objected to the Bill, because it would still leave the whole power of managing important funds in the hands of the corporation of Newcastle, the Bill providing that nine out of the seventeen commissioners to be appointed should be members of the town-council of Newcastle.

supported the Bill. The corporation of Newcastle were now willing to give up the right which they had so long enjoyed of the exclusive administration of the property, and to allow other towns to he associated with them in it, and he could not see, therefore, on what ground the principle of the Bill was objected to.

said, there was another Bill on the paper, the "Tyne River Conservancy Bill," and he hoped the hon. Gen- tleman opposite the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne would consent to allow both Bills to go before the same Committee, otherwise he thought the Amendment should not be withdrawn.

said, that the second Bill just alluded to had been reported to the House last Session, after seventeen days' consideration in Committee, and had received the sanction of the House, though at too late a period to allow of its being-pressed forward.

said, that the corporation of Newcastle had been for 500 years in possession of the property of which this Bill sought to deprive them, without any grounds whatever being shown to justify such a proceeding. He should, therefore, oppose the second reading.

said, that the Amendment to the former Bill had been withdrawn from the feeling in the House that both Bills ought to be sent before a Select Committee; and he hoped the House would show by its vote on this occasion the feeling which it entertained of the preposterous course now taken.

said, the House had two Bills before it, both for the improvement of the conservancy of the Tyne. The Bill just sanctioned travelled into no other object; but the Bill which they were now asked to sanction did travel into other ground, and sought to induce the House to refer to a Committee of five Members a question of property. The promoters alleged that the corporation of Newcastle misappropriated the funds, by expending two-thirds of them on the improvement of the streets of Newcastle; but if that were so, surely there was a legal tribunal before which the question ought to be decided, instead of bringing it before that House.

said, that not one Member in a hundred of those present knew anything about the whole proceeding: and if he, for one, were asked to vote on the question, he would feel obliged to retire from the House without doing so. If a Committee of five Members were unfit to decide on the merits of the Bill, after investigation, surely the whole House was equally unfit, seeing that they knew nothing of the merits.

said, that, in reference to a notice which appeared upon the paper of that day, he would beg, with the permission of the House and of his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, to make a few observations. Perhaps he might be permitted to interpose his good offices between two Gentlemen whom he had the honour of knowing, and regarding whom he could declare that the highest and most honourable motives regulated both the private and public conduct of each. The House, he was sure, would agree with him in deploring that any difference of opinion should have arisen between two Gentlemen who stood so high in public estimation as the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, who still, he was sure, notwithstanding what had occurred, entertained feelings of mutual respect and kindness for each other. He did not think the differences between them would be adjusted by the method proposed. His hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth proposed to move for a Committee to which the whole case was to be subjected. Now, what was the character of the evidence to be laid before the Committee, and what was the business which it was to decide? A large proportion of the case must, of necessity, concern matters that took place without the walls of the House. And what did take place within the walls must consist in a great measure of a few verbal communications made in haste, and probably during debates upon other subjects, one or two angry expressions which his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth had used under the stinging influence of the defeat of measures which he had in view, and some expressions that might have been used by his noble Friend at the head of the Government when listening to another debate, and not knowing precisely what the words might have been which he used. Now, how would it be possible for his noble Friend at this distance of time to charge his memory with the precise expressions used when a question was put to him in the course of debate? But even if the matter could be more precisely handled, he (Lord Ashley) did not think a Committee of the House was the proper tribunal before which it should be carried. He believed in his conscience that it was simply—yes, in his heart he believed that it was simply and altogether a misunderstanding by his noble and hon. Friends of the views and intentions of each other. Because he was quite convinced of this, that the hon. Member for Cockermouth was most sincere in all the measures he had proposed; that he had undertaken them on principle, and for that reason it was easy to account, in some measure, for the warmth he entertained regarding them. But his noble Friend was equally ardent upon those very subjects of improvement in the Church; and he (Lord Ashley) did not think there could be any deliberate intention on the part of his noble Friend to withstand any proposition that he thought would be conducive to the interests of the Church, or the promotion of the public welfare. He therefore thought, indeed he was convinced, that the whole affair had arisen from misconception; and be thought it would be very gratifying if they could bring the matter to a conclusion without passing any opinion whatsoever upon it, further than that the House should say it was fully satisfied as to the honourable intentions of Gentlemen who had sat so long a time within its walls, and who took so honourable and distinguished a part in its proceedings as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, and his noble Friend at the head of the Government. He thought the House would be satisfied and the public service advantaged, if, without doing more than expressing regret that any difference should have taken place between parties of such high respect and character, the House should at once pass to the business on the paper. He trusted the House would excuse him for making such a proposition, but he did it from a desire to consult the real advantage of the public, and, in a great measure, because he enter- tained the very deepest respect for both the Gentlemen concerned. And he conscientiously believed that nothing but a misunderstanding could have led to such an issue. He moved that the Order of the Day be now read.

seconded the Motion.

Sir, if I understand aright, the House seems unanimously to accede to what is proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Bath. And I must hold it to have decided that it is not desirable to go into the inquiry for which I came down to move. If that be so, I bow at once to the declared wish of the House; but I must at the same time ask it to indulge mo for a few moments of explanation before it passes to the Orders of the Day. The question now remains in this state—that I brought charges against the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, which I am not permitted to prove, or called on to retract. Now, I must say, if the matter is to be left in this state, it ends in a manner not altogether just to the noble Lord whom I have accused; and, not ending in justice to him, it would not end satisfactorily to my own feelings. I therefore think that, as there are certain passages in the letter alluded to which have been understood to convey something move than I intended, I ought to state what is the interpretation I should have wished to be put upon them—how far I meant to go in my charge against the noble Lord—and how far I am now prepared to withdraw the imputation which was supposed to rest on his personal honour. I did not intend to make, not did I make, any allegation whatever as to the noble Lord's motives. I did not intend that any such construction should be put on my letter; and perhaps it would be more satisfactory to show that what I am about to say is not mere formality and compliment, if I were to tell the House and the noble Lord what I really did mean and what I felt. I did not intend to say that the noble Lord had wilfully and designedly done that which he knew to be dishonourable. I believed the real fact to be that he was annoyed and irritated at my persevering in my Motions upon the Church; and that he rather courted the opportunity of showing bow he could with impunity dispense with the courtesies of Parliamentary usage in the case of a Member who had not a party at his back; and that he incautiously indulged this feeling to such an extent that he very seriously compromised himself, and enabled me to establish such a case against him that I could appeal without fear to the verdict of any Committee which the House might think fit to appoint. That, Sir, was my belief. If I were asked if I thought the noble Lord intended deliberately to deceive me, I say, fairly, there was no such accusation conveyed in the word of my letter. And I may add, that, so far from thinking that there was deliberation, I rather thought the noble Lord acted too unreflectingly. So far from having the motive to deceive, I believed that very possibly his disposition was only to annoy; but whatever the motive, the result was the same; and the facts which I was enabled to substantiate against the noble Lord were the same. I do admit, for I don't spare myself on this occasion, that, as my noble Friend the Member for Bath has hinted, I may, in the course of our discussions, have given the noble Lord some provocation; for I had felt, that on some of these questions I had been met by certain Members of the Government with personalities and imputations of motives of which the noble Lord alone knew the whole injustice; and I thought he did not give me the benefit of his testimony as in honour he was bound to do on those occasions. I felt this, and to a certain extent no doubt resented it. However, that is long past: and I now assure the noble Lord that so far as I am concerned, there shall not be a revival of that personal warfare between us. In future discussions it shall be my endeavour to avoid anything which, having a merely personal bearing, may give rise to unpleasantness with the noble Lord. And I hope I may ask and may receive on his side that courtesy which will show that he gives mo that credit, in my advocacy of public questions, for being actuated by public motives only which everything that has ever passed between us entitles me to demand. I can only now say further, Sir, that I cheerfully withdraw any imputation upon the personal honour of the noble Lord, and as a matter of course, of the right hon. Baronet also; and I have, at the same time, to express to this House my regret for the trouble which this explanation has occasioned.

Sir, I certainly received the impression from the letter which was read to the House the other day, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth did suppose that I intended to deceive him with respect to a measure that was before the House; and, being quite unconscious of any such intention, I certainly could not but feel at the time that it was a very unjust imputation. But I understand, from what has just been said by the hon. Member, not only that he does not now make that charge, but that that was not a charge he intended to make in what he wrote in his letter. Nothing can be more satisfactory to my feelings on that subject. With regard to any other matter, all I can say is this—the hon. Member hoped I would only attribute to public motives his pressing forward certain questions; and I am quite ready to do him justice in that respect, and believe that in pressing forward those questions, the hon. Member had no object in view but the general benefit of the public, and the improvement of the Church. But I am in a somewhat different position from the hon. Member, who must feel, that while it was competent to him to press upon the House, to the full extent, his views and impressions upon a subject, it occurred to myself, as a Minister of the Crown, if he undertook any measure, that he had not only to show to the House that the measure was in itself just, but that he must endeavour to communicate to others such an impression that it was just that he might succeed in carrying it. I believe this difference in our positions has been really the main cause of the misunderstanding. The hon. Member thought that a measure could be carried easily, which I considered could not he carried without asking the opinion and requiring the deliberation of various persons connected with the matter. I am very happy to find that the hon. Gentleman says that hereafter he will be ready to make every allowance of that kind which I could require; and, for my part, I can assure the hon. Member that I shall be ready to enter into any discussion that may come on, giving him full credit for zeal for the benefit of the Church, and for the purity of his motives.

Sir, I am very happy to hear the terms in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth has retracted his charges; and, for my own part, I must say, that I regret that, feeling the injustice of the imputations conveyed in his letter against my noble Friend and myself, I expressed myself in terms of undue warmth. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, that in the discussion of these questions to which he specially directs his attention, it will be my earnest desire to comply for the future with the hope which he has expressed. Subject dropped.

had to request the indulgence of the House with reference to a statement which had been made in the House, which had occasioned considerable pain to an hon. and gallant Officer, who, it would be remembered, had been alluded to in the course of the debate on Wednesday last, in reference to the affairs of Ceylon—he meant Captain Watson—who was the son of a distinguished officer, and who had himself been for more than twenty years an officer in the Army, and who was now attached to the Ceylon Rifle Brigade. The statement, as reported in the public papers to have been made by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, on the occasion he referred to, was—

"We have heard much from the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire about the savage proclamations of Field Marshal Haynau and others. But listen to the proclamation I am about to read—a proclamation of one of Her Majesty's officers in Ceylon, entrusted at the time with the full and responsible power of deciding the question of life and death with respect to the subjects of that colony. The proclamation is as follows: 'That unless all those who have held concealed the effects of Golahella Rata Mahatmeya, deliver over to me such property, or give information about the same without delay, such persons shall be killed, and their property confiscated.—A. Watson, captain commanding.' Now, I ask the House, is this a proclamation for the destruction of mad dogs or of human beings? I confess, Sir, when this proclamation was first brought under my notice, I was perfectly astounded. I could not believe such a production possible, and thought there must be some mistake. But there is no mistake about the matter. I have in my possession two of the original proclamations, signed by Captain Watson's own hand—proclamations which have received the full sanction and cordial approbation of Her Majesty's Government; and those Gentlemen who are so ready to denounce Austria for her acts, are the supporters of that Government."—Hansard, vol. cviii. p. 425.

Now, Captain Watson was a gentleman who, upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had been summoned as a witness to give evidence before the Ceylon Committee, and being consequently in this country, he had an immediate opportunity of seeing the statement of the hon. Member, and having read it in the public papers, he had written to Earl Grey a letter, repudiating the charge made against him in that statement, which letter having been forwarded to him (Lord J. Russell) by his noble Friend, he felt bound, in justice to Captain Watson, to read it. The letter was as follows:—

"22, Craven Street, London, Feb. 7.

"My Lord—Owing to absence from London, it was only this morning that I saw in the morning papers of yesterday the very cruel and unjustifiable attacks which are stated to have been made on my character by Mr. Baillie and Mr. Hume—who have coupled my name with acts of atrocity more suitable, as they say, for the 'destruction of mad dogs,' than becoming proceedings which involve the lives of human beings. In attendance as I am, pursuant to a summons from Ceylon, and about to be examined before a Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to inquire into recent events in that island, I cannot but feel deeply wounded by this ungenerous attempt to damage my reputation, and discredit my testimony by anticipation. Nor will your Lordship fail to perceive the prejudice to justice which must ensue from bringing forward such imputations in places where I have no means to meet and repel them, instead of reserving them for the approaching investigation, when opportunity would be afforded me for defence; and, in any event, the charge and its refutation would go together for the decision of the public. The evidence on which I have been thus assailed, is a document said to have been produced by Mr. Baillie, described as a 'savage proclamation,' and purporting to bear the name of 'A. Watson, captain commanding.' It threatens with death and confiscation of property all persons who should fail to make disclosures as to the abstraction of the effects of Golahella Rata Mahatmeya; and Mr. Baillie is said to have declared that all doubts as to its authenticity are effectually set at rest by his possessing 'two of the original proclamations signed by Captain Watson's own hand—proclamations which have received the full sanction and cordial approbation of Her Majesty's Government.' Had opportunity been afforded me by Mr. Baillie, before thus pledging his own veracity and impugning my honour, I should have informed that Gentleman, as I now do your Lordship, that the document in question is utterly spurious; that I never issued or authorised such a proclamation; and that he has been misled by an unprincipled forgery. The other allusions which have been made to supposed acts of mine, by both Mr. Baillie and Mr. Hume, are alike devoid of all foundation in fact, and so soon as an opportunity shall have been afforded me in the approaching Committee, I shall have no more difficulty in disposing of them than I have in denouncing the fictitious proclamation by which these Gentlemen have been so grossly imposed on.—I have, &c.

"ALBERT WATSON,

Captain, Ceylon Rifle Regiment.

"To the Right Hon. Earl Grey, &c."

He had thought it due to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, whose character had been aspersed before the House and the public, to give him the advantage of this his refutation of the charge brought against him; and he had not another word to say on the subject.

Sir, I have only this Statement to make, in answer to what has just been read by the noble Lord. I received the proclamations, to both of which the signature of Captain Watson is appended. These documents are couched in the Cingalese language; but I was informed that the translations I have given were sworn to by professed interpreters, before justices of the peace. Documents thus vouched for, and regularly transmitted to me, I could not believe to be deliberate forgeries. Should they turn out to be so, I am sure no one will—no one can, regret the foundation of a charge upon them more than I shall; but I repeat that the signature of Captain Watson—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—well, what purports to be the signature, in his own handwriting, of Captain Watson, is attached to the documents—documents which I shall be very happy to show to the gallant officer himself.

said, that as one of those who had been selected to sit on this Committee, and as a Member of the Committee of last year, he felt bound to say that he could not expect that justice would be done to the important question which it was the object to investigate. When the noble Lord at the head of the Government objected to the recommendation that a Commission should go out to Ceylon and there examine on the spot the parties who were best able to give evidence, he (Mr. Hume) took the opportunity of saying that, as it was the prayer of the petitioners—and he had presented four petitions on the subject to the House—that evidence to prove their allegations should be taken by a Commission on the spot, because in no other way could a full and fair investigation of the facts be obtained, a Parliamentary Committee only would not be satisfactory. The noble Lord, however, objected to that, and left it to the Committee to send for evidence; and then he (Mr. Hume) suggested that if it really was intended by the Government to have a fair inquiry, the party whose conduct was impugned should have leave of absence, or retire from his station as Governor of Ceylon, in order that he and those under his control might not have it in their power to interfere to prevent such evidence being sent to England as might he necessary to elucidate the question. The noble Lord thought that that would have been an im- putation against Lord Torrington; but it was precisely the course which had been followed, he believed, in every case where high crimes and misdemeanours had been charged against a public functionary. In one of the petitions he had presented, it was alleged—and the parties stated that if opportunity were afforded, they were ready to prove the fact on oath—that persons had been prevented from coming forward to give evidence by the noble Lord-and the public officers. His present object was to guard against its being supposed that any satisfactory result could come out of the inquiry by this Committee; for unless they had full means of ascertaining the grounds of the discontent out of which the disturbance in Ceylon had arisen, the inquiry would be useless. Considering the means at the disposal of Lord Torrington, and the noble Secretary for the Colonies to keep back witnesses whose testimony might elucidate the facts, it was impossible that justice could be done; and he hoped the House would allow those who had expressed that opinion in their petitions, to come down and state what they knew of the means that had been resorted to by those in authority to prevent a full and fair investigation of all the facts of the case. He did not speak as to Lord Torrington personally, for he had no desire to make a personal matter of it. All that he wanted was the future better government of Ceylon; and until the whole facts were known, causes for turbulence and discontent would continue to exist in that colony.

expressed himself unable to see how the House could possibly discharge its duty unless they had some assurance from the Government that the future proceedings of the Committee, if, indeed, it was to proceed at all, should be conducted in such a way, and under such circumstances, as really to elicit the truth. Circumstances more extraordinary than those under which the Committee was about to be reappointed, had never occurred. The present Motion was for a renewal of the Committee appointed last year to examine into certain grave charges and allegations. But without witnesses, or any facilities being afforded for the production of witnesses, the reappointment of that Committee was an idle ceremony. The statements of Members of it proved that all endeavours hitherto made to procure the attendance of the necessary witnesses, had been utterly baffled. He did not mean to say that no witnesses had been allowed to attend, but that if the Committee were now reappointed upon the game footing as that which they had occupied last Session, that the tribunal—a tribunal delegated by the House to inquire into the truth of certain accusations—would be in this singular position that they would have witnesses to rebut, but no witnesses to establish, the charge—witnesses for the defence, but none for the prosecution. [Mr. HAWES: No, no!] He heard some hon. Gentleman say "No, no." He thought it was the voice of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, but he would establish his position. The House could only proceed upon the authentic records of the Committee. Now, on one of the last days of the Committee's meeting, he found that the following resolution had been come to:—

"Tour Committee regret that, from the termination of the Session they have not been able to conclude their inquiries into the grievances in connexion with the administration and government of Ceylon, and especially into the causes of the late insurrection in that colony, and into the means adopted by the local Government for its suppression; but, from the gravity of the circum-stances which those inquiries have elicited, your Committee express their opinion that it is expedient that they should be reappointed next Session to pursue their investigation, and that means should be adopted in the interval by the Secretary of State to ensure the attendance before the Committee of the Queen's Advocate at Ceylon, of Captain Watson, and such others whose evidence may be necessary to explain and establish the circumstances under which martial law was recently proclaimed in Ceylon, and to give information as to all proceedings which were thereon adopted by the Government."

This resolution had been come to upon the 30th of July, and for this reason—that on the 28th of July a complaint had been made in this House, on the part of the, Committee, that without sending a commission to Ceylon, the investigation could not be satisfactorily carried out. This was on the 28th of July. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, interposing, with great gravity and dignity, had stated, that although he could not support the Motion for a Commission, yet he thought that that Motion would be readily withdrawn if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give the House an assurance that the Committee would be this Session reappointed, and that, in the meantime, and before the Session ended, the Committee, through their chairman, should communicate with the Government as to the witnesses and papers which might be required, so as that they might be sent for in the interval, and be ready to be produced when the Committee was reappointed. The course recommended by the right hon. Baronet was adopted by the noble Lord. But what followed? They were now here continuing a discussion commenced by a new complaint brought by the chairman of the Committee. He complained that the endeavours made by him as chairman of the Committee, between the 30th of last July and the next meeting of Parliament, to obtain witnesses, had been baffled by Earl Grey. Now, the noble Lord at the head of the Government said, on a former night, that he had carefully read from Hansard the words which he had actually used upon the 28th of July, because he feared that there might arise some misunderstanding or misconception relative to what he had actually said on that occasion. But the noble Lord must pardon him (Mr. Stuart) if he said, that, in his opinion, the noble Lord referred to the words which he used last Session, without a sufficient reference to the context of the passage quoted, and without enabling the House properly to ascertain how the matter had been actually left between the Committee and the Government. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon ended his speech of the 28th of July last as follows:—

"He, therefore, could not support the Motion now before the House; and, indeed, he did not think that his hon. Friend would press it, if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give the House an assurance, on the part of the Government, that, at the commencement of the next Session, he would consent to the reappointment of the Committee, for the purpose of pursuing the inquiry. In that case, the Committee could meet on Monday, and communicate, through their chairman, with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, both with respect to papers and to additional witnesses that they would think necessary, when the Committee met again at the commencement of next Session."—Hansard, cvii. 1098.

Such was the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. To that proposal he (Mr. Stuart), who was present, understood the noble Lord to accede. He understood the noble Lord to mean that the Committee should assemble on the following Monday; that they should consider what arrangements were to be made for summoning witnesses; and that their chairman should, on their behalf, communicate with the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies. What had taken place since? On the 30th of July, the Committee had passed the following resolution:—

"That the chairman be authorised and requested to communicate with Her Majesty's Secretary of State as to the necessary "witnesses to be ordered home to give evidence before the Committee to be appointed in the ensuing Session."

There was the noble Lord acceding to the suggestion made in the House, leaving it to the chairman to arrange with the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the necessary witnesses. Well, but no sooner did the hon. Gentleman put himself in communication with the noble Lord, than the latter replied, in substance, that he did not recognise the hon. Gentleman, as the chairman of a Committee invested with delegated power at all. The noble Lord, in fact, stated that the Committee had no right to delegate any such power as that of naming the witnesses to be summoned; and that, even if they had such a right, he would not consent to their request, upon the ground that it would occasion considerable expense. On these grounds there was a flat refusal given to the request for the summoning of witnesses. On the reassembling of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire having been thus treated by the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, and the decision of that noble Lord having been confirmed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, it seemed to him to be clear and palpable—first, that this had been an evasion of the understanding come to, and that means had been taken to baffle the endeavours of the Committee to have before them the witnesses they thought proper should be examined. This was a state of things which he thought involved grave matter of censure against the Government. But there had been still more immediate and direct means taken to baffle the attempts of the Committee to arrive at the truth. Not only had the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies not acceded to the request conveyed to him that he should attend before the Committee to give certain explanations; but when the Committee put the noble Earl in possession of the points on which they wished for information from him, he made no reply whatever to one of the inquiries. The following questions were, as it was stated in the report of the Committee, privately forwarded to the noble Earl:—

"Whether your Lordship has received any copies of the proceedings of the courts-martial (including details of the evidence taken upon the trials of the prisoners), which were held in Ceylon in 1848, and information, private or public, of how each of the courts was constituted, which have not been laid before the Committee now sitting on the affairs of Ceylon; and if you have not, whether your Lordship has ordered any such to be transmitted to you, or whether it is your intention so to do?"

To this the noble Earl replied, upon the 11th of July, as follows:—

"In reply I have to request you to acquaint the Committee that I possess no information which is not contained in the papers already before them on any of the points mentioned in your letter; and that with regard to the opinion I may have formed on these points, or the reasons which have led me to the conclusions I have adopted, I should not think it consistent with the duty imposed upon me by the office I have the honour to hold, to add anything to what I have said in the despatches which I have addressed to the Governor of Ceylon, and which have been laid before Parliament."

The second question, the House would observe, as to whether the documents had been ordered by the noble Earl, was not even alluded to in his answers. He (Mr. Stuart) held that, under such circumstances, the Committee, unless they had some assurance that information would really be supplied to them, might go on for another Session without being at all nearer the end of their appointment. What he wished to know was, whether Her Majesty's Government intended to afford the necessary facilities or not? He quite dissented from the principles as to the mode of conducting the business of Committee, held by the noble Lord. If a chairman could not represent a Committee for such purposes as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire had represented his Committee, then the appointment of a chairman was perfectly nugatory and useless. Was it necessary for all the fifteen Members of the Committee to have gone before the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary to make a statement as to their wishes? Unless some satisfactory assurance were given by Government as to the production of witnesses, the reappointment of the Committee was idle—it was a Committee merely for the purpose of whitewashing the Governor of Ceylon, and he would rather vote against it altogether. He could tell the Government that such proceedings were not to be turned into a farce. He did not intend to impute to the noble Lord any deliberate improper intention beyond this—and this he did charge him with—that the noble Lord was stretching to the utmost his powers over a majority of the House, in order to pre- vent a due and proper prosecution of this inquiry.

said, that although the questions the hon. and learned Gentleman put had been distinctly answered the other day, he would endeavour very shortly to explain what were the views with which his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had moved for the appointment of the Committee of which he had given notice. As he (Lord J. Russell) understood the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, what he meant was this—that he supposed by the resolution the chairman of the Committee should communicate to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies with respect to the witnesses whom he and the Committee should think necessary to have produced before them. Accordingly, the Committee next day agreed on two witnesses being summoned, one of whom was Captain Watson. And they had been summoned in consequence. But if his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State had been told, when that last resolution of the Committee was moved, "Now, mind this resolution means that your chairman of the Committee is to have absolute power over the Secretary of State, and is to order him, during the next six months, to do as we please, and he is to have no discretion or option "—why, then, his hon. Friend would have refused to agree to any such resolution. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark would, he thought, hardly assert that it would not be a great stretch of the powers of the Committees of the House if they had complete control over the Secretaries of State. If there were three Committees appointed at the end of the Session, and that the chairman were to have power over the three Secretaries of State, with respect to ordering any witnesses they pleased, he was sure that was a stretch of authority to which the House would object. With regard to the proceedings of the Committee, he could only say that when they sat they would have full power to summon the witnesses, and every facility would be given to them by his noble Friend the Secretary of State to arrive at the facts of the case. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that in the inquiry there was one part of the question to be entirely disregarded—and that was the defence—and that there was nothing to be heard on the part of the defence—it was not the condition on which he (Lord J. Russell) assented to the appointment of the Committee. The principle on which he understood the Committee to be appointed was, let the accusation be heard, but let not the defence be suppressed.

said, that there was not one hon. Gentleman in the House who had ever asked for the suppression of the defence. What they were anxious for was, that the defence should not be brought on before the evidence for the accusation had been concluded. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had represented the matter as if the Committee had delegated powers to their chairman to dictate to the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies what witnesses he was to call. This was not the case. The noble Lord had stated the matter more fairly when he said that there were two courses open for the noble Earl to adopt. He might assume that the Committee had instructed their chairman either to consult with him as to what witnesses should be called, or to dictate to him what their names were to be. Now, the noble Lord had, upon the present occasion, brought forward only the second of these interpretations. But, in his (Mr. Adderley's) opinion, the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies had no right to assume that the Committee had instructed their Chairman to dictate to him. What the Committee had done was this—they had instructed their chairman to consult with the noble Earl upon the subject. When the Committee met after the discussion in this House, they had suggested the names of two witnesses; but on these gentlemen being mentioned, the whole Committee immediately said that there were others absolutely necessary, especially for the elucidation of matters relating to the long continuance of the enforcement of martial law. It was said to be impossible to get these witnesses without writing to Ceylon; and, as it had been determined that a Commission should not be sent out, the only alternative was to write out to the colony. That was the only course the Committee could take; it was the course which, he believed, had been agreed to by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Colonies, after considerable discussion; and he confessed that he had felt astounded when the hon. Gentleman repudiated the arrangement. The only course open to the Committee was to send out to the colony, in order to procure the necessary witnesses, and afterwards communicate with the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Department. The noble Lord had, however, demurred to the authority of the chairman; and had, in fact, stopped his mouth, although he (Mr. Adderley) thought the noble Earl would have done well to have discussed the merits of the case with the chairman of the Committee. The noble Earl might have demurred to such witnesses, and alleged that they were improper ones; he might have asked on what grounds they were called, and challenged the necessity for producing them. But the noble Earl had not done that, but had rested his objection upon a ground which he (Mr. Adderley) thought was indefensible. He had only one other remark to address to the House. The noble Earl had objected to the expense to which the production of these witnesses would put the country. He (Mr. Adderley) confessed astonishment at such an objection. The noble Earl stated that the witnesses would involve a charge of from 400l. to 700l. each. Now, although many witnesses might not be worth so much money, if ever there was a case in which witnesses were worth their weight in gold a hundred times over, it was in the case of these Ceylon witnesses. The colonists complained that the courts-martial were open for a considerable time after the rebellion was over—they alleged that several of the Queen's subjects had been tried by these courts, and had been put to death by mistake. Now, without saying that these charges were true—he trusted they were not—he should rejoice to find the Colonial Office consenting fairly to conduct an investigation into them. It was essential both to the credit of the country and of the Government, that the conduct Lord Torrington should be investigated. Far be it from him to wish to inculpate Lord Torrington, and much should be rejoice if the charges brought against him should prove to be unfounded. It would be unfortunate if he were inculpated without investigation, and it would be most disastrous if Her Majesty's Government should put themselves forward as his advocates before the conclusion of the inquiry.

said, it was not his intention to oppose the nomination of the Committee, and he would refrain from reviving the debate of the other day as to the affairs of Ceylon; but as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made an observation respecting the conduct of the chairman of the Committee for making statements on the authority of a certain document placed in his hands, he (Mr. Disraeli) was bound to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire had been fully justified in making those statements and assertions. He gave no opinion with respect to the veracity or authenticity of the statement: the witness to whom it referred would be brought before the Committee, when he could be fully examined, and the truth of the case, no doubt, established. He thought it right to state that the chairman had only summoned at his own instance three witnesses—two of them filling the high official post of Colonial Secretary; the other, an eminent merchant, who held an office in the household. He had not, therefore, attempted to substantiate the case he had brought forward by partial witnesses, or by the evidence of persons whose opinions ought not to have great influence over the House. His hon. Friend placed the matter in a still more favourable view in that respect by reminding him that one of those witnesses whom he had just mentioned had been summoned by the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies. As very few had read the evidence with great attention, the House might probably be unacquainted with the fact, that it had been by no means confined to substantiating the accusation, but, on the contrary, that much of it was from witnesses vindicating the conduct of the Governor, and who had been summoned by the Colonial Office. From the very first he had endeavoured, as much as he could, to keep the Committee out of the House of Commons, and he thought he had endeavoured to conduct it with temper and impartiality, and that the present unfortunate proceeding would not have happened if the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies had accepted his proposal. He was prepared to resume that investigation; but he was bound to say, he did so with no very sanguine hope that the result would be satisfactory to the House or to the country. It was not necessary for him to introduce to the notice of the House statements which should be very severely investigated by the tribunal of which he was a Member; but seeing what would arise, he must express his sincere conviction that an effort was about to be made to prevent that thorough and impartial investigation of the truth which the honour of the Government and the justice of the country so much required.

said, it must be clear to the House, from the present discussion, that the Committee was going to its labours under difficult circumstances. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, the hon. chairman of the Committee, and the hon. and learned Member for Newark, had all said they were conscious—they were sure—that there was to be a power employed by the Government to interfere with the investigation submitted to the Committee; that the official powers of the colonial authorities were to be employed for the purpose of braving the investigation. Now, that was the charge. That was the grave charge brought against the Government at the present moment; and each of the Gentlemen who had made it, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Newark, were Members of the Committee; and they all said that they were going into the Committee, that they were Members of it and that they were going to make the investigation. Why, the whole proceeding was one that would be characterised out of doors as inconsistent upon their parts. The idea of going into a Committee, preceding it with a charge against the Government, and saying they could not do justice, that they were sure to be misinterpreted, and stopped, and that they could not obtain a thorough investigation, seemed strange. The real proceedings on the part of those Gentlemen ought to be, to refuse to be Members of the Committee. In justice to themselves they ought to make a statement to that effect. They charged the Colonial Secretary and the Under Secretary of State with an intention to prevent the investigation of truth: and he wanted to know if ever there was a charge more grave brought against a Government, or one which, if true, would tend to disgrace the character of a Government more than that? Upon what ground had that charge been made against the Government? Because he held that when a certain number of Members of the House of Commons got up and made a charge against the Government of that description, so grave, he supposed they had got evidence in support of their opinion. He presumed that they would not hazard imputations—that they ought to be grounded on some conviction in their minds resting on evidence; and if he charged a Member of the Government with dishonesty, he hoped he would have evidence in support of the accusation. Well, here were five Members charging the Colonial Secretary with the most se- rious dishonesty. That was the truth of the charge, that he (the Colonial Secretary) was going into the investigation with a desire to prevent the investigation of truth. How did they get that? We had got a dependency—Ceylon. An insurrection broke out there. That insurrection was suddenly suppressed. It was sup. pressed after a declaration of martial law, and certain proceedings which he was not bound to characterise; and the result had been immediate peace, and peace from that time to the present. Now, Ceylon was called a colony. It was not a colony in the common acceptation of the term. It was a dependency—a large dependency—filled with a population, not English—wholly foreign. We had a small body of Englishmen therein residing, amidst a hostile population, with a governor at its head representing England. Now, if that House was to be made the means of, upon all occasions, tying the hands, paralysing the mind, disturbing the judgment, and overturning the determination of those men who represented England in those distant colonies, there could be no more dangerous office than that so undertaken; and he saw a tendency in that House and in this country—he was going to say for the purpose of obtaining a sort of pitiful popularity—to so carp and cavil at those who did represent this country, and who endeavoured, under her glorious flag, to subdue anticivilisation at various regions of the earth, and to extend that dominion, which, by its extension, was a blessing—he sad, he saw such a tendency to paralyse our power, and those who represented us, in all the various quarters of the globe, and so to interfere with every enterprise which was English, that he deemed it his duty, as one representative of this country, to stand up and enter his protest, solemn, and sincere, and earnest, against such a proceeding. Why, what had they got upon this occasion? He thought Lord Torrington's great mistake had been, that he ever handled a pen. If he had not written despatches, but only acted, he might have been a very good Governor; and he (Mr. Roebuck) did not know whether he had written the despatches himself, but he presumed he had. But being a Governor in the midst of a hostile population, as he was—and he (Mr. Roebuck) knew the population—he had, in reality, no more to do than any other man, to prevent the effusion of blood; and if he had tampered with the blood of a hostile population of that sort, we should have had a war in Ceylon, and where we had one man slain now we might have had a thousand. But because hon. Gentlemen with refined feelings had received representations that certain things which they said had been done contrary to law, they were frightened. What was contrary to law in Ceylon? Let this be understood. Ceylon was a conquered dependency. By the very fact of its being conquered, the law of Ceylon was a law. The English law was only introduced there by the direct intervention of the Sovereign, or by an Act of Parliament. Whatever the Sovereign chose to do, supposing no Act of Parliament interfered, went as far as the Sovereign desired; and he wanted to know if it were not law—the hon. and learned Member for Newark was so learned about constitutional law that he would set him right if he was wrong—he wanted to know if it were not law, constant and well understood, that a conquered dependency had the law of a conquered dependency until it was altered, either by the determination of the monarch of England, or by an Act of Parliament? He wanted some one to show him the Act of Parliament which did prevent the Governor from proclaiming martial law. He, unfortunately for himself, had seen martial law proclaimed even where there was a constitution. He had seen that martial law supported in that House. He had known persons under that martial law to be convicted and executed, and he had found no sympathy expressed in that House in consequence of that martial law. But he wanted to know whether it was illegal for Lord Torrington to have proclaimed martial law in Ceylon? If it was not illegal, his Lordship might have proclaimed it, and he might also have appointed the tribunals which tried the prisoners; and though it might be said that he was cruel, that he was imperious, that he did things which a mild and merciful man ought not to have done, yet he (Mr. Roebuck) judged by the result that peace had been maintained in that island from that time to this. He had been told that there was a judge there who opposed the Governor. Did anybody know the history of English judges in India? Was it not notorious that the moment you set an English lawyer by the side of him representing the Government, they were sure to get into disputes?—and he believed that the reason was, that English lawyers were not statesmen. ["Hear, hear!"] The statement might appear ludicrous, but every one acquainted with the history of India knew the fact perfectly well. The hon. Member for Montrose ought to know what India was; he ought to know that the moment we had lawyers there, they went to loggerheads at once. He had no faith in the prudence of such men. He had great faith in the conscience and in the desire of English lawyers to do good, but he had no faith in their prudence, and they were the last men he would have to govern a country. [Laughter.] This might excite laughter, and yet every man going home that night would say upon reflection that he (Mr. Roebuck) was right. But, coming hack to the statement of the hon. Gentlemen he referred to already, he asked was not this an unwise and impolitic way to deal with our distant colonies? We had got the question of the Chinese ports before; we had now got the question of Ceylon; both were pretty nearly in the same district of the globe, very much in the same difficult situation, and what were we, for party and personal purposes, about? [Sir W. MOLES-WOBTH: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Southwark had nothing to do with this matter; he (Mr. Roebuck) agreed with that hon. Baronet in his views of colonial government, and could assure him he was not going to interfere with him. But now the debate had reference to distant dependencies held by force and not inhabited by English colonies; and the House could not take upon itself a more mischievous office than that of endeavouring to paralyse the efforts of others in those distant dependencies, where men are always alive and fearful lest they should be called to account, by the difference of party politics affording to some individuals a handle to annoy and disturb an Administration. Any of those hon. Gentlemen, then, who believed that by going into this investigation he would be baffled by the Colonial Minister, would do much more for his own character and the country if he declared that he would withdraw himself from the Committee, and not go into an inquiry with this sort of preparatory means of exculpating himself, if he failed to support the imputation.

observed, that he would not go into the question of the justifiability of proclaiming martial law in Ceylon, as that subject was not now fairly under the consideration of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, who had just spoken, had said that certain charges were being made against the Government. The hon. and learned Member spoke of there being charges, but he did not know what those charges were. What charges had been made by the Gentlemen to whom the hon. and learned Member had referred? The only charge they had preferred against the Government was founded on a refusal to send for witnesses; and he had substantiated that charge by a reference to the correspondence. The only accusations made, therefore, were those which had been proved before the House. He did not wish to enter into any further discussion on the subject, but he very much feared he should be obliged to bring forward charges—not against the Government, because he would not believe they were capable of countenancing such a thing—but against their officers, on account of the persecution going on in Ceylon against persons of the highest classes as well as of the lowest, and to ask for the persons thus persecuted the protection of that House.

said, that long as he had been in that House, he never had heard a more tyrannical speech than that of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave them his notion of what should be the law in the colonies—the will of Lord Torrington was to be the law in Ceylon. But it would have been well if the hon. and learned Gentleman was made aware that Ceylon had a constitution, and that Her Majesty sent out a Governor there with certain instructions, and that courts had been established there with English judges to preside over them. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the general character of English lawyers; and he (Mr. Hume) was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman, at least, had shown the House his unfitness to preside over the administration of the law, or as a statesman. Was it not too much, after human blood had been shed and great barbarities had taken place, that those who advocated the cause of humanity were to be called popularity hunters? If there was any one in the House who deserved to be called a popularity hunter, it was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. He remembered when the hon. and learned Member stood at the bar of the House advocating the cause of the rebels of Canada, and he would leave it to him to say how his language then was to be made to agree with that he had just made use of. He was one of those who held that, in the present case, the principle of fair play had not been maintained, and he thought that the public had a right to complain. They had been told that Ceylon was not a colony—that it was a distant dependency of Great Britain, subject to the will of the Governor for the time being; that Lord Torrington might do with the colony just as he pleased: that certainly was language which he had not expected to hear from the quarter whence it proceeded. He did not expect to hear it said that Lord Torrington could, by his own authority alone, take away from every individual the protection of the law; and it was even too much to say that the rules of the ordinary courts-martial were not remain in force in Ceylon. Was it not too much, considering the state of Ceylon, that military law should have been kept in force for upwards of six weeks? and now it appeared that none of the courts of law would question any of the acts done under the authority of Lord Torrington. It appeared to him most strange that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield should have expressed anything like approbation of such a course of proceeding. His hon. and learned Friend must really, in the course of last night, have slept off all his good and ancient opinions, and risen from his bed this morning a very different man from what he had hitherto been—not the man that he had always been taken for—not the anxious and ardent supporter of liberty, ready to resist any attack upon the rights of the subject. Now, his hon. and learned Friend had stood forth in the character of an advocate of a state of things in which the courts of law were shut, and redress for injury or grievance denied. By the act of Lord Torrington, the property of every man might be confiscated, and his son shot; and in consequence of the Act of Indemnity there was no remedy to the suffering parties. To that the sanction of the British Crown had been given, and 18 individuals were executed without the interposition of a judge-advocate; no such officer was present at those trials, no senior officer presided at any of the trials, and the unfortunate victims were led from the courts-martial and shot: was not that a practice in the conduct of courts-martial sufficient to make the hair of any military man stand on end? In the Committee he asked if any report or account of the proceedings had come home, and he received an answer in the negative; he then moved the Committee that they should put a similar question to the Commander-in-Chief, and the answer which they received from the Horse Guards was "No." Now, he would ask the House, had the noble Lord given his sanction to those proceedings without any documentary evidence of their nature or character? Not content with the inquiries made in the Committee and at the Horse Guards, he moved the Committee to request the attendance of Earl Grey; but his Lordship declined to come, and now it only remained for him (Mr. Hume) to ask in the House whether Her Majesty's Government had sanctioned the execution of 18 individuals? They had been executed, and not a word reached this country to explain or excuse such a violation of justice and law. Anxious for information upon these subjects, he could not bring himself to believe that any man acting in the character of a British Minister could have been induced so to proceed on no evidence other than that which was contained in the blue book; was it to be endured that Lord Torrington should disregard the aid of a law officer of the Crown who had been deputed by the Government to give him advice? It was well known that, without taking the opinion of that officer, Lord Torrington directed the confiscation of the property of all persons who were found absent from their dwellings, and for the more effectually carrying those designs into execution, he sent out parties of military to seize the persons of individuals who might so have absented themselves from their homes. Then came the statement that Lord Torrington confiscated nothing more than perishable articles grain and cattle. But what would the House say if they found that jewellery and clothes to a large amount had been confiscated and sold by public sale? With such deeds before them, and with the striking fact that men were executed without anything like a lawful trial—with those broad facts before them, the general feeling in this country was that there existed great ground for complaint—that there was great ground for saying that the authorities in this case were acting unfairly because they were acting ignorantly; and had it not at length become the duty of the House of Commons to take measures for ascertaining the truth and making it known? In the prosecution of that object it was rather too much that they should be taunted with popularity hunting.

said, that though his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose might be somewhat angry, yet he felt mite convinced that that hon. Gentleman did not by any means wish to misrepresent the real state of the facts, or to mislead the House by any colouring which he might give them. He doubted not for a moment that his hon. Friend was influenced by the kindest feelings, but strong feeling did not always contribute to clearsightedness; and he therefore would on no account attempt to cast any imputation upon his hon. Friend, but he could not go back from the propositions which he had laid down; he could not bring himself to think that there was any hope of a successful issue to the labours of the Committee when a large number of Gentlemen went into it predetermined to believe that there was no chance of getting at the truth. His hon. Friend had accused him of favouring tyranny; but that charge he was sure the House would regard as groundless; for they could not have for gotten that he drew a distinction between colonies and settlements; between a country peopled chiefly by Englishmen, who were governed by English laws, and a territorial conquest which a small body of Englishmen held by force; and if his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose did not at once understand that distinction, he had little hope that any observations which it would be possible for him that evening to make in the House, would greatly assist the mind of his hon. Friend on the subject. His hon. Friend had told the House that they had reason to complain. Of what? Of the Government of Lord Torrington, he supposed. Well, then, if his hon. Friend thought so, he ought to impeach Lord Torrington; or he ought rather to accuse the Colonial Minister. It was nonsense to talk about Lord Torrington, for if all that hon. Members in that House said was true, the Colonial Minister ought to be an object of accusation; and if that Minister were accused, his hon. Friend would find him (Mr. Roebuck) as ardent an advocate—he would say nothing about his own ability as an advocate, but he would find him as ardent an advocate as any in that House. Let his hon. Friend charge Earl Grey, let him lay a good ground for that charge, and he would find no warmer supporter than he (Mr. Roebuck) should prove himself; but he objected to unjust imputations, for their effect always must be to weaken all fair imputations. The noble Lord on the Treasury bench sat smiling at these imputations, as if he thought them ridiculous; the world thought them ridiculous, and he (Mr. Roebuck) had the misfortune in this case to agree with the world.

said, he thought it might be very proper to introduce a measure for the purpose of modifying the present law on the subject of head-money; it might be very proper to define the occasions upon which it was to be payable, and the amounts to be paid. For British subjects found on board enemies' ships in time of war, head-money could be claimed; it could also be claimed for pirates. Now, when the Act of George IV. was passed, the Spanish colonies had but just asserted their independence, and the Spanish Main was infested with pirates. There was then in that part of the world a vast number of pirates, and the most atrocious acts were committed. Respecting the prevalence of those crimes, many complaints had been addressed to the Government by the Association of Lloyd's, and England was certainly not able at once to put down those nests of pirates; but eventually, at great expense and loss of life, they were put down. The amount was and ought to be large for the capture of individual pirates, for, generally speaking, they deserted their ships, and it became, therefore, the more difficult to seize them. The principle of awarding money to officers and seamen in the British Navy was almost as old as the Navy itself; and he believed the amount of head-money during the whole of the war had remained without alteration from the reign of Queen Anne. He was quite ready to say, that the naval service of England did not require any such stimulus as head-money—they were always prepared to do their duty; but why take from them this species of reward? Their pecuniary advantages were not in other respects considerable, and he thought they ought not to be deprived of one like this, which they had so long enjoyed. It was true, that under the Bill of 1825 there might have been some abuses; but let the acts deemed piracy be more accurately de" fined than they had been by that measure, then they might specify more precisely than heretofore the class of vessels to which the law of head-money would apply. He took the liberty of submitting these observations to the House, because he had been connected with the Board of Admiralty when the Bill of 1825 passed, and the suggestions which he now offered were merely for the sake of the officers and men of the Navy. It was his opinion, that many of the objections to the present state of the law might be met by modification rather than by total repeal. Before he sat down, he begged to remind the House that vessels engaged in the slave trade were deemed to be piratical, and he wished to know how they proposed to deal with those cases in which slavers were captured. No doubt the Admiralty might have very good reasons for their measure, but those reasons had not yet been stated.

said, he would be the last man in the world inclined to cast any reflections whatever on the persons engaged in these dangerous services; but he must say, the mode in which the allowance was at present made, was open to very grave objection. It was now proposed to do away with the distinction between the amounts awarded for every private killed, and every private captured—20l. and 5l. respectively. The gallant officer in command on the station where the recent transactions occurred, had himself expressed his opinion in an official communication, that this subject should be reconsidered, as the services now performed differed from those contemplated when the allowance was originally made. No doubt it was in the power of the House to adopt the proposal of giving 5l. a head for all the pirates captured who might have been engaged; but the course which the Government proposed by this Bill to pursue, was not by any means to deprive those engaged in this service of the expectation which it had been the habit of the service to hold out to them, but simply to place the awards and amounts within the discretion of the Admiralty, rather than adopt any compulsory amount fixed by Act of Parliament. An engagement with pirates was often an engagement with men as capable of fighting their own battles as any body could be, and that class were more dangerous because they were more desperate; and therefore these engagements, though not important in the history of our naval transactions, were still deserving of every reasonable reward. On the other hand, it would be wrong to measure the dangers by the number of the parties opposed to us; and in many of these latter engagements it would be improper to estimate the rewards by the number of the parties actually on board of the prahus. He should be obliged to call on the House shortly for a very large sum, about 100,000l., to pay these rewards, and that of itself was some reason why the subject should undergo revision. But on the best consideration that he had been able to give the subject, he did think it would be better to invest the Admiralty with a discretion any power, in communication with the Treasury, to consider each case on its own separate merits, and allow a reasonable sum as a reward, than to attempt what he did not think it possible by an Act of Parliament to accomplish, namely, to estimate the service rendered in any particular case, and distribute a reward, which he admitted ought to be given in a fair and proper manner.

entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty in the propriety of repealing this Act, and he thought some credit was due to the Government for the manner in which they had come forward and expressed their disapprobation of the system which now exists. He conceived that the principle on which this money had been given was wrong. It was, in his opinion, a reflection on the service that our naval officers and seamen would not do their duty if they did not get this additional reward. He agreed with the old adage that the pirate was an enemy to everybody, and ought to be put down. He wished the right hon. baronet to tell him when he could lay on the table of the House the papers he had moved for, because on them would depend whether he should call the attention of the House to this fraud which had been committed on the country by means of an Act of Parliament. He could not hold Government altogether innocent in this affair, when he knew that they had promoted the officer employed in this service, though there had been no despatches. He hoped that, before the House voted this 100,000l., they would inquire how the claim had arisen, because under the Act the men for whose capture the money was to be given, were to be brought before a court and proved to be pirates. Now, in the whole of the proceedings in this case, they had no evidence whatever that these men were pirates. He supposed the money was awarded by the court of Singapore. [Sir F. T. BARING: Yes.] That was a power of drawing on the revenue of this country which was most extraordinary. He was told that there was no evidence whatever as to the numbers, and, indeed, the different officers engaged did not know whether the number killed was 600 or 2,000. The Navy ought to do their duty as other navies did, without these additional rewards. There were other matters to which he might call attention. For instance, ships of war were paid for assisting merchant ships when in distress. He was happy to find, however, that the Judge of the Admiralty Court had decided against a claim of salvage by the Indian marine. He was told that in the American navy the orders were to assist all merchant ships in distress, not only of their own nation, but of other nations, without reward.

hoped the House would permit him to say that he had made no observations in reference to the character of the service. There would be but little delay in laying on the table of the House the papers which they had got. The hon. Gentleman had asked for the legal papers. They had not got them officially; but he (Sir F. T. Baring) had learned from the newspapers that the parties came before the recorder of Singapore in the usual manner, and he stated distinctly that he must have further evidence that they were pirates, as he was not satisfied on that point. In consequence, further evidence was given to him, and a commission was appointed to make inquiry on the spot. Subsequently, when counsel stated that they were ready to give further evidence of piracy, the recorder stated that he was perfectly satisfied they were pirates.

said, he had presented a petition from a public meeting in London, calling the attention of the House to the subject of the Borneo massacres; and now as they were promised papers on the subject, he should not prejudge the case. But he could not allow the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to pass, that they were going to have a Bill brought in to pay 100,000l. for destroying the pirates, as they were called, without his protesting against it, because he contended we had no evidence that these pirates troubled our commerce. He might state from the highest authority. that at Lloyd's there had been no appreciable rise of premium on the insurance of ships to the East; and therefore he had primâ facie evidence that there was no piracy of English commerce. This money was claimed for services which were not contemplated when the Bill was passed; for, as the hon. Gentleman stated, the Act was passed to protect our commerce from the buccaneers of the West Indies, who were cruising and plundering ships in that part of the world. He wished the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to understand that they must have an inquiry into this matter. What he understood was this, that we had been slaughtering certain uncivilised tribes, because they lived in a low state of barbarism, and had been carrying on predatory wars with each other; but we had no evidence that they interfered with British commerce. He was prepared to show that there was no evidence that these parties who had been murdered ever molested English commerce. It affected only the Sarebas and Sakarran Dyaks; it did not affect the Malays, but was simply a question affecting two small tribes who had the misfortune to live contiguous to a place taken possession of by a man called the Rajah of Sarawak. He fitted out ships of war to make an attack on the savages. He might have his motive for that, but we had no proof whatever that these tribes had ever molested English subjects; and it was too bad that we should commit wholesale slaughter on these savages, a slaughter greater than that either at the battle of Trafalgar or the Nile, and that without so much as one man being killed in an English ship at all. It seemed to have been a complete battue, as if of so many sheep or deer. Now he hoped they would have the evidence before them before this money was voted, and he hoped Government would be prepared to grant a Committee of the House to inquire about the matter, provided the documents to be laid before the House did not entirely disprove the statements which had been made. He was not now taking the case of those who accused Rajah Brooke, but of those who defended him, and there was so much before the public that he did hope that if Government was not prepared to disprove the charges by official documents, they would grant a Committee. He would not enlarge on the matter. There were men in this country well acquainted with the whole coast of Borneo, who would say that English ships were never molested there. He did not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that we were not responsible for our ships of war, and our servants in distant parts of the world. He believed that if we allowed acts of injustice to be perpetrated, whether in Borneo or elsewhere; and if we did not take some steps to remedy those acts of injustice, there was an overruling Providence who ruled the world on principles of justice, and that there would surely be retribution on this land.

would recommend hon. Members to read upon this subject the work written by Sir Stamford Raffles, who knew more of the condition of that part of the world than the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, or any other Member of that House. His work was full of statements of the piracies that were taking place in the Eastern seas, and proved that no commerce could be safely carried on there unless these pirates were exterminated. Piracy in these islands was reckoned an honourable profession; and if we or any other country desired to carry on commercial transactions between Australia and China the extermination of these pirates was absolutely necessary.

said, that all that was wanted was some proof that these men were pirates. The fear that people had respecting this head-money was, that it held out a temptation to men who were going about the world in command of Her Majesty's forces to say, "Is there anybody we can kill for you under the name of pirates, and charge them in the bill?" The people were anxious that every possible means should be taken to sift these things. He could suppose a case where some men, finding two tribes at war, might take one side, and say that all the rest were pirates. These were reasons which made the public regard with great jealousy and suspicion the payment for such services as were now in question.

said, that it was again his duty to call the attention of the House to several questions of the greatest importance to the maritime and commercial interests of this country, and to state the views of the Government on several subjects which materially affected the in terests of our merchant navy. It would be unnecessary for him to detain the House by dilating upon the immense importance of questions affecting the interests of classes than which none were better entitled to the consideration of that House; and by any laboured explanation of the value of those classes, to request the attention of the House to the three measures which it would now be his duty to introduce. The first question which he would consider was, what measures might be expedient to improve the condition of the captains and seamen in our merchant service? Secondly, the state and prospects of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, and the means of placing it in a more satisfactory condition than for a long time past it had been? Thirdly, what improvement might be required in the system of measuring the tonnage of the mercantile marine? These subjects would form the materials for three separate Bills, for although the general improvement of the masters and mates, and the present situation and prospects of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, were closely connected, yet as these subjects included a great variety of details, it would be more satisfactory to make distinct statements. He would, therefore, first explain the proposed measure for improving the condition of the masters, mates, and seamen in the merchant service, and then take the Merchant Seamen's Fund. With respect to the first Bill, then, the Merchant Service Bill, he was happy to say that it would not be necessary for him to detain the House by any lengthened statement, as if the measure were entirely new to the House; because, having had an opportunity of stating his views and the views of the Government on this subject at the end of the last Session, it would not be necessary for him to repeat the general observations he then made. These views he had also embodied in a Bill which had been circulated throughout the country since the last Session. The Bill which he now proposed for the adoption of the House, although it had been materially altered in some most important details, and although, in consequence of communications which had been sent to him, it had received considerable amendments, whereby, as he hoped, the objections made to the Bill of last Session would be obviated; yet the measure now before the House reposed essentially and fundamentally upon the principles which he had then endeavoured to urge upon the House. The provisions of this Bill might be divided into three great heads. He believed, in the first place, without making a charge of a sweeping and general nature against the captains and mates of the English merchant service, among whom there were not a few persons of the highest qualifications both professional and moral, yet, referring to them as a whole, he must declare his opinion that the merchant service of this country did greatly suffer from the notorious incompetency and misconduct of many of the individuals who exercised the command of vessels, and upon whom depended the lives and property of many of Her Majesty's subjects. This, then, was one head of the proposed measure. The next was closely connected with the same subject, for it referred to the want of discipline on the part of the crews which prevailed to a fatal extent in many portions of our mercantile marine. Now, unless they had captains and mates fit to conduct a merchant vessel, and unless they armed the master with the necessary power of maintaining discipline, he was satisfied they would never have the discipline of the crew in a proper state. Lastly, he would consider the evils which the seamen were exposed to from the hardships and injustice practised against them, especially with regard to the contracts which they entered into at their engagement, and when they were discharged from their vessels. He now came to the nature of the remedies which he proposed to apply. He proposed, in the first place, to constitute a department of the mercantile marine as a part of the Board of Trade, who should be responsible to the country and to Parliament for carrying into effect the provisions of the Bill, and who should exercise a general superintendence over the mercantile marine of this country. He had long felt the necessity of such a superintending power, and that the interests of the mercantile marine had suffered from the want of such a department. At present the superintendence of the merchant navy was divided between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, and, with regard to the latter body, they were without the professional knowledge requisite to enable them to deal with the subject. If the responsibility, therefore, of superintending the merchant navy were thrown altogether upon the Board of Trade, as it seemed desirable should be done, it would be absolutely necessary to give that department some professional assistance. The mercantile department of the Board of Trade would, therefore, include two captains of the merchant service, who would sit as members, and assist the President of the Board of Trade in everything that related to the mercantile marine. He next proposed to establish a system of examination of masters and mates of the merchant service, to make provision for the discipline of the crews, and to substitute public shipping officers for the present system of licensed agents. He proposed to leave to the present masters and mates engaged in the merchant service the free exercise of their calling without undergoing any examination; for he felt that it would be the height of hardship to men who had been brought up under a different system, to be deprived of the power of exercising that calling unless they passed an examination. The clause providing for an examination would, therefore, be prospective, and not retrospective; but as to the future, he felt it to be important to establish a system under which no man would be allowed to command a merchant vessel without ascertaining, so far as was possible, that he was not grossly ignorant of the duties required from him in that capacity. He was aware of the absolute necessity of dealing with this subject with great caution. He knew that if these provisions were suddenly introduced, if the examination were made in too stringent a manner, and if candidates for the situation of masters and mates were required suddenly to undergo a high scientific examination, much hardship and inconvenience might result. But the House might safely intrust to a Government department the mode of carrying out a measure absolutely necessary to the mercantile marine, resting secure that they would not exercise the powers intrusted to them without due consideration, and that they would not attempt to carry out too precipitately an alteration of the present system. He therefore proposed that, as to captains or mates who had already served, it would be sufficient if they obtained a certificate that they had acted in this capacity; and such a certificate, without examination, would enable them to command a vessel. But if it should occur that, in the execution of their duty, any person so entitled to his certificate as having already served, should so grossly misconduct himself as to prove that either from immoral habits, or ignorance of his profession, the lives and property of men could not be safely intrusted to him, he (Mr. Labouchere) would deprive such a man of that certificate, aad would not al low him to exercise the calling of a captain or mate. Such a provision was much required; for instances had come to his knowledge in which men who had been the cause of frightful loss of life had again found employment, and were again intrusted with the care of men's lives and property. He proposed that there be two classes of certificates, according to the acquirements and merits of the candidates, and also separate certificates for those engaged in the coasting trade. There were men perfectly fit to command a coasting vessel, who were wholly unfit to be engaged on the long voyage. It might be said, and it had been said in communications he had received from shipowners on this subject, that very many of the best captains knew little of science—that they did not believe it was so requisite as had been stated to have these examinations—and that they would not enable anybody to ascertain fully the qualifications of many seamen. He admitted that the examination would of itself go but a little way. He knew there were many things that should be known to the person commanding a vessel, that the examinators might be ignorant of, and that in the employment of all such men much should be left to the judgment and discretion of the owners; but he thought, nevertheless, that the examinations would have a great moral tendency to elevate the position and raise the character of our sailors. In saying so, he was not speaking without the experience derived from other countries. Who were our most important rivals as shipowners? The Baltic Powers, and the United States of America. Now, with respect to the Baltic Powers and the city of Hamburgh, where the whole mercantile marine was on a most admirable footing, and he might say especially in the Hanse Towns, there were establishments for the examination of masters and mates, which examinations were strictly enforced, and found to work well. In the United States the captains and mates were not required to undergo a public examination; but the circumstances of the two countries were very different. He heartily wished that the education of our people in this country could be compared with that which prevailed in the United States. He had had occasion lately to see the sums which the State of Massachusetts alone devoted to purposes of education, and he found that in that State the schools supported by the public were so good, that the richest and greatest men of the State preferred sending their children to them in preference to private establishments; and these institutions had the effect of raising up a class of men fitted successfully to follow out any pursuit to which they might be called—any who might, therefore, be employed with the most perfect confidence by shipowners or any other description of employers. If, therefore, it was said we should not have examinations because they were not made in the United States, the difference between the two countries in point of education ought to be considered. He asked the House, then, to insist upon a system of examination of masters and mates being introduced; cautiously, if they pleased, but still introduced; because, by doing so, he believed they would promote that kind of knowledge which was of the deepest interest to the mercantile navy—they would elevate both captains and mates in the scale of their profession, arm them with proper power over their crews, and confer many important benefits upon all concerned in the navigation of the seas. He now came to the second great division of the subject. Believing that the greatest evils now existed in the manner in which the seaman executed his contract with his employers, and in the manner in which, when he returned from his voyage, he was discharged, he proposed to supersede the present system, and to ask the House to consider what ought to be substituted in the room of that which had notoriously and completely failed. He did not believe that he would be here met with the argument that it was dangerous to interfere between masters and employed—that he would be told there was no reason why the sailor and the captain or shipowner should not make their own agreement—that these were matters with which the State ought not to interfere, and that they should be left to the operation of the general law by which all such things were regulated. Nobody could value more than he did the operation of that general law, believing that people could better take care of themselves than the State could do. But it was contrary to all experience, it was contrary to the opinion of every man who had investigated the subject, to assert that the sailor could take care of himself; or that the contract between the sailor and his employer was of that description that it could be safely left to be determined by hazard, and that it was not the duty of the State to interfere for his protection. He must, besides, re- mind the Committee that he was not asking them to establish for the first time a system of interference between the employer and the employed. The system now in operation was a system of interference, and it was established from the experience of the evils which a less degree of interference had produced. It was, he thought, in 1836 when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford was President of the Board of Trade—at least it was during one of the years when that Gentleman was in office, that a Bill was brought in by him which established the present system of licensing agents. No person was allowed to superintend the contract between the sailor and he employer unless licensed by the Board of Trade. The object of this was to prevent crimps, and other persons of bad character, from getting hold of the sailor and inveigling him to his destruction; but after full experience of the Bill it was found to work most unsatisfactorily. The Board of Trade had done its best to give these licenses to none but respectable persons; but they found it extremely difficult to get persons of superior character to be entrusted with the duties. They laid it down as a rule not to give any slopsellers a license, not any publicans; but they could not help giving it to lodging-house keepers. It was therefore found exceedingly difficult to check the many evils complained of, and they had come at last to the conclusion that if they were to have interference at all, it must be exercised in a different manner. He believed there was no country where the interference of the State generally was watched with greater jealousy than in America; and yet there they had thought it right to enact that, except by a notary public, no sailor should enter into any agreement with his employer. We had not the same class of notaries in this country that they had in America; and the agreement there was one of a very minute kind, and contained most stringent regulations. He quoted, when he last addressed the House on this question, the opinions of Chancellor Kent, a great American lawyer, on the subject, in which he stated his perfect conviction of the necessity of the State interfering by law to protect the sailor. He would now quote the words of a still higher authority, a great English lawyer, he meant Lord Stowell, who, in a judgment which he delivered on the 19th of April, 1825, in the case of the ship Minerva, spoke thus of the great dis- advantage under which seamen laboured in entering upon engagements:—

"On the one side are gentlemen possessed of wealth, and intent, I mean not unfairly, upon augmenting it, conversant in business, and possessing the means of calling in the aid of practical and professional knowledge. On the other side is a set of men generally ignorant and illiterate, notoriously and proverbially reckless and improvident, ill-provided with the means of obtaining useful information, and almost ready to sign any instrument that may be proposed to them; and on all accounts requiring protection, even against themselves. Everybody must see where the advantage must he between parties standing upon such unequal ground, and accordingly these special engagements, so introduced into the mariners' contract lean one way, to the disadvantage of the mariners, and to the advantage of their employers, by increasing the duties of the former, and diminishing the obligations of the latter."

The proposal he had now to make on this subject was essentially unaltered from that of last year, though in some of its details it was improved. It was, to establish in the various seaport towns of this country shipping offices, in which would be placed Government officers, who, for a very moderate fee—a fee much less than was given by the sailors now to one of those crimps who haunted them, and not more than was taken in those admirable institutions the Sailors' Homes, established at Liverpool and London—and for this moderate fee it would be the duty of the officer to superintend the contract between the sailor and his employer; to explain to him the provisions of the contract, and, indeed, to superintend all that related to the interests of the sailor. In the same manner on the return of a ship it would be paid off in the shipping office, and the shipping officer would again superintend the whole affairs of the sailor, so far as concerned his discharge. He found, from the communications he had had with various parties, that an apprehension was entertained by some that respectable people would not be found to fill these situations, that the evils of crimpage would return, and that no effectual check would be given to the injuries at present complained of. It was also feared by some that by the substitution of Government officers for private individuals, there might be introduced some kind of interference—which, however, was pointed at in very vague terms—with the operations of trade. But he thought that for the fees which would be paid, amounting probably to about 150l. a year, it would not be difficult to find men in the ports of this country whose characters would be a suf- ficient guarantee for the proper discharge of the duties required. He thought there would be found in the seaports such men as retired captains of merchant vessels, who were living there with their families, and not desirous of going any more to sea, who would readily undertake and perform the duties required on the part of these shipping officers. In the Bill of last Session he proposed that the shipping officers should have the power of determining disputes between the sailor and his employer. He found, however, that much objection was raised to that provision, and he proposed to substitute for it one that would be safe in its operation. He meant only to allow the shipping officer to decide disputes in eases where both parties should agree to refer them to his decision. He thought there were cases where the shipping officer was not the fittest person to settle the disputes that might arise, but there were many other things that by mutual agreement might be decided by him without putting the sailor to expense for lawyers and the like. He would make this provision voluntary, however, and not in the slightest degree compulsory. When he first addressed the House on this subject, he quoted as a great inducement to believe in the good working of the system—he meant the comparative good working, for he did not suppose that all the evils of crimpage would be removed by it—he found great encouragement from what had taken place in the port of Quebec. He could repeat that argument with even greater effect now. Gentlemen connected with the shipping interest well knew that there was no port in the British dominions where the evils he had spoken of were so rife as in Quebec. There was hardly a port of England or Ireland from which he did not hear complaints of the state of matters there. The crews of vessels were greatly injured and demoralised by what took place there; and the hon. Members for Cork and Limerick were well aware that such was notoriously the fact. This state of things continued till 1847, when the colonial legislature passed an Act establishing a public shipping office, precisely on the principle of that which he now proposed to introduce into England. They had had two years' experience of the working of that system, and the results were most satisfactory and encouraging. In the first place, there was this striking fact, that in two years desertions had fallen off one-half. In 1847 the desertions were 3,058; in 1849 they amounted to 1,333. He held in his hand a memorial addressed to the shipping master of the port of Quebec in 1849, signed by 100 of the most respectable names, in which they said—

"We, the undersigned, beg to testify to the exertions you have used in promoting the efficiency of the Act for the shipping of seamen in this port. Notwithstanding the difficulties you have had to encounter, you have met them successfully; and we are persuaded the result will be much in favour of the British seaman and of the trade of the port."

He would also trouble the House with a statement from the shipping master, dated January 18, 1850, in which he made use of the following language:—

"Having the honour of holding the office of shipping master for this port under the Colonial Act, I trust I shall not be intruding on your valuable time if I attempt to lay before you the result of its working up to the termination of the second year. Our port has, indeed, been so long notorious for plundering crimping practices, that it was completely at the mercy of those who considered every ship and every seaman their common prey. At the commencement of the office duties, every conceivable obstruction was thrown in its way by those whose career of plunder was about to be checked, and I had also to regret the want of cordial support from others. The evidence before a committee of the legislature last session proved the office to have rescued the shipping interests from the plunder of 50,000l. a year."

He mentioned this to show the vast pecuniary interest those connected with the mercantile marine had in the establishment of a system which would put a check to the great evils to which sailors were subjected. He had also had a document put into his hands, signed by some of the principal firms of Quebec, among whom he found the names of Gilmour and Co., Russell, Wainwright, and Co., and a great many others. These gentlemen, in a petition to the legislative assembly, spoke in the highest terms in favour of the Shipping Act, and were anxious that it should not be repealed. He found great inducement to believe in the good effect of these shipping offices, by the experience they had had of institutions closely analogous to them—he meant the Sailors' Homes in Liverpool and elsewhere. It was not the desire to interfere in the smallest degree with, or to supersede, those institutions. On the contrary, he could not too distinctly say that he felt voluntary exertions of that sort to be beyond anything that Government itself could possibly establish; and, so far from wishing to supersede the functions of such institutions, he proposed to introduce a clause into the Bill to enable Government to adopt these Sailors' Homes, and to make them their shipping offices; to co-operate with them, by furnishing to them the means out of the fees they received to carry on the general objects of those establishments. He now came to the question of the registry of seamen. He proposed, as he did last year, to take power to abolish the present system of registry—not to abolish it at once, for he believed that could not be done without providing some substitute—but to take the power of abolishing it, and to engraft it on the new machinery of the Board of Trade and the shipping offices. He doubted the possibility of altogether dispensing with a system of registry; and he thought, as a means of identifying seamen, it would be particularly valuable for the purposes of a measure to be introduced relative to placing the Merchant Seamen's Fund on a proper and judicious footing. He now wished to advert to the question of advance-notes. His views upon this subject had undergone a material alteration since he last touched upon it. On further reflection, he was not prepared to abide by the opinion he then advanced. He believed that the sailor, on going to sea, must have a power of obtaining money on what were called advanced-notes. But nothing was worse than the present system. The money advanced on the security of such notes was not, in fact, recoverable by law. True, the transaction was legal, but the expense of the process on them was so excessive, that the money was not practically recoverable. Seamen were in the habit of paying most usurious interest—oftentimes not less than 50 per cent on the money lent. It was not easy to abolish the system, but it was most desirable to improve it. The notes never exceeded two months, and the alteration he proposed to make was, that the money should be recoverable by the ordinary legal process, which, not being attended with any great expense, would enable the sailor to obtain money upon much more reasonable terms. A more respectable class of people would advance the money, and the notoriously-bad system which now existed would be abolished. The third great division of his subject was that which related to the discipline and treatment of the sailors. It would go a great way towards improving the discipline of the crews, and of securing good sailors, if means were adopted to insure efficiency on the part of the captains. Having done all they could to improve the character of those who were intrusted with authority, some alteration in the law was absolutely necessary in order to improve the discipline on board their mercantile ships. The main provisions of the Bill of last year, and to which he still adhered, were these: that captains having a first-class certificate should possess the power of imprisonment for certain offences. It was true this general power now existed, but the captains were afraid of exercising it except in a case of mutiny, because it was not expressly given to them by law; and where the power was not actually given to them by law, in a direct manner, the captains were exposed to great hardship. Wherever, therefore, the power of imprisonment could be carried into effect by captains having first-class certificates, it was most desirable that they should, by an express provision of the law, be enabled to do so. He was aware that some apprehension had been entertained that, by giving this power expressly by statute, Parliament would be weakening the power which now existed by the general law; but he had resorted to the highest legal authorities upon this subject, and they had assured him that there was no danger of the general power given by the law being weakened, while they were of opinion that this additional power would be most useful in the maintenance of discipline. He also proposed, as he did in the Bill of last year, that any wilful breach of duty that should cause the loss of, or serious danger to, the ship or to life, on the part of the captain or mate, should be deemed a misdemeanour. A man who, by drunkenness or wilful misconduct, caused the loss of human life or of the ship, ought to be punished on his return home. He also proposed, as he did last year, that the logbooks should be produced when required, and that they should contain an account of all fines imposed, and of all punishments inflicted; in short, that they should, by the entries, enable the competent authorities to judge how far the conduct of the master had, or had not, been proper during the voyage. Various sanitary provisions were also proposed. He had introduced into the Bill some new provisions of a very important description, and which he believed would produce a very salutary effect. It was well known that, on distant stations, and when ships were engaged on long voyages, there existed a great want of some competent authority to adju- dicate on very grave cases that might have occurred on board during such voyages. He proposed that on application to the consul at any of the ports, or to the commander of a Queen's ship, what he (Mr. Labouchere) would call a naval court might be established, composed, if possible, of one commander of a Queen's ship, or one consul; and the rest of the court consisting of not more than three or five members, two of whom should be captains of merchant | ships whom they might find in the port where the court was summoned to be held. This court, so constituted, was to adjudicate upon any grave case of misconduct on the part of any master or mate, or of any want of discipline on the part of the crew, and to such court very summary powers were proposed to be given to meet cases of emergency. The want of such tribunals as this had been very seriously felt; and if the House should agree to their adoption, he believed they would be providing a very efficient remedy for an evil that was constantly producing great mischief. There were also provisions in the Bill for checking desertion, and to meet other evils that at present affected our mercantile marine; but, having already trespassed too long upon the House, he would not detain it longer by entering into a description of them. These were the chief provisions of the measures he proposed. The House would perceive that the Bill was not altered in its main principle from the one of last year, although it contained many new provisions of an important character by which that principle would be more completely carried into effect. He, on a late occasion, alluded to a statement made by a gentleman who was one of the most ardent opponents of the Government when they first attempted to alter the navigation laws, but who was at the same time a man of energy, sense, and courage—he referred to Mr. Lindsay—and who, finding that alteration inevitable, had manfully prepared himself to meet the changes which he know must necessarily follow. He had read various letters recently published by that gentleman, and he was much struck with the I manly genius which they displayed. Mr. Lindsay observed, that that man must be blind who did not see that the regeneration of our mercantile navy had become absolutely necessary. This opinion came not from a mere speculator—not from a man who was looking theoretically at the subject; but it came from a British shipowner, who had the manliness to avow the great evils and the great abuses of the existing system, and who had determined manfully to set about amending them. He (Mr. Labouchere) now asked the House to cooperate with Mr. Lindsay, and with other intelligent and enterprising shipowners who he firmly believed were equally ready to carry out those improvements which the altered circumstances of the age imperatively demanded. He had not the vanity to suppose that the measure which he now brought before the House might not through the practical wisdom of such men be considerably improved. So far from neglecting any suggestions, he heartily desired that the Bill might receive every amendment which their experience could give it. He should attend to the discussion of the measure in its progress through the House, and pay the greatest attention to whatever suggestions might come from those who were practically conversant with this great subject. But he could truly say that, with regard to the main principles of the Bill, the opportunity which had been afforded him of reconsidering them during the recess, had served only the more to confirm and stregthen his conviction of their soundness and practicability. He knew that there did exist in many respectable quarters objections against any interference whatever. He regretted to say that such objections had come from the shipowners of Liverpool, who, nevertheless, had established the Seamen's Home, and who were afraid of any interference whatever on the part of the Government with their voluntary exertions. The shipowners belonging to that port with whom he had spoken had told him, that they were capable of managing their own affairs perfectly well; that they could provide good captains, and equip their ships and crews with every facility required; that they took care of those they employed in their old age, and that it was only their own interest to do whatever was proper and right to be done. Now, his answer to these gentlemen who thus addressed him was, that if every man was like them he would at once leave the whole matter to themselves; but could they, he asked—could any man who knew anything of the mercantile navy of this country, deny that some change was absolutely necessary? Could any man deny that the Government were justified in providing means for insuring efficiency on the part of the masters and protection to the crews to whom were intrusted the mercantile navigation of this great country? He would, in conclusion, only say for himself, that if, by this or any other measure, he could contribute anything towards placing the British mercantile navy in that improved condition which he desired to see it assume, there was no object in public life that would be half so gratifying to his ambition.

did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of further discussion upon the Bill, but trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give him au assurance that the day for the second reading of the Bill would not be fixed so early as to prevent ample time being afforded for considering those alterations which had been made in the Bill of last Session. The right hon. Gentleman had paid a compliment to those whom he (Mr. Cardwell) had the honour to represent, and had spoken of an institution in the town of Liverpool which existed for the purpose of carrying out, by voluntary exertions many of those objects which he proposed to carry out through the instrumentality of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that he had endeavoured to mitigate some of the objections which had been urged against the Bill of last Session. He (Mr. Cardwell) trusted that he had been perfectly successful in his endeavours to remove the causes of opposition. But it would be at least premature to say, that he had collected from the right hon. Gentleman's speech how this desirable object was accomplished. By the Bill, as he understood it, the masters and captains of all the merchant vessels would be made the mere creatures of the Board of Trade, inasmuch as the master of every sailing vessel in the country would not he able to go to sea unless he could first obtain his certificate from the Board of Trade. All those who had hitherto commanded vessels were to have certificates; but no person for the future could become a master or captain of a vessel who had not received a certificate that he had passed an examination, from examiners to be appointed by the Board of Trade. Then, again, every master who may have obtained his certificate, whether on account of his previous service, or of his having successfully passed his examination, would be completely in the power of the Board of Trade, as he would be liable to have his certificate withdrawn by that board for any offence. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Only if the offence were proved before a competent tribunal.] It would still be in the discretion of the Board of Trade to decide whe- ther any crime had been committed such as to disentitle the person of his right to a certificate. These provisions, therefore, whether they were right or wrong, would have the effect of rendering for the future all captains and masters the mere creatures of the Board of Trade. Then, again, the agreements made between the seamen and the owner were not to be considered sufficient unless they were contracted before the superintendents of shipping at the different ports, who were also to be appointed by the Board of Trade. The consequence of this would be, that no crew, and no seaman, could be engaged till the sanction of the officer of the Board of Trade had previously been given to the engagement, and the seamen would also thus become the creatures of the Board of Trade. He was bound to say, that so far as his constituents were concerned, the provisions of the Bill of last Session had caused considerable apprehension among them. The shipowners felt that, being exposed for the first time to unlimited competition with the shipping of all foreign countries, they were at a disadvantage under the Act of last Session, by which they are still prohibited from availing themselves of the cheaper services of foreign seamen; and the difficulties would be increased if they were subjected to the necessity of conforming to whatever might be the regulations of the Board of Trade in every step of their proceedings. They objected also to the production of the log-book; they were fully prepared to admit the necessity of having accurate entries made in the log, and considered the provision, so far, a most reasonable one. The hardship of which they complained was, that they should be compelled to produce the log-book, which might contain entries that did not belong to the particular subject which was required to come under the notice of the Board of Trade, but which referred to private transactions with or on behalf of the owners of the vessels. The right hon. Gentleman must be prepared to meet with considerable discussion in the course of this Bill upon those and other points to which he (Mr. Cardwell) had referred. It was impossible at, present to express any very confident opinion in the measure, and he trusted that ample time would be afforded for its consideration previous to the period to be fixed for the second reading of the Bill.

said, the Bill might be of great use, or might be productive of great evil, according as its provisions were car- ried in to effect. He approved of abolishing the registration of seamen. It had not fulfilled the expectation of the country. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing the superior character of seamen of the United States, it had not entered into his scheme to establish (as was clone in America) schools in the seaport towns, where apprentices might obtain instruction? He would suggest that, in the first instance, a power should be given to the board to form establishments at which every man presenting himself might be examined for every class of duty. He would make it a voluntary examination. The necessity of such a step was obvious when they considered the competition to which British ships were now exposed. When merchants asked why they preferred foreign ships, the answer was, that the cargoes were better packed and attended to, and that the crews and officers were of a superior class of men to those of British ships. The suggestion, therefore, he had made, deserved consideration. He thought that the individuals before whom the contracts were to be entered into, should ascertain and see that sufficient security was given both to the captain and to the men, so that when either party failed to fulfil his engagement, those documents might be available. He would suggest that magistrates in the sea ports should have the power of deciding disputes between the masters and seamen, and, if possible, without expense; for it was notorious that seamen were the most helpless creatures in the world. He must also observe, that by this Bill a great many new officers were proposed, and, unless some modification of it took place, the right hon. Gentleman would find that objections would be made by those who did not like to be interfered with. There was one other point to which he would advert. To show the strong objection which the owners and masters of vessels entertained against too much interference in their affairs, he might mention that, in answer to 250 letters which he had sent to the I profession, inquiring whether they were willing to have a Government inquest in; case of the loss of a vessel, only five expressed themselves willing to have such a regulation instituted. Lord Auckland had laid down a rule by which, to a certain extent, every officer in the coast-guard was to inquire as to the causes of shipwrecks in his district; and in several cases it had been found that they had arisen from there being no charts on board. That showed the necessity of having some such inquiry carried on, and he thought it would be desirable to establish some means for that purpose. His principle was, that every profession should carry on its business as much as possible by itself; but he could not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool that the regulations proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would put the sailor in the hands of the Board of Trade. The suggestions he had made were not made in opposition to the measure; on the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman knew how anxious he was on the subject of regulations for the masters of vessels, and that he had endeavoured to collect from the Continental States what their regulations on that subject were, so as to see whether anything might be taken from them to benefit our system.

said, that what had passed in the course of the debate had demonstrated how impossible it was at that stage to discuss a Bill which was dependent on its details for its proper working; at the same time, he must admit that, considering the constituency represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, that hon. Gentleman had met the proposition of the Government in the most moderate manner. There was only one point on which he must observe as to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman intimated that, in his opinion, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would render more difficult the competition which we had now to meet with foreign countries in consequence of the trade being thrown open. He (Mr. Ricardo) believed that if there were any point at all on which we laboured under a disadvantage in that competition, it was from the notorious incapacity of some of the masters and mates of British vessels. He did not accuse the masters and mates of mercantile vessels generally of incapacity. He knew that some were better qualified for this duty than those of any other service in the world; but it would be foolish to shut their eyes to the fact that there was a slur cast on the mercantile marine of England by the conduct of some of the masters and mates in the service, and he could not conceive any difficulty arising to them from the adoption of a system that would place them on such a footing as to get rid of the slur. He understood, from the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose, that that hon. Gentleman conceived the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman went the length of doing away with the registration of seamen altogether. He did not participate in that hope—he should be glad if it were so—but he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would introduce such a system as would enable us to get rid of it before long. It was a most useless, onerous, and expensive system, unpopular with seamen, and perfectly inoperative, and he trusted that this would be a great step towards getting rid of it.

said, there were only two points to which he wished to refer. The first was with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool. He assured the hon. Gentleman that, before the second reading of this Bill, ample time should be given for the consideration of it. With regard to what the hon. Member for Montrose had said as to the education of seamen, it was quite true that in the Bill he had proposed there were no prospective provisions for the establishment of naval schools in our ports. He should be most unwilling to encumber a subject already difficult enough by the introduction of a system—a very grave one, and which required very deliberate consideration. But the hon. Gentleman was aware that, under this Bill, there would accrue certain funds over and above what would be necessary for the support of the shipping officers, and he did propose to take a general power in the Bill which would enable the Board of Trade, if it were found advisable, and there should appear to be a wish for it with the public, to introduce such a system. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had said he objected to the Board of Trade interfering with the Sailors' Homes. There was no wish to interfere with them when he found them so well conducted as was that at Liverpool, to which not less than one sixth of the sailors of that port resorted; so far from endeavouring to set them aside, he would take them up, and appoint the shipping officers managers of them. He believed that these homes, such as the Sailors' Home in Liverpool, might be the means of doing a great deal of good, and he by no means wished to supersede, discourage, or interfere with them. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent had asked him for a more distinct explanation as to the registration of seamen. What he proposed to do was, to engraft upon the new system such regulations as appeared to be most desirable; but he did not think it would be right, without consideration, to sweep away the registration at once. He took power in the Bill to do so, but he did not in the Bill actually propose to do away with registration.

"1. Resolved—That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for improving the condition of Masters, Mates, and Seamen, and maintaining discipline in the Merchant service."

in moving a resolution upon which a Bill should be founded for the better regulation of this fund, said, he now approached a subject of the greatest difficulty, of which he felt conscious. It was that of the condition and prospects of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, and the measures it might be desirable to adopt with regard to that subject. He need not remind those Gentlemen who were at all acquainted with the feelings of the sailors of this country, how deep and how just was their dissatisfaction with the condition and management of that fund. It had been the subject of repeated inquiries on the part of the House and by a Royal Commission. It had been the subject of several Bills, brought forward by several Governments; but he was sorry to say the evil still remained, not only unabated, but actually increased and certainly increasing in amount, until the matter was brought to a state in which it had become absolutely impossible for the Government to refrain from laying it fully and completely before the House, and calling upon them to adopt such measures in regard to it as in their wisdom they might think proper. He would shortly state to the House what had been the past history of this fund. It dated from 1746. Before that time the merchant seamen contributed to Greenwich Hospital 6d. a month out of their wages, but received no advantage from that institution, it being confined entirely to seamen in the Royal Navy. In 1746 some of the principal merchants and shipowners formed a company to establish a sort of Greenwich Hospital for the merchant service. The Government of that day, moved, he believed, much by public motives, but especially desirous at that critical period of our history to conciliate the feelings of the mariners of this country, amongst whom great dissatisfaction prevailed—he spoke of the time immediately succeeding the great rebellion of 1745—co-operated with those merchants and shipowners in establishing the Merchant Seamen's Fund. An Act was passed incorporating that company. Its object was, as near as possible, to give the merchant service that which the Royal service enjoyed in Greenwich Hospital, and, accordingly, they proposed to erect an hospital, and to grant pensions and gratuities to seamen sick, maimed, and disabled, and to the widows and orphans of those—he begged particular attention to these words—who were killed or drowned in the merchant service. Those were the specific objects for which these funds were intended. The main imposition by this Act was 6d. a month for every master, mate, and seaman, in addition to the 6d. then paid to Greenwich Hospital. The fund was very much of a charitable nature, and was supported by most liberal contributions from the great merchants and shipowners of that time. They did not possess accurate records of the proceedings of this society, in consequence of those records having been lost accidentally by fire; but it was perfectly clear, from the state of their funds, that they must have received most liberal support from private subscriptions and from the merchants and shipowners of this country. The hospital was never built, but grants of pensions and gratuities were made as had been contemplated. There was no complaint from the merchant service—it worked extremely well, and proved a most useful and considerable fund for the relief of disabled merchant seamen, and the widows and orphans of merchant seamen, but only of those who were killed or drowned in the merchant service. But a great change subsequently came over the condition of this institution. Between 1820 and 1830 it happened, as he thought for many reasons very unfortunately, that the great merchants of this country withdrew from the shipowning trade, and it fell generally into the hands of a less considerable and opulent set of men, and from that period the private subscriptions of that institution greatly fell off, and the state of the fund and the complaints consequent on that state became such that in 1834 a new Act was passed—the Act which now regulates the Merchant Seamen's Fund, the principal provisions of which were that the contributions of the captains were fixed at 2s. a month, and the subscriptions theretofore paid to Greenwich Hospital were transferred to the Fund. On the other hand, all widows and orphans of seamen who had contributed were allowed to claim pensions, unlike the former provision, which confined the relief to the widows and orphans of seamen killed or drowned in the service. The society in other respects was altogether unaltered. He regretted to say that the fund under this new constitution had entirely failed. The present state of it might he summed up in very few words. The fund was absolutely bankrupt; the pensions were inadequate of themselves, and grossly unequal at different ports; that was to say, whereas the seaman contributed the same amount of money, no matter what port he belonged to, the pensions he received in his old age were altogether unequal, according to the accident of his having passed the last five years of his life in this or that port, and, in fact, the whole system would soon be in complete insolvency. The sailors' dissatisfaction at this state of things was great and justifiable. There was a fund to which seamen were compelled to contribute—the House must never lose sight of the fact that it was not a voluntary act—and under the management prescribed by the Act of Parliament pensions of unequal amount were paid to men whose contributions were on a par, whilst the fund itself was reduced to the brink of insolvency, and, if left to itself, it would in a short time be insufficient to pay even the present inadequate pensions. The disparity in the amount of the pensions paid to seamen who had contributed equally to the fund, arose from the circumstance of the mariner receiving his pension at the port at which he had resided during the last five years of his service: and it happened that the ports which sailors selected for their residence towards the end of their career were different from those at which they were located during the more active part of their career. Experience showed that it was in the usual course for seamen to enter first into the foreign trade, and, subsequently, as their powers began to decay, they established themselves in the coasting trade; and those trades being chiefly carried on from different ports, the result of the regulation which apportioned the pension to the port with which the last five years of service were connected, was disadvantageous to the sailor in the way he had stated. To show how the system worked, it was only necessary to refer to the tonnage of four ports, and the number of recipients of the fund at each of those ports. At Liverpool the tonnage was 407,207, and the number of recipients 1,044; at Newcastle the tonnage was 311,303, and the recipients 2,687; at Sunderland the tonnage was 191,374, and the recipients 2,053; at Whitehaven the tonnage was 38,821, and the recipients 744. Thus, while the tonnage of Liverpool is greater by one-fourth than that of Newcastle, the number of pensioners of the former was only one-third of that of the latter. The tonnage of Liverpool was more than double that of Sunderland, but the pensioners were double the number at Sunderland. The tonnage of Liverpool was more than ten times that of Whitehaven, but the pensioners at the former port are not nearly twice as numerous as those at the latter. Those figures at once made apparent the inequalities of the existing system. As a corollary to the foregoing statement, he would put the House in possession of the rates of pension paid at different ports. At Belfast the average rate of annual pension was 7l. 10s.; at Liverpool, 7l.; at Dundee, 6l.; and at about that rate it stood until we came to some of those ports to which sailors in their old age resorted in order to embark in the coasting trade. At Newcastle the average rate of annual pension was 1l. 16s.; at Whitehaven, 1l. 10s.; at Poole, 1l. 4s.; of Sunderland there was no return, but the rate there was probably extremely low. It was now necessary to call the attention of the Committee to the manner in which the fund had been absorbed by the alteration of its constitution enabling widows and children of seamen, without distinction, to claim pensions. The pensions due to widows and children amounted to 36,866l., whilst those granted to seamen reached only 18,391l. So much for the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the present system worked. The more serious evil remained to be noticed, and he could not designate it otherwise than as the insolvency of the fund. It was not his intention to demonstrate the insolvency of the fund by any nice calculations; it would be sufficient to refer to the report of the Commission over which Lord Ellenhorough presided a few years ago, and by which the whole subject had been ably investigated and scrutinised. That Commission, of which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets was a member, and assisted by Mr. Finlayson, the actuary, established the fact that the fund was in a state of complete insolvency, and that if it were allowed to go on for a short time longer the result must be utter ruin. The Commission held that, in order to determine as to the solvency of the fund, recourse must be had to the general principles by which insurance societies were regulated; for the fund differed from private benefit societies only in being compulsory instead of voluntary, and in having its contributions and distributions determined by law instead of by agreement. Tried by that test the fund proved to he insolvent in the aggregate, and also more or less in all its parts. In various ports the fund appeared to be more or less in a comparatively prosperous condition; but there was scarcely one in which, if left under the existing system, it would not shortly become insolvent. The assets and liabilities of the fund in respect to existing pensions on December 31, 1846, were thus stated in the report of Lord Ellenborough's Commission:—

"1. Of the whole Fund.—Value of existing pensions, 506,586l. 4s. 5d.; investments, 202,696l. 4s. 56l.; balance in hand, 29,925l. 5s. 11d?.: balance against the whole fund, 273,964l. 14s. ld. 2. Of the Funds under the Management of the London Corporation.—Value of existing pensions, 162,439l. 16s.; investments, 53,944l.; balance in hand, 857l. 15s. 10d.; balance against this part, 107,638l. 0s. 2d. 3. Of the Aggregate Funds of the Outports.—Value of existing pensions, 344,146l. 8s. 5d.; investments, 148,752l. 4s. 5d.; balance in hand, 29,067l. 10s. 16l.; balance against outport funds, 166,326l. 13s. 11d."

The state of things which he had described had attracted the attention of Parliament and of successive Administrations. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dover a few years ago, when he was Vice-President of the Board of Trade, introduced a Bill which was intended as a remedy for the evil. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford also introduced a Bill for the same object. It was likewise his (Mr. Labouchere's) lot two years ago to bring in a measure founded on the report of Lord Ellenborough's Commission. All these attempts of successive Governments to cure the evil had unfortunately failed. The Bill which he introduced proposed, in the first place, to effect a saving by consolidating the various boards established for the administration of the fund. It was intended that the management of the fund should be altogether placed in the hands of the Trinity-house. It was further proposed, by way of augmenting the fund and rescuing it from insolvency, that 1s, a ton should be paid by shipping, and that the sum of 25,000l. a year, which was paid by the Trinity-house for analogous purposes, should be united to the Seamen's Fund, and administered in conjunction with it. It was likewise proposed that at the expiration of five years no more pensions should be granted to widows and orphans. Those were the chief provisions of the Bill which he introduced, and they were founded upon the recommendations of the report of Lord Ellenborough's Commission, for he did not feel himself warranted in departing from the suggestions of that able and well-considered document. The representatives of the shipping interest in that House were so unanimous in their condemnation of the proposal for placing a tax of 1". a ton on shipping, that he was obliged to abandon it. It was now necessary for the House to consider what should be done. To postpone that consideration further, would be improper in the face of the just and growing discontent of the seamen with reference to the question. No one, he apprehended, would recommend that the thing should be allowed to take its own course until utter insolvency ensued, and that the seamen who had been compelled, by Act of Parliament, to contribute to the fund during the whole of their lives, in the expectation of receiving a pension, should be left destitute in their old age. The House and the country were responsible to the seamen for their pensions. It would be dangerous to disregard the just claims of the seamen; but he did not wish to appeal to a sentiment of prudence; he would rather appeal to a sense of justice. Dismissing, therefore, the supposition that Parliament would allow matters to remain as they were, two courses were open to them. One was to undertake the responsibility of discharging all legitimate claims upon the fund, and, at the same time, to put an end to the system as one which had proved to be vicious. To that course he could not accede. The other was, to put the fund on a proper footing, and to provide in future for seamen not unequal and inadequate pensions, but pensions which would be valuable to seamen in their old age, and which might conduce to an important national object, by inducing mariners to engage continuously in the service of England, and attach themselves to her shores. Those, then, were the objects which he proposed effecting by the measure he was about to introduce. In the opinion expressed by Lord Ellenborough's Commission, that the fund ought to be placed under central authority, he entirely concurred. It was his opinion, also, that this central authority should not be a Government board, but an institution independent of the Government, and he, therefore, proposed, as Lord Ellenborough's Commission had done, to entrust the general management of the fund to the Trinity-house, with authority to amalgamate with it their own annual fund of 25,000l., and to dispense both under one uniform system. At the same time, it was desirable that the Trinity-house should not exercise the power confided to them altogether without control; and, therefore, he proposed that the two mercantile naval officers, who, under the other Bill which he had opened to the House that evening, were to advise the Board of Trade on matters connected with the subject to which that measure related, should be joined with the Trinity-house in the management and distribution of the fund. It would also be provided that the Trinity-house should present periodical accounts of the state of the fund to Parliament and the Board of Trade; this would furnish a security for good management. The next point to which he would call the attention of the Committee was, that if the Merchant Seaman Fund were to be continued, it ought to give disabled seamen something worth having. The wretched doles bestowed on them were of little use; and the fund would not be placed on a satisfactory footing unless they raised the payments to such an amount as to exercise a material influence on their condition in old age. It was proposed, therefore, that the merchant seaman should not receive less than 6d. a day from this fund; and it appeared just and proper that, as the contributions were to be equal, so should the pensions—that it should not chance, according as a man was set down at Sunderland and Liverpool, that he should have three times as much as he would have at any other port. It was proposed, then, that every one who contributed should, on an average, receive 6d. a day when he became a pensioner. In order to effect that object, it was necessary to make some important alterations in the sources from which the money was derived, and also in the distribution. In the first place, he proposed to raise the sum paid by the sailor from 1s. per month to 1s. 6d. He was assured, by those most conversant with the feelings and opinions of that class of men, that if they saw and were persuaded those contributions would se- cure for them a valuable pension in old age, the increase would be readily accepted. But he further proposed to revert to the original rules of the institution with respect to the pensions of widows and children. If they wished to keep within reasonable bounds, they must revert to the system by which pensions or gratuities were given only to the widows and orphans of sailors killed or drowned in the service. The alteration was not intended to apply to widows or orphans who now received pensions, for such a measure would be harsh and unjust. Nay more, he felt it would be very improper to deprive of pensions those who had a strong probability of receiving them. He proposed that, after a period of five years, no names, except those of the widows of sailors killed or drowned, should be placed on the lists; so that, for the next five years, all widows would have their names placed on the lists. There would still remain a deficiency of 30,000l. a year to be supplied before the fund could be brought to a state of solvency. On the whole, he was prepared to recommend that that 30,000l. a year should not be drawn from a tax on the shipowner, or from an increased mulct on the sailor, but should be contributed by that House. Considering the great public and national objects of retaining to the State the services of their sailors, he believed it would be sound policy, as well as true humanity, to assist a fund in which that class were so interested by a moderate contribution; and he had every reason to think—having gone through the calculations, and consulted Mr. Finlayson—that, according to the plan of which the chief provisions had now been described, a system would be established which should ensure to a master or mate, the moment he becomes disabled, a pension of 1s. a day, and to a common sailor 6d. a day. Such were the outlines of the scheme he ventured to recommend. He was aware of the difficulty which attended the subject; but he was convinced that, in some way or other, the House must deal with it; and it would be scandalous if matters were to be left in their present position. He felt assured that the plan he had proposed would give the greatest satisfaction to a class of men who deserved the solicitude and care of the Legislature as much as any class of Her Majesty's subjects, and to whom some compensation might justly be awarded for the great injury and injustice which they had for a series of years had to sustain.

said, he approved of the plan of centralisation alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, but dissented from the provision that they ought to supply this fund by substracting from the scanty wages of the seaman. Why not, as the Committee upstairs recommended, abolish the light-dues, and place a duty of 1s. a ton once a year on the registered tonnage of the country—an impost which would not only maintain all the lighthouses, but provide ample funds for the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view? The late Mr. Soames was of opinion that Is. per ton on the tonnage registered once a year upon the whole of the ships of all nations, would maintain all the lighthouses in Scotland, England, and Ireland, and leave an adequate fund for a pension of at least 6d. a day to the seaman. He was surprised that the Government should think of placing more funds at the disposal of the Trinity-house. It would be found that the people at the Trinity-house could not properly manage this fund. As it was, the lighthouse dues at present paid, amounted to from 350,000l. to 400,000l. a year, while the system of management was most unsatisfactory and imperfect. He considered the Trinity-house to be a great burden, and he could not conceive why the lighthouses in this as in all other countries were not maintained by the State. Of what use was Lord John Russell or Sir James Graham as members of the Trinity-house? The thing was a mere mockery. There was evidence upon the table to show that every shipowner was willing to contribute 1s. per ton to the abolition of the lighthouse dues and for the provision of a seaman's fund. Those funds were now extended as a matter of favour, whereas they ought to be a matter of right. The seaman ought to have the same right to a pension as the soldier. He protested against putting any more power into the hands of the Trinity-house. No class of men led a more severe and arduous life than seamen. They were generally attacked with rheumatism, and seldom reached even the middle period of human life. Why should there be a divided management of the Seamen's Fund? Why should it be partly administered by the Board of Trade and partly by the Trinity-house? Why not altogether by the Board of Trade? The Government actually declared itself incompetent to manage a public fund without calling upon the Trinity-house for aid. The sum which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take from the sailor, although it sounded small, was a great deal to him, and he could see no reason why the poor merchant sailor was thus mulcted, and why the commercial marine of this country was obliged to maintain the lighthouses, whilst Her Majesty's ships of war and gentlemen's yachts did not contribute a shilling. He felt bound to express his decided dissatisfaction at many of the provisions of the measure.

observed that, as Vice-President of the Board of Trade, he had introduced a Bill on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had taunted him for not bringing it forward sooner; but from the objections taken to the most important part of the measure, which agreed with the present one in regard to centralisation of management and equalisation of pensions, it was found necessary to drop the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might experience opposition from the outports where some funds were perfectly solvent—others the reverse; and many had been formed by liberal donations from parties who desired to benefit persons connected with their own port. He feared an attempt was made to do too much with small weekly or monthly subscriptions. Few sailors were fit for service after 45 or 50; a seaman was fortunate if he were employed ten months in the year, and the fund raised from payments of 1s. a week was obviously inadequate. But he doubted the policy of raising the payment to 1s. 6d. In the end the money must be paid in additional wages by the shipowners, who would be better pleased if a yearly contribution were required of 1s. per ton, which would yield 5l. for every 2l. raised at present. He did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman whether, in addition to the 1s. 6d. a month, he intended to take the sum of 25,000l. at present paid by the Trinity-house, and that then there would be a deficiency of 30,000l. to be supplied from the Consolidated Fund. For himself, he must say, if it were thought essential to maintain this pension fund, that he did not see the equity of granting a bounty of 30,000l. a year to the shipping interest at this moment, when there were other interests which had equally strong claims. He thought it would be infinitely preferable to adopt the recommendation of Lord Ellen-borough's Commission, which he regarded as a much simpler and better plan. He should like to know also whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to grant these pensions, subject to a certain length of service or age of the seaman, or was the disposal of this large sum of money to be left with the board? Unless some check of that nature were imposed, he feared that the amount spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman would be inadequate to the purpose contemplated.

said, the right hon. Baronet had been more successful in pointing out the difficulties of the question than any practical remedies. Of the difficulties of the case he was well aware, and he knew how strong was the objection raised by local interests to any settlement of the question that involved the principle of centralisation—a principle, however, without which he was convinced it would be impossihle to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. With the greatest reluctance he had proposed to increase the contributions from the sailors; and he should not have done so unless it were accompanied with a grant of 30,000l. from the Consolidated Fund. Under the circumstances, he had no fear, if this Bill were properly explained to the sailor, but it would become most popular. It was in truth a most liberal measure, and he was sure when the sailor saw the fund placed on a sound foundation, and himself receiving an increased pension, he would view it in that light. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose, he must observe, that the question of light-dues was not before the Committee; but he believed that by the measure of last Session great and substantial relief had been granted to the shipping interest; and he had received most satisfactory assurances from the coasting trade to that effect. Not only had the Trinity-house carried out fully the assurances which he had made in their name, but other corporations, feeling the pressure of public opinion, were acting in the same manner. Only two days ago he had received a communication from Liverpool, informing him that the pilotage board of that town had made a regulation by which steamboats between Liverpool and Ireland would no longer be required to take pilots unless they used them; and, by this relaxation, 3,000l. a year would be saved to one company alone. Before asking the House to arm the Government with more compulsory and summary powers in these matters, he was anxious to allow time for public opinion to have its full influence.

was opposed to the system of centralisation, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover in his regret that the right hon. President had not brought the same measure which he had introduced two years ago, for he thought the shipping interest of this country and of Ireland would contribute 1s. a ton on the tonnage of the country, as they had an equal interest with the sailor in the matter. He, however, concurred in the principle of the measure, as he thought it most desirable that the pensions should be raised to 6d. a day. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the question as to the imposition of 1s. on the tonnage.

explained the course which had been taken by Lord Ellenborough's Commission, of which he had been a Member, and confessed that, paternity apart, he should have preferred a measure founded upon that report to the present plan. At the same time, that even was preferable to allowing the fund to fall to the ground. He quite agreed in the propriety of cutting off the pensions to widows except in the case of accident or drowning. With regard to pensions to the seamen themselves, it might often happen that an excellent sailor might, through accident, be prevented from following his avocation at an early age. The Commission, feeling this difficulty, had used no other qualifying term than "disabled." He thought, that, in order to do justice, it would be necessary to give a large discretionary power to those who should have the distribution of the fund.

said, that when a proposal of this sort was announced to them for the first time—a proposal from the Government to make from the Consolidated Fund a grant of 30,000l. a year, or, in other words, to present them with something like a million of money, it was desirable that hon. Gentlemen should have time allowed them to consider the subject, and to consult with their constituents before pledging themselves to anything definite. The difficulties which had heretofore occurred had arisen from insolvency, occasioned by bad management; and it was now proposed to place the funds under central instead of local management. He thought the experience they had had of central management in London was not such as to encourage them to expect that these funds would be better administered by a central authority than they had been by local managers. The hon. Member for Cork and himself happened to represent places where funds had been well managed by local authorities, while central management had resulted in insolvency. He understood it was proposed that the central management of the funds should be in the hands of the Trinity Board, aided by some Gentlemen from the Board of Trade. Now, he thought these Gentlemen from the Board of Trade would be likely to have very considerable control in the disposition of pensions, which were not to be matters of right but of favour; and they would find much jealousy on the part of local contributors, if the funds were placed to such an extent in the power of the Government.

considered, that the changes proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, entitled him to the thanks of the shipowners of the country. He (Mr. Head-lam) did not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool in his objections to a system of central management; for he believed that under such a system the funds were likely to he administered with far more justice and fairness than was the case at present. He concurred with the hon. Member for Montrose in thinking that the share of control which was proposed to be given to the Trinity Board would be very objectionable; for, although that board nominally contributed 25,000l. a year to the funds, the amount was really charged upon the shipowners. He would rather see the funds under the control of a responsible Government board, represented in that House, and who might by their representative be called upon for explanations as to the discharge of their duties.

"2. Resolved—That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for regulating the Merchant Seamen's Fund."

said, he had again to trespass upon the attention of the House for a few moments, with regard to a measure which was of great importance to the mercantile marine of the country, but upon which he felt himself incompetent to express an opinion. He had now to move a resolution for leave to bring in a Bill for regulating the admeasurement of the tonnage and burden of merchant shipping. It was obvious that in dealing with this subject, scientific knowledge was required, to which he could have no pretensions; but the measure was founded on the recommendation of a commission appointed during the last Session to consider this important question, at the head of which was Lord John Hay, who had lately resigned his seat in that House, and who had been assisted by the chairman of Lloyd's, by several of the most eminent shipowners of the country, and also by gentlemen professing the highest scientific knowledge. He felt, therefore, that he brought forward the Bill upon authority which would induce the House to receive it with favour, and to give it their attentive consideration. He would only state to the House the general principles on which the Bill was founded; and he believed, if it were adopted, it would obviate the acknowledged evils of the present system, and would tend materially to improve the building of the ships engaged in our merchant navy. The present system of measurement was established by an Act passed in the 9th Victoria, to obviate the defects of the present system. The tonnage of the ships had previously been calculated by the breadth and length of the vessels alone, without considering their depth. This led to the construction of ships, with a view to the payment of tonnage dues, in a manner equally inconsistent with their appearance as works of art, and with good sailing qualities. Under the present system of measurement, however, in computing the internal capacity of a ship, the depth of the vessel, as well as the length and breadth, was taken into consideration; but experience had shown that the existing system was scarcely an improvement upon that for which it had been substituted. Ships were built in a manner which would enable them to carry a large amount of cargo at the least charge for tonnage dues. The existing system, he believed, operated very unjustly with regard to the larger class of vessels as compared with the smaller class. The system of measurement which had been proposed by the commission, and which he ventured on their authority to recommend to the House, was founded upon the basis of real power of carrying cargo, as measured by the displacement of water, or the correct external cubical contents of the vessel. The commissioners had suggested an adjustment of the new to the old system, which he apprehended would be carried out without any practical difficulty; but he would not trouble the House with details on these matters, He would only observe that, with regard to steam ships, the engine rooms would not be included in the admeasurement of tonnage.

"3. Resolved—That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the Regulation of the Admeasurement of the Tonnage and Burthen of the Merchant Shipping."

in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws for regulating the qualification and registration of Parliamentary voters in Ireland, said, it would not be necessary for him to enter into any lengthened details, inasmuch as he had twice before obtained leave of the House to lay this Bill—in substance—on the table, but which, for unavoidable reasons, it was found impossible to proceed with beyond a second reading. He might, however, say, that the necessity of some such measure had increased since the matter was last under consideration; and they had now arrived at that point when it was absolutely necessary, if they meant to have constituencies in Ireland at all—and, as they lived under a constitutional Government, he presumed it was meant to have them—that some alteration should be made. He had said that it was unnecessary for him to go into any statement of the details of the measure, for, when he first brought in the measure, he explained fully the grounds on which it was proposed to legislate, and the particular nature of the provisions of the Bill. He did not now propose any material alterations from those provisions. It would be remembered that when he brought in the previous Bill, he said he proposed to abolish all franchise resting on occupation, and to substitute for it a simple rating qualification, fixing the value at 8l., and to that principle he proposed still to adhere. In the Bill of last year he included the town constituencies, and he now included the town and borough constituencies, retaining the same amount of qualification, the 8l. rating. He proposed, however, to make one or two alterations in the Bill of a trifling nature; but, as the principle was entirely the same, he hoped to be allowed to introduce it, and that the discussion would be taken on the second reading. The first alteration which he proposed to make in the Bill was to do away with the fixity of tenure, and give the franchise to all paying an 8l. rate. By the 6 & 7 Vic. c. 9, the five towns of Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick, and Belfast, the immediate lesser was made answerable for the payment of the rate: he proposed that this should be extended to all Ireland. He proposed also that tenants for life of fee-simple, of the value of 5l., should have votes. The present state of things in Ireland, arising from the tenure of land, was of a most disastrous character, and he believed that if the franchise were disconnected from it, it would have a most beneficial effect. Having been permitted to introduce the Bill on a former occasion, he should not trouble the House with any further statement at present, but would simply move for leave to introduce it.

wished it to be understood that, in offering no opposition to the first reading of this Bill, no one was pledged to its principle—or that part which the right hon. Gentleman had chosen for the principle—or the details of the Bill, particularly as to the amount of qualification. The present state of Ireland—although he admitted the present was a season opportune in some respects for the introduction of a Bill of this kind—was a reason pro tanto, in his opinion, why the Bill ought not to advance further. The Bill took the franchise upon the amount of rating; but nothing could be in a more unsettled state. In the part of the country with which he was best acquainted, political changes were lost in the social miseries that existed. Great would be the disappointment of Ireland when it was found that the first measure this Session was one that did not address itself to the sustentation of human life rather than to political changes. He saw so many statements, and knew personally of so great an amount of misery in his part of the country, that he deeply regretted that the Motion which stood upon the Orders of the Day had not been taken. He regretted the illness of the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the cause, but he trusted that the Government would not delay a single week before it addressed itself to the relief of the famine-stricken masses in Ennis, in Kilrush, in Scariff, in the county of Clare, and in other counties, in all of which there reigned a state of things which was a disgrace to England. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had spoken of leases; but let it not be understood that it was owing to the Act as it stood that the constituencies had been diminished. The Act, as it stood, had in it the means of creating, he might say, a multitudinous constituency; but the recent diminution had arisen from circumstances so painful, but, at the same time, so well known, that he would not introduce them. With regard to leases, there was a strong feeling in the country against them just now. The relations of landlord and tenant had been so unsettled by the potato famine, and the repeal of the corn laws, that tenants were not inclined to make permanent engagements of that kind. The state of the country was, however, only to be met by measures for the proposal of which Government was responsible.

denied that the nonexistence of leases was not entirely because the tenants were disinclined to accept leases; the landlords were equally disinclined to give leases. He thought the Bill would disfranchise many freeholders.

observed that any system of franchise founded on the present valuation must entail monstrous injustice, because it would differ in almost every district. He begged to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland to the inequality which existed in that respect, and to assure him the people would see the injustice of it.

said, that as to the question referred to by the last hon. Member, the guardians would have the power of making a fair valuation in six months. The only objection he had to the Bill was, that the rating of 8l. was too high, and he suggested a rating of 5l. as preferable. It would turn out, that those who were expected to have a rating of 8l. could not be rated higher than at 6l. or 7l., so great had been the depreciation of property and the pressure of the poor-law. By their legislation they had made the pauper the lord in fee-simple of the land, and had taxed the hardworking for the support of the idle and lazy. Let them at least give to those who were struggling to live on worse food than the pauper got in the workhouse a right to say they had derived some benefit from the legislation of that House.

was surprised at a Bill which, for the first time, introduced the principle of striking off those voters who had been already placed on the registry. It was not only a Bill for the extension of the suffrage, but for the collection of the poor-rates, for the rate must be paid before the franchise was available. The tenants-at-will would be mere tools in the hands of the landlords; or, if they exercised any independent feeling, would be subject to eviction; so that great misery would be brought upon them.

said, that up to a certain point he agreed with the principle of the measure, but he considered that to make it beneficial it would be necessary to introduce one general system of valuation throughout Ireland. He asked, was it intended that parties should be placed upon the register who were simply rated, or was the previous payment of the rates to be required?

said, that the payment of rates due up to the 1st of January must be made before the parties could be placed on the register.

was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman appeared at last in earnest on this subject—that he was at last aware of the absolute necessity of passing a Registration Bill for Ireland. He (Mr. Scully) trusted that the right hon. Gentleman was really in earnest, and that he meant to pass his Bill, notwithstanding the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite with respect to the state of the poor-law valuation—objections in which, he confessed, he did not see any very great force. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not postpone his Bill on account of any such reasons as those, for in Ireland it was really a question, as matters now stood, of whether they should have any franchise or none. Whilst he said this, however, he bore his full testimony to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire as to the distress in those parts of the country to which he had referred; and he hoped they might—indeed, it was most essential that they should—have an early discussion in that House on the state of Ireland, which he considered had not been sufficiently pressed upon their attention, either in the Speech on opening the Session, or in any of the speeches of those who had addressed the House on that occasion. The state of that part of the kingdom, its wants and its grievances, were such as to require the introduction of measures by the Government calculated to raise the social condition of the people, and develop, by reproductive employment, the resources of the country. He regretted that such measures had not come first on the list of the measures it was intended to bring in in reference to Ireland.

expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not accompanied his statement on this measure with some observations which might induce the House to hope that he was prepared to take steps to improve the present state of the valuation in Ireland, and make it more uniform. It was not now in a state which fitted it to be made the permanent basis of a franchise.

moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the rules and discipline established in prisons in England and Wales. He said it would be recollected that late in the previous Session the hon. Member for Lambeth moved for a Committee to inquire into the merits of the specific plan which he desired to have adopted with respect to the treatment of prisoners. In the debate which took place on that occasion, an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, for the purpose of making the inquiry general, instead of confining it to any particular plan. To such an inquiry, he (Sir G. Grey) consented; but, as it appeared improbable that it could be brought to a close during the short remainder of the Session, the Amendment was withdrawn on the understanding that at the commencement of the present Session he should himself move for a Committee in the same terms. The Motion before the House was not identical in terms with the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, some exception having been taken to those terms, but they were similar in substance, and embraced the same matter which was inquired into by the Committee of the House of Lords which sat several years ago on the same subject. He hoped that no objection would be offered to the Motion.

said, that if it was to be understood that the object of this Motion was to take out of his hands the proposal which he had made last Session, he should take the sense of the House on the question. In that case he would not be compromised. He would, on an early day, submit to the House a specific Motion, unless in the mean time the right bon. Baronet consented to mould the terms of the inquiry so as to embrace his object. That there might be no mistake, he would repeat his former statement, that under a sound system of prison discipline the criminal class, which now cost the nation 450,000l. a year, might be made to maintain itself by its own industry, without inflicting injury on any class of the community. Give him a fairly selected Committee, and he was prepared to pledge himself that if that Committee did not report that his object was practicable, he should no longer desire to retain a seat in that House, being there wholly and solely for the purpose of endeavouring to convince the House that the result which he had stated would flow from the application of the principles on which he had taken his stand. He asked if the representative of one of the largest constituencies of this country was fairly treated in having the Motion taken out of his hands, when, in the agony of despair, on opposing the Motion he was invited to postpone it till the ensuing Session, because it was too late then to inquire into it. It was not too late now. He had brought, with him a large mass of papers—but it was not his intention to produce them—unless his statements were contravened. Talk about the system of discipline in gaols in England and Wales There was not in any one of them any regularity worthy the denomination of a system. A harlequin's jacket was of a consistent colour in comparison with the variety and discrepancies of the so-called systems which prevailed in this country. In some parts of the kingdom, the average annual expense of a prisoner was 6l. 1s. 10d.; in other parts, 50l. 2s.; and throughout the country the average was 29l. 10s. And then the cost of prison accommodation was, in some parts, 300l. for each prisoner; while, in other places, there were wooden prisons where the cost was 40l. each prisoner. He was ready and willing to form a portion of this Committee; but if elevated to that post, he would not compromise a whit of his independence. He would go there for the purpose of getting all the facts he could, and then he would come to the House to get all the House would give him. He had been an agitator in his day, and it was his intention to be an agitator again; but he had suspended his functions as an agitator during the interval after he received from the right hon. Baronet the assurance that this subject should be inquired into, and to-day he met him here to redeem that pledge. But he scarcely expected such a performance from the liberal exponent of a Liberal Government. He expected that he should have had a resolution instructing a Committee to inquire into the subject he propounded, when it was first taken out of his hands. If the right hon. Baronet would enlarge the Motion, and give him an opportunity of concurring with him in the nomination of a few Members of the Committee, he should be satisfied; but if the right hon. Baronet folded himself in the dignity of his office, and chose to put down an independent Member, which, by official power and numbers, he might do, he (Mr. Pearson) would look forward to a future day when he should become stronger in the House, and struggle with him more successfully on the question.

said, his objection to the appointment of the Committee was, that a very important portion of the empire was excluded from the benefit of this inquiry. He expressed his surprise that the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary should have made such a proposition to the House without including the gaols of Ireland. They were bound to apply some immediate remedy to the present most disastrous and disgraceful state of things in that country. He would, therefore, entreat of the right hon. Gentleman to add the word "Ireland" to his Motion.

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth had been rather hard upon him. The fact was, that it was not he who took the Motion out of the hon. Gentleman's hands. The Amendment last Session was moved by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and a large majority of the House seemed to think that an inquiry specifically directed to the plan of the hon. Gentleman was inexpedient, and that it ought to be enlarged so as to include the state of the gaols generally. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that, in making the present Motion, he had no idea of doing anything to sacri- fice the hon. Gentleman's independence; and that he should be glad to have the benefit of his services on the Committee, if he was willing to serve. With respect to the terms of the inquiry, he thought them large enough to enable the Committee to consider any improved system that might be brought before them; but he objected to add any specific direction imposing upon them the necessity of taking up the particular scheme of the hon. Gentleman. He would leave it to the discretion of the Committee to do so or not, as they might think proper. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Limerick, he admitted that the state of the Irish gaols was such as to render the application of a remedy desirable; but he was in hopes it might be possible, with the help of the reports of the inspectors, to apply a remedy without any reference to a Committee. He thought that if they added Ireland and Scotland to the terms of the Motion, the Committee would be so overwhelmed that it would be hopeless to look for a report from them during the present Session. The best way would be to limit the inquiry, in the first instance at all events, to England and Wales; and if the Committee got through its labours at any early period, he would then not object to extend the inquiry to Ireland. It might be desirable in that case, however, to alter the composition of the Committee a little.

thought that an inquiry into the state of the gaols in Ireland was absolutely necessary, and it might be right to add the names of certain Members who might aid in such inquiry. The average number of prisoners had increased enormously since 1847. He had no other course but to move that the word "Ireland" be added.

seconded the Motion.

said, he could have no objection to the inquiry being made into Reading gaol, as to the possibility of effecting any improvement in that prison, and he believed that such inquiry would be satisfactory to his brother magistrates; at the same time, he did not pledge himself, on their part or his own, as to any specific plan, but he thought that some amendment might be made in the system at Reading. He was glad that the subject was to be taken into consideration by a Committee of that House. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, that if they were to have inquiry into the gaols of Ireland as well as Scotland, the labours of the Committee would be so onerous that they would not achieve their object.

hoped the inquiry would be extended to Ireland. It was ascertained that the poor in Ireland preferred the gaols to the poorhouses, such was the System of discipline.

thought the object of the Committee was to ascertain the best mode of prison discipline; and he did not see why, if there was a better gaol in Ireland or Scotland, the Committee should not inquire into this, as well as the best gaols in England. By the terms of reference, the Committee would not be empowered to take into consideration any case but such as might arise in England alone.

said, he had been over Reading gaol, where the separate system prevailed, and he had been over the only gaol in Ireland where the same system obtained; and he must say that the discipline of Belfast gaol was superior to that of Reading gaol. There was, for instance, a system of hard labour combined with a separate system.

hoped that the right hon. Baronet would do justice to Ireland. He hoped the inquiry would be extended to the gaols of Ireland.

hoped the House would not deprive the Committee of the advantage of knowing what great improvements the system of prison discipline had attained in Ireland, and if the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment called for a division, he would give him his support.

was anxious that the Committee should not be encumbered in their inquiries. If it were the sense of the House, however, that one Committee should inquire into the state of gaols throughout the united kingdom, he could have no objection. He should be happy to be a member of that Committee, and to give his best attention to the subject.

feared that by too widely extending the operations of the Committee, they would mar the efficiency of its inquiries. He thought, therefore, that it would be better to reserve the inquiry as to Ireland until another opportunity.