually been violated, though he admitted they were apparently violated.

said, the ground on which the House came to its recent decision was the consideration of the great importance to Ireland of this railway; but then he was bound to say there had been a practice revived with regard to this particular Bill that was seriously to be deprecated. He referred to the fact of Members having been canvassed to come down and vote; and if the House did not set its face against such a practice, it would be impossible for the Standing Orders or any other Committee to discharge fairly the duties entrusted to them. The duties of such Committees were suf- ficiently onerous, and their position had not been improved by the circumstance of the House having already reversed their decisions three times. He had given notice for the Report of the Committee on this line to be printed, and the House would be in possession of the details of the question before hon. Members would be called upon to vote. If the Report was printed, and if hon. Members gave themselves the trouble to examine it carefully, they would see that the Committee had discharged their duty properly, and that the reversal of their decision was not proper.

believed that the subject before the House was one of great public importance. It was clear that were they to pursue the course which had been that night adopted, they were in the way of bringing about a state of things which would lead to the most serious consequences. All the abuses of the old system, in reference to the conduct of Private Business, would be revived, if the House were not to determine against the recurrence of such decisions as had been that night agreed to. He had heard the great importance of railways to Ireland urged by hon. Members who had supported the Motion. No one felt that importance more than he did; but important as it was that Ireland should enjoy good railway communication, it was more important still that they should not inflict upon it the evils of a jobbing system of private legislation. By delaying this measure for a year, they would probably be doing Ireland a service; they would be giving it a lesson as to the necessity of adopting the same strictness in the mode of conducting business which was in England. If, however, the Standing Orders, as they at present stood, bore in any way harshly upon the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, then let them mitigate the severity of these rules so far as regarded that country; but let them not come, as they had that night done, and in peculiar isolated cases set aside the decisions of the Standing Orders Committee. Let them reflect upon the consequences of the vote which they had that evening come to. Even supposing the competing Bill to be as faulty as that which had been just discussed, they could not, in common justice to its promoters, refuse it the same indulgence. But this, the first step in a wrong course, ought to be retraced, and it was competent for them by the forms of the House to do so. The Bill would soon be presented. It would then be competent for those who entertained the same opinions relative to the matter as he did, to vote against its first reading; and were that course to be pursued, then he thought that they had a right to call upon the Government to support it. The distinction drawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland between his public and his private capacity was one, in his opinion, quite untenable. Would the right hon. Gentleman have so acted had he been simply the Member for Buckingham? No, it was as Secretary for Ireland that he had spoken and voted; but as Secretary for Ireland he could not divest himself of his official authority and influence. He held it, therefore, to be the duty of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, agreeing as he did with them generally as to the matter, to take care that those who held office under his Government, did not come forward in their official character to induce the House to come to decisions calculated to lead to injurious consequences hereafter.

said, this was not the first instance during the present Session when he had heard of hon. Members of that House being canvassed to come down and vote on particular questions. He had himself always entertained a strong determination not to vote upon any Private Bill with the merits of which he was unacquainted. He came down to the House to-night just as strangers were ordered to withdraw, previous to the division on the Irish Great Western Railway Bill; but as he knew nothing of the merits of the question, he did not vote. If the practice of canvassing Members were persisted in, where were they to stop? Some individuals might not have sufficient delicacy to prevent them from canvassing Members who were on the Committees. They had lately effected great improvements in the mode of conducting railway business in that House, and he hoped the general feeling of hon. Gentlemen was opposed to the canvass of Members for their votes on particular Bills.

considered the House was in a difficulty now, but that they would be in a still greater difficulty if they acted on the suggestion of the noble Member for Sunderland (Lord Howick). The House had, for an hour and a half, discussed the question whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with in the case of the Irish Great Western Railway, and they eventually came to the conclusion that those Orders should be dispensed with. He considered that no case had made out for dispensing with the Standing Orders, and he had therefore voted against the Motion. He thought the promoters of the Manchester and Birkenhead Railway had good ground for complaint; for in that case he had only moved that the regulations of the Standing Orders Committee should be relaxed. That Committee, he believed, discharged their duties in strict conformity with the directions of the House; but the question was, whether there was to be any appeal from the Committee. If there was to be no appeal, let them lay down the rule that the Report of the Committee should be final and conclusive; but it would be a mockery if the decisions of the House, reversing the decisions of the Committee, were to be rendered ineffectual in the manner proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Howick.) He thought the proper course would be to allow the Bill to go into Committee, where its merits could be fairly discussed and ascertained.

said, he did not rise with the intention of finding fault with Lord Stanley for superseding his gallant friend, Captain Fitzroy, for the best of all reasons—he was totally ignorant of the grounds of his dismissal; but his object was, when the supercession of Captain Fitzroy was made public, to be allowed to pay his tribute to the public worth of that gallant officer. Captain Fitzroy was a midshipman under his (Captain Rous's) command, in a corvette, in 1822 and 1823; and he would give the House his word that there was not a better seamen or officer in Her Majesty's navy. From 1831 to 1834, Captain Fitzroy commanded and surveyed the Coast of South America, from the River Plate to the Coast of Chili. In the performance of this arduous duty, as he could not complete the survey of Cape Horn without the assistance of a second vessel, he purchased and fitted out, at his own expense, a schooner. He likewise brought to England three natives of Terra del Fuego, whom he educated, that they might be useful in the event of Her Majesty's Government forming an establishment in that country; and the Admiralty refusing to send back these natives in a vessel of war, Captain Fitzroy was obliged to charter a merchant ship to convey them home. Not one sixpence was repaid to him, and he actually spent one-fifth of his private fortune in the service of the State. In 1843, Captain Fitzroy informed him, in that House, that Lord Stanley had offered him the government of New Zealand. He (Captain Rous) advised his gallant friend to refuse the appointment, knowing that an angel from heaven could not reconcile the differences between the natives, the missionaries, and the New Zealand Company. At that time, Captain Fitzroy had the honour of representing Durham, and he had a public income of 800l. per annum as a conservator of the River Mersey, and as one of the elder brethren of the Trinity House; all of which he gave up, besides a great sacrifice of private property, to accept the trifling balance of 400l. per annum. He mentioned these circumstances to show the House that Captain Fitzroy was always impressed with one idea—how he could best serve his country. As long as the New Zealand Company existed—as long as they had an imperium in imperio in that Colony—it was utterly impossible for any man to govern it. He wished to know why the New Zealand Company dared not bring forward their promised Motion? All he (Captain Rous) could assure them was, that, whenever they dared submit that Motion to the House, he would bring forward two charges against them — of getting money under illegal pretences, and of inveigling labourers and artificers from this country under promise of finding them employment and good wages, and then deserting them and leaving them to starve. Whenever the case of Captain Fitzroy's dismissal came before the House, he would be prepared to give an unbiassed opinion.

said, he would not occupy the time of the House by any observations upon the remarks which had been somewhat irrelevantly introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. He would only say, that the hon. and gallant Officer was entirely ignorant of the whole subject; and at the proper time he should be prepared to meet the charges of the gallant Member.

begged to thank the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. G. W. Hope) for the manner in which he had communicated to the friends of Captain Fitzroy the intention of the Government to recall that gallant Officer. He was well aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Captain Rous) had for a long period taken a deep interest in the welfare of his gallant relative, Captain Fitzroy. He should be extremely sorry in any way to embarrass the Government, for the intimation he had received was made in the kindest spirit; and he took this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department (Lord Stanley) for his courtesy. The hon. Under Secretary (Mr. G. W. Hope) had to-night read an extract from the despatch sent out to Captain Fitzroy. The only point on which Captain Fitzroy's family had entertained any anxiety was completely set at rest; for it was clear that nothing had occurred during the time he held the appointment in New Zealand, reflecting in any degree on his high character as a gentleman and an officer. He (Mr. Trevor) hoped the Government would be fortunate enough to secure the services of a gentleman who would be more successful in dealing with the difficulties of the situation. It was impossible to overstate the immense difficulties of the position Captain Fitzroy was called upon to fulfil when he assumed the government; and he would venture to say, that the Government would not obtain a more able or more honest servant than his gallant relative.

could not allow this discussion to close without saying, that there was something absolutely unfair on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Captain Rous), in making a distinct charge against the New Zealand Company. He (Mr. Ward) had no connexion with that Company; but he believed they possessed the means of proving that almost every charge made against them had originated in their differences with the Government. When he saw Captain Fitzroy's friends coming forward in this manner, he thought, as an individual perfectly disinterested as to this question, he ought to say, that though there might be no imputation upon the moral character of Captain Fitzroy, or upon his character as an officer and a gentleman—a notion which no one could dream of entertaining—he believed that no measure of the Government had given more satisfaction to any person who had watched over the progress of our Colony in New Zealand, than the recall of Captain Fitzroy. The conduct of that gallant Officer had been most mischievous and unfortunate; and if his friends would parade his high character as a gentleman, he must say, that no man had ever shown so little fitness for the office to which he had unfortunately been appointed.

had long known Captain Fitzroy, and he fully concurred in every word that had been said in praise of that gallant officer, not only in his public capacity, but in all the relations of private life. Nothing could be purer than the intentions with which he accepted office; and, as far as intentions went, no man could stand more completely exonerated than he did.

felt assured that the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Westminster would, upon reflection, see the injustice of imputing to the New Zealand Company that they had raised money upon false pretences.

said, that there had been nothing said against the private character of Captain Fitzroy. On the contrary, every credit was given to him for an anxious desire to discharge his duty; he had evinced great courage and had made great sacrifices.

said, in proposing the Amendment of which he had given notice, that he did not bring forward that Amendment in any spirit of hostility to the Government; and he rejoiced to think that they contemplated other measures beneficial to Ireland. It was generally thought, and he concurred in the opinion, that there would be not only further grants to the Roman Catholics, but that there would be grants to the Protestant Dissenters also. This, however, he did not regard as matter which afforded any ground for congratulation, because he happened to be one of those who thought that there ought not to be any State provision for religious purposes. He would never interfere with men's consciences; and it was an interference with conscience to call on any man to pay for the support of a Church from which he conscientiously dissented. It was tyranny to impose on any man a tax for not conforming to the State religion. The State had a right to levy taxes which were necessary for the maintenance of the laws and for the due administration of justice; but no Government had a right to levy any tax for the purpose of promoting the interests of any particular religion. He thought that the House of Commons was not an assembly, as it was now constituted, to which any religious body ought to defer in matters of doctrine or discipline. The House of Commons was at present composed of men who belonged to every variety of creed; and even the Established Church was divided on a vast variety of subjects, such as whether their ministers should preach in a white or in a black dress; whether they should have at the eastern ends of their churches a stone altar or a table; whether there should be an offertory; whether certain prayers should follow the sermon; where the baptismal font should be placed; and various Other matters of that sort. These were subjects which occupied the attention of Gentlemen in that House as well as out of it; but the results of his own observation led him to this conclusion, that true religion was not to be advanced by the protection of the State, for when ministers of religion received allowances from the Government, they always appeared to be more anxious to serve the State than to serve the Church. If churches were founded by the State, full accommodation should be provided in them for all classes; but no adequate acommodation was at present provided in the churches for the poor, the greater part of the churches being divided into pews. The support of a church by the State led to domination; and the ministers of such a church generally sided against the rights of the poor. Such endowments were opposed to civil and religious liberty. Holding these views, he was of opinion that all State Establishments were against the rights of conscience, prevented the diffusion of truth, were unjust and impolitic; and the proposition which he should submit to the House was a declaration against all kinds of State Endowments, The latter part of his Motion preserved vested rights; and he proposed to enact that those who at present were entitled to emoluments arising from preferments should hold them for life. As these preferments became vacant he should propose that the emoluments should be received into the Consolidated Fund, to be appropriated as Parliament should direct. He should propose that the tithes should afterwards be paid to Commissioners, to be by them paid into the national funds, and be appropriated to such objects as to Parliament should seem meet. He had no idea of extinguishing the tithes for the benefit of the landlords. The sole ground of his opposition to the Maynooth grant was his adherence to the voluntary principle. He conceived that the Irish church could not stand unless it were supported in principle by grants made to other religious bodies; and, as he did not wish to support other religious institutions by endowment, he was anxious that no new grant should be given to any religious body in Ireland or England. He thought that there was a disposition in the leaders on the other side of the Channel to judge very unfairly of the English people. The greater part of the English people who opposed this grant opposed it on the principle of opposition to State establishments. It was, therefore, not fair to say that hostility to a measure on this ground was hostility to Ireland. Those who were opposed to monopolies should be opposed to a religious monopoly, which was as great an evil as any monopoly. He wished to establish the perfect equality of all sects, and not to have a provision by the State for any sect whatever. These were the grounds of his opposition to the grant, and it arose from no feeling of opposition to Ireland. He concluded with moving, as an Amendment—

"That any provision for the separate or exclusive education of any particular religious denomination, or for the support or endowment of any religious sect or sects by State grants, or funds raised by compulsory assessment, whether under the name of tithes, rents, cesses, taxes, Regium Donum, or under any other name or form whatever, is a violation of the rights of conscience, detrimental to religious truth, and dangerous to civil and religious freedom; and that all such establishments, grants, or endowments now in existence in the United Kingdom ought to be discontinued with as little delay as may be consistent with a due regard to the rights of those who have life interests in the same."

seconded the Motion.

was extremely sorry that he could not go along with his hon. Friend. A question of so much importance ought to be brought before the House as a substantive Motion, and not as an Amendment. If his hon. Friend had restricted his Amendment to the first portion of it, that no public money should be voted out of the taxes for any purpose connected with religious establishments, he (Mr. Williams) would have voted for it. That would be a proper Amendment to the Bill before the House. He had supported the Bill, and would shortly-state his reasons for having done so. He had supported it, because of the vast amount of money which was taken out of the pockets of Roman Catholics and Dissenters of Ireland and England, and appropriated to various religious purposes. He was astonished to see the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, and the hon. Member for Kent, who were such stanch advocates of the interests of the Church of England, oppose this Bill. He would instance some of the sums voted out of the public money for the support of the Established Church, a part of that money coming out of the pockets of the Roman Catholics of Ireland and England. 1,500,000l. was paid for the building of new churches. 1,000,000l. had been taken out of the public funds on an understanding that it was to be repaid, to pay off the arrears of tithes to the clergy; but it had not been repaid. Then looking to the expenditure on the Colonies since 1826, upwards of 400,000l. had been paid out of the public taxes to our West India islands. We were maintaining bishops and clergy of the Church of England at the public expense in almost all our Colonies. 11,600l. had been voted for the clergy in Canada. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University had opposed this Bill on the distinct avowal of his hostility to the Catholic religion. Why, then, did not that hon. Baronet object to the giving of 1,000l. a year to the Roman Catholic bishop of Quebec, and 70l. a year to the Roman Catholic bishop of Newfoundland? Was it because the rest of the 11,600l. a year was given to the clergy of the Established Church? Grants of public money for the support of the Church were spread over the whole of the Estimates. They were to be called on that night to vote 109l. for expenses for entertaining the Bishop of Gibraltar on board one of Her Majesty's steam vessels, on his passage from Malta to Lisbon. There were also other sums, amounting to 310l., towards which the Roman Catholics and Dissenters had to pay, for expenses in conveying the same bishop on other excursions (of pleasure, he fancied); and very pleasant excursions no doubt they were. Then, again, there was an item of 147l. for expenses in entertaining the Bishop of Antigua on board Her Majesty's sloop of war. He found 180l. put down for the Bishop of Barbadoes, whose salary was 4,000l. a year. He would not, however, weary the House by going into any further details; but he must say, that the hon. Baronet, while such expenses as those which he had enumerated were defrayed out of the national income, was drawing the string a little too tight in refusing any grant to Maynooth. He had always objected to such grants of the public money; but he had met with little sympathy out of doors, and with no success in his opposition there. He should, however, support the proposed endowment of Maynooth, though he did so with pain, as he was aware that in giving his vote for the measure, he was acting in opposition to the views and sentiments of many persons whose opinions he respected.

said, that as he had been so pointedly referred to both by word and gesture on the part of the hon. Member for Coventry, he could not refrain from making one or two observations in reply to what had fallen from him. The hon. Member had asked him how he could reconcile the course which he had taken with regard to the present measure, with his acquiescence in the taxation of his Roman Catholic fellow subjects, for the purpose of supporting the religion of others not of that religion? To this he had to reply, that he did not consent to tax the people of the United Kingdom for the support of any one sect; but he consented to expend a portion of the taxes generally levied upon the Church of England, because that Church was not a sect; and he denied the right of any other party to claim the same support. As to the maintenance of a Roman Catholic bishop of Quebec out of the taxes, he had repeatedly stated in that House his reason to be, that eighty years ago, when the province of Canada was annexed to the Crown under a specific Treaty, one of the terms of that Treaty was, that the religion of the Church of Rome should be maintained there; and it was perfectly consistent with the principles which he had always avowed not to desire to disturb an arrangement guaranteed by a treaty, and yet to be opposed to the endowment of a Roman Catholic establishment within the limits of Her Majesty's dominions. He should not follow the hon. Member into the details of expense attendant upon the Colonial bishops' visitations, but he would merely deny that pleasure was the object, as the hon. Member had asserted, of those excursions; and observe, that those right rev. Prelates derived no more pleasure from them than every good and religious man would do from the performance of a duty. The hon. Member for Rochdale had brought forward a proposition in the form of an Amendment which, if affirmed, would strike at the root of all religion. The hon. Member would not deny that he was dealing with the oldest property in the kingdom; a property which referred back to twelve centuries for its foundation; and not only was this the most ancient of the properties of the kingdom, but also its disposition was made for the best and wisest purposes. By its means a body of highly educated men were placed at the service of the people, to whom they were good and useful religious ministers and teachers. The proposition, therefore, he regarded as nothing less than a blow struck at the root of a Church which Providence had established in the land to be a blessing and a guide to it; and, regarding the Amendment in that light, he must oppose it.

said, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford occupied a most satisfactory and complacent position. He had set himself up as the standard of religious truth. He seemed to think that what he believed must necessarily be true, and what he disbelieved must necessarily be error; and that his conscience and his decision were to guide and rule the Legislature: this was an easy way of settling all questions. "Truth is with me; so give me patronage and protection: error is with all who oppose me; therefore, you must repudiate and exclude them." He (Dr. Bowring) did not think any man had a right to hold such language. The proposition which his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale had brought before the House should have re- ceived his assent, if it had been brought forward as an abstract question; but as he had connected it with another measure before the House, a measure of conciliation and justice, which it would tend to impede or overthrow, he could not concur with him on the present occasion. He could not make civil privileges depend upon regious tests. He did not think, in that House, he had a right to ask any man whether he was a Protestant, a Roman Catholic, a Dissenter, a Mussulman, or a Jew? He had been told that he would sacrifice the honourable position which he held in the estimation of many of his constituents by the vote which he intended giving in favour of the measure proposed by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government; but he had said in reply to that, that he was prepared to run all the risk consequent upon that vote. He thought it was his mission to represent the tolerant — the charitable — the equitable spirit of his constituents; and not what he must deem their erroneous views and prejudiced opinions. He found much to condemn in the arguments by which the Bill had been opposed by its enemies, and in the temper in which it had been accepted by its friends. But it was not his duty to inquire into the aberrations of excited opinions. He asked not whether English bigots would be satisfied, or Irish repealers grateful. Was the measure just and wise? Ought it to conciliate the friendly feelings of the Irish people? Were the purposes of its promoters liberal? Would the Bill work good for Ireland and for the British nation? Would it effectually strengthen the Union? Would it remove grievances? If so, he cared not for the clamours of the intolerant here, nor for the intemperance of the uncandid elsewhere. The measure was in itself a good, and pregnant with other good. It gave something—it promised more—it was part and portion of a system of conciliation. It had been said that Ireland would be unthankful. That was no reason why England should be unjust. He considered the proposed measure a salutary one, because it held out the hand of friendship and good fellowship to Ireland—because it was a step in the right direction toward equality; and for his own part he confesed he had been delighted by the confession of the right hon. Baronet opposite, "that Ireland was not to be conciliated by violence." He fully counted upon the generosity of the people of Ireland to appreci- ate properly the spirit in which those, on his (Dr. Bowring's) side of the House as well as the Government, entertained and introduced that question. He confessed it was distressing to see the excitement which was caused in this country by the agitation against the proposed measure; to see thousands of men banded together at public meetings, and showing that their hatred of Papists and Popery was the sole ground for their opposition to it. He shared in no such antipathies, and would make such hatred no groundwork for his legislation. He should be grieved to find the demons of bigotry and uncharitableness making their way to St. Stephen's from the heated atmosphere of Exeter Hall. The vote he intended to give might endanger or lose him his seat in that House. He should regret to be obliged to differ from a constituency to whom he owed so much, and for whom he entertained so great a feeling of attachment and gratitude; but he could not, in the fair discharge of a conscientious duty, act otherwise than give his full support to the measure of the right hon. Baronet in every stage of its progress through that House, and take upon himself all the consequences which a faithful adhesion to the principles of civil and religious liberty might bring down upon him.

was sorry the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale was so worded, as, in its present form, he could not give it his support. He had no objection to a grant to Maynooth, even of a much larger amount than that proposed, if taken from the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland. He only objected to the source from which it was intended to take it.

would take that opportunity of making a suggestion to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and also of asking him whether it would not be desirable to have laymen educated in the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, as well as those intended for the priesthood? He had understood that formerly laymen were educated in it, and it would be, in his opinion, most advisable if it were still to be continued a general educational institution, and to have it open, as it were, for the education of all classes, laymen as well as those intended for the ecclesiastical profession. He had received several letters in reference to his observations on this subject in that House, and he had always expressed his belief that this was an educational establishment, and, therefore, he denied that the grant to it was an endowment, as it had been called. He had been always opposed to what was so designated. He supported that Bill with great satisfaction, because he was favourable to the extension of education in every part of the globe, as a means of enabling people to become better subjects; and if education was so important an object to the people, how much more essential was it that those who taught 7,000,000 of the Irish people should themselves be enlightened and educated! He believed, in his support of this measure, like his hon. Friend near him (Dr. Bowring), he should not agree with many of his constituents; but he would do the Presbyterian portion of them the justice to say that they did not concur in the opposition to the Bill—the great majority of the petitions which he had presented against it having been from Wesleyans, Independents, and Members of the Free Church. He regretted that the Protestant Dissenters in this country should make so bad a return to the Roman Catholics, for the manner in which the latter had come forward to assist them in their struggles for civil and religious rights. The hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Oxford, had raised a cry against this measure, which would be equally efficient against the Protestant Church Establishment of this country; and he should take care, lest it might be used against the Church of England, as it was now against the Maynooth grant. For his own part, he was not indisposed to see the principle contended for carried out; for he was generally of opinion that religion was not benefited by a connexion with the State. He could not vole for the proposition of his hon. Friend, because it was an Amendment that might endanger the success of the Bill then under the consideration of the House; but if his hon. Friend would bring it forward as a separate question, he should give it his support.

The question which has been put to me by the hon. Member involves a matter of considerable importance. I apprehend that there is nothing whatever in former acts, nor in the present measure, necessarily imposing an obligation upon the State to provide education exclusively for ministers of the Roman Catholic religion. If the education of Maynooth has been of an exclusive kind, and if it has been practically confined to the priesthood, I must say that the Roman Catholic body are not the party who are responsible for that circumstance. I stated on a former evening, that when in 1795 the proposal was made for establishing a college for the education of Roman Catholics only, it was not then implied that the students should necessarily be candidates for the priesthood. But, the original proposal being for an institution for the education of Roman Catholics only, Mr. Grattan presented a petition from the Roman Catholic body, protesting against the exclusive character intended to be given to the College. He referred to the admission of Roman Catholics into the University of Dublin, and quoted the petition, which expressed a wish that the new institution about to be founded should not be for Roman Catholics only, but that Protestants should be admitted into it, because of the great advantages which they conceived would result from the joint education of the two classes. The Legislature, however, did not act upon that petition of the Roman Catholic body, but determined that the College should be confined to the education of Roman Catholics, without specifying that it was necessarily intended for the priesthood; and so the Act passed. In point of fact, the original superintendence of the College did attach a lay school to it; and it was in consequence of the interference of the Executive that that lay school was suppressed. Therefore there was no desire upon the part of the Roman Catholics that the institution should be exclusively for the priesthood, and there was nothing in the present Bill imposing any such obligation. But, practically, it has been so; and I believe will continue to be so. But before hon. Gentlemen condemn the exclusive character of that institution, I would beg to read a letter which has been quoted in the course of this debate, addressed by Mr. Burke to a Roman Catholic nobleman in 1779, stating very strong reasons, if there were to be a College at Maynooth to educate the Roman Catholics, why it should be confined to the priesthood. Mr. Burke said:—

"When we are to provide for the education of any body of men, we ought seriously to consider the particular functions they are to perform in life. A Roman Catholic clergyman is the minister of a very ritual religion, and, by his profession, subject to many restraints. His life is a life full of strict observances, and his duties are of a laborious nature towards himself, and of the highest possible trust towards others. The duly of confession alone is sufficient to set in the strongest light the necessity of his having an appropriate mode of education. If a Roman Catholic clergyman, intended for celibacy and the functions of confession, is not strictly bred in a seminary where these things are respected, inculcated, and enforced as sacred, and not made the subject of derision and obloquy, he will be ill fitted for the former, and the latter will be indeed in his hands a terrible instrument."

That was the opinion of Mr. Burke—an opinion which I apprehend mainly influenced the Executive Government of the day to give to the institution, not only an exclusive character so far as Roman Catholics were concerned, but exclusive as regarded the education of the priesthood. Mr. Burke went on to say in the same letter that he doubted whether it would be an advantage to laymen to be subjected to the same rules and discipline as those students who were intended for the Church. I have, therefore, only to repeat that there is nothing in this Bill which imposes the necessity of maintaining the exclusive ecclesiastical character of the College of Maynooth; but I should deceive the House were I to hold out the expectation that there was any likelihood of a departure from the course which has hitherto been pursued. Indeed, upon reading and considering the arguments of Mr. Burke in favour of an exclusively ecclesiastical education, I am disposed to admit that they are deserving of great weight.

would not detain the House long, but he could not allow that opportunity to pass without protesting against the charge of ingratitude which had been made against the Dissenters. They had given their aid in obtaining Catholic Emancipation; but they felt that it was utterly impossible, if the Bill before the House passed, to resist the endowment of the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland. He contended for the voluntary principle; and believed it was impossible to govern Ireland by maintaining the Church of the minority as the endowed Church of that country. He believed the voluntary system was the only one by which they could really carry out the vital principles of the Christian religion. He had, on a former occasion, shown that between three and four millions of money had been raised in this country on the voluntary principle. Its triumph was manifest, from the progress of the London Missionary Society, as would appear from the following facts: for the first ten years after the formation of that society, the sum which had been raised for evangelizing the heathen abroad, amounted to 47,000l.; in the next ten years 87,000l. were raised; in the third ten years the sum which the Society obtained was 280,000l.; in the fourth ten years the amount had reached 407,000l.; and in the last ten years it had been about 800,000l. He had that day been attending the annual meeting of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, and it was there stated that the sum of 105,000l. had been raised for the conversion of the heathen within the last year; of which amount about 1,200l. had been contributed by the emancipated slaves in the island of Jamaica; thus showing that these Christians had found the power of religion to be so strong, that they had felt themselves constrained to apply so large a portion of their pecuniary resources for its promotion. The strength of the voluntary principle was such, that he was convinced it would be equal to the preservation and promotion of the Christian religion, under the blessing of God. He was delighted to read in one of the journals of the day, a statement which had been made by a right rev. Prelate in another place, who said that the time had arrived when the Church should no longer put its confidence in Princes, but trust to the blessing of God, and endeavour to be established in the hearts of the people. And, wishing as he did, prosperity to the Church of England, he should rejoice to see the time when she would be so supported, and be left to pursue "the even tenor of her way," trusting solely to the blessing of the Almighty. An argument had been used that it was necessary for the well-being of the State, that the Church should be united to it. His opinion was that the connexion between the two ought not to be continued; its object was to link together things which could not in their own nature be properly connected—the one was of a spiritual character, whilst the other belonged solely to temporal power—the one had reference to divine and eternal things, and the other concerned only the affairs of time and temporal objects. The House divided on the Question that the words proposed stand part of the Question:—Ayes 141: Noes 2; Majority 139.

rose to put a question on the subject of the claims of certain merchants for compensation, in consequence of the injury sustained by them at Portendic. It was a subject which had often been discussed in that House. He understood the Government of France came to an agreement to refer the question to the Government of Prussia, and that reference having been made, the Government of Prussia had now given its reward. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet—and as he had not given notice of the question, he should not be surprised if the right hon. Baronet required time to give his answer—he, however, wished to ask him when the Government would be prepared to lay before the House, as he took it for granted they would do, the Papers connected with that subject? He said he took it for granted that they would do so, because not only had the matter been frequently under discussion, but it also involved doctrines on the question of blockade, which might be important to be known to that House. He supposed the Government of the King of Prussia had given some opinion upon those doctrines; and he should wish the right hon. Baronet, either then or at any future time, to answer the question which he had put to him.

said, that at an early period he should have no objection to lay on the Table of the House the official documents on the subject. The matter would shortly be brought to a close, and soon after the Whitsun recess he would lay the Papers in question on the Table.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Cockburn)on the subject of a court martial which had been held on board the Cor-morant, in the Pacific, on Lieutenant Bridge, for a breach of the 23rd Article of War. He understood that officer had been dismissed the service, and that the captain of the ship had been a member of the court martial. He wished to ask the right hon. and gallant Officer whether the statement was correct, and whether the Board of Admiralty considered such proceedings to be regular? If not, he would then inquire what steps they had taken to recompense Lieutenant Bridge for all the calamities which had befallen him.

said, it was true that a court martial had been held upon the officer named by the hon. and gallant Member, and that he had been found guilty of a breach of the Article referred to. He had, in consequence, been dismissed the ship, but not the service. The captain of the ship was a member of the court martial; but that was very common in the service. If the hon. and gallant Officer would look to the words of the Act, he would see that the Admiralty had no jurisdiction—the interference of the Admiralty was particularly guarded against. The officer, he begged to repeat, had not been dismissed the service, and would, he had no doubt, be employed again.

wished to know whether the hon. and gallant Officer considered the proceeding regular?

thought the proceeding perfectly regular. The captain was obliged to sit on the court martial, and the members of that court were the only persons who had a right to judge of his capability to sit amongst them.

inquired if Lieutenant Bridge had been appointed to another ship?

said he had not, but he was quite eligible, and probably would be.

said: I am anxious to make a few observations on the subject of the Returns as to the Slave Trade. I first wish to draw attention to the first Return of Vessels, which has not been framed in a very clear way. The vessels captured, in one year are mixed with those of another year; and I think the Return might have been done and made up in a clearer manner. But there is also a Return of the Number of Slaves landed on the Continent and Islands of America in each year from 1815 to 1843; and that does not tally, in any degree, with the information which is given by the documents actually referred to by the notes appended to the Return itself. Without going into the detail of all the discrepancies, I will just take one instance in regard to the slaves landed at the Havannah and Cuba in 1836, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41. By this Return, the number landed appears to have been 49,992; and by the documents and papers which are actually referred to in the Return, the number appears to have been upwards of 82,000 for the same period. I am now talking of the Return stated by the Commissioners at the Havannah in a despatch quoted in the notes at the end of this Return; and those Commissioners not only give 82,000 as the number landed in those years, but they say this number is only three-fourths of the number landed in the island. Therefore, if the additional number is added to the 82,000 for the purpose of making up the total, it appears by the despatches of the Commissioners, that 109,000 were landed during those years; whilst the Return makes out that only 49,000 were landed. The gentleman in that Department of the Foreign Office, whose duty it was to make out these Returns, is a person of great diligence, and exceedingly zealous in the matter; but there certainly must have been some very unusual oversight in regard to this Return. It seems to me that he might produce an amended Return which would be more satisfactory. In looking over the Slave Trade Papers, there are one or two points I wish to take this opportunity of adverting to, as this will be the only occasion upon which my observations will regularly belong to the subject before the House. I mention the subject, because a part of this Vote applies to the providing of cruisers to be employed in the suppression of the Slave Trade. I am sorry to see, according to the last Reports from every quarter—from Cuba, from Brazil, and from the Coast of Africa, that Slave Trade is on the increase. But, before I touch upon that part of the subject, there is one point to which I wish to call the attention of the Government. It is a f matter which has frequently been brought under the notice of the present and former Governments. It is stated that there are in Cuba and at Surinam a considerable number of negroes who, at different periods, had been brought from British possessions to the Spanish and Dutch Colonies, before the emancipation of our negroes, and who consequently remain now in a state of slavery; whereas if they had been left in the British Colonies they would have been included in the operation of the Act of Emancipation. This subject was brought under our consideration at the period when we were in office; and in the cases in which the statement was made, I thought it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to obtain the liberation of the individuals with respect to whom that statement was made. I am sorry, however, to see that the present Government have taken a different view of the matter; for I find a despatch from the Earl of Aberdeen, dated the 28th of August, 1843, to the Commissioner at Surinam, Mr. Schenley, to this effect—Mr. Schenley, I should say, had represented that there were several negroes, and he mentioned one in particular, who stood in that predicament—and Lord Aberdeen, in reply, says:—

"I referred to Her Majesty's Advocate General your despatches, dated the 15th and 26th of July of last year, together with the previous Correspondence extant in this office on the subject of Barbadoes negroes said to be held in slavery in Surinam. I have now to state to you for your information and guidance that the Queen's Advocate has reported it to be his opinion that Her Majesty's Government is not called upon to take any steps respecting these negroes. The Queen's Advocate observes that if there had been any reason to believe that any of the individuals in question were free-born subjects of Her Majesty, or that they had been emancipated and become free by the abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions, the endeavours of Her Majesty's Government to rescue them from the state of slavery in which they are now held could not have been too urgent or strenuous;—but that it is not the duty of Her Majesty's Government to insist on the liberation of persons, or the descendants of persons, who were removed as slaves into a foreign colony before slavery was abolished by British law, and who have continued as slaves in a foreign country down to the present time. With regard to the individual mentioned in your despatch of the 26th July, 1842, the Queen's Advocate observes that he is stated by you to be a very intelligent man, and to be, moreover, acting in the capacity of head mason with several apprentices, and, therefore, not a very young man; but that it would seem that he cannot recollect the date when he was brought from Barbadoes to Surinam. And the Queen's Advocate observes that this fact tends strongly to show that he must have left Barbadoes long before the abolition of slavery in that island. Under these circumstances, you will not consider yourself authorized to take any further measures with respect to that individual."

There is another despatch to the Commissioners at the Havannah, laying down the same doctrines as to Cuba, and stating that the Government did not intend to take any steps for the liberation of the slaves who were similarly situated in Cuba. It may appear very presumptuous for me to dispute the law laid down by so high an authority as the Queen's Advocate General; but I think that he must entirely have forgotten that there was another law passed with regard to this matter, previous to the abolition of slavery—in fact, ever since 1806 or 1807—by which it was illegal for any British subject to carry any slave out of any British possession for the purpose of sending him as a slave to any foreign possession. And, therefore, it may be presumed, unless the contrary be shown, that these British negroes who are held in slavery in Cuba and Surinam, were taken out of British possessions and carried into Foreign possessions at a time when it was against the law that such should be done. If a British subject was carried out of the island where he was born or had lived, and against the law was transferred to a foreign master, it would be the most cruel injustice towards that British subject for the British Government to neglect demanding his freedom, and thereby to deprive him of those rights which he would enjoy if he had remained under British law in the island to which he properly belonged. This is not a question that applies to one or two individuals. I believe there are many hundreds of persons in the situation of the individual to whom I allude. The Commissioners state that in Cuba the British language is spoken by the greater part of the negroes in many estates, thus proving that they were originally brought from British Colonies. The Queen's Advocate's opinion is tantamount to saying that Her Majesty's Ministers are not called upon to afford whatever protection is in the power of the British Government to give to any British subject who labours under any injustice, from which they have the means of freeing him; and there certainly cannot be a greater injustice, inflicted on any man than retaining him in slavery, when according to the law of his country he is entitled to his freedom. I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the decision which they have adopted, in consequence of the opinions given on this question by the Queen's Advocate. It is not compulsory on the Government to adopt the decision of the Queen's Advocate. They are at liberty to adopt or reject that opinion, as they please; for in either case the responsibility of what they do rests with them, and not with the Queen's Advocate. I should wish them to refer back to the Law Officers of the Crown, the question as arising out of the Acts of 1806 and 1807; and I think the Government ought to take a more enlarged view of the duties which they owe towards a born subject of the British Crown, than they would appear to have hitherto done. But there is another class of persons also, whose situation engaged the attention of the late Government. These were the slaves who had been captured in slave ships taken under existing Treaties, and who had been emancipated at Brazil, or in the Spanish or Dutch possessions, under the sentence of the Mixed Courts of Commission, and who are known by the name of Emancipados. It is well known that these individuals, though nominally emancipated, are in effect held as slaves: the Spanish and Brazilian Governments, under the pretence of fitting them for liberty, hire them out to individuals for terms of five years, and receive a sum of money for their services on each occasion of their being rehired at the end of every five years. They are, in fact, worse than slaves; as no person has an interest in their well being. Now, I am glad to perceive that the Government have succeeded, or at least did succeed, during the Governorship of General Valdes in Cuba, in obtaining certificates of freedom for some of those persons, which placed them in the situation of free and independent agents; but that Governor objected to give certificates of freedom to all who were entitled to receive them; as he said such a sweeping emancipation would produce a convulsion in the island, thus showing that the number of negroes thus circumstanced was very considerable. I fear the present Governor of Cuba is a very different man from General Valdes. I fear that General O'Donnell has returned to all the bad and corrupt practices of former times—that he encourages the Slave Trade, and that he takes money for permitting the landing of slaves; and I, therefore, fear that he would be very much indisposed to grant any farther certificates of freedom. I trust the Government will not relax in its endeavours to procure real liberty for all the negroes circumstanced in the manner I have mentioned, and that the whole number of the emancipados will be placed in the condition of freemen. I have great pleasure in perceiving that the Government of Brazil have consented that all individuals emancipated by the Court of Mixed Commission shall be made free. There are a great number of negroes so circumstanced, and I trust their situation will not be lost sight of. This disposes of two classes of negroes to whom I wished to direct attention; but there is also a third class much more numerous than either of the former, and that is the class of negroes who have been brought into Cuba and into Brazil at the period when it was forbidden by the laws of those countries that any such importations should take place, and who are, therefore, by the law of the land in which they reside, really entitled to their freedom. By the edict of Ferdinand, every negro brought into any Spanish possession, after the 2nd of May, 1820 following, was to be declared free from the moment that he landed in a Spanish possession; and the existence of that law is not denied by the Spanish Government, nor is it repudiated by the Governors of their Colonies; for in Cuba; General Valdes did actually set free a great number of newly landed Africans under that very edict. Now, we applied to the Government of Spain to sign a Convention, of which we sent them a draft, the purport of which was, that the Mixed Commission at the Havannah should be authorized to inquire into the cases of negroes who were in the condition of those to whom the Governor had, on his own responsibility, in obedience to the abovementioned edict, given their freedom, and to admit their claim to be released from captivity. We thought that whereas the Governor of Cuba had acknowledged practically the existence of that law, the British and Spanish Commissioners sitting at the Havannah should have power to emancipate all negroes so situated, just as the Governor had emancipated a portion of those who had recently been landed. The Spanish Governor gave no answer to that demand on our part, until after we had left office; but at the end of 1841, in a long note on the subject, they refused to comply with our proposal. Their answer was no refutation of our right to make the demand; but Her Majesty's Government thought proper to acquiesce in that refusal, and dropped all further negotiations on the subject. Instead of making further negotiation on the point, they accepted from the Spanish Government an engagement to pass a new law inflicting additional punishment on the persons engaged in Slave Trade. No doubt they were bound by the Treaty of 1835 to pass such a law; and as they had never done so, it was proper to require them to fulfil that engagement. But I am sorry to say that I attach no value whatever to any law that the Spanish Government may pass on the subject of Slave Trade; because while the law of Ferdinand remains a dead letter, no other law is likely to be carried into execution; and if that law were faithfully enforced, no other enactment would be necessary on the subject. But I do think that Her Majesty's Government too easily acquiesced in that refusal of the Spanish Government; and even if they had thought fit to wave the demand with regard to the negroes now in Cuba, who are as much entitled to their liberty as any Spanish resident in the island, and that by virtue of the Treaty concluded with Great Britain—if, I say, they had waved the demand with regard to the negroes so circumstanced, I think they ought to have insisted on obtaining for the Mixed Commission power to decide on the cases of all negroes who may hereafter be brought into Cuba contrary to law. It is very well for the Spanish Government to object to having the officers of Foreign Powers mixed up with matters of internal jurisdiction in Cuba; but they are too late with such objections, inasmuch as the Treaty already existing between this country and Spain establishes a Mixed Foreign and Spanish jurisdiction in Cuba. The proposed Treaty was not intended to extend that jurisdiction beyond the subject-matter of its present competence, but was merely devised to make it more complete. It was said, that we may trust to the present Governor of Cuba; but my answer to that is, that I have no reliance on him in carrying the Treaty with Great Britain into execution. I want a British authority to be employed in effecting that object. For, after all, what did General Valdes do? He confiscated some negroes brought into Cuba, in violation of the Spanish law. He professed to give them their liberty, to which they were by law entitled; but in what way did he do so? Why, he said, these are men brought from the wilds of Africa, and totally unfit for the state of society in which they are thrown. We must deal with them as we do with the emancipados. We must apprentice them. And, accordingly, the female slaves were hired—that is to say, sold—out to householders to act as domestic servants, without any security being given that they are not permanently to remain in a state of slavery; while the males, as the best means, forsooth, of making them permanently useful members of society, were sent out to work in lighting the streets. Now, I don't think that exactly the way to confer upon them that moral, and religious, and mechanical instruction which is to make them useful members of society; and I see no reason why our Government should not have required from the Spanish Government the liberation of all slaves brought into Cuba in violation of the law of Spain. They should, in my opinion, have insisted on the Mixed Commission being authorized to interfere in the cases of these slaves. If the negroes had been captured on board a ship, the Mixed Commission would have had an undoubted right to deal with them; and when they are captured on shore, after being introduced into the island from a slave ship, the same right should be acknowledged. Now, I am sorry to say that, since the present Government have been in office, the Slave Trade is increasing in every country in which it is carried on. I certainly had been apprehensive that the fact would be so; but it is in the power of Her Majesty's Government to take measures which would effectually put an end to this disgraceful and disgusting crime. The most effectual measure is, no doubt, the mutual Right of Search; and, by the by, I would say, with regard to that subject, that there is a Report from the Commissioners at Rio which shows the importance of the Treaty with France by which the Right of Search was given. In July, 1843, the Commissioners at Rio state that French vessels are beginning to be more and more employed in the Slave Trade from the coast of Africa to Brazil; and that this has taken place under the impression that the British cruisers have lately received orders not to intercept or search any vessel sailing under the flag of France. But, indeed, the Return which has been laid on the Table of the House strongly demonstrates the truth of this matter. In the year 1830, the number of negroes imported was 37,000, and the number fell very rapidly, even according to this Return, after the Treaty had been signed by France. But the Right of Search, it is to be hoped, is a question which should no longer be in doubt; for if the Commissioners now sitting examined, as I have been informed they have, officers who were employed on the coast of Africa, they would learn that without a mutual Right of Search it would be a complete farce to continue employing cruisers on the African coast. But, as I was about observing, there is another measure for suppressing the Slave Trade, that would not fail to prove exceedingly effectual; I allude to the destruction of the slave baracoons on the Western Coast of Africa. The Commissioners at Sierra Leone tell you, that in 1842 or 1843, the Slave Trade had very much diminished. They say that diminution arose from three causes. One of these was, I think, the greater vigilance exercised by the Governor in Cuba; another was, I forget what; but the third and the principal cause was, the destruction of the baracoons. They dwell at length on that subject, and tell you that the most effectual mode of putting an end to the Slave Trade must be, the destruction of the baracoons. Now, when the present Government came into office, the first thing they did was to write a letter condemning the burning of these baracoons, and stating, that such a proceeding was against the law of nations. I think that a most extraordinary doctrine, and one that I should very little expect would be put forward, either by the Government of England or by the Government of France. When the British Government thought it was very desirable to annex the territory of Scinde to the British Empire in India, the Ameers, who governed that country, were required to sign a Treaty. They shuffled, and evaded the demand; they fought—were conquered, and taken prisoners, and deprived of their possessions. When that mode of proceeding was found fault with, the right hon. Baronet defended it, and said that the laws of nations, which governed the international intercourse of European States, could not be considered applicable to a semibarbarous state of society such as that existing in Scinde. When the Government wished to get possession of Scinde, they thought this doctrine very good; but they did not consider it at all applicable to the case of the half naked and uncivilized chiefs of Africa, though there was no intention of taking any of their territory from them, and though the only object in view was to put an end to an abominable and detestable traffic. Now, the Government of France found an island in the Pacific, happy and tranquil, offending nobody, quarrelling with nobody, and only desiring to be left alone. They picked a quarrel with the people of that island, and forced on the Queen a protection which she did not want. The Queen fled, and has refused to come back to Tahiti; and the inhabitants are encamped on the hills in a state of warfare, because they do not choose to submit to French domination. When the French wanted to take possession of Tahiti, they set the law of nations at defiance; and I would wish to know if the French Government concur with the British Government in thinking that the destruction of the slave baracoons on the coast of Africa could not be allowed, because it is not in conformity with the law of nations? Now, if our Government want to co-operate with the Government of France for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and if the Government of France be equally desirous to co-operate with the Government of this country for the same purpose, let them unite in sweeping from the coast of Africa those dens of iniquity. Let them get the consent of the African chiefs if they can; but if they cannot, let the baracoons, at any rate, be destroyed. If the two countries unite determinedly for this purpose, the question of the Right of Search will cease to be a practical question, and will resolve itself into one of theory. I am very anxious to bring this matter under the consideration of the Government, because I do think that although when the subject is mooted in this House nothing can be more satisfactory than the language held out by the Members of the Government, still, when it is necessary to act, the same energy cannot be perceived. The strongest expressions of condemnation of the Slave Trade are used in this House; but, when we look to see what the Government has done, we find that they are going step by step to undo every thing that has been done by their predecessors for the purpose of preventing this abominable traffic, and that they refuse to take any forward step likely to lead to its suppression. But, when they have done all that I have now pointed out to them—when they have succeeded in putting down the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa—there will still remain enough to occupy them in the eastern and northern parts of that continent. In Egypt the Pacha promised several years ago to relinquish the razzias, by which he is in the habit of recruiting his army in the interior; and, nevertheless, in 1843, one of the most disgraceful of scenes of that kind ever committed was perpetrated by his troops. We have also evidence that in Muscat the Slave Trade is going on to a great extent. The Imaum had engaged that the trade to Christian nations should cease; but he is still carrying it on, at least his subjects are, with the aid of the Portuguese; not to mention the great annual exportation of slaves from his territories to the Coast of India. Sir, I have not made these observations in any spirit which should at all indispose the Government to take up the subject in earnest. I do not wish to make it the occasion of either a personal or a party attack; but I could not forbear to say what I have said of the shortcomings of the Government in these matters. I would, however, most anxiously recommend to the consideration of the right hon. Baronet the case of those British subjects who are illegally detained in slavery in Cuba and in Surinam, and the expediency of establishing a tribunal which should give real and practical freedom to the negroes detained in those places, but entitled to their liberty by decrees of Mixed Commissions. I would also ask him to consider the question of the destruction of the baracoons; and I should hope that the French and English Governments united would be able to achieve that entire suppression of the Slave Trade which would be more glorious than any action of which either country is yet able to boast. I would further ask the right hon. Baronet one question bearing on this subject. By the Treaty of Washington the American Government engaged, in the first place, to send a small force to the Coast of Africa, and the two parties to the Treaty agreed to unite in strong and earnest recommendation to those Governments which still carried on the Slave Trade, for the purpose of inducing them to desist from that criminal practice. Now, I should like to ask whether those Governments have made any joint representation to the Brazilian or to the Spanish Government; and if so, I should presume that there would be no objection to produce the Papers.

said: It is not possible to condemn the noble Lord's observations as not being perfectly in order; for in a discussion on the Navy Estimates it is scarcely possible to say what subjects may or may not be properly introduced. But the noble Lord would certainly have acted more in accordance with usage and with the general practice of the House, had he informed the House that he intended to discuss on this occasion the general practice of the Government with respect to the Slave Trade; but neither directly nor indirectly has the noble Lord given me any such notice. I have not the Papers to refer to; nor had I the slightest reason to expect that the noble Lord would have taken advantage on this occasion of the right which he undoubtedly possesses Considering, too, the advantage which may be taken in Cuba or Brazil of any admission made by the Minister, it requires some consideration before I answer the noble Lord on this subject. With respect to the mode of making out the Returns, I thought I had communicated with the noble Lord on that point, and that he was satisfied with the mode adopted. If he had made any suggestion on the subject, it should have been acted on; and even now, if he will point out any alteration he suggests in the mode, or will clear up anything that is equivocal, I will communicate with the officer in the Foreign Office who has the Returns under his charge, and see that the alteration is made. With respect to the case of the negroes in Surinam, I cannot hesitate for a moment in saying, that if there has been any misapprehension, on the part of an officer of the Government, as to the rights of the persons now in slavery in Surinam, those rights ought not to be forfeited on that account. If he thinks that the Act of 1806 or 1807 has not been sufficiently adverted to—if it has any bearing on the case of that slave to whom the noble Lord referred as being an example—if there has been any such inadvertence, which, from the high character of the Queen's Advocate, I can scarcely suppose to have been the case, and it is sufficient to constitute a claim for the interference of the British Government—I can inform the noble Lord that that negro who is now in slavery, or in a condition approaching to it, shall not be prejudiced on that account. Sir, the part of the speech of the noble Lord which gave me most satisfaction was, that in which he stated that a cordial union be- tween France and England for the suppression of the Slave Trade, would do more towards that object than anything else. In that sentiment of the noble Lord I cordially concur. I believe that a cordial union between those two great Powers, considering the extent of the marine of France—an union for the purpose of enforcing the obligations of Treaties, and of compel ling the observance of the law—I concur with him in thinking that it would have more effect than any other measure. Nor do I despair of such an union being affected, and that France and England will together be able to concert such measures on the Coast of Africa as will be successful. I have reason to believe that the Slave Trade on the eastern coast is not carried on to the same extent as it was formerly. Within the last six months more success has attended the efforts of the British cruisers; and there have been of late some remarkable instances of the capture of slavers. I fear this increased success may be partly attributed to the increase of the traffic; but I cannot help thinking at the same time that the success which has attended our cruisers will strike a decisive blow at the continuance of the traffic. With regard to the position of the slaves in Cuba, I am certainly not prepared for the discussion now, and I would much rather not on this occasion express an opinion. I consider the position of this question as regards Cuba to be most unsatisfactory; and I am forced to admit that since the retirement of General Valdez, there has been a great deterioration. The noble Lord professes to be generally satisfied with the case of the Emancipados; and with regard to the case of the slaves, as distinguished from these, the noble Lord refers to proposals which were made before he left office, and which have not been complied with. I remember the general character of those proposals; but I am not prepared, as he gave no notice, and I therefore speak with some diffidence as to matters which occurred three years since, and not in my own department; and I repeat, that an additional difficulty arises out of the danger there is that admission made now, if indiscreet, may be taken advantage of. My impression as regards those proposals is, that after consulting the highest legal authorities as to whether we could compel their adoption by the Spanish Government, the answer was, that we were not entitled by any Treaty to compel them. Greatly as the proposals of the noble Lord might be for the interests of humanity, the real question was as to whether we could compel their adoption. There was, I believe, every disposition on our part to enforce those proposals, if we could do so consistently with existing Treaties and the law of nations; but my impression, speaking from memory, is, that the highest legal authorities were of opinion that we could not. With regard to the destruction of the baracoons, notwithstanding every wish on the score of considerations of pure humanity and of disinterested policy to suppress the trade, yet I cannot think that we are entitled to violate the general law in order to do it. I think such a course would ultimately retard rather than advance our object, and tend to paralyse rather than increase our power. The noble Lord calls on us to destroy the baracoons, whether justified by the law or not, and he points to the cases of Scinde and Tahiti. I quite concur with the noble Lord that we ought, by Treaties with the neighbouring Powers, to get possession of those baracoons, and destroy them. I trust England and France will unite to obtain that power. I attach the greatest importance to that mode of proceeding. I believe that Treaties which would enable those Powers to effect that object, would be more efficacious than the greatest maritime efforts they could make. That is a subject which has had the consideration of the two Governments; and I do not despair of making some arrangement by which, with the consent of the native Powers, we may obtain the right to interfere and suppress those baracoons; but I cannot agree that, even for the purpose of putting an end to the Slave Trade, we should be justified in disregarding the general laws which bind nations. Sir, if the noble Lord will give me an opportunity of entering more fully into explanations, I shall be ready to do so; but on the present occasion, when I have not present to my memory all the circumstances which have happened from time to time, I think it better to abstain. But if there is any information which can be given, and the noble Lord will only point out in what way it can be made intelligible, I can assure him that no effort on my part shall be spared to procure it for him.

said: I am led to think that it was just as well that I did not give notice to the right hon. Gentleman, as the want of it enables him to avoid being driven at present into a discussion of matters in which, as he properly said, a casual word dropped by him might be misinterpreted by Foreign Governments. My object was merely to draw attention to certain points; and I did not desire to bring on a discussion upon the general subject. What I meant with regard to the baracoons, was the very course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; and I am fully convinced that it would be found to be practicable in almost every case; that is to say, that we should hold out to the native chiefs inducements, and I am confident small inducements would be sufficient, to lead them to permit us to destroy the baracoons on their coasts. But what I insist upon is this, that if in any case there were a chief who clung so to the Slave Trade that he refused to take our offers to permit us to destroy these baracoons, such conduct on his part would afford a case which would justify us in destroying them by an act of war. The objection raised as to the law of nations is simply this—that you have not the right of landing on the territory of an independent chief with the design of there executing a purpose to which he is no party. But if there is an African chief so barbarous that he will not concur with his neighbours in co-operating with you in the suppression of the Slave Trade, then, I say, you would be justified in compelling him by force to do so. Such conduct, on the part of that chief, would be a case of war within the law of nations. Your war with him would be carried on for a purpose which would not interfere with his independence or with his territorial possessions. But I cannot see anything in the law of nations to prevent you from having recourse to hostile means to compel such a chief to concur in a legitimate purpose. There is no doubt that if France and England combined for the purpose, they would be able to hold out to all these chiefs inducements to co-operate with them in securing the great and humane object which both have in view, The Return made to my Motion, I consider an imperfect Return. I had moved for a Return to be made up from documents in possession of the Government; and it is clear, from the notes added to this Return, that there are documents in possession of the Government which contain information which the Return does not contain.

was sorry to differ from the noble Lord. He agreed with him that it was a most desirable object to put an end to the Slave Trade and slavery. No man had done more with a view to that object than the noble Lord. Throughout the whole of the period during which he presided at the Foreign Office, his attention was unremittingly devoted to this matter. But we had been carrying out the views of the noble Lord at great expense and great risk, without being able to effect our object. The trade in slaves remained, he feared, as rife to-day as it was when England began her operations. He was not quite clear that the information they had, in many instances, could be depended upon. If correct information were supplied, he was afraid it would be found that they had added to the evils of the traffic, instead of suppressing it. When the noble Lord spoke of treaties with the African chiefs, he thought it would be impossible to effect much in that way; for so long as the chiefs could make it profitable to carry on the trade, it would be next to impossible to make them desist. If they burnt the baracoons one week, in the course of a few weeks the chiefs would be in possession of others. If they drove them from one point of the coast, they would soon be found at another, engaged in their nefarious traffic. This was a matter in which the exertions of England had been much misdirected. If half the time, trouble, and expense had been devoted to the increase of free labour in our own Colonies, we should have done much more in effecting the suppression of the Slave Trade, than we can now console ourselves with having done. As no good had resulted from the system so long pursued, a new course must now be taken. England was entitled to the credit of having—in the cause of philanthropy—in the cause of negro emancipation—done more than any other country in the world. He hoped that the attention of Government would be directed to the increase of free labour in the Colonies, both east and west. When they had deprived Brazil of its sugar and coffee market, in which it now commanded a good price for its productions, and rendered the Colonies of England able to produce those articles more cheaply than at present, they would succeed, and not till then, in putting a stop to the Slave Trade.

observed, that the Papers to which the noble Lord referred, gave the following results, which he would read to the House. It appeared that from 1815 to 1843, according to the imperfect returns which the Government had been able to obtain, the number of negroes transported from Africa to Cuba and Brazil amounted to 639,145; and, according to the notes appended to those Returns, in order to arrive at the real number, they were instructed to multiply by two, which gave as the whole number so transported 1,280,000. Now the total number of those liberated by British cruisers was only 18,042, which number was, as compared with 1,280,000, as one was to 72; and one in 72 was less than 1½ per cent. 1½ per cent. being the total number liberated, how small a proportion was that to the whole number shipped from Africa! And yet such was the result of our vast expenditure and sacrifices, in prohibiting free trade between this country and those countries which abounded in tropical produce, but with which a free intercourse had been prohibited because they carried on the Slave Trade. 1½ per cent. was all that they had liberated! Were they not to look at this fact, and argue from it for the future? The noble Lord on the one side, and the right hon. Baronet on the other, told them that if France and England would only cordially unite to put down the Slave Trade, their conjoint efforts would speedily be attended with the most triumphant results; for the Slave Trade would become so hazardous, that an end would soon be put to it. To this he would only reply, after the manner of the Spartan—"if." When they cordially united to put down the Slave Trade, they might possibly achieve much. As yet they had done but very little, as the returns but too clearly indicated. If they took the experience of the past, from 1815 to 1842, and considered that during the next thirty years different results might be attained, then he agreed with the noble Lord that it might be desirable that there should be such a union, if such consequences were to follow. But who expected that such would be the case? At present, by the course the Government were pursuing, they were only exasperating those amongst whom they were endeavouring, by futile means, to put down the slave traffic and the institution of slavery; while gentler means and more kindly representations would induce them to abandon both the trade and the institution.

thought that the hon. Member for Kendal did not take all the proper items into his account, in stating the number of slaves who had been emancipated by the endeavours of the British Government. The number to which the hon. Gentleman alluded was the number of those emancipated and landed upon the American coast; but besides this number they had between 60,000 and 70,000 who had been landed at Sierra Leone. The hon. Gentleman should also recollect that a great number of vessels were captured upon the coast of Africa without any slaves on board, and which, if not captured, would have returned laden with cargoes of 500 or 600 slaves a piece. The hon. Gentleman, if he took these things into the account, would find that a much larger per centage of negroes than that which he had just mentioned, were either emancipated from the slave ships, or saved from capture and bondage.

agreed with the hon. Member for Kendal, with the noble Lord, and with the right hon. Baronet. He thought that if France and England should really and seriously combine to put down the Slave Trade, their object could soon be effected; but he did not think that France would ever come to such an agreement. That country was now trying to do away with the Right of Search. What plan France proposed as a substitute for that right, was not yet divulged; but it appeared that there was some plan in view. But if the right hon. Baronet would give up all that humbug of destroying baracoons, and all that humbug about doing what might be construed as being contrary to the law of nations, which he considered altogether humbug in reference to this matter, and embark a couple of thousand of black troops from the West Indies on board a few steam boats, and let them make a run from one end of the coast of Africa to the other, and destroy, in their progress, every place from which slaves were exported, his word for it, they would soon put an end to the Slave Trade. There was no use of mystifying the matter; for that was the plain English of it. Let them compare his plan with that which, for so many years, had been perseveringly pursued. Let them look at the loss of life which had been sustained on the part of this country, and at the enormous loss of life amongst the negroes, by the multitudes thrown overboard and otherwise destroyed, and they could not fail to be convinced that there was really more inhumanity in the mode in which they had been attempting to suppress the traffic, than if they resorted to the plan which he had just suggested. Let them get a sufficient number of black troops, and land them at every obnoxious point of the coast, and they would soon put an end to the Slave Trade.

believed that the accounts of slaves landed were imperfect; and the only course left for the House to pursue was to discuss the question on the Returns, which they found to give the most correct account. He differed from the hon. Member for Montrose, as to the attempts which this country had made to put down the traffic in slaves. In his opinion, our operations had been most successful. He found that from 1831 to 1835 there were 75 vessels taken with slaves, and only 7 empty; and those who had the boldness and the courage to seize the empty ones, had been charged with damages to a considerable amount. From 1836 to 1841, 104 vessels were taken with slaves, and 143 empty. These were statements which he hoped the hon. Member for Montrose would take notice of. During the two last years of the late Government, the years 1840 and 1841, only 8 vessels loaded with slaves were captured, and 48 empty, by one account, and 54 by another, but say 50 empty, were also taken during these two years. This showed that the exertions of this country had been eminently successful. Now, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Estimates, and called for an increased Vote for the Naval Service, assigned, amongst other things, as a reason for making such a call, that additional armaments were to be sent to the Coast of Africa for the suppression of the Slave Trade. He would, therefore, call upon the Government to explain to the House whether they (the Government) had been successful in the new policy adopted, of concentrating their forces in the African seas, by the withdrawal of our cruisers from the Coast of Brazil, from Cuba, and from the Gulf of Mexico? Had our cruisers, under these circumstances, been successful in reducing the number of negroes embarked? He would also ask, whether instructions had been sent to their officer on the Coast of Africa, in pursuance of any understanding with France, in regard to visiting and landing on the coast, for the purpose of liberating slaves from the baracoons? In these particulars had their efforts been successful? If they now relaxed their system, this increased estimate which was called for would be of no use whatever; and it therefore remained for the House to be very vigilant as to giving their vote for it. The Government must take care lest in this matter they lowered the character of this nation amongst Foreign Powers, or did anything to compromise the cause of humanity, in which this country had always taken so prominent and distinguished a part. He would ask the gallant Admiral what was the cause at the present moment of ships not being able to get an equipment of men? There was a great complaint, not only of the want of seamen, but also of the description of men. Captains were now in the habit of inquiring what had become of the old-fashioned seamen? A great difficulty seemed now to exist in manning the ships. The gallant Admiral educated every year hundreds of gunners. What had become of them? The gallant Admiral might think, that if he hoisted his flag to-morrow, he would be able to find men enough. He hoped he was not deceived.

said, that the gallant Officer had alluded, in the first part of his speech, to the success which had attended their efforts on the Coast of Africa, and was anxious to know whether they (the Government) were now succeeding in their efforts. He had great pleasure in being able to say, that during the last year, they had exceeded even their expectations. From news lately received from the Coast of Africa, it appeared that seventeen vessels had been recently captured, and he was very happy to say that three vessels out of every four were without slaves. This was the best proof which could be adduced of the value of having a squadron on the Coast of Africa. The squadron on the African station consisted of twenty-three vessels. Amongst these, there were six or seven steamers, which were very useful, although they did not find that they captured any more slavers than did the other sailing vessels. In the next place, they had that day received an account of an attack made by the officer in command there, who had landed some of his men, and, on account of the improper conduct of some chiefs, destroyed three or four of their towns; and then went up the country, and brought the King, Mannah, to his senses, and made him promise to enter into a Treaty. He had every reason to believe that our cruisers on the Coast of Africa were fast destroying the Slave Trade. He also understood that the price of slaves had of late risen in the Colonies, which he regarded as another proof of success. That was not the first time that he had declared upon the floor of that House and elsewhere, that if they one year dismissed 4,000 men, and the next year took them on, it would not be easy, acting on such a system, to get an equipment of men at a moment's warning. As long as they chose to keep and find seamen, they would get as many as they pleased. But they must give them employment to keep them. They could not have an increase of seamen at the moment in which they wanted them; but he was sure that in a very short space of time they would be able to get them. They would not be at such a loss in critical moments, when those moments arrived, if the House of Commons kept men when they got them. Captains, besides, were much more nice now-a-days, than they were in time of war. Notwithstanding the complaints to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, there were as fine men now in the service as ever were in it. In addition to this, the condition and conduct of the men were much better than they were before. As regarded the getting of men, he was aware that they could not be found immediately. It was only three months since they had commenced commissioning eight ships of the line; and although they had been only that short time at work, with the exception of the Queen, the Hibernia, and the Canopus, all the rest were manned. The Rodney was now, he believed, about forty men short. The Queen and the Hibernia wanted about 300 each. Within these three months they had all but manned eight ships of the line. Considering the difficulties in the way, he must say, upon the whole, that they manned their vessels much faster than could have been expected.

intended to avail himself of another opportunity for calling attention to the proper manning of the British navy. It was his opinion that when men entered for a particular ship, they ought to be allowed to stick to it. Men had entered for the Albion, under Captain Lockyer. What had become of these men? Why had they not been kept? Why had they been turned adrift? Why, he asked, had a reduction taken place in the crews of the experimental squadron that was now going to sea? Suppose that America forced them to go to war; he feared they would be again beaten, as they had been beaten before, and for no other reason, but because they fought with a miserable peace establishment—because they were undermanned—he feared they would be beaten again. A difference of 200 men marked the distinction between an efficient and an inefficient man of war.

declared that no man could be more convinced than he was of the necessity of sending ships to sea fully manned. When the Albion had been sent abroad she was fully manned; but when commissioned for home service, her complement had been reduced. The ships that were going out would have their numbers supplied from the dockyards and Marines. They were an experimental squadron, and the object was to test them at sea. For his own part, he should be very glad if the House of Commons voted 2,000 men more, so that they might keep their ships fully manned at home, and ready to go to America or anywhere else. It was his wish to have them fully manned, so as they might be ready to take their part against any nation. The men, he must remind the gallant Officer, entered for general service, and were subject to be sent where they were wanted, and not to any particular vessel.

said, that the men with whom any ship was a favourite, entered only for that ship. The gallant Admiral had said that he would keep them for three years if he wanted them; but the men ought not to be turned out of a ship because one Admiralty thought proper to adopt one system, and another Admiralty another. He did not think that the gallant Admiral had given a satisfactory answer about undermanning the ships. Great outcry had been raised against the late Admiralty for having, in so extraordinary a manner, undermanned the ships in the Mediterranean. Men, it was true, were sent out, but they arrived after the war was over. The same thing would take place as to the gallant Admiral's fleet. He had got them on the home station, it was true; but if a war were to break out to-morrow the ships would be sent to sea undermanned, with the hope and prospect of being able to send out steam boats. No ships should be sent to sea unless they were properly manned. He had much sooner send seven ships fully manned, than eight undermanned. The men would be much more inclined to do their duty, than if they were harassed night and day. The gallant Admiral said that the ships were well manned. Now, he was in communication with officers every day, and had it from them that the ships were extremely ill manned, that the men were of an inferior quality, and that good seamen were not to be got hold of. An officer of the Superb, whom he had met in the train, and who could have no reason to tell an untruth, had told him that he had not more than forty able seamen in the ship; that the generality of men were trash, and that they could not get better men. They were very well behaved, it was true, but they were neither seamen, nor likely to be made seamen for a considerable time. He might say the same of other ships. The Admiralty could not help it, but the Government could. Let them hold out more encouragement to men than they did. His hon. Friend had last year mentioned the propriety of establishing Seamen's Homes, which could be done with very little expense on the part of Government; for an individual who had spent a large sum in establishing one in London, had met with the most perfect success. If the Government would establish at each of our chief seaports a "Seamen's Home," such as they had in London, he was sure it would have the best, possible effect. As it was, they were preyed upon by everybody, and therefore naturally looked upon everybody as thieves and robbers. By giving them a home this would be avoided; but he despaired it would be done; for since he had been in the service they had never done a single thing to assist or protect the seamen, or to make them like the service. Look how they were treated in China. When the ships were being commissioned, placards were stuck about offering the men plenty of prize money. But when they flocked on board, sailed to China, and made their first attack on Canton, all they got was one year's batta. He said this was disgraceful to the Government. There was no use in mincing the matter. Moreover, instead of serving it out as prize money, and in proportion to rank and length of service, the warrant officers and boys got the same money. When Canton was taken, and the troops just ready to storm the town, and pounce upon what they considered their right, the Civil Commissioners stopped them, and a ransom was given, but the Government "sacked" it all. He said that was deceiving the seamen; and it was notorious that since he had been in the Navy faith had never been kept with British seamen. What was done when he retired from Syria? Why they gave the men a 10l. note and a fortnight's leave of absence. What was the result? Why many of them would not take it, and the rest deserted, and never came back. He would read to them Lord Nelson's notions of manning the Navy, which they would see were very different. In that document, which was lent him by Lord Nelson's nephew, he found that he proposed certificates should be granted. He calculated that there were 42,000 seamen in the merchant service seduced by the superior pay from the Navy. He proposed, therefore, that every seaman with good character, who had served in the fleet five years, should be paid four guineas every New Year's-day, or King's birth-day, and if he had served eight years, eight guineas, irrespective of pensions. It was true that last year they did get a registration of seamen. This was the first step they had taken towards a prudent policy; and he believed the best that could be taken. He was sure it would create order and sobriety, and better moral feelings than had before existed. He wished the Government would go further, and bring in a Bill that before men became registered seamen they should serve a certain period in a man of war. He had no doubt that in that case many would come forward voluntarily. There was another thing he wished to see corrected, and that was the press system. The right hon. Baronet, much to his credit, had brought in an Enlistment Bill, which provided that in the case of a war taking place, or a proclamation calling upon sailors to come forward, they should receive 10l. each (he did not use the word bounty, for it was so long since the men had any that they did not know what it was,) and also that the men who were actively employed should receive the said money. In this case, however, supposing there were 40,000 seamen, and there was to be a war with America, the first step to be taken would be to pay them a double bounty, which would amount to 400,000l.; but he did not think men expected anything of the kind. What he proposed was, that if a war took place, and they were actually called out, they should have this bounty. It appeared by recent returns that there were 115,000 seamen in America. Of these 100,000 were foreigners, and most of them Englishmen. Now, if a war took place to-morrow, there was no doubt if they were called on, these men would leave the American service; but, if they once began to press men in England, not one of them would leave the American service. He trusted, therefore, if we ever went to war again with France or America, the Government would never think of pressing men. If they offered a good bounty they would get them; but if they pressed, they would get none.

said, he was not surprised there was a difficulty in getting men for the Navy at this season. The late Government found it difficult to get only 3,000 men; so that, if the present Government had already got 3,400, they had done as much as could be reasonably expected. There was no difficulty in getting men in the autumn, but now they were just going out in merchantmen on short voyages. He could not agree that the present race of sailors were degenerated. The late Government had, undoubtedly, kept their ships at home undermanned; the present Government did the same. The late Government, however, did so, because they thought they were right; but the present Government did so, knowing that they were wrong. The late Government were blamed for their conduct in this respect, and the hon. Member for Kent used to express his fear of the Russians attacking the orchards of Kent; and yet during the last summer the coast was left completely defenceless. The present Government were accusing them for what they themselves were guilty of, because they would not come down and ask for 2,000 men more. He would conclude by saying that the Navy was not in the state it ought to be; neither had Her Majesty's Government a sufficient complement of men at command to make the Navy efficient.

said, that the pre- sent Government did not send ships with reduced complements of men to foreign stations, though the ships on the home stations had been in some degree undermanned. But the Government had acted on the principle that it was desirable all the ships on foreign stations should be fully manned, and that the vessels on home stations should have reduced complements, because there would be no difficulty in obtaining men at home, should they be required, and the ships on home stations could therefore be speedily placed in an efficient condition. The case of the Albion was the only exception to this rule. The Government with which the hon. Member for Halifax was associated, had sent out ships to foreign stations, even at a time when we were at war, with reduced complements of men; and the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir C. Napier), in the course of his operations on the coast of Syria, accounted for the slackness of his fire by the want of a sufficient number of men to work the ships under his command efficiently. The hon. Member for Halifax had stated that the shores of this country had never been in so defenceless a condition since 1835 as they were in last year; but he begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman, that there was last year a far larger number of men in commission on the coast of this country than there had been in 1835, or even in 1841, when public affairs were in a very unsettled state. He would venture to say that they had had much finer ships' crews lately than at some former periods. He believed if an increased number of seamen was required, there would be no difficulty in obtaining them; for it must be remembered that at this time the trade and commerce of this country were in a peculiarly flourishing state, and there was consequently a great demand for merchant seamen.

did not find any fault with the present Board of Admiralty, but he thought it of the highest importance that the House of Commons should know whether or not it was as easy as formerly to man the British navy. In his opinion it was not; and he preferred the opinion of the hon. and gallant Admiral near him on that point to that of the four Gentlemen who had been Secretaries to the Admiralty.—Vote agreed to.