rose to move—

"That the Cambridge and Lincoln Railway Bill be re-committed to the same Committee (Group X.); and that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to take into consideration whether the Section deposited in the Private Bill Office may not be amended, without injury to public or to private interests; and that it be a further Instruction to the said Committee, that they have power to amend the said Section, if, on inquiry, they shall deem fit so to do."

In bringing forward this Motion, he did not mean to impugn, either directly or indirectly, the decision to which the Committee had come; nor did he ask the House to impugn that decision, or to withdraw its support, without which it would be impossible for Committees to perform their functions. He would confine himself to simply stating the facts of the case. No doubt, he should be told that there was no precedent for the application he was making; but in reply to that he would observe that the circumstances of the case were likewise unprecedented. The petition for the Bill had been presented in February, and had been referred to the Sub-Committee of Standing Orders, and it had not been opposed. The parties who promoted the Bill informed the Standing Orders Committee of every point, as far as they knew, in which the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The Sub-Committee reported, that the Orders had not been complied with. The petition was then referred to the Standing Orders Committee. It was then also unopposed; and the promoters of the Bill brought forward before the Committee all the errors of which they were aware. The Standing Orders Committee permitted the promoters of the Bill to alter two lines; and reported to the House, that they ought to be allowed to proceed. The Bill was then referred to the Committee on Group X. It was ascertained in that Committee that an error had been introduced into the Bill as to the construction of one of the sections of the line, as compared with the datum line. He would not enter into discussion as to the character of that error—as to whether or not it affected the real merits of the line—nor would he ask the House to interfere with the functions of the Committee. He would not ask the House to express the slightest opinion as to the merits of the case. All he asked them was, to give to the Committee on the Bill the power to inquire into these circumstances. When the error was discovered in the Committee, the Committee considered that the best course to pursue was, to decide that the preamble do not pass, and to report the matter to the House, accompanied with the reasons upon which the decision was founded; so as to give an opportunity of bringing the subject before the House at the earliest possible time. The hardship of this case was, that the adverse decision of the Committee did not arise from any demerits in the measure itself, but from the fact of a clerical error—an error that had escaped the notice of the original promoters of the Bill, and also the Standing Orders Committee, and which was not detected until the Bill was brought under the consideration of the present Committee of Inquiry. The Committee, though they did not consider the error as fatal to the merits of the measure, were nevertheless bound to take notice of it, and report in the manner they had reported. This was a case of special and peculiar character, and called for the interference of the House. He did not ask the House, in dealing with the case, to reverse the decision of the Committee, but to grant it further powers of inquiry. As regarded the power he proposed to vest in the Committee, he did not believe it would be exercised prejudicially, either towards the parties interested in the measure, or the public. The powers he proposed they should exercise were those which had been exercised on several occasions by the Standing Orders Committee. He could state a few cases, in which that Committee had allowed the sections and the datum line to be corrected. There was a case during last Session in which an error similar to the one in the present Bill was allowed to be corrected in a branch of the Sheffield and Huddersfield Railway. In the present year, there had been eight cases in which corrections had been made. Of these, he might instance the Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole, the Cornwall, the North Wales, and the Brighton and Chichester Railway Bills. He saw no reason why a power which had been exercised in these several instances might not with perfect safety be extended to the present Committee. The merits of the competing lines was not the question at present; but it was, whether it would not be judicious and proper to extend, in this special and important case, those powers of reconsideration which had been exercised by the Committee on Standing Orders? Were this done, he was sure the power would not be abused.

, as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill had been referred, wished to make a few remarks before the discussion proceeded further. He did not wish to express any opinion as to the propriety of granting the application; but he would just state, on behalf of the Committee, that in the main the statement made by the hon. Member for Cambridge was perfectly correct. It certainly was correct, as stated in the petition, that it having appeared, on the examination of the principal engineer, that this error existed, and the Committee being further convinced, that as far as the evidence enabled them to form a judgment, it was a clerical error—feeling the importance of the investigation which was committed to them, and the desirableness of giving the promoters of the Bill an opportunity of setting themselves right before the Committee, if they could do so—they thought it fair to all parties to ask leave to present the Report at as early a period as possible, in order that the promoters of the Bill might as soon as possible amend their position. The error, so far as the evidence enabled him to speak, was one which did not materially or prejudicially affect any one landowner on the line, or any public or private interests; but it was an error on which they felt bound to decide in the manner they had done, according to the clauses in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. They came to a decision after the most careful deliberation; but they did not proceed upon any impression that the existence of the error was prejudicial to the landowners; because the evidence would have led them to the opposite conclusion. It was with considerable regret that the Committee felt bound, under the circumstances, to place one of the competing lines in a position less favourable than the other; for the Committee would have had more satisfaction in deciding on the merits of the Bill, if they had been placed in an equal position.

considered the error to be one of great importance; because the datum line was a substantial part of the measure; and the House had directed certain notices to be given, and certain sections to be deposited, and that the datum line should be so marked out that all the world might be able to judge of its correctness. How, otherwise, could individuals ascertain whether their property was likely to be affected or not? He trusted the House would maintain the Standing Order; and not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge. The hon. Member had referred to various instances where parties had been allowed to make corrections; but the Standing Orders Committee considered the datum line of such importance, that he knew of no case in which they had dispensed with it. He trusted the House would adhere to the Standing Order, and repel the Motion of the hon. Member.

said, his constituents were so greatly interested in this measure, that he felt it necessary to make a few remarks, although he seldom interfered in the private business of the House. He thought that a sufficient case had been made out for the adoption of the Motion of his hon. Friend. The parties whose properties were affected could not have been misled by the error which had occurred. The hardship in this case was, that the objection was not taken before the Standing Orders Committee. If the objection had been taken then, the House would undoubtedly have permitted the parties to correct the error. If the Bill should be thrown out, in consequence of the parties not having had the opportunity of bringing the matter before the Standing Orders Committee, great injustice would be done to them, and a most inconvenient precedent would be set; for parties who were aware of the existence of objections might refrain from taking them, for the purpose of profiting by them at a future opportunity.

said, the Standing Orders expressly directed, that the datum line should be taken and adhered to with regard to all the plans and sections; and by the Act which had been passed during the present Session, it was enacted that no deviation of more than five feet above that datum line, should be made without the special consent of every individual affected by it. Now, what was the proposition before the House? That because the parties, by their own negligence, had omitted to give the information which every party was bound to give, they should have the means of rectifying the mistake, and putting themselves in a better position than those who had complied with the rules of the House. If any motion had been made, it ought to have been, that the matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, whose province it was to consider the equitable construction of the Standing Orders. The Chairman of that Committee had stated that he did not remember an instance in which such an objection had not been considered fatal. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the House would adhere to the Standing Orders, and reject the Motion of his hon. Friend.

was afraid, according to the regular rules of the House, that the matter could not be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. He thought it would be more advisable to refer the case to the Committee on Standing Orders. That Committee would make a Report, and the House could then come to a decision upon the Motion. If the forms of the House would permit it, he would move an Amendment to that effect.

I am not aware whether the hon. Gentleman intends to enforce his suggestion by way of Amendment or not; but before I put the question to the House, I ought to state that I do not see how it is possible that such an Amendment can be put consistently with the Standing Order. The Standing Order requires that the House shall not receive any petition relating to the Standing Orders after the second reading of the Bill. Now, this petition has been presented after the second reading, and it does relate to the Standing Orders. For the parties have certainly been guilty, though unintentionally so, of not complying with the Standing Orders; still it is quite clear that they had not complied with those Orders. Therefore, if this petition should be received as one relating to the Standing Orders, it would be decidedly against the rule of the House. I do not think that, consistently with those Orders, it would be competent for me to put the question which the hon. Member has suggested.

wished to ask a question of the Under Secretary for the Colonies with reference to a report which he had read, as to certain proceedings on the part of the British authorities in Ceylon, which if true were a violation of the resolutions which had been come to on the part of Her Majesty's Government and the East India Company for the suppression of idolatrous worship in India and Ceylon. It was reported that homage had been paid by the English authorities to some object of idolatrous worship in Ceylon. He wished to ask whether there was any truth in that report?

said, that the statement to which his hon. Friend had alluded was to the effect that the Government Agent in one of the provinces of Ceylon had been a party to the exhibition of the tooth of Buddha, which the House would understand was a relic of great sanctity in Ceylon. At the time we took the island, it was believed by the natives that whoever held the tooth could also hold the government, and, accordingly, means were taken to secure it from other parties. Nothing, however, was done from veneration; there was merely a sentry placed over it, and it was not allowed to be exhibited except in the presence of a public officer. Subsequently the Agent having had a representation made to him that placing a sentry over the tooth had an appearance of veneration, the practice was discontinued, the relic was given up to the native priests, and all ceremonies were prohibited.

was understood to say (but he was very imperfectly heard), that the answer of his hon. Friend was perfectly satisfactory.

asked a question of the hon. Gentleman respecting the issuing of a certain ordinance by Mr. Davis, the Governor of Hong Kong, against certain societies existing in that Colony, called Triad, and other secret societies, the members composing which were the native Chinese. By the ordinance it was decreed that any person convicted of being a member of these societies should be deemed guilty of felony, and be liable to be imprisoned for two years, and to be branded on the cheek in the manner of military deserters. In one of the adjoining provinces in China, there was an edict decreeing that if any of the vagabond members of those societies created a disturbance and were slain by the people, no inquiry would be made as to their deaths, should that take place. He wished to know whether the ordinances of Governor Davis had received the sanction of the Government.

said, that the ordinance to which the hon. Gentleman had referred had been passed by the Governor in Council in Hong Kong, for the purpose of putting down the Triad societies existing there. It appeared that these societies were a combination of Chinese, acting under the direct dictation of one individual, whom they were bound by oaths implicitly to obey; and they were known and dreaded as a body of assassins, robbers, and murderers. They were, as set forth in the edict, the very terror of the people of China; so much so, that they even levied a species of black mail from members of the Government itself. An edict had, therefore, been issued by the Emperor, for the suppression of these Triad and other secret societies. With regard to the form of the ordinance put forth by the Governor of Hong Kong, it was in some respects objectionable; at the same time, it was deemed necessary to suppress these societies; therefore further instructions would be sent to the Governor, with the view to the issuing of another ordinance. The hon. Gentleman was not strictly correct in saying that it was the practice to mark these persons on the cheek as were deserters in the army. They were marked, but not so as to be visible. He might state that in consequence of there being no power in Hong Kong to punish the Chinese, who were subjects of the Emperor, this Triad society were regarded as superior to all law, and it was felt that there was no security against the conduct of persons acting under their authority.

I rise, Sir, to solicit the attention of the House while I state to it a question relating to a breach of its privileges. It will be in the recollection of the House that I addressed to it some observations in the course of the debate which took place on Friday last upon the question of going into a Committee upon the Irish Education Bill. What succeeded is also known to the House. In the afternoon of Saturday a carriage stopped at my door, and the following note was left with my servant, it being marked outside "Private and confidential;" it was dated from the Reform Club, and signed "J. P. Somers:"—

"Sir—Unfortunately, I was not in the House of Commons last night when you spoke in Committee on the Irish Colleges Bill. If I had been present, the necessity of addressing a Letter like this, which is one of inquiry, could not have arisen. But, having been absent, I am compelled to resort to the Newspaper Reports of the proceedings which took place, and of the language used; and I beg, in the first instance, to ask you, if the following words were spoken by you, or words to the same effect:—'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?' If you used those words, the insult they convey to me, as a Repealer, is plain. My second question therefore is, are you prepared to 'JUSTIFY' them? The meaning of the word I have underlined I am sure you are too well read in the old history of Chivalry to misinterpret.

"P.S. I send a copy of the Morning Chronicle herewith; the passage marked."

The hon. and learned Gentleman observed, that the word "justify" was twice underscored, and was proceeding to make some further remarks, when he was interrupted by

, who said, I rise to order. Every hon. Gentleman has an undoubted right to deliver his opinion upon any subject that may be submitted for debate in this House; but I say that he has no right to catechise or lecture any particular Member or set of Members, or utter offensive words. ["Order."]

The hon. Baronet is, most unquestionably, out of order.

continued. On receipt of that note, I immediately wrote an answer, which I delivered myself next morning, to this effect:—

"Sir—You shall receive the answer which your letter requites, in the House of Commons, on Monday next; and I now give you the following warning for your guidance at the same time. I am determined that the free expression of opinion shall not in my person be coerced or checked; and I shall, therefore, take the most stringent and effective means to punish your present menace, and put down all future violence. I hope you are sufficiently well read in the laws of your country to understand this intimation."

I have first to move, Sir, that the letter of the hon. Member for Sligo be read at the Table.

Is the hon. Member for Sligo in his place?

rose and bowed. The Clerk at the Table having read the note,

resumed: Now, Sir, I am exceedingly sorry that it falls to my lot to pursue the course which I am about to pursue. But I feel it a paramount duty, not as regards myself, but as regards this House, to move that—

"John Patrick Somers, esq., having sent a challenge to a Member of this House for words spoken by that Member in his place in Parliament, is guilty of contempt, and of a breach of the privileges of this House."

My reason for adopting this course I shall calmly and briefly state. If I regarded myself in the affair, the law would afford me instant protection; and I am quite prepared to throw myself upon the law in such cases. But in this instance it is not myself I have to consider, it is this House, and the privileges of its Members; amongst the most valuable of which is the fair and free expression of their opinions respecting public men and public policy. I claim a right to the free expression of my opinions; and I think I have a right to assume that, in expressing them on the occasion I have alluded to, I committed no breach of the rules of this House, inasmuch as I was not by you, Sir, or by any hon. Member in the House, called to order. I claim the right to say that I have little regard for the intellect of some public men; but I go further, and say that I entertain little respect for the position which they hold; and one of them comes forward and suggests to me that he should be allowed to shoot at me. Is that a proof of superiority of intellect? Does it support the opposite proposition to that which I endeavoured to establish in this House? But, if it do not, what does it do? It gives to any man having that species of physical courage which shall give him a great chance with a pistol over his antagonist, to assail any man in this House who chooses to do his duty. I think it would be far wiser to adopt the more courageous course of at once meeting a proceeding of this description in the way in which I now meet it. I put aside all other considerations at present, and they are many. I sink them, and stand upon my privilege as a Member of this House, to demand of this House that it should protect me. I throw myself upon it for protection — I use the word advisedly—and when we consider all that is going on around us, when we see the vast calamities which arise out of this barbarous custom, I say that it becomes every man who has a heart that beats with the pulse of courage to take the course which I now take. Assuming, therefore, that the hon. Member will not deny his writing, I move that he is guilty of contempt, and of a breach of the privileges of this House.

said: I rise with great satisfaction to second the Motion, and in doing so will take the liberty of tendering to the hon. Member for Bath my sincere and heartfelt thanks for having brought it forward. I offer to him not only my thanks, but I think I may say the thanks of a very large body of Gentlemen in this House; and I know that I speak the sentiments also of a very large proportion of my fellow subjects, when I say that I have viewed with disgust and horror the prevalent notion of what is miscalled honour. In this instance we are doubly indebted to the hon. and learned Member for asserting not only a social question, but a great constitutional question; for I can foresee the time when, if this system be introduced into this House, or into any other deliberative assembly, the liberty of speech will be at an end, and hon. Members will be under the necessity of appealing, as our ancestors did, not to the influence and force of reason, but to violence and the sword. I, therefore, cordially second the Motion, tendering at the same time, in my own name, and in the names also of the gentlemen of England, and of thousands of his fellow subjects, my warm thanks for his manly and courageous and consistent conduct.

then rose and said: Sir, I have no hesitation whatever in withdrawing the letter, which is looked on as an attack upon the hon. and learned Member. It was merely a letter of inquiry. The hon. and learned Member did not condescend to answer those inquiries. I do not call in question his motives for refusing, but I bow with unaffected deference to the decision of this House and of the Chair. I am not one of those who will play with the authority of the House, or attempt a dexterous accommodation of offensive terms. I take the sense of the Speaker and of the House to be paramount upon all occasions, and will not be one to run counter to them. An opposite course might lead to a great waste of time. I deeply regret that I wrote this letter, and that any matter personal to myself should have occupied the attention of the House for a single moment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied with that explanation, I trust the House will be also satisfied; for I do not think I can say anything fuller or more explicit. At the same time, I trust the House will bear with me for a moment whilst I call the hon. and learned Member's attention to observations which I am sure he must regret, and to the coarse imputations which are frequently put forth against certain Members of this House. Hon. Members must really give me the liberty of saying, that the hon. and learned Member's observations are not always in accordance with—I must be permitted to say it—truth. No; I will recall the observation, and will say, with what entitles them to public respect. I now resign myself to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Henceforth he may say anything he pleases of me, or of the party to which I belong. I have to apologize to the House for obtruding myself on its attention; and I once more declare, I regret to have been the cause of occupying its attention for one moment.

Nothing, Sir, can be more satisfactory or more ample than the manner in which, during the early part of his observations, the hon. Member for Sligo retracted his letter to the hon. Member for Bath. The casual expression in the latter part dropped from him unawares, and was not intended to qualify that retractation. But as the hon. Member has placed the course he has taken partly on what he conceives to be the general feeling of the House, I should not do justice to my own feelings, if I did not say a few words upon the subject. In common with my noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, I think the course pursued this night by the hon. and learned Member for Bath is the proper course which every Member, under such circumstances, should always pursue; and I concur in the opinion that the example now, for the second time, set by the hon. and learned Member, will be followed by any other Member who may receive a hostile message for what may have been spoken in debate. I concur also with my noble Friend in his energetic denunciation of this barbarous and unchristian practice. There is not one word used by him that I do not sanction; and I am as opposed to the practice as any man in this House can be. I must at the same time say, that my entire approval of the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman is limited to his conduct in this matter. I cannot extend my unqualified approbation to the course he took on Friday night. I feel strongly, that when called to account by a hostile challenge, it was his duty, as a Member of the House, to bring it before the House, instead of yielding to what might be the feeling out of doors; but I feel also that he ought to have guarded himself in the language he addressed to this House. Far be it from me from taking upon myself the part of censor of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. I am sure he discharges, in whatever speech he may make, and whatever language he may use, what he conceives to be his duty; but, after the feeling of the House had been shown on the general question, I should not do my duty if I did not say, that I think the terms of his statement were calculated to give offence; and the hon. and learned Gentleman must see that this is not necessary to maintain the freedom of speech in this House. I was in the House on Friday night, and I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman with that attention to which all his speeches are justly entitled for their talent and ability; and I thought at the time, that it was calculated needlessly to cause irritation; and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will concur with me, that truths may be spoken, and in plain language, and yet that they need not cause irritation beyond the moment.

I think, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath has taken a course which is consistent with true courage, and one which he can take without any imputation remaining on him; and at the same time, I think that the hon. Gentleman has made every retractation it was possible for him to make. He has unequivocally declared that he retracts the letter, he has expressed his deep regret at having written it, and he has apologized to the House; and he has done what a person who has been betrayed into an act of this kind may, with equal credit to himself, do. Under these circumstances, I trust the hon. and learned Gentleman will see he has received such reparation that he himself will withdraw the Motion. I think he has set an example which may be worthily followed; and at the same time, I think that the hon. Member who was in error has also set an example, with perfect credit to himself, by making the most ample and best reparation in his power. I trust, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his Motion.

did not rise to prolong this unpleasant discussion, on which they must all unwillingly enter; but he trusted he might be allowed to say, that they never would have arrived at this unpleasant state if the House had, as it ought to have done, interfered when the hon. Member for Bath made those observations. What was their present position? It was not the right of any Member of that House to make personal observations; and they could not make imputations without creating unpleasant feelings, and some indignation in the bosoms of those who were treated in this manner. He took it, that it was under these feelings that the hon. Member for Sligo acted in the course he had adopted. He would not express any opinion on the prudence of that course. The course of the hon. and learned Member for Bath might, on the whole, be the prudent and proper course; but he must limit his approval, as the hon. Member for Devonport had done, to the hon. and learned Member's conduct that night. The House, however, had its own character to maintain in preventing such unpleasant scenes from occurring; and they ought to stop all that would raise these feelings, either in the House or out of it. He would not go so far as to say that the Speaker ought to get up and stop such remarks; but the House ought to show by strong intimations its own feelings against such exhibitions, and so stop the occurrence of anything unpleasant.

said, that no man was a greater enemy to the practice of duelling than he was; and he was willing to make every allowance for what happened in the heat of debate. He spoke feelingly; for no one, probably, had required more allowances in this respect than he had done; but this case was entirely different. Many hon. Members might have received such a letter as that written to his hon. Friend, in such a way as to lead to the destruction of themselves and their families. The House ought not, therefore, to try his hon. Friend for his speech the other night; and so he thought the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had taken an erroneous view of the question. He was for supporting all their privileges; if there was one which was more important than any other, it was the freedom of speech in that House; and if there was any manner in which that freedom could be more seriously attacked than in any other, it was by sending a hostile message. He entirely concurred in the opinion that his hon. Friend had shown true courage; but there were many in that House who might have courage, but who might not be in the situation of his hon. Friend, and be able to come there with perfect security to vindicate not himself, but the privileges of the House. He considered, therefore, the observations of the right hon. Baronet as misapplied. What they had to consider was, whether this letter was a breach of the privileges of the House; and they ought to affirm that it was. When, afterwards, the question should come how they were to deal with the hon. Member who sent it, he would be the first to state that the hon. Member had made every reparation. If it were intended to criminate his hon. and learned Friend for the course he took the other evening, it was a wrong step; they ought not then to try his hon. Friend for imprudence, if they could so call it, in the manner in which he had on a former night expressed his opinions. Let him call their attention to the situation in which his hon. Friend was placed: he had been held up elsewhere in language which few Members would endure; and was he not to be at liberty to express his deep sense of the injury he had received, and was the right hon. Baronet to lay down the rule of how his hon. Friend was to express his opinions? If they were to have freedom of speech, every Member must express his own sense of injury in his own way; and if he were wrong, he might at once be called to order, as acting against the rules of the House. They ought not to try him for an expression of opinion, when the question was, what had been the conduct of another Member towards him. He humbly submitted that the House ought to affirm the Motion, that this was a breach of the privileges of the House; and whatever step might be taken afterwards, no one would be disposed to act more tenderly, or with more liberality, than he was.

rose to thank the hon. Member for Bath for adopting a course which showed the moral as well as the physical courage that ought to belong to Members of the House. He begged also to thank his noble Friend who seconded the Motion, for the truly noble and Christian manner in which he had reprobated the crime of duelling. He rejoiced in the general concurrence of all sides in this view of the subject; but he suggested, that if the Motion were withdrawn, some entry ought to appear upon the Journals of the House as to the reason why it had been withdrawn: that the hon. Member for Sligo had acknowledged his letter, and had expressed his regret at having written it. He hoped that he did not misunderstand the gesture of the hon. Member for Sligo; but the great body of the House collected that he had apologized to it, as well as to the hon. Member for Bath, and had expressed his regret at having written it. Less than this would not satisfy the justice of the case. Freedom of expression for opinion was of the utmost value in Parliament; it was an essential privilege; and if any objection were entertained as to what was said by a Member, it ought to be noticed at the time. In the present feeling of the House, and after what had been said by the hon. Member for Sligo, he hoped that the hon. Member for Bath would not deem it inconsistent with his duty to withdraw his Motion.

entirely concurred with the hon. Gentleman, that the Motion ought not to be withdrawn without some entry, at all events, of the ground, and without saying that the apology of the hon. Member for Sligo had been accepted as full satisfaction. But he would go further: he would say they ought first to affirm the Motion of the hon. Member for Bath, and having affirmed that, they should add that a full and ample apology having been tendered in his place by the hon. Member for Sligo, the House would not proceed further in the matter. This was the proper course; for if the Motion were withdrawn, it would appear as if they were not prepared to declare that a challenge sent by one Member of the House to another Member, for words spoken in that House, was a breach of privilege. As he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, and with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport, that they were deeply obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Bath for the course he had taken, he for one was not prepared to consent to the Motion being withdrawn.

I concur very much in the view just stated by my noble Friend. It is inexpedient for the House to allow the present occasion to pass without expressing its opinion on the principle involved in the question; but I submit that if we pass a Resolution pointing at an individual Member, it will necessarily imply blame incurred and censure deserved. It seems to be the opinion of the House that the apology of my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo is sufficient; he did not dispute his letter—that letter is a breach of privilege—and for that letter such an amends has been made as ought to exempt my hon. Friend from any future proceeding. It seems to me that the object of all parties will be attained if, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) suggested, the personal Resolution be withdrawn, and a general Resolution be substituted, affirming that a breach of privilege has been committed by reason that one hon. Member sent a hostile message to another, in consequence of something that passed in a former debate. I quite agree with those who think that the hon. Member for Bath has well deserved the thanks of the House and country for the course he has pursued: my concurrence could not be expressed in too strong terms. I almost admit that this is not merely a technical breach of privilege; but that if permitted to pass unnoticed, it would, as my noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire said, strike a fatal blow at the very constitution of the House. It is, therefore, essential to enable the House properly to discharge its duties, that such proceedings should not be repeated. But, on the other hand, it is important that the House should attend to the observations which were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport; and that every hon. Member should bear in mind, that if he is not to be personally responsible for that which he may feel it his duty to state in debate, he should take especial care that what he does say shall not be calculated to give unnecessary personal offence; and without taking upon myself the task of lecturing the right hon. and learned Member for Bath, I think he himself will feel that the observations which he made, not merely on Friday night, but which he has made on former occasions, upon Members representing Irish constituencies, can scarcely be justified. I do not say whether his censure is proper or not. I may be disposed to concur very much in the general view which he took as to those Members not being justified in absenting themselves from their places in Parliament; but I think he will admit, that the manner as well as the language in which he has alluded to those hon. Members, did overstep the bounds which are necessary to be observed when expressing, with the utmost possible constitutional latitude, any opinion which one Member may entertain of the conduct of others. And, therefore, I trust that while, on the one hand, this House does interpose effectually to prevent hostile proceedings out of doors for language and opinions expressed within this House; on the other hand, every Member will feel that it is on that account more especially his duty, with a view to maintain public respect for our position, in expressing his opinions to abstain from using language which will justify offence, or wound unnecessarily the feelings of others.

Perhaps it would assist the House in coming to a conclusion on this subject, if I were to read the entry which will be made on its Journals. The following is the entry:—

"Whereupon Mr. Somers, in his place, stated That, seeing the sense of the House was so decidedly expressed in condemnation of the course he had pursued, he had no hesitation in expressing, in the most unequivocal manner, his regret that he had written the letter, and his wish to withdraw every offensive expression conveyed therein towards the hon. Member for Bath; that he considered the authority of the House and the Speaker paramount on all occasions. He begged to express his regret, that the attention of the House should have been occupied with a matter personal to himself, but trusted that what he had now said would be satisfactory to the House and the hon. Member."

thought this was not a time to allude to former debates. He would only say that he had sat in that House a number of years with his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo, and he had never heard him make use of an unkind, harsh, or unparliamentary expression towards any one.

Sir, at the outset of these proceedings, I stated that I was bringing before the House its privileges, and not my case; and, therefore, when the House says that its privileges are satisfied and defended, far be it from me to let my personal feelings throw any impediment in the way; but I should be unworthy of my position if I admitted in any degree the charge which has been made against me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport. I had to express an opinion concerning conduct which I did then, and do now, believe to be the most mischievous that could be pursued by any Member of this House. I used language that accurately described my feelings and opinions upon that question. I did no more than I had a right to do. What I said was strictly true, and no fault was found with me at that time. If there had been, an opportunity might then have been given, which I do not now take, of satisfying this House. I do not ask any apology for myself—I want none. The privilege of the House has been vindicated, and that is all I care for.

I am unwilling to address the House; but reference has been made to me by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, in language which I declare to be unparliamentary, assigning to me the basest motives.

The hon. Member is referring to a former debate. He should have taken that exception at the time. He is, therefore, out of order.

rose amidst great confusion, and said, I will go one step further. I have been accused of using language unfit to be heard in this House. The hon. Member has just used such language towards me; and I say, he ought to be called upon to retract it.

was understood to say that, as the Speaker had stopped the hon. Member for Sligo, he ought to pursue the same course towards the hon. and learned Member for Bath.

The hon. and learned Member for Bath has repeated all the offensive expressions which he used on a former night; and I, therefore, stand in the same position before the country.

If the hon. and learned Member for Bath had made use of any improper expression on a former evening, it would have been my duty to have interfered with him. I did not hear him use any unparliamentary expression, nor did it appear to any hon. Member that he had used such an expression. I forbore to interfere on a former night, and I cannot admit that any observation which has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Bath on this occasion will bear the construction which the hon. Member for Sligo has put upon it.

said, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) had once been accused of a similar offence—[Mr. O'Connell at the moment entered the House]—and a Motion was passed, condemnatory of the language which he had used with reference to that House. He recollected that the Members on both sides of the House condemned the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Cork; and the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) told his hon. and learned Friend that he should be exceedingly cautious of the language which he used towards hon. Members, both in that House and out of it, when he sheltered himself under a certain vow. Hon. Members on the other (Ministerial) side of the House did not, however, lecture the hon. and learned Member for Bath as they had done the hon. and learned Member for Cork. He thought, however, that a similar observation would apply to the hon. and learned Member for Bath, when he came down there to shelter himself under the privileges of that House.

I cannot accuse the hon. and learned Member for Bath of using offensive language. Nothing that has fallen from him this evening has in any degree been offensive to anybody.

was sorry that the noble Lord (Lord Howick) had exercised his privilege of opposing the withdrawal of the Motion. The hon. and learned Member was prepared to withdraw it, and he thought the privileges of the House would have been sufficiently vindicated by the adoption of such a course; and he must say, that the hon. Member's readiness to do so was very creditable to him. He begged to remind the noble Lord, that last year the hon. and learned Gentleman had occasion to make a similar complaint; and he then pursued the same course. The letter which had then been written by the hon. Member for Canterbury was of a more decided character than that of the hon. Member for Sligo; but the House was contented to let it pass, without any record upon its Journals that it was a breach of privilege. There was also a case in which Mr. Hope, now the Lord Chief Justice Clerk, sent a hostile letter to another hon. Member; and, after an apology, the House came to a Resolution that they would proceed no further. The word "contempt," in the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member, was objectionable: It was a breach of privilege; and it might, therefore, be sufficient to state that it was so, without using the word "contempt," as in the case of Mr. Hope. If the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member was adopted, it would be necessary that another Resolution should state that the House would proceed no further; but it would be more satisfactory to him if the other course were adopted.

suggested moving the previous question, otherwise they would be compelled to vote "ay" or "no" upon the question of breach of privilege.

said, that after the appeal which the right hon. Baronet had made to him, he might be excused for saying that the appeal had given him the strongest reason for persevering. The right hon. Baronet said, that this was not the first time that such a Motion had been withdrawn; it might, therefore, be in consequence of former precedents that a similar transaction had taken place again. As to amending the Motion, he was sure the hon. and learned Member for Bath would not object to do so, by the omission of the word "contempt." He thought, however, that it was rather invidious to appeal to the hon. and learned Member who had made the Motion to withdraw it. Should the Amendment be acceded to, he was prepared to move—"That, in consequence of the full and ample apology offered to the House by the said John Patrick Somers, the House will not proceed any further in this matter."

said, the House had sanctioned a fallacious principle; its privileges were not so extensive as they appeared to think. He thought the House should make some allowance for the feelings of the hon. Member for Sligo, and ought to require some assurance from the hon. and learned Member for Bath that he would not in future pursue the habit which he had been so fond of indulging in.

then moved his Resolution, which was also agreed to.

Mr. Greene, I feel that I shall only be weakening the effect of that unanimous feeling of public approbation of the character and conduct, and of the public services of Sir H. Pottinger, which was expressed by the House on a preceding night, if I were now to repeat the general panegyric which was then passed on that gallant gentleman, not only by every one who spoke, but which was assented to by all who were present. There are some occasions on which the repetition of panegyric is calculated only to weaken it. Therefore I shall abstain, feeling this to be one of those occasions, from dwelling upon the merits of an officer which are universally admitted to be great, and deserving of peculiar reward. In accordance, therefore, with Her Majesty's most gracious Message, I have to move that Her Majesty be enabled to grant to Sir H. Pottinger the sum of 1,500l. per annum. I propose that this grant shall have a retrospective effect, commencing with the day on which he ceased to receive full pay as Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary in China. I propose, also, that this pension of 1,500l. per annum shall continue to exist during the life of Sir H. Pottinger, without qualification of distinction, in case he should hereafter be employed in the public service. I propose it as a mark of public acknowledgment of the past services which Sir H. Pottinger has actually rendered, and, in the event of that which I trust we shall all live to witness—the employment of Sir H. Pottinger in the public service—it shall not disentitle him to the continued receipt of this pension as the reward of his past services.

expressed his belief that a better mode of rewarding Sir Henry Pottinger might have been devised—namely, by giving him some high employment in the public service, for which he would receive an adequate emolument. By that means the double purpose of rewarding a deserving officer, and of economising the public money, would have been secured. But that was a course which the Government did not seem disposed to follow, in rewarding public officers. They were about to give 1,500l. to Sir Henry Pottinger; but what had they done for Sir W. Parker, whose ability and scientific skill had led to our successes in China? They had rewarded him with only 300l. a year; and that not for a single service, but for a long continued series of services. True, Sir Hugh Gough had been raised to the post of Commander-in-Chief; and that was the way in which Sir Henry Pottinger ought to have been rewarded. He thought this grant a bad precedent.

having been absent when the subject was before the House on the former evening, was anxious to take that opportunity of expressing his cordial concurrence in the Motion before the House. He concurred with the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the importance of the services rendered by the naval and military forces in the Chinese war; but still he very much doubted whether, without the skill and judgment exhibited by Sir Henry Pottinger, these services would have led to the speedy and important conclusion which had been put to the war. He was anxious to express his entire concurrence in what the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government had said respecting the gentleman that had been appointed to succeed Sir Henry Pottinger in China. He considered the appointment of Mr. Davis a most excellent one. From the peculiar position of this country with regard to China, it was necessary that a gentleman, not only of talents but of experience, should be placed over the new Colony in that quarter; and he regarded it as a proof of the fitness of Mr. Davis for the post to which he had been promoted, that the Colony had progressed very favourably since his arrival there, and that perfect harmony and good understanding had been maintained with the Chinese authorities. He had only to add that he considered the present Motion one which conferred great honour on Her Majesty's Government.

said, the sentiments which he had expressed on the former evening when the subject was before the House, were in perfect accordance with the opinion put forward by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Williams), that the patronage of the Crown, particularly in appointments to high offices of trust, should be employed in conferring emoluments on those whom circumstances had enabled to render important public services. Therefore the principle contended for by the hon. Gentleman was one which he fully admitted; at the same time that he thought the sense of the House fully justified the course which had been taken in the present instance. It should not be forgotten that there were peculiar circumstances attending the case of Sir Henry Pottinger. That gentleman entered the public service at a very early age—he believed at sixteen—and, with the exception of a short period of about a year and a half, during which he had been absent on leave, he had been engaged in active duties for upwards of forty years. It was but fair, after a public life of nearly half a century, at least of upwards of forty years, that even though he did not ask for it, the State should grant him some remuneration, and that the country should be saved from the discredit of allowing him to remain in poverty. The hon. Member would remember that Sir Henry Pottinger might have aspired to a high place in the Council of India; but the Crown sent him on a peculiar service, not in connexion with the East India Company, but immediately connected with the Crown. He was therefore entitled to consideration, not only for the service which he had performed, but also for having been taken out of the employment of the East India Company. The hon. Member had referred to the distinguished services of the Army and Navy; but it should not be forgotten that since these services had been performed, the commandership-in-chief of India fell vacant, and the Government at once appointed Sir Hugh Gough, the officer who commanded the army in China, to the situation. Again, immediately after Sir William Parker returned to this country from China, a vacancy occurred in the command of the fleet in the Mediterranean, and the Government appointed that officer to it. A vacancy had also occurred, since the termination of the war, in the Council in India. It was, he believed, a military situation, and General Pollock had been selected for it. He thought these facts served to show that it was not likely, when great offices of trust, accompanied by considerable emoluments, became vacant, they would be conferred by the Government without reference to former public services. With respect to Sir Henry Pottinger, it would be rather hard if, after forty years service, the only hope of a reward to which he could have to look was to be some situation in distant countries, where considerations of health would be likely to render him less useful than he otherwise might be. After this explanation, he hoped the hon. Member would allow the Vote to pass in a manner in which it must prove most acceptable in the eyes of Sir Henry Pottinger.

would give his most hearty and cordial support to the Vote before the House. He considered the circumstances under which it was brought forward perfectly satisfactory. He thought the grant was highly to be recommended, even on the ground of economy; for there could be no greater economy practised than rewarding public services in a proper manner. In supporting the Vote he could not at all concur in the hope which the hon. Member had expressed, that it would not serve as a precedent to lead to future grants. He should, on the contrary, be delighted to find that it became a precedent, and led to bestowing equal rewards for services of equal importance. He trusted that when great services were rendered to the country, the House of Commons would be found, as it was now, assisting the Crown in marking its approbation of those services. He could not forget how much the operations of the army and navy had contributed to their successes in China. He quite concurred in all that had been said in praise of these services; and he thought it quite impossible that any ability of negotiation, such as that shown by Sir Henry Pottinger, could have been successful, if the way had not been opened for him by the able proceedings of Sir Hugh Gough and Sir William Parker. He recollected a very remarkable expression which had been used by Lord Grenville, soon after the conclusion of the war. Adverting to the great military successes of the Duke of Wellington, he said, that it was remarkable that when he spoke to that commander of the great victories which he had achieved, the reply was, that they were due to the valour, the discipline, and the courage of the troops; and that when he spoke to the officers on the same subject, they said the victories were due to the great skill and ability of their commander. In the same manner it might be said of the Chinese war, that the negotiations were rendered feasible by the skill and bravery of the naval and military forces; but that that skill and bravery would have been insufficient for the purpose if there had not been one, like Sir Henry Pottinger, to take advantage of the successes which the naval and military forces achieved. He entertained no apprehension but that, when an opportunity offered for great public trust, Sir Henry Pottinger would not be overlooked; for no matter what private favour or party consideration might suggest in the selection of persons to fill important posts, yet in great responsible situations every Government would endeavour to choose only the best and ablest men that could be found for the purpose. He, therefore, felt perfect confidence that the right hon. Baronet, or whoever else might have the direction of the affairs of this country, would feel that he was doing himself a most useful service, as well as conferring a valuable benefit on the country, by selecting Sir Henry Pottinger for any office worthy of him, and which he might be qualified to fulfil. The noble Lord concluded by repeating his gratification at the Vote being brought forward.

intended to trespass only for a very few moments on the time of the House. He was extremely anxious, in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Williams), to offer a few remarks. The noble Lord who had just sat down had stated, that the present Vote met with the concurrence of the House of Commons; and he (Mr. Hume) believed he could safely say, that it had also the approbation of the public generally. He could tell his hon. Friend, that during the many years in which he (Mr. Hume) had a seat in that House, there was, perhaps, no man who had done more to reduce pensions than he had, but he never expressed an opinion otherwise than this: namely, that while he was anxious to take from the Crown the privilege of granting pensions at its discretion, he also declared at all times, that whenever an occasion might occur in which a pension was deserved, the Government might with confidence appeal to the Representatives of the people in that House on behalf of any individual whose merits would be known, and whose claims would be generally admitted. He admitted the great services of the naval and military forces. He would even go so far as to say that he did not think there was any occurrence in the naval history of this country so highly honourable and creditable to the individuals concerned in it as the events of the Chinese war. But, he would ask, was there no credit to be given to the man who had the talent of seizing upon the proper opportunity, and turning it to a successful result? If there were anything which could increase the satisfaction with which he would vote for the present grant, it would be to see the grant bear date from the day on which Sir Henry Pottinger had signed the Treaty of Peace with China. That was the only alteration which he would wish to suggest, after the very handsome manner in which the Vote had been brought forward by the right hon. Baronet.

observed, that the House was already aware of the two important alterations which had been made in the Bill since it had been in Committee—namely, the alterations with respect to the period for taking the averages, and that with regard to the account of specie. He trusted, therefore, that any objections which might be entertained to the measure would thus be materially diminished.

rose to bring forward the Amendment of which he had given notice, for securing the interests of the Hibernian and the Royal banks. He said he was fully aware that there was no use in offering any opposition to the Bill at the present stage, but he was anxious not to let it pass the third reading without offering a protest against some of its provisions. The Hibernian and the Royal banks had sustained for several years, and with very great advantage to the public, a competition with the Bank of Ireland, and he thought under such circumstances that it was very hard their interests should be sacrificed by the Bill, while those of other joint-stock banks were promoted. He would not trespass on the time of the House, but would simply confine himself to proposing the clause of which he had given notice. It was supported, not by his individual voice alone, but by the countenance of a very large proportion of the population of Ireland. The clause had been prepared by the agents of the Hibernian Bank, and would, he believed, meet all the objects which the Government had in view, while it protected the interests of the banks. The clause was as follows:—

"Be it Enacted, That it shall be lawful for any Bank now existing in Ireland, and which was not a Bank of Issue on the 6th day of May, 1844, to invest in the Government Three and a Quarter per Cent. Stock any sum whatsoever, and transfer the same to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, or such other persons as the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury, by warrant under their hands and seals, shall direct, to accept of such Transfer: and, thereupon, the said Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, or such other persons, shall issue a Certificate to such Bank of the amount of Stock so transferred, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for such Bank to issue their own Promissory Notes payable to bearer on demand, to the amount of such Stock so transferred: Provided always, that there shall not be a sum less than 50,000l. of such Stock so transferred at any one time."

rose for the purpose of seconding the Motion for the insertion of the clause, and in doing so he thought he might as well take advantage of the opportunity to address the few words to the House which he wished for the present to offer on the subject of that Bill. The right hon. Baronet had observed that he thought the two alterations which had been made in the Bill would give satisfaction. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in that belief. There would still remain several branches, to the number of twenty or thirty, in every one of which it would be necessary to maintain a supply of specie on which no notes could be issued. He would ask the House to compare Scotland with Ireland in that respect. In Scotland, all the gold that a bank possessed could be represented by notes, while in Ireland the contrary was the fact. It was true that in Scotland they had no branch banks; but the difference between the countries would act most injuriously for Ireland. In Scotland the banks would have the advantage of being able to issue a note for every sovereign in their possession; whereas in Ireland, the banks would be allowed to issue notes for only one-fourth of the gold which they would be obliged to keep by them. The difference would be at once felt to be an advantage to the Scotch banks, which the Irish banks could not enjoy. Then again, with respect to the averages. Something would certainly be gained by the alteration as to the time for taking the averages, to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded; but he would ask, ought they to adhere strictly to the averages of former years? Would they read the Report of Lord Devon's Commission? They would find that 4,500,000 of the inhabitants of Ireland were in a state of distress—that they were ill-fed, ill-clothed, badly lodged—and having bad beds; that their food was potatoes, their drink, water, their houses in ruins; and that a blanket was to them a luxury; that they were, in a word, the most miserable population in Europe. These were not his words; but they were the words of Lord Devon's Report. The right hon. Baronet did not desire that Ireland should remain so. He would go further, and admit, of course, that the right hon. Baronet had a strong desire to alter that state of things; but if he recollected that the prosperity of the country was very much aided by banking facilities—instead of restricting—he ought to endeavour to increase the currency. He should recollect that any advance of the currency, was an advance of the interests of the country, and on both these grounds he ought to have treated Ireland in a far different manner from that insured by the present Bill. Nobody owed money to Ireland. On the contrary, five or six millions of the value of the produce of Ireland was annually transported from the country to pay the rents of absentees; and, therefore, the dearer they made the medium in which they had to pay that amount, the heavier would the debt become upon the country. Instead of being anxious to restrict the circulation, they ought, if they wished to improve the condition of the country, to extend the circulation as far as the public safety would allow. All that the people of Ireland were anxious for, was to get rid of the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland. They did not understand when a number of partners in a bank, up to six, might issue notes within fifty miles of Dublin, why there should be a different system adopted when the partners were extended to 300, or 400, or 500. In the one instance there was a possibility of loss through the Bank, in the other there was none. They had a monopoly against banks from which there could not by possibility be any loss; while they ceased to have a monopoly against that kind of banking which might and which actually did create very severe losses. It was then too late to enter further into any opposition to the Bill; and he had to apologize to the House for trespassing upon their time, but he wished to put upon record his humble opinion on the subject. He was old enough to remember the former currency Bill, which had been called after the right hon. Baronet; and he recollected that that Bill had created more mischief in the country than had been effected by the French Revolution in France. It caused more social injury, it ruined more families, and brought more destruction on individuals, than any revolution that ever occurred. That ruin had gone by — but what were they now doing? They were limiting the currency. In fact, the very restriction of the 30s. notes would, in itself, go to limit the currency. He would venture to say, from his knowledge of Ireland, that by enhancing the currency, they would diminish the price of every article produced in the country, and they would bring great dissatisfaction in the minds of those who had, at present, the least desire to be dissatisfied with the Government. He would not trespass further on the House, but would conclude by giving his support to the Amendment.

believed that the permanent benefit of Ireland depended much more on the stability of the banking system, than upon any amount of circulation. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the poverty of Ireland; now, he (Sir R. Peel) had seen the same state of things in Ireland when there was most extensive paper circulation, upon which there was no restriction. Shortly afterwards he had seen every one of those evils to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded; and when the time arrived, as was always the case with a too abundant issue of paper, there was the greatest and most wide-spread misery in the west and south of Ireland, and when almost every bank failed. He believed that upwards of fifty failed, and were unable to discharge their obligations. They had no wish to reclaim the notes; but there should be a security that they should be at once convertible into coin. He believed that the restrictions that were proposed in this Bill would not operate to prevent a sufficient circulation of notes in sound security. He believed that, after a short time, when people got confidence in the banks, it would happen, as in Scotland, where there was little disposition to change the notes.

said, he should be thought presumptuous in following such an authority on such a subject; but he only did so because he was anxious to protest against the policy of this banking measure for Ireland. He did so, however, not for the reason assigned by the hon. and learned Member for Cork. viz., because it would produce misery by lowering the price of all sorts of commodities. If that were its effect, he would not certainly oppose it. He opposed it because it was an encroachment upon what he believed to be true policy on this subject—perfect freedom in banking. The right hon. Baronet had pointed to Ireland, and said that all the evils which he attributed to free trade in banking had occurred in that country. The case, he said, fully bore out his opinions. But let them observe, that the case of Ireland had coexisted with a restrictive system in England, which had doubtless affected it disadvantageously. Let Government look to the state of Scotland, the only instance in which free trade had been approximated to—and what had been its results? Why, fewer monetary disturbances had occurred there than any where else. All the right hon. Baronet's rules were framed on an experience of a period of restriction. He had never observed what had happened under perfect free trade, because it had not been completely tried. He had, undoubtedly, more knowledge on the subject than any man in England; but that circumstance was precisely his disadvantage. If he were to forget all he knew about the matter, and brought his original and vigorous understanding to the subject, free and unencumbered with the erroneous views he had contracted from the working of a state of restriction, he would have established free trade as the true remedy for the evils which the working of the currency and banking laws present. A great philosopher had said the first step in education was to unlearn; and some of them ought to begin by forgetting all they knew on banking, and the result would have been the production of a better Bill. One reason for non-interference in such matters was, the extremely complicated character of the phenomena with which legislation had to deal. What legislator had ever succeeded in producing the effects he anticipated from a banking law? And did not this show the wisdom of not meddling with what was so difficult to understand? He could not conceive why there should be any greater necessity for laws to insure the presence of gold than mutton in the country. What would result from perfect free trade? Great companies would be formed, whose interest would compel them to keep sufficient gold in their coffers to meet the paper brought to them for payment. There would naturally be such companies, and their competition would keep down banking profits to meet the interests of shopkeepers and others. For this is the true object of banking. It is economy of gold. It is to render it unnecessary to every shopkeeper to keep a great quantity of gold in his shop. The banker takes it and trades with it, paying a percentage to the depositor, to the mutual convenience of both parties. And why this could not happen under free trade no one had ever shown. He did not know he had any other remark to offer; but he had felt it to be his duty to protest against this Bill.

did not think that four banks for the issue of notes was sufficient; and this would be particularly felt in the province of Ulster.

considered that it would be highly beneficial if there was a great extension of joint-stock banks in Ireland. He did not conceive that this would necessarily be attended with an increase of paper circulation. He did not believe, however, that this measure would be attended with any serious consequences to Ireland; but still it might interfere with the formation of secure joint-stock banks. If he (Mr. Hawes) interfered with the system of banking in Ireland at all, he would endeavour, as much as possible, to assimilate it to the Scotch system of banking.

thought the solvency of the banks would be better secured by not giving them the power proposed to be conferred by this clause, and he must, therefore, oppose it.

was fearful that if they gave too great facilities for a paper currency, they would in the end generate a tendency to get rid of a metallic currency. Let the House look at the manner in which the enormous transactions at Liverpool and Manchester were conducted; there the only bank notes in circulation were those of the Bank of England, representing sovereigns; and if these notes were abolished to-morrow, sovereigns would be used in their stead, without much inconvenience.

moved as a second Resolution, that—

"And be it Enacted, That in the event of the said Bank stopping payment, or becoming Bankrupt, that such Stock shall be held in trust for the persons, creditors of the said Bank, who shall be holders of the said Promissory Notes of the said Bank, at the time of such stoppage of payment or failure; Provided always, that the said Bank shall be entitled to receive the half-yearly Dividends payable on the said Stock, until stoppage of payment or bankruptcy; Provided also, that the said Bank shall make Returns of their Issues of Notes as the several Banks of Issue in Ireland shall be bound to make such Returns under this Act, and that in case the issue of such Bank shall exceed, at any one time, the amount of such Stock so transferred, that such Bank shall be liable to the same penalties as the several Banks of Issue shall be liable to for their excess of Issue under the provisions of this Act; Provided also, that in case of their withdrawal of their Notes to an amount of 50,000l. or upwards, from circulation, then, on proving the same to the satisfaction of the said Commissioners, or the said persons so to be appointed, an equal amount of such stock shall be re-transferred to the said Bank."

said, he could no more agree to that than to the former clause of which it was a consequence.

moved that the Report on the Colleges (Ireland) Bill be brought up.

postponed the Resolution of which he had given notice, until the Motion for the third reading of the Bill, in order to afford the right hon. the Recorder of Dublin an opportunity of being present on the occasion.

postponed the statement he had intended to give that evening with reference to this Bill, until the Motion for going into Committee upon it. That Motion would be made on Thursday next, immediately after the Enclosure Bill was disposed of. The alterations he contemplated were of considerable importance.

objected to postponing the measure in any way. He was of opinion that the reason which had been urged for the postponement of the Bill, was a good ground for proceeding with the Committee on Thursday next.

said, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had taken for his motto, "religio mihi nulla est." He appeared to think that the object of the measure was to provide secular education for the students at those Colleges; but the Government had stated that they did not look upon it in that light, and that they were anxious to give facilities for religious instruction. When the measure was at first proposed, he (Mr. Sheil) expressed a fear that on this, as on former occasions, a great mistake had been committed in not consulting the Catholic hierarchy—that was an error in policy, it was a signal error, and the consequences of it would be, he feared, most pernicious. After the introduction of the measure, a synod of the bishops took place, and a memorial was agreed to which condemned the Bill in very important particulars, but they gave the Government credit for good motives, and they referred in proof of those motives to the Maynooth Bill. Since that memorial was agreed to, the Government had been called upon to state how far they acceded to the views which had been put forward on that occasion; and the Government undertook a new consideration of some of the details, the effect of which was to produce certain alterations in the measure. The right hon. Baronet had been asked two questions on Friday by him (Mr. Sheil) with reference to this Bill. One was, whether he would consent to the appointment of Roman Catholic and Protestant chaplains, who were to be paid by the State, to attend those Colleges; and the other was, whether it was intended to propose any alteration with respect to the power of the Crown in appointing the professors. The right hon. Gentleman did not then answer those questions; but the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was prepared to answer the question, and he only postponed it as he believed it would be a more appropriate time to answer it when the Bill should be before the House on Monday (yesterday). He (Mr. Sheil) accordingly came down to the House on that evening with the full conviction that the right hon. Baronet would be prepared to afford information as to whether the Government intended to introduce any alteration with respect to those two important particulars. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that further time was required, of course he (Mr. Sheil) could not expect an answer on that occasion; but he would take that opportunity of asking whether the Government had taken advantage of the delay which had occurred to communicate to the Roman Catholic bishops the alterations which they proposed, and whether they had received the assent of the Catholic bishops to those alterations?

did not see the necessity of calling in to their aid in such a measure the opinions of any hierarchy, much less a hierarchy who had not concealed or disguised their open and avowed approval of political agitation in Ireland, and who gave powerful and efficient assistance to that agitation, as the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. O'Connell) could testify—a hierarchy who were pledged to an agitation, the effect of which would be to destroy the integrity of the Empire. [Mr. O'Connell: No.] They were the active supporters of that agitation. [An hon. Member: Dr. Murray was not one.] If hon. Members allowed him to proceed, they would have an opportunity of replying to him; but he would remind them that he was not then on the floor of Conciliation Hall—he was speaking to an assembly of Gentlemen; and whether he differed from them in opinion or not, he was confident they would not attempt to put him down in any other way than by replying to him. Whatever was the opinion of the Irish hierarchy with respect to this subject, he hoped the House would decide it, as it was their duty, on principles of sound policy alone. If Ministers, when they had introduced a system of secular education like this on their own responsibility, departed from it in consequence of what had taken place, he should regret it; for such a course would be calculated to raise an opposition to the Bill more formidable than any which it had yet experienced; for hon. Members near him had stated that the Catholic hierarchy were not the advocates of Repeal agitation; but if he asked the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. O'Connell) whether such was the case, he would no doubt answer in the affirmative. Was the hon. Member near him aware that a Catholic archbishop could deprive a priest of his functions, if he disapproved of the course which he took? If such were the case, how, then, could the hon. Member say that the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland were not favourable to agitation?

I don't mean to agitate the question of Repeal on this occasion; and I will, therefere, only say that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is a very bad theologian—an exceedingly bad theologian—and being so very bad, it would be well worth his while to inquire a little into the facts before he makes statements on such subjects as that of which he has just been speaking. No Catholic bishop in Ireland could deprive a priest of his functions after a formal induction, or a triennial possession. The hon. Member for Montrose has spoken of the interference of the Catholic bishops, as if they wished to interfere with a system of education for Protestants, but they have done no such thing. I should be happy to hear of Protestant bishops interfering to secure religious education of Protestant children—of Presbyterian clergymen interfering to secure the religious education of Presbyterian children; and I claim the same right for the Catholics; namely, that the Catholic bishops shall be permitted to take care of the religious education of the Catholic children. I thank the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis) for the admirable description which he gave of this measure when he called it "a gigantic scheme of godless education;" and as regards the alleged success of the system on the Continent, so far am I from assenting to that allegation, that I think nothing can be more unsuccessful than the efforts of those who seek to exclude from education religion, which should be the basis of it. I believe that religion ought to be the basis of education; and I came over from Ireland for no other purpose than humbly to represent the necessity of making religion the basis of education, to establish it not only as a part, but an essential part of it. I sincerely hope and desire that the discussion of this subject will be carried on with good temper and good feeling, and that we shall not imitate the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Colquhoun) in adopting such a tone, and making unfounded assertions of others who are absent. He boasted two or three times that he was a gentleman, and I think it would be far more consistent with the character of a gentleman if he had acted with more courtesy towards the Catholic bishops. He says that he is not in Conciliation Hall. He is not, it is true, and I should like to know what business he could have in Conciliation Hall, or any conciliation assembly. I must again express a hope that the discussion of this measure will be conducted with perfect courtesy and good humour, and I can pledge myself that such will be the case so far as I am concerned.

agreed with the last observation of the hon. and learned Member. He hoped they would discuss the Bill with perfect good temper. It was far from the intention of the Government to interfere with the Roman Catholic religion. The hon. Member for Newcastle said that it would be unworthy of the House to commit the sole discussion of this Bill to any body of prelates, however respectable. To that feeling he subscribed; but, at the same time, he must observe that the Irish Protestants had ample provision made for them in Trinity College, and that the present measure must be deeply and peculiarly interesting to the Roman Catholic prelates. It was a question touching a large portion of the Roman Catholic population, and he was prepared to declare that he did think the opinions of the ministers of the Roman Catholic Church ought to be received with respect; he did not say with humble deference, but at all events with respectful attention. In answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, he had to say that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland did receive from the Roman Catholic prelates a written memorial, and that in addition to that written memorial the Lord Lieutenant had the honour of receiving a deputation. The Lord Lieutenant conferred with those prelates: he entered largely into the subject, and he had reason to hope that some of their objections were mitigated by the explanations he had given. The consequence of that conference was, the Amendments which he had laid on the Table of the House. Since that no further direct intercourse had taken place between the Lord Lieutenant and the prelates. With respect to further alterations, he would not say, and it would not be fitting to say, that they had been submitted to the Roman Catholic prelates. The plan which had been submitted by the Government was a plan for collegiate education, from which religions instruction was excluded within the walls; whilst, at the same time, every facility was given to that religious instruction out of the walls with the aid of private endowment. There would be ample opportunities of discussing the details in Committee, and there should be full time given before the third reading for the opinion of Ireland to be given upon them. He would not propose the third reading till after a reasonable time; but considering the period of the Session, and considering that he and his Colleagues attached great importance to the measure and to its becoming law in the present Session, he hoped he would not betray undue haste if he did not postpone the further progress of this Bill beyond Thursday.

had not understood that religious instruction was to be excluded from these Colleges; but that every facility should be given to individuals to endow chairs of religion in the Colleges.

said, it was the intention of the Government to adhere to the 15th Clause of the Bill, which gave facilities for lectures out of private endowments within the walls of the Colleges, subject to the control of the governing body and the approval of the Crown, but with no endowment from the State.

If they had not religious instruction, the instruction would be worth nothing whatever.

observed, that whether Dr. Murray was a Repealer or not, he had always abstained from violent political agitation; and he would ever speak of such conduct in a clergyman of any communion with sincere, hearty, and unfeigned respect. But he could understand, and to a certain extent sympathize with the objections of the Roman Catholic prelates, because pursuits of a purely literary and scientific character might alienate the mind from those subjects which addressed the heart rather than the intellect. The Bill, too, had been unwisely named; it was properly a Bill for providing literary and scientific institutions. It did not profess to give education, and it certainly was not collegiate; it supposed that religious instruction was given elsewhere. Still he should be glad to see the Bill assume more of a religious character. Unhappily, our lot was cast in days when every theologian must become a politician, and every politician a theologian.

thought there was an end to all hope of mixed education if the opinion of the Roman Catholic bishops was to be received as decisive by the laity.

observed, that this incidental discussion had better terminate; it was for the interest of all to come to an agreement on the question.

thought the statement of the right hon. Baronet might as well have been made to-night, and then the House would have come to the discussion on Thursday prepared.