appeared at the Bar with the following Message from the Crown:—

"VICTORIA Regina.—Her Majesty being desirous of conferring some signal mark of Her favour and approbation on the right honourable Sir Henry Pottinger, baronet and G.C.B., for the eminent services rendered by him, and particularly for the zeal, ability, and judgment displayed by him as Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary, in the negotiation of Treaties of Peace and of Commerce with the Emperor of China, recommends it to the House of Commons, to enable Her Majesty to make provision for securing to Sir Henry Pottinger a Pension of 1,500l. per annum for the term of his natural life."

The Message to be taken into consideration on Monday next.

begged to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government had received any official accounts of the destruction of persons and property in Syria, and whether any measures had been taken to put a stop to those outrages?

regretted to say that the Government had received very afflicting accounts from that part of Syria; but the Representatives of the Five Powers and the Consuls at Beyrout had adopted every measure in their power to arrest the progress of these lamentable disorders. He understood that, without waiting for instructions, the Representatives of the Five Powers assembled at the house of Sir Stratford Canning, and agreed to make separate representations to the Porte, urging the necessity for taking immediate measures for the purpose of restoring tranquillity in the Lebanon. Nearly at the same time the Consuls of France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia met at the house of Colonel Rose at Beyrout, and determined on making a collective representation to the Pasha on behalf of those Powers, urging on the Pasha the necessity of making more effectual the measures that had hitherto been adopted. The last accounts received, dated the 20th of May, stated that the meeting had taken place, and that the collective representation had been made to the Pasha. Colonel Rose stated that desultory burnings and outrages were still going on, but that, generally speaking, tranquillity had been completely restored. In justice to Colonel Rose, he must say that that gallant officer had not only been actively engaged in carrying on these negotiations, but that by his exertions the lives of 575 Maronites had been saved. It appeared that a village had surrendered on condition of being allowed safe conduct. They informed Colonel Rose that they had agreed to travel through the Desert; and he therefore made up his mind to accompany them. He addressed the chief of the Druses, Stating that the civilized powers were interested in the safety of these people who professed the same religion, and they consented to let three of the Druse chiefs accompany them. By this means they were enabled to travel with safety through forty miles of country filled with bands of wandering Druses, who, but for this interference, would, in all probability, have massacred every one of these persons. Every effort had been made to put down those disturbances; and he trusted those efforts would be attended with success.

said, a rumour had prevailed recently in the city, respecting which he should wish to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury a question. The rumour was, that the Court of Spain had recently sent in a claim to the Government to have the sugars produced in its colonies of Cuba and Porto Rico admitted to consumption in this country at the same scale of duties as those imposed on the produce of the most favoured nations, founding their claim upon Treaties actually in existence. He would strictly guard himself against offering at that moment any opinion with respect to the validity of the claim; but he wished to know whether it had been made by the Spanish Government?

said, that a communication had reached the Government from the Spanish Minister, claiming, under the Treaty of Utrecht, the right of admission at the most favoured rate of duty for the sugars grown at Cuba and Porto Rico. No answer had yet been given to that application; but he had no hesitation in saying that he should be prepared at the fitting opportunity to lay both the communication and the answer to it before the House. In the meantime, he must commend the prudence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in abstaining from expressing any opinion upon the subject, as the demand and the reply made to it would both be placed before the House at the same time.

said, he had a question to put to the right hon. Baronet, and a very few words would explain the nature and object of it. It referred to a petition he presented about a week ago, which had been printed and circulated with the Votes, from a large body of the most eminent merchants and manufacturers engaged in British trade to Brazil, Cuba, and Africa, complaining of certain charges against English merchants and capitalists contained in a Message Mr. President Tyler had sent to Congress, and which had received the implied sanction of the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and praying "the protection of the House against imputations so undeserved and so dishonourable to them and to the honour of their country." The Message arrived in this country in the middle of March. Shortly afterwards his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds put a question to the right hon. Baronet relative to a gross mis-statement in the Message on the subject of the apprenticing of captured negroes in the West Indies; and it was on that occasion the implied sanction of the charge against British merchants and manufacturers was given by the right hon. Baronet. The moment the charge received the sanction of the right hon. Baronet, he gave him notice, at the request of some of the parties, that the attention of the House would be drawn to the subject; and the petition would have been presented sooner, and the question he was about to put would have been asked sooner, but the parties wished that ample time should be allowed the right hon. Baronet to make his inquiries and produce his proofs, if he had any. With these observations, he would ask the right hon. Baronet whether there were any documents in possession of Government confirmatory of the participation, direct or indirect, of British subjects in the Slave Trade, charged in Mr. Tyler's Message to Congress, dated the 19th of February, 1845; and if so, whether there was any objection to the production of such documents? Also, whether Government could furnish to that House the names and description of any of those vessels alleged by Mr. Tyler to have been loaded with goods for the Slave Trade, by or on behalf of any British capitalist, merchant or manufacturer (inserting or omitting the names, as thought proper), in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or in any other manner, as alleged in the same Message?

said, the question of the hon. Member had been put to him some weeks since by an hon. Member opposite, who had raised an inquiry as to certain allegations contained in the President's recent Message to Congress, wherein it was stated that certain British subjects carried on a trade in slaves at Rio and on the Coast of Africa. It was also therein stated that certain subjects of the Queen were concerned in the Slave Trade in other countries. He (Sir R. Peel) had then stated that he was not prepared to admit or to deny the facts averred; but that if the case was as asserted, the law applicable to such offences should be resorted to and applied. The President's Message was accompanied by several documents, which, as the hon. Member who asked the question was acquainted with them, he should refer to. Those documents stated that three vessels were fitted out as slavers; their names were, the Agnes, the Montevideo, and the Sea Nymph. The President declared those vessels to be the property of citizens of the United States; but they had employed an English broker to conduct their sales at Rio. That was all the information he had received. If the statement were correct, and that the law would reach those parties, the Government would feel it their duty to make them amenable to it. Two years since, the House of Commons and House of Lords, acting upon the presumption that British capital was occasionally employed in foreign countries in carrying on the Slave Trade, passed an Act rendering British subjects resident in foreign countries liable to the same penalties for so carrying on the Slave Trade as any other British subjects. He would only repeat that if the law could be made to reach the parties in this case, the Government would apply it.

said, the right hon. Baronet had referred to Papers furnished to the President of the United States by Mr. Wise, the American Minister in Brazil, upon the authority of which the charges in question were made. He (Mr. Forster) held copies of these Papers in his hand; and to show the spirit in which they had been got up, and the degree of credit due to them, he need only inform the House, that amongst overcharges equally well founded, was one charging British naval officers with abetting and conniving at the Slave Trade, while cruising on the Coast of Africa for the suppression of that traffic. They were accused of favouring the shipment of slaves to be afterwards captured by themselves, that they might claim the bounty or head money. This was sufficient to show the gross falsehood and absurdity of charges issuing from such a source.

answered, that he had expressed at that time his opinion that it was unfortunate the President of the United States should have declared publicly to Congress that the state of the apprentices in the West Indies was as bad as that of the African slave; and he (Sir Robert Peel) then stated, if the President wished to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into that matter, every facility should be given for the investigation. He had at the same time also stated that he could not concur in the general allegations of the President's Message, and had expressed his belief that some part of it was founded in error. But at the same time, these documents contained the specific mention of a British broker and a British house.

said, that the name of the Agnes had been mentioned as one of the vessels employed in this traffic. Now, he had been authorized to give the most formal and unqualified contradiction to that statement; and he thought that the right hon. Baronet, in answering a question, might have abstained from casting even the remotest imputation upon parties who had had no opportunity whatever of rebutting the charges.

then read the extract from the document which had been referred to, omitting, however, to mention the names of the broker and the merchant.

said, that the right hon. Baronet had not answered one part of the question, and therefore, he would put another question. He wished distinctly to know whether official information had come under the notice of the Government that any naval officer belonging to Her Majesty's service, or any British subject had been engaged in the Slave Trade?

said, he had not the slightest information on the subject.

wished to know whether, from circumstances which had lately come before the Home Secretary, that right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that the state of the law in the Channel Islands called for inquiry; and, if so, what he, as the adviser of Her Majesty, having power, not only of inquiry, but of legislation, proposed to do?

said, that circumstances had come to his knowledge with respect to the administration of justice in the Channel Islands, which induced him to think that some inquiry should be instituted. He was not, however, disposed to assent to the form of inquiry proposed by the hon. and learned Member, of a Committee of Inquiry of that House. He had thought it, however, his duty to address a letter officially to the President of the Council, recommending that the pleasure of Her Majesty in Council should be taken whether a Commission of Inquiry might not be issued into the mode of the administration of the criminal law in the Channel Islands, and of the constitution of the tribunals by which that law was administered.

did not altogether agree with the right hon. Baronet as to the ineligibility of a Committee of Inquiry in that House.

moved that the House should resolve into a Committee, for the purpose of passing a Resolution on which to found a grant necessary to the formation of Colleges in Ireland. He proposed that the Vote should be taken pro formâ, and the debate on the measure be postponed till Monday next. It was necessary that such a Resolution should be passed before the money clauses of the Bill could be inserted.

rose to offer no opposition to the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair; but he was anxious to submit to the Government, by way of friendly suggestion, and in favour of the Bill, what he thought he might state to be the opinion of the people of Ireland upon this subject. They were unanimous in considering the subject of the education of the people of Ireland to be well worthy the attention of the Legislature. They were desirous that a portion of the Irish revenue should be appropriated to that purpose. But it remained to be considered whether this institution should be founded upon the principle of giving a united education or a separate education. As to the preference to be given on either side, it was not open to him to speak, because he had always avowed himself an advocate of the system of mixed education. The proposed plan by Her Majesty's Government had been submitted to the Roman Catholic bishops, and they had suggested several modifications which, he might say, had received the concurrence, in substance, of a very large portion of the Catholic people in Ireland. There was one point which he believed the public opinion in Ireland, and to a great extent the public opinion in England, was entirely agreed upon, namely, that means of religious instruction ought to be provided for in this Bill. Upon that point they felt—and he believed most justly—that the present Bill was defective. How far the Amendments intended to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) would meet that objection, and remedy that defect, of course he could not tell. But the early day appointed for the Committee on the Bill would render it utterly impossible for the public in Ireland to form a judgment upon it. He, however, would fairly warn the Government, that if they did not bring forward a measure which would be on this point satisfactory to the Catholic bishops and people of Ireland, the Bill would be found a dead letter altogether. He confessed that to him it appeared that, in bringing forward a measure affecting the great body of the Catholics of Ireland, it would only have been becoming to have taken means to have consulted the Catholic priesthood of that country. But, so far from doing so, Her Majesty's Government seemed to make it a matter of pride not to have done so. But upon such a question as this it was for the clerical authorities to express their opinion, rather than the laity. But with respect to the 10th Clause, the laity had expressed, and that very emphatically, their opinion; and he could tell Her Majesty's Government, that he had not heard one single opinion throughout Ireland which was not unfavourable to the clause as it now stood. What might be the best mode of appointing the professors, was a question he would not venture to enter upon; but upon this point all parties were united, that it was disgraceful to the Government to make these institutions a Government job; and such would be their character if Clause 10 stood as it was now framed. He need not tell the Government that they did not possess the confidence of the people of Ireland; and, therefore, in a matter like this, where confidence was involved, Her Majesty's Ministers had no right to expect that the people of Ireland should entrust to them powers unaccompanied by such securities as would satisfy the natural jealousy of a people who had been treated as the Irish people had been. They could not forget that the present Government had made an attempt, which, however, had signally failed, to put down the expression of the national opinion in Ireland; and that they attempted to effect that object by means which it was not necessary now for him to characterize. He was bound to tell them, that a strong sense remained on the minds of the people of Ireland of this attempt on the part of the Government; and, under these circumstances, he would not be a party to placing in their hands powers which might be abused. Referring to their acts with regard to the appointments under Lord Normanby's Government, would it not justify him (Mr. W. S. O'Brien) in objecting to place in their hands such a power as that which they now claimed to themselves? The Bill, as it at present stood, gave at all times, and to all Governments, the power to appoint professors to these Colleges, who must necessarily possess great influence, directly and indirectly, upon the education of the Catholic students. He was not, however, at all unfavourable to this Bill; on the contrary, he might take some pride to himself for having been a Member of the Committee from which the proposition for providing academical education for the people of Ireland emanated. The Committee was appointed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford, and he (Mr. W. S. O'Brien) had the honour of seconding the Motion. He had also the honour of having been an overseer of a great seminary established in his own county, and his constituents were extremely anxious upon the subject. They were most desirous that such an institution should be established; but, at the same time, he confessed he would rather forego all the advantages which these institutions promised to the country, and all the satisfaction which those with whom he was connected would derive from them, than be a party to establishments upon the terms proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He offered these observations, not from the vain hope of inducing the House to adopt his views; but he submitted them to Her Majesty's Government for their own sakes. They professed to be desirous to bring forward measures conciliatory towards Ireland. He would now tell them, that if they persisted in this measure, as it was at present framed, so far from doing that which would be satisfactory to the great bulk of the people, they would lay fresh ground for political discontent and continued agitation. The result of this measure, in his opinion, would be, that the people of Ireland would feel that the Government had expended the money of Ireland—["No"]—yes, the money of Ireland. He would repeat, that the people would believe that the Government would cause the money of Ireland to be applied to the endowment of an institution which would be attended with no possible good whatever.

wished to ask his right hon. Friend a question with respect to an addition which he purposed making to the proposed Bill; but before he did so, he wished to make a few remarks upon the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. That hon. Gentleman had said it was his most earnest desire to see a College established in the town which he represented, yet he had allowed that House to go on for weeks discussing the present question, without taking his proper position as a Member of the Legislature, or seeming to interest himself in it; and now he came forward, and, while confessing that his expectations were not very sanguine with regard to influencing the House towards his opinions, he denounced the proposed measure. The hon. Gentleman was unquestionably deserving of respect and consideration; but he at once superseded the labours of the hon. Member for Waterford, and of all those hon. Members who had devoted their attention for years to this subject. Being one of the fifteen Members of the Committee over which the hon. Member for Waterford presided, the hon. Member (Mr. W. S. O'Brien) took upon himself to say, that that measure which had been recognised as satisfactory by the hon. Member for Waterford, was a measure which he, in the supreme position of a dictator, or rather as a deputy dictator, declared to be wholly unsatisfactory. He, who came fresh from Conciliation Hall—he, who had abandoned his duty in that House in order to carry on that most mischievous agitation in Ireland, which was now drying up the sources of its prosperity, preventing the application of capital, deranging new schemes of improvement, and impeding the employment of labour—he, thus coming fresh from Conciliation Hall, told them that this measure was to be the basis for increased agitation. He could not congratulate the hon. Member upon the position he had assumed upon this question. He would now ask his right hon. Friend whether, by the Amendment he intended to introduce into this Bill, he meant to make it compulsory on the student to attend a place of worship and receive religious instruction?

said, that the words he proposed to insert in the Bill were for the purpose of removing all doubt with respect to the operation of this Act, either as it regarded the terms of incorporation or the by-laws. It would be quite open to the governing body to make any regulation with respect to the students attending divine worship.

felt it his duty, as a Member of the House of Commons, to protest against the language used by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in calling this a mere formal stage of the Bill. On the contrary, he (Mr. Gibson) considered it the most important stage of the measure. It was, especially, that stage in which he, as a Member of Parliament had the most direct and important interest; for, what was it? It was a Motion to authorize the Government to apply the public money to the support of these new institutions. But for the necessity of applying public money to these Colleges, the Government would not have had any occasion to come to Parliament at all. In regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. W. S. O'Brien), as to the House being about to appropriate Irish money, he (Mr. Gibson) did not like these distinctions between Irish and English money. The House of Commons was going to appropriate a portion of the general revenue of the United Kingdom, and the only question they had to ask themselves was, what was the purpose to which they were going to apply it? Were they justified in thus appropriating a portion of the general fund of the United Kingdom? For his own part, he was beset by these education questions, and by the various opinions upon the subject of endowments. He was told that it was very questionable whether bodies incorporated by the State for the advancement of learning was the best mode of accomplishing the object. It was feared that these corporations might become, as others had proved to be, rather asylums in which prejudice and ignorance would find shelter, than institutions for the advancement of learning. But he hoped that these institutions which were about to be established in Ireland, however just might have been the objection to former institutions, would, in their consequences, prove the means of advancement in learning. One reason, in his opinion, why Colleges endowed by the State did little for the advancement of learning was this—that everything was done in the way of erecting the building, and of putting professors into it with an independent income; but when they had done that, they had really done nothing to induce those professors to exert themselves for the benefit of their pupils. He looked upon it that all mankind wished to live at ease—that no man made exertion without necessity; and, therefore, he looked upon it that professors with independent incomes, and who did not rely for success on the advancement of their pupils, by the receipt of fees, were not likely to be very zealous to promote the learning of those pupils. He could, therefore, have wished to have had these professors supported partly by salaries from the State, and partly by fees derived by their own efforts and exertions. He was afraid that as this was not the system to be adopted, these new Colleges would fall into the same state as existed in Oxford and Cambridge. Hon. Members, no doubt, recollected the description given by Mr. Gibbon of his tutor. Mr. Gibbon said—

"That he was a gentleman who well remembered that he had a salary to receive, but only forgot that he had a duty to perform."

Such he believed would be the case with the professors of these Colleges, if they did not make those professors depend partly for their incomes upon their pupils. But there was one part of this Bill which he most cordially approved of. It was that they, the civil Government of the country, had not allowed themselves to be used for the purpose of any religious prejudices or preferences. The cry which had been got up against these Colleges on the ground of the Bill not making provision for religion, was not the cry of the people. The cry was raised by the priests, who were not the representatives of the community, but simply of the ecclesiastical body. They might depend upon it that until the civil Government of the country persevered in resisting these attempts at making educational endowments measures of encouragement of priestly power and proselytism, they would never be able to accomplish any general plan of education. He looked upon the priests of the Roman Catholic Church, and, he might say, the priests of the English Church, and of all churches, with regard to education, with great jealousy. The cultivation of reason, and the pursuit of science and of philosophy, were not the appropriate avocations of priests. And until the civil power could prevent those institutions which were intended for secular teaching, from becoming instruments for proselytising the people from one church to another, he was afraid the benefits that would result from such institutions would be very limited. For these reasons he was in favour of not allowing priests to interfere with education in any manner whatever. He would not recommend it in the case of his own child, nor as a measure of legislation. It was not within the sphere of the priests to interfere with the teaching of science, mathematics, philosophy, or any secular thing. Their province was to minister religious consolation in fitting places. It was said that they could not teach secular knowledge without mixing it with religious instruction. But in his opinion these two things were entirely distinct. He could not understand why they could not teach arithmetic, astronomy, or mathematics, without making these the medium of religious instruction.

did not wish to pursue the argument suggested by his hon. Friend, because he deemed it to be inopportune; but he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) whether by allowing this Resolution to pass now, for the purpose of inserting the clauses, it would prevent any hon. Member hereafter proposing that the money should be taken from another source.

said, his impression was, that in a Bill of this description it was not possible to insert clauses which made a charge on the Consolidated Fund without a previous Resolution in a Committee of the whole House. But this did not preclude any Gentleman from rejecting the clause when the Bill itself was considered in Committee. As he understood the matter, the only limit was that no larger charge could be proposed. A less sum might be proposed, or the clause might be objected to altogether, or, as he understood, it might be proposed to fix the charge upon any other source.

said, that the authors of the Bill had no power to insert such clauses as were necessary in this Bill, unless they were previously instructed by a Committee of the House. But when the Bill itself was in Committee, then it would be competent for the Committee to reject the clauses altogether, or to reduce the amount; but they could not charge the sum upon any other public fund.

quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, that this question ought not to be passed over as a mere formal vote. It could not be doubted that this, of all others, was the most proper time for discussing the principle of the measure. The hon. Member for Manchester said that he was against endowing any body of men for the purpose of instruction. Education was one of the means of promoting good actions, and of leading men to practise virtue. Administration of justice was another means. There were institutions for both purposes, and he was willing to endow them; he was willing to endow national education, and national courts of justice. He had voted for the endowment of Maynooth; he did not question whether the doctrines taught were true or false; but being called upon to vote for the establishment of a general system of education, it was of the first necessity that he should ask himself how was he to meet the conflicting opinions of the people with respect to religion. In two ways: by endowing separate establishments for every religion; or to appropriate the money of the State for secular education alone, leaving it to the ecclesiastical bodies and to the parents of the children to direct them in the ways of religion beyond the walls of the establishment. The House had determined upon the last mode. But he was now met with a strange phenomenon. He was startled by seeing the hon. Member for Limerick here. He (Mr. Roebuck) had been in the habit of looking into the papers, and he read that there was one William Smith O'Brien who gave his constant attendance at the Conciliation Hall, and had there declared, in the name of the people of Ireland (there was nothing like the three tailors of Tooley-street!)—that he would never appear again in the British House of Commons. [Mr. W. S. O'Brien; It is a mistake.] Certainly it was not his business to notice every speech made in Conciliation Hall: that would indeed fill his head with rubbish; but he (Mr. Roebuck) had aright to assume that the House of Commons had been assailed, not only in that Hall, but by the hon. Gentleman. And what had the hon. Gentleman said upon the present occasion? He had accused the House—and it was an accusation which he (Mr. Roebuck) recollected to have been made by Marat against Roland—the hon. Gentleman had accused the House of Commons of endeavouring, and wishing, and planning to corrupt the intellect of the people of Ireland. The students in these Colleges were to be taught arithmetic, surgery, mathematics, all matters of science, and perhaps even speaking English, and this was what the hon. Member for Limerick called corrupting the intellect of Ireland. It might be very well to get up a few claptraps upon this subject; but when the truth was sifted, it would be seen how worthless were the objections. It was very easy to talk about corrupting the intellect of Ireland; these were terms no doubt, prepared and studied in Conciliation Hall, and were of about the same value as most that was said there. Nobody seemed to recollect how the friends of such measures as these, setting aside their own feelings in favour of their own religion, had had to combat the opinions of their constituents, and to guide them to toleration, and after doing all this they were to be greeted and repaid by obloquy in every shape. The House was told from Conciliation Hall, that it was attempting to corrupt the intellect of Ireland; in what state of corruption or incorruption must that intellect be which suggested the accusation! The constituents of the United Empire sent Members to Parliament to watch over the interests of a great people; and he considered that those Irish Members who, instead of remaining absent from their places and their duties, had shared the difficulty of the task, and had braved the momentary ill-feeling of such as pursued a different line of conduct had done themselves great honour. He revered them for the sacrifice they had thus made; but he could not understand what should at one moment take a man to Conciliation Hall, exciting groundless discontent, bitter religious animosities, national hatred, and vulgar prejudice, and in the next bring him back to the House of Commons, and fancying, in spite of the venom he had uttered elsewhere, that he shall be secure, because armed with the attributes of a Member of Parliament. Was such a man to be allowed to insult the Commons of the British Empire, by repeating the trash he had picked up in Conciliation Hall? Might not those who were attacked turn round and inquire what motive could have led to such conduct, and whether it was to be imputed to anything but disappointed vanity? Unable by the force of his own abilities on a fair stage to acquire power and influence, it seemed as if such a man had resorted to other scenes where it was of easy acquisition, and where he might flutter for a time in a brief and butterfly existence. It was not difficult to understand what the leading spirit of that party was about—his tactics were very intelligible—want was staring him in the face—he was obliged to pander to the appetite of the people of Ireland in order to satisfy his own. The cravings of hunger were strong; and they explained the grovelling and unworthy course that had been pursued. This consideration might have led to what had been witnessed, and those who followed in the train of such a leader deserved little respect either for their position, or their intellect. He was confident that the people of Ireland would understand and properly estimate this and other measures brought forward in a kindred spirit. He was willing to rely upon the penetrating power of truth, and did not think it necessary to accept the hon. Member for Limerick as the representative of the people of Ireland. Let the British Parliament do its duty. Let it do its duty without fear or affection, and provide the means of education for that large body of the natives of Ireland who required it. They had a strong desire to receive it; and it would be given in a spirit of kindness, toleration, and truth. Let Parliament persevere in doing fair justice, and Ireland would make an ample return, in attachment to the State and obedience to the laws. Let it forget Conciliation Hall and all that had proceeded from it, and it would soon witness the last throe of its expiring existence.

, considering the personal character of the speech just delivered, hoped to be allowed to say a few words. The House had just witnessed the discharge of the accumulated venom of three months.

I rise to order. I am sure the House will listen to any explanation or any vindication from the hon. Member who has been attacked; but I believe the House will not permit him, when professing to vindicate himself, to attack the hon. and learned Member whose speech we have just heard. Other opportunities will arise, when the hon. Member may give such answers as he thinks fit; but at present he is limited to the vindication of himself, and cannot make a second speech for the purpose of attacking any one else.

wished to recall the attention of the House from the personal to the national matter before it. What had just occurred seemed a bad example of the supposed advantages of education. To descend to such matters, and to bandy taunts, was not a very becoming or useful mode of conducting the business of the country. It appeared to him that his hon. Friend below him (Mr. S. O'Brien), from not having recently been in the habit of addressing the House, had a little overshot himself. He (Mr. B. Osborne) concurred in the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester.

rose to order. The question of form having been disposed of, after what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, the hon. Member for Limerick remained in possession of the House. No other Member had, therefore, a right to interpose, especially to prevent an explanation.

said, that it was clear that the hon. Member for Limerick, having spoken once, was not entitled to speak again except in explanation, or by the indulgence of the House. That indulgence could only be obtained by the full concurrence of all the Members present; and the hon. Member for Limerick having been called to order by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, had done quite right in resuming his seat.

said, that the hon. Member for Limerick had stated that the hon. and learned Member for Bath was uttering the accumulated venom of three months. That was not a vindication, but an attack.

observed, that if the hon. Member for Limerick wished for a farther opportunity of explanation, he might easily find it hereafter. When the House had resolved itself into the Committee, it was clear that the hon. Member would have a right to be heard.

, for his own part was ready to move that the hon. Member for Limerick do proceed.

said, that if the Speaker were now allowed to leave the Chair, any Member could speak in the Committee just as often as he liked, and the House liked to hear him.

had no objection to second the Motion of the noble Member for Newark, excepting that he did not wish the personal part of the discussion to be continued. If these disagreeable matters consumed so much time, what would be left for the transaction of necessary and important business? He should have put on the Paper a Motion against taking the money out of the Consolidated Fund; but he had given way to the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Law), who seemed to have changed his mind, and as was said of the month of March, had "come in like a lion, and gone out like a lamb." That hon. and learned Member had put a Notice on the Paper, and had subsequently withdrawn it.

, in Committee, moved the following Resolution:—

"That it is the opinion of this Committee, That a sum, not exceeding 100,000l. be issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to defray the expenses of establishing New Colleges for the advancement of learning in Ireland; and that an annual sum, not exceeding 21,000l. be also issued out of the said Consolidated Fund, to pay the stipends, prizes, exhibitions, and other expenses of the said New Colleges."

I really do most unfeignedly apologize to the House for the necessity under which the hon. and learned Member for Bath has laid me, of entering into topics of a personal nature; but I would remind the House, as they seem to take pride in the denomination of "English Gentlemen," that they have been listening, not only with content but with approbation to invective in the most unmeasured terms, continued for nearly a quarter of an hour, and directed against my person alone. I believe I am now in order in repeating, and I will repeat, that I have had the satisfaction of witnessing to-night the delivery of the accumulated venom of three months' concoction. About three months since, the hon. and learned Member for Bath thought proper, in my absence, to make an attack upon me in common with the seceding Irish Members; and I took the liberty of telling him from Conciliation Hall, that I treated his insinuations with contempt. I had no elaborately prepared invective with which to reply to the hon. and learned Member. It is my custom in this House to maintain, so far as I am able, the character of a gentleman, without offending any one; I trust I have never shrunk from the duty of exposing a bad measure or a bad principle, and I trust I never shall; but I do not pride myself, and I hope I never may, in being able to accumulate sentence upon sentence that would give pain to any man. The hon. and learned Member, however, has utterly failed in giving pain to any one except his unfortunate self; I treat his attack with unutterable contempt, and accompany that contempt with my intense pity.

rose again to order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether any Member could express unutterable contempt? [Peals of laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen thought they had caught him in an Irishism, but he was only repeating the expression of the hon. Member; and he must say that the animus with which that expression was used, was sufficiently clear to justify him in rising to ask whether such temper ought to be permitted to be displayed in this House.

, in continuation, would save the Chairman the trouble of deciding the point by abandoning the expression; and he would leave the House to judge how far his vanity had been disappointed. When he ceased to attend in his place, he enjoyed the friendship of a greater number of Gentlemen than at any former period of his life; he might add, that there were then some circumstances attending his career that were personally exceedingly gratifying. He felt no individual animosities—not even towards the hon. Member for Bath, and was ready at that moment to take his hand. He had not represented him fairly, when he said that either in Conciliation Hall or elsewhere he (Mr. S. O'Brien) had made a vow never to attend in his place in the House; the language he had used in public and in private was, that he would not attend until he thought that by doing so he could effect some good for his country. If any opportunity had arisen during the last two years, he was ready to have returned at twenty-four hours' notice. He had expressed the opinion, both here and elsewhere, that an Irish Member could better promote the interests of his country by confining his labours to Ireland, than by giving his presence in the House of Commons. As to the persons with whom he was in the habit of associating in Ireland, the hon. Member for Bath had thought fit to designate Conciliation Hall a scene of corruption; and he had applied terms at least equally offensive, but which he (Mr. S. O'Brien) had forgotten, to those who attended its meetings. Having attended those meetings for more than a year and a half, he would tell the hon. Member for Bath that he had never witnessed any proceeding that was not perfectly honourable to the parties concerned, particularly with reference to the humbler classes of his countrymen. So far from being ashamed of having participated in those scenes of supposed corruption, he was proud to be able to contrast Conciliation Hall with that House, in calmness and freedom from asperity. The hon. Member for Bath had also thought fit to assail one in his absence who was infinitely more competent to defend himself, and to crush a less miserable antagonist than he was. The hon. Member for Bath had imputed motives to a man who influenced the destinies, not only of his own country and Great Britain, but of mankind at large; and the suggestion was, that having abandoned his professional exertions at the bar, by which he might at this moment have been enjoying wealth and power, he had made himself the leader of a great people, claiming their national rights, merely with a base desire of obtaining money. Such an imputation could only originate in a low and grovelling mind. Having said thus much of this laboured and prepared attack, it remained for him only to notice the arguments, or rather the insinuations, that if the Bill passed in its present form, appointing a number of men throughout the kingdom, selected from the most influential class, and capable of exercising that influence, it would not satisfy. Certainly, if these powers were to be at the disposal of the Government, and were exercised by the Government, he must repeat that it would be an attempt to corrupt the intellect of Ireland.

said, that he did not wish to discuss the subject at present; but to ask the right hon. Home Secretary whether, on Monday, he would give explanations upon two points; first, not what was to be done with the 100,000l., but to what the 21,000l. was to be devoted? secondly, whether any change was contemplated with respect to the appointment of professors? The hon. Member for Limerick had staled very strongly the distrust prevailing in Ireland upon this point; and without arguing the matter (he Lord J. Russell) might remark that he had understood that it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to propose some mode by which the appointments of professors in the second instance should be in other hands than those of the Government. If an Amendment of this kind were introduced, it would give him (Lord J. Russell) the highest satisfaction.

rejoiced in the prospect of the approbation of the noble Lord. On Monday, he should have great pleasure, on bringing up the Report, in giving the required explanation upon the two points mentioned. Of the 21,000l., it was intended to appropriate 7,000l. to each of the three Colleges.

, though in general anxious to prevent the expenditure of public money, had no objection, in this instance, to the proposed grant. He only wished to know, why the second sum had been raised to 21,000l., being 3,000l. more than was originally proposed.

should be ready to give the reason for the change on Monday.

would not offer any objection to the principle of the Bill—that was not his intention. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman could explain the reason why 3,000l. had been added to the originally proposed sum; but he thought the explanation should be given in full, before the grant was agreed to.

observed, that it had been stated in the course of a discussion on the subject on a former evening, that the additional sum was to make provision for prizes and exhibitions; and it was then a generally expressed opinion, that such a provision would be most advantageous.

considered the measure as a mere experiment. From all he had heard in the course of the debates upon this measure, he thought that there was some uncertainty as to whether they were not establishing receptacles for rebellion, and schools for sedition, instead of institutions such as were intended. Neither could he tell for whom these Colleges were designed; at one time it was said they were for what was commonly called the upper classes, and at another for the middling classes. [Mr. Wyse: Both.] If the object of the Government was the spread of education throughout the country, why did they not give similar Colleges to England and Scotland, which at present possessed nothing of the kind? Any of the constituencies of England or Scotland would be as glad of the like boon as Ireland; and he did not understand why the people of Ireland should be exclusively favoured with these institutions at the public expense. He very much agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford as to the means of their support being provided through the medium of the grand juries.

I think there will be great difficulty in connecting the grand juries of Ireland with these institutions. In the first place, I doubt whether the grand juries would be in themselves a satisfactory index of public opinion. In the next place, all experience shows that any measure which depends upon the united action of many grand juries must necessarily fail. If the grand juries had the power to give or to withhold the grant—if one were to be averse, while six or seven were in favour of the measure, though it is not likely that the plan would be defeated, yet it is clear that the burden would be unequally distributed; for six would bear the burden — one would be exempt. But that is not all; for the county that was most distant from the seat of the College, might argue that they were less interested than the others, and therefore ought to pay a smaller contribution. Take Munster, for example; he presumed few persons would deny that the College in that province ought to be placed in the city of Cork. But the county of Tipperary might say, "We have less benefit than Cork. Cork is the larger and the richer county; and the gentry and persons of affluence in that county have more benefit from it than we have; therefore, their contributions ought to be greater." If the House, therefore, thought any benefit was to arise from the institution of these Colleges, I hope they will not allow the benefit to be intercepted by attaching to these establishments, that they should be supported by local contributions. The Government have not been indifferent to this subject; but we think the easiest plan is for the State to provide an excellent system of secular instruction, and leave it to private parties to establish a course of religious education.

said, he had all along objected to giving these institutions the character of Universities, either in the style of education afforded in them, or in the power of conferring degrees. What he wished was, to have a system of education sufficient to qualify persons for the ordinary avocations of life, and for scientific pursuits; such as would enable them to become civil engineers, for instance. He regretted that the Government had not adopted his suggestions to a greater extent, because he believed that they would have been productive of much more benefit. He was, however, pleased with the instalment brought forward, trusting that on a future occasion the measure would be more extended.

said, he voted for the granting of this large sum of money with the view of impregnating the minds of the middle and lower classes of Ireland with useful education.

said, he had accepted this measure with great pleasure, believing that the Government were about to introduce a system of education into Ireland which, he hoped, would form a precedent for this and other countries, and according to which talent alone was to be honoured. But now he should wish to know whether the Government still adhered to the principle that no religious test should be required, either directly or indirectly, from the students, principals, and professors?

said, that no religious test would be required from any principal, professor, or student; and the principle of the measure remained unchanged in that respect.

asked, whether the right hon. Baronet meant that these halls proposed to be constituted, would be prevented from having a distinct religious character?

had no difficulty in saying that everything in reference to the halls was without the Colleges, and what was done as to the halls would depend on the will of their founders. These halls would not be aided, directly or indirectly, by the public money.

said, there were two questions he wished to ask the Government. He would put them now; but the Government might postpone the answer, and perhaps it would be better they should; the questions being of very high importance, and upon points which were exciting the greatest interest in Ireland. The first question was this:—Has Government determined to reserve to the Crown the appointment of the professors? The second question was this:—Has the Government determined there should be no stipend awarded to a chaplain — Protestant or Catholic — entrusted in these Colleges either with the administration of divine service, or with the imparting religious instruction?

said, the noble Lord opposite had already put the former question to him; and he had undertaken to give an answer to it on Monday. He was prepared to answer the question then; but he thought it would be better to answer both the one and the other on the day he had named.

said, it was of the last importance that a Bill of that description, meant for the benefit of the middle and higher classes in Ireland, should meet with the good opinions of these classes. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would alter the views which they had at first announced respecting it; so as to take care that the measure would not go before the people of Ireland merely as a source of patronage to the Crown. He gave this advice solely from his desire that the Bill should pass under the most favourable auspices.

could not help expressing his regret that the Government had departed from the sum which they had originally fixed upon for the maintenance of these Colleges. Considering that the large grant of 100,000l. was to be voted in the first instance, and that the support of these Colleges was afterwards to be defrayed out of the public revenues, he thought that the Government should be satisfied to rest there; and that they would allow the funds necessary for rewards and premiums to be contributed, as in Scotland, by private individuals. He would, however, be satisfied to allow the additional 3,000l. to pass without opposition, provided the Government would consent to leave that part of the grant subject to the annual control of Parliament, as he did not object so much to the amount, as to the principle involved in it.

said, he had before announced that he would enter fully into the subject on Monday. He would, however, beg to remind the hon. Gentleman, that this country and Scotland were very differently circumstanced from Ireland in this respect; as the Colleges proposed to be erected in the latter country would be new institutions, giving but little inducements to private parties to contribute towards their success.

observed that when he had asked the right hon. Baronet for an explanation of the course to be pursued, it was with a view that other Members who were not satisfied with the application of the amount demanded, and the House generally, should take into consideration whether it would be better to enter into the question now, or to reserve their observations to a future period.

said, he thought it right to express a hope that the Bill would not leave that House without some security being given in it, that the professors to whom the education of the youth of Ireland were to be entrusted, would have a belief in the truths of Christianity. The two Votes—one of 100,000l., for the building of new Colleges, and the other of 21,000l. annually, for the support of the Colleges—were then agreed to.

said, he would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Baronet a question with reference to the better regulation of the medical profession. Much excitement prevailed throughout the country, with reference to the clause introduced affecting the right of chemists and druggists to dispense medicine. A great many petitions had been presented on the subject; and he thought it would facilitate the object of the right hon. Gentleman, if he would state whether any other clause was to be introduced involving the interests of the class to whom he alluded.

said, there was a special provision in the Apothecaries Act, limiting the power of chemists and druggists with respect to dispensing medicine; and as the Bill which he had introduced would repeal that Act, he intended to place them, under the new Bill, in precisely the same position which they occupied under the existing law.

said, a question had been asked of him the other night, by the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir Charles Napier), as to whether the Admiralty were prepared to alter their former order regulating the granting of pensions to wounded officers. He thought it right, in explanation of the answer which he had given on that occasion, to add, that the Government always reserved to themselves the right of recommending to Her Majesty to grant pensions in extraordinary cases of good conduct or otherwise, even where the wound was not of a nature to cause the loss of a limb. He thought this explanation necessary, lest it should be supposed, that whenever an officer was wounded, he would be entitled to an annual pension.

said, it would be much better that parents, before sending their sons into the Navy, should know that no pensions would be given for any wound which was not equivalent to the loss of a limb. He thought the Navy would be treated better, if they were at once informed, that in all cases of wounds not involving loss of limb no pension would be given, instead of being left, as at present, in doubt and uncertainty as to the matter.

brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice, for calling the attention of Her Majesty's Government, on the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee of Supply, to the neglected state of the Irish fisheries. He said he thought he could show that the Board of Works in Ireland were not doing their duty—that they had grossly violated the Act of Parliament, in not fulfilling the duties entrusted to them by the Legislature, with reference to the fisheries in Ireland. The proper management and encouragement of the fisheries was a subject of most vital importance to a large class of the people of Ireland. The present Act was in force for three years; and yet within that period, out of 160 or 170 rivers, in which the Board of Works were to fix the boundaries between the fresh water and salt water, they had only arranged these bounds in fifteen rivers, eight of which were in the county of Kerry. In the next place, he had to complain that they had not complied with the provision of the Act, which required them to lay Reports before that House within three weeks of the meeting of Parliament in each year. Instead of doing so, their first Report in 1843 was not laid on the Table of the House until May; their second Report, in 1844, not until July; and their third Report, for the present year, had been only made within the last fortnight, and had been only five days in the hands of Members. The third complaint which he had to make of the Board was, that when a number of gentlemen interested in the success of the Irish fisheries wished the Board to convene a meeting in Dublin last winter, as they were required to do by the Act, the Commissioners refused, but said they would take any written statement which might be sent to them into their consideration. Such a document was accordingly prepared; but no further notice appeared to have been taken of it. The next omission of which he complained was, that they had not made such statistical Returns as should appear practical to them, as the Act required. But, in their second Report, instead of doing so, they stated that they construed the word practical to mean convenient. Why, he would ask, if such were the case, and if they did not find it suit their convenience, did they not tell the Government so, and divest themselves of the responsibility of carrying the Act into effect? The officers commanding the coast guards in Ireland were required to register all the boats employed in the fisheries within their respective districts. These officers sent in twenty-eight Reports; every one of which testified to the industrious and peaceable habits of the people employed in the fisheries, and to the fact that owing to the want of piers along the coast, the large boats necessary for the deep-sea fishery could not be used in many places. He trusted the Government would take this subject into prompt consideration. They voted 14,000l. a year for the improvement of the fisheries in Scotland, besides 3,000l. a year for building piers, and improving harbours in that country; and yet in Ireland, where such assistance was so much more wanted, they had not given a single farthing within the last three years for building piers. On the 26th of July, 1843, Lord Glenelg brought forward a Motion on this subject in the House of Lords; and on that occasion he expressed his regret that so valuable a Bill should be allowed to remain a dead letter on the Statute Book; and Lord Carbery, on the same occasion, stated that the Commissioners in Dublin gave a very cold reception to gentlemen who were anxious to advance the interests of the poor fishermen. The Duke of Wellington stated at the time that he would take care that the attention of the Government, in the proper quarter, should be directed to the subject; but he was sorry that promise had not been carried out. He considered these Commissioners were bound to ascertain the rights of the public, as well as of private individuals, so as to have them properly defined. He complained, that in his part of Ireland, the salmon breeding were destroyed by thousands and hundreds of thousands every year. The Commissioners had no excuse on this point; for they had ample power, and could ensure the assistance of the coast guard and the police. He conceived, that it was also the duty of the Commissioners to diffuse information on the coast of Armagh and Kerry, amongst the fishermen, as to the nature of the fisheries. Nothing of this kind had been done. The truth was, that nearly all the mischiefs which existed, with respect to the fisheries, had arisen from their neglecting the provisions of the Act of Parliament. This was not a mere private right to be enforced by private individuals; but there were public fisheries which this Board was constituted to preserve. Again, the Commissioners admitted that the greatest destruction had taken place in several of the oyster fisheries; for instance, at Carlingford, and other places. It was said, that this deterioration of the oyster fisheries had been occasioned by the neglect of the Acts of Parliament. Now, these Commissioners were the only persons authorized to carry out the provisions of the Act. Now, he would suggest as a remedy, that instead of the present Board, to which such extensive duties were entrusted, that there should be a smaller Board, whose attention should be devoted entirely to the fisheries. He would also suggest the formation of local boards; at the head of each should be a paid officer; but that the other members should not be paid. He would also recommend that local inspectors should be appointed, to see the Act enforced under these boards. He also would recommend that steps should be taken to encourage the building of large boats, as the Irish fisheries were at about fifty or sixty miles from the coast; and, above all, he would recommend that small harbours and piers should be erected along the coast, and that the provisions of the Fisheries Act of last year should be carried out. The Irish fisheries were a most important nursery for seamen, and during the last war sent not less than 10,000 seamen to our Navy. The promotion also of the Irish fisheries would tend materially to ameliorate the condition of the poorer class of the people. He trusted that the Government would take up the subject.

did not complain of the observations of the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, he agreed with many of them, and shared his desire to encourage the fisheries of Ireland. He was not well acquainted with the details of this subject. Most of the correspondence connected with it had taken place before his period of office. He thought, however, that the hon. Baronet had been too severe in his animadversions upon the Commissioners. The Act under which they had acted had been improved last year, and very judicious powers were now entrusted to them. It ought, however, to be borne in mind that the full operation of the Fishery Act did not rest with the Government, or with the officers of the Government. Much must depend upon the energy and enterprise of the individuals themselves. The hon. Baronet had stated that the Commissioners had been guilty of seventeen violations of the Act of Parliament; and, though he had not made up his number, he had brought forward many objections to their conduct. With regard to the first, the hon. Baronet was mistaken in saying that the Commissioners had not defined the bounds of the rivers. It was true that the Commissioners had not regularly placed before Parliament their Returns; and, though there was a natural desire by all public Boards to render their Returns as perfect as possible, which caused delay, this was an evil which he (Sir T. Fremantle) would do his best endeavours to remedy. The statement made by the hon. Baronet as to the declining state of these fisheries was somewhat exaggerated. In 1844, the number of vessels engaged in the fisheries of the first class had been 1,887; and in 1845, they had amounted to 2,237; while of the second class the vessels engaged in 1844 had been 14,048; and in 1845, they had reached 15,718. The hon. Baronet had made several suggestions which were worthy of consideration; but the worst of all these suggestions was, that they required a considerable outlay from the Consolidated Fund. They would, however, receive the best attention of the Government. The only difference between the hon. Baronet and himself was, whether the Commissioners were going on fast enough. It was difficult exactly to decide this question; but he could assure the House and the hon. Baronet, that there was every desire on the part of the Government to encourage the fisheries of Ireland.

thought that great credit was due to his hon. Friend for having directed public attention to another mode of improving the condition of Ireland. He admitted that Sir John Burgoyne was a most meritorious public officer; but he had so many matters to attend to in the various public departments with which he was connected, that it was impossible that he could attend to them all. He most strongly recommended the building of piers as being most essential to the well-being of the fisheries. He could not conceive that any serious objections existed to the loan system, although many existed against the bounty system.

could bear testimony to many of the observations of his hon. Colleague as to the inefficiency of the Board of Public Works with respect to the public fisheries. He thought that a separate Board should be formed to attend solely to the fisheries. He was sorry that the recent Act had not been carried so extensively as it ought to have been into operation: he hoped that did not arise from any lukewarmness on the part of the Government. He entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend as to the advantage of the loan system, in contradistinction to a bounty system. He believed that such a system would be productive of the greatest good to a large class of persons.

agreed with the right hon. Member for Dungarvon that it would be productive of great good if the Government would extend the loan system to the fishermen in Ireland, so as to enable them to build larger boats.

having risen to bring forward the subject of the defences of the naval forts and arsenals,

said, the hon. Member had lost his opportunity, having already spoken.

thought it would be very hard if his hon. and gallant Friend should be precluded from addressing the House because he replied to an observation of the gallant Admiral opposite on a different subject. He should move, if necessary, that the other Orders of the Day be read, and then his hon. and gallant Friend would be in order; but he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would be allowed to address the House.

said, he did not mean to found any Motion on the subject as to which he had given notice; but he would proceed shortly to call the attention of the House to the state of the naval forts and arsenals, and the harbours for the protection of the mercantile marine. This subject was one on the importance of which he need not dwell; and he found that in the year 1796 Mr. Pitt had directed the attention of Parliament to it, and strongly pressed Parliament to adopt measures for the improvement of our coast defences.

"That it appears to this House, that to provide effectually for securing His Majesty's dockyards at Portsmouth and Plymouth, by a permanent system of fortification, founded on the most economical principles, and requiring the smallest number of troops possible to answer the purpose of such security, is an essential object for the safety of the State, intimately connected with the general defence of the kingdom, and necessary for enabling the fleet to act with full vigour and effect, for the protection of commerce, the support of our distant possessions, and the prosecution of offensive operations in any war in which the nation may hereafter be engaged..… And, in order to judge of its necessity towards that great object, he should attempt, but with much pain, to bring back the recollection of the House to the unfortunate and calamitous situation to which we were exposed in the late war, much in consequence of our want of those fortifications which it was the aim of the present question to provide. A considerable part of our fleet was confined to our ports, in order to protect our dockyards; and thus we were obliged to do what Great Britain had never done before—carry on a mere defensive war; a war in which, as in every other war merely defensive, we were under the necessity of wasting our resources, and impairing our strength, without any prospect of benefiting ourselves but at the loss of a great and valuable part of our possessions, and which at last was terminated by a necessary peace."

If measures for the improvement of the national defence were necessary in 1786, were they not still more necessary at the present moment, after thirty years' peace? The introduction of steam into naval warfare increased the necessity for taking measures of this kind. In former days it was much easier to prevent disembarkation on our coasts than it would be in future wars. The pamphlet of the Prince de Joinville—and a very clever pamphlet it was — showed the efforts which were now making by the French Government for the augmentation of their steam navy. At St. Malo and Cherbourg—ports contiguous to the Channel Islands—they had constructed extensive basins and docks for the repair of steamers; at Calais, the works for the same purpose were of the most extraordinary extent; and at Dunkirk, they were fortifying that port, which had been always regarded by this country with so much jealousy in former wars. By the last accounts the steam navy of France consisted of 26,476 horse-power:—

FRENCH STEAMERS.
20 frigates	8,100
6 corvettes	1,920
14 ditto	3,080
39 small vessels	5,056
	18,156

BUILDING.
13 frigates	6,120
10 corvettes, 220	2,200
	8,320
	18,156
	26,476

The whole force we had amounted to 23,000 horse power, while that of France was 26,476.

ENGLISH STEAMERS.
3 steam frigates	4,900
23 steam ships	6,218
10 small steamers	875
18 packets	3,200
8 small steamers before 1st January, 1832	800
	15,993
8 steam frigates building	4,506
6 steam ships	2,485
5 smaller vessels	860
	7,851
7 not in Return	990
	8,841

Ordered — Desperate, Encounter, Conflict. 2 iron frigates. 2 Queen's yachts. He would not pretend to say that the French steam vessels were better than ours; if they were not as good, he could say little for them; but they carried a much larger quantity of guns than ours. Some of them were more than 2,000 tons burden; at Portsmouth he had seen the Gomer, and he had no hesitation in saying that she was considerably larger than the Terrible, which was 1,800 tons burden. The French did not calculate the size of steam vessels by tonnage, but by horse power; but he believed the Gomer was 2,000 tons. With what facility might not France embark 2,000 men on board one of these large steamers, which would enable her in twenty such vessels to convey a force of 40,000 men in all. The days when fine seamen, good reefers, and smart hands on the top-sail yards, were wanted, were now past; the machinery, as the French said, was their power, and you could not prevent them from embarking men in those vessels if they chose. The last return laid before the French Chambers understated the real amount of their force. It was as follows:—

SAILING VESSELS AFLOAT.
23	ships of the line of all classes
30	frigates
19	war corvettes
3	corvettes avisos
26	brigs of war
21	ditto avisos
9	gun brigs
47	galiots, cutters, luggers, &c.
16	corvettes	transports
35	lighters
229

SAILING VESSELS IN DOCK.
23	ships of war of different ranks, 17–24 parts finished
20	frigates (of which 5 were placed on the stocks, in 1845), at 13 47–24 parts
3	corvettes of war, at 5 33–24 parts
2	galiots at 18–24 parts
48	ships

STEAMERS AFLOAT.
4	frigates, of which 1 of 540 horse power, and 3 of 450 horse power
8	corvettes of which 1 of 320 horse power and 7 of 220 horse power
41	steamers of 160 horse power, and under
53

STEAMERS ON THE STOCKS.
4	frigates, 1 of 640, 1 of 540, and 1 of 450 horse power, at 11–24 finished
10	corvettes, of which 5 of 320, and 5 of 220 horse power, and nearly 5–24 finished
8	steamers of 160 horse power, and under, of which upwards of 1–24 finished
22

The Report adds—

"For the service of the year 1846, and as a basis for the expense of the fleet, the Minister proposes to keep 170 ships of different sizes in a state of armament, namely:—

8	ships of the line of different classes
12	frigates, ditto
12	corvettes of war, ditto
1	corvette aviso
25	brigs of war
30	gun brigs, galiots, cutters, &c.
20	transports
62	steamers, of which 3 are of 540 and 450, 3 of 320, 10 of 220, 23 of 160, and 23 of 120 and under
170	armed ships of all kinds

IN COMMISSION DE RADE.
4	ships of war
4	frigates
4	corvettes
12

IN COMMISSION DE PORT.
4	ships of war
4	frigates
2	war corvettes
2	corvettes de chargé
6	steamers
18	vessels

That Report kept out of sight altogether the force of large steamers, twenty in number, the Transatlantic steam boats ordered to be built some years ago. Two months since an ordinance appeared, saying that they were not adapted for Transatlantic steam boats, but should be used as steamers of war, and a number more were ordered to be built. The French had an army of 320,000 men and 80,000 horses. When we had a war, it would be a sudden one; and since they could by means of rivers, canals, and railroads, bring an enormous force to our shores, the possibility of such an event ought to be sufficient to alarm this country, and awaken the attention of its Ministers. The French had built enormous fortifications at Paris, in order that a large portion of their army might be at liberty to act in case of war; on the same principle we ought to fortify our dockyards, in order to be able to employ the fleet, which would otherwise be needed for their defence. What defences had we? He would take Falmouth first. There the works were insignificant, the guns and carriages all rotten, and the walls mouldering to decay. That fort was but 100 miles from Brest, and with a steam navy it would be easy to embark 4,000 or 5,000 men; go to Falmouth, and then a few hundred barrels of powder, properly arranged, would do the rest, and reduce the fortifications to a very sorry condition. Plymouth was next. He would ask any hon. Gentleman who had ever been at Plymouth whether the citadel would stop a determined enemy from walking past it and destroying the fleet? If a war took place, the manifest policy of France would be to send her fleet of sailing ships to sea, in order to draw off ours, and then make play with her steamers. Next he came to Portsmouth. What was there to prevent a hostile squadron from carrying destruction into that arsenal? There was one fine battery of thirteen or fourteen guns, which enfiladed the harbour; the others, which were en barbette, could offer no defence. Then he would look to Pembroke, where we were continually building ships, without any adequate means of protection. There were, it was true, twenty-three 32-pounders above the dockyard; but nothing which could offer effectual resistance. At Sheerness, again, we had a mere saluting battery, though the dockyard had cost four or five millions of money, and a vast number of ships of the line were lying there in the Medway. What was to prevent an enterprising enemy, if we were taken by surprise and unprepared, as we were being nearly four or five months ago, from making a plunge at this dockyard, and inflicting immense loss? The hon. and gallant Admiral would say, he could remove the buoys. But what confidence could be placed in that resource, looking at the extraordinary things which we had done ourselves against the enemy, after they had taken that precaution, by sounding and finding out new channels? In America, during the last war, we ascended to Potomac, 300 miles and more, took the American towns and shipping, and destroyed the dockyards. In China, Sir W. Parker had ascended the Yang-tse-Keang, which was until then unknown to Europeans; and, aided by the gallantry and skill of his officers and men, taken the English squadron into the very heart of the empire. That showed what might be done by the energy of our officers. Suppose we had as strong a fleet at sea as the enemy, that would not supersede the necessity of having strong defences for our ports and dockyards, since our fleet might be evaded, and a landing effected, or if they were not successful in that, enormous loss might be inflicted on our mercantile navy, if we had not a very effective system of protection. Last war, the French fleet put to sea in the first instance only to destroy our commerce, and in their first cruise they captured 100 vessels; in the second they were also successful; in the third, they put to sea to bring into port a large convoy of provision ships, and then at length they were fallen in with, having been successful before. Lord Malmesbury, in his Correspondence, lately published, mentioned that orders were given to the Brest fleet to sail for Ireland at the very moment when he was treating with France for peace. They actually arrived off Bantry Bay, and it was only the separation of the vessel containing the commander in chief of the land forces (General Hoche)—not any opposition from our own fleet—which led to the failure of the expedition; the French, losing some vessels by the weather, but none in action, before they regained Brest harbour. Again, the enemy baffled Lord Keith, one of the best officers ever known, during his command in the Mediterranean, when they succeeded in getting to Egypt; and it was not until after much delay that they were found, when the result was the battle of the Nile. Suppose we had a large number of steam vessels off one of our ports to defend it, a storm, or some other accident, might prevent them from keeping their station, and then a start of four or five hours would be sufficient to enable the enemy to throw any force they could muster upon Pembroke or Plymouth dockyard. If 40,000 or 50,000 men were landed in this country, where could we find any chance of collecting a number sufficient to meet them, unless our means of military defence were very greatly improved beyond their present state? He would now beg the attention of the House for a few moments to the recommendations contained in the Report presented relative to Harbours of Refuge. First, they recommended that Dover harbour should be selected for that purpose, as a splendid harbour, directly opposite Calais. He approved of it as a point of attack; but could a convoy or vessel arrive in it with facility during southwest gales? It was well known that with a westerly wind, vessels experienced great difficulty in rounding the Foreland. In connexion with Dover harbour, Ramsgate was capable of containing 400 or 500 vessels; our Commissioners were, therefore, not far wrong in recommending Dover harbour as one of those which ought to be made a receptacle for steam vessels. The next point which they mentioned was the want of a harbour between Portsmouth and Dover. He thought they had made a good selection of Seaford, because they recommended the best spot between Portsmouth and Dover. Portland had also been named as another halfway house. The coast of Harwich had also been recommended as a fit place for a harbour of refuge. Along the whole of the eastern coast of England and Scotland there were only tidal harbours, which vessels could not get into, except at high water. The French might, easily, from their port of Dunkirk, sweep the whole of the eastern coast of England and Scotland, and put a stop to our coal trade, by which the city of London might, in the winter, be kept without coal. Then, as to the western coast, the whole of that coast, with the exception of Liverpool, was undefended, and without any other harbour of refuge. At some future day, which they could not now foresee, the necessity for a better state of defence might be found, when, perhaps, it would be too late. He would only allude to another point. He believed the danger of collision at this moment, in consequence of the recent Convention with France on the subject of the Slave Trade, was greater than it had been before. The Right of Search was clearly understood; but now that we had abandoned that mode of detecting slavers, and retained the Right of Visit, the dangers of a rupture would certainly be greater. France had to send twenty-six vessels to the const of Africa. England and America would send a corresponding force. They would all be acting independently of each other, and difficulties would arise which did not exist before. It was impossible at sea to know one vessel from another; Portuguese and Spanish ships might hoist French colours; and when a vessel was fallen in with which displayed the French flag, it would be necessary to lower a boat and ascertain whether she was really French or not. From the bad feeling which existed—not between the Sovereigns of the two countries, or their Ministers, who, he believed, were most anxious to maintain peace; but between the nations themselves—if a French merchant vessel, with a hot-headed commander, was fallen in with, he might run down the boat, and pretend it was done by accident. A collision would take place; and if a French man-of-war was at hand, a complaint might be made to the officer commanding her that the French flag had been insulted, and thus in one way or another a collision was much more likely to occur than before. For this reason, in addition to those which he had before stated, he thought it was most desirable that the defences of the country should be at once looked to.

said, the hon. and gallant Officer contemplated the possibility of attacks being made on various points of our coast; but he forgot or overlooked the fact, that before an enemy could conduct those operations with success, it was necessary that such enemy should have the absolute supremacy of the ocean. He could assure the hon. and gallant Officer that the Master General of the Ordnance had taken means to strengthen our forts, and to render our dockyards and harbours more secure. During last year a Commission was issued, the object of which was to inquire into the state of our defences generally, but especially into those of our dockyards; and that Commission had presented a Report which had received the entire concurrence of both the Admiralty and Ordnance Departments. The Commissioners pointed out, on the one hand, the defects in our means of defence, and, on the other, the manner in which those defects might be remedied; and it must be gratifying to the hon. and gallant Commodore to know that some of those defects had already been removed, and that great progress had been made in remedying others. He was convinced that when he mentioned the names of the officers who constituted that Commission, the greatest confidence would be felt by the House and the country, in their judgment and discretion. The first name he would mention was that of Sir George Hoste, Colonel of Engineers, by whose decease he (Captain Boldero) had to deplore the loss of a friend, and the country the loss of a scientific and distinguished man, who had done the State great service. The second member of that Commission was Colonel Mercer, of the Royal Artillery, an officer of great experience and ability. But the Commission was not composed exclusively of Ordnance officers. The third officer of the Commission was a member of that profession of which the hon. and gallant Commodore opposite (Sir C. Napier) was so distinguished an ornament—he referred to Sir T. Hastings, who had devoted much of his time and talents to the study of the science of gunnery. The Commission received clear and definite instructions from the Master General of the Ordnance, embracing all the subjects to which their attention was to be directed — not overlooking, of course, the superior calibre of ordnance which could be applied to purposes of attack or defence, or the improvements in steam as applied to navigation. It must be remembered that this country was not dependent for its means of defence solely upon fortifications or standing armies; but that, if they were driven to take measures of defence, they could not merely rely upon the Royal Navy, but that there was not a steam boat belonging to the mercantile marine — not even a tug boat on the Thames capable of towing an American liner — which could not be placed in some advantageous position for defence. The hon. and gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier) had indulged in many observations condemnatory of everything connected with our means of defence. The question was, however, what value ought to be attached to the opinion of that hon. and gallant Commodore. He (Captain Boldero) must say that if he required an opinion as to the state of the defences of Portsmouth, he should feel much more confidence in the opinion of a person who had, almost from childhood, been conversant with the science of fortification, than in that of the hon. and gallant Officer. The hon. and gallant Commodore had said that the defences of Portsmouth were so inefficient that an enemy might easily destroy them and walk into the harbour; but persons whose opinions carried great weight on such a question stated that Portsmouth was capable of offering a vigorous defence against an enemy; and, at all events, they were now taking steps to remedy the neglect of the last thirty years. To whom, he would ask, was the defence of this country entrusted? To his right hon. and gallant Friend near him (Sir G. Cockburn), a member of the Admiralty Board, in whose presence he could not express the high opinion he entertained of his ability as an officer and a sailor. Associated with that hon. and gallant Officer was Sir G. Murray, a most gallant soldier, and a man of great experience in the field. He considered, therefore, that there was little ground for the apprehensions entertained by the hon. and gallant Commodore, and that those apprehensions were shared by very few individuals.

hoped, that after the Report referred to by the gallant Officer who had just sat down, the Government would be prepared to state distinctly the course they meant to pursue. It had been said that before any nation could make a successful attack on this country it must possess the supremacy of the ocean; but the opinion of the Prince de Joinville, as expressed in his pamphlet was, that France never had, and did not hope to possess, the supremacy of the ocean. It was the opinion of the Prince, and for that opinion he had given many good reasons, that means for attacking the British coast could be found, when there was an inferior French force in the Channel. The port of Dunkirk was now in admirable condition; the harbours of Calais and Boulogne had been materially improved and enlarged; and Cherbourg was now one of the finest harbours on the coast. He hoped they would hear from Her Majesty's Government to-night whether they were prepared to propose any definite plan on a subject on which so strong a feeling prevailed—a feeling that had been manifested by every officer, naval or military, with whom he had conversed on this question. Reference had been made to-night to the evidence of the Duke of Wellington. That illustrious Duke was asked to state his opinion as to the necessity of the erection of new harbours. His reply was, "I have no doubt about it; I entertain no doubt that it is absolutely necessary. There is now no security between Portsmouth and the Downs."

rose and said, he supposed that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) would not bring forward that evening the Motion of which he had given notice, but which he had not fixed for that occasion. With respect to the gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier), he should observe that he had a great advantage over Her Majesty's Government in discussing that subject. The gallant Officer knew perfectly well that it would be inconsistent with the duty of Ministers to discuss those details into which he had entered. The gallant Officer might think it a great public advantage to point out all the weak points of our coast; and he might deem it his duty to call the attention of Parliament and the Government to the mode in which this harbour might be destroyed, or that arsenal might be dismantled. That was the gallant Officer's view of his duty to his country; but the gallant Officer should know that it would be inconsistent with the duty of the Government to enter with him into the discussion of details of that nature. He had interfered with his gallant Friend (Captain Boldero) whose duty it was to move the Ordnance Estimates; and he had requested him not to answer the gallant Officer in detail. He should think that it would require an outlay of 25,000,000l., at least, to complete that system of naval defence which the gallant Commodore advocated. The gallant Commodore had gone through the recommendations of the Commissioners, who had investigated the question of the construction of harbours of refuge in the Channel; and he had not only insisted on the desirableness of constructing those harbours to which the Commissioners had alluded, but he had found fault with them because they had not also recommended the construction of harbours of refuge in Dartmouth and other places. The gallant Commodore had told them that they ought to construct harbours in the eastern coast for the protection of their coal trade; and he had also stated that there was no port in our western coast but the port of Liverpool, that could be considered safe from the attack of an enemy. He supposed that the gallant Officer would also include in his scheme a supplementary outlay on the coast of Ireland, although he had omitted to make any reference to that part of the question. But the gallant Commodore would evidently include, in his proposal, the whole of the English coast and the coast of Ireland. He could, however, go beyond the gallant Officer, and include the Channel Islands in his outlay. But if they were prepared to incur, during a time of peace like the present, an expense such as they had never incurred in time of war, there would be no limit to the amount of their Estimates. He did not, however, say, that it would be prudent on the part of this country to trust to present appearances, or to the pacific declarations of other nations; but he thought, on the contrary, that it was the true policy of this country to take every reasonable precaution against any contingencies that might arise. They ought, no doubt, to calculate upon the possibility of war, and feel that that great calamity might yet come upon them; and, therefore, although he protested against the doctrine of the gallant Officer respecting the outlay we ought to incur upon our coast, he did not say that we ought to neglect those reasonable precautions which would prevent us from being taken unawares and unprovided in the event of a war breaking out. What was the course which the Government had taken? Why, they had already proposed an increase in our Navy Estimates; and they had also selected officers who were to consider the questions of improving our harbours and adding to our naval defences. He knew that it would not be wise on his part to enter into detailed explanations upon that subject; but still the gallant Commodore had precluded the possibility of his observing an entire silence with respect to it. The increase in the Estimates this year had no reference to the construction of harbours of refuge in the Channel. With respect to the defences of our ports and arsenals, he could readily believe, that with that pressure in our finances which had existed during several years previous to the accession of the present Government to office, it was impossible that those ports and arsenals could have been improved or strengthened in the manner that would have been prudent under other circumstances. Her Majesty's Government had appointed Commissioners, and had received from them the fullest Reports respecting the defence of our harbours; but it was impossible for him to enter into details upon that subject. The gallant Commodore might come down to the House with his plan, and might state that in a particular fort there were but twenty-three guns; but he would not follow the example of the gallant Officer, and attempt to show what were the defences of Pembroke for instance, although he might differ from the gallant Officer upon that point. But they had received the Report of the Commissioners, and they had proposed a considerable increase in the Ordnance Estimates this year. The gallant Commodore was most anxious to avert the danger to which he considered that this country was exposed; and even the chance of London being deprived of its usual supply of coals had made a great impression on his mind. Now, he knew that the motives which had induced the gallant Commodore to make his statement were good; but he could not help thinking that his apprehensions were exaggerated; and he should also say, that he doubted the policy and the prudence of his mode of proceeding. With respect to harbours of refuge, he could assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, that the subject had not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government. But if there were any one thing in respect to which the utmost precautions were unusually necessary, it was the spending of 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l. of money in erecting harbours of refuge. He had himself lived to see a harbour of refuge constructed at an expense of hundreds of thousands of pounds, which harbour had become almost utterly valueless, because sufficient precaution had not been taken to ascertain the nature of its sedimentary deposits. The Commissioners had estimated the cost of the construction of a harbour at Dover at 2,500,000l. That was no doubt a general estimate; but it was the best which the Commissioners could form upon the imperfect data before them. The cost of stone would be a most important item in any such estimate; and let it be remembered that there was no stone at Dover for the construction of a harbour, and that the best authorities were of opinion that the chalk cliffs of Dover would supply no fitting material for such a work. The Government had engaged the most eminent engineers in this country to report to them upon that question. They had selected five or six distinguished engineers to whom they had referred several points upon which the Report of the Admiralty Commissioners had not been quite satisfactory; those Commissioners having themselves suggested that before any Resolution were come to respecting the construction of a harbour of refuge at Dover, it was desirable that experiments should be made with regard to the amount of the sedimentary deposits there. The engineers appointed for the purpose were now considering that subject. The construction of such a work might involve an outlay, not of hundreds of thousands, but of millions; and before that work was undertaken, it was manifestly desirable that they should have the most reasonable grounds for believing that it would attain its purpose. The Commissioners thought, for obvious reasons, that harbours of refuge in the Channel were entitled in an eminent degree to the first consideration. He would content himself upon that occasion with giving his assurance that the whole subject had received, and was still receiving, the fullest consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He could not, however, deem it consistent with his duty to propose to the House of Commons an enormous outlay without being able to show that every precaution had been taken; first, to insure the selection of the best place; and next, that every guarantee had been afforded that a work of that kind would, if undertaken, be so constructed as to afford the greatest possible amount of advantage to the public.

said, whatever might be thought of the statements of the right hon. Baronet, there was one statement which he thought all would agree in. The right hon. Baronet stated that he charged his gallant Friend the Clerk of the Ordnance to take especial care not to answer the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend near him. That injunction had been implicitly obeyed—and undoubtedly in that respect the right hon. Baronet had shown his power as the chief of the Government over his subordinates. But he thought the right hon. Baronet might have spared some of the reproaches which he cast upon his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir C. Napier), of having been wanting in prudence in exposing to the public and to foreign nations what he considered to be the weak points of our coast defences. But, in the language of the profession to which his hon. and gallant Friend belonged, the right hon. Baronet might "tell that to the marines, for sailors would not believe it." That might do very well for an audience less enlightened than the House of Commons; but he (Lord Palmerston) really was surprised that a Minister of the Crown should gravely endeavour to persuade the House of Commons that anything his hon. and gallant Friend had said, or anything that any other man had said, with regard to the nature and character of the defences of this country—the number of guns mounted, the number of ships, their position, or their qualities—could convey any information to the Government of any foreign nation. He was really surprised that the right hon. Baronet should have hazarded an assertion which he (Lord Palmerston) was persuaded was so inconsistent with the knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman himself possessed. Did the right hon. Baronet mean to tell him, who knew what office was, that he had it not in his power to give to the House of Commons information much more accurate in detail with regard to the defences of other countries? If he had not that information, the right hon. Gentleman had not performed the duty belonging to his situation. He (Lord Palmerston) knew well that every Government had the means, even in countries in which information was not accessible to the public, as it were here, of obtaining information of that importance; and in this country any foreign officer might walk from one end of the land to the other, and if he or his Government applied for permission for him to see the dockyard, that permission was never refused. He said, then, that it was carrying the farce of debate too far, when his hon. and gallant Friend was charged with stating anything that was not known better to the Government of France than to any man in England who did not turn his attention to the subject. The facts might not be known to the House of Commons and the public; but they were just as well known in detail to the Government of every country to which it was important to know them, as they were to the officers in Downing Street or at the Admiralty. The observations of his hon. and gallant Friend required no answer. He did not in any way seek to inculpate Her Majesty's Government; and if he was not misinformed, his hon. and gallant Friend had been in communication with the right hon. Baronet on this point, and had stated to him everything that he had stated in the House to-day. [Sir R. Peel: And a very proper course to take.] And a very proper course to take! But knowing that it was his hon. and gallant Friend's intention to bring these matters on for discussion in this House, if he thought that danger would arise from the discussion of these matters, it was open to the right hon. Gentleman to state to his hon. and gallant Friend that they should be considered, but that it was not deemed to be conducive to the public interest to bring them forward. The argument of the right hon. Baronet was not worthy of him, nor was it worthy of the consideration of this House. The subject which his hon. and gallant Friend had brought under the notice of the House was of the greatest importance; and in what he was going to say in reference to it, he begged to state as to himself that which he had stated with regard to his hon. and gallant Friend, that it was not in inculpation of the Government, but really in the performance of a great and important duty, that he drew the attention of the House, and through it desired to stimulate the attention of the Government, to matters which were of the most vital importance to the dearest interests of the country. It might be said, "You are not only exposing the weak points of the country, but creating discussions of an irritating nature, tending to render peace less secure and permanent." He denied entirely that assumption, and said that if anything were calculated to render permanent and secure our friendly relations with great neighbouring Powers, it was the placing ourselves in a position of security against any sudden or unforeseen attack. There was no complete security for friendly relations between different countries, except in a state of mutual defence. If two great countries were near each other, and one was powerful and armed, and the other rich and undefended, it was quite manifest that, with the best disposition on the part of those who might govern those countries, their permanent relations were placed in great danger. He knew that with respect to France it might be said there was a personal feeling of mntual regard existing between the Royal families of the two countries: that there was also a spirit of friendship subsisting between the persons who composed the Ministries of the two countries, which ought to remove from every man's mind any apprehension that the happy state of peace which now subsisted might, at any time, without some extraordinary event, be interrupted. He by no means undervalued this circumstance. He thought it was a most fortunate circumstance, when these Royal and Imperial persons who sat upon the thrones of great countries were enabled, by the interchange of mutual visits, to add the ties of personal friendship and esteem to those political interests which might cement the union and alliance between their respective countries. He thought that these matters were of the greatest importance, and it was with infinite pleasure that every man must have seen of late the frequent recurrence of such personal communications. But those ties were not permanently to be depended upon. The right hon. Baronet himself had only a short time ago stated that little clouds might suddenly arise in a very clear and unclouded sky, and events totally unforeseen and beyond the power of human wisdom, perhaps, to prevent, might suddenly occur to bring two nations, mutually inclined to friendly intercourse, into a position in which honour on one side, and interest on the other, might render it hardly possible to avoid a rupture or a war. And if we arrived at that situation the one country being armed up to the teeth, being prepared with all the means of aggression—means not calculated with any hostile intention perhaps, but simply with a general view to systematic policy — if a case of that sort were to occur, and the one country was fully prepared for aggression, and the other wholly unprepared for events, the result must be either some very dreadful disaster or some deep humiliation to be sustained by the country so undefended. Then as to the question of expense, which the right hon. Baronet, with a sort of debating dexterity, endeavoured to turn into a weapon against his hon. and gallant Friend, he (Lord Palmerston) said, as was said by Mr. Pitt, in that discussion to which his hon. and gallant Friend alluded, that a very large expenditure laid out in defending those points which were especially vulnerable, and which contained the most important interests, was most economically expended, and saved us in the end infinitely larger sums than might be so laid out. He said, therefore, with regard to the assertion that these discussions were calculated to interrupt friendly relations, or tended to convey any information to the enemy that might be—look at the discussions in the French Chambers when they had been discussing the fortifications of Paris, and the arming of those fortifications. Had they been restrained from impressing on their Government the measures which they thought to be essential, and, as he thought, they very wisely deemed to be essential, to their national interests? Were they ever deterred from pressing on their Government the expediency of fortifying the capital and arming the capital, by any apprehension that they were conveying information to Austria, Prussia, or Russia, which might be instrumental in bringing upon their country the infliction of great evil in the event of war? Then, the question was—was there anything going on on the other side of the Channel which tended to place the two countries in a position of inequality? He perfectly agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that—especially what had been doing in regard to the ports in the Channel, and the budget which they had seen within the last few days, which he presumed was to be the permanent peace establishment of France — recent changes in France did place the offensive and defensive means of that country on a footing so entirely disproportioned to those of this country, that he did not think the continuance of that disproportion was consistent with the permanent security of peaceful relations between the two countries. With regard to their military means, there was an army voted of 340,000 men, with horse in proportion. He presumed that to be the permanent peace establishment of France, whilst our whole army was 100,000 men for our home defence and the defence of our colonial possessions, excepting the territories of the East India Company. Of this force of 100,000 men, we had in round numbers about 50,000 men stationed at home, to set against this force of 340,000 men, of which 60,000 served in Africa, leaving 280,000 for France alone. Then he might be told that it never had been, and he maintained that it never ought to be the policy of this country to rival the military countries of the Continent, by greatly extending our army. He hoped we should never be reduced to that necessity. But why was it that we had not been so reduced? If we had been connected with the Continent by land, we should have been obliged to follow the example of the other Powers of Europe, who bad been compelled at different periods, from the time of Louis XIV. downwards, to increase their military force, in order to place themselves upon an equal footing with France. And if at this moment we were not separated from France by the sea, he would put it to any man of common understanding whether he would think the security of this country adequately provided for by a force of 50,000 men? We should, undoubtedly, follow the example of Austria and Prussia, and have a large military organization, such as would enable us at no long interval of time to bring into the field a force capable of protecting us against any inroad from an enemy. But had nothing happened of late to alter the value of our insular position? Why, the extended application of steam navigation, and the multiplication of railways, did practically bring the opposite shores of the Continent almost within contact with this country. He remembered when he had the honour of being at the Foreign Office, that the Prince de Talleyrand, talking to him of some animating debates which had taken place in the French Chambers upon foreign affairs, and contrasting them with the comparative indifference exhibited by that House on the subject said, "You have a much easier task to perform in your House than our Minister for Foreign Affairs has in his, and I will tell you the reason." And what did he say? "You have no frontiers—that is to say, your naval defences are so secure from foreign attack, that you do not feel that interest in foreign affairs which they deserve." But he (Lord Palmerston) said that the extension of steam navigation, and the facility which railways on the Continent would give to the rapid concentration of troops, did, to a certain degree, give us those frontiers, the absence of which Prince Talleyrand thought was the ground of our indifference to foreign affairs, and did call upon Parliament to pay greater attention to those means which might serve to protect that frontier. The gallant Officer opposite said, "You need not be under any apprehension, because no danger can arise to this country from any foreign invasion, until the power that makes it shall obtain supremacy at sea." Really, he thought that must be a speech prepared before the hon. and gallant Officer came down to the House, because, after what had been stated by his hon. and gallant Friend of the numerous instances in which large fleets had escaped, equally large fleets of ours performed long voyages and returned without the possibility of interruption, it was perfectly manifest that with the present means of transporting troops by sea, it was not necessary to have that supremacy. Why, Lord Howe, when some one asked him why he had not intercepted the French fleets said, "Perhaps you may not be aware of it, but the sea is a very wide place;" and it was manifest that if our fleet were drawn out to foreign service, or in pursuit of the fleet of a Power with which we were at war, a large body of troops might be landed by means of steam vessels, without our fleet falling in with them. But the case on which his hon. and gallant Friend more particularly dwelt, and wished to press on the attention of the House was, not the case of operations carried on during the progress of war, or at any time after war had been declared, because, no doubt, if we had increased our army and drawn out our milita, and had equipped that amount of fleet which of course we should do after a certain time, he quite admitted that we might trust to other means of defence, those points which his hon. and gallant Friend thought to be in danger. But when the right hon. Baronet talked of his hon. and gallant Friend giving information to the enemy as to the mode in which certain ports might be attacked, he should wish the right hon. Baronet just to make some inquiry as to the opinion which was expressed, not by his hon. and gallant Friend, but by the French Admiral who brought the King of the French to Portsmouth last year. He should wish the right hon. Baronet to state what was the opinion of that officer with regard to the practicability of forcing his way into Portmouth harbour after he had lain there only a few days, and what was the astonishment he expressed when he found that we had placed the defence of that harbour in no better position, at the time, too, when we were involved in the affair of Tahiti. He was informed that that had been impressed on the attention of Government—that they were told that no guns were mounted—and that if a dash were made with a number of steamers, there was nothing to prevent an enemy's entrance to Portsmouth harbour. He was informed the answer was "Oh, we don't like to put ourselves in a position of defence, because that might complicate the negociations." But he contended, that that was a great weakness on the part of Government, and that if they were negotiating with a foreign country on a matter which might threaten war, it was so far from embarrassing the negotiation, that it would strengthen it, to place ourselves in a position to repel any sudden and unforeseen attack. Then when they considered the strength and capacity of all the French harbours on the opposite side of the Channel, Brest, Cherbourg, St. Malo, Calais that was to be, and Dunkirk that was to be, he thought it the duty of Government, considering the facility which steam vessels now afforded for the sudden transport of large bodies of troops to any given point, not only to go on as they were doing, and increase the steam force of the country, but to place those vulnerable points, namely, the dockyards, in a state of security against a sudden attack. He did not pretend to say that they were to be fortified, like Magdeburg, to stand a long siege, because that was not the danger to which they were exposed. All that was wanted was, that there should be the means of repelling any sudden attack arising either immediately on a sudden declaration of war, or perhaps, as was the case with the expedition sent to Ireland on the failure of Lord Malmesbury's negotiations, even before any official manifestation had been made that hostilities would take place; and that was the answer to the little attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to cast ridicule upon the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend, that it would be difficult to frame an estimate that would satisfy his hon. and gallant Friend's expectations. No man in his senses would pretend to fortify every point of the coast, or imagine that by so doing he could prevent, even in time of war, the landing of an enemy. But there were some points—take our dockyards—where, in the course of a very few hours, injury might be done, which, in money, reputation, national feeling, and means of future defence, would be absolutely irreparable. It might be said that the force which was sent to do that injury might never return, and that every man would perish; but he gave credit to the courage, bravery, and national spirit of other countries; and even if it were known that every Frenchman who was engaged in burning Portsmouth and Plymouth, would perish, he believed that the French Government would not be at a loss in obtaining volunteers for the service. It was thought nonsense to say that the thing was impossible. He then came to the question of the necessity of having harbours on the coast, not merely to protect our commerce from the boisterous warfare of the elements, but also to protect it in war from the cruisers of the enemy, and to form points of assembling for those steamers which are to protect the coast. The hon. Baronet said, truly, that this matter required great and grave consideration; and he mentioned the harbour of Dover, and said, he was unwilling to embark in a very large expenditure without being sure that the place to be chosen was good in a military, naval, and commercial point of view. There was a doubt expressed in the Report of the Commissioners whether Dover was a position which would permanently repay the required expenditure; and Dover was the place for which the largest estimate was allowed, and therefore it was necessary that the Government, before incurring that expenditure, should have an opportunity of fully considering the question. But on the other point, the Estimates of which were small in amount, no difference of opinion prevailed among the Commissioners; and he had not heard of any difference of opinion on the part of any of the Commissioners with regard to those proposed harbours. Then, he asked, why should not the Government begin as soon as possible to undertake some of those works, with regard to the advantage of which no doubt was entertained, and the amount of which was not such as to exceed the financial power of the country; for it must be remembered that works of this sort were not built in a day; that they could not get on with sea-work faster than at a certain rate, and that, therefore, the yearly expenditure would be comparatively small? Then, had we the means? He was sure that we had. Suppose the Government had determined to lay out 300,000l. a year for five or six years to come upon those harbours? If they had only devoted the sum remitted by the repeal of the auction duties for instance. When the right hon. Baronet proposed the repeal of those duties, he rather played with the House. He said, "Now, I come to a tax which I am going to repeal, and of which no human being has ever thought; for the repeal of which nobody ever asked;" and after leaving the House to guess what it might be, he at length told them that it was the auction duties. It struck him at the time that the right hon. Baronet was passing rather a severe censure and sarcasm on his own measure; because when important national objects like those under discussion at the present moment demanded an expenditure of public money, that the Government should set about to search for a tax for the repeal of which nobody asked, and of the continuance of which no one complained, appeared to him to argue a neglect on their part of the duty which they owed to their country. If, therefore, they had only taken the amount wasted in the repeal of the auction duties, and had applied it to the construction of harbours of refuge, they would have conferred a far greater pecuniary advantage on the country. He hoped, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, that before the close of the present Session a proposal on that point would be submitted to the House; for it would be unfortunate, indeed, if a delay of another year were suffered to intervene on a matter which required time for its accomplishment. Work as hard as they might, several years must elapse before they could, by possibility, finish such works in a manner to make them efficient for their object. He entreated the Government not to allow this matter to drop; and in paying attention to our arsenals, he hoped the harbours of refuge would not be neglected. The fortifications of Paris, a work of immense magnitude, which cost fourteen millions sterling and upwards, were accomplished in the course of three or four years. France never grudged any amount of money which might be necessary for her national independence and her national safety. In his opinion this did France the highest honour. And yet the French were comparatively not so wealthy a people as ourselves: they had not the same means perhaps of furnishing taxes; but they never grudged their money, when the national honour and independence were concerned for the increase of their navy, the fortification of their capital, or the defence of their frontiers. In such a case France was ever ready to grant any sum required—feeling assured that money so laid out would repay itself with interest by saving their country the infinitely larger expense which must be incurred in the case of imminent danger, by preventing that danger from happening. He did not make these observations in a tone of censure upon the Government. If any blame had been incurred because our dockyards were not in a state of perfect defence, it belonged to the former Government as well as to the present, with this difference only, that the great developments which steam navigation had received in the course of the last three or four years rendered protection still more necessary than at any former period. It was not, therefore, for the purpose of imputing blame to the Government that he had made these observations, but in order to draw their attention to matters of such high importance; and, he would add, of daily increasing importance, looking at the great state of military and naval preparation going forward in another country; and also of greater importance after the experience which they had had of late years, that the best intentions on the part of two Governments might be frustrated by rash and impetuous men in distant parts of the globe. He trusted the Government would take in good part the observations which he had made; and if, as he entertained no doubt, they were disposed to bring forward plans of this sort, it might afford them some facility to know that Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House were disposed to sanction cordially any expenditure of the public money which might be necessary for the interest and safety of the Empire.

thought the hon. and gallant Member (Sir C. Napier) had made out a case, however imprudent it might be to lay bare our weak points. A due proportion ought to be kept up between our Navy and defences, and the available power of France. He rejoiced that the question of harbours of refuge was to be taken up by the Government, and expense ought not to stand in the way.

impressed on the Government the necessity of losing no time as to this question. He hoped the Session would not be suffered to expire without a vote being taken for commencing these works at Dover, or at one of the places named.

felt bound to say, that the amount of troops we had to defend the country in case of war was not adequate. When it was considered what enormous military power was given to France by the fortifications at Paris, and that that country could, at a short notice, have 80,000 men at Boulogne, it behoved the Government to see that our constitutional force of the militia was not suffered to relapse into complete desuetude.

moved for a return of the names of the persons receiving the allowance granted to Protestant Dissenting Ministers in England, with the names of the trustees administering the same. When he had presented, on the late Maynooth discussion, so many petitions from the Dissenters, disclaiming a State allowance, he felt it would be inconsistent not to discard a grant of this kind. He called on the Government to withdraw it, or to give the names of those who received it. The Dissenters felt it a reflection that they should be supposed to receive Government support in this way, just, as he dared say, the Government would be disposed to disavow the truth of a rumour which he heard generally circulated, that a Member of the Cabinet, though drawing a large income from the State paid no Income Tax. [Cries of "Name, name," from, the Ministerial bench.] He was glad this was felt as a home thrust; and he should say at once the individual he referred to was the Lord Chancellor. He hoped, as the Government felt this imputation so strongly, that they would not refuse his Return.

opposed the Motion. The hon. Member had made a similar Motion before, and the House had refused, except in a modified form. In that form he had no objection to grant it them. The facts of the case were these: — A small grant of 1,700l. a year had been given to the Dissenting body since the time of George I., and it was distributed in sums of 5l. and upwards among the ministers, under the sanction of trustees, of whom three were Presbyterian, three Independent, and three Baptist. The treasurer, Dr. Reed, had written to him in reference to the Motion of the hon. Member then before the House, and stated that there were grave objections to communicating the names of the recipients of that bounty, because they were mostly men of academical education, who had their small stipends eked out with that allowance: and who were struggling to keep up a position in society which they could not do, if such communication was made public. He had, however, no objection to a Return similar to one obtained by the hon. Member for Montrose in relation to the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland: and it would, without disclosing the names of the parties receiving the money, give all the substantial information required.

considered that the House had a right to know the names of those persons who received the public money; and he was of opinion that those who had an objection to the publication of their names should not accept it. He suggested a classification of the sums paid, and the numbers of those who belonged to the several classes. According to his view of the case, no sect which professed to maintain its own clergy should receive anything from the public.

said, he hoped the Government would give them some information on the subject.

said, he should object to giving returns of this kind, referring to a class of persons in a respectable station of society, and yet having small means.

said, that the public ought to be satisfied that responsible trustees were appointed, and that those trustees were proper parties; and no Motion made to the effect of appointing others, unless every guarantee that the money was properly bestowed, was given to the public.

said, he should protest on public grounds to any persons receiving public money whose names were concealed; and more especially that those who were in favour of the voluntary principle should receive State pay.

said, that the present discussion would not have arisen were it not for the late debate on the grant to Maynooth. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hindley) now wanted to make amends for his former supineness on the voluntary principle. Those persons were not the only Dissenters who received State pay. He recollected that in 1836 his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale had supported the Vote for the Presbyterians, and so did the hon. Member for Finsbury, who was not now in his place.

said, he had no recollection of the statement made by his hon. Friend. In 1837, he distinctly recollected that he voted against the grant.

proceeded, in accordance with his Motion, to call the attention of the House to the changes proposed to be made in the clothing and remount fund of the two regiments of Life Guards, by a warrant dated March 14, 1845, signed by the Secretary at War, which, he contended, was a great injustice to the soldiers, and, in fact, a breach of agreement. The debt of the Royal Horse Guards was of considerable amount; and the officers were compelled to pay for the band, over which they had no control. The proposed change was a mere petty, paltry, and dirty economy against one of the finest regiments in the world. The Report of the Board of General Officers was decidedly opposed to any such reduction in either of the regiments of Life Guards, as it could not be made without impairing their efficiency. The hon. and gallant Member said, that there was no mode of obstruction which the House afforded, which he would not avail himself of to prevent the passing of any army votes, so long as this warrant should remain in force.

said, that the Board of General Officers went into a full inquiry into the case of the Horse Guards, and they made a very voluminous report. It certainly did appear that there was a considerable sum in arrear owing from the Horse Guards. With respect to the alterations mentioned by the hon. and gallant Officer, in regard to the clothing of the regiment, that was a subject which he would not go into, because a great difference of opinion existed upon it. He was perfectly satisfied that the arrangement made was one quite compatible with the comfort and efficiency of the troops. He sincerely believed that no unnecessary expense would be incurred for these troops; and that the public property was expended with a due regard both to the efficiency of the troops and to public economy. The Horse Guards had incurred considerable expense with a view to put themselves upon a footing with the Life Guards. He was quite willing to believe that the hon. and gallant Officer was actuated by public motives in bringing forward this question; but he was contented to rest his judgment on the opinion of those military officers who had paid proper attention to the subject. The change had been made under the highest military authorities; and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Officer would not carry into execution his threat.

I wish to correct a statement of the gallant Officer the Clerk of the Ordnance. He must have misunderstood me; for I am sure he did not intend to misrepresent me. He stated that I ridiculed the fortification of Portsmouth, and that I said there were only sixteen guns to defend the harbour. I stated that the sea defences were not good; that only thirteen guns enfiladed the harbour, and those of the ramparts were all exposed, and could not prevent a fleet running into the harbour. As to what the right hon. Baronet stated, I was so well defended by the noble Lord, that it was unnecessary for me to repel the attempt, the unworthy attempt of the right hon. Baronet to throw odium upon me for stating our want of defence; and I should tell him, if next year Pembroke, Falmouth, Sheerness, and the Channel Islands, were in the same state, I should bring it before Parliament. House went into a Committee of Supply, and 390,000l. were voted for the Ordnance Department.