, having referred to a petition from the inhabitants of Trinidad, praying that they might be granted a representative system of local government, asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies if the Government had any intention of taking measures to secure such a mode of government to that colony?

stated, that in the existing condition of the colony, with education very little diffused among the inhabitants, it had not been deemed advisable at the present period to establish there representative institutions. Steps had, however, been taken to prepare the people for some future measure of that kind. The island had been divided into districts; municipal forms had been conceded; and this, it was hoped, would lay the firm foundation for good independent government.

asked his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control, if he was aware that the Marquess of Tweeddale, the Governor of Madras, had issued a regulation allowing the use of Bibles in the class schools established for the education of the natives in that presisidency, and if this practice had been discountenanced by the Government at home?

was understood to say that such a regulation had been issued by the Council at Madras, and that the Court of Directors had considered it to be a new step, the effect of which might be to alarm the natives.

stated, that the volunteer corps in the dockyards were, as their name implied, purely voluntary associations; but that the entry had been all but universal on the part of those employed in the yards. Nothing whatever, however, in the shape of a penalty was imposed by the Board of Admiralty for refusing to enter that corps. With respect to persons leaving the corps, after having joined it, "without just cause, he believed that as no one case had occurred requiring interference, so no decision had been come to on the subject. It had been arranged, however, that in all future entries into the dockyards a condition would be imposed that such persons should join the corps.

said, he very much regretted that the suggestion made some some days ago for a competent person to attend on behalf of the Government at the coroner's inquest, to which his hon. Friend alluded, had not been acted upon. The usual course was for Sir Henry de la Beche to attend himself, or to order a competent person to attend for him, on the occasion of accidents in mines; and at his (Sir G. Grey's) request, his noble Friend the First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, communicated with Sir H. de la Beche on the subject. Owing, however, to that gentleman having been absent in Wales, the communication was not acted upon. With regard to the accident, he might state that he now held in his hand the letter from the magistrates to which he had alluded on a former day, but which he did not then read, as it might be considered that his doing so would tend to influence the inquiry then pending. The inquest having now terminated, he might now state that the document, which was signed by five magistrates, who had inquired into the matter, stated that the explosion was the result of a workman, who was one of the sufferers, having, contrary to the express orders of the proprietors, used gunpowder in the mine. That a search was commenced five hours after the accident, and continued until all hopes were abandoned of the persons in the mine surviving, and that it was not until the people were convinced that none of the sufferers could be alive, that the mine was closed. He believed the case had been thoroughly investigated, and that the result showed that the explosion had been caused by the carelessness of one of the victims.

said, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War a question connected with the establishment of schools in the Army. A report had reached him to the effect that a project had been communicated to the right hon. Gentleman, which he had referred to the Board of Ordnance, for the opening of these schools as places of worship. There were three denominations of Christians recognised in the Army—the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and the Church of Rome; and he wished to know if the report were true, that the barrack school rooms should be allotted to the religious observances of these denominations; and, if so, whether he had any objection to lay the communication to which he alluded on the Table of the House?

said, the House was aware that his right hon. Friend who preceded him in office had turned his attention most laudably and properly to the improvement of education in the Army, not only with regard to the children of soldiers, but with regard to the education of the soldiers themselves. Carrying out these views, a school had been since established at the Military Asylum at Chelsea for the training of regimental schoolmasters; and in the course of a couple of years, he expected that they would be able to furnish all the regiments with proper schoolmas- ters. Although no communication had passed between himself and the Board of Ordnance on the subject, yet it was generally understood that there would be prepared at the barracks rooms for the use of the school to be established in each barrack. It would he so arranged, that on the Sabbath-day divine service might be performed in the room for the inmates of the barrack; but it was not contemplated that the room should be consecrated; and, therefore, he apprehended it would not be a place of worship to suit the views of Episcopalians, or the Members of the Church of England, or of the Church of Rome. He believed that divine service would only be allowed in the barracks in cases where troops could not have accommodation in the places of worship open to the community at large, so that he thought there was nothing in the arrangement that could hurt the most sensitive consciences.

wished to put a question relative to the powers vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It had been rumoured that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were about to take the tithes of a rectory in a certain diocese, and add them to the revenues of the bishopric; the reason for so doing being, that the bishop was also the rector of the parish. The question he wished to put was, whether, if such a scheme was in contemplation, the Government would recommend that it should receive the sanction of the Queen in Council?

, in consequence of the hon. Gentleman having communicated to him the alleged circumstances of this case, had made inquiry into the matter. The rectory was in the bishopric of Peterborough. It was a case in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had no jurisdiction whatever; and he might state, as to the living being annexed to the bishopric, that no proposition of the kind had been laid before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

rose, pursuant to notice, to bring under the consideration of the House the subject of the petition of Robert Grapes, complaining of his dismissal from the office of letter-carrier, and the improper conduct of certain authorities at the Post Office. He must first complain of the non-presentation of certain re- turns relating to the Post Office which he had moved for some time ago, so that he was not in possession of the information which he considered it to be the duty of that establishment and of the Government to have furnished him with. Robert Grapes, the petitioner, was appointed to the situation of a general post letter-carrier in March, 1840, and continued in that capacity until July, 1847, during which time no complaint was made of him except in 1846, when he was charged with writing a circular, which charge was shown to be untrue. As a proof that there was no charge against the character of this individual, it had been stated by Mr. Peacock, the Solicitor of the Post Office, that he was one of the best officers in the whole establishment. Why then had he been persecuted and dismissed? For this simple reason—that he had been instrumental in pointing out certain reforms necessary in that establishment, and instrumental in exposing (he said this advisedly) the dishonest practices of Mr. F. Kelly, the inspector, both with respect to the Directory, which had been the bane of the establishment, and with respect to other facts. In consequence of certain charges brought by Grapes against Mr. F. Kelly and Mr. W. Bokenham, consisting of no less than fifteen heads, an inquiry was directed by the Postmaster General before Mr. Peacock, which commenced on July 8, 1846: many witnesses were examined; and on July 25, 1846, one of those witnesses, named Thomas Mitchell, whilst giving important evidence in support of these charges, was summarily dismissed the service on a false charge trumped up against him. He thought Her Majesty's Government must have been convinced of the injustice done to this man, as he had been placed in a better situation. Grapes was equally innocent; and the public were indebted to him for his services in exposing the practices of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bokenham. Mitchell having been so dismissed, other witnesses declined giving evidence, in consequence of the terror and alarm produced by his dismissal. But, what had been the consequence of the charges? He had asserted that the early deliveries were a fraud upon the public; and they were stopped. He had said that the Directory was an impediment to the public service; and that had been altered. He had said that there was not a sufficient scale of salaries to the men at the Post Office, and that the fees and perquisites should be done away with; and both were done. There was another system by which Mr. Kelly had defrauded the public, in distributing 50,000 or 60,000 circulars (puffing his Directory) through the Post Office, without payment of postage, which had also been done away with. He had received a great deal of information from Robert Grapes, who had been persecuted in consequence; and, on the 3rd July last, he was dismissed Her Majesty's service, without any cause being assigned. On that day he had been called before the Postmaster General, and the depositions read to him of two men named Watts and Thomas against a man named Thacker, stating that which was totally false, viz., that Grapes had tampered with them respecting the evidence they were to give. Watts and Thomas were called in and asked whether their depositions were true? Watts answered, "I think so." Thomas answered, "No;" and when asked why he had signed the deposition, he replied that it had been under pressure, and through terror of Kelly. He could prove that Kelly had said, with reference to the trial of Thacker at the Old Bailey, that he would give 1,000l. if he could place Grapes in the same position. If this were true, was Kelly a fit man to remain on the establishment? Grapes had been dismissed by a written order, without date or signature; he had been refused a copy, and a copy had been refused to him (Mr. Duncombe), it not being convenient, he supposed, for the Post Office to give it. Her Majesty's Ministers should never be satisfied until they appointed a commission to examine the establishment. As to Colonel Maberly, he and Mr. Kelly were one; Mr. Kelly was paramount; for some reason or other, whoever was Postmaster General was sure soon to become the tool of this man. He challenged Her Majesty's Government to an investigation of this establishment, and he moved—

"That it is the opinion of this House, that a searching inquiry should be instituted into the various complaints, on the part of Robert Grapes and other subordinate officers of the General Post Office, into the conduct of Mr. F. Kelly, Inspector of Letter Carriers."

was understood to say, that the difficulty attending the preparation of the returns moved for by the hon. Gentleman was the cause of their delay; and upon this ground (namely, the absence of the papers) he suggested that it would be better to postpone the subject till an- other Session. With respect to the dismissal of Grapes, there had been a prosecution at the Old Bailey of a man named Thacker, upon a charge of embezzling letters, which had been proved; and it came to the knowledge of the Post Office that Watts, one of the witnesses, had been tampered with by Grapes, to prevent his giving evidence against the man; an inquiry took place before Mr. Peacock, a professional man of high respectability, the Solicitor of the Post Office; Watts and Thomas were examined, and it had been proved that Grapes had taken steps to pre-vent Watts from giving evidence.

regretted that the Post Office Department was not represented in that House. He regretted also to be obliged to notice the fact, that persons in the employment of the Post Office authorities should have been dismissed without being informed of their offence, leaving the world to infer that there existed no other cause for their dismissal than the fact that they had given evidence against their superiors in office.

observed, that the question, though relating to an humble individual, was one of immense importance. If any man were honest enough to expose abuses, he ought not to be dismissed merely for disclosing a scene of plunder and robbery.

thought that Grapes had done considerable service to the public, in exposing very gross abuses, reflecting the greatest disgrace upon the authorities of the Post Office; and it would only have been justice in the Postmaster General to have made ample inquiries, and made public the result. He hoped the charges which had been urged by Grapes against persons in the Post Office would receive the fullest investigation.

would not enter at all into that discursive matter which had been attached to this discussion. The ground on which Grapes was dismissed was, as alleged, that he had tampered with witnesses; and it would be apparent that a man labouring under the suspicion of such an offence, could not be retained in employment at the Post Office. The papers which would shortly be laid before the House would show whether the facts were or were not, as stated by Grapes; and it would be desirable that the House should not take any decisive step in reference to this question until in possession of the necessary evidence.

had moved for the papers of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke a fortnight ago; and it was his conviction that they had been purposely withheld by the people at the Post Office in order to put him in a disadvantageous position in entering upon the subject before the House. It had already been made perfectly clear that Grapes was dismissed without having been furnished with the reasons of his dismissal. He had asked for a copy of the order dismissing him, and it had been refused. He entreated them to give him the date of that order; and he was told in reply that it was not dated at all. If, as the right hon. Gentleman observed, it was true that he had tampered with witnesses, he would not have been a fit-person for employment in the Post Office; but the accusation was altogether false and unfounded. It would be much more creditable to the establishment, and satisfactory to the public, if an investigation were at once instituted into the cause of the man's dismissal; and he would undertake to prove that the charges had been trumped up by Kelly, whose malpractices had been exposed by Grapes; and who, therefore, had directed against that unfortunate subordinate all his enmity. It would be disgraceful to the Post Office if it could be shown that there had been no ground whatever for dismissing Grapes; and it was easy to demonstrate that his only offence had been his daring in questioning the honesty of Kelly, to whom in the end he had been most unjustly sacrificed. If he was returned to the next Parliament, he would without any delay bring the subject again before the House; and if a Committee were granted he would put it beyond all manner of doubt that Kelly was the greatest tyrant ever employed in any public department; and that so long as he remained in the Post Office the administration of the affairs of that establishment would be open to continual abuse. Under the circumstances, he would content himself with having brought the case before the House.

appeared at the bar of the House, and presented the Report of the Select Committee appointed to draw up the reasons of the Commons for disagreeing with certain Amendments of the Lords in the Passengers' Bill.

said, he had great reason to complain of the course which the Government had taken with respect to certain clauses which had, at his suggestion, been introduced into this Bill, and which had since been struck out by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, while the Bill was passing through the House of Lords. One of those clauses was to enforce an official survey of all ships employed to carry passengers; and the other clause was to require a certain number of men to be employed in British ships. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assented to these clauses, and undertook to insert them in the Bill. This he considered a compact binding on the Government; but, to his surprise, one of those clauses—that relating to the manning of the ships—had been since struck out of the Bill by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. This he (Lord G. Bentinck) considered to be a direct breach of compact between him and the Government.

protested against the language of his noble Friend, in making the allegation that there had been any breach of compact on the part of the Government. The only arrangement entered into between him and his noble Friend was as to the surveying of the ships; and this had been strictly complied with, for the clause was in the Bill. It was true his noble Friend did afterwards propose that a clause should be introduced to regulate the number of men which should be employed on board the ships; and at the time he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said that he saw no objection to the clause, and it was accordingly introduced into the Bill; but it had upon consideration been since struck out by the Lords, with the consent of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. This, however, could not be called a breach of compact, for no compact was entered into with respect to the clause relating to the manning of ships; it was entirely confined to the surveying of the ships, to ascertain their seaworthiness.

said, he thought that, in his position, he had good right to complain, because, if this were allowed, it would put an end to all conventional arrangements, which saved so much trouble, and to that confidence which was so desirable between parties in that House.

denied that any such compact as the noble Lord had referred to was entered into.

rose to move for copies of the despatches of Lord Hardinge respecting Scinde; and called the attention of the House to the state of that province. He had, early in the Session, placed on the paper a notice of his intention to ask some questions in respect to the seizure and occupation of this province by British troops; but having at the time understood that Lord Hardinge was about to report on the subject, he had considered it premature to do anything further; and he had accordingly waited until that day, the very close of the Session. He was convinced that we had taken possession of Scinde in a most unwarrantable manner; and the injustice was now recoiling on us in the shape of a heavy charge, amounting to nearly 1,000,000l. per annum. Commercially, Scinde had been of no use to us; and he did not think it ever would be an advantage. Politically, our gain had been as little; it drained our other dominions of an enormous sum yearly incurred as a charge in retaining our conquest; and this was so much taken from the general revenue, the surplus from which should be applied to those great public works, drainage and railways, which, as every one knew, were now essentially necessary to the prosperity of India. Our frontiers had been in consequence extended some hundreds of miles through deserts; and thus, in a military point of view, we had, in holding Scinde, most effectually weakened our old position. Scinde, again, was surrounded by hill tribes, all of whom were robbers and plunderers; and the army we had found necessary to preserve peace at this moment, numbered from 13,000 to 14,000 men, Native and European. The result of such a drain upon their ordinary resources, would compel the Council to increase their debt. The deficit in the revenues of India, had, in fact, solely been produced by the expenses of Scinde. Until we got possession of that province, there had always been a surplus; and the debt now amounted to 39,000,000l. Believing, therefore, that we had obtained the country dishonestly, and seeing that the conquest was neither commercially nor politically likely to be a gain to us, he thought it high time that in England it should be known what the Government now intended to do. Scinde, as they had been told by a Speech from the Throne, had been annexed to the British empire; that had been the case for four or five years; but still, Scinde did not enjoy the blessings of good government: it was still completely under a military despotism. There was not a civil officer in power throughout the whole province; the whole administration was under the control of General Napier. Did the Government contemplate that this state of things should continue? It would be much the wisest plan to deliver up Scinde to the natives, to whom the country properly belonged; and we should then have a friendly race standing between us and the Belooches and other hill tribes by whom our other possessions were continually disturbed. He did not desire to raise any question in respect to the government of General Napier. He did not think the time had come for that; he merely looked at the Government as it now was and as it ought to be. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give such an answer to the question as would relieve him (Mr. Hume) from the necessity of taking any further steps; and he was sure the Government would be glad of the opportunity that was now afforded them of setting at rest the anxious doubts which those interested in our Indian empire naturally entertained. He begged to ask what the future government of Scinde was to be? Whether, after four years of peaceful occupation, it was to be placed under the same government as the other territories under the East India Company, or whether it was to become a Queen's colony, or to remain under a military government?

said, that nothing could be fairer than the manner in which the hon. Gentleman had proceeded in calling the attention of Parliament to this very important subject. The House, however, would not expect him (Sir J. Hobhouse) to give any opinion whatever as to the possession of Scinde, or as to the mode in which that valuable province had been annexed to the British Empire. He found it in that position referred to by his hon. Friend; and he admitted that it had not been attached to India in the ordinary way. It had not been included, as the hon. Gentleman would seem to wish, in the government of Bombay, but had been placed under the Governor General and Council, to whom General Napier, commanding in Scinde, made all his reports. The government, certainly, was essentially military; and there was, it was true, scarcely a civil officer employed in the province; military men only were employed, and General Napier himself was the life and soul of the whole Administration. He would not enter into details with respect to General Napier; he did not think himself called on to say more than that since he (Sir J. Hobhouse) had been connected with India affairs, he had found that officer sedulously attentive to all his duties. If anything was wrong, to General Napier the evil was not to be attributed; the system might be objectionable; but so far as General Napier was concerned, he had most honestly, conscientiously, and ably carried out the form of government which was supposed to have been best adapted to the circumstances of the ease. General Napier, in repeated communications, had expressed his conviction that the present mode of administering the affairs of the newly conquered province had been most successful, and had answered better than if the ordinary system suggested by the hon. Member for Montrose had been resorted to. He had, in the despatches sent home, endeavoured to show this; and, on the first blush of the question, it would appear that this opinion was fully borne out by the facts. The hon. Gentleman had somewhat exaggerated the expenditure in Scinde: it was not quite so much as he had stated, though, at the same time, there could be no doubt that a considerable addition to the charges of our Indian dominions had resulted from the conquest and possession of that province. It should, however, be remembered, in considering this cost, that long before we entered Scinde we had found it necessary to keep up a largo military force in defence of our frontier positions in that direction. The last letter received from General Napier convoyed the information that the present number of regular troops in Scinde was 7,500. We had, further, 2,400 police, preserving order; and this was an effective force that might be called on at any moment. General Napier even said that an active officer would be able to retain the province with 5,000 men, supposing them to be as well organized as the present army. On the whole, during the last four years, it had been peacefully governed. There had been but one serious disturbance, which had been quelled by General Napier, with his usual rapidity, in fifty-four hours; and at this moment the whole country was in complete tranquillity, well governed, and comparatively prosperous. He was not in a condition to say that this form of government was intended to be continued. If Scinde was to belong to British India, then it would have to be ruled like the rest of the empire. General Napier undoubtedly had done much good, and many great things; he had abolished slavery, made canals, raised embankments, opened harbours and effected other improvements; and already a very promising account had been given of what might be expected in future years. Even but four years ago, Scinde was the rendezvous of bands of cut-throats; but now, the roads and river communications were open and secure—life and property were respected. Military government had, therefore, so far, been beneficial. But it was not the intention of the Government of India, or of the Government at home, that this military rule should last; and he would take the liberty of reading a despatch, which would be found among the papers, from the Governor General of India to the Court of Directors, which would give a far bettor account of the intention of Lord Hardinge and the Court of Directors on this subject than anything which could come from him. In that despatch Lord Hardinge said—

"With regard to the arrangement which will be best adapted for the future management of Scinde, I am of opinion that the whole of that province ought to be annexed to the presidency of Bombay; that the troops and all the establishments, both civil and military, should be furnished by and committed to the charge of the Governor in Council of that presidency; that, so long as Major General Sir Charles Napier continues to exercise the civil and military duties of the Government and the command of the forces in Scinde, it will not be advisable to make any change in a country recently subdued. Great advantage has attended the union of the two appointments of governor and commander of the forces in Scinde. A warlike military people are more likely to be disposed to obey the chief who conquered them, than any other public officer who could be selected by the Government. This opinion is limited to a state of affairs such as that which has existed in Scinde since I arrived in India. The state of the Punjaub, during the years 1844 and 1845, could not with advantage have admitted of the annexation of Scinde to the presidency of Bombay. The Government of India could not have selected during the last three years a more efficient officer than Major General Sir Charles Napier for the duties he so ably performs in Scinde, On public grounds, therefore, there has been no occasion on which I could, with benefit to your honourable Company's service, have recommended any better plan for the administration of Scinde than the present."

With respect to the opinion given by his hon. Friend as to the expediency of restoring the Ameers, the old governors of Scinde, he must say, from all the investi- gations he had made into the subject, that he was obliged to come to a contrary conclusion. He had found that the very rumour of the Ameers coming back had produced injurious consequences. The people who had latterly come into Scinde, and settled down there as cultivators of the soil, or in the small towns, began some of them to return; and considerable alarm was produced, merely by statements which had appeared in the English papers, and which had afterwards been copied into the Bombay papers, to the effect that the Ameers ought to be restored. Some persons entertained the idea that it was better to be contented with our former boundary, than to retain this extended territory. This might be very well if we had not such a place as Beloochistan on our left, and other wild tribes occupying the hills that divide Scinde from Affghanistan. But his hon. Friend should recollect that we had now, in point of fact, possession of the Punjaub; and he doubted whether, having that great plain in our possession, we should allow anybody to hold Scinde but ourselves, or at least parties on whom we could depend. He doubted whether any arrangement could have been made better suited to the exigencies of the moment than that which now prevailed. At this time, as he had already said, everything was going on in peace. Lieutenant General Napier was in complete possession of the country. He could confidently state, after having read all the despatches, that there was no desire on the part of the people that the rule of the Ameers should be restored; and he, for one, should not like to be responsible for any such change of policy. At the same time, this was a subject fairly open to discussion, and he should be disposed to enter upon that discussion whenever the occasion required. He repeated that on the return home of Sir Charles Napier, the province of Scinde would be annexed to the Government of Bombay.

thought we ought not to forget those princes who had been placed by our arms under our power. Admitting that one had proved unfaithful, that was no reason why injustice should be done to others. Regarding this as one of the blackest events in the history of this country, he should hail with satisfaction and joy the restoration of those princes to the thrones which they occupied, and who, whether they ruled according to our maxims or not, had as good a right to their thrones as any of the sovereigns of Europe.

did not think the Government were acting wisely for Scinde, if they allowed matters to remain longer as they were, provided that they had made up their minds to change the government to the same position with other parts of India, If the present system was bad, the sooner it was changed the better.

had not said the present government was objectionable. He only said it was a right thing that the country should be annexed to the presidency of Bombay.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not alter the present state of things in Scinde, unless the whole of our policy was altered in the Punjaub.

moved an Address to Her Majesty—

"That She will he graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this House a Copy of the Letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Her Britannic Majesty's Minister at Washington, acknowledging the donation in food and money of the Legislature and Citizens of the United States of America, for the relief of the famine in Ireland."

The hon. Gentleman then referred to the great amount of misery and destitution which had been experienced in Ireland, and to the very large contributions raised in America for the relief of that country, one committee having raised a sum of not less than 109,000l., and another of 60,000l. The expedition with which these large contributions were converted into food, and transmitted to Ireland, was also matter of surprise as well as gratitude. He would read a few extracts from letters, to show the manner in which the subject had been taken up in the United States:—

"Cincinnati, Ohio, April 22, 1847.—Early in the month of February, accounts of the suffering in Ireland, for want of food, were received in this city, and excited strong sympathy among our citizens. A meeting was called, a handsome sum was at once raised, and the subscribers were appointed an executive committee to manage the sum collected, and give efficiency to the cause of Irish relief. At this meeting it was determined that all receipts of money should be converted into provisions, and that a ship load should be sent to the suffering poor of Ireland."

"Zanesville, Ohio, Mushingum County, April 30, 1847—Our countrymen, with a generosity that is proverbial, and ever alive to the calls of suffering humanity, regardless alike of race, clime, or religion, have nobly responded to the heart-stricken appeals of their famishing brethren on the other side of the Atlantic; and out of the abundance liberally supplied them by a bountiful Providence, they have given their mite. Small as it may be in comparison with your requirements, it is evidence, at least, of heartfelt sympathy in your sufferings, and a desire to alleviate them."

"New York, May 19.—Out of one contribution of 170 dollars, the largest part was contributed by the children of the forest, our red brethren of the Choctau nation. Even these distant men (as the chairman of the New York committee well observes) have felt the force of Christian sympathy and benevolence, and have given their cheerful aid in this good cause, though they are separated from you by so many miles of land and an ocean's breadth."

"New York, June 1.—Accompanying this you will receive a bill of lading for 300 barrels of corn meal, to be distributed under the directions of the central committee of relief, to the needy and destitute people of Ireland. This small offering is from the contributions of a few of the lodges of Odd Fellows of the city and State of New York, and is tendered in the hope, that although it may be considered but a mite towards relieving the wants of a suffering nation, still that it may be the means of temporary relief to a few of those whom starvation is reducing to the brink of despair and death. The best wishes of the order go with their donation; and the most fervent hopes are entertained that the hand of a merciful Providence will speedily restore an abundant supply of the fruits of the earth, so that the famine may depart, and the now suffering people of Ireland may once more be restored to their usual comforts, and be again permitted to enjoy the smiles of their happy homes."

After the manifestation of such kindly feelings on their part, we could do no less than give expression to the gratitude which we felt. He regarded the conduct of America, in this respect, as of great importance, seeing it tended to confirm those friendly relations that existed between the two countries, and would aid in laying the foundations of lasting peace. These reasons justified him in moving that this Address be presented to Her Majesty, simply with the view of eliciting the strong expressions of national gratitude which he was certain were felt in every part of Her Majesty's dominions.

concurred in what had been said by the hon. Gentleman with regard to the effect upon the amicable relations of the two countries which the recent conduct of America was calculated to produce. It was not merely the amount of their contributions; but the promptness with which vessels were placed at the disposal of the contributors for the transmission of grain to Ireland, and the kindness and hospitality which wore shown to those who went from this country to procure provisions, that demanded their gratitude and esteem. There was one feature in the transaction deserving of particular notice, namely, that part of the donations came from our red brethren in the west.

I have very great pleasure in acquiescing in and supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend. The only regret I can feel on the occasion is, that although the despatch for which he has moved, expresses in strong terms the feelings of Her Majesty's Government, and the feelings which we believe animate the whole of the British nation; still I am sensible that no terms which could have been employed by me could adequately convey the feelings of thankfulness and admiration which the conduct of our brethren in the United States must have excited amongst all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. As my hon. Friend has stated, not only was the supply sent large, liberal, and generous in amount, but the manner in which it was sent, the promptitude with which it was forwarded, and the strong feeling of interest which was expressed on the part of all those who had contributed to that supply, were more almost than could possibly be expected on the part of persons who, however united to us in origin, and bound to us by every tie of language and religion, of manners and habits, are still separated from us by a mighty expanse of ocean. The extent of sympathy by which our brethren in the United States have been so honourably distinguished, was more than could have been expected. I agree with my hon. Friend, that transactions of this nature are calculated to cement in the strongest manner those ties which ought to unite kindred nations; and it is this circumstance which ought not to be lost sight of, that while on the one hand acts of generosity such as these rivet the affections of those upon whom they have been conferred, and on the other hand they tend, by the very exercise which accompanies them of good and kindly feelings, to increase the affection of those by whom they are done towards those who have been the objects of those generous acts. And, therefore, Sir, both in regard to the feelings excited here, and the feelings which those actions proclaim in America, I am happy to think that, whatever may have been the sufferings and calamities which gave rise to these acts, at all events they will so far have been attended with happy results that they have afforded to our brethren in the United States an opportunity of doing that which will never be forgotten by the people of this country; and, I hope, for a long time, will increase the good feeling of the people of the United States towards their brethren in this country.

said, as he had had very peculiar opportunities of noticing the warmth of feeling which existed in every part of the Union towards the inhabitants of this, which they called "the old" country, he could not help declaring his participation in the feelings of satisfaction and thankfulness expressed by the hon. Member and by his noble Friend. It was impossible to overrate the strength of those feelings, evinced by the warmth of sympathy which had been called forth in America, and by the liberal and substantial tokens which had accompanied it, and which, he trusted, would be considered to be amply acknowledged by the despatch of his noble Friend. But he was not sorry that, before Parliament arose, feelings such as those expressed by the hon. Members had found a vent within the walls of that House. He had received letters recently from New York, describing the measures taken there for securing the health and comfort of the destitute emigrants from this country; and at Boston an island had been set apart for and appropriated to hospitals. He believed that the same kindly spirit prevailed all over the Union, from Maine to New Orleans; and although occasionally causes of soreness and subjects of altercation would unavoidably arise between the two countries, as between other nations, the touchstone of calamity was only wanting to call forth at all times whatever was most generous and kind in our nature. He bore with pleasure his testimony to the value of those feelings which the calamities of Ireland had elicited in America.

moved—

"For a Return of the number of Soldiers of Her Majesty's Land Forces, Cavalry and Infantry, that have been marked as deserters, in each of the last three years; also, a Copy of any General Orders by the Commander of the Forces respecting marking, now in force; similar Return for the Marino Forces (if any); And similar Return for the Navy (if any)."

The hon. Member, said he did not know until recently that the practice of branding—not burning, but marking—deserters existed in the Army; but it appeared that an order had been issued by the Horse Guards directing that they should be branded or punctured with the letter "D" indelibly impressed. He was aware that it was very important to discountenance desertion in the regular Army; at the same time he thought it very discreditable to mark men as beasts were marked. He did not know whether the practice existed in the Marines and Navy.

said, he had expected that the returns, to which there was no objection, would have been moved by his hon. Friend without any observation; but as his hon. Friend had made some remarks, he would make a short statement to the House upon the subject of marking deserters. No doubt, many years ago there did exist a very improper practice of branding men for desertion, that was, after a man deserted a number of times; but this was never done without a sentence of a court-martial, never at the discretion of the commanding officer. The House would see that it was absolutely necessary that some means should exist by which a man practising desertion should be known again; and no other means had been discovered, especially since the lash had been discouraged, but that of marking the man with the letter "D," which was nothing more than a kind of tattooing, which sailors voluntarily underwent. The deserter was tattooed with the letter "D" by the point of a needle fixed in cork. He had no objection to the returns moved for, and a copy of the order from the Horse Guards should be included.

Mr. Speaker, as the Motion I am about to submit to the House has been acceded to by the right hon. Baronet, I will only make such a statement as will give an opportunity of addressing the House to the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, who on a late occasion cast reflections, as I think, rather undeservedly on an officer whose name was mentioned in that debate—I refer to Captain Cogan. Upon the mention of his name by my hon. Friend opposite, it was stated by the noble Lord, that the opinion formed by the right hon. Baronet was, in his opinion, correct, and that he was an officer in the pay of the Government at the time. Now, upon inquiry, I find that Captain Cogan never was in the pay of the Government, and that he never was in the King's service. The reflection cast upon him was, that having been employed by the Crown to carry out an important negociation with the Imaum of Muscat, after having finished that business, he was accused of interfering on his way home with the affairs of the Rajah of Sattara; and a correspondence passed, which since that time I have seen, and which appears to me to exonerate him entirely from the charges which were made against him. If, therefore, the noble Lord persists in stating what was stated to the House the other night, I must press for the correspondence being laid upon the Table exonerating Captain Cogan entirely from that which I should call rather a discreditable and disgraceful charge. On the contrary, I believe the fact was that Captain Cogan was intrusted with the duty of bringing home a teak seventy-four gun ship as a present to the Crown, and with carrying out a yacht as a present from the King to the Imaum of Muscat. Having been entrusted by the Imaum of Muscat with a present to His Majesty, it was thought they ought to give him a commission to take back a yacht in return. I have every reason to believe that he performed that duty satisfactorily, having seen a letter of thanks from the noble Lord afterwards, approving of his conduct. I do think, therefore, it is rather hard that an honourable gentleman, who after twenty-five years service retired on half-pay, should be brought forward and branded as a person who upon mercenary motives interfered in the case of the Rajah of Sattara. If I am wrong in my understanding of what fell from the right hon. Baronet (I state it as it is reported in the papers), I shall be glad to hear any explanation. I am quite satisfied that the production of these papers will place Captain Cogan's character in that position in which I think it ought to stand, looking at his services for twenty-five years, as a private individual, not having pay, but acting willingly in the public service. It is not a fair thing to have assertions of this kind made in this House. I, therefore, move—

"For Copies of all Correspondence during 1838 and 1839, between the Government of Bombay and Captain Cogan, relative to the affairs of the Rajah of Sattara, together with Copies of any Communications, Minutes, or Opinions of the Government of Bombay relating thereto."

Mr. Speaker, Sir, what I said was this. This gentleman was employed on a mission for the Government by the noble Lord; that is to say, he was commissioned to contract with the Imaum of Muscat, a treaty; and that when so employed, he upon his return to Bombay entered into a communication with certain partisans of the Rajah of Sattara. That is what I stated; and when these papers are produced, I believe my assertion will be found to be strictly correct. In fact, in a conversation which the gallant Captain (Captain Cogan) reported at a meeting of proprietors as having been held in an interview with me, that was one of the causes of my complaint against him; and I always understood that he did not deny the fact at all. But, however, when the papers are produced—indeed many of them have already been produced—it seems to me, if I read them correctly (and I read them only yesterday), that there will be no doubt whatever of the fact that he did enter into a communication with certain persons who are agents of the Rajah of Sattara. I know very well that he denies it, because I have seen letters in which he does so deny it. [Mr. B. ESCOTT: What are the dates of the letters?] My hon. Friend is under a mistake in supposing that Captain Cogan was not at that time employed on a mission. Certainly it was my understanding that he was so employed. My noble Friend near me also so understood; and certainly in his letters to me, I always understood that he was employed by Lord Palmerston at that time to negociate a treaty with the Imaum of Muscat; and being so employed, I certainly did consider it wrong that he should enter into any communication with the partisans or agents of the Rajah of Sattara. That is what I stated. I am not aware that any mistake was made with respect to that statement. I am perfectly willing to give my hon. Friend the papers with merely the addition of copies of all communications made to the said Government of Bombay, relative to Captain Cogan, because of course it is in those communications that my hon. Friend will see on what ground I made the statement the other day. I had not the least doubt of it at the time; and I must say, I have no doubt of it now. If I am mistaken, I certainly am mistaken upon the authority of I do not know how many letters, which I received when I was President of the Board of Control in 1839 from Bombay. If there is any mistake, it is a very extraordinary one; and the parties who communicated on the subject with the Government of Bombay must have been under a very strange delusion, and must have been doing very great injustice to Captain Cogan. Now, Sir, with respect to the other charge which was made, my hon. Friend has not alluded to it. I will say nothing more about it; but let it be always remembered by my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Finsbury, that I had some provocation. When I find myself charged with saying things in a private conversation with Captain Cogan, and when that statement was read by the hon. Member for Finsbury, which he found in a report of a public speech, although I do not blame him for it, yet I think I had some provocation; and in self-defence I Stated what I knew—at least what I thought I knew, and what I believe I know, respecting this gentleman. I am perfectly willing that these papers should be laid upon the Table. I do not know whether my hon. Friend means to move for the other papers. With the exception of letters from myself and the replies, there is no record of those letters. I have many letters from the gentleman; for he and I were on the best possible terms. In all other respects I am sure I have not the least objection to give my hon. Friend any papers he asks for.

Sir, as I stated on a former occasion, I have had no private communication with Captain Cogan. I found a document in a printed hook, containing a report of a discussion in the India House, and I thought it my duty to read it to the House, because I really felt from what I read in that report, that the right hon. Gentleman had had his mind biassed by some private influence. I do not mean influence of an improper character, as far as the honour and integrity of the right hon. Gentleman are concerned; but I believe that misrepresentations had been made to poison his mind with regard to the Rajah of Sattara, and all persons who were concerned in his case, and who advocated his cause. I understand that Captain Cogan is a gentleman of very high honour, a man of very great ability in his profession, and who has discharged a great number of very important duties with the approbation of every person by whom he has been employed. He feels, therefore, very deeply the painful situation in which he has been placed by what has transpired in this House. He has written to me a letter upon the subject; and with the permission of the House I will read a few sentences from that letter, which I think will put the matter in a perfect and clear light, and satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that he was labouring under a misconception when he addressed the House on a former occasion, as well as the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown. Captain Cogan states—

"In 1835 the present Imaum of Muscat, with the view of cementing the friendship of the two States, wished to present the British Government with a teak seventy-four gun ship, which His Highness offered to Sir John Gore (the Naval Commander in Chief in India); but the Indian Government prevented Sir John receiving it. This circumstance disappointed the Imaum, when his Highness, in consequence, requested me (of whom he had a previous knowledge) to take his ship to England, and present her to his late Majesty; but as the Bombay Government would not sanction my doing so officially, I resigned my appointment as the Comptroller of the Docks and Civil Naval Establishment at Bombay, and applied for a furlough agreeably with the regulations, and arrived with the ship at Portsmouth in February, 1836, when she was duly received on behalf of the Crown by Sir John Hobhouse, then President of the Board of Control; and here commenced my intercourse with that right hon. Gentleman. His Majesty's Government being anxious to return a suitable present to the Imaum, one of the royal yachts was selected; in the propriety of which selection I entirely concurred, and had the honour of being appointed to command and convey the Royal present to his Highness. This duty I duly performed to the entire satisfaction of all parties. I then proceeded to join my service at Bombay, where I arrived in July, 1837; and, after a short period, obtained furlough to England, with the intention of resigning the Company's service, which I did in August, 1838. About this time I was appointed by his Highness the Imaum his political Agent in England; and although the usage of the British Court could not recognise me, as a British subject, in a representative character, yet I was informed that my reports and opinions regarding Muscat would be acceptable to Government. In the moan time the Imaum sent an Envoy to London to congratulate Her present Majesty upon Her accession to the Throne, when his Highness requested my best attention to his Ambassador, who was received with the distinction due to his rank by Lord Palmerston. During the Envoy's sojourn in this country, I arranged to accompany him to Muscat, which arrangement being known to the Government"—

(Captain Cogan, be it remembered, arranged with the Ambassador to go out to Muscat, of his own free-will, upon his private affairs, not being officially employed by the Government at all. The noble Lord must be well acquainted with that fact;)—

—"Lord Palmerston, anxious to conclude a treaty with the Imaum, requested my services to negociate a convention,"

This was a friendly service: Captain Cogan was not taken into the pay of the Go- vernment, and was not employed officially; it was only as a friend to perform a friendly service; and I think the noble Lord showed considerable tact and sagacity in employing such a person upon such a service, and not sending over a stranger. Captain Cogan states—

"I consequently left England for that purpose in September, 1838, arrived at Bombay in December, 1839; and it was during my unavoidable attendance there, that the agents of the Rajah of Sattara solicited my good offices in the way of explaining to the authorities the nature of their case."

This was in Bombay, where he was really as a private individual, or as the Imaum's political Agent in this country; not being at all officially employed by our Government; not being taken into the service of the Government; not being in the pay of the Government; and holding no rank in fact under the Government. Captain Cogan states that those persons were

—"prohibited from holding official intercourse, and were refused every document relating to the charges against their Prince."

This was the state of things at Bombay at that time:—

"For listening to the statement of the Rajah's vakeels, I was visited with the displeasure of the Bombay Government"—

(The Government were determined that the Rajah should not have justice,)

—"and more particularly of the political Secretary, Mr. J. P. Willoughby, who had for some time sustained, in relation to the Rajah, the inconsistent position of prosecutor and judge; and as principal adviser of the Government, doubtless obtained the favourable judgment placed on record respecting his own proceedings. The assertion ascribed to Sir John Hobhouse that I was at this period the paid servant of the Crown, is wholly incorrect, as that right hon. Gentleman may ascertain by a reference to the Foreign Office, from the records of which he will learn that I have never received a single farthing in the shape of remuneration or acknowledgment for the services rendered by me on the mission with which I was entrusted in consequence of my return to Muscat on my own private business. On the contrary, he will find that the expenses of that mission amounted to only 800l., which sum was for the necessary charges incidental to the prosecution of my duty during a period of fourteen months. He will also ascertain, that on the conclusion of the treaty, my time was to be at my own disposal; and further, that I never realized the slightest pecuniary advantage at the hands of the British Government for the conveyance of the Royal Yacht to the Imaum."

He was not paid even for that service:—

"In contrast with the treatment which I have since 1839 experienced at the Board of Control, during the reign of its present head, I would refer to the courtesy and respect with which I have been invariably treated by all parties connected with the Foreign Office, and especially by the distinguished Noblemen who have filled the office of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary in that department. Should any representations, such as are reported in the public prints to have been made by the right hon. the President of the Board of Control, have been really made, I have just ground of strong complaint; since I forwarded in 1840 to that Minister a copy of a letter addressed by me to the Foreign Department, in which I fully exonerated myself from the calumnious imputations east upon me by interested parties; and at the same time placed in that same Minister's hands other documents demonstrative of the uprightness of the motives by which I was actuated, and the high estimation in which I was held by the most loyal, enlightened, and influential of Her Majesty's native subjects of Bombay. The allegation of entering into a mercenary compact with the Rajah of Sattara, is utterly without foundation, and is by me solemnly repudiated. I also conscientiously declare, that I never appropriated to my personal use a single shilling of the money of that much-oppressed Prince. But, Sir, even it had been so, I have yet to learn that it is a reproach to accept remuneration for honest and honourable services faithfully performed; or that those who represent the various departments of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons, are too disinterested and magnanimous to accept of the salaries annexed to the offices they fill. For seven years I have zealously laboured on behalf of the Rajah of Sattara, under a full conviction of his entire innocence, and that he has been the noble victim of one of the foulest conspiracies ever conceived by human malice, or allowed to triumph over human credulity. The reward of my labours has been to be called upon to make sacrifices of the most costly description, known only to myself and a few intimate friends. These, Sir, I can cheerfully submit to; but cannot allow my intentions to be impugned, or the Rajah's cause to suffer, by groundless charges against his friend. All I ask, either for myself or for the Rajah, is a fair inquiry; and when that is conceded, I will demonstrate, that never was an injured Prince defended by more disinterested persons, nor deposed by more wicked arts."

Now, Sir, I think the statement I have read, shows clearly that the right hon. Gentleman was deceived; for it is really evident from the allegations which this letter contains, that Captain Cogan has performed an important public service, for which he has received no reward at all. So far from being a paid agent of the Rajah, he has himself made very costly sacrifices, in order to support the cause of that injured man. I do trust, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will admit he was labouring under an error when he made his former statement to the House; that he had been deceived by some circumstances which it is impossible for me to describe. Captain Cogan feels the attack very deeply; he feels that he has discharged an important duty from generous motives; and he thinks it too hard, that bad motives should be imputed to him, and that it should be considered he had been influenced in his conduct by mercenary motives.

I really must correct what the hon. Gentleman has said. I took particular care in alluding to that circumstance, which I said would be found in the blue books; for it is there I saw the circumstance mentioned, of an attempt to bargain for—I said I think 1,500l. but I find it was 2,000l. and not 1,500; but I took particular care to guard myself, and I said, not that I think it a ground of complaint at all; I do not charge Captain Cogan with that, if he had done it. The labourer is worthy of his hire. What I complained of was, that while in the service of the Government, he mixed himself up with the affairs of the Rajah.

I suppose my hon. Friend is going to move for the other papers which stand upon the Notice, being a correspondence between myself and Captain Cogan. I have no objection to those papers being laid upon the Table, if my hon. Friend will add the words, "and copies of extracts." With regard to the point which has been adverted to, I am anxious to state how the matter really stood. I think I shall be able to do so, by reading a portion of the instructions to Captain Cogan, dated September 28th, 1838; and my hon. Friend will see how the matter stood.

"Her Majesty's Government having decided to propose to the Imaum of Muscat, to enter into a convention with Her Majesty, for the purpose of promoting the commercial intercourse between the dominions of Her Majesty and those of the Imaum; I avail myself of the opportunity offered by your return to Muscat, for entrusting to you the negotiation of an arrangement to that effect with his Highness. I accordingly inclose a full power, under Her Majesty's sign-manual, authorizing you to act as Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary in this matter; and I also inclose a draft of the convention, which Her Majesty's Government desire that you should offer for the acceptance of the Imaum."

At the end of the instructions it is said—

"I hare requested the President of the Board of Control to instruct the authorities of the East India Company at Bombay, to afford you any facilities you may stand in need of for the execution of the service on which you are engaged. The expenses which you may incur in this service will be defrayed by the public; and I have recommended to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury the immediate issue to you of 300l., on account of those expenses. You will observe the strictest economy in your disbursements; and on the conclusion of the service you will ren- der to this office an account of those disbursements, accompanied with such vouchers in support thereof as you can supply."

This is the usual course with regard to persons employed on a special mission; there is no salary given, but their expenses are paid. [Mr. WAKLEY: Recollect it was a friendly mission.] There is no such thing technically as a "friendly mission." A special mission has regard to the object of that mission. A person may be employed upon a mission with a salary, or he, may be employed, as Sir Robert Adair was, in Belgium. A person may be employed in what is called a special mission; in that case he has no salary, but the expenses are paid. It is a common arrangement, and was the one adopted in this case. Most undoubtedly, Captain Cogan was Plenipotentiary, and he was employed on the footing of a special mission.

The noble Lord will allow me to say, that Captain Cogan never received anything in the way of remuneration, as a paid salary. Allow me also to say, that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of the way in which the application was made to Captain Cogan by the Rajah of Sattara. He had been two years chairman of the quarter-sessions. He resigned that situation before he left the service. He received from the whole of the natives at Bombay an address; the natives had looked on Captain Cogan as a friend to protect them against oppression; therefore, when he was on his way home, having completed the mission and executed the service, it is rather too much to say he was not at liberty—as he only undertook the business of the Government at a time when he was going out on his own affairs—that he should be prevented from accepting any offer made him by the Rajah of Sattara. But when we get the documents, it will appear further that the first letter he received from the Rajah he carried to the Government unopened. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that the part Captain Cogan took was with the knowledge of Sir James Carnac; and there are letters to show it.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken also in this case. As I think I mentioned before, Captain Cogan entered into these communications with the agents of the Rajah of Sattara, not merely in coming back from Muscat, but in going to Muscat; and that will appear by the papers.

moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of adopting a uniform Penny Stamp Tax, instead of the present high graduated scale.

opposed the Motion, but promised to give the subject his best consideration between this and the next Session.

Sir, I hope the House will pardon me if, in asking for a return, to which it is not, I know, the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to offer any opposition, I, in the present state of the revenue, enter into some explanations of the motives which induce me to ask for this return, and the result I expect to arise from the production of it. Sir, within these few days that which I may describe as a State Paper has been issued to the electors of Tamworth. In that Paper a statement has been set forth with regard to the effect and operation of those financial measures which have taken place in the course of the last six years, which, if left altogether unrefuted, might have, in my opinion, a very dangeous tendency at the coming elections. The general effect of that statement is, that by the reduction of duties to a large extent it is possible to relieve the people of this country of burdens amounting to no less than 7,625,000l., with little or no loss whatever to the revenue. It is set forth in this address to the electors of Tamworth, that Sir Robert Peel, upon his advent to office, found the finances, under what is represented to have been the mismanagement of his predecessors, in a state of deficit amounting to 2,100,000l.; that in the year 1840, the Whigs attempted to restore this ruinous state of finances by a recourse to an increased duty of Excise and Customs, amounting to 5 per cent, and of assessed taxes to the amount of 10 per cent; but that the result of this procedure on the part of the Government was, that whilst they estimated the harvest to be derived from those increased duties of Customs and Excise, and assessed taxes, at 1,910,000l., it in point of fact fell short by no less a sum than 1,160,000l., and produced but 750,000l. Sir Robert Peel, in his address goes on to state that he had recourse to different measures, and that, putting aside the property tax, and applying his attention solely to the ordinary sources of revenue, in which are included Excise, Customs, Post Office, Stamps, and Assessed Taxes, believing that it was not possible to extend further the pressure of taxation upon articles of consumption with any reasonable prospect of an increased return, he had recourse to the reduction of duties on Customs and Excise. And he would have us believe that the result of his six years' Administration was, that, whilst he reduced taxes to the amount of 7,625,000l. there resulted upon the ordinary sources of revenue an apparent loss of no more than 363,000l.: but as he admits that the Whig Administration is entitled to take credit for 416,000l. of gain from the alteration of the sugar duties at the end of the last Session, whereby slave-grown sugar was admitted into the consumption of this country at a high differential duty—50 per cent above that on colonial sugar—he acknowledges that whilst the apparent loss was only 363,000l., the virtual loss through his reductions must be reckoned as 779,000l. Now, it cannot be disputed that a greater financial conjurer never existed than Sir Robert Peel, if this were a fair statement of the result of his financial operations. And if it be permitted, on the eve of a dissolution, that such a statement as this should go forth to the country uncontroverted, I fear the necessary result—the natural result—will be, that the people of this United Kingdom will come to the opinion that they have nothing to do but to take off the taxes—that they have nothing to do but to follow the example of Sir Robert Peel, and abolish taxes altogether, and still be able to maintain the revenue. But the effect of the statement I am now going to make to the House, which, I believe, will, in the main, be borne out, will show that while Sir Robert Peel dealt with but 10,528,746l., and left 37,388,254l. of the revenue untouched, there would have been a deficiency in that portion of the revenue with which alone he dealt, of no less than 4,925,319l.; but that this deficiency, which would have been the most serious and disastrous that over occurred to any Minister, was compensated by the increase on those very articles, and by that same enhanced taxation of his predecessors on the 37,388,254l. of revenue which Sir Robert Peel left untouched. Sir, I cannot undertake to say that all my details are to a figure accurate, or that I have accurately divided every portion of revenue; but I will undertake to say that I have gone near enough for the objects of truth. I find that in the year 1841, there was no less than 37,388,254l. of the ordinary sources of revenue, with which, during the whole course of Sir Robert Peel's Administration, no legislation took place. The following are the principal sources of revenue:—

	Revenue in 1841.	Revenue in 1846.	Increase.	Decrease.
	£.	£.	£.
Bricks	443,018	638,422	195,404
Paper	586,219	791,991	205,772
Soap	815,864	965,040	149,176
Hops	69,055	286,265	217,210

It is right here to state, that, as regards hops, some alteration was made by the late Administration in the Custom-house duties; but that is a totally different branch of revenue: I am now speaking of the Excise on hops. But again:—

	Revenue in 1841.	Revenue in 1846.	Incrse.	Decrse.
	£.	£.	£.	£.
Malt	5,263,363	5,084,649		178,714
Licenses	1,036,582	986,154		50,428
British Spirits	5,178,175	5,949,151	770,976
Assessed & Land Taxes	4,715,353	4,474,462		240,891
Post-horse Duty	199,864	179,831		20,033
Post Office	1,495,540	1,963,857	468,317

This item of revenue, however, Sir, requires some remark; for although the "Net Revenue" is so given in the accounts, yet the charges of management as regards the Post Office being deducted at a later stage of the accounts, the actual payment into the Exchequer will be found to be only 415,000l. in 1841, and 845,000l. in 1846. But to proceed:—

	Revenue in 1841.	Revenue in 1846.	Incrse.	Decrse.
	£.	£.	£.
Stamps	7,276,360	7,675,921	399,561
Spirits, Rum	1,063,087	1,210,535	156,448
Tea	3,973,668	5,112,004	1,138,336
Tobacco & Snuff	3,550,825	4,319,087	768,262
Wine	1,721,281	1,892,204	170,923

In respect of two of these last items, let it also be remembered that, upon tea, this increase of 1,138,336l. has taken place notwithstanding the additional duty of 5 per cent put by the Whig Administration on this article of consumption, on which a duty of 200 per cent existed before; and that the case as regards tobacco and snuff is pretty nearly the same, the increase of 768,262l. on this one head of the revenue having accrued in spite of the 5 per cent duty added by the Whigs to a duty already varying from 600 to 1,200 per cent. The result of all this is, that the revenue which was not touched by Sir Robert Peel's legislation in the course of his six years' Administration, rose from 37,388,254l. on the 5th of January, 1842, to 41,538,573l. on the 5th of January, 1847; being an increase upon this source of the revenue of no less than 4,150,319l. This shows, notwithstanding the 5 per cent additional duty laid on by the Whigs upon the Customs and Excise, and notwithstanding the 10 per cent additional duty laid on the Assessed Taxes by the same Government, an increase of 11⅓ per cent upon that branch of the ordinary revenue with which Sir Robert Peel's Administration did not meddle. I take the statement of the ordinary revenue, with the losses and gains, as I find it in the address to the electors of Tamworth. It is contended that the ordinary revenue was found to be 47,917,000l. when Sir Robert Peel's Administration commenced in 1842. Well, then, deducting 37,388,254l. from this sum of 47,917,000l., there remains to be dealt with the sum of 10,528,746l.; and this is the source of revenue with regard to which alone Sir Robert Peel, in the course of his Administration, made his financial experiments. And what has been the result? The result is, that while, as I have told you, the 37,388,254l. with which he did not meddle, grew, by the 5th of January, 1847, to 41,538,573l., the 10,528,746l. upon which Sir Robert Peel tried his financial reform dwindled down by the 5th of January, 1847, to 6,019,427l. Well, Sir, I then have further, by his own admission and acknowledgment, to deduct 416,000l., which is fairly to be attributed to the measure of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) with reference to sugar duties, and but for which this sum of 6,019,427l. would have dwindled down to 5,603,427l., showing a loss to the revenue upon that part of it upon which he attempted his financial experiments of no less than 4,929,319l.—or 44⅓ per cent. And when you bear in mind, as I have stated, that this sum of 10,528,746l. forms but two-ninths of the entire ordinary revenue, just see what would have been the condition of the country if Sir Robert Peel had tried his experimenting hand upon the whole of what are called the ordinary sources of revenue. Sir, the result would have been, that this defalcation upon the whole revenue would have been no less than 20,163,935l., which must have been recovered by a most exorbitant property and income tax. Well, Sir, but perhaps it will be argued, that, though it is true that Sir Robert Peel lost a great revenue upon those items with regard to which he legislated, still that, "by taking off the weight''—that is the expression—"which hung upon the springs of industry," he had given such an impulse to the great staple manufactures of this country, that he occasioned an increased consumption in all other articles—the necessaries of life, and the luxuries consumed by those numerous bodies of the people engaged in the great staple manufactures—and that thus it was he indirectly regained all he had primarily lost through these reductions; and besides, if it were true that the dead loss upon cotton and wool amounted to 658,360l., still, that this loss was, nevertheless, amply indemnified by the great impulse given to cotton and woollen manufactures; whilst, in like manner, when the duty was taken off the flax and silk manufactures, a similar impulse was given to those trades. Now, let me examine this part of the question. I have before me a comparative statement of the declared value of exports in the four great staple articles of our manufactures for the first five months of the year 1845, with the first five months of the present year; and what is the result? The result (and these first are the five months before that large revenue previously derived from cotton was sacrificed) will appear in the following statement:—

"Declared value of exportation in the first five months of 1845:—
Cotton manufactures and yarn.	£10,289,868
Linen manufactures and yarn.	1,750,510
Woollen manufactures and yarn.	3,464,086
Silk manufactures and yarn.	297,721
	£15,802,191
Glass	215,639

"Declared value of exportation of the first five months of 1847:—

Cotton manufactures and yarn.	£9,820,772
Linen manufactures and yarn.	1,495,636
Woollen manufactures and yarn.	3,110,568
Silk manufactures and yarn.	404,502
	£14,831,478
Glass	131,739

"Diminished value of exports:—
On the four great staple manufactures	£970,713
On Glass	83,900
	£1,054,613"

The result of all this is, that the aggregate value of the amount exported of these articles in the first five months of 1845 was 15,802,191l.; whilst, in the first five months of 1847, it fell to 14,831,478l. The House, from this statement, must see what was the effect of the financial changes brought about by the late Minister: but I hope you will not forget the fond anticipations in which Sir Robert Peel indulged with regard to the effects which he held must necessarily arise from a repeal of the duties on glass. When it was announced that the duties on glass were to be removed, the intimation was ushered in with a loud note of preparation. The country was told that it would be utterly impossible to estimate the endless variety of purposes to which glass might then he applied; among others, that the springs of our watches were to be made of glass; and, mounting from small things to great, iron was to be superseded, and, instead of the water of our great towns being carried through iron tubes, it was hereafter to be conducted through pipes of glass. And, as far as foreign exports of it were concerned, why there was to be no limit to them. We were to supply, if not the whole of the world, at least the whole of Europe, with glass. Now, Sir, how stands the matter? I find that the exports in glass amounted, in the first five months of 1845, to the declared value of 215,639l.; and that they fell off, in the first five months of 1847, to 131,739l. The result of the whole of this statement is, that there was a falling off upon the declared value of the four great staple manufactures, together with glass, amounting to 1,054,613l. Now, after that statement, I think it cannot be argued by the most sanguine or subtle financier that the abolition of the duties on cotton, on wool, on flax, and upon glass, contributed to the increased revenue upon those articles of general consumption of which I have before spoken. There must be some other cause than that. Well then, Sir, we may, perhaps, be told that it was from the reduction of the duties on brandy that this increased revenue arose. French brandy is one of the articles upon which there appears to be a considerable loss to the revenue. The receipts of duty on French brandy fell from 1,329,082l. in 1842, to 1,165,456l. in 1846; showing a decrease of 163,626l.; and it will hardly be argued that by taking off 7s. 10d. of the duty upon brandy, and thus making brandy cheap, and encouraging its consumption in preference to wine, rum, and British spirits, on which you left the high duties undiminished, you indirectly induced this greater consumption of high taxed wine, rum, and British spirits; yet, whilst you lost on brandy, 163,626l., you gained on wine, on rum, and British spirits, 1,098,347l. Yet, as I have shown the House, foreign wines, rum, and British spirits are three of the heads of revenue which, being left untouched, have very largely increased in consumption. Another article upon which the duties were reduced, and on which a large revenue has been lost, is that of timber. Now, Sir, I think it can hardly be pleaded that the large increase of between 400,000l. and 500,000l. on the Post Office duties, and the increased duty of 205,772l. upon paper, can have grown out of the reduction of the duties upon timber. Well, Sir, but amongst the various alterations in these duties, to which so much success is ascribed, is the removal of the duties not only upon raw materials used in manufactures, but on all dyestuffs, oils, and various other articles of a similar description; but as these are articles of reduction which apply only to the four staple manufactures of the country, and as I have shown that the exportations of the staple manufactures have not increased, it cannot be pleaded that the removal of any of the duties connected, in dyeing, or in any other way, with manufactures, can have been instrumental in increasing the consumption. Sir, what was totally left out of view, I apprehend, was the gracious and merciful interposition of Providence, which happened as soon as the Whigs went out of office. I do not wish to say anything derogatory to the Whigs; but certainly, no sooner did the Whigs go out of office, than we were blessed with three successive fine harvests, and with excellent cotton crops; and I apprehend that it was not the five per cent additional that the Whigs placed on the Customs duties, or the ten per cent additional on the assessed taxes, that checked the prosperity of the nation, and blighted the growth of the revenue, but that the cause why the revenue did not prosper in 1841 and 1842 was that we had then had three successive bad harvests and a bad cotton crop to boot. Well, Sir, I have spoken of the interposition of Providence, which in our previous discussions has been altogether passed over; but, Sir, I may venture to say that there was a not less powerful cause at work, and that was that, instead of 150,000,000l. being lent, as my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed us the other night, in loans to foreign countries, of which neither capital nor interest has been repaid, nearly 100,000,000l. have, in the course of these six years, been spent at home upon railway enterprise. And you will find the consumption of tobacco, the consumption of tea, and of sugar, by those employed at home on railway enterprise, to be the true cause of the elasticity of the revenue, and not, Sir, the often-boasted effects of these alterations of the financial and commercial policy of the country. Indeed, these boasts often remind me of that fable of the two flies which is so well told by the poet when he speaks of the flies who ascribed all the dust kicked up by the carriage on which they were riding as the result of their own great exertions. Prior, I think, tells the tale thus:—

"'Say, sire of insects, mighty Sol,'

A fly upon the chariot pole cried out,

'What blue-bottle alive

Did ever with such fury drive?'

'Tell, Beelzebub, great father, tell,'

Says t'other perched upon the wheel,

'Did ever any mortal fly

Raise such a cloud of dust as I?

My judgment turned the whole debate,

My valour saved the sinking state.'"

That, I think, is a fair description of the boasts of the great rival free-traders of modern days. But, Sir, in bringing forward this Motion, and thus trespassing on the attention of the House, I hope to be excused on the ground of the result of my Motion; for if, at the eve of a general dissolution, the political doctrines to which I have alluded should go forth, on such high authority as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, uncontradicted to the elections, what must be the necessary result? Why, you will have a far louder call for free trade in the next Parliament; you will not be able to resist the call for the entire repeal of the tea duties, for the entire repeal of the tobacco duties, for the removal of the window tax, and every other tax, not excluding the malt tax, and the hop duties and the soap tax, which are taxes so much more onerous to the people than the taxes on cotton, on French brandy, on timber, on wool, on oils, and on dyestuffs, which have been removed; and there will be a House of Commons returned in which the Members will come again pledged to their constituents to repeal all these taxes, and they will either put themselves in the position of breaking faith with those who sent them to Parliament, or of leaving the main sources of the revenue in a state unequal to meet the demands of the public creditor. Sir, I am one of those who seek for the repeal of the malt tax and the hop duties. I am one of those who think that the Excise duties ought to be taken off. But, Sir, I do not pretend that you can repeal the malt tax, or the hop duties, or remove the soap tax, without commutation for other taxes. I will not delude the people by pretending that I could take off 7,625,000l. of taxes, without replacing them by others, and not leave the nation bankrupt. But, Sir, I think these reforms have been in a mistaken direction; I think that revenue duties on all foreign imports ought to be maintained, and that a revenue equal to those Excise duties which I have mentioned can be levied upon the produce of foreign countries and of foreign industry without imposing any greater tax than one that shall fall far short of Mr. Walker's "perfect revenue standard of 20 per cent." I say that by imposing a tax far less than 20 per cent, by imposing one of 12½, or at most of 15 per cent ad valorem upon all articles of foreign import, a revenue might be derived far less burdensome to this country, than of Excise—a revenue of which the burden would be: largely shared in by foreign countries, and in many cases paid altogether by foreign countries—a revenue such as would furnish a sum of money that would enable those great items of Excise duties, the malt tax, and the hop duties, and, with such continuing prosperity as we have had, the soap duty too, to be repealed, without any risk to the public revenue. Sir, I thank the House for having so long listened to me; and I will now conclude by begging leave to move for this return, which, though not exactly in the terms of my Motion on the Paper, is still comprehensive enough to carry out my object. I have drawn up the return in the terms suggested by Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer:—

"Return of the net amount of Duty received upon each article paying Customs Duty to the amount of 1,000l. or upwards, and of all other articles paying Customs Duty collectively, in each of the years ending the 5th day of January, 1842, and the 5th day of January, 1847, divided into classes A and B, (A containing those articles in the Duties on which no alteration has been made; B containing those articles the Duties on which have been altered), with the increase or decrease of receipt on each article respectively, and distinguishing, in the year ending the 5th day of January, 1847, the increase or decrease in the amount of Sugar Duties received before and after the 18th day of August, 1847, when the Sugar Duties Act, 9 and 10 Vie. c. 03, was passed.

"Similar Return for Duties of Excise, Stamps, Taxes, Post Office, Crown Lands, Miscellaneous.

"Return of the declared value of the Exports of the four great articles of our staple Manufactures, viz.: Cotton Manufactures and Cotton Yarn, Woollen Manufactures and Woollen Yarn, Linen Manufactures and Linen Yarn, Silk Manufactures, in the five months ending the 5th day of June, 1845, and in the five months ending the 5th day of June, 1847; together with an Abstract of each of the foregoing Returns."

was not prepared to follow the noble Lord into the various details by which he had supported the arguments contained in his speech, nor did he think that any good would arise from such a discussion at such a time. He had no doubt that his noble Friend had, speaking generally, very accurately stated the various amounts of revenue at the different periods to which he had referred. The returns moved for, however, would be shortly before the House, and then every hon. Member would be enabled to test the accuracy of his noble Friend's statements. His noble Friend had also gone into a considerable discussion on the principles of free trade, and had alluded to a letter addressed by a right hon. Baronet to his constituents respecting his commercial policy; and his noble Friend would, probably, through the means of his speech, put before the public his views on the same subject, and the public might consider the letter and the speech as manifestoes on the two sides of the question, otherwise he could not think that any great benefit could arise from such a discussion at that period of the Session. He could not refrain from observing, however, that a decrease of revenue must be expected, of course, on those articles upon which the duty had been considerably reduced; and it would be perfectly absurd to expect an increase of revenue on articles where the whole duty had been taken off. It was expected, of course, in all matters of that kind, that by relieving parties from duties of one kind, you enabled them to consume other articles, so as to make up the deficiency. His noble Friend had truly stated that the late Government had had the advantage of good harvests; and a portion of the increased consumption of the country was no doubt owing to the material prosperity which usually followed a good harvest; but his noble Friend had entirely forgotten, whilst comparing the five months of the year 1845 with five months of the year 1817, that the harvests in the latter year were somewhat in the same unfortunate state as in 1841. Having said thus much, he hoped that no long discussion would be raised on the question. He was prepared to give the returns asked for by his noble Friend, although he did not concur in his conclusions; and he again trusted that the speech of his noble Friend, in answer to a manifesto published elsewhere, and which perhaps his noble Friend might have answered as effectually in an address to the electors of Lynn, would not be the means of leading to a prolonged discussion.

considered that the noble Lord the Member for Lynn's statement was of a partial character. Let them take the revenue of the year 1842, for instance, recollecting that the right hon. Baronet's manifesto extended over a period of four years. It appeared from a Parliamentary Paper moved for by Mr. Baring, numbered 260 of the Sessional Papers, that the revenue for the year 1842 amounted to 50,979,595l., deducting all drawbacks, deductions, and repayments. In point of fact, that was the net revenue for 1842. Well, what was the revenue this year? They would find by reference to authentic documents that it reached 57,589,000l.; but the income tax amounted to5,464,000l., so that if they deducted that sum, there would still be left a large balance in favour of the year 1846–7, notwithstanding the fact that seven millions and a half of taxation had been taken off articles of almost daily consumption, thereby affording increased means of employment, and cheapening the price of those articles which entered most largely into the consumption of the labouring and agricultural classes. Deducting the income tax, and excluding all consideration of the China money, the net revenue of 1846–47 showed an increase over the net revenue of 1842 of l,445,000l.; and no result could be more satisfactory. The additional imposition of taxation had fallen on the property of the country; and the whole object of the reform of the Tariff was to remove taxes on articles required for manufactures, and for consumption by the mass of the people; to stimulate employment, and give them a higher and more remunerative scale of wages. The reform of the Tariff, recently effected, unquestionably had done this; but there was no doubt that the surplus net revenue of 1846–7 over that of 1842 was aided by the development of railway enterprise and the increase which had taken place in the rate of wages. Without wishing to prolong the present discussion, he could not avoid saying, that he considered the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had altogether failed in making out his case. At the same time, he would observe, that he should be most happy to see the duties removed from malt, hops, and soap. He advocated the removal of all Excise duties, and was perfectly prepared to substitute the income tax in their stead. He thought he had demonstrated the utter failure of the noble Lord's arguments, that the revenue of 1846–7 exceeded that of 1842, notwithstanding a deduction of nearly seven millions and a half on the taxation of articles used by the masses of the people, and that the experiment made in reforming the Commercial Tariff had proved eminently successful.

had no desire, in accordance with the expressed wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to prolong the discussion to which his noble Friend's observations had given rise. His noble Friend thought it right to make a statement answering the manifesto issued elsewhere by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and so the matter stood; but when the hon. Member for Montrose asserted that his noble Friend the Member for Lynn had made out no part of his case in reply to that document, he must be allowed to say that he considered the part of the case which the hon. Member for Montrose thought not proved, had been most clearly established; and if the hon. Gentleman had remained in the House during the delivery of his noble Friend's speech, instead of going out to procure information as he had done, and returning loaded with that information, possibly he might have inclined to a similar opinion. The noble Lord went most minutely and in great detail into that part of the case to which the hon. Member for Montrose had adverted. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn stated that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had taken credit for the general success of his plans; whereas the fact was, that the amelioration of the revenue had arisen from the returns of those taxes with which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth fortunately did not deal, and that the failure of the revenue had occurred in that portion of the taxes with which the right hon. Gentleman did interfere. That was the statement made by his noble Friend—a statement which he would not attempt to weaken by proof, or by repeating those facts with which his noble Friend had demonstrated its complete accuracy. There had been an increase in that portion of the revenue—his noble Friend conclusively showed, and he cheerfully concurred in the demonstration—with which the right hon. Baronet had not interfered or tampered; and that increase, he admitted, was augmented by the increased consumption of articles arising from the effects of railway enterprise. In point of fact, that was the true and simple mode of accounting for the improved condition of the country. Let it be recollected, when he was speaking upon the subject of trade, that they had been promised as a kind of set-off against the additional imports which the removal of restrictive duties encouraged, a corresponding increase in the exports of their domestic manufactures. Great, however, was their regret and alarm when they found that that which was promised to be so useful a result, did not follow.

observed, that he had not heard any portion of the noble Lord's speech, with the exception of the last sentence, as he had no idea that it was the noble Lord's intention to have made a speech on the occasion of moving for unopposed returns. He was aware that the noble Lord had a Motion on the Paper, and had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he anticipated any debate; and that right hon. Gentleman had told him he did not, as it was not his intention to oppose the return. Under these circumstances he had left the House. Whatever triumph the noble Lord had achieved by his array of figures, and the attack he had made upon the right hon. Gentleman lately at the head of the Government, would be for him to enjoy after the papers had been moved for; but he (Mr. Goulburn) assured him that whatever course his right hon. Friend and himself had adopted, had been taken with the desire to promote the greatness and the prosperity of the country. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that all discussion upon the subject at this moment would be inopportune, and consequently he would not trespass further on the attention of the House.

expressed his approval of the free-trade measures of the Government, which he contended had conspired to increase the comforts of the people, without injuring the revenue of the country. There had been a reduction since 1818 of 27,000,000l. of taxes, and yet the revenue had fallen off only to the extent of 9,000,000l.

said, he wished to bring under the notice of the noble Lord one of the provisions of this Bill, with a view to its material alteration. The second clause as it now stood, provided that the future bishops of a majority of the existing sees, should in rotation be excluded from seats in the House of Lords. From this enactment, inferences had been drawn of a nature which would imply the ultimate diminution or extinction of the seats of bishops in the House of Peers. This was certainly not its intention, and he trusted would never be its effect. But if he rightly understood some words which fell from the noble Lord yesterday, he (Lord J. Russell) was in some doubt whether it would not be better to exclude permanently the new bishops from the House of Peers, than to adopt this principle of rotation. This was certainly his opinion. He would consent, though not without reluctance, that the new bishops should not sit in the House of Peers. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester had indeed said that a bishop who was not a Spiritual Peer was an imperfect bishop. The right hon. Gentleman must have meant this politically, for with respect to all purely ecclesiastical purposes, all the ends of the Church, strictly so called, a bishop was as perfect who did not, as one who did, exercise legislatorial functions in the State. But he thought the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute, and of the hon. and learned the Recorder of London, were conclusive in the point that the existing sees, hallowed by a prescription much more ancient than that House, or than any other part of the constitution—a prescription of more than ten centuries, ought not—both with reference to the prerogative of the Crown and to the constitution—ought not to be disturbed. It was dangerous to tamper so suddenly with things so sacred. He would therefore, unless the noble Lord would take the matter in his own hands, move on the third reading to-morrow, that so much of Clause 2 should be omitted as enacted that the future bishops of certain existing sees should be in rotation excluded from seats in the House of Peers.

said, he must have expressed himself very imperfectly, if he had led the hon. Gentleman to believe that there was any doubt upon his mind as to which of the two modes referred to was the better. He thought the rotation system was decidedly preferable to that of excluding one of the bishops permanently; and he had no intention of altering the clause to the contrary.

said, that he and others on that side of the House had abstained from speaking on the previous stages of this Bill, feeling that the progress of the Bill was more important than mere speaking; and, with reference to the taunts which had been thrown out as to their silence, he begged, as the practical result of their silence, to point to the Bill at its present stage. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Evesham, instead of preventing change, would, if adopted, introduce a still greater change. We had the principle of rotation already in operation in Ireland; but the principle of permanent exclusion had never been in operation either in England or Ireland. He believed that the Bill, as it came down from the House of Lords, had virtually received the assent of the bench of bishops. He should, therefore, cordially support the Bill as it stood, and resist every proposition for its alteration.

said, that considering the thin state of the House on that occasion—considering, also, the period of the Session, and the discussions which this Bill had already undergone—he was unwilling to expatiate again on the subject. The question for consideration was not what the bishops thought of it, or whether they would sanction the principle; but whether the measure, in its present shape, would advance the spiritual welfare of the Church. He had deliberated, carefully and anxiously, on this point. His individual vote was of little consequence, and he was not prepared now to resist the further progress of the Bill; but when the third reading was moved, he would very briefly state the reasons which would induce him to give his vote against it.

wished the Bill to be printed, that they might see the Amendments.

did not think it at all necessary that the Bill should be reprinted, as the Amendments were perfectly intelligible to every one; and, at this particular period, such an interruption would be exceedingly inconvenient. Those words in the preamble referring to the addition of three other bishops besides the Bishop of Manchester had been withdrawn, with the consent of the noble Lord; and there remained only a clause to create the bishopric of Manchester, the diocese of St. Asaph and Bangor remaining separate, and the Bishop of Manchester not possessing the right to a seat in the House of Lords. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press to have the Bill reprinted.

had no objection to reprinting the Bill, except on the ground that it would delay the progress of the measure another day; and he could not allow the third reading to be postponed.

had refrained from expressing his opinion on the measure in Committee, in order to avoid every delay to its progress; and he only rose now to beg the House to be particularly careful that in an arrangement of this kind they did not arrogate to themselves a jurisdiction which they did not possess. It was essentially necessary that before this Bill were allowed to pass into law, the authority of the Crown for entertaining the measure should be distinctly stated in that House by one of Her Majesty's Ministers. It was extremely important that this point should not be lost sight of. The ancient forms of the House deserved always to be respected; they gave stability to institutions which every one valued; and the noble Lord would perhaps say, when he would take the opportunity of intimating Her Majesty's consent.

had informed the Speaker, that he should be prepared to convey the consent of the Crown to enter- taining this Bill, and he had understood from the right hon. Gentleman that that consent might he stated at any stage of the measure.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the fact of the bishops having given their consent to this Bill was of no importance at all. There had been such things as Bills sent down from the Upper House proposing that no more Peers should be created; and this measure could not come to them with any recommendation, because the parties principally concerned had offered their sanction to the principle involved. He did not see the necessity of such a Bill at this time, even if it were not objectionable at anytime. There existed a statute as yet unrepealed, enabling bishops to call suffragans to their assistance in discharging onerous spiritual duties; and if they acted on that law, they relieved themselves at once from all the difficulties suggested by a Bill of this kind. The position of the bishops was already anomalous enough; and if they deprived members of the episcopate of the right to sit in the House of Lords, they took away a prerogative of the Crown in a matter of paramount consideration, and opened up the spiritual constitution to the invasion of most dangerous abuses. He wished things to remain as they were, and he therefore protested against this Bill.

inferred, from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, that he feared if one bishop were lost to the House of Lords, and the new principle thus admitted, a great many others would follow. Now he held the contrary opinion, and he believed if all the bishops were removed from the House of Lords, it would be for the advantage of the Legislature, the country generally, the cause of the Church, and the cause of religion. He was glad that the new doctrine had been admitted; it was the redeeming quality in the Bill, that it was based on so sound and excellent a principle. He was as sincere a friend of the Church as any hon. Gentleman; and he believed conscientiously that the bishops themselves would be eventually benefited by being restricted from political strife, and confined to the sacred duties of their proper office. They would thus be relieved from an invidious position, and enabled to serve society much more effectually than at present. And he trusted the noble Lord would now be content with the creation of this one bishopric: to propose the erection at any other time of new bishoprics would give great offence to the country; and if he had funds from Church property which he did not know how to dispose of, lot him leave the bishops as they were, and endeavour to ameliorate the wretched and half-pauperized condition of the working clergymen. There were thousands of clergymen possessing incomes not exceeding 100l. a year who were expected to maintain the rank and station of gentlemen; and it was in the highest degree discreditable to Parliament that, having funds available to the increasing of Church efficiency, they did not at once devote them to such persons.

said, it was his intention to oppose the third reading of the Bill; and he sincerely wished he could impress upon the Government the importance of the proposed measure, and the necessity of more fully considering its details. It was a Bill which ought not to be lightly passed, or upon trifling considerations. The great object it proposed was to abolish the Court of Review; and by the third clause of the Bill, they were about to give the authority of Acts of Parliament to every subsisting order of the Court of Review in acts of bankruptcy. The Act was framed in such a way as to render it impossible to put it into proper shape this Session. The principle laid down in the first three clauses was, that the jurisdiction of the Court of Review should be abolished. But what good was to be the result of this alteration? We should not get a better Judge; for we had at present an able and experienced Judge, and could not expect a better. Then, if it were urged that the Court of Chancery had not enough to do, he maintained the contrary opinion, and asserted the Court had already more than enough to do, It was urged that the abolition of the Court of Review would get rid of fees that were a burden on the suitor. But, so far from this evil being remedied by the alteration, he found that the fees taken in the Court of Review were to be continued when the business was removed to the Court of Chancery. There was no pretence for saying that any saving by the change would be gained, cither by the suitor or the litigating public. Now, as there was a Committee sitting at the present moment on the subject of fees, he thought it would have been right to have waited until the Committee had given their report before the stipulation about fees had been inserted. He had not heard any reason, good or bad, for restoring the jurisdiction of the Bankrupty Court again to the Court of Chancery. The change was made without due consideration, and the only result would be inconvenience to all parties, and no saving to any one; but the contrary. These were his objections to the first part of the Bill. There was a growing opinion that distinctions between insolvency and bankruptcy should be done away with. The Bill, however, did not favour this opinion. The proposition in the Bill to take from the Bankruptcy Court certain powers with respect to the administration of assets, and to throw those powers back into the Insolvent Court, was in the highest degree faulty. He contended this was throwing back the law into its former confusion, and making separate jurisdictions for that line of business which ought to have only one common jurisdiction. With respect to the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts, that was a question open to discussion. He had never heard any good ground stated for this proceeding; but he could state very good grounds for not transferring the jurisdiction now exercised by the Court of Bankruptcy to the county courts. One of his reasons was because these county courts were hardly yet constituted, and had no settled or regulated mode of proceeding. The first four sections of the Act were full of absurdities and incongruities, as he had shown; and this afforded a sufficient reason for asking the House to pause before it passed the Bill. The thousand rules of the Courts of Chancery of late established were nothing more than stumbling-blocks of justice; and this evil would be increased in another direction if the proposal with respect to the county courts were suffered to pass. The only argument he had heard used in favour of this Bill was the saving of the expense of the Bankruptcy Commissioners on their circuits; but that would be an advantage that would be dearly purchased by the passing of the measure. It was said that there would be no great amount of property from insolvent debtors received. Within the last ten days, he knew that the property of an insolvent had been sold for 50,000l. Let the House look at the strange confusion of matter comprised in this Act, involving subjects too many to be involved in one Act; let them recollect, also, that the subject of bankruptcy and insolvency could not long remain as at present. Instead of such cobbling legislation as we had had from year to year, let us have such Acts as that framed by Lord Henley, after years of consideration—the 6th George IV.—regulating the rights of creditors, and of the bankrupt. It was an inconsiderate piece of legislation, mixing up three subjects that ought not to be included in one Bill; or, if included, it ought to be done on a more extensive view of the subject. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

had heard it rumoured that the real object of the Bill was not the avowed one. He had inquired into the matter himself, and he was satisfied the rumour was without foundation. He should support the third reading.

had always understood that the opposition to the Bill was confined to the first three clauses; two divisions having been taken on those first clauses, the rest of the Bill passed without a single observation: though the hon. and learned Gentleman was present, he made no objection to the rest of the Bill at the time. If it was necessary all changes in the administration of the law should be considered years before they were made, he admitted that this measure had not received sufficient consideration; but it was the result of a mature inquiry before a Committee of the House of Lords, was recommended by the report of that Committee, and had the sanction of the highest legal authority. One great object of the Bill was to abolish the Court of Review. He judged of the results of the former measure, which empowered the Lord Chancellor to appoint four Judges in Bankruptcy, by its result; that result was that the Judges had nothing to do. The business was done by one of the Vice Chancellors, sitting in a nominal court, which by the present Act would be abolished. The Lord Chancellor would now be enabled to give the bankruptcy business to either of the Vice Chancellors he might think fit; in some cases, such a transfer of the business was very expedient and desirable. The fees would remain subject to the same regulation as if the Court of Review continued to exist, should the Committee of Inquiry into the subject of fees think they ought to be altered. It was stated there were no grounds for the measure; he ap- prehended there were quite sufficient grounds for it in the fact that the Court of Review had fallen into disuse. The Bill would do away with an anomaly to which there was also this objection—that as long as the court existed its officers must he kept up, and expectations would be formed that might he an obstacle in the way of any future change in the law of bankruptcy. He must oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

, on a former occasion, was under a misapprehension when he mentioned that he had reason to believe that Lord Brougham was not favourable to the transference to the Court of Chancery of the jurisdiction now exercised by the Court of Review. The noble and learned Lord had assured him that he was wrong on this point; and the noble and learned Lord claimed the proposition as his own. He had listened to the reasons in favour of the transference; but he confessed that he could not regard them as satisfactory. He had the authority of Mr. W. Ellis, who was on the Commission which recommended the severance from the Court of Chancery of those duties exercised now by the Court of Review, for saying that he still entertained his original opinion as to the impolicy of connecting the jurisdiction with the Court of Chancery; and he had every reason to believe that his Colleagues in that Commission shared his opinion on that point.

then moved the insertion of the following clause:—

"And be it Enacted, That no judge of any County Court who has been appointed, or who shall hereafter be appointed to that office, under or by virtue of the hereinbefore recited Act, passed in the 10th year of the reign of Her Majesty, intituled, 'An Act for the more easy recovery of Small Debts and Demands in England,' shall, during his continuance in such office, be capable of being elected, or of sitting as a Member of the House of Commons."

objected to the clause, and proposed that the judges of the metropolitan county courts should be excluded from its operation. He moved the insertion of the words, "save and except any judge of the county courts in the metropolitan district."

thought the hon. Gentleman could not have heard what was stated by the Attorney General the other night, when he stated that there was great doubt whether, by the operation of the law as it now stood, these judges could have seats in Parliament, though it was not the intention of the Government that they should have scats in that House. It would be shorter and much better for the hon. Baronet to introduce the name of the Judge he proposed to have a seat in the House nominatim. If there were any persons who possessed power of a most suspicious kind in respect to election purposes, they were the judges of the county courts, who might (he did not say would) be indulgent to debtors, and punish or favour creditors. If the House had the slightest regard for the experiment they had made, if they did not desire to mar it, they would not adopt the proposition of the hon. Baronet in favour of certain county judges in immediate connexion with the metropolis.