said, that as the New Zealand Bill stood first on the Order paper for the Thursday after the Whitsun holidays, it was highly desirable that the House should have all the details that could be collected to enable it to come to a decision upon that measure. By reference to the papers already laid upon the table, it appeared that the Settlement of Canterbury contended that the limit of the proportion payable to the New Zealand Company on land sales was 2s., or one-tenth, assuming 1l. an acre to be the minimum price by law; and that that was not only the limit for the Canterbury Settlement, but for all the Settlements in the island of New Zealand. It appeared also that the answer given by the Colonial Office on this question in September last had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and an intimation was given that that opinion would be communicated to the persons representing the Canterbury Settlement; but that opinion, which was a most important one, he could not find amongst the papers laid before the House. Now, he was the last person who would seek to violate that official rule which had been established for the benefit of the public service—namely, that the opinions of the Law Officers should not be produced; but in one of the pages of the papers produced he observed the opinion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls and the late Attorney and Solicitor Generals. Considering the whole of the circumstances, therefore, and seeing the important bearing of the opinion to which he had adverted as not being amongst the papers, he begged to ask his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to lay that also upon the table of the House.

said, he should not have the slightest objection to produce the opinion, were it not for the rule which the right hon. Baronet had just referred to. It was true the papers his right hon. Friend held in his hand did contain an opinion of the former Law Officers of the Crown; but although by accident or negligence that opinion might have found its way amongst the papers laid upon the table, he would submit to his right hon. Friend whether, after his long official experience, he did not think the rule which precluded the publication of the opinions of the Law Officers was not a good one, and if it were not desirable that the rule should he adhered to? He (Sir J. Pakington) was of opinion that it was a good rule: it was also the opinion of Parliament that it ought to he adhered to, and they should be very cautious how they multiplied precedents for deviating from it. Under these circumstances, he would certainly rather decline laying that opinion before the House; and he had the less hesitation in giving that answer, inasmuch as he believed he was justified in stating, that, if he were to lay it upon the table, his right hon. Friend would find that it had not the least reference to the question now at issue. He believed he would find upon reference to it that that opinion related to a question which arose between the Canterbury Association and the New Zealand Company with regard to the payment of 10s. per acre, which under the existing regulations was payable to the New Zealand Company upon all lands sold by the Association, A question arose whether the whole of that 10s. was to be retained by the New Zealand Company, or whether, by analogy with certain payments in the other Settlements, a proportion of it was not to revert to the Canterbury Association; and he believed he was right in stating that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken upon that question, and that it had no relation whatever to the question now at issue—namely, what proportion of the land sales in New Zealand ought, in justice and equity, under the Act of 1847, to be paid to the New Zealand Company, in liquidation of the debt due to them for the relinquishment of certain rights in that Settlement.

begged the indulgence of the House while he corrected a statement, or rather the impression which would be produced by a statement, which had fallen yesterday from the late First Lord of the Admiralty. That right hon. Gentleman had stated that the British Admiral commanding in the Pacific had sent a ship of war to the Lobos Islands. Having already received communication on the subject, he (Lord Stanley) had felt it his duty to make inquiry, and found that a ship had lately been sent, not to those islands, but to the Guayaquil river; the captain had, indeed, orders, if time allowed, to look in at the islands, and report what was going on there; but the object of his mission was totally different. He might take that opportunity of quoting an expression used by the Admiral, who stated that in his view, the Lobos Islands were as much an integral part of the Peruvian Republic, as the Scilly Islands were of Great Britain

explained that what he had stated was, that the ship of war had been sent to the islands, not for the purpose of taking possession of them, but simply for the protection of the British trade there.

seeing the Adjourned Debate on Maynooth stood No. 28 on the Orders of the Day, begged to ask the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) whether he had had any understanding with Her Majesty's Government in reference to fixing a day for resuming the adjourned debate, or whether it was his intention to move that any day should be fixed for resuming that debate?

said, he had had no communication whatever with Her Majesty's Government on the subject; and as to his fixing a day, it must depend entirely upon what should take place when the Order of the Day on the subject came on.

asked, whether it was not desirable that some arrangement should be come to; and if the Government would not fix a day for the question?—otherwise he gave notice that he should move that the Order of the Day be read for the purpose of being discharged.

said, he was about to rise for the purpose of moving that the House at its rising do adjourn to Thursday next; and he would therefore take the opportunity presented by the hon. Member's question of also stating the course which he meant to propose for the order of public business after the recess, should the House consent to adjourn to Thursday. He should still adhere to the plan of taking the Committee on the New Zealand Bill on Thursday. The House would observe from the paper, that, besides the Motion for adjournment, he meant to propose certain resolutions, which he trusted would receive the assent of the House, in the course of the evening. The object of these resolutions was to make the morning sittings more satisfactory, and the course of business more efficient, by more precisely limiting the duration of those morning sittings. At present, when they had morning sittings, it frequently occurred that they were protracted until the House was exhausted; and then they did not again meet in the evening: so that, instead of increasing the time at their command by meeting in the morning, they had had less than they would otherwise have had. But by adopting those resolutions they would be able to conduct the morning sittings in a more satisfactory manner; and if the House assented, he should avail himself very frequently of these morning sittings. He had thought it better not to ask the House to give up the Tuesdays, but to leave them still in possession of private Members, as he thought it desirable that the Opposition should always have the means of controlling the conduct of business in that House; but, at the same time, he should, if it were necessary from the peculiar state of the business of the House, appeal to the forbearance of hon. Members to assist him in promoting the despatch of important public business even in that regard. If, then, the resolutions were agreed to, he should, as he had stated, take the New Zealand Bill on Thursday, and on the succeeding Monday and Tuesday he proposed to have morning sittings for the Metropolitan Burials Bill and the Metropolitan Water Bill. With regard to the question which the hon. Gentleman opposite, and several others, had referred to, in relation to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, on the College of Maynooth, it was his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinion, after all that had taken place, that it was expedient that that question should be brought to an issue; and with that view he should propose that the House continue the debate on Friday morning next—this day week—and he hoped there would be a determination on both sides of the House to bring the question then to a conclusion. Those were the prospects which he had at present to hold out as to the course of public business immediately after the recess. He should add that after the debate on Maynooth on Friday evening next, he meant to take the Committee of Supply. He had now to move that the House, at its rising, adjourn to Thursday next.

thanked the Government for giving them the opportunity of bringing the question to an issue. When they considered there would be only four hours for the discussion on the day named, it was in the power of hon. Gentlemen who chose to move the adjournment, and thus destroy their coming to an issue. But now that the Government had kindly given way, and had stated broadly to the country that they thought the question should come to an issue, he trusted the country would see that if the adjournment were again moved on Friday, it would be done only by the opponents of the original Motion, for the sake of delay and of destroying the effect of the House coming to an issue; and that, if the House should come to a division on the adjournment, it should be taken as a division upon the main issue, and that those who voted for the adjournment it should be taken by the country as being opposed to inquiry, while those who should oppose the adjournment should be taken as in favour of inquiry.

was sorry to be obliged to give expression to sentiments entirely at variance from those which had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset. He had heard, with no other feelings than those of sorrow and surprise, the announcement that had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman who was the leader of the House of Commons. It was not the least important of the many duties which devolved upon the person who occupied so elevated and so responsible a position, to protect the character of the House of Commons, and he greatly feared that the proceedings of that House with reference to the Maynooth question were not calculated to raise its character in the estimation of the public. There was no one in that House less anxious than he to evade a genuine, fair, and searching inquiry into the system of edu- cation pursued at Maynooth. After all that had taken place in that House and in the country, it was befitting that such an inquiry should be instituted; but he put it to the candour, the honour, the common sense of hon. Members to say whether it was within the bounds of human possibility that any such investigation should be prosecuted within a fortnight of the rising of Parliament. The very idea involved an absurdity, and he could not but think that to wrangle for an inquiry under such circumstances was to engage in a proceeding totally inconsistent with the dignity and the duty of that House. He was anxious—no man could be more so—for an honest and impartial inquiry respecting Maynooth; but he could not give his assent to any course of proceeding which bore the appearance of insult to his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. He was persuaded there were many hon. Members who viewed the question just as he did, but who nevertheless took a course which their consciences could not approve, apprehensive lest their motives might be interpreted erroneously out of doors. But he believed that in so doing they acted very foolishly, for he did not believe that even amongst those who were most determined in their hostility to Maynooth, there was a desire for an inquiry not conceived in a fair spirit, and not conducted on terms of the strictest impartiality. He appealed to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to say whether he thought it possible that during the present Session even the foundations of an efficient inquiry could be laid. If the Committee was constituted to-morrow, the Members would find it impossible to attend, for they would be obliged to visit their respective constituencies, and to canvass them for the ensuing election. An inquiry instituted under such circumstance would be a farce—a delusion—a mockery—and it would conduce but little to the dignity of that House, to the interests of truth, or to the preservation of religious harmony throughout the country, to raise the question at an impracticable moment, and to prolong discussions which could not lead to any practical good. He should vote against the Committee, not because he was hostile to inquiry (under proper circumstances he should have supported it), but because to propose it at such a moment was to practise a delusion on the public, and to offer an affront to his Catholic fellow-countrymen.

in answer to the ap- peal as to whether he thought that in this present Session the inquiry could be carried to a satisfactory conclusion, would at once say that he did not think it could be. But it would be exceedingly satisfactory to the country at large if the House should say that night that it was willing to entertain the question. It was right the country should know that a sufficient case had been made out before the House for inquiry, and that would be the effect of his Motion when a vote was come to on it. With respect to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere), he did not think anything had been done either by those who brought forward or supported the Motion to injure the character of the House, whatever might have been effected in the way of the factious opposition with which the Motion had been met by those who, while professing themselves willing that the inquiry should take place, occupied the House with long speeches and personal abuse, instead of at once, and without further discussion, agreeing to the inquiry, to which they said they were not adverse.

felt, with the right hon. Gentleman and others on that side of the House, that an inquiry into Maynooth was unavoidable, after all that had transpired; and therefore he was prepared to support the Motion for inquiry, without committing himself to the opinions of the hon. Gentleman who had made the Motion; and if he rose on the present occasion it was only in the hope of reconciling the conflicting opinions which had been expressed just now. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he did not conceive it possible that any satisfactory inquiry could be come to this Session. The object of the hon. Gentleman's Motion would not be advanced, therefore, by agreeing to his Motion. He (Mr. Goulburn) would then suggest to the Government to institute a strict inquiry into Maynooth by means of a Commission, and to have their report ready to present to Parliament when it should again meet; and then the House would have before it the materials whereby to judge whether it should refer that report to a Committee of the House, and so decide upon the joint evidence taken before the Commission and the Committee, as to whether Maynooth had satisfied the expectations of its original founders, or of those who had increased the grant. By that means the desire of the country on the matter would be satisfied, and they should avoid the recurrence of those debates in which they had been engaged, and in which he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that they did not reflect credit upon their proceedings.

maintained that there was a sincere desire, on the part of the Opposition, to have the question brought to a satisfactory issue. They deired that the matter should be fairly debated; but in this ambition they were continually thwarted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They might have made a House on Tuesday evening, but they were absent. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire was himself absent when the Speaker resumed the chair at Eight o'clock. [Mr. SPOONER: Not I.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman was not absent, his Colleague was—and so, too, were those who affected to support him; and all the Ministers. Friday morning was not at the disposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite; it belonged as much to hon. Members on his side of the House. If hon. Members opposite had a sincere desire to come to a conclusion on the matter, let a proposition be made by Ministers that the House should meet tomorrow, at Twelve o'clock, and let the debate be continuously pursued. It did not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to taunt the Opposition with making long speeches, seeing that he had himself favoured the House with a speech of three hours' duration. That speech was full of matter hurtful to the feelings of the Catholic community; but in the debate to which it had given rise, not more than two Catholic Members had spoken. He would suggest that the House should sit to-morrow (Saturday), at Twelve o'clock, for the resumption of the debate.

denied that either he or any hon. Gentleman with whom he acted in this matter, had done anything which was at all calculated to injure the character of that House. Nothing that they had done could be so derogatory to the dignity of the House as that a small section of Members should pursue a factious course, and endeavour to coerce the majority. With respect to the charge brought against him by the hon. Member for Ennis, of not having attended in the House on Tuesday evening, he begged to remind the hon. Member that he had come down to the House and was just entering the door, when he met the hon. Member himself coming out, and was told, to his great astonishment, that the House had been counted out. He could not give his sanction to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) because he believed that inquiry by means of a Commission would not be effective. Both the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) believed that an inquiry into the educational system pursued at Maynooth was indispensable, and he could not perceive their consistency in resisting an expression of opinion to that effect upon the part of the House.

asked of what avail it could be to proceed with a discussion of this kind, when only two Roman Catholic Members from Ireland had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions, and many more would wish to do so. In what situation were they? It was expected the House would be prorogued about the 20th June—the day fixed for Her Majesty to leave town. On Tuesday, in the Income Tax Committee, he had been unable to collect five Members at any hour during the day. Even if a Committee on Maynooth were granted that night, they could not expect to do anything on a question of such importance. They would hear one side; that evidence would go forth to the country, the witnesses being of the same opinion as the hon. Mover of this Resolution; and this would aggravate the evil that had arisen. He put it to the Government whether it was not better to adopt the suggestion of Mr. Goulburn? Let them appoint a Commission of Inquiry, taking upon themselves the whole responsibility of that inquiry. The Roman Catholic Members had expressed their readiness to meet it. Was it not better that such an inquiry should be free from the prejudice that would attach to it if it were undertaken under the honourable auspices of the Mover (Mr. Spooner)?

said, he admired the command of countenance of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate), when he talked of the grave nature of these proceedings. The House was not discussing the merits of Maynooth, but a Motion for Inquiry, which every one knew—whatever vote they came to—could neither be commenced nor concluded this Session. He could not but look at this discussion in one grave light. As a Protestant—he hoped a sincere one—he had lived for years in the midst of a Roman Catholic population; and he knew how powerful for evil was the slightest word uttered in that House which had a tendency to excite the evil passions they all lamented. For years he had painfully seen that the great misfortune of Ireland had been made its religious differences. And when he reflected on the small amount of eloquence or ability which might enable any hon. Member of that House to inflict an infinity of evil on that country, he could not but regard the subject as one of a most grave and serious nature. Discussions carried on as this had been, inflicted more injury—material injury—upon even Protestant interests in that country, than ten Colleges of Maynooth could possibly effect. He responded to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn). If the Mover wished for inquiry, and the Government desired to second his wishes, a mode had been pointed out by which some satisfactory conclusion might be come to—the Government instituting the inquiry, and laying the results before the House early next Session. Coming from such a source, the sincere Protestants of the country must approve the suggestion. After the expression of opinion on that side the House, if the supporters of the Motion did not accede to the proposition, the country would understand that it was but a sham and a delusion—and that the real object of those hon. Gentlemen was to get up a cry at the hustings.

said, the Opposition had been accused of creating unnecessary delay; but Mr. Spooner should recollect that he at first proposed to adjourn the Motion till the 16th of June; and that it was only at the repeated remonstrances of that side of the House that an earlier day was appointed. He believed that those who had signed the petitions against Maynooth had been led, by want of information, to attack the olden faith; they had done it not from malice, but from ignorance; many who were occupied in daily toil had doubtless taken this step without adequate information. If this question was to be revived, the sooner it was done the more contented he should be; for it would be his duty to refute the arguments and dispel the fallacies that had been adduced by the hon. Mover; and as soon as those arguments were met, they would vanish in smoke.

said, that he wished to say a few words with respect to the suggestion which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn). He (Sir B. Hall) believed that it would be generally admitted that it was impossible that this inquiry could produce any beneficial result. But even supposing that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) were carried by a large majority, and a Committee were appointed, there would be a discussion with respect to the name of every hon. Member proposed to be placed on that Committee. Under these circumstances, looking at the importance of the question, be must venture to express a hope that between this time and the meeting of the House on Monday next, the Government would take into its consideration the suggestion which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already stated that he would consider the subject; but as the Government had spoken in favour of a Committee of Inquiry, and as it was impossible that a Committee, if appointed, could make any report during the present Session, he hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they were sincere, would be prepared to answer the question which be now gave notice he should put to them on Thursday next, namely, whether or not l they had considered the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), and whether they would agree to the appointment of a Commission?

thought the Gentlemen who were so tender of the character of that House were labouring under a false alarm. As to its character for liberality, the less they said about it the better. It would be impossible for any House to have a worse character in that regard; therefore, he trusted they should hear no more about it. It was complained that the time of the House was wasted, and he believed that was a substantial grievance, for it had very little time to spare—its days were numbered; it was likely to live about three weeks, and then it would be entombed with all the Capulets, and this inquiry along with it. He should like to hear a speech from one or two of the Ministers on this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised them a morning sitting on Friday, and Mr. Miles had thanked him for it. They had to thank him for nothing, for Friday belonged as much to that side as to the other side of the House. But he could not avoid noticing the silence of the hon. Member for Peeblesshire (Mr. F. Mackenzie) who was the candidate for Liverpool, and who bad pledged himself, through his committee, if elected, to vote for the withdrawal of the Maynooth grant. It would not be respectful to the House, nor to the Liverpool gentlemen, if the hon. Gentleman did not repeat in that House the contents of the Liverpool placard. He saw sitting opposite the guardian angel of Protestant ascendancy the Irish Solicitor General—what account was he prepared to give to the loyal and independent Protestants of the loyal and independent borough of Enniskillen? He left the whole defence of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and the scolding of Maynooth, to three English county Members. As the hon. and learned Gentleman now sat, he reminded him of Sir Joshua Reynolds' picture of Garrick seated between Tragedy and Comedy. An hon. Member had complained that long speeches were made; but the longest speeches bad been delivered on the other side; the Mover had occupied about three hours. An hon. Member (Mr. Miles) said that any one who moved an adjourment of the debate when it next came on, would be held up to the country as factious. Who had moved the adjournment last? The hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Freshfield). Last night the Home Secretary had said that Government never sanctioned the Motion. How did that consist with his speech in support of the Motion? He had adopted the proposition, and supported it, and stated that he would vote for it on a division. Last night he had totally disavowed it, divorced himself from all connexion with the Mover of the Resolution. He said, in effect—"I have nothing to do with you; you brought me into a scrape, and I wish I was rid of it." This was a very pretty quarrel as it stood; the least explanation would spoil it. Still they must have explanation. The supporters of the Motion would not be permitted to go to the country and tell the honest electors of England and Scotland that they J who professed the Roman Catholic religion I had at all opposed the Motion. They invited and courted inquiry; but they were not prepared to consent to it until they answered, not the arguments—for there had been none—but till they dispelled the cloud that had been thrown before the independent electors by raising a cry of "No Popery," after the Government had been totally and entirely defeated in the attempt to raise a protection cry. He wished to afford the hon. Member for Peeblesshire (Mr. Mackenzie) an opportunity of explaining to the House. That the hon. Gentleman, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and candidate for Liverpool on "No-Popery" and "No-Maynooth" principles, voted in 1845 against the grant of 9,000l. to the College of Maynooth; in 1846 he superseded Mr. Pringle, and became a Lord of the Treasury, under Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Pringle being dismissed for having opposed the Maynooth Bill. Mr. Mackezie then voted and spoke in favour of the Motion for 26,000l. a year, not as an annual grant, but as an endowment by Act of Parliament. What was then his excuse? That he had voted against the 9,000l. because he thought it too little, but he would vote for the 26,000l. He was now Chief Secretary of the Treasury; Lord Derby was Prime Minister; and the Ministerial benches were closely studded, entirely occupied, by noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who had invariably recorded their votes on every question by which the liberties of the Catholics of Ireland could be curtailed. The hon. Gentleman went to Liverpool—Liverpool, which was not less powerful because 100,000 Roman Catholics lived there, and several thousands of its electors were Irish Roman Catholics—and he said—"Vote for me, and I will repeal the 26,000l. a year granted to Maynooth." To him might most aptly be applied the lines from Hudibras:—

"What makes all doctrines plain and clear?

Just twelve hundred pounds a year.

And that which was proved true before

Prove false again? Twelve hundred more."

How could the leader of the House say that the Government had not supported this brutal and intolerant cry? How could the Home Secretary declare that he had not sanctioned it, when a subordinate official was sent into that great emporium of commercial traffic and prosperity to sound the tocsin of religious discord, by declaring that he would vote for the withdrawal of the grant to Maynooth? The Irish Solicitor General (Mr. Whiteside) had over and over again proclaimed that, if he had a seat in that House, he would never sit silent when the Protestant religion was to be vindicated on one hand, or to bring Popery into its proper diminution on the other. Where was he now? Echo answered, Where? A Commission of Inquiry was suggested: what did they propose to inquire into? They assumed that, in consequence of recent circumstances, inquiry was necessary. What were those circumstances? The Durham letter? The Episcopal Titles Act? Or was it the conspiracy carried on in this city by a half-clerical, half-lay Committee, sitting at the National Club, and writing to all the towns in the United Kingdom imploring them to send up petitions against Maynooth? They knew well there was nothing to inquire into; but they adopted the principle—"Throw plenty of dirt, and a portion of it will stick." Their principle was that adopted by a man at an election, who had nothing to say against his opponent but this: he said—"The hon. Gentleman's character is excellent, but I will ask him one question—Who killed his own washerwoman?" All the women in the crowd screamed out—"Yes; come, answer that question;" and there was so much shouting and bellowing, that the man was pelted off the hustings, and lost his election. It was assumed that there was something terrible to be inquired into at Maynooth. That college was governed by a president and a certain number of professors; it educated about 600 young men, entirely devoted to the priesthood in Ireland. Its rules were embodied in a blue book of that House. A list of books was presented for the perusal of the students; and the only political question that ever entered into their studies was this—that they were compelled to take the oath of allegiance before entering on their studies. But all political works were excluded, even newspapers of all denominations; if one was found twice in a student's room, he was expelled. The proposer of the Motion admitted that the inquiry was not to be into the religious principles taught at Maynooth. The Legislature had no right to make such an inquiry. But it was said that this was a Protestant country, and ought not to support the education of Catholic priests. He denied that this was a Protestant country; the presence of himself and others there disproved it. One third of the population was Catholic, and they paid at least one-third of the taxes. If hon. Gentlemen denied it, let them prove the contrary. What was the pretext for withdrawing this paltry 26,000l.? All that could be alleged was what had been done by the Synod of Thurles; but he denied that such was the case. He would make no promise that the debate should be closed on Friday next. They required the question to be fully and fairly discussed; and it was not fair that the Irish Members should be told, on the eve of an adjournment, that they must come back the day after the recess to hear a renewal of those senseless and besotted denunciations which so much destroyed good feeling between Catholics and Protestants. All he would say of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) was—God forgive him! Though he had already sown the seeds of that discord which prevailed so extensively last year he (Mr. Reynolds) forgave him, and hoped God would do the same.

repudiated the charge of being the cause of any delay in the discussion of the Motion. He had only moved the adjournment at an hour—half-past three o'clock—when the House was close on the period of proceeding with other business; and he had done so to give the House an opportunity of fixing a further day for the resumption of the debate. His Motion was strictly in accordance with the rules of the House, and was, moreover, made to facilitate, and not impede, the discussion of the question at issue.

observed, that if the hon. and senior Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had been in the House, instead of at the door, as he admitted he was at eight o'clock on Tuesday evening, the adjourned debate might have been resumed. The country would form its own opinion of such conduct. The hon. Gentleman who made the Motion on the subject of Maynooth, said, that he despaired of effecting any good by it, because it was now too late to inquire. But if that were so, why did the hon. Gentleman, on the first occasion, propose to postpone the question till the 16th of June, which had not yet arrived? The hon. Gentleman now proposed the appointment of a Select Committee to prosecute an inquiry which he says cannot be made. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn) suggested the only possible and unobjectionable mode of inquiry; yet the Government did not say that they would adopt it. The fact was, that not inquiry, but aspersion, was the object of hon. Gentlemen. They wished to create political capital, but they had exhausted and gambled it away. The result of the discussion would satisfy every man, that, however much hypocrisy there might be in the House, there was not one atom of bigotry in it.

wished to say a few words on the subject before the House, thinking it was right the country should understand the game that the Government were playing on this occasion. He understood that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) was anxious to have this discussion prosecuted, and was anxious also that this question should be supported with the whole strength of the party opposite. He had heard something said as to its being the wish of the hon. Member to raise a cry in the country; but he (Mr. Keogh) did not believe that that was the object of the hon. Member. He believed him to be really opposed to this grant, and to be anxious to see it repealed. He did not, however, give the same credit to other parties, who had encouraged and advised the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to bring forward this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had spoken on this subject, and, to a certain extent, had assented to the proposition made by the hon. Member; but the leader of that House had not favoured them with his opinions on this question, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew whether or not there was any other Member of Her Majesty's Cabinet, distinct from the Secretary of State for the Home Department who, before he held the high office in which he was now placed, counselled and advised the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to bring forward this Motion. As regarded that right hon. Gentleman, he would recall to the attention of the House what his idea was upon the plan of "raising a cry" in the country. Tragedy and comedy had been referred to; but there were two characters, Tadpole and Taper, immortalised in the writings of the right hon. Gentleman, who met a Mr. Rigby on one occasion, and told him, "We can never do anything without a cry in the country." Now, what was the designation of that cry? In this country it was Protestant Derbyism; in Ireland it was Roman Catholic Derbyism. He believed that there were secret practices going on out of the House; because (and he begged the attention of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to this) he had heard of and had about him at that moment an address from a Derby candidate—and there were numbers of them in Ireland—who came forward professing to be earnest supporters of the present Administration, and yet who had in every case stated in their addresses that they were wholly opposed to the Ec- clesiastical Titles Bill of last Session, and that they were determined, totis viribus, to support the grant to the College of Maynooth. Was the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) and the Protestant party, whose organ he was in that House, satisfied with this state of things? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1845, when he was assailing the late Sir Robert Peel, in warning words told the House that Protestantism was in the same position then as Protection was in 1841. He (Mr. Keogh) asked the hon. Member for North Warwickshire whether he could place any confidence in the Treasury Bench, which sent its supporters to Ireland to raise a cry in favour of Derbyism and Maynooth, while they had their followers in this country going from one end of the kingdom to the other in favour of Derby and Protestantism? That was the position in which this question was placed; but how was it with regard to the declaration of this evening? The question was, that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the system of education at Maynooth; the leader of the House of Commons supported that proposition; when forthwith the hon. Gentleman who made it got up and told that House that the Committee for which he sought could never meet, that the inquiry he demanded could never take place in the present Parliament. And was this House of Commons, then, to concede an inquiry to an independent Member who had the candour and manliness to get up and tell the House, "I believe the result of the investigations of the Committee will be wholly inoperative—I am asking you to grant that which can never lead to the slightest possible result?" He (Mr. Keogh), when independent Members had made Motions in this House applying for Committees, had frequently heard Ministers say, "I may be favourable to your proposition; but at this period of the Session to accede to it would be to waste the time of the House, and produce no useful result." But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who frequently said that the character of Parliament was of far more importance than the position of parties, had told the House in this instance that its time must be wasted, and that he, with the whole force of the Government, would support this important proposition. He (Mr. Keogh) had also heard of independent Members bringing forward propositions, to which the right hon. Gentleman, when he sat on the Opposition side of the House, had replied that they might be good in themselves, but that they were of such importance that they ought to be taken up by Her Majesty's Government. But here was a question which was described to be, and was truly, a question of the most important nature, in which the whole population of this country were said to be deeply interested—a question which he (Mr. Keogh), in his conscience, believed would convulse the whole Catholic population of Ireland;—and yet Her Majesty's Government intrusted it to the guardianship of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, while the whole of the Treasury bench remained silent, and they left the great interests of the country to be determined by what he supposed would be called a "compromise." Was it not one of the followers of the hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in 1845, upon the second reading of this very Maynooth Bill, came down to this House and called the attention of the late Sir Robert Peel to the fact that two Members of his Administration had voted against him on that question, and tauntingly asked, did he mean to allow himself to be trifled with, and to allow those two Members to run right against him? Sir Robert Peel's answer was, that he was the controller of his own intentions, and that he would have the whole weight of the Government to carry out his views. But what did we see with regard to the present Administration, the leader of which in the House of Commons had spoken whole hours, and had written continually, upon the importance of making public men adhere to their principles? We found the second law officer of the Crown in England the first to raise upon the hustings the anti-Maynooth cry, in the very teeth of the recorded opinions of the Chief of the Administration; and then the Secretary of the Treasury, who, of all men in this House, ought to have refrained from placing himself a third time in a position in which no public man ought to stand, had gone down to one of the most important constituencies in England, which had been dignified by being represented by such men as George Canning and Huskisson, and had set up the same pretensions. He (Mr. Keogh) had some consolation, however, as to this, for he felt satisfied that if there was to be a vacancy in the next Cabinet, and there was any chance that the hon. Member (Mr. Porbes Mackenzie) would obtain the appointment, he would fling to the winds his late expressed opinions, and desert the constituency of Liverpool upon the question. He (Mr. Keogh) believed the Maynooth grant was but a small instalment of justice; but there was in this country a great party, of which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was a member, who thought it ought to be withdrawn. He now warned that party that the Ministerial bench opposite were playing a most deceptive and delusive game. In one instance, a recognised adherent of the noble Premier, in his address to one of the Irish constituencies, had stated that he was a decided supporter of the endowment to I Maynooth, and had led every person in that constituency to believe that the noble Earl entertained the same opinions, and that nothing was further from his intention than to concede the object of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. If, with the perfect knowlege of these facts, the party to which he referred believed they could count securely upon the present Government, they were the greatest dupes that had ever existed. Their proposition would lead to no result; he apprehended nothing from it, except that they would once more irritate, exasperate, worry, and torture the feelings of the people of Ireland, and all this about a miserable grant, which, divided and subdivided again, would exactly leave one penny per head to the Roman Catholic population of that country.

Sir, availing myself of the privilege of reply, I should have risen at once to notice the suggestion of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had I been aware that the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) was about to commence a new subject. I have been subjected, in common with other Members of the Government, to the charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) of not being able to justify our conduct in consenting that on Friday next the House should resume the debate upon Maynooth. No one is more aware than myself how unequal I am to the responsible duties I have unexpectedly been called on to perform; but in the course which I have taken to-day I feel I have done that which my conscience tells me is right, and I am prepared to adopt the responsibility of that course. We have heard appeals not to do anything likely to lower the tone of this House, and to diminish confidence out of doors; but I think very little—nothing, perhaps—can more lower the tone of this House and diminish confidence out of doors, than to let the public get hold of the belief that there is a systematic effort to avoid discussion, and suppress the judgment of the House on this question. I have already expressed my views with regard to the conduct of this debate. I have been most anxious that it should not be prolonged; and I gave counsel to the House last Tuesday, which, if it had been followed, the debate would most probably have been then concluded. I made appeals to the hon. Member for Middlesex, and some other hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the paper—which, without meaning any disrespect, I considered undeserving the consideration of the House under the present circumstances of Parliament—to postpone them. When we consider the duties of the leader of the House of Commons, one ought not to be omitted, that, consistent with his own convictions, it is his bounden duty to consult the general feeling of the House as to the conduct of affairs, especially of debates. It will be fresh in the recollection of the House, and, therefore, I need not dwell upon the point, how repeatedly I have been taunted because I would not give a day to the discussion of this question—because, as it was called, I would not manfully come forward and assist the decision. Only a few nights ago, Gentleman after Gentleman on those very benches from which they are now denouncing the Government because I have endeavoured to assist the debate, rose and said it was our duty to come forward and secure a fair hearing for the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; and now we are told that this debate ought not to be resumed because inquiry is impossible. Why, inquiry is not more impossible now than some very little time ago, when many Gentlemen opposite were anxious to have a decision upon this question, and not only anxious for a decision, but they said they were anxious for inquiry. We know very well what this vote means. It means that the House of Commons should express an opinion that inquiry into the system now carried on at Maynooth is or is not desirable. And when I hear of mockeries and farces—when I hear language such as that with respect to the debate and the manner in which it is conducted—it appears to me, with regard to those out of doors, it will indeed be a farce and mockery if after all that has been said, and all the feeling that has been expressed, the House does not endeavour to arrive at some conclusion. With regard to the expressions of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House—insinuating, and more than insinuating, that we are endeavouring to use this subject for party interests—I can only say I am perfectly conscious that I am innocent of such a charge. Had I wished to use this question for party interests, I might perhaps have adopted a very different tone; but no one can accuse me of introducing into this discussion any expressions of acerbity, or sentiments which can fairly be denounced as of a bigoted nature. On the contrary, I have expressed the ground on which I shall vote for inquiry. It is the same ground that has been more ably explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; but it is the ground which has always animated the Government: that ground is, that after a question of this kind has so occupied the public mind, and, may be, so inflamed public passion, it is both highly expedient and highly politic that we should ascertain whether the national intentions in the endowment of Maynooth have been fulfilled. I say we might enter upon that inquiry in that spirit without at all prejudging the question. One word upon the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, as to another means of prosecuting an inquiry in the expediency of which the right hon. Gentleman is himself a believer. That suggestion is similar to one thrown out by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, in the course of this discussion. I expressed then the objection of the Government to such a step, and I shall not wait until next Thursday to express my opinion upon this new view in which the matter has been placed. Any inquiry by a Royal Commission, which cannot compel the attendance of witnesses, would not, in our minds, be a satisfactory course to pursue in the present state of public opinion on this question. No inquiry can be satisfactory unless it receives legislative sanction, and unless those powers are exercised which a United Legislature alone can confer. I ask what chance, if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire finds a difficulty in carrying on an ordinary discussion upon a mere Motion for a Committee—what chance have Her Majesty's Ministers, even if they thought it expedient to carry on a law to enable the Commissioners to exercise those pow- ers? Every Gentleman, I am sure, feels that it is impossible. If we cannot do that, would it be expedient to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, and which more than one hon. Member has stamped with his approbation? I state the broad grounds on which I think such a course objectionable. Inquiry of that kind cannot be an efficient inquiry; and when I hear so much of mockeries and farces, I can conceive nothing more calculated to disgust the people of this country than to take the matter out of the arena of their own popular House, to introduce it to the Cabinet to devise some schemes of investigation which really can produce no results. This is one of the several, but the most important, grounds on which Her Majesty's Government opposed the issuing of a Commission of Inquiry. I am bound to say, having mentioned that I felt it to be part of the duty of the leader of the House of Commons to consult the feelings of the House—I am bound to say, in my own vindication, it was not until I received a general expression of opinion, it was not until representations were made to me by Members of almost every shade of opinion, and of every section of party on each side of the House, that I, unwillingly, in the present state of business, consented to give a day to continue this discussion. It has been mentioned that I have given a Friday—a Government day; but I had placed on the paper those Resolutions which virtually place every morning at the disposition of the Government—therefore, whether I had fixed it for Friday or for Tuesday, the result would have been exactly the same. It is because, on the whole, I thought, after the discussion which has taken place—after the public feeling which has been expressed—after the general understanding which now prevails that the vote on this subject would not be a mockery, not a vote for inquiry which cannot take place—and it is because it will give, the House of Commons the opportunity of expressing their opinion whether they think an inquiry should take place into the conduct of this College or not, I have felt it my duty to take the course I have done to facilitate that inquiry. I have done it, Sir, with no other object than to fulfil that which I conceive to be my duty; and the feeling that I have performed my duty sustains me under the attacks which I have experienced.

said, he had put a question on the previous day to the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but the answer of the noble Lord, though given at some length, was not altogether satisfactory, and did not afford that information he was desirous of receiving, and for which he thought the House and the country had a right to ask. The House was aware of the subject to which he referred, namely, the case of Edward Murray, the son of a British officer, who, for some offence had been arrested at Rome, and, after an imprisonment of three years, had lately undergone some kind of trial, and been condemned to death. He was sure that the case of any British subject in such a position deserved the attention of that House, and he was equally sure it would receive that attention, no matter however mean the condition of the party might be. But this unfortunate person was, he understood, most respectably connected, and he had been informed that, not only had his father served in the British Army, but his grandfather also, and many other members of his family. He was, strictly speaking, a British subject, born in a country under the rule of Her Majesty—namely, at Corfu, in 1823; and, it appeared that he was, with his father, travelling in Italy, about the year 1848. It seemed that he entered the service of the Government of Rome of that day, and was employed in the army there, and afterwards in the police; but he was suspected—as he (Lord D. Stuart) understood from the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs—of being implicated in the murder of some partisans of the Papal Government. He was arrested and sent to Rome, where he was tried, acquitted, and set at liberty. He afterwards proceeded to Ancona; but the Pope having been restored to his dominions subsequently, the unfortunate man was again arrested for the offence of which it had been rumoured he was guilty, and of which he had been acquitted, and was thrown into prison. There he remained for nearly three years; and hon. Members who knew what Italian prisons were, either from having seen, as he had, those places of misery and torture, or from having read the eloquent description of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) would have some conception of what he—their fellow-subject—endured during this lengthened period, without being brought to trial. There was no one who could wish that, if guilty of the crime which rumour had connected with his name—for he (Lord D. Stuart) had not yet heard distinctly the charge brought against him by the Roman Government—Mr. Murray should escape justice, whether their fellow-countrymen or not; but what interested the House and the country was, whether he was really guilty or not; whether he had had the advantage of a fair and open trial; and whether those who represented this country, from the head of the Foreign Office down to the Consuls at Ancona and at Rome, had done their duty in seeking justice for an English subject. From the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in another place, and from information received from other quarters, it appeared to him the unfortunate gentleman had not had the advantage of a fair trial. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) yesterday remarked that he (Lord D. Stuart) had characterised the offence imputed to Mr. Murray as a political offence, and thus wished to detract from its enormity. But what he had said was, that the Papal Government, by treating the offence as a political one, had deprived the prisoner of certain advantages to which he would otherwise have been entitled. In the first place, had he been treated as guilty of a political offence, he must have come within the amnesty issued after the return of the Pope from Gaeta to Rome; but he was not included—neither was he tried by the tribunal at Ancona, and therefore had not the advantage of an appeal, to which he would have been entitled in the ordinary course; neither had lie liberty to choose a counsel, but the Papal Government had appointed to that capacity a person whose duty it was to draw up an official summary of the case; and it was very easy to understand that, in a country like Rome, where the Courts of Law were notoriously ill-managed, and justice did not prevail, the counsel appointed by Government were not likely to do that justice to a prisoner which might be expected in other quarters. He must say it did not appear to him the Consuls had done their duty in seeing Mr. Murray had fair play, because the result of what the noble Foreign Secretary had said was, that information had been sent from the Consul at Ancona to the Consul at Rome of Mr. Murray's arrest, and that the latter at once did that which was highly becoming so far as it went, namely, represented the case to the Papal Government on behalf of the unfortunate prisoner; but Mr. Freeborn, nevertheless, did not send information to the Foreign Office of what had occurred till about February in this year; that was, not till nearly three years after the unfortunate man had been arrested. He had ever been led to believe that Mr. Freeborn was a most able and active officer, and animated by zeal for the interest of British subjects; but the circumstance of his long silence in this instance was altogether surprising, and certainly called for explanation. Either Mr. Moore, the Consul at Ancona, ought to have sent information home when the man was arrested, or to have reported the circumstance to Mr. Freeborn, if that gentleman was his superior officer; and if Mr. Freeborn received such information, he ought to have transmitted it to this country. He might be told, perhaps, that the state of the diplomatic relations between this country and the Pope were in a very anomalous and objectionable position; but whose fault was that? Was it not the fault of the party opposite? Was it not the fault of the Members of the present Government and their supporters? And if the noble Earl now at the head of Foreign Affairs found the state of our diplomatic relations with Rome unsatisfactory, ought he not to address his complaints on that head rather to the Castle of Dublin than anywhere else; because, if our relations in Rome were in that anomalous position, the noble Lord should not forget that it was to be attributed to an Amendment of the Earl of Eglintoun's, on the Bill for improving those relations, that such was still the case. The state of our relations with Rome must be a great difficulty in the way of Lord Eglintoun's governing Ireland with success. Indeed, all the recent matters of dispute between Rome and this country which had arisen—that most deplorable measure, designated the Papal Aggression, and that only one degree less deplorable measure, carried through the present Parliament, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, to meet it—all these evils had arisen from want of diplomatic relations with Rome. But if we had no ambassador at Rome, we had subordinate officers. And how had this matter been treated by these subordinates? If they had transmitted the intelligence in due time, why did not the Government interfere sooner? Had anything been done to ensure a proper trial to the prisoner? Had any order been transmitted to Rome that proper counsel should be provided for the prisoner? What sort of a trial had he? Was it in a secret or an open court? Had he opportunities of calling witnesses to prove his innocence if he were innocent? After having been confined three years in a loathsome dungeon, was he at last condemned to the extreme penalty of death without being heard in his defence? The House was surely entitled to know something more than they had yet heard on this subject from the Government; and he (Lord D. Stuart) hoped the noble Lord would inform them on these points, for it did not appear from the statement of the noble Lord last night, when the information first arrived of this man's predicament, that any further orders had been sent to the Consul at Rome beyond a direction to watch the proceedings. He admitted that when the Government afterwards heard that the man's life was in danger, they had shown a greater interest and activity, as might have been expected from their humanity. But, had such a statement arrived at the Foreign Office when it was presided over by a nobleman who was alive to the honour of his country—who was anxious and ready to defend the interests of British subjects all over the world, and had the ability and the power to make his wishes respected—sure he was that his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) would not have hesitated to make use of the most energetic measures, or whatever measures were necessary, in order that no injustice should be done to the accused. He wished to ask a question, also, with regard to Mr. Mather, who had been most shamefully treated by Austrian officers in Tuscany. Earl Granville, while Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had intimated to the father of Mr. Mather that, as soon as the affair was concluded, it was his intention to lay all the correspondence before Parliament. Now that the negotiation was brought to a close, he wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) whether there would be any objection to lay the papers on the table of the House?

would not imitate the example of the noble Lord, in introducing into a discussion in itself sufficiently important, a variety of topics wholly irrelevant to the matter in hand. The question of diplomatic intercourse with Rome was undoubtedly a grave one; but it bore very slightly, if at all, on the present subject of debate. With regard to the case of Mr. Mather, if the noble Lord desired any explanation which Government could furnish, let notice be given, and a question regularly put, and he (Lord Stanley) would answer it to the best of his ability. He (Lord Stanley) had listened to the speech of the noble Lord, certainly with no feeling of surprise that the noble Lord should have thought the subject well worthy, even in the present state of business, to occupy the attention of the House—certainly with no desire to diminish or depreciate its interest and importance; but with a feeling of very great surprise, that, studying the case as he had studied it, and stating the facts as he had stated them, the noble Lord should have found in those facts, and in the circumstances of that case, any the slightest ground of accusation against Her Majesty's present Ministers. The noble Lord talked of pleading for the life of a British subject; but he (Lord Stanley) thought he had clearly explained on the previous evening, that as soon as the Government heard that the life of Mr. Murray was in danger, they had taken immediate and active measures for his preservation. The noble Lord had spoken of the previous imprisonment and acquittal of Mr. Murray, and the consequent hardship of his being tried twice for the same offence. Now he (Lord Stanley) was not speaking in defence of the Roman Government; but he must observe, that though it was perfectly true Mr. Murray had been previously imprisoned on this charge, it was by no means equally certain that he had been acquitted. An acquittal implied a regular trial; and it could not be proved that on the occasion of this first imprisonment, Mr. Murray had ever been tried at all. He was afraid, he might say, that from the state of parties in the country, it was equally possible, either that Mr. Murray should have been imprisoned without cause by the Papal Government, or that he should have been released without inquiry by the Republican Government. Again, the noble Lord had repeated that the offence was a political one, and therefore that Mr. Murray was entitled to a release under the amnesty; but he (Lord Stanley) thought he had already explained, that however much political feeling might unfortunately have been mixed up in this trial, there was a specific charge against the prisoner, and that charge by no means of a political nature. He was accused of having, while holding the situation of inspector of police at Ancona, connived in several instances, and particularly in one which was specified, at the murder of unoffending persons. These, however, were matters which could hardly be said to bear on the question of the conduct of the present Government. It was enough for his (Lord Stanley's) purpose to remind the House, that the earliest communication which reached the Foreign Office on this subject, was one from Mr. Freeborn, dated the 25th of February, 1852. In that letter Mr. Freeborn stated, that the arrest of Mr. Murray had taken place two years and a half before, at Ancona—not, as the noble Lord had said, at Rome—and that the reason why he, Mr. Freeborn, had not earlier interfered, was, that Ancona did not lie within his district. Ancona was in the district of Mr. Consul Moore, who unfortunately had not thought it his duty to represent the case to the British Government, though it was only justice to him to say that he had exerted himself with the local authorities. His (Lord Stanley's) statement was borne out by a despatch of his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department, who, in acknowledging the letter of Mr. Freeborn, before alluded to, and another from the same gentleman, dated the 8th of March, expressly said, that these were the first accounts which had reached the office, respecting the imprisonment of the individual in question. Here, then—at this point, and not earlier—the responsibility of Government began: they could not act until they had information; when they obtained it, they had acted without hesitation or delay. Mr. Freeborn had been at once informed that his previous exertions were approved; he had been desired to watch the case, to report upon it, and to use his utmost efforts to ensure for Mr. Murray a fair and impartial trial. Before this letter was received, Mr. Freeborn had already put in one remonstrance: in April and May he addressed two other appeals to the Papal Government, and in those appeals the length of time which had elapsed, the alleged illness of the prisoner, and certain reports which had been circulated as to the manner in which the trial was carried on, were dwelt upon in the most earnest and forcible manner. Looking at the position in which he was placed in regard of the Roman Government, in the absence of any accredited diplomatic agent at that Court, he (Lord Stanley) thought that Mr. Freeborn could not have done more than he had done, and that there was not the slightest ground for any charge against him of slackness in the discharge of his duty. With regard to the conduct of Mr. Moore in not reporting to the British Government the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Murray, he (Lord Stanley) could only say, that Mr. Moore had already been written to on the subject; that he had been called upon to explain the reasons which led him to act as he did, hut that his answer had not yet been received: and he (Lord Stanley) was sure that the noble Lord, who had expressed himself so strongly in favour of a fair trial, would not be the first to violate his own rule, and would not condemn Mr. Moore without hearing what he had to say in his defence. It was only justice to that gentleman to add, that so far as the local authorities were concerned, his exertions in applying to them in behalf of Mr. Murray had been unremitting. In conclusion, he (Lord Stanley) would observe, that whether Mr. Murray were innocent or guilty, he had a right to a fair trial: and the conduct of the Government in interfering, with all the influence and authority of England, to prevent the sentence from being carried into effect, showed that in their judgment the trial accorded him had not been one on which they were justified in suffering the life of a British subject to be taken. With regard to the production of the papers, he (Lord Stanley) could only follow the universal rule, which forbade the production of such papers while a negotiation was pending. When that negotiation was at an end, he should be ready to lay them before Parliament.

Sir, this subject being one which relates to the business of the department over which I had recently the honour to preside, I think it right to state, in confirmation of what has been said by the noble Lord opposite, that during the time I was at the head of the Foreign Office I received no information or communication whatever on the subject of this case. Undoubtedly it appears to require explanation why Mr. Moore, in whose district at Ancona the case originated, or Mr. Freeborn, when it was transferred to Rome, did not communicate it to the Foreign Office. An explanation might also be asked why the friends of Mr. Murray in England—for I presume that he has friends and relations here—did not themselves apply to me while I was at the Foreign Office. With regard to Mr. Moore and Mr. Freeborn, it is due to them that I should say that it is not possible two public servants could have shown greater zeal or activity in the discharge of the duties imposed upon them; and, therefore, I am bound to suppose that there were reasons which led them to think that the case did not require immediate communication with the Government of Great Britain. With regard to the steps which ought to be taken, I think that if a British subject is accused and placed on his trial for a grave and serious offence against the criminal law of the country in which he is residing, the first step would be to instruct the British Consul or the British Minister, as the case might be, that the British subject should be provided with good professional advice, to defend himself against the accusation that was brought against him. Of course, if the first information received was that the trial was concluded and sentence passed, these preliminary proceedings would no longer be in place. My noble Friend the Member for Marylebone (Lord D. Stuart) has made some observations with regard to the state of non-intercourse between this Government and the Government of Rome; and therefore I feel bound to make one or two observations on that point. The facts are, that the Roman Government, before the passing of that Act which was passed by Parliament to empower the Crown to enter into Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome—before that time the Roman Government did desire to have diplomatic relations with the Government of Great Britain. It is true that a clause which was inserted in the Bill in its passage through the House of Lords, and which prevented the Roman Government from sending an ecclesiastic as its representative here, did give offence to the Roman Government. I think that that offence was one which they had no right to take, because that clause in the Bill placed by law the diplomatic intercourse between Rome and England on exactly the same footing on which the diplomatic intercourse of the Court of Rome had always—certainly for a very long time—been placed with the Russian and Prussian Governments, by the decision of the Governments of St. Petersburgh and Berlin—a decision which the Court of Rome implicitly acquiesced in. The Pope had a Minister from Russia and a Minister from Prussia residing at Rome, while Russia and Prussia refused to receive an ecclesiastic as representative of Rome at St. Petersburg and Berlin. The Pope acquiesced in their refusal so far as this, that he abstained from sending a Minister either to St. Petersburg or Berlin; but he received a Russian and Prussian Minister at Rome. Therefore I hold that the Court of Rome was not justified in objecting to receive a British Minister merely because the British Government were restrained by law in the same way as the Russian and Prussian Governments were restrained by the decisions of their respective Sovereigns from receiving an ecclesiastic as the representative of the Pope here. But I do not understand that an absolute refusal to receive a British Minister was made by the Roman Government. What has been stated by the Roman Government is this—that in consequence of the passing of this law they would not receive a permanent mission, but they did not consider that the clause would prevent them from receiving a temporary mission; and if a temporary mission were sent from time to time as circumstances required, it is plain that a repetition of temporary missions would answer all the practical purposes that might be aimed at by a permanent mission; and I imagine there is nothing to prevent Her Majesty's Government from ordering Her Majesty's Minister at Florence to go on a tem pory mission to Rome, to settle any question that may arise between the two Governments. I thought it right to enter into this explanation, because I know that misapprehensions are entertained with regard to the effect of this clause, and that there is a prevalent notion abroad that the Court of Rome have refused to enter into diplomatic relations with us; whereas the fact is that they would not, as at present advised, receive a permanent mission, but they would have no objection to receive a temporary mission from the British Government.

said, that the correspondence for which he had asked was the correspondence which had taken place in the case of Mr. Mather, and not that in the case of Mr. Murray. As the diplomatic correspondence in the case of Mr. Murray had not yet terminated, he did not mean to ask for it at the present stage; but it was otherwise with the correspondence relating to Mr. Mather; and, as the noble Lord seemed to desire that he should give him previous intimation of such Motions, he begged now to give notice that on Thursday next he should move for the production of that correspondence.

said, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a most important subject, namely, the interference by a military officer with the votes for a Member of Parliament. A statement had appeared in the public press to which his attention was directed, and which had since been corroborated by private letters. It was stated in the Belfast Northern Whig, on the 19th of May last, that General Thomas, the military inspector at Enniskillen, and other military officers there, attempted to exercise an undue influence over the vote of Sergeant M'Kinley, a pensioner, and an elector of the said borough. This was a matter of great importance, involving as it did the liberty of the subject, and the freedom of election. There was nothing which the people of this country were more jealous of, or ought to be more adverse to, than the interference of military officers in influencing votes for Members of Parliament; and that was what General Thomas was charged with having done. He (Mr. S. Crawford) would not say that the charge was correct; but he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland to the statements which had appeared in the public papers on the subject. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read an extract from the Belfast Northern Whig, to the effect that at the late election for Enniskillen General Thomas asked several of the local pensioners to vote for Mr. Whiteside, and on being told that Sergeant M'Kinley was the only one of them who had a vote, he repeated the request to him; but the Sergeant declined to give him any promise that he would comply with his solicitation; the consequence was that the General shook his fist in the Sergeant's face, and told him that he was a degradation to the body which he belonged. It was likewise alleged that Colonel Code and Captain Beaufoy attempted to influence his vote.] It was of the highest importance that charges of this nature, brought forward against officers holding such high rank, should be inquired into. If such practices were permitted, there was an end of freedom of election. He wished to know whether any information had been received by the Government on the subject. It was most important that the Government, which he hoped had not sanctioned such a proceeding, should repudiate any attempt of that kind to influence an election, especially by a military officer. He (Mr. S. Crawford) thought that he was only doing his duty in bringing the facts under the notice of the Government and of the House—in, order that they might be contradicted if they were not true.

thought he had some reason to complain of the course which had been taken by the hon. Gentleman in the present case. He had in the first instance given notice of his intention to bring the matter before the House in the form of a question; and then, having allowed the proper opportunity to pass, he had suddenly brought it forward at the present moment; and, upon the mere authority of an anonymous letter in a newspaper, had thought fit to make a statement seriously affecting the character of an officer who bore perhaps as high a reputation as any gentleman in Her Majesty's service. The hon. Member had not even given him time to communicate with the gallant General to whom he had alluded. Of course, under these circumstances, he (Lord Naas) could only say that he knew nothing whatever of the transaction; but, from his knowledge of the gallant General, he believed him to be a gentleman who would never be found committing an act derogatory to his character as an officer in the Army; and that, if the subject was not brought under the notice of the Government in a manner more authoritative than it had yet been, he should not feel it to be his duty to take any more notice of it.

said, he was quite satisfied that no military officer, and especially one of the high character of General Thomas, could be guilty of the indiscretion of which he had been accused; but at the same time, as the accusation had been made, he hoped the right hon. Secretary at War would give the House an assurance that it would not be allowed to escape without some inquiry.

begged to observe, that he had a private letter in his possession corroborating the statement he had made.

said, that all the hon. Member had read to the House as the foundation of the statement was the anonymous letter in the newspaper.

said, that if he had any good reason to believe that there had been an improper interference on the part of the military authorities with the votes of the pensioners, he should certainly be desirous to make a strict inquiry into the charge; but he did not conceive that either an anonymous paragraph in a newspaper, or a private communication, where the name of the writer was not given, could be regarded as sufficient to justify him in impeaching the reputation of an officer who had served his country faithfully both in the field and at home. He (Mr. Beresford) was satisfied, from all he knew of General Thomas, that the charge could not be true.

was astonished to hear the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman say that they would take no notice of an accusation of this sort. To him it appeared that an investigation was inevitable. He felt convinced that a satisfactory reply could be given, but the case could not be allowed to rest where it was; it was assuredly the duty of the Government to inquire into it.

said, he agreed both with the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War in thinking that it was not the duty of the Government to inquire into accusations founded upon anonymous communications; and he would go further and say, that he did not think it was the duty of a Member of Parliament to prefer such charges. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) remembered the gallant officer very well when he was a Member of that House, and he must say he did not believe that he could have been guilty of the conduct imputed to him. But, at the same time, if the charge against General Thomas were brought before them in any authentic manner whatever, and if they thought the evidence of a proper character, the Government would of course feel it to be their duty to order an investigation into the circumstances of the case; but he repeated that he did not think it the duty of the Government, and he hoped no Government would ever think it their duty, to investigate charges which were made solely upon anonymous communications. The private letter to which the hon. Member had referred, was a mere copy of what had appeared in the newspaper.

said, he did not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the duty of Government, and perhaps he could not give a better example of what he considered to be their duty in such circumstances than the practice of the late Duke of York. He well remembered that Sir Robert Peel, in his speech on the death of that Prince, stated that when at the head of the Army he made it his regular practice to inquire into every complaint that he received against an officer, whether anonymous or not. He also believed that it was the practice of the heads of all the Government departments, when they saw even an anonymous paragraph in a newspaper imputing charges against any party under their authority, to institute an immediate inquiry as to whether the charges were true or not. He begged, however, that it might not be supposed for a moment that he desired to throw any imputation on the character of the gallant officer in question. On the contrary, he could not credit that he had done anything unworthy of his character. But when he heard an hon. Member ask whether it was true that a gallant officer had improperly interfered in an election, he must say he did not think it was a satisfactory answer to tell him that the Government did not think it worth their while to inquire into the allegation, because it rested on an anonymous communication.

said, he thought the question of much more importance than the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think. He quite agreed with that right hon. Gentleman that no Member should bring forward questions upon mere anonymous authority. He (Mr. Hume) candidly admitted that he had brought forward many questions which had originated in anonymous communications, but he had never brought them forward until he had previously satisfied himself that the charges rested upon the authority of persons deserving of credit, and then he brought them forward upon his own responsibility. And this was what his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Crawford) had done in the present instance. He understood that his hon. Friend, finding the charges in an anonymous article in a newspaper, had communicated with the writer of the article, and, having confidence in his reply, had thought it his duty to bring the matter before the House. He hoped the Government would see it to be their duty either to make an inquiry, or at all events to take care to prevent any such abuse in future.

said, that as the subject had already been debated for nearly two hours upon the last Motion, it might now be convenient to the House to move that the Order of the Day, No. 28, be read for the purpose of being postponed to Friday next; and he would, therefore, move accordingly.

wished to call the attention of the House to the expediency of instituting examinations as a test of the competency of candidates for situations in the Diplomatic Service. He believed that the general nature of the education given to youth in this country was not such as to fit them for the Diplomatic Service. Most of the young men who obtained situations of a diplomatic character were much better versed in Greek iambics and hexameters than in the works of Grotius, Puffendorf, and Vattel. He thought that the change which was corning over the Universities should be introduced into the diplomatic career, and examinations be introduced in order to enable the candidates for such offices better to fill the situations to which they were appointed. Questions of international law and of treaties would soon be more generally taught in our Universities than they ever were before; modern languages, too, were making great progress. It was because he saw the necessity of extending diplomatic education, that he invited attention to this subject, and because he thought that the improvement would be very considerably strengthened by the improvement of our public schools, and the improvement in the education given at the Inns of Court. The latter especially would add greatly to the knowledge of international law. There were many reasons why at this particular time an attempt should be made to institute examinations for diplomatic candidates. The subjects he would suggest for examination would be modern history, modern treaties, and the general rules of international law. It might be said that it would be absurd to subject persons appointed as ambassadors to an examination of this kind; and so it might; but why should not Chargés d'Affaires and paid and unpaid attaches be subjected to it? As regarded their knowledge of modern Ian- guages, he had found, from his own experience in foreign countries where he had encountered the English diplomatic subordinates, that they were not so well versed in foreign languages as generally were the foreigners similarly situated and employed in this country. The system of examinations had extended into every department of the public service, including the Navy and Army, and he could see no reason why it should not be extended with equal benefit to the diplomatic service. He was fortified in his opinion that the system of examination, which had been very properly and very generally extended, ought now to he applied as he recommended, by the fact that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), did, whilst in office, begin to establish a system of the kind, and did assure him (Mr. Ewart), in answer to public questions, that he (Viscount Palmerston) was paying anxious attention to the subject; and hoped to accomplish the object he had in view. That noble Lord had left office without accomplishing this object; but he (Mr. Ewart) hoped it was one that any Government might equally be expected to pursue; and he saw no reason for supposing that there was anything in the character of Her Majesty's present Government to hinder their acceding to his proposition. Possibly steps of the kind had been already taken?

willingly admitted the importance of the subject which the hon. Member had brought under the attention of the House. Although no precise form of examination was established for the diplomatic service, it would be an error to suppose that it was exempted from the tendency of the age to improved education and mental cultivation, the influence of which was felt in all other departments of the public service. For a considerable period arrangements had existed, and were in operation, with respect to appointments to diplomatic offices, the whole subject of which was to improve the diplomatic service of the country, and to give it the character of a profession. The efforts of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton in this direction merited the highest commendation. It was also due to the Earl of Aberdeen to state, that when he held the seals of office, he sedulously occupied himself to effect the same object. It was the noble Earl's conviction that it was our duty to make the diplomatic service a profession. To carry that object into complete effect, a formal education would, of course, be necessary. To a certain degree the principle had been developed. Attached to the Universities were classes for the study of the Oriental languages, and those of the students who had distinguished themselves by their proficiency were appointed to offices connected with our Eastern Embassies. The present Government had had but little opportunity yet of directing their attention to all the points connected with the subject; but there existed every disposition on their parts still further to develop the principle laid down by their predecessors. Having said this much, he would take the liberty of reminding the House that the experience of momentous years had proved the diplomacy of England to be inferior to no other branch of the public service. In confirmation of that statement, it was necessary to refer merely to the great events in which the noble Lord the Member of Tiverton distinguished himself in the years 1839 and 1840, and which were commonly spoken of as the settlement of the East. Those events afforded evidence that the British Government was able to obtain the most accurate information under very trying circumstances. It was mainly owing to the admirable information and dexterity of our diplomatic service at that time that our then Foreign Minister—who, however, was quite equal to the occasion—was enabled to avail himself of circumstances and to bring the business to a successful issue. More recently, again, during the events which convulsed Europe from 1848 to 1851, our diplomatic service defied the competition of the diplomacy of all other countries, if, indeed, it did not excel them all. He did not recall these matters to the recollection of the House by way of answer to the hon. Member's reasoning; on the contrary, he concurred in the hon. Member's views. There was no reason why our diplomatic service should not be an educated service, and subjected to the influence of the spirit of improvement which governed the whole conduct of the nation, and influenced every department of the State. All he desired was, that the House and the public should not run away with the idea that, in consequence of the want of a formal education for the diplomatic service, the country was not ably served. The country was most ably served. No diplomacy had accomplished greater results, saved more of the public money, or contributed more to the national honour.

said, he wished to direct the attention of the House to the Light Dues levied on the commercial shipping, and especially to the correspondence between the United States Minister and Viscount Palmerston, laid before Parliament on the 13th day of February, 1851. It was a duty they owed to those concerned in the navigation of this country to find from them what they were really going to carry out for this interest. He, for one, had always advocated the abolition of the Navigation Laws, as he considered them injurious; but he must state that he had urged their repeal on the distinct understanding that we were bound to relieve the shipowners of this country from all the charges and everything that prevented their free competition; and he regarded the Light Dues levied along the coast upon British shipping as one of the greatest impediments to the development of our trade. Some of these lighthouses were the property of private individuals, and it was proved before a Select Committee upon the subject that the owner of the Winter-ton lighthouse had pocketed 20,000l. a year by an impost of 1d. per ton upon every vessel that passed. He assured the House that this was a heavy burden upon the shipowners of the country, now that they had to compete with railways for the coasting trade, and mentioned that from 1834 to 1845 no less than five per cent had been levied in Light Dues upon the whole freight of their ships. The example set us by the United States in this respect was worthy of attention, for whilst our vessels entered the American ports free of charge, an American vessel had here to pay 60l. before she could enter the port of Liverpool. The charge altogether here for lighthouses was near 300,000l. If the lighthouses of Scotland, England, and Ireland, instead of being under three separate Boards, managed at great expense, were placed on a proper footing, and properly administered, the whole expense might be so lessened as not to amount to above 80,000l. Such was the state of things here. In the United States, where there were triple the number of lighthouses, it did not cost the shipping either of England or of the United States one farthing. Surely it was of vast political importance to remove all ground of dispute between this country and that. If the Light Dues were continued, the Navy of England ought to pay them as well as the mercantile ma- rine. Nationally, politically, and socially viewed, this question yielded in importance to none other. He begged to say that he had not been prompted to bring this matter under the consideration of the House by any personal interest; he had not now, nor ever had in his life, a farthing of his money invested in the shipping interest. He had brought this subject forward with the view of relieving the burdens of our commercial navy, which we should regard as the nursery of the Royal Navy. He had no intention of concluding with any Motion, his object being to make an appeal to the Members of the present Government, who had so long professed to be friends of the shipping interest. They would really show themselves to be so should they accord with his views, and they might rest assured that they would receive the cordial support of that (the Opposition) side of the House in any efforts they might make for the removal of the grievance complained of.

hoped the fact of his having been a Member of the Committee that sat upon this subject in 1845 would be his apology for venturing to express his opinions in regard to it. From what fell from the right hon. President of the Board of Trade at the last deputation to him on this subject, he (Mr. Duncan) had no hesitation in saying that there was great anxiety on the part of the Government to take off, where practicable, the unjust burdens under which the shipping interest laboured. It appeared from the evidence which had been laid before the Committee of 1845, that the expense of keeping up only 105 lights, amounted to 74,832l. per annum. In the year 1842, the mercantile navy paid 225,875l. for the maintenance of lights. With the view of showing the excessive burden which the lighting system entailed upon our commercial navy, he might mention some facts touching the experience of two Scottish companies. The manager of the Dundee Trading Company stated before the Committee of 1845, that the percentage of the Light Dues attachable to the net profits divided among the proprietors of stock, amounted to no less than 63–3–10ths. The amount paid for Light Dues by that company alone, in respect of voyages between Dundee and London, amounted in one year to 2,056l. Again, the manager of a similar body (the Aberdeen Company) stated that the percentage for Light Dues amounted to 51 per cent on the profits. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had pointed out the severe competition to which the coasting trade had been subjected by railways, which had not to bear the burden of Light Dues. He (Mr. Duncan) believed it was a notorious fact that many of the coasting companies, at this moment, were losing, instead of driving a profitable trade, in consequence of the Light Dues. Only a very short time ago, the shipowners of the borough he had the honour to represent met on this subject, and it was stated at that meeting that there was not a single individual among them that had received a farthing from the coasting trade for several years back. He believed a tonnage duty ranging from 6d. to 1s. 6d. would more than meet the expense of the lights. He thought, then, it was evident that the mercantile navy was subjected to a burden from which it ought to be relieved. He voted for the abrogation of the Navigation Laws, in the hope that every restriction would be removed from the shipping interest. If our shippers were permitted to have a "fair field, and no favour," he had no fear that they would be able to compete with any country in the world.

said, if the Government were not prepared to take off all the burdens of which the shipping interest complained, they might at least distribute them in a more equitable manner. Now that the shipowners' friends were in power, the shipping interest might surely expect relief in the matter of Lights at all events, because Light Dues were a burden which everybody admitted to be unreasonable and unjust. His hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Duncan) had mentioned two cases of peculiar hardship; and he (Mr. Forster) would take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to a similar case. The Dublin Steam Navigation Company stated to the Committee of 1845, that they paid as much in lights as would keep the whole of the lights between Dublin and Liverpool. [Mr. HUME: There are eighteen lights.] The Company paid in respect of these lights from 5,000l. to 6,000l. a year; in fact, they assured the Committee that they would undertake to maintain the whole of the lights for that sum. Now, he contended that it was the duty of every country to light up its own shore. Humanity and public policy required that that should be done. The public might object, on the score of taxation, to pay for lighting directly, but they, nevertheless, did, in the end, in a round- about way, pay for it. There was a large amount of the Light Dues which it would be as just to call upon tailors or shoemakers as shipowners to pay. A large amount paid for jobs in buying up private Lights had been improperly charged on the shipowners. Not only had the shipowners reason to complain that burdens were imposed upon them, great part of which ought to be borne by the rest of the public; but they justly complained that the money that was levied from them in respect of lighting, was expended in a most extravagant manner. The shipping interest had long complained of this unjust burden, and the time had surely arrived when some step should be taken towards doing them justice. There were other burdens from which they ought to be relieved, but this, above all others, ought to be immediately removed.

said, the subject which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had brought under the notice of the House, was certainly one of very grave importance. He supposed after what had just been stated, that the House would not now hear so frequently as they had heretofore from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that the shipping interest was not in a depressed state. Two hon. Gentlemen, who were intimately connected with the shipping interest had each informed the House, that it was at present undergoing a hard struggle. But the House had hitherto been accustomed to hear statements made for the purpose of proving that that interest was in a very flourishing condition. Such statements, he thought, would not be made in that House hereafter with quite so much confidence—at all events, in the presence of those hon. Gentlemen who had done their best to remove this burden from the shipping interest. But he must say that he was somewhat surprised at the tone and manner in which this appeal had been made to the present Government, whom hon. Gentlemen opposite had styled the friends of the shipping interest. He thought the present Government might, with some justice, ask whence it came that an appeal of this sort was not made to the late Government—[Mr. HUME said, the late Government had been appealed to]—when it was known that there was a surplus in the Exchequer, and the dues could have been removed without laying a fresh tax on the community? The hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Forster) had said that if this burden was not altogether removed by the Government, they ought at least to modify it, so as to make the shipowners bear no more than an equitable share of it. Now that was a proposition very general and very difficult to he dealt with; for who would say what was equity? It had been debated whether turnpike roads ought to be sustained out of the general funds of the State, or be paid for by those who used them—whether payments for their maintenance every time they were traversed, or only once a day. And similar was this question of Lights. It might be very well debated whether a steam vessel that might pass by the Lights more frequently than a sailing vessel, ought not to he charged more than the latter vessel. These considerations would show that the question was not so easy of settlement as hon. Gentlemen had represented. Hon. Gentlemen who had spoken seemed to be rather chary of taking off all the taxes; but he confessed that, so far as he had an opportunity of communicating with the shipowners, they appeared to him to he desirous of getting rid of them altogether. He did not think that they would feel very grateful for a mere shifting of the burden from one shoulder to the other. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hume) had stated that the sum annually paid by the shipping interest for lighting was about 300,000l. He did not know whether that included the expenses of buoys and all the other incidental expenses. Be the sum what it might, there was no doubt that a large sum was annually paid, and would be for some time longer, for the purchase of private lights. The hon. Gentleman had alluded a great deal to the expenditure of America in this respect; but the hon. Member forgot to state that America laid very heavy import duties upon every thing that entered her ports. [Mr. HUME: On the goods, but not on the ships.] Well, it does not matter very much whether the burden is laid upon goods or ships; she recoups herself very handsomely out of the English pocket for any advantage derived by our ships from the lights along her shores. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick (Mr. Forster), made a rather odd admission, for he said, "why, it is not the shipowner that pays for these lights, but the public, although in a roundabout way." All hon. Gentlemen who had spoken joined in thinking that very great economy would result from the adoption of the present American system of managing lights. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that a centralised system of management, such as that, would be of great service to this country. Now, with the permission of the House, he (Mr. Henley) should like to read one or two passages from a Report which had lately been issued by the American Secretary to the Treasury, who had been appointed to inquire into the state of the Lights of the United States. The document bore date the 21st of May, 1851, and had been republished on the 4th of February this year. The Report said—

"The lighting of vessels, the beacons, buoys, and other accessories in the United States, are not so efficient as the interests of commerce, navigation, and humanity demand. They do not compare favourably with similar aids to navigation in Europe, generally, but especially those of France and Great Britain."

But was that all? The Report went on to state that the Light establishments of the United States did not compare favourably, as far as economy was concerned, with those of Great Britain and France. So that here we had a plain avowal from the American Government that their Light system was not so efficient or economical as that of this country or of France. But let the House hear what the American Government stated with regard to other matters connected with this subject. Again, the Report said—

"There is no good reason why the Light vessels on the coast of the United States should not remain at their moorings under as favourable circumstances as those of England and Ireland do."

And with regard to buoys, the report stated that—

"They are defective in size, shape, and distinction, and as a general rule sufficient care is not taken by competent persons to moor and replace them."

Now, he presumed that it was a matter of interest to the shipping interest that the Light vessels should remain on their stations in bad weather. Now, when this advantage was added to our more economical and efficient management, he thought there was little reason for asking us to imitate America in the matter of lighting. They went on to say that, in their opinion, the question might be very well managed by boards, similar to such a one as that over which the Duke of Wellington presided. In Scotland lighting had been very well managed by boards, and they believed it would be well to introduce that system into America. Now, he thought it right to bring these facts before the House, without pretending to any very great knowledge of the subject. As this was a subject of very great importance, he had paid considerable attention to it from the first moment that he had entered upon the duties of the office which he had the honour to fill. He was not one of those who thought that the shipping interest of this country was in a state of prosperity. He was not one of those who had contributed to bring that interest to its present unhappy condition. He believed that that interest had yet to go through a very severe struggle; and it would be the duty of that House to relieve them from any unjust burdens under which they might be labouring. There was one most important point, to which the hon. Member for Montrose had given the go-by—he meant the manning of our commercial navy. That was a matter which pressed with great severity upon the shipping interest, and, therefore, when all these burdens were talked about, it was necessary that it should not be thrown aside. Had he not been acquainted with these matters before entering office, it was impossible, in the short period that he had been connected with the Government, to have known much about them; and all he could say was, that it would be his anxious desire to pay every attention to the subject. If he could, by what was called a more equal arrangement of these duties, succeed in placing them in a different category to that in which they were now placed; if any relief could be given without doing greater injustice than in another, no efforts of his should be wanting to bring about such a result; but the prayer of the shipping interest was to be relieved from the burden altogether, by placing the tax upon the whole community, on account of the alteration of the law which had taken place within the last two or three years.

said, he had to express his regret that he had not been present at the commencement of the discussion. With respect to the representations which had been made to him on the part of the shipowners when he held office as President of the Board of Trade, he begged to explain that what he had said was, that if they were satisfied with a commutation of the present amount levied on shipping into a similar amount raised by a tonnage duty, he should he prepared to give a favourable consideration to any such proposition, on this understanding, that the question of the reduction of these dues should not form part of that scheme, that it should be a plan confined to a commutation, postponing the question of re- duction to another opportunity. The question of the reduction and arrangement of these dues was one of the greatest importance to the shipping interest; but it was a question beset with difficulties, and at that period of the Session when the application was made, he did not feel warranted in holding out any hope in dealing with it. At first he thought it was the desire of the parties that some such scheme should be carried into effect; but it turned out that the real object of the parties was the reduction rather than the commutation of the burden, and under these circumstances he felt himself relieved from the pledge he had given. Hon. Gentlemen were apt to forget how much practical reduction in Light Dues had taken place since the repeal of the Navigation Laws. On that part of British shipping which had to compete with the railways, and which was not affected by the Navigation Laws—he meant the coasting trade—the reductions in Light Dues within the last few years had amounted to three-fourths, so that they paid only one-fourth of what they formerly paid. The reduction on the foreign trade was not so considerable, but yet it was not altogether unimportant. He was unwilling to be drawn into a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade as to the effects which had attended the repeal of the Navigation Laws; but, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he could not help stating that if there were any serious doubts in regard to that measure, those doubts ought to be removed, for he believed it could be demonstrated that, if that alteration of the Navigation Laws had not taken place when it did, the shipping interest would have been in a state to occasion great alarm. The great carrying trade of the world would have been transferred to America; because the United States were offering terms of reciprocity and equality with all the nations of the world. Gentlemen argued as if this were a question of free choice, as if we could have preserved that system of monopoly which previously existed. We had no such option. If we had shut out other nations from our carrying trade, they would have shut us out from them, and he would venture to say that at this moment, but for that change, the Board of Trade would have been crowded by merchants engaged in the carrying trade with Prussia, Russia, and other countries, imploring Government to adopt that course of liberal policy which would alone save them from annihilation. With regard to the effect of the alteration in the Navigation Laws, he appealed to a fact never contradicted, namely, the busy state of the building yards. In the great building yards on the Clyde and the Thames, at Liverpool and other ports, wherever they went, they would find not only more ships building, but better ships. Ships from the Thames contended with American clippers. An extraordinary stimulus had been given to shipbuilding, and given to it in respect of the quality of the ships now launched. Those were the effects of competition; and, when he looked to the ships launched and on the stocks, he could not believe that the shipbuilders and shipowners of this country so little understood their own business as to embark their capital and energies in a business of this kind unless they believed it was likely to yield a profit. He lamented the partial suffering incident to a state of transition; but the progress of the country would not be stopped on that account. It was impossible to look at the condition of the merchant shipping and not see that it was not in a state to occasion alarm for that great interest; but it was his firm belief that the House in altering the Navigation Laws, had pursued a wise policy—not merely for the interests of this country, but for the special interest of the shipping.

said, he had come to the conclusion that the Light Dues should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The country owed much to the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken for what he had done for the coasting trade. As regarded the modification of the Navigation Laws, he (Mr. Macgregor) wished they had been repealed altogether. Never were good ships so much in demand as at present. As a member of a deputation he had met the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, who received them with the greatest courtesy. It appeared that there was a great demand for the Colonies. He hoped the remaining restrictions of the Navigation Laws would be removed, and shipowners left to man their vessels as they best could.

rose to call the attention of the House to the tenders which were accepted from the Peninsular and Oriental Company on the 27th February, for the performance of the postal service between England, India, and China. He believed the matter which he had to bring under the consideration of the House was one of some importance. With respect to the large grants of money which were annually voted for the postal service between this and foreign countries, he doubted whether Parliament was justified in making those grants, interfering as they did directly with the shipping interest of this country, and tending wholly to prevent that wholesome competition by which alone full security could be given to the public in the matter of that communication. No less a sum than 800,000l. was annually voted by Parliament for that object, and he thought the public had a right to ask whether they received an equivalent for that large grant of public money. Taking, for instance, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, he found for that service that no less than 270,000l was annually voted by Parliament. He stated it on the highest commercial authorities in the city of London, that in nine times out of ten duplicates of commercial correspondence were received six or seven days before the originals, which were carried by another and more circuitous route. He said, in that instance, where the sum of 270,000l. was paid for rapid communication, that an equivalent was not furnished to the public by the Royal Mail Steam-packet Company, Again, as to the effects that those large grants of public money had in preventing public competition, he thought that was a matter so patent to all, that it was hardly necessary to adduce any argument in support of it. But if he might be allowed to cite an instance, perhaps he might take the case of a company against whom not a single word had ever been raised, and which had rendered most eminent services to the public—he meant the Cunard Company, by which the service was carried on between England and North America. That line bad been subjected to competition; and for the purpose of maintaining that competition a large grant of public money had been voted by Congress. He wished, however, to draw a broad distinction between the grants of public money which Parliament was justified in giving in order to maintain a system of steam communication between this country and the colonies—which it was so important to bind by a rapid communication with the mother country—and those grants of public money to which he had just referred. For his own part, he could not but think that it was a matter for Parliament to consider at a future time whether or not they were prepared to continue that system upon which they were called to expend so large a portion of the public money, or to come to some new arrangement in the matter. He thought the suggestion of Lord Auckland would have had a beneficial result, if carried into practice. That suggestion was to levy a steam postage. If that steam postage was levied, the pub-lie who benefited by that postage would have been called on to find the money, and not the public in general, who did not receive any advantage from it. Now, in regard to the immediate question of which he had given notice, namely, the postal service between this country and India and China, he thought the House would agree with him that, although a Government was not bound to act on the Report of a Committee; yet, when a Committee had had under its consideration facts which proved to them that the public were materially inconvenienced owing to the interference of Government in any matter, a Government was bound to pay some consideration to the Report of that Committee, more especially if that report was unanimously agreed to. He did not think that attention had been paid to the Report of a Committee which sat on this subject, and that was one ground why he asked for a public explanation. There was another ground on which he asked for explanation, namely, that if a Government put forward a document inviting tenders in a matter so important at this, he thought they were bound in justice to the public and the authorities to see that the proposal of each party tendering was impartially and fairly considered, and that no unfair bias was shown to one party more than another, otherwise doubts and suspicions would arise in the public mind as to the way in which those tenders had been dealt with. He submitted also that when a document had been laid on the table of the House, purporting to show the proposals of each company, that it should fairly and clearly state those proposals. There was another reason why he asked for explanation, and that was, that tenders of that description should not be decided in haste, but with due consideration, and certainly not by a defunct Government at the moment of its leaving office. Those were the main grounds on which he asked for explanation. The House was, no doubt, aware that the mail service with India had been mainly per- formed for the last six years by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company. For the India and China service that company received a sum of 280,000l. odd. The contract for that service expired in 1852. In the course of the last few years, various reports had reached this country in regard to the evil effects of that monopoly on the public. It was stated that the company had not taken advantage of those improvements in steam communication which they ought to have done, and that great difficulties were thrown in the way of passengers taking advantage of other lines; and various other charges were made in regard to the mode in which that service was conducted. At that time he had thought it his duty to ask Parliament to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of steam communication with some of our colonies; and he thought himself justified in asking that the Committee should go into the question whether any and what improvements should be made in the future steam communication with India, China, and England. The Committee was appointed, and there were included in it three Members of Sir Robert Peel's Government, three of the late, and two of the present Government. The Committee entered into the whole question of steam communication to Australia and various parts of the world; and the second part of their report had a direct reference to steam communication with Australia, India, and China. They had evidence before them in making that report, that the statement of the inconveniences which the public had suffered on that line had not been materially overstated. They had likewise addresses before them from the Chambers of Commerce of Manchester, Liverpool, and other large towns, praying that in their recommendations to Parliament as to what should be done in reference to a new contract, they should advise that, whatever party had the contract, they should be tied down by stringent rules in respect to speed, the comfort of the passengers, and other matters of that kind. They had likewise evidence before them that in the course of the last few years our trade and commerce had increased rapidly on that line, and, taking those matters into their consideration, they thought that, whilst it had been proved before them that great inconvenience had accrued to the public, though they were not justified in proposing that the Government should interfere with any stringent rules in reference to their in- terior relations, yet that they were bound to see that no undue means were used to prevent competition. They stated—

"Whilst your Committee think that it is but fair to acknowledge the enterprising spirit which has been displayed by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company, in the general management of the communication which they have now conducted for some years, they are of opinion that the English and the Indian public have at times experienced considerable inconvenience; and it is certain also, that until the agitation of the question connected with the renewal of the contract brought the matter more prominently before the public, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company had done little towards introducing into their line those great and important improvements, as regards speed, which have of late years taken place in ocean steam navigation; of late, however, some of these vessels have undergone considerable improvement, and have been rendered competent to maintain a speed much in excess of the contract rate."

They further stated—

"It has been suggested to your Committee, that in order to secure to the public the advantages of these communications, stringent rules should be laid down in any new engagement that may be entered into between the Government and the companies undertaking the service, and that rates of speed and fares should be fixed. Your Committee concur in these suggestions so far as regards the size of the vessels and the speed required, and they are of opinion that the penalties for failure in speed should be such as might be rigidly enforced when such failure cannot be satisfactorily accounted for; but they do not believe that there is any mode by which the full advantage of the communication can be secured to the passengers and traffic of India by the interference of Government in the internal arrangement and management of the affairs of a private company. The only mode in which this can be secured to the public is by the establishment of a wholesome competition."

Those were the views unanimously expressed by the Committee, which included among its members the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and two other members of that Government. They had also before them the proposition of a fortnightly communication. They had before them, too, evidence that before any parties could be prepared to enter into a new arrangement, eighteen months' notice would be required. What took place? Four months after that Committee made their Report, tenders were invited by the Government. They divided the route into five different lines; but it was to the India and China line principally that he wished to draw the attention of the House. The tenders were returnable on the 26th of February. Two parties tendered—one, the Peninsular and Oriental Company, who tendered for the whole service; and the other, the Eastern Steam Navigation Company, who tendered for the single service, carrying out the views of the Committee so as to admit the principle of competition. Now he thought those two companies had a right to expect that the proposals they were to make for an important service like that should have been fairly stated; that there should have been no bias shown to either; and that all the circumstances connected with them should have been brought under an attention of Parliament? What were the facts? He hold in his hand a letter which passed between the Admiralty and the Treasury on the 27th of February, in which a statement was made of the services which each company proposed to perform. That letter was as follows:—

"Admiralty, Feb. 27, 1852.

"Sir—I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to state for the information of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, that having issued advertisements for tenders for the conveyance of mails every fortnight between England, Calcutta, and Hong Kong, and every alternate month between Singapore and Sydney, and that having so arranged the conditions as to make parties to tender for portions of the service, instead of the whole, if they should prefer it, my Lords have received the following tenders:—1. From the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the whole of the mail services advertised, with the addition of a branch line between Bombay and Point de Galle, not mentioned in the conditions of tender, for the annual sum of 199,600l., which they offer to reduce to 179,600l. a year, six months after the completion of the railway across Egypt. 2. One from the Eastern Steam Navigation Company for a line once a month between England and Calcutta and Hong Kong, for the annual sum of 110,000l., to be reduced to 100,000l. in the event of Trieste being substituted for Marseilles as the port of embarkation. 2. One from the same company for the branch between Singapore and Sydney, in addition to the line previously mentioned, for the annual sum of 166,000l. My Lords, on comparing these tenders, find the first mentioned to be the lowest, since, on reducing the sums tendered to a mileage rate, it appears that the Peninsular and Oriental Company ask about 6s. 6d. a mile for the service required, without taking into account the additional branch they have volunteered to perform between Bombay and Point de Galle; and the Eastern Steam Navigation Company ask about 8s. a mile in their first tender, and about 10s. a milo as the average of the service mentioned in their second tender. Both companies undertake to maintain the same average speed, and to commence the Marseilles and Malta branch soon. The Peninsular and Oriental Company can commence the whole of the new service on the 1st of January next, and the Eastern Company twenty-one months after the date of the contract. My Lords do not see any sufficient reason for departing from the usual course of accepting the lowest tender.—I am, &c.

(Signed) "W. A. B. HAMILTON.

"G. Cornewall Lewis, Esq., &c, Treasury."

Now it was stated there that tenders were deceived from the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the whole of the mail service. That was not the fact. For No. 1, namely, the service of the line from England to Alexandria, they did tender, as also for No. 2, which was a similar one, and No. 3, which was the line from Suez to Point de Galle, and from Point de Galle to Calcutta; hut for No. 4, which was a similar line to No. 3, they did not wholly tender. They wholly omitted the direct line from Point de Galle to Singapore; hut instead of that they proposed a circuitous route, viâ Calcutta; and, more than that, they included in their calculation of mileage the line from Calcutta to Singapore, which was now carried out by the Peninsular and Oriental Company for nothing. He found it was also stated that the Peninsular and Oriental Company proposed the addition of a branch line between Bombay and Point de Galle, which was not mentioned in the letter he had read to the House. Now, what was done with the Eastern Steam Navigation Company? They stated that they proposed for the single service. But there was an extra service of no less than 86,000 miles proposed to he performed by the Eastern Steam Navigation Company, which was never alluded to in that letter. After referring to those circumstances, he thought he was justified in saying that was not a fair statement of the proposed services on the part of the late Government. He saw there were three lines at the end of the paper which it might suit the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) and other members of the late Government to try to shift on their successors. The letter from the Admiralty to the Treasury, in which those tenders were virtually accepted, was received on the 26th of February by a Government almost out of office, and was accepted by a Government on the 27th February, the day on which they came into office. In a question in which the public interest was so deeply involved, surely it was the duty of the late Government, some of whom had been members of the Committee to which he had referred, to have reflected on the monopoly they were creating, and not to have decided this important question in a few hours. The mode in which the tenders had been accepted had been such as to shake the confidence of the public in the way in which Government transacted business of the kind. He had heard motives attributed to some of the members of the late Government, which he would not for a moment entertain; but he repeated that their conduct had shaken the confidence of the public in them. He had no personal interest either in the one company or the other, but had taken the matter up: on public grounds. He had made some inquiries into the position of the Eastern Steam Navigation Company, and had found that it was a chartered company, and that its bond was signed by some of the best names of the city of London, and he believed it was a company which would have done the Government as good service as any other company. He regretted having in any manner delayed the progress of public business by bringing forward the subject, but felt that its importance warranted him in so doing. He would ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, considering the whole circumstances of the case, it was not possible for the present Government to reconsider the question.

Sir, I feel I have reason to complain of the inconvenience of bringing forward notices of this sort without making any Motion in respect to them. Although by the strict rules of the House, I know I have no right to address it upon this question, I hope that, by its courtesy, I may be permitted to enter into a brief explanation. In regard to the general subject—whether it is expedient or otherwise in the Government to assist a great enterprise of this kind by grants of the public money—although I acknowledge it to be one of the greatest importance, and deserving the best consideration, yet it does not appear to me to be a subject at all necessary for me at this moment to enter upon. I agree with the noble Lord in the great advantages of public competition in the public service. I wish, however, to confine my observations to the particular instance brought by the noble Lord under the notice of the House. Now the present Government is entirely responsible for the arrangement made. If it be unwise, the blame is with them. I will not shrink from the responsibility of that arrangement. It is true that this was the first official act which I was called upon to perform. It is true that I was in office only a few hours when the whole subject was brought under my notice, wholly unshackled by any requirements of my predecessors. To that question I gave my complete and unbiassed decision—that decision which the noble Lord now challenges. The House will permit me to refer to the memorandum which I drew up of the circumstances under which I treated that question. It appeared to me, that in November, 1851, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) had made certain propositions to the East India Company. 1. That the line to be established twice a month should be a branch line from Marseilles to Malta, and from thence to Alexandria, to be performed by contract—Her Majesty's ships to be discontinued. 2. That a line should be established from Suez to Point de Galle, and thence to Madras and Calcutta, twice a month, and a second line from Point de Galle to Singapore and Hong Kong, every second month from Singapore to Sidney, and twice a month from Aden to Bombay. 3. These services to be performed by contract with one or more companies, with the exception of the branch from Aden to Bombay, that to be performed by the East India Company. 4. That the payment of the contract service beyond the Isthmus of Suez should be charged upon the revenue of this country and of the East India Company in the same proportions as at present; and, 5thly, that this country should contribute a sum to the East India Company for the performance of the service between Aden and Bombay, calculated according to the nature and difficulty of the service performed. Now the East India Company assented to those propositions on the 8th November, 1815. On the 18th November, the Treasury desired the Admiralty to call for tenders for the performance of these services. That is precisely what has been done. On the 29th of February, 1852, the Admiralty reported upon the subject. On the 27th of February I had the honour of being installed into office, and on the 29th I was, of course, at my post. The tenders received were as follows:—The first was that of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company for the whole of the mail services advertised for, with the addition of a branch line from Bombay to Point de Galle, not mentioned in the conditions of tender, for the sum of 199,600l., to be reduced to 179,600l. after the completion of the railway across Egypt. The second was from the Eastern Steam Navigation Company, for conveyance of the mails once a month between Calcutta and Hong-Kong, for 110,000l., to be re- duced to 100,000l. in the event of Trieste being substituted for Marseilles as the port of embarkation. The third was from the same company, for a branch between Singapore and Sidney, for 166,000l. The lowest sum, therefore, demanded by the Eastern Steam Navigation Company, was upon their first contract 100,000l., and upon their second 166,000l., making together 266,000l.; while the whole lowest amount of the tender of the Peninsular and Oriental was 179,600l., being a difference between the two of 86,400l. I therefore decided upon the tender of the latter company. The Peninsular and Oriental Company's tender was at the rate of 6s. 6d. a mile, with the additional offer volunteered of performing the line between Bombay and Point de Galle. The Eastern Steam Navigation Company's tender was at the rate of 8s. a mile for the first tender, and 10s. on the average per mile of the second tender. I had therefore to make my election between the offer of 6s. 6d. on the one hand, and 8s. and 10s. on the other. These facts having been put before me, I found that there was this difference between the two tenders, of 86,400l. This difference in the rate of mileage was very considerable. I had only one other point to convince myself of—namely, whether the one tender which was the cheapest was likely to prove equally as efficient as the other; and I availed myself of all the information I could command upon the subject. It appeared to me, however unwilling I might be to throw any discredit upon a rival and a young establishment, that the securities for the efficiency of the service offered by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, were considerably preferable to those offered for the service of the dearest company. That is my simple story. I felt that I was called upon to obtain the best service, and I did so at the cheapest rate. I believe that within an hour after I had taken my seat in Downing-street, I received a deputation from the Eastern Steam Navigation Company; and I must say that their case was put before me in a forcible manner. I had also several communications written to me from the same company; and I am sure that there has been no neglect exhibited on the part of those who are entrusted with their affairs to bring the whole circumstances of their case before me. From the most impartial consideration it was in my power to give to the subject, I decided in favour of a service which I believe, must eventually prove the most efficient, and at the most economical rate. On the 5th of March the offer of the Peninsular and Oriental Company was accepted. I hope that this statement will exonerate me from any blame in this transaction. I feel that I have made an arrangement which will prove the most serviceable. The service required by the Government is now to be performed by an experienced company in a manner which we think will prove efficient, and which must be universally acknowledged to be at a more economical rate than the rival company. The report of the Committee to which the noble Lord has referred, is no doubt a very able one, and well worthy the attention of the House. But the Government were to be guided by the tenders; and if the Eastern Steam Company did not comply with those tenders, which required an offer for the complete service, while they only offered for a partial service, and fell back upon the recommendations of the Committee as the justification of their conduct, I must say that they have not taken such steps as might have been expected of men of business. The Eastern Steam Navigation Company have no right to complain in the matter, as every anxiety was shown to deal fairly by them. I have entered into these details for the satisfaction of the House, and, therefore, I hope I shall be excused in the matter, as I have done so chiefly to exonerate the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) and the Government of which he was a member, from the charges brought against them. When I succeeded to the office of that right hon. Gentleman, I had, of course, confidential communication with him respecting the business of the office he had filled, and in those communications the right hon. Gentleman called my attention to the arrears of that business. And I hope, whenever I quit office, that I shall leave as few arrears after me as that right hon. Gentleman. Among other matters, the right hon. Gentleman called my notice to this question; and it is only justice to the right hon. Gentleman to state, that he did not in any way whatever attempt to bias my opinion upon the subject. Under these circumstances, I proceeded to the settlement of the question quite unshackled in my views, and altogether free from prejudice. I decided it on its merits; and I hope, as I believe, that decision is the best that could be arrived at for the country.

said, that as a Member of the Committee over which the noble Lord (Viscount Jocelyn) presided, he must say that Committee had unanimously decided that the contracts should be thrown open and be given to different lines. If, therefore, a Chancellor of Exchequer was to turn his back on the Report of this Committee, it rendered the labours of Committee null and void. The effect of the decision of the right hon. Gentleman was to bolster up a monopoly at the expense of the public.

said, he was surprised to find in the Report of the Eastern Steam Navigation Company (whose mouthpiece the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had made himself that evening) that he was charged with having cordially concurred in the recommendation of the Committee that the service should be necessarily given to two companies, and afterwards with having turned round and decided against the Eastern Steam Navigation Company. Both these statements were utterly without foundation. The fact mentioned by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of a deputation having waited upon him on the subject, proved that he (Sir C. Wood) had come to no decision on the subject. In addition to this, the Treasury Minute accepting the offer of the Peninsular Company was not dated until a week after he had left office. Every one knew the meaning ordinarily attached to the word "competition;" but the competition which the noble Lord sought for was, that, at whatever price, there should be two companies to carry out the contract. But what an opening that afforded to jobbing and all kinds of unfair practices! Why, if he were to give one portion of the service to one company, and another to another, without any competition for the same, there would be no limit to the favour, monopoly, and jobbing that might result from it. The accusation of the noble Lord was against him personally, that he had given a decision contrary to his own opinion. The ground on which that charge had been made against him was totally without foundation; and, grateful as he was to the noble Lord for having brought this subject forward, and for his courtesy in having apprised him by letter of his intention to do so, he thought that this courtesy would have been better applied, and his justice too, if, before he had made the charge, he had taken the trouble to inquire whether there was any founda- tion for it. The Admiralty letter, dated the 27th of February was brought to him in the morning; but he declined to decide, as he was going to leave office in a few hours, and wished to leave those who were to succeed him entirely unfettered. The facts of the case were simply these: The Peninsular and Oriental Company offered to perform the five services for 179,600l., whilst the Eastern Steam Company offered to perform three for 266,000l. The country gained, therefore, 86,400l. by accepting the offer of the latter company. He thought the present Government had decided perfectly right, for the question did not admit of the slightest doubt. If he had been actuated by any unworthy motives, as the noble Lord had insinuated—[Viscount JOCELYN: I never insinuated anything of the kind]—he would not have acted as he had done. The Government were bound, certainly, to take the most advantageous contract; but the lowest was not always the most advantageous. He warned the House against being led away by contracts of the kind referred to. Last year he received no less than seven private applications from the Eastern Steam Navigation Company to enter into the contract with them, but he had refused to entertain them; and he again warned the House not to sanction a course of conduct which would open the door to an amount of jobbing and corruption never before heard of.

I wish to call it to the recollection of the House that I distinctly stated I did not attribute any unworthy motives to the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he thought it exceedingly unfair to say a company did not tender for the whole of the service, because they made a difference of 73 miles on the whole voyage. The noble Lord was more influenced than he was aware of by the statements of the company which had not gained the contract, it was natural directors should endeavour to throw the blame the shareholders would fix upon them for not making tenders which could be accepted, on other shoulders than their own; but in their report the directors of the Eastern Steam Company had done more than any company was entitled to do, for they had not only misrepresented figures, but had stated what was absolutely-untrue. The decision of the Admiralty was shown to be correct, and he was glad that Her Majesty's Government supported the result at which the Treasury and Admiralty of the late Government had after the fullest investigation arrived.

being a director of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, declined to enter into the merits of the discussion raised by the noble Lord (Viscount Jocelyn), and would confine himself to two statements. The noble Lord had stated that the Peninsular and Oriental Company did not make a tender for the whole service, including Calcutta and China. If the noble Lord had consulted the papers, he would have found that in the conditions the service to Calcutta and China were included. The noble Lord had also said that the Peninsular and Oriental Company had already a service on that line. That was true; but it was only during the season for the conveyance of opium to China, and transmission of specie to Calcutta, that the vessels ran

said, that there was one circumstance connected with the tenders for this service, in which the port which he represented was interested. If the tender which had not been successful had been accepted, the Eastern Steam Navigation Company would have landed the mails at Plymouth instead of Southampton. He believed the time had come when the Government ought to take into consideration the claims of Plymouth as a port of departure for the mails. It had natural advantages as great as any port in England for that service, and being the nearest port in the Channel for the arrival of vessels from all parts of the world, there would be a great saving of time if the mails and passengers were discharged there. This difference between Southampton and Plymouth in that respect caused a delay in the delivery of the mails of several days in the northern and western parts of England. He believed the present arrangement would not have continued so long but for the fact of there being no railway communication completed to Plymouth; but that was now effected, and the electric telegraph at work on the whole line, so that in a very short time Plymouth would be enabled to offer superior advantages to Southampton. He would therefore urge on the Government the consideration of the public interests which would be affected by a great saving by the landing of the mails at Plymouth, and the saving of a long Channel voyage to passengers.

said, that he did not rise to speak as a counsel, but as a witness on this question. He was not about to enter into the question of the circumstances alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wood), and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the tenders made, and the contract that had been entered into. He (Lord Stanley) was a member of the Committee that sat on the subject over which the noble Lord (Viscount Jocelyn) had presided most ably and industriously; and if it was possible to apply the principles of competition under the circumstances, he (Lord Stanley) would have been an advocate for it. But when the Government requires tenders to be made, they must be regulated by two principles—either to accept the lowest tender, apart from all other considerations: or to accept that by which it was thought the service would be most efficiently performed, irrespective of its being the lowest tender. He believed that, in adopting either the one or the other of these principles, it was impossible to act otherwise than to accept the tender of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, which was at once the lowest and the best. There was a saving to the public of about twenty-five per cent; and, with regard to the manner in which the service was performed (which was the cause of his rising to address the House), he believed it was as efficiently performed by the Peninsular and Oriental Company as it could be by any other navigation company now existing. He had heard an objection urged, that the rate of speed of the vessels was not as great as that of other companies. The vessels which made the most rapid passages were Cunard's, but they had only about 3,000 miles to perform, and laid in coals only for each voyage; whereas the Peninsular and Oriental Company's vessels on the Asiatic side, came to Suez from Calcutta, and returned with only one loading of coal, and they were also obliged to supply themselves with stores for the double voyage. Of course vessels so loaded could not be as fast as others which were only loaded for a voyage of 3,000 miles. He did not say the arrangements of the company were perfect; but he could say, having been lately a passenger in their vessels, they were much improved, and that their accommodations were good. He still believed that the public interest would be best served by their being no monopoly, but there was nothing to censure in the Peninsular and Oriental Company in their mode of doing their duty, and he thought it would even be desirable that they should take charge of the line now served by the East India Company's navy from Bombay to Aden.

begged to correct the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), that the steamers only coaled once for the double voyage from Suez to Calcutta. They coaled also at Point de Galle. It had been said that complaints were made of the Peninsular and Oriental Company; but he was able, from information he had received from India, and from the position he had held under the Government, to bear testimony to their punctuality, and to state that, in carrying out the long line between this country and India, they deserved the greatest credit.

had not stated that the vessels coaled at no other place than Calcutta, but that the steamers from Suez to Calcutta took in the greater portion of their coals for the double voyage.

rose to call the attention of the House to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the result of the inquiry made of the law officers of the Crown in respect of the institution of Mr. Bennett, to the vicarage of Frome. He should detain the House but a very few moments, as he had given notice that on Tuesday, the 8th of June, he should move for a Committee of Inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the nomination of Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome; but he should ask the House in the meanwhile to understand the position in which it stood with regard to the law of the case, of which they had already heard something from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had intended to undertake the inquiry, but that they had been stopped in the outset by finding that there was a mode of redress under the ordinary law for parties who had any ground of complaint of which the present complainants had not availed themselves; and he therefore came to the conclusion, and invited the House to come to the conclusion, that while there was this mode of redress open, it would be very improper for the Government to institute an inquiry. It was quite evident that if under such circumstances it was improper for the Govern ment, it would be equally improper for the House of Commons to interfere, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman condemned by anticipation the Motion which he (Mr. Horsman) was about to make. The right hon. Gentleman had made this statement when there was no Motion before the House, and when consequently it was impossible for him (Mr. Horsman) to reply to him. Now, he would call the attention of the House to what was really the law of the case, in order that the inquiry for which he was about to move, might not be prejudiced by the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the law. The inquiry which he wished the House to institute was an inquiry into the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells in instituting Mr. Bennett. The sole point of the inquiry, he repeated, was as to the conduct of the Bishop. That inquiry was undertaken by the Government, and then the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and told them that all the circumstances had been laid before the law advisers of the Crown, and they had found that parties complaining had a mode of redress under the Church Discipline Act. This statement showed that the law advisers of the Crown had answered one point laid before them, but it did not give any answer upon the other point mooted; it showed that there was redress in the case of a clerk offending, but not whether there was redress in the case of a bishop offending. The clerk could be brought before the bishop's court, either in the diocese in which he held preferment, or in that in which the offence was committed. Now supposing there was this mode of address, and supposing this course was taken in the diocese of Bath and Wells, the court would consist of five clergymen nominated by the Bishop, and would be presided over by the Vicar General, the archdeacon, or the rural dean; and the court thus constituted would decide whether there was a primâ facie case for inquiry. Then with regard to the court of the Bishop of London, there was a second Clause in the Church Discipline Act, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not referred. If a complaint were made against a clerk, it must be made within two years of the offence; and Mr. Bennett had left the diocese of London more than one year. But Mr. Bennett was not charged with one particular offence; the great point was, that he had been pronounced by his Bishop to be unfaithful; that his conduct through a course of years had given rise to inconvenience and scandal; and that his continuing in his benefice in the diocese of London was prejudicial to the good order of the Church; that the Bishop had therefore called upon him to resign, and had procured his resignation. The parties complaining, therefore, in the first instance, would have to prove as to the particular offence committed; next, that it had been committed within two years; and there was this further difficulty, that in being called upon to resign his living by the Bishop of London, Mr. Bennett had been so far punished for the offences which he was declared to have committed in that diocese. There was a third point, too, connected with the case, for if the offence complained of had been committed abroad, it could not be brought under the Church Discipline Act at all. It was obvious that, even in the case of an offending clergyman, redress under the Church Discipline Act was purely a nominal one. As long as Mr. Bennett was merely a presentee, it was against him that the parishioners were entitled to complain; but as soon as he was instituted, it was the Bishop against whom the complaint must be preferred; and it was against the Bishop of Bath and Wells that the Motion he had made was directed. The right hon. Gentleman had declined to state whether he had ascertained there was an appeal against the Bishop to the Archbishop, or whether there was any court to which an appeal might be carried; and he had declined also to lay upon the table of the House the opinion of the law advisers. He (Mr. Horsman) was prepared for these answers, and between what the Government told them, and what they had left untold, he had ascertained these facts: that if a bishop chose to institute any presentee to a living, whatever might be his religious opinions, even if he openly and notoriously belonged to another Church—if even Dr. Wiseman himself were to go to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, show that he had been duly presented, and sign the usual documents, there was no law under which redress could be obtained, no court in which it could be obtained, and no penalty which could be inflicted upon the Bishop. This he (Mr. Horsman) believed to be the state of the law. With regard to an offending clergyman, there was only a nominal means of redress, and in the case of a bishop there was no law and no court to give any redress whatever. He did not wish to raise any discussion, or even to ask the Attorney General to assent to any statement of the law which he had just made, because his silence would he quite as eloquent as his admissions could be. He made this statement now because many Gentlemen would be extremely unwilling to entertain any inquiry if they thought a redress was open in law to the complainants. The House was now in the same position as it was upon the day he made the Motion. He (Mr. Horsman) should go fully into the facts of the case when he brought forward his Motion on the 8th of June, and had only made the present explanation in order that the position of the case might be fully understood.

said, that if it had been the intention of the hon. Member to raise no discussion, his best course would have been to abstain from making any observations upon this case. The hon. Gentleman had not confined himself to a mere statement of the law, but had entered into the facts of the case, and had altogether done a great deal to provoke discussion. With regard to the course pursued by the Government, the hon. Gentleman had stated that the Government had promised to inquire into this case, and rather intimated an opinion that they had failed in that pledge. [Mr. HORSMAN: I did not intend to convey any such impression.] That was, at least, the necessary inference from what the hon. Gentleman had said; but it would be found that there had been no breach of faith on the part of the Government. It was absolutely essential that the Government should ascertain whether there was any possibility of instituting the inquiry promised, and that, of course, entirely depended upon the state of the law. In order to arrive at a knowledge of the law, the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown was sought, and that opinion was obtained. It was perfectly impossible for the Government to pledge itself to issue a Commission for the purpose of instituting inquiries into this matter, because any such Commission must have entirely failed of its object. A Commission issued by the Crown was almost powerless; it could not compel the attendance of witnessess, or compulsorily obtain any evidence whatever, and therefore it would be futile to issue such a Commission, which must end in a total failure. As to the law, he was ready to admit that, as far as the hon. Gentleman went, he had stated it correctly. If a bishop instituted a clergyman to whom there was an objection on certain points of doctrine or morals, there was no possibility of questioning that institution. The law seemed to have placed confidence in a bishop, who was entrusted with a discretion on the subject; and if he exercised that discretion improperly, he (the Attorney General) was not aware of any mode in which it could be corrected. If the bishop refused institution to a clergyman, the case was different; the latter had a grievance to complain of, and, as had been seen in a recent case, he could appeal against the decision of the bishop, and if that decision was erroneous, it would be overruled. So it was with regard to the institution of Mr. Bennett. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly correct when he stated that, supposing Mr. Bennett should exhibit unsoundness in doctrine, that would be an ecclesiastical offence, for which he would be amenable under the Church Discipline Act, if the offence were committed within two years. It might be taken cognisance of either on the application of a parishioner, followed by the institution of a commission of inquiry (which was a sort of grand jury to see whether there was any ground for prosecuting the charge), or the bishop of the diocese where the party held preferment, or the bishop of the diocese where the offence was committed, might send the case, by letters of request, before the Ecclesiastical Court. The hon. Gentleman was quite correct in stating that if the offence was committed more than two years ago, or out of this country, there were no means by law of calling a clergyman to account. He thought that under these circumstances the House would be of opinion that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government had pursued the only course open to them. They promised there should be an inquiry, and before it was possible that they could proceed in the manner suggested, it was necessary to ascertain the state of the law. From the law officers they had ascertained that there was no means of proceeding in the way contemplated, and it was therefore quite impossible for them to advise the issue of a Commission, which would certainly be a complete failure, from the want of a means to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence.

said, that he had not the slightest intention to reflect upon the Government. He was extremely obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his declaration of the law, from which it was plain that no other tribunal than Parliament could deal with the case.

said, that he did not profess to have a strong opinion, either for or against Mr. Bennett, who was the party accused or prosecuted in this case. Having listened to the interpellations which had taken place that night and on former occasions, he thought that Her Majesty's Government had fully done their duty with respect to this case, and had not failed in any particular that could reasonably be expected from them. What, then, was the grievance complained of in this case? No law had been infringed, but there was a difference of opinion between portions of certain congregations in this country with regard to particular doctrines, and, in fact, with regard to the Articles of the Church. Now, the real question was whether, if a bishop and the constituted authorities in the Church saw no unsoundness in the doctrine entertained by a clergyman, that House should take part with the minority of the congregation, and set itself up as an authority over those who had been heretofore recognised as the authorities in the Church. Now, he thought that upon consideration the House would see that they were not exactly the tribunal to settle these minute and difficult differences of opinion which had arisen, and the existence of which he regretted. He thought they had much better abstain from the attempt; and he believed that the calmness and steadiness with which the Government had viewed this case, and had limited themselves to their proper sphere, would greatly conduce to the correct understanding of the question.

said, the hon. Member for Cockermouth had, on a former occasion, thrown out a sort of taunt that the Government had not fairly inquired into this matter. Now, he wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman had himself inquired into the statements he had made upon several occasions. Several of those statements—though he (Colonel Knox) did not stand there to defend Mr. Bennett-were, to use a mild phrase, perfectly erroneous, and he knew that the hon. Gentleman was in possession of a letter as to those statements which should have led him long ago to retract them. The statements he referred to were in regard to the conduct of Mr. Bennett at Kissengen and at Venice, and they were made on the substance of a letter from Sir J. Harrington; but he (Colonel Knox) could only say that he knew the substance of the letter, and it did not bear out the statements of the hon. Gentleman. Nothing could be more unfair or unfounded than the hon. Gentleman's representation. The hon. Gentleman said, that while Mr. Bennett was at Kissengen he never went to the Protestant church, but always to the Roman Catholic, when it was a notorious fact that that gentleman was labouring under a severe indisposition, and drinking the waters of Kissengen; and, as many hon. Gentlemen knew, those who were in the habit of drinking the waters went at seven o'clock in the morning for the purpose, and the fact of Mr. Bennett being seen walking out at that time was very much relied on by the hon. Gentleman. The substance of the accusation was the letter to which he had referred; and because the writer had neither denied nor affirmed the question put to him, it was taken for granted to be true, and was a contemptible attempt to cry down Mr. Bennett in Frome. Again, the. hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Bennett was absent from England for a year: at the time he (Colonel Knox) said "No" to that, because he knew, for a fact, that Mr. Bennett left England on the 14th of June, and returned early in November; and, as to his conduct at Venice, he (Colonel Knox) happened to be in Venice at the time, and he totally denied the allegation of Mr. Bennett's never having entered the Protestant church during the time he was abroad. He could prove the fact that Mr. Bennett attended the Protestant church during the whole time he was in Rome. Mr. Bennett was the pastor of his (Colonel Knox's) parish, and he would not allow those statements to go uncontradicted. The hon. Gentleman had so repeatedly persecuted Mr. Bennett, that he could not allow those statements to go forth without contradiction.

said, that he had never made any statement whatever on the authority of a letter from Sir John Harrington, of which he knew nothing; nor did he know that Mr. Bennett had been at Venice. He said that he had been absent from England during 1851, and not that he had been absent during the whole of that year.

said, it had been stated that Parliament was not a proper tribunal for the discussion of these questions. He (Sir B. Hall) would there- fore ask the hon. Gentleman what was the proper place? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that the Ecclesiastical Court was the proper place; and as the parishioners of Frome had been desired by Her Majesty's Government to resort to that tribunal for redress, he thought it right that the House should know what was the state of that Court in the diocese of Wells, to which these unfortunate people must go. It consisted of a Judge, a registrar, and proctors. Now, the Judge was formerly an officer in the Grenadier Guards. He was a nephew of the late Bishop Law, and after that bishop was appointed he sold his commission, became a clergyman, was appointed to a valuable preferment, was made a prebendary and chancellor of the diocese, and in the latter capacity was Judge of this Ecclesiastical Court, though he no doubt knew no more of ecclesiastical law than the drummer in his hon. and gallant Friend's (Colonel Knox's) regiment. And yet he was put there to decide on those difficult and delicate points which came before Eccclesiastical Courts, and of which no Courts had more. He could not, and never could, perform the duties of his office, but he took his salary and fees; he therefore appointed as deputy Judge one of the minor canons, who performed the duties of the office for the miserable stipend of 20l. per annum. The name of this deputy Judge, he would beg the House to recollect, was the Rev. Peter Parfitt, and he begged the House would bear this in mind, as it was necessary to show the chain of events. The next officer of the Court was the registrar. His duties were important. He was bound to place in his Court a table of the fees ordered by the Canons of Canterbury, which were to be taken by the proctors practising in the Court, whose bills of costs he was bound to tax. The registrar was the son of a former Judge of the Court, and the grandson of a former bishop of the diocese; and he was appointed to transact all these duties when he was a child of five years of age, and from that time to the present moment, so far as he (Sir B. Hall) was informed, he had never acted as registrar; but of course he also received his stipend, and he actually—to use the expression which was given in evidence—let his Court out to farm. He received 400l. a year, paid quarterly. He appoints a deputy registrar. This deputy registrar is Mr. Edward Parfitt, who, not content with taking the registrar's fees, takes deputy regis- trar's fees as well; which makes up an in-come of 815l. a year more for himself. Bid he hang up a table of fees in the office? Not at all. He never even heard of the Canons of Canterbury, which enjoined them. This was the Court to which the unfortunate parishioners of Frome must go, because they had a complaint against their minister. Being pressed by the Committee, if he compounded with the registrar, he said, "I farm the Bishop's Courts with him. I pay him 400l. a year, and that is the truth." It appeared that the deputy registrar practised in twenty-five other Courts, many of which also he farmed. Amongst them was a Decanal Court; and if a suitor entered it and asked for the registrar of that Court, he was introduced to a young lady. She was the daughter of the dean. She was appointed when five years of age. Mr. Parfitt paid her a annuity, and was deputy to this female registrar. So the judge was a sinecurist. The registrar was a sinecurist. The deputy registrar practised as a proctor, his father being the deputy judge, charged fees, and taxed his own costs. He (Sir B. Hall) was bound to tell the House there had been some change since last year. The Judge, who was a nephew of the late bishop, had turned Roman Catholic, and was obliged to give up the judgeship, and the present bishop had appointed his own son to be Judge of the Court. This son lived at Castlerising, in Norfolk, of which parish he was incumbent. The Court was at Wells; he was non-resident, and he probably appointed the same Rev. Peter Parfitt as his deputy, to preside over the Court, when all these difficult questions were to be decided. Was it not a farce, that living in the latter part of the nineteenth century, there should be a tribunal which, he would undertake to say, would be considered a disgrace by any thinking person in any civilised nation? Hon. Gentlemen said, go anywhere, but don't come to Parliament. He said Parliament was the proper tribunal to inquire into the conduct of these dignitaries of the Church who would allow such abuses as these to exist, and he trusted what he had said here might be dwelt upon—might enter into men's minds—so that these degrading instances of episcopal nepotism practised in our Church, and' in these Ecclesiastical Courts, might no longer be the infamy they were at present, and that no Minister of the Crown might tell parishioners who felt aggrieved at the practices of their Puseyite clergyman to seek redress of their grievances in the debased Courts of their still more Puseyite bishops.

said, the statement which he had made, that the aggrieved parishioners should have recourse to the proper authority, did not in any way apply to the Ecclesiastical Courts; it applied to the tribunal provided by the Church Discipline Act—a tribunal easy of access, expeditious for appeal, and the expenses of which were adapted to the spirit of the age. The hon. Baronet, therefore, might really have treated of the courts of India with as much propriety, as far as the people of Frome were concerned, as of the ecclesiastical court of Wells. The hon. Baronet had dilated on the enormity of a Minister of the Crown recommending the parishioners to appeal to the Ecclesiastical Court. That advice was never given. The statement he made was, that the mode of redress was provided by the Church Discipline Act—an excellent Act—adapted entirely to the requirements of the age, and by which expeditious and inexpensive redress would he afforded. And he must express—

rose to order, if the right hon. Gentleman in giving an explanation was going to comment on anything he had said.

was sure it could not be the wish of the House that Member after Member should make an attack upon a particular Member of the Government, and comment upon a statement he had made, without allowing that Member to say one word in reply. He had risen to explain. He had thrown himself, as he had frequently done that evening, upon the indulgence of the House—his irregular interference being consequent upon the anomalous position in which he was placed. He rose to justify himself against attacks which he must say, had been personal; and the remark he was about to make when interrupted by the hon. Baronet was, that as the hon. Member for Cockermouth had been so fortunate as to secure an early day for the discussion of the question of Mr. Bennett's institution, it could not be necessary that the House should be trapped into a general discussion now.

explained, that he should not have made the statement he had done, if he had not previously acquainted the right hon. Gentleman that he intended, when the notice of the hon. Member for Cockermouth was discussed, to call the attention of the House to the state of the Ecclesiastical court of Wells.

thought the hon. Baronet had taken a course hardly fair. The hon. Baronet had given a pungent and salient account of the ecclesiastical court of Wells. He (Mr. Henley) happened to have been a Member of the Committee from the evidence given before which the hon. Baronet had drawn his statements, and certainly he had not coloured the picture more vividly than it deserved to be painted. But the hon. Baronet, in drawing this strongly coloured but true picture, wished to make the House and the country believe that that was the court to which any party who chose to proceed against Mr. Bennett must go. That was unworthy of the hon. Baronet, because he knew that in a case of that sort, especially in a case in which the Bishop's conduct might by chance be involved, the case would be certain to be sent by a form well understood to the provincial Court of Arches.

in justice to Mr. Bennett, who, he was proud to say, was a friend of his, and whom he honoured as one of the best men living, thought it right to state that that rev. gentleman had already been judged by the parishioners of Frome. He held in his hand a memorial in the course of signature, and which had already been signed by 1,039 of his congregation, in which they expressed their sympathy for him, and their deep regret at the uncourte ous and unkind treatment he had experienced. They also expressed their admiration and respect for the Christian spirit and forbearance which had characterised his conduct, and their confidence in his sound doctrine and faithful discharge of his duties during the calumnies and falsehoods of which he had been the subject; and they added, that the crowded state of his parish church, and the increased number of communicants, afforded the best proof that he had not been thrust on an unwilling congregation. He (Mr. Yorke) trusted that, after such a memorial as that, the House would be relieved from discussions which partook somewhat of the character of persecution.

moved the insertion of a Proviso to the second clause, the object of which was to except the tithings of Huish juxta Highbridge and Worston from the operation of the Act. The place was a rural and secluded hamlet, which was separated from Burnham, and had no connexion whatever with it. It was in a separate hundred, and in a separate tithing; and was, he suspected, one of those instances of compulsion upon small places which he had always been afraid would be resorted to in order to help larger places to bear the burden of this Act. In this case, however, it could not be alleged that this hamlet could gain the slightest advantage by an union with Burnham; and he trusted that the House would consent to the Proviso, which would exempt the rural hamlet he had described from a very great hardship.

hoped the House would not accede to the Amendment, as the Bill as it now stood had been approved of by the Board, and if any difficulty of this sort arose, a suitable remedy was provided by law. An inspector, who was sent down, had recommended at first that an area of greater extent should be included in the Bill. Memorials were sent in opposition to this recommendation, and another inspector was sent down, who reduced the area to that now included in the Bill. No other memorial had been presented objecting to this limited area. He (Mr. Hayter) had presented a petition of 120 persons, presenting 120,000l. worth of property, in favour of the Bill as it was now introduced. Two petitions, signed by six persons, had been presented by his hon. Friend (Mr. Miles) upon a matter entirely distinct from this Proviso. If the present area were limited, the sanitary purposes of the Bill could not be effected. He trusted the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) would not agree to the proviso.

said, that a memorial was presented to the Government last Session, and he had presented five petitions for the exclusion of this area.

hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Miles) would not press his Proviso, as he was convinced that if it were agreed to, Burnham might as well be struck out of the Bill.

said, he must oppose the Motion on account of the lateness of the hour. He would move that the House do now adjourn. If that were deprecated, he would address himself to the principle of the Bill; and he thought it necessary to warn the House that in that case he would probably occupy about two hours.

said, this was a most cruel infliction on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The case was as simple as possible. The Bill involved no principle of importance. It was deemed desirable to form a new bishopric in New Zealand, and for that purpose the bishop had surrendred a portion of his See. Doubts were entertained by the Law Officers of the Crown as to the technical legality of that proceeding; and to remove those doubts, and sanction the arrangement, were the sole objects of the Bill. The case was, therefore, as simple as possible, and so far from the hon. and learned Gentleman occupying the House two hours, he was satisfied that with all his ingenuity and all his ability to occupy the time of the House, it would not be possible for him to occupy ten minutes if he confined himself to the facts of the case.

said, that the ground of his objection was, that this Bill was the same in principle as the Colonial Bishops Bill. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had last night admitted that it was so.

denied that he had done so. What he had said was, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had really an objection to its principle, he would not bring it on at one o'clock in the morning.

I rise to order. I allowed the right hon. Gentleman to explain, but as he has courted debate he shall now have it.

said, he was only anxious to save time.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misapprehended the ground of his opposition to this Bill. It was called a Bill—

"To remove doubts as to the constitution of the Bishopric of Christchurch in New Zealand, and to enable Her Majesty to constitute such bishopric, and to enable Her Majesty further to subdivide the Diocese of New Zealand."

Whether this simple statement warranted the interpretation of the objects of the Bill which had been given by the hon. and learned Attorney General, he left the House to judge. The object of the Bill was neither more nor less than to destroy the common law equality of all sects and denominations which at present existed in New Zealand, and to lay the foundation of the supremacy of the Church of England. He denied the premises upon which the Bill proceeded. He maintained that there was at present no Bishopric of Christchurch, New Zealand; that there was no Bishop of New Zealand; and that the Queen had no ecclesiastical supremacy in that Colony; but if this Bill were passed, it would enable Her Majesty to do that which neither by Common Law nor Act of Parliament She was entitled to do at present, namely, to extend Her ecclesiastical supremacy over the Colony of New Zealand. Now, he wished to prevent Her Majesty from doing that; or, rather he wished to prevent certain learned, grave, and right rev. persons from doing it in Her name. The Queen had no more power, without an Act of Parliament, to set up bishoprics in New Zealand than the Pope had. He objected to the preamble of the Bill, which recognised the Bishop of New Zealand, describing him as appointed by the Crown, and the Colony as constituted into a diocese by the Queen's Letters Patent. He objected to the recital that doubts were entertained as to the validity of the instrument whereby the bishop resigned part of his See, and as to the power of the Crown to erect the surrendered portion into a new See; the power that made could unmake. Letters Patent of the Crown could be repealed or altered by Letters Patent of the Crown. The Bill went on to provide that, notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the instrument should be deemed valid, and it should be lawful for Her Majesty to erect the new See. This was an unworthy attempt to repeal the free Common Law of New Zealand. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

moved that the Debate be adjourned.

seconded the Motion. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey) had occupied for some length the time of the House; and it did not seem fair that Mr. Speaker should be kept in the chair longer.

said, he understood that in the absence of himself and his friends the adjourned debate on Maynooth College, which stood No. 28 on the paper, had been disposed of, the last order, therefore, having been taken before the other orders. He could scarcely believe that such an advantage had been taken of the absence of the Irish Members. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was above such a trick, would say whether that was the case or not. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would repudiate such a device.

replied that this matter had been disposed of in the order stated—not, however, by the act of the Government; the hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Hindley), with whom he had no political connexion, suggested early in the evening that the debate be postponed, and it was adjourned till Friday morning.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman meant seriously to say that such was the case? [A laugh.] It might be matter of laughter to some Gentlemen opposite; but it was not so to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who knew what was due to his own position better than they did. This was a Government night, the orders were Government orders, and this was a Government business. He was surprised that, when a number of Members had shown themselves interested in the subject, advantage should be taken of their absence to take the business of the House out of its order, and that, having regard to the common rules of courtesy between Gentlemen which were established in that House, hon. Gentlemen should play—he really was ashamed to characterise their conduct in the only way in which he could—really a sort of "thimblerig"—an expression which he was justified in using by the example of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He never knew a system more shameful, disgusting, and pettifogging. The moment he and his friends left the House, somebody was sent over to this side of the House—["No, no!"from the Ministerial benches.] Well, they did not send him over; but the right hon. Gentleman said the hon. Member who spoke from this side was a person with whom he had no connexion whatsoever. The Government had perfect control over the paper. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he (Mr. Keogh) and his friends had no more connexion with persons on this side of the House, than with hon. Gentlemen opposite. A more shabby and mean advantage had never been taken.

said, that it was quite a mistake to suppose that the Orders of the Day were Government orders. A certain number of orders had precedence; but it was open to every hon. Gentleman to add any order in which he was interested to the Government list. The Bishopric of Christchurch Bill, which they had been discussing, was an Order of the Day put on the list by a private Member; and the Pharmacy Bill was another example. The Motion on Maynooth was not a Government measure, and was not put on the paper by them. Early in the evening a question had been put on the subject of the adjourned debate, when he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) mentioned that they proposed to take it on Friday next. No opposition was made to that proposal by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

did not regret that the Government had now shown their colours. He saw they were determined to do everything hostile to the interests of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland; and he would tell them that they had earned for themselves an amount of hostility for which they were not prepared.

observed, that whatever the opinion of hon. Members with respect to the Government and their conduct, it ought to be understood, in fairness to the Government, that there was not a shadow of foundation for the charge made. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the Government did not take the Order out of its course, and had nothing to do with the proposition which was made. The hon. Member who made it made it of his own accord, without communication with the Government; and so far as the Government were concerned, they did not wish to preclude hon. Gentlemen from having the fair opportunity they ought to have of discussing the question. He went away for a few minutes to take some refreshment, under the impression that hon. Members and the House were satisfied with the arrangement that the debate was to come on upon Friday next.

had put a question to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, early in the evening, whether he had made an arrangement with the Government for bringing on the debate. The answer was, that he had had no communication with the Government upon the subject; it must depend upon what took place when the debate should come on in the course of that night. That was stated in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said that all the Orders of the Day were not Government orders, but he found that down to No. 20 they were Government Bills; and yet they permitted No. 28 to be taken out of its order, notwithstanding it was fixed that the debate on that Motion was not to come on till all the other Orders of the Day had been disposed of.

begged to move the adjournment of the House, as it was perfectly absurd to proceed further with business at that hour. He felt certain, from the explanation that had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that he had had nothing to do with the shabby trick that had been played upon the Irish Members; but the whole proceeding was unworthy of Her Majesty's Government, and would certainly not meet with the approval of English gentlemen.

was sure that nothing like a trick was intended by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but if such a practice as that which had been adopted was to be sanctioned, a number of measures might be put down, from which any one might be selected and passed in the absence of parties interested in opposing it. He came down with the intention of moving that the debate be adjourned till the 12th of June, feeling convinced that it could be as usefully discussed then as on Friday next, because he was quite convinced that no division would be taken on that day.

wished that there should be a fair understanding as to the mode of conducting the public business of the House. Nothing would induce him to sanction any course which he did not think perfectly fair to hon. Gentlemen, on whatever side of the House they might sit. But both the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken were labouring under a complete mistake. It was not possible to take any order out of the arrangement in the paper, except for the purpose of postponing it; and it was the undoubted privilege of any Member to more that any Order of the Day in which he was interested should be postponed, and which was a Motion no Minister could prevent OF resist. There never was the slightest communication with the Government upon the subject.

thought there must be some exceptions to that rule. Suppose he had risen early in the evening and moved the New Zealand Bi- shops Bill, would he not have been told that such a course was opposed to the practice of the House?

said, afterwards, with respect to the adjourned debate of Maynooth, if it would better suit the convenience of hon. Members, he would endeavour to fix it for Tuesday instead of Friday.

was quite willing to leave the matter to be settled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the originator of the Motion.

did not wish the House to separate for the holydays under a false impression. He had every wish to accommodate hon. Members with regard to the discussion on the Maynooth question; and when they reassembled he should have no objection to postpone that debate to such further day as might be most convenient to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It might be fixed for, say, Tuesday.

would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to adjourn the subject sine die. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to know, that whenever the debate might take place, there would be no division upon the Motion. In a medical point of view, hon. Members were destroying their health by this useless discussion.

suggested Tuesday week for the resumption of the debate, if that would meet general convenience.