said: In rising to move the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply, I wish to call the attention of the House to a particular notice which stands on the Paper for to-night. It refers to the Statue on the arch at Constitution-hill The noble Lord the Member for Lynn, some time since, asked me a question on the subject; but since that question was put, and the statement made as to the feelings of the Duke of Wellington on the subject of the Statue remaining on the arch or not, I have had no direct and positive information on the subject. I now rise to ask the noble Lord to postpone the Motion of which he has given notice until Monday; and of course the Government will postpone the vote for the pedestal until that day. I do so on this ground: I have had no communication respecting the feelings of the Duke of Wellington on the subject since a communication was made to me by a gentleman whose name I will now mention—I mean Mr. Croker, who called upon me in Downing-street. Since then a determination was taken, and the desire of Her Majesty has been expressed as to the erection of an appropriate pedestal for the Statue; and since that time I have not received any authorized intimation as to the feelings of the Duke of Wellington on the subject. Her Majesty, however, has expressed a wish that nothing should be done which could in any way be painful to the feelings, or which could be considered in any way disrespectful to the Duke of Wellington. I wish, then, that the noble Lord would allow me to obtain in some authorized way a knowledge of what are the feelings of the Duke of Wellington; and if it is his wish that the Statue should not be placed on the pedestal which has been proposed, I shall not propose the vote for that purpose in the Committee of Supply; and I am also authorized to state, that if such should be the case, Her Majesty will readily consent to the Statue remaining where it is.

I have not a word to say, after what has fallen from the noble Lord, beyond expressing my consent to the proposal. I am perfectly aware what the feelings of the illustrious man in question would be at the removal of the Statue from the arch. Without raising any discussion on the matter, which now would be very painful, I will only add, that the memorial to the Duke of Wellington will now, I am sure, remain on the arch, with the consent of Her Majesty, and with the approbation of the people.

said, that he was prepared to give the noble Lord the opinion of the Duke of Wellington on the matter.

It would be better to permit me to communicate with the Duke of Wellington.

had in his possession a letter which would show what were the feelings of the Duke of Wellington respecting the removal of the Statue. This letter had been written since the noble Lord stated, in rather a sneering manner, that if any one wished to ascertain what were the feelings of the Duke of Wellington, it would be easy to communicate with the noble Duke on the subject.

trusted the House would extend to him that indulgence which it was usual to give when a Member brought forward a matter of a personal character. He would simply state the facts of the case; and when he had done so, he would leave it to the House to say what line of conduct he should follow. On Tuesday last, in conformity with the judgment which he usually exercised in questions before the House, he came to the conclusion to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose on the subject of the Rajah of Sattara. He happened on the following day to be sitting next the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, who heard all that passed—and if he stated that which was incorrect, the hon. Member would correct him, or supply any deficiency in the statement—when the hon. Member for Montrose came across the House, and said, in a very excited manner, "So you voted against me last night." He (Mr. Spooner) replied, "I certainly did." The hon. Member immediately added, "I shall bring the conduct of your son before the House on Tuesday, as well as that of Mr. Hutt, the relation of the hon. Member for Gateshead, who also voted against me." The hon. Member added, "I will bring the whole matter before the House; and I can prove, that not more than thirteen independent Members voted in the majority." That was a plain statement of the facts of the case. He (Mr. Spooner) immediately said, "If you have any charge to bring against my son, I hope, as a matter of courtesy, you will let me know what it is, so that I may form an opinion of it, or take steps to meet it." The reply of the hon. Member was, "Look at this book," holding up a blue book, "there is plenty of evidence here." Now, he did not know then what line of conduct to take. He had taken time to consider what course to take; and he had consulted several hon. Members of greater experience than himself, and they were of the same opinion as himself, namely, that he could not let the matter rest, but that he must state the matter to the House; and having now stated it, he should leave the House to pass its opinion and judgment on the matter. He was of opinion, that if it was not a breach of privilege, it approach- ed very nearly to it, as it implied a threat against a Member for pursuing a particular line of conduct. If this were to be allowed, it would imperil the independence of Members, and the privilege of voting according to the dictates of their consciences. Feeling this, he had made up his mind not to keep the case from the knowledge of the House. As to any charge against his son, if the hon. Member thought fit to prefer it, he hoped that he would do so with due notice, so that proper time would be given to those who had a regard for the character of his son, so that they might be prepared to defend it. He would call the attention of the House, however, to a very curious circumstance connected with this case. Whatever charge the hon. Member was prepared to bring forward against his son, must have been known to the hon. Member for more than two years, during which time he had said nothing about it. The whole conduct of his son and his proceedings were fully described in the book which had been on the Table of the House for upwards of two years. It was, therefore, a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of the hon. Member, first, to make a communication to him that he had a charge to bring against his son, in the morning after he had felt it to be his duty to vote against the hon. Member. But the hon. Member not only did this, but he then made a rejoinder by saying, "This matter has regard not only to yourself, but to Mr. Hutt, the Member for Gateshead." His hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead had had no intimation whatever from the hon. Member for Montrose on the subject, until he (Mr. Spooner) had mentioned it to him. These were curious circumstances, and he had stated them as calmly and coolly as he could. He had one remark more to make. If the House should think fit to hear now, or at any future time, the reasons which induced him to give the vote which he did the other night, he was perfectly ready to state them. He gave merely a silent vote on that occasion, and had abstained from addressing the House, as he had no information to communicate on the subject. He would not answer any hon. Gentleman who questioned him in the offensive way which the hon. Member for Montrose did. He felt that there was something more than a personal consideration in this proceeding on the part of the hon. Member; and with these observations he should leave the matter to the House.

must acknowledge that this was the most extraordinary proceeding he had ever heard of during the whole period of his being a Member of that House. Yesterday afternoon, at five o'clock, while at his own house, he received a note from the hon. Member for Birmingham, requesting him to be at the House at four o'clock, as he had a serious charge to bring against him. He could not by any possibility tell what the hon. Member alluded to. He thought that the hon. Member must have supposed that he had committed some violation of his Seduction Act, and wished in consequence to bring him to the bar of the House; but now he understood the accusation, he would ask whether any individual up to the present period had ever brought a charge against a Member of that House for having privately spoken to hon. Members on a subject which was to be brought forward in the following week? The hon. Member should have been obliged to him for having casually mentioned the matter to him, if the hon. Member had any interest in the subject which he (Mr. Hume) stated he should bring forward. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire, he believed, was present at the conversation. He was passing on the opposite side of the House, by the side of the Table, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Spooner) was sitting there. What he had said to the hon. Member for Birmingham was, "I see you voted against me last night;" he said, "I did." "Have you seen the result of the numbers?"—"No." "Then I can tell you, that out of the numbers who voted against me, twenty-eight belonged to the late and present Government, and to the East India House; and you and Mr. Hutt, whoso relatives were involved in the early part of the proceedings, should not have voted under such influence; therefore only fourteen independent Members really voted against the Motion. I, therefore, put the fourteen independent Members against my twenty-three supporters, and I consider that the division was in my favour." He referred to the Mr. Spooner mentioned in the blue book; and the hon. Member for Birmingham said. "He is my son." He (Mr. Hume) then said, "On Tuesday next I will give the House an opportunity of reconsidering this question; and I will then refer to this division, and show that only fourteen independent Members voted against me." That was all that had taken place; and a more gratuitous appeal to the House than that of the hon. Member for Birmingham he had never known. It would he his duty on Tuesday next to show that both the hon. Member for Birmingham and the hon. Member for Gateshead had been influenced by external circumstances; their near relatives being acting magistrates in the earlier history of these circumstances—the one being the magistrate before whom the robber was brought on whose body were found the papers connected with the Goa conspiracy; and the other the magistrate who imprisoned Govind Rao, the principal Minister of the late Rajah, and obtained a confession from him against the Rajah, and who afterwards stated that it was obtained under constraint and threats, and that it was without foundation. He did not mean to impugn their characters as magistrates, because he could show that they had acted under instructions from head-quarters. This was the whole extent of the proceeding. The hon. Member had charged him with a breach of privilege; he though he could better charge the hon. Member with a breach of confidence in thus bringing before the House private conversation. He thought that the hon. Member, rather than himself, had to answer for a breach of privilege. He should be sorry to see the day when hon. Members could not talk to each other on further proceedings to take place in that House. The hon. Member had not on that occasion acted with his usual good sense in bringing the matter forward; and now his explanation showed that the hon. Gentleman was altogether mistaken.

said, that the hon. Member for Montrose was a most ungenerous man; for instead of being obliged to himself and other hon. Gentlemen for endeavouring to check him in his blunders, he flew into a state of excitement, and turned round and charged them with baseness and dishonesty. He would not charge the hon. Member with either baseness or dishonesty, for he believed he was incapable of either; but at the same time he must say that he thought that the conduct of the hon. Member did not always manifest absolute wisdom, nor was his language and demeanour on all occasions characterized by great delicacy and politeness; therefore, when the hon. Member indulged in the liberty of casting imputations on his (Mr. Hutt's) conduct, or aspersing his relatives, it did not excite his feelings in the slightest degree. He believed his character would be a sufficient shield against any calumnies the hon. Member might bring against him; and whether now or hereafter, he should listen to them with perfect cheerfulness, and perhaps rather like them than otherwise. So far for the matter as far as regarded himself; but as the hon. Member had referred to an immediate relative of his, who had no opportunity of answering for himself, he would, on behalf of that gentleman, give a bare statement of the facts of the case. The hon. Gentleman had in that House and in another place charged his relative with immuring Govind Rao, the Minister of the Rajah of Sattara, in a dark dungeon; so that he was compelled to make a statement against the Rajah, being at the time under the menace of death if he did not. Now, what foundation was there for that false and foolish story? In consequence of what had been stated by the hon. Member, his relative had put him in possession of full information on the subject. It appeared, then, when Govind Rao had been moved from Poonah, and placed in prison, Mr. Hutt proceeded immediately to release him from gaol, and had him placed in one of the principal houses in the town, and had his comforts carefully attended to. The Minister of the late Rajah wished to make a private communication to him respecting the Rajah; but he was informed before doing so, that such communication would be forwarded to the Government of Bombay. Nothing more then occurred; but some time afterwards, Govind Rao came to Mr. Hutt's house, and, in the presence of an attendant, made a full confession of all the circumstances of the conspiracy, but which he afterwards wished to retract, stating that it had been extorted from him while confined in a dungeon. The confession of this Minister had been made voluntarily; but he afterwards retracted the whole of it; and the hon. Member for Montrose believed the retractation, and no part of the original statement. If the hon. Member thought Mr. Hutt was capable of the conduct imputed to him, it was the hon. Member's duty to bring it before the House; if he did not believe it, he ought not to have made any such allusion to it.

wished, as his name had been mentioned, to make one or two observations. He begged, in the first place, distinctly to repudiate the notion which the hon. Member for Montrose seemed to entertain, that there had been any confidence or privacy in the matter. He had been an unwilling-listener to the conversation between the hon. Gentlemen; but he could not avoid hearing what was said. The hon. Member for Montrose seemed to him to have purposely come over to that side of the House to make the attack, and certainly it had been made in a very strong manner. He (Mr. Bankes) said to the hon. Member for Montrose something to the effect, "Do you mean this as a joke?" and the answer was, "It is no jest, and I will bring the matter before the House." That appeared to him to have been a threat to his hon. Friend, and an imputation on the honesty of the votes given by two hon. Members of that House. He hoped the House would believe that he had not been a party to bringing this matter before it. He was very well aware that the character of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham was such as to need no vindication. Having, however, been applied to for confirmation of the statement of his hon. Friend, he could have had no objection to offering his testimony. He was bound to say, that it had been a very offensive attack, and undoubtedly not attended by much privacy, for the hon. Member for Montrose spoke very loud, and he (Mr. Bankes) was probably not the only person who heard the remark. The hon. Member for Montrose had even gone so far as to say, that out of the majority of forty, thirteen gentlemen only gave honest or independent votes.

thought the House would agree with him that the matter was of great importance. He thought the House ought not to let the matter stand in its present serious aspect; and he did hope that the Speaker would call on the hon. Gentlemen to give the assurance, on their honour, that they would not carry the matter any further. [Much laughter.]

did not think the subject was treated in a proper manner. The hon. Member for Montrose attempted, not perhaps unassisted, to raise a laugh at the commencement of his address; and another hon. Member had with more success now afforded amusement to the House. The hon. Member for Montrose must have known that Mr. Spooner in India and the Mr. Hutt in India were, or that they were not, guilty of the charges urged against them in connexion with the Rajah of Sattara. If they were guilty, he ought to have included them in the number of those whom he mentioned on a former evening; if they were not guilty, he ought not to have availed himself of the vote—doubtless an honest and conscientious vote—of the hon. Gentlemen who bore the same names to threaten that he would bring the conduct of the parties before the House. He (Sir R. Inglis) was not aware if there had been any answer given to the charges; but certainly the hon. Member for Montrose did or did not know their guilt. If he knew they were guilty, the subject should have been brought forward in the first instance; and if he knew they were not guilty, he ought not to have availed himself of the casual votes of two hon. Members, relatives of the accused, to impute that they had not acted from the influence of an independent and unbiassed judgment. Such conduct was not creditable to the hon. Member himself, and did not tend very greatly to insuring independent action in that House.

was of the same opinion on a question of this kind as the hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House. To speak to Members, after they had voted, giving that vote as honestly and conscientiously as any other hon. Member, and to impute that their votes had been given in consequence of their connexion and relationship with the persons implicated in the question, was, he thought, an unbecoming proceeding; and had it been done by anybody else, he should have looked upon it as an attempt to intimidate. He hoped that the hon. Member for Montrose had not intended that his words should be open to that construction. He had long been acquainted with the language customarily used by the hon. Member; and, whether it arose from some original confusion of mind, or from a want of familiarity with the exact force of the English language, the hon. Member unquestionably did throw out imputations and apply terms, in describing the conduct of others, which from any other hon. Gentleman would give offence, but which he had heard repeated by the hon. Member without causing surprise, or occasioning anger. The hon. Member, then, being a sort of chartered libertine in this respect in the House, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman opposite and his hon. Friend (Mr. Hutt) behind him, were satisfied that they and their relations were entirely cleared on the subject; and that there was not one person of importance, either in the House or out of the House, who would pay atten- tion to the charges preferred by the hon. Member for Montrose.

had witnessed as much as any man, from having paid constant attention to the business of the House, the conduct and manner of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose; and, although he was quite ready to agree in the jocular remark of the noble Lord, that his hon. Friend had a sort of chartered liberty, he yet trusted that that chartered liberty arose from different circumstances than those attributed by the noble Lord. [Mr. HUME: "Chartered libertine" were the words.] He admitted his mistake; and though the noble Lord said that the hon. Member for Montrose occasionally used expressions which were not offensive in him, though in others they would be, he (Mr. Aglionby) ventured, in reply to the noble Lord, to observe, that if his hon. Friend did use expressions hastily, or expressions which other hon. Gentlemen were not in the habit of using, he was fully privileged to use them by his constant good humour, and by the anxiety he had shown every year he (Mr. Aglionby) had been with him in the House to favour any one in any matter of advice which his experience qualified him to give. He (Mr. Aglionby) therefore believed that no expression of his could or would give offence to any individual at all acquainted with him; and, above that, he would say that the past services of his hon. Friend entitled him to some indulgence. Though he had no right to complain of the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, notwithstanding it seemed to him that the matter was felt with unnecessary acuteness, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not think that any reflection was intended to be cast upon himself or upon any other hon. Member. The observations of the noble Lord, in reference to his hon. Friend, wore unduly severe; but, because his hon. Friend had not intended to use offensive words, and because of the debt which the public owed him, and which entitled him to the mildest interpretation of his expressions, it was to be hoped that nothing more would be said.

said, that on a former evening a Member of Her Majesty's Cabinet thought proper to call him a thief, or, what was the same thing, the receiver of stolen goods, not to mention a variety of other epithets; but these words having been applied by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Hobhouse) in the warmth of debate, the House would recollect that he (Mr. Hume) had not taken the slightest notice of the accusation. When, however, the First Lord of the Treasury, in that calm, premeditated manner just observed, told him that he had not learned his own language, and that, consequently, he was utterly unable to weigh the force of what he said, he felt himself compelled merely to remark that he did not know on what ground the noble Lord considered himself justified in making use of such expressions. Under other circumstances, he should probably have looked upon it as a very good joke; but for the noble Lord to come forward as he had done, was, he thought, altogether unworthy and unbecoming. He had no more to say. His conduct had always been, when violent language was resorted to against him, to pass it unnoticed, as the ebullition of temporary anger; but on this occasion he saw no excuse for the attack of the noble Lord.

rose to make the Motion of which he had given notice. The report of the Commissioners imputed to the great mass of the Irish people a profligate venality; and the House was bound to grant to Irish Members an opportunity of disproving the sweeping charge, of fixing the charge where it justly attached, and of separating the innocent from the guilty. The Commissioners were bound also to justify themselves for making such statements; and to this purpose it was necessary that the correspondence with the inspectors from whom they derived the information on which they based the accusation, should be laid on the Table. He did not look upon this question as one merely involving the holding up of two or three persons before the country; but he regarded it as a matter in no small degree bearing upon the interests of Ireland. That country was in a state of transition. A large portion of the higher gentry were absentees; and their example was consequently lost to the country, while the class into whose hands the management of its affairs had fallen, were new to the transaction of public business. They had not yet in Ireland got into the habit of that strict attention to public business which was desirable, and errors no doubt were committed; and he also believed that, where errors were committed by individuals, they might in the great majority of cases be traced to a kindly feeling, and to an ardent desire to give relief, rather than to any fraudulent intention. But, even should the contrary be the case, such disclosures as would be made by the publication of the present correspondence, if true, would be the greatest possible benefit, for it would teach the people in future to show more caution in their conduct. He knew no real check for abuses of this description but bringing public opinion to bear upon those who had offended. As a general rule, he believed that men did not do what was just and right, so much for its own sake as from a wish that it should be believed by others that they did so; and in accordance with that view he believed that if they brought offenders before the public, they would do more to raise the public character of Ireland than by any other means that could be proposed. In the observations he had made, he had sedulously avoided saying anything against the Commissioners. He believed they had conscientiously reported on the faith of the statements made to them; but at the same time he could not place this confidence in all the officials who had been employed by the Government. From many places reports of the most exaggerated character had been made, as had been clearly proved upon investigation. He believed it would be found that in many cases the reports would admit of explanations, and that in others they were gross exaggerations. It bad been stated by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), that there would be an investigation into the character and conduct of magistrates; but did the noble Lord suppose that it was really worth his while to do so? Did he think that the mere dismissal of one or two magistrates—or merely censuring them, for he did not think it would go beyond that—would be satisfactory to the country? Indeed he would make very light of the circumstance whether magistrates had acted in this instance rightly or not, because, from the state of the country, people had been too often appointed magistrates who ought not to have been placed in that position. What the people of Ireland would look for was, that publicity should be given to the offenders whoever they were; and he knew that there was in Ireland a sufficient amount of honourable feeling to put a stop to such practices for the future. The hon. Baronet moved as an Amendment—

"That there be laid before this House so much of the Correspondence on Reports of the Inspectors, under the Act 10 Victoria, chap. 7 (with the name, rank, and residence of the parties referred to), as sustains the statements made by the Commissioners of Relief in their Third Report, condemnatory of the conduct of committees, or of individuals, in carrying out the provisions of the said Act."

wished to say a few words before any reply was given by the Government to the Motion of the hon. Member for Mallow; and he would begin by observing that Sir John Burgoyne was at perfect liberty to publish whatever he choose with regard to his (Mr. S. O'Brien's) tenants, and that whatever he might report on such a subject, he certainly should not think of bringing it under the notice of the House. The hon. Baronet had asked for the name, rank, and residence of all parties who were condemned in the Third Report of the Relief Commissioners; and on the eve of a dissolution, when it would be impossible for these statements to be contradicted, the same body of men whom the hon. Baronet charged with having made the unfounded statements, were to be the very body of men who were to be entrusted with the publication of all these names. If the hon. Gentleman had been a Member of the Committee on the subject of Captain Wynne's letters, he was quite sure that he would never have made a proposition like this. The proposition he had made involved a task as largo in its meaning, as it would be hopeless in its prosecution and unsatisfactory in its results. It was a proposition to enable those who accused, to publish so much of their accusations as they chose, without giving any opportunity to the persons charged to be heard in their defence. If in the next Session of Parliament the hon. Baronet, or any other Member, should think fit to move for a Committee of Inquiry into the conduct of the magistrates and gentry of Ireland, and if the Government for the time being and the House should assent to the proposition, he should not complain of its injustice, which was the ground upon which he thought it his duty to resist the present Motion.

hoped that the hon. Baronet who had brought forward this Motion, would not expect that he should go at any length into a question which had been three times discussed. He had endeavoured already to remove the impression that any slur had been intended to be cast by the Relief Commissioners in their last report upon the gentry of Ireland. He admitted that the Commissioners, in the execution of their duty, and in order to bring the facts before the Government, had stated that some of the relief committees in Ireland, and some members of relief committees, had not discharged their duties in the manner in which it was generally expected they would have done; but he denied that anything in their report cast an indiscriminate censure upon the gentry of Ireland; on the contrary, the Commissioners distinctly said, that, generally speaking, the committees had discharged properly the important functions intrusted to them; that, although amongst the numerous relief committees (about 16,000) there had been many instances of misconduct, these were exceptions to the general rule; that the general rule was propriety and integrity of conduct, and the exceptions were malversation and impropriety: but there was not any ground for supposing that it was the intention of the Commissioners to cast any imputation upon the gentry of Ireland; he believed they had done only what they considered to be their duty—stated the sincere impression upon their minds. At the same time, he admitted that it was impossible to read that report without seeing that the Commissioners did believe, from the accounts which they had received, that there were instances, and those not a few, in which members of the relief committees had misconducted themselves. Where so many persons were called upon to discharge this new kind of duty, and where there were so many temptations to use their powers improperly, it could not be matter of much surprise that some individual instances of misconduct should have occurred; but he did not think there was anything contained in the report which cast a stigma or general censure upon the whole body of the magistrates and gentry of Ireland for their conduct on the relief committees. It was against the whole spirit and intent of that report to do any such thing. His hon. Friend the Member for Mallow proposed that there be laid before the House the entire correspondence and reports of these inspectors, stating the name, rank, and residence of the parties referred to, with regard to the conduct of 1,680 relief committees. He (Mr. Labouchere) believed this course, if adopted, must necessarily lead to a most extended and minute inquiry into all the circumstances of each case. The Commissioners had carefully avoided mentioning any one name; and in doing so they exercised a sound discretion. If they had pointed out individuals by name, every one of those individuals would have had a right to say, "My character has been maligned, and I have a right to insist that an inquiry should be instituted into the whole of the circumstances." He would ask hon. Gentlemen, as men of sense and experience, to consider whether it was practicable or morally possible to institute a searching and scrutinising inquiry into the proceedings of any considerable number of these committees? He believed it was absolutely impracticable; and that if it were practicable, it would be extremely inexpedient. After all, most of these obligations were rather of the class of moral than of legal obligations; and if they were to inquire into the carelessness or neglect of those on whom such obligations fell, he thought it would be but a very partial, and therefore an unnecessary proceeding. At the same time, he admitted that the Government ought not altogether to pass over allegations of this kind, when officially made; and he begged to repeat what his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury stated on a former evening, that the Government had not altogether passed them over. He considered there was a great distinction between those gentlemen who were acting as private individuals on the relief committees, and those who were appointed on account of their public character as magistrates. Being magistrates, they were bound by that circumstance to set an example to their neighbours; and he considered the Government had a right to call upon them to account for any misconduct of which it might be alleged that they had been guilty. The course, therefore, which the Government had taken was this: to all those magistrates against whom allegations of a serious character had been made, copies of the allegations had been sent, and explanations demanded. On the receipt of those explanations, the Government would take such steps as under the circumstances might be deemed desirable and necessary. He considered this a much better course than for the House to embark into a general inquiry—an undertaking which he did not believe would he, as was stated by his hon. Friend, either a short or simple one, especially when he recollected that the inquiry into the case of Captain Wynne alone occupied a Committee thirty-two days, and cost the country 3,000l. He hoped, therefore, the House would not agree with the Motion of his hon. Friend, but would be satisfied with the statement which the First Lord of the Treasury made on a former occasion.

was of opinion, that on reading this report the general impression in Ireland would be, that the gentry and magistrates of Ireland had not carried out the measures of relief as they should have done. His desire was to have the delinquents exposed to public censure; but, without inquiry, he was afraid that even the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered would give rise to a general belief that the gentry and magistrates of Ireland had not done their duty.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department; and he must at the same time express his surprise that the hon. and learned Member for Bath was not in his place, because he had distinctly given him notice of his intention that evening to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of showing the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman had, in contradicting him at the time he made to the right hon. Gentleman a statement to which his question referred, made use of language utterly unfounded. The question he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this—"Whether the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, on a former evening, that a medical officer of a union had the power of recovering the price of drugs distributed by him to the poor out of the poor-rates, was correct?" When he gave notice of that question, the hon. and learned Gentleman rose and said, that that was not the statement he had made; and about five minutes afterwards he again rose and said, he would state to the House what the statement was which he had made when he addressed it before, and from which address he (Mr. Ferrand) had extracted the question which he was now about to put to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman then made a statement, he would not say where, in this language—[The hon. Gentleman was about to read from a document in his hand, but was interrupted by]

, who intimated to the hon. Gentleman that he might allude in general terms to what had occurred in a former debate, but not the particular terms used.

The hon. and learned Gentleman was reported or supposed to have said—

"In consequence of the question put by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, he felt called on to explain, that the statement he had really made was this, that a contract being made with medical practitioners in each particular union to provide not only medical skill, but medicine, if any surgeon told the hon. Gentleman that he had seen a patient die under his hands whom he could have saved, but would not, because the dearness of the medicine would take away all the profit of his contract, that person was guilty of a great dereliction of duty. He had stated further, that there was a regulation in the law which gave magistrates and boards of guardians power in special cases of extraordinary emergency to order relief both in food and medicine, such extra relief to be paid for by the union."

But the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of being the one he had read to the House, was reported or supposed to be this—

"It was declared by law that every man who was a surgeon to a union was bound to administer medical relief; and if any medical man, being a surgeon to a union, told the hon. Member what he said he did, that medical man asserted a falsehood, for the law did not require him to pay for the medicine, as that would come out of the poor rates, and would form part of the legitimate expenses of providing for the poor."

His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury would bear him out in the statement he had made. Having vindicated himself for putting the question to the right hon. Gentleman, he now begged leave to put it to him.

could not refer to the statement that was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath; but he thought he could give the most satisfactory answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, by stating what he believed to be the law and practice in respect to medical relief. He believed the practice to be that, under the existing law, a contract was made by some medical gentleman for attending professionally to the poor, and that included, in most cases, though not universally, the supply of medicine. Consequently, so far the cost of the medicine must come out of the pocket of the medical officer. But there was a special provision in the law, by which, in cases of danger or sudden illness, justices of the peace might direct medical relief; and in those cases he apprehended that medicine could not be supplied out of the pocket of the medical officer, but would be charged on the general rates. At the same time, he was bound to say that he did not think the medical officer in the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman was altogether free from blame. The medical officer ought not to have taken a contract that would oblige him to witness a person dying for want of proper medicine. He ought to have taken care before entering into the contract that there was a reasonable prospect of his being enabled to perform the duties he had undertaken; or, when a special case arose, he should have referred it to the board of guardians, or to some magistrate, so that the patient might not die because he could not be provided by the medical officer with proper medicine.

said, the first vote he should move would be a vote for the Poor Law establishment. It was impossible for him to put into the estimates any other vote than the vote of last year, for the Government could not answer for the Poor Law passing. He would now state that it was proposed that the salary of the new Chief Commissioner should be 2,000l.; being, therefore, a saving of 4,000l. a year in the salaries of the Commissioners. But it was proposed to have two Secretaries at a salary of l,500l. a year each. So that whilst the expense of the establishment under the old law was 7,000l., the expense of the establishment under the new system would be 5,000l. He moved that 182,200l. be granted for the administration of the Poor Law.

said, it had been his intention that evening to bring under the notice of the House the medical treatment of the poor throughout the country; but, having communicated that intention to the right hon. Gentleman, and that right hon. Gentleman having informed him that it was the anxious desire of the Government, as soon as the new Board was formed, that that Board should take into consideration the medical treatment of the poor throughout the country, for the purpose of increasing and improving it if necessary, he would not, if he had a pledge from the Government to that effect, occupy more of the time of the House upon the subject. He might, perhaps, be allowed to say that it was proved by the evidence stated in the report, that in an union exactly opposite to that House (the Lambeth union), the medical officer had received only 1s. 4d. a day for attending in each case.

observed, that the subject of the expenses attending medical relief was one which deserved the most serious attention of Her Majesty's Government; and he undertook to say that it should, with as little delay as possible, receive that attention. It would, he hoped, be so considered as to enable them to propose to the House a sound measure of legislation upon that particular point. A right hon. Member called upon the House in the course of the last Session of Parliament to vote a large sum for that purpose, thereby expecting to increase the efficiency of medical relief to the poor. The sums for this purpose were only voted half yearly, so that frequent opportunities of revision were open to Parliament, Whoever, in the present or in any future Government, might be charged with the expenditure of that amount of the public money, would, of course, take care that the utmost degree of efficiency should be secured which that amount of remuneration could obtain.

thought that any further inquiry would be quite superfluous. Inquiry had already been instituted—all the evidence that they wanted was in the book then on their Table, and the discovery had clearly been made that there were no men so ill paid as the medical gentlemen who visited and prescribed for the poor. But when the Bill that they had recently passed was before them, they had introduced nothing upon this subject; and he at that time did not think proper to make any proposition regarding it, as he could not fairly expect that the right hon. Baronet opposite would have agreed to the introduction or discussion of any subject not immediately connected with the powers of the Commissioners or the constitution of the commission. If he had brought forward anything on the subject of reward or remuneration to the medical attendants, he should at once have expected that the Government would oppose any proposition of the kind. The subject, however, was one which must engage the attention of Parliament in the course of the next Session. Upon the poor the present state of the law worked with indescribable inhumanity and cruelty; and, as to the medical practitioners themselves, it was downright robbery. It was nothing less than letting out the care of the health of the poor by contract. Was there any man of common feeling or common prudence who would let out the lower animals in possession by con- tract? Would any Gentleman in that House, or in the country, put out his stable of horses, or his kennel of dogs, to have their health taken care of by contract at the lowest possible charge, and by the lowest bidders? But that was what was done with the medical treatment of the poor—they were handed over to the tender mercies of those who made the lowest offers. It had been said, and said very truly, that medicine was included in the charge for medical attendance: they were not paid for separately; and he regretted to learn that any medical practitioner should have made such a statement as the hon. Member for Knaresborough had quoted. If any medical man engaged by contract to provide medicine and advice for the poor, he was bound to perform that contract, cost what it might; he was bound—having made the contract—to supply his patients with any medicines which their cases might require. The practitioner, in the case to which he had been referring, said that, for the sum which he received, it would be impossible for him to supply his patients with all the expensive medicines that they might require: he said he could cure the patient if he went, in the particular case in question, to the necessary expense. But he should have remembered, when he entered into his contract, that cases requiring expensive medicines, did occasionally occur; that some cases might be cured by cheap medicines, but that costly medicines might be demanded by others; in honour and honesty that practitioner was bound to refuse such a contract, for the nonfulfilment of it might have involved the destruction of human life. But, if the medical practitioner deserved blame, how much more deserving of blame were those who forced him into that contract? Medical men in small country places had often great difficulty in supporting a family; and the struggling members of the medical profession knew that if they did not accept the offer made to them by the poor-law union officers, some of their rivals would take it. Influenced by this consideration, he some time ago made a suggestion which he thought might have been advantageously adopted; it was to this effect—that those paupers who stood in need of medical assistance should, by the proper authorities, be furnished with an order which they might present to any medical practitioner whom they thought proper to select, and from him receive the necessary advice and medicines. This would give the poor man the power of selecting his own adviser, and would often save him from a great deal of unnecessary toil, delay, and disappointment. It was well known that medical practitioners employed to attend to the wants of the poor often lived six, seven, and eight miles from the workhouse; or, if not at that distance from the workhouse, at least as far away as that from the most populous part of the parish or union; thus the poor man who happened to require their assistance would be often obliged to travel sixteen or twenty miles a day before he could obtain the necessary relief, although in his progress to and fro he might have passed the houses of many medical men, from whom he could easily have obtained advice and medicine if he had been previously supplied with an order for that purpose. All considerations of this kind, he ventured to say, would come before Parliament in the course of the next Session: he had no doubt that half their time would be taken up in legislating for the poor; and he sincerely hoped that every effort would be made by the new Parliament to ameliorate the condition of those who were dependent upon parochial relief. Of one thing he was quite certain, that nothing could be worse, both for the medical practitioner and for the poor man, than the present state of the law. He greatly regretted that the Government had thought proper to ask for the present vote—it was a vote founded upon a mutilated Bill. There had been, in another place, two most valuable clauses expunged from that measure, and expunged without any opposition on the part of the Government in the other House. He wanted to know why they had not the Bill before them when they were called upon to agree to the present vote? To propose the vote without the Bill, was a plain violation of a solemn engagement. Then, again, the amount was objectionable: 2,000l. a year was more than the Commissioner was worth. He had an objection to the vote, not being informed of the precise constitution of the establishment, for the Bill was not before them. He would ask them, was it dignified for the House of Commons to agree to such a vote till they saw the Bill in its final shape? The Bill, as they all knew, had gone up to the Lords; but the Government made no effort there to retain the clauses—the valuable and important clauses—that had been added in the House of Commons. Both those clauses were based upon sound policy and upon justice: they had been sustained by arguments which no one had answered; and yet the Government sanctioned the principle of those clauses in the one House, and violated that principle in the other. There was no opposition in the Lords to expunging those clauses, nor any division on the subject: he thought, then, that the House had not been treated fairly in the matter, and he therefore felt disposed to divide upon the vote. It was not fair that the Government should give up in the other House a Bill that had passed the House of Commons with so much approbation. He hoped, then, that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree to postpone the resolution till they knew the fate of the Bill in the other House.

said, when the Bill came again before them, it would be competent to them to deal with the whole subject as they thought proper.

was very happy to concur in the proposed reduction of expense, and he hoped that the Government would take this case as an example for the regulation of their future conduct. He sincerely hoped that the New Poor Law would be a very material improvement upon its predecessor. As much as 70,000l. a year was paid for medical aid, and he hoped that that charge would in future be very greatly reduced.

objected to this vote, on the ground that it involved a waste of the public money. The object for which the justices were appointed had ceased to exist since the emancipation of the slaves in the colonies, and their services were no longer required. At any rate, if the colonies thought it necessary to have these justices, they ought to pay their salaries.

said, that the vote proposed last year for this purpose was 1,800l. below the amount voted in the preceding year, and the present vote was 1,800l. less than that of last year. The charge, therefore, was in a course of progressive reduction. He was not disposed to object to the proposition that the colonies ought generally to defray the expense of their own administration of justice; but the present case was an exception to the rule.

wished the hon. Gentleman to state the principle upon which the progressive reduction of this charge proceeded, in order that the Committee might know when the charge would eventually cease. The magistrates to whom the vote referred were appointed to protect the slaves in the colonies; but in the altered circumstances produced by the Emancipation Act, the proprietors were more in need of protection than the labourers.

said, that the charge could be reduced by not filling up vacancies when they occurred, or the Imperial Treasury might at once be relieved from it by it being transferred to the colonial treasuries. At present, he could not undertake to say which of those courses would be adopted.

said, that the state of the House and the period of the Session forbade his entering at length into the great question connected with this vote; he therefore would content himself with touching briefly upon a few of its leading features, and then leaving it in the hands of Government. The object which he had in view was, to relieve the pressure of a heavy burden on the finances of this country—to avert a vast amount of evil which the present course of things inflicted upon the inhabitants of Africa—and to remove from the path of human civilisation an impediment which for the time appeared to be insurmountable. England had much to answer for with reference to the people of Africa. If this country did not originate the odious traffic in human beings, she at least, by her example, encouraged it, and carried it to the height of criminality which it reached before 1807. Though the horrors of the Slave Trade, with the recital of which that House was wont to be thrilled previously to 1807, were such as to arouse the sympathies of Europe, those which had occurred of late years, since the stringent blockade of the coast of Africa had been enforced, exceeded them a hundred fold. England first engaged in slave-dealing in 1652, when John Cocking fitted out thirty-eight vessels, the largest being 120 tons, and the smallest 40, to carry negroes from Africa to Hispaniola, now St. Domingo, where they were sold. From 1752 to 1762 the trade increased to such an extent, that during that time no fewer than 71,115 negroes were imported into Jamaica, and sold at the average price of 30l. each. From time to time, English dealers contracted to supply Foreign Powers with slaves, and in every instance the contracts were sanctioned by the British Government. It was a curious fact, that the first attempt to put an end to the traffic in slaves was made by the planters themselves. In 1747, the Assembly of Jamaica passed two Bills, the object of which was to suppress the Slave Trade; but the British Government refused to sanction those measures, and directed the Governors of the West India colonies to inform the assemblies, that if they passed any more Bills of a similar nature, they would be deprived of the power of legislating for their own affairs; and the reason assigned for that proceeding was, that the Slave Trade was very profitable to the citizens of the mother country. In 1794, the House of Commons took a step towards the ultimate abolition of the Slave Trade, by passing a Bill which prohibited the sale of slaves to foreigners. The House of Lords, however, rejected the Bill; and it was not until—in consequence of the famous agitation headed by Wilberforce and Fox, and countenanced by Pitt—the anti-slavery feeling took such strong hold of the public mind, that the Legislature was obliged to grapple with the question; and finally, in 1807, the Slave Trade, as far as Great Britain was concerned, was made felony. Since 1807 we had made various treaties with our allies, for the purpose of putting down the traffic generally; but, unfortunately, the effect of those treaties had been to aggravate greatly the evils of the Slave Trade. [The hon. Member read extracts from various documents to prove that before the abolition of the Slave Trade, greater attention was paid to the health and comfort of the negroes during their transit from Africa, than was now directed to those objects.] The number of a slave cargo was at that time thought enormous if it was 620; the mortality was estimated at from 3 to 10 per cent; yet the statement of that fact in 1788 roused all England, and in consequence of the indignation of the country the traffic was put an end to. But the noble Lord knew the mortality during the middle passage at the present time, caused by the increased vigilance of the English cruisers, was 600 and 700 per cent. Out of 600 slaves taken on board on the coast, not more than 100 or 200 were landed alive. That dreadful increase of mortality was in consequence of a mistaken humanity on the part of the people of England, who were taxed to the amount of 1,000,000l. a year for the expense of putting down the traffic, for which no good effect was obtained. On the contrary, a certain impediment was thrown in the way of African civilisation. The accounts of Africa, written at the beginning of the 16th century, speak of the country before it was resorted to by the slave-dealers as comparatively civilised. The people of Guinea understood commerce, and to a certain degree art flourished among them. At one time the King of Timbuctoo was spoken of as a patron of literature. In a report made to the King in 1788, the negroes were described as an inoffensive race when they had no intercourse with Europeans; but after that they became degraded, and were depopulated by wars and cruelties. This was a melancholy confirmation of a remark of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that when civilisation came in contact with barbarism, barbarism always had the worst of the conflict. If Europeans conducted their intercourse with the negroes as if they had the interest of that people at heart, it would be advantageous to the country; but in most parts of the continent the kings, encouraged by the slave-dealers, made perpetual war on each other for the sake of making prisoners; of these, the handsomest women were reserved for domestic slaves and concubines; the rest were sold on the coast to the slavers. Even when the traffic was recognised and under some regulation, when it was conducted with comparative mildness, the barbarous chiefs of Africa had recourse to these terrible practices; how much must they have been increased in horror now that not only the demand for slaves had increased, but the proportionate number required was so great, that six Africans must be found for every one landed at Cuba or the Brazils. He knew not how they could better begin to put an end to the slave trade, than by putting an end to its cruelties, and relieving Africa of the girdle of horrors with which they now encircled it; if they allowed something like free intercourse between Africa and the continent of Europe, the negro population must insensibly imbibe some portion of the spirit of liberty. Even Sir T. F. Buxton, who, during a long life was the zealous advocate of the abolition of the slave trade, told them that all their expenditure of money, and of the lives of their best and bravest, had but increased the evil. Knowing this, he should not appeal to the noble Lord in vain to reconsider the treaties which, in an evil hour for the character of Great Britain and the fate of Africa, his predecessor had concluded with France and other Foreign Powers for the suppression of the slave trade. In the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, to which he had before alluded, the noble Lord quoted the case of the Kentucky, an American vessel, that was taken with 500 negroes—men, women, and children, huddled together in a space between decks only two feet ten inches high. The most shocking cruelty was practised on board that vessel, though the captain was a sugar planter and owner of the slaves himself, and therefore had a direct interest in taking as much care of them as possible. On one occasion he coolly ordered his men to fire through the deck on the poor wretches of both sexes crowded together in the hold below. Here the mortality was not merely two or three per cent, which at one time was considered enormous; here 500 per cent perished, partly from the cruelty of the captain, partly from disease and suffering. The steamers employed on the coast of Africa, by their rapidity, compelled the slavers to use vessels of the slightest construction, with the least possible amount of accommodation. The service was a revolting one to the navy engaged in it; and it had been stated to Lord Aberdeen, that the blockade never deterred the traders from entering on the traffic; its only effect was to make them build ships with less space and draught, the confinement in which was more destructive to human life than those formerly employed. He had thus briefly stated three points: first, that which the people of England would consider the least important, if any good result were effected by it, that the expense of the service to this country was 1,000,000l. a year, spent with no advantage, but causing a greater destruction of human life, and retarding the progress of human civilisation. Secondly, it was proved the loss of life among the officers and men employed was very large; they had to guard a coast of 3,000 miles in length, exposed to a deadly climate; but all the sacrifice of health and life was useless. The third and most important consideration was, that for every thousand negroes sold into slavery, six or seven times that number died in the most excruciating agony. Such was the result they had attained after the sacrifice of millions of money, and the expending of hundred of lives on the part of Great Britain. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman said, that, however imperfectly and rapidly, in deference to the wishes of the House, he had stated the facts, he trusted the noble Lord would pardon that deficiency, and would take the case on its merits—that he would not ask for this vote—that he would repeal the statutes enacted for carrying out our treaties in reference to the slave trade with Foreign Powers—and that he would at once proceed to abrogate those treaties, and thus free humanity from the terrible curse they entailed

I certainly cannot find fault with the efficiency with which the hon. Gentleman has stated his case; on the contrary, it seems to me that he has laid it before the House with very great dexterity. Judging from the drift of his argument, I should suppose his object is to legitimatize the slave trade; and he has tried to insinuate that conclusion under the semblance of great regard and care for humanity. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this country does owe a great debt of reparation to Africa in regard to this matter. It is quite true that England was originally a culprit in introducing this abomination to the shores of that quarter of the world; but it will be some atonement to remember that if England was among the first to commit the sin, England also led the way in a noble and generous crusade—that we not only abolished our own slave trade, but we also emancipated our own slaves. And, whatever differences of opinion may prevail as to the best and most effective means of checking or preventing the slave trade, one truth ought never to be lost sight of—that the trade never can be entirely and permanently put an end to until the condition of slavery itself shall be abolished. I differ with the hon. Gentleman as to the comparison he has drawn in regard to the cruelties of the middle passage before the abolition of the slave trade of England, and since this country has adopted the vigorous measures which have recently been pursued to check that dreadful offence. The hon. Gentleman has quoted from the evi- dence taken before the Committee of 1826, to explain the course which was then pursued by the slavers, to show the superiority of the ships engaged, and the comforts enjoyed by the slaves. He says they were taken on deck in the daytime, and made to jump about; that in their absence their place of confinement was fumigated with delightful odours; that frankincense was even used to make their apartment luxurious; and that in consequence the mortality ranged only from two to ten per cent. Now, the hon. Member might even have gone further. If he had read the whole of the evidence taken before the Committee of this House, he would have found one witness stated, so delightful was the condition, so happy the state, of the negro in the middle passage, that it was actually the happiest period of the negro's life; and, possibly, comparing his sufferings during the passage, great as they were, with those he was destined to encounter on his arrival at the market at which he would be sold, it might prospectively be entitled so to be considered. These, however, were depositions made by the advocates of the slave trade; but the hon. Gentleman will also find, and anybody who will give himself the trouble to look will find, in the same examination, details of horrors taking place on the middle passage quite equal to any reported to have been committed in recent periods. There were some distinguishing features of cruelty in the slave ship of that time. There was the boarding netting. The deck of every slave ship was surrounded with high netting—and for what purpose? To prevent these miserable creatures from escaping from the tortures to which they were subjected by plunging themselves into and perishing in the waves. And that is the state of happy existence which the hon. Gentleman thinks so deserving of his praise. Why, the instances are innumerable of negroes jumping overboard; frequently the one dragging the other after him, and both sinking together; and often it happened that some desperate negro struggled to drag to the same fate the companion to whom he was chained, but who was not prepared for the determined act. They were exposed to the most fearful cruelties below; and, as they were compelled by the lash to jump about on deck in order that their physical health might be preserved whenever the opportunity presented itself, the more daring leaped into the sea to escape the terrible tortures of the vessel. But the hon. Gentleman says, that at that time the mortality at the utmost did not exceed 10 per cent; and that now, by recent accounts, according to his showing, it equals 500 or 600 per cent. How the mortality can be at that amount per cent, I do not exactly understand. The hon. Gentleman means that out of every 500 or 600, 100 negroes died; and I would suggest that, if he looks to the calculation, he will find that, instead of it being 600 per cent, the mortality could only be, at that rate, something like 16 or 17 per cent. The difference, therefore, on his own showing, of the rates of mortality formerly and under the present system, can only be between 10 and 17. If 100 die out of every 600, that is only about 16 per cent. [Lord G. BENTINCK: That is not what the hon. Member said.] The supposed mortality of 600 has thus been reduced to the more humble and moderate proportion of 16 per cent. I do not, however, mean to deny that the cruelties now inflicted on the negroes on the passage, amount to anything that the imagination can conceive; and it is impossible to exaggerate the state of suffering which the wretched slaves are forced to undergo. And when you come to consider the deeds of violence and brutality which are committed in capturing the prisoners, the sufferings they sustain in the march to the coast, their tortures on the passage, and the miseries to which they are to be consigned when they arrive in America, you may with truth assert that which I took the liberty of stating on a former occasion, that, as I believe, if all the crimes the human race ever committed were summed together in one black aggregate, they would not amount to the heinousness of this one horrible sin. We are, then, all agreed as to the abomination of the trade; the hon. Gentleman avowedly only condemns the measures that have been adopted for the purpose of suppressing it, and he contends that our efforts at prevention have only increased the evil. He would be, if I rightly comprehend him, for removing all the cruisers, abrogating all the treaties entered into by the British with foreign Governments, and giving freedom to legitimate trade. Thus, he commences Ms conversion to the principles of free trade by demanding a free trade in slaves. I will not accept the conversion on such terms as these. It would be easy to show that that freedom of trade, instead of abolishing, would extend the slave trade most enormously. The hon. Gentleman says that those cruisers by which the coast of Africa is watched, prevent any legitimate traffic; and he supposes that if you allowed Europeans to have a fair traffic in Africa for the purpose of buying negroes, the principles of liberty would soon diffuse themselves throughout Africa, and that then the legitimate trade would put an end to the slave trade. Now, if there is one fact which all those conversant with Africa concur in more than another, it is this—that the slave trade extinguishes legitimate trade, and that wherever the slave trade is, there legitimate traffic ceases to be. And consequently, if I am correct in assuming that the measures suggested by the hon. Gentleman would increase and scatter the trade over the whole coast of Africa, I am borne out in saying that one of the results would also be to annihilate all legitimate trade in the neighbourhood of that coast. It required very little demonstration to show the justness of the conclusion to which I have now come. What is the price of a negro in Brazil and Cuba? Has that price increased, or has it not? Every one knows that it has increased enormously, for that is the very argument of those who wish us to discontinue our precautions. They say, that seeing the great profits of this trade, and the temptations it in this way holds out, we can never put it down in the manner hitherto tried. They point out that all the risk is repaid if there is landed one cargo out of three or four, or one out of five or six, and that we pay the slave trader; but, translate that into common English, and it means simply that the supply falls infinitely short of the demand. It means nothing more; it means only the number of negroes brought into America is so much less than the demand for them, that the profit is great enough to make one cargo landed out of six pay the person who has undertaken the infamous traffic. What is that withholding that required supply? Why, our preventive measures, your cruisers, your treaties with European Powers. It is obvious, common sense tells you, that if you don't dam up the stream, the water will flow in its abundance; and, naturally, if you remove these cheeks we have imposed, the supply will at once spring to equal the demand; and for every 100 men that now reach the coast of America, you will have 500 or 600. Is that the mode you will employ of putting an end to the cruelties and horrors of the slave trade? Depend upon it, if the measures now pursued were to cease to be adopted, you would have the coast swarming with such a number of slavers, pirates, and ruffians of every sort and kind, that there would be no safety for legitimate trade. Moreover, the profits which the native chiefs in that case would derive from the trade in man, would supersede all inducement to traffic in any other way; your legitimate trade ceasing, your chance of African civilization would cease also, and the coast then would be a sort of hell upon earth uninterrupted by any intercourse with civilized beings. That would be the necessary and inevitable consequence. But I am told that the evil would at last reach to that degree that the native chiefs would become disgusted with it, and that the people in Brazil and Cuba would be sick of so unprofitable a concern, and eventually of their own accord put an end to the trade. Why that is very like the well-known proposal of the Anti-Jacobin to make housebreaking so ludicrous an affair as to deter any one from committing the offence. I say that nothing will put an end to the slave trade but your preventive measures. First of all, to prove my case, I must refer to all the voluminous papers which have been laid on the Table of the House from year to year, which show that, in proportion as your preventive measures are strict, the slave trade diminishes, and that when they are relaxed, that trade becomes extensive again. I have here the evidence given before the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject, the Due de Broglie and Dr. Lushington, and they examined, not any speculators, but men conversant with the state of things on the coast of Africa. I will read to the House one or two questions and answers. Captain Henry Dundas Trotter, R.N., was asked—

"Do you think that the slave trade has increased or diminished since the time you have known the coast of Africa?—It had very much decreased during the interval between my first and second visit to the coast. I mean that during this interval, from 1834 to 1841, the number of slaves exported had diminished to a comparatively small amount. Indeed, in the year 1841, when I went to the Niger, the number had be-come very small indeed; and it was still lower in 1842, when I believe it had reached its minimum, owing, no doubt, to the destruction of the barracoons by Captain Denman, in the year before, and the approval, by the Government, of that proceeding. It has, since then, again increased. To what do you attribute the increase since the year 1841?—I attribute the decrease, in the interval I have alluded to, very much to the blockade system, and its subsequent increase to that system having been at times less rigidly maintained."

Captain E. Butterfield was asked—

"Do you conceive that any measures could be resorted to which would be effectual for putting down the slave trade?—The most effectual would be to declare it piracy by all nations. Did the slave trade increase to your knowledge? It increased very much after I left. For what reason?—There were fewer men-of-war there at that time. Do you believe that by the application of any extent, of naval force you could so blockade the coast as to prevent the slave trade being carried on?—I think so."

Captain G. Sprigg was asked—

"Did the trade continue about the same in 1841 and 1842, or did it diminish, or did it increase?—It diminished in 1841 and 1842, because our force much increased after 1840.

"Your force was not much diminished there in 1841 and 1842?—No, it was increased over 1840.

"The trade decreased during the years 1841 and 1842?—Yes.

"Do you believe it would be possible to blockade the whole of that 2,300 miles of coast along which the trade extends, so as perfectly to prevent the slave trade?—No doubt it is possible with force enough."

Captain J. Denman was next examined. He stated, in answer to a question—

"The diminution of the slave trade in 1841 is clearly to be traced to the new system of blocking up the slave factories, and its reduction in 1842 to the small number of 3,000 is undoubtedly owing to the destruction of those depôts, and the fear that the same measures would be univerally adopted. And I am equally satisfied that if that system, be resumed and carried out with vigour, it cannot fail of putting down the slave trade. This result will be immensely accelerated if the system of destroying the slave depôts be at the same time resumed under proper restrictions and precautions."

The examination went on-—

"So that assuming that a sufficient force could be obtained, you could effectually prevent the slave trade?—I have not the slightest doubt of it. The suppression would be greatly accelerated by breaking up the slave factories.

"You have considered the question of suppressing the slave trade very maturely?—I have given my mind to the subject a great deal for some years.

"Have the goodness to state what measures you would propose to adopt with a view to extinguishing that trade?—I consider, first, a universal right of search upon the part of the ships of war, of whatever nation, employed upon that service, to be indispensable, whether under particular treaties, or whether under some substitute for the existing system; but that right I take to be quite essential. The next thing in importance I think would be to affix a personal penalty or punishment upon the persons who may be found engaged in the traffic. Thirdly, the breaking up of the slave depôts. Fourthly, the entering into treaties with the native Powers, providing for the destruction of the slave factories. Fifthly, the establishment of commercial posts in the neighbour- hood of all present slave-trading districts, the encouragement of legitimate commerce, the instruction and improvement of the natives by means of missionary labours and otherwise."

The noble Lord went on to say—It appears from these extracts of the opinions of persons practically acquainted with the subject, that I am borne out in my opinion that the slave trade could be put an end to by the means which I have described. That view is borne out, not only by those who are best acquainted with the subject, but by general reason. The hon. Gentleman has quoted the opinions of the late Sir Fowell Buxton upon the subject of the suppression of the slave trade; and no doubt the opinions of such a man are deserving of the greatest respect; but the hon. Gentleman ought to recollect what was passing in Sir F. Buxton's mind at the time when he expressed those opinions. When he wrote the boot from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, he had the humane and benevolent object in view of inducing the Government to send out an expedition for the colonisation of part of the coast of Africa with a view to civilizing the negroes; and in looking to that object he brought his mind to the conclusion that the existing measures had failed, and that it was worth while for the country to undertake a new, and, as many then thought, a doubtful course. The expedition was unfortunately unsuccessful; but his principle was a sound one, though he carried it too far. It is true that the best method of putting an end to the slave trade, after putting an end to slavery in other countries, is to strike at its origin, and persuade the chiefs not to kidnap and sell negroes, but rather to employ themselves in legitimate commerce. That is one of our measures, the progress of which is well known. By a treaty between England and France, the two countries turn their attention to that subject, and to the formation of treaties with chiefs in Africa, with a view to inducing them, of their own accord, to put an end to the slave trade. A good many treaties of that kind have already been entered into, and a good many chiefs have, under these treaties, engaged not to permit the traffic in slaves in their possessions. That is a good and efficient arrangement, so far as it goes; and it will be the object of the British Government, as I am sure it is the object of the Government of France, to extend the range of those treaties—to persuade the chiefs on the coast where the slave trade is now carried on to abandon it —to employ themselves in other pursuits—and if necessary, to use force to expel any Europeans who may wish to establish themselves on the coast with a view of carrying on that traffic. I hope that those efforts will be persevered in, and that they will be followed by a diminution of that abominable traffic. According to our accounts the import of slaves to Cuba has very much diminished; and I am sure if the Government of Spain is disposed to exercise its authority in Cuba, that diminution will be still more evident; but perhaps the Government of Spain is not very strong in its extremities even in the Peninsula, not to say in Cuba; and the Governor of Cuba, and the officers under him, thus obtain a large profit arising from the sale of slaves. I believe that latterly the orders from Madrid have been pretty well attended to in Cuba, and there has been no considerable importation of slaves into Cuba for the last two years. Brazil is another offender in these matters. There is no improvement in Brazil; but a great aggravation of the crime has taken place on the part of Brazil, no less than 42,000 negroes having been imported into Brazil in 1846, according to the account which I have seen; but I much fear that the real number has been still greater. In Brazil there is not a man from the highest to the lowest—I am now speaking of subjects, not of sovereigns—I am afraid there is not a man from the highest to the lowest in Brazil, who is not in some way or another directly or indirectly encouraging this trade, which forms part of the foul emoluments of those employed by the country. The treaty of last year gives powers which I have no doubt as they become more exercised will have the effect of checking this state of things. The hon. Gentleman has read, from the Slave Trade Commissioners at Cuba, a statement to the effect that it is no use to try to put an end to the slave trade by operations on the coast. I have not that statement before me; but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will find that the opinion of the Commissioners is not that repressive measures are of no use, but that the coast of Africa is not the place for those repressive measures—that is the expression as well as I recollect—and that those repressive measures would be more efficient on the coast of Cuba. That opinion would tend to show, not what the hon. Gentleman appears to think, that repressive measures would be useless, but merely that they might be more efficiently em- ployed on the coast of Cuba than on the coast of Africa. Latterly the opinion has prevailed, and it is one in which I am disposed to concur, that the best mode of proceeding is to stop the ships on the coast of Africa before beginning their voyages; for if you secure the vessel before she gets the slaves on board, you prevent all the evils which would otherwise arise from the transport of the slaves across the Atlantic, and all the evils of removing them from their own country. For some time past the concentration of forces at the River Plate is such that slavers making their escape from the coast of Africa have been enabled to escape unmolested; but if the affairs in the River Plate are soon, brought to an amicable termination, we may be enabled to give some check to the trade on the coast of Brazil, and that will effect a considerable diminution in it. If the Government of Brazil is bound by treaties to prevent its subjects from encouraging the slave trade, and is notwithstanding daily violating its engagements, then I say that it is guilty of a breach of contract towards Great Britain. I have heard that in the northern portion of Brazil the planters are beginning to employ the native Indians instead of the negroes, and that they are found to be as good for that purpose as the negroes; and if the practice should continue, we may hope that some check may spontaneously be caused to the slave trade by that means. With regard to the expense of repressing the slave trade, I deny that it is as great as the hon. Gentleman represents—the expense is considerable, and I do mean to underrate it; but whatever it may be, I am satisfied the people of this country will think the expense well incurred if they rescue annually 100,000 or more Africans from misery; and if thereby they may plant civilization in Africa, and establish there legitimate commerce, instead of the abominable traffic in human flesh and blood. That has been to a great extent proved by the facts I have quoted; and by persevering in the course we have adopted, and engaging the chiefs of the African coast in the pursuit of legitimate traffic, instead of the illegal and abominable traffic in slaves, I hope in process of time to see that traffic altogether extinguished. In the meantime we are diminishing it; and if we should now cease our exertions, we should be guilty of a greater offence than when we first began the slave trade; because with our eyes open, we let loose upon the unfortunate Africans an amount of misery and horror that would exceed any power of description possessed by the hon. Gentleman or by me, and which would be enough to make every man shudder merely to contemplate. Although this is not the vote to which the observations of the hon. Gentleman immediately apply, yet all the votes connected with this subject deserve the favour of the House; and I am sure that nothing in this world could strike the people of this country with more astonishment than to hear that we bad put an end to a system which we have so many years persevered in, and that we let loose a band of slave-dealers and pirates to devastate Africa from one end to another.

maintained that the expense of our squadron on the coast of Africa was upwards of a million sterling annually; and, notwithstanding that outlay, our exertions had not been successful in suppressing the slave trade, nor were they likely to be attended with success. The result of our exertions had been to double the demand for negroes, and consequently to increase the temptation to the slave-dealers, so that at present they were in the habit of sending so many as 200 or 300 slaves in a very small vessel, and they were satisfied if no more than fifty or sixty survived, as that number would repay them. Even the Anti-Slavery Association were now convinced that keeping up a blockade of the coast, at the expense of a million of money, was attended with no beneficial result. The noble Lord said if we wont on with this system we should succeed—but succeed in what?—in keeping the slave trade in check? Even the noble Lord did not assert that we should succeed in putting an end to the trade. He (Mr. Hume) looked upon the slave trade as a species of smuggling, which was caused by the high price brought by human flesh and blood. He had seen a friend within the last month from the Havana, who stated that the profits of plantations in the Havana were actually doubled. The planters, therefore, might well afford to pay 500 dollars, instead of 400 dollars, for a slave. Now, what was the remedy which he proposed in order to put an end to smuggling of this description? He would deal with it just as he would deal with smuggling in tobacco—he would lower the duty, and so take away the temptation to smuggle. Let them make free labour as cheap as slave labour, and then, but not till then, would they put an end to slavery At present our colonies were unable to maintain a competition with the Spanish colonies, in consequence of the enormous price which they paid for labour. The only mode, therefore, of remedying this evil was by allowing those who had capital in the West Indies to go to the coast of Africa, buy slaves there and carry them to the West Indies, where they might be placed as freemen, and produce those articles of consumption which came into competition with slave-grown commodities. [Mr. HAWES: A Government steamer is employed to carry labourers to the West Indies.] That was not the way to put down the slave trade. Let our colonists buy slaves at the same market as the Spanish colonists; but when they had bought their slaves they should be enfranchised. There need be no fear of oppression on the part of the masters, because as soon as the slaves were landed they would become free, and in a very short time they would become electors, and would regulate the way in which they should be governed. He therefore did not agree with the noble Lord, and thought that he had no proof whatever of the success of his plans, on which account he (Mr. Hume) had submitted a plan of his own, which, whatever else might be said of it, was at least based upon sound principles.

wished to say one word in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. His hon. Friend had quoted the opinions of the Anti-Slavery Association, and he (Viscount Palmerston) was quite aware that these were the opinions entertained by the association of late years; but the hon. Member for Montrose was perhaps not informed that the opinions of that association were also, that the best mode of defending the country would be to get rid of our Army and Navy. Such, at least, was the opinion entertained by the Peace Society. With regard to the observations made by his hon. Friend on the subject of smuggling, and allowing a free importation of labour into our colonies, he must say that he had always understood that if it were desired to increase the importation of a commodity, smuggling might be put an end to by licensing the importation, and thus the quantity of the commodities brought in might be increased. But the object of the Government was not to increase the commodity in question, but to diminish it; and though the policy of his hon. Friend would no doubt alter the channel of trade, still, upon every principle of political economy, it would increase the traffic. His hon. Friend said that it would be advisable to introduce free labour into our colonies, and thus put down the competition for slave labour; and no doubt the importation of free men into our colonies would have exactly the effect which the hon. Member supposed; but when he proposed that British subjects should be allowed to go to Africa, and go into the slave market to buy slaves, his hon. Friend only looked to one branch of the subject, because the objections to the slave trade did not relate merely to the nature of the trade between the West Indies and Africa, and the middle passage, but also to the sufferings occasioned by it in Africa itself. Every one who knew anything on the subject was aware that the wars, burnings, and murdering of women and children, which were perhaps the worst features, though the necessary consequences of the slave trade, would be more than ever encouraged by the plan of his hon. Friend, because the African chiefs would commit all these atrocities for the purpose of procuring slaves to sell.

wished to know whether the news had reached the noble Lord that 2,000 unfortunate slaves had been put to death by the chiefs in Africa because they could not be sold; and whether it would not have been better that they should be sold than put to death?

entirely concurred in the views taken by the hon. Member for Montrose, and sincerely regretted to see his noble Friend committing himself to a system which he was sure must, before long, be condemned by the universal voice of the people. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had already expressed his strong opinion against the continuance of this system, and so had the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and his lamented Friend the late Sir Fowell Buxton. It was impossible that a system leading to so much cruelty, while, at the same time, it drained the pockets of the people of a million sterling annually, could continue much longer. He trusted that in the next Parliament the House would entertain a full discussion upon the subject; and he hoped that even his noble Friend would then come over and join the cause of those who wished to do away for ever with the present expensive and useless system of blockade.

observed that the noble Lord had charged him with favouring the continuance of the slave trade; but he was sure that every word which he had addressed to the House tended only to show that the modes which the noble Lord was employing to put down the trade, had increased all its atrocities. He was glad that the question had been brought under the consideration of the House, for he believed that some change in the manner of repressing the slave trade must necessarily soon take place.

rose to call the attention of the House to the very strong and altogether peculiar claims of the family of the late Robert Thom, Esq., some time Consul at Ningpo, in China, and to the justice and expediency of making a suitable provision for them out of any sums that may be voted by this House for the China service. The hon. Gentleman observed, that as early as February last a meeting of Members of Parliament and others was held in London to consider the best mode of bringing this subject under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Under the instructions of that meeting he placed the papers explanatory of the object for which the meeting was held in the hands of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and requested an interview to explain such circumstances as might not appear quite clear to him. In answer to his application, the secretary of the noble Lord informed him that in consequence of the great calls upon his time, it would be impossible for him to grant the interview. He (Sir G. Staunton) regretted this, as he believed an interview of a quarter of an hour's duration would have been sufficient to lay the matter more clearly before him than any statement he could now make. Mr. Thom had subsequently been appointed, with the lamented Mr. Morrison as interpreter to Sir H. Pottinger, to whom (unacquainted as Sir Henry was with the language) his services must have been most valuable. Mr. Thom had afterwards been appointed inspector of a district; and at last Sir H. Pottinger appointed him to the best situation he had to give—viz., the Consulship at Ningpo. But the seeds oft death had been sown in his constitution by his great exertions as interpreter to Sir H. Pottinger, and he had died in a year and a half at his post. If he had survived a few years, he would probably have been able to have saved enough to mantain the family he had left behind him; but his wishes were shown by his will, in which he had divided his property between his infant children and the other members of his family. Sir Henry Pottinger had borne the highest testimony to the merits of Mr. Thom; and in a letter dated the 2nd December, 1846, said—

"I have on every occasion borne the most willing and unqualified testimony to the devoted zeal with which Mr. Thom aided me in every branch of the momentous affairs that were intrusted to my guidance. He remained at his post until he unhappily fell a sacrifice to an insidious disease, which was brought on by his previous exertions. This affords the strongest proof of the high-minded and pure public feeling which formed the mainspring of his actions and the rule of his life. Had he been spared, I have no doubt but he would have continued to rise to further distinction. Few at his early age had done better service to their country, or died more respected and beloved."

It had been suggested that an application should be made on behalf of Mr. Thom's family to the royal bounty; but he (Sir G. Staunton) had chosen rather to lay the case before the favourable consideration of the House. It was not one which was likely to lead to further demands. Mr. Thom's merits were rare, and his services not such as were often called into requisition. He hoped, therefore, that Government would have no objection to allot a sufficient pension to the family of this useful and distinguished public servant.

assured the House that his hon. Friend had by no means exaggerated Mr. Thom's merits. Few had devoted themselves to studies so laborious and abstruse as he had; and he (Dr. Bowring) did think that his was a case in which special service deserved special attention and special reward.

knew how great an authority was his hon. Friend (Sir George Staunton) on all matters connected with China; and he could assure him that the merits and attainments of Mr. Thom were highly appreciated by all who were acquainted with the history of our late proceedings in China. But when the House was asked to establish a new precedent, it became the duty of those charged with the administration of the public funds to remind hon. Members that, however much they might be disposed to agree to the actual demand made, still, that that very acquiescence might lead to the preferment of other claims to an extent which had not been once contemplated by the supporters of the original demand themselves. As to consular pensions, there was no regulation by which a pension could be bestowed upon the surviving relatives of gentlemen who had performed them; and even in the Army and Navy, when an officer died in action, under the most brilliant circumstances, a pension could only be bestowed upon his widow, not upon such surviving relatives as had been left by Mr. Thom. It would not be possible for the House to accede to the proposal of the hon. Baronet without setting a precedent which in justice must be extended to the whole of the consular service. However painful, therefore, it might be to him, he could not advise the House to assent to the Motion of the hon. Baronet.

disclaimed the intention of asserting the right of Mr. Thom's family to consideration merely on the ground that Mr. Thom had been a Consul.

observed, that Mr. Thom had taken the situation, and left a situation in which he formerly had been, for the purpose of serving the public. The noble Lord was afraid of establishing a precedent; but it was not likely that any similar case could occur, and therefore there could be no danger of setting a precedent. He regretted to see the determination the noble Lord had come to; for it must be a damper to any man situated as Mr. Thom was; and he (Mr. Hume) wished the noble Lord would reconsider the claims of Mr. Thom's children.

called the attention of the Government to the anomalous position of the colony of Hong-Kong, dependent, as it appeared, both on the Colonial and Foreign Office. He had asked the Under Secretary of the Colonies respecting some decrees which had appeared in that colony, but he had no cognizance of them; and the noble Lord probably was in the same condition. He could not see how unity of action or legislation could be secured under such a system. It appeared, also, that the revenue was raised in a most objectionable manner, and that various monopolies had been constituted in the colony. He hoped that when the Committee which had been sitting on the subject for some weeks had made its report, a very great change would be the consequence.

begged to remind them that Dr. Bloomfield was receiving a pension, and that three daughters of a living painter (Sir M. Shee) got 200l. a year. He should be glad to know why, or who had recommended that pension. Had it been granted in consideration of the eminence of their father as an artist, he would be glad to have that eminence proved. He denied the reasons assigned, and thought that the claims of Mr. Thom's family should be considered, when they saw 200l. given to the children of a living artist, who never had deserved anything of the country, and when they also saw that a pension was given to Dr. Bloomfield—why or wherefore that learned gentleman got it, he did not know.

said, that Mr. Thom's family might be very proper persons to receive a pension; but he (Mr. Labouchere) must protest against the manner in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had taken occasion to speak of Sir M. Shee. With respect to his merits as an artist, he did not mean to pronounce an opinion. All he could say was, that Sir M. Shee had been chosen by those who could best judge of his merits to fill the situation of President of the Royal Academy; and he could not think that the man chosen to fill that situation by his brother artists could be a person devoid of merit.

objected on principle to the practice of allocating the public money to the purposes of clergymen of any denomination whatsoever. It was full time that the House should adopt the principle of refusing to give money to the clergy of any church. He should most assuredly take the sense of the Committee on the vote.

supported the vote, observing that it was designed for the especial benefit of a most respectable and valuable class of persons in Ireland, the Presbyterians, who numbered no less than 800,000 souls. They received the grant with feelings of extreme thankfulness, and would regard its withdrawal now, after the lapse of so many years, as an affront and an injury.

objected on principle to the vote. He could not understand on what pretext the right hon. Gentleman could re- fuse to endow the Catholic clergy of Ireland, if he thought it was fair and consistent with sound principle to endow the Presbyterians. If that was done in Ireland, they could not, with any consistency, refuse to pursue the same policy in England, and even in Scotland, where the Free Kirk should have to be enriched from the State as well as the Kirk. In justice, they should either endow one or all. He was for endowing none.

said, he had strong objections to several of the items in this vote. One item was 4,000l. to pay for the outfit of the British Ambassador at Paris; and he could not see how such a sum was to be required when a mansion and every other requisite were already provided. He hoped some explanation would be afforded on this point, and also as to the mode in which the sums advanced to other public officers were apportioned; thus he found that one Gentleman, Mr. D. F. O'Leary, received 936l. reimbursement of expenses incurred by him in proceeding with his family to Bogota, on his appointment as Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at New Granada; while Mr. Ball, the late Chargé d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres, received for his passage from Monte Video to this country, on board Her Majesty's ship Apollo, 112l. 15s.; and Mr. Turner, the Charge d'Affaires who succeeded him, together with the Secretary of the French legation there, cost the country 187?. for being conveyed the same journey on board another ship. Another case still more extraordinary was the cost of the passage of Consul Layton to China, amounting to 301l. 16s. 10d. Considerable charges were also made on account of excursions made by six bishops; and he was sure his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) would feel gratified in having an opportunity to record his vote against the expenditure of the public money for such purposes. The excursions of the Bishop of Gibraltar for the year cost the country 109l. 12s.; of the Bishop of Newfound-laud, 120l; the Bishop of Antigua, 621. The entertainment of the Bishop of Jamaica and his chaplain on board the Hermes cost 100l.; the entertainment of the Bishop of Barbadoes and suite, in Her Majesty's sloop Hyacinth, cost 70l.; and the charge for the late Bishop of Jerusalem and family, in going from Jaffa to Beyrout in the Warspite, was 60l. Seeing that all the Protestants in Jerusalem under the bishop's care only amounted to twenty-seven persons, more than half of whom were his Lordship's family and servants, he could easily have found time for making pleasurable excursions. He (Mr. Williams) did not object to his having done so; but he thought the expense ought to have come out of his own pocket. He had also to object to the item of 1,079l. for robes, badges, and collars, for knights of the several orders, as he thought the expenses ought to be borne by the knights themselves. He hoped some explanation would be afforded on those matters; and on others, such as chains and badges for the marshal, and 113l. expenses for watermen's badges and attendance of the barge-master and watermen at the House of Lords. He thought, if their Lordships wanted watermen, they ought to have paid for their services themselves. He should object likewise to the very large sums charged for the travelling expenses of foreign princes and other personages in this country; and he thought in all these matters it was too bad to make the overworked operatives of England contribute such immense sums. The hon. Member concluded by moving a reduction to the amount of 6,104l. 16s. 7d. in the vote.

said, it was impossible for the House to go into the vote at that hour, as the hon. Member had gone into so many details, and asked so many questions; and he, therefore, would move that the Chairman report progress.

said, it was absolutely necessary to keep up the dignity of our Ambassadors, and that their scale of expenditure was lower than that allowed by France, Spain, and Austria.

said, that in moving that the words "or tithe" be struck out in the 6th Clause, he would appeal to the justice of Her Majesty's Government and the House. The injustice of which he complained would affect equally the clergy and the owners of ecclesiastical, and laymen who were owners of impropriate, rent charge. The case was shortly this: under the Labour-rate Act of last Session, the compensation for damage to land taken for the purposes of the Act was placed upon the same footing as damages for land taken by grand-jury presentment for the ordinary roads or other purposes; that is to say, the amount of the compensation was to be presented and levied from the occupiers of land with the ordinary county cess. But, considering that the proprietors might be benefited equally with the occupiers by these new roads, it was proposed in this Bill—and he thought justly—that the compensation for damage should be divided between landlord and tenant. So far he thought the Bill just and reasonable; but it went further—the introduction of the words which he moved should be expunged would have the effect of subjecting the owner of tithe rent charge to the full poundage of the compensation for damages for the land taken for these public works. Now, as he had already stated, tithe rent charge in Ireland was not assessable for any public works; and the effect of these words would be to introduce a new description of property and lessors, and make those chargeable who neither directly nor indirectly were heretofore chargeable for such purposes: this he thought unjust, and especially in a Bill brought in at the very end of the Session. He would just ask the House to consider with what peculiar hardship this would press upon the clergy. He would ask them to consider the case of the tithe rent charge as it already is made to contribute to the poor rates. In all other property the rate forms a deduction from the valuation, so that when you have a rate of 10s. in the pound, the valuation is reduced 50 per cent; but, while the valuation of all other property is thus reduced, the valuation of tithe rent charge remains the same. Suppose the case of land on the one hand, and tithe rent charge on the other, worth, respectively, 100l. a year antecedently to a rate of 10s. in the pound, the rate itself being a deduction from the valuation of the land; the valuation is reduced from 100l. to 50l., and the amount levied on the land, at 10s. in the pound, is 25l.; but the landlord is empowered to deduct the full poundage of 10s. in the pound for every pound he pays to the clergyman; and the deduction he therefore makes will be 50l., so that the clergyman on the rent charge of 100l. a year will contribute, not to the poor, but to the landlord, 50l., while the occupier of a farm worth the same amount will contribute but 25l., one half of which he afterwards deducts from his landlord. Let the House just consider the effect of this upon the smaller livings in Ireland. The effect of the increased poor rate, with the labour rate and compensation superadded, would be ruinous to many of the clergy. The income of every clergyman in Ireland, which is at present 100l. a year, would be reduced by a 10s. rate to 50l.; while the income of every farmer or landowner of the same amount will be reduced to but 75l., with the power of deducting one half the 25l. from his landlord, where the occupier is a tenant, so that the tenant's income will he reduced but 12l. 10s., the landlord's 12l. 10s., and the clergyman's 50l. Now he would put it to the House, was this fair or reasonable? He would not, at so late an hour, comment in detail upon the other hardships to which the clergy were subjected in respect of the rating under the poor law. His right hon. Friend and Colleague had recently stated them to the House, and they had been admitted by Her Majesty's Government. The clergy had to pay ecclesiastical tax upon the amount deducted by the landlord for poor rate. They will have to pay ecclesiastical tax upon the sum deducted for compensation under the Bill, and for the labour rate, if the words to which he objected remained, while at the same time they will have to pay poor rate and labour rate for the sums paid by them to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He could not believe the House would sanction this injustice; and he would conclude by moving that the words "or tithe" be omitted in the sixth clause of the Bill.

said, Her Majesty's Government could not consent to the omission of those words. The fact was, it was the object of the Bill to place the compensation for damage for laud in the same position as the labour rate. The Act of the last Session placed the levy of the labour rate in the same position as the poor rate, enacting that all parties rateable to or contributing to the poor rate, should be liable to the labour rate; and, although there was no provision in the Act authorizing the deduction to be made from rent charge, it was the intention of the Legislature that tithe rent charge, as well as other property, should be liable to the labour rate. The words he had introduced into the Bill would remove all ambiguity on the subject, and prevent litigation.

stated, that the admission of the hon. and learned Gentleman completely established the case of his hon. Friend. The Solicitor General had admitted there was an ambiguity. No one knew better than he that where there is an ambiguity as to taxation, the principle of law is that parties are not liable, and therefore it followed that this Bill will make those who are at present exempt liable to this taxation. Under the poor law the clergy were liable to double rates as compared with the proprietor or occupier, the tenant contributing one half the poundage, the landlord one half, and the landlord deducting the whole from the clergyman; and his hon. Friend had adduced this an an additional reason why the clergy should not be rendered liable to this assessment besides. He would cordially support the Motion.