said, he would take that opportunity of putting to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) the question of which he had given notice, with respect to a decree which had been issued by the Spanish Government on the 17th of November last, by which it was provided that foreigners, either domiciliated in Spain, or travelling through that country, should profess no other religion there except the "Catholic Apostolic and Roman," or, in other words, except the religion of the Church of Rome. If that decree had re- lated to the subjects of Spain only, he should be ready to admit that it was not a fair subject for discussion in that House, He could not deny that, whether the King of Dahomey, for instance, had an army of men or of women, and whether he might put 6,000 of them to death at one moment—although they were matters which, as Christians, they might deplore, and, as men of ordinary humanity, they might wish to see altered—yet they would not justify a war on the part of this country for the purpose of obtaining a violent suppression of such barbarities. But when a decree had been passed which would apply to any Member of that House travelling in Spain, as much as to the subjects of the Queen of Spain, he thought it was due, not merely to their common character as Protestants or as men, but as interested in the general intercourse of social life throughout Europe, that such an interdiction should not be applied in one of the great continental nations in the year 1852 to any Englishman professing what he believed to be the true religion. Let it be recollected that that was not an interdiction to hold public meetings or to preach in the streets: there were municipal laws in England itself which prevented any person, without a licence, from preaching or opening a conventicle. With that he had nothing to do; but he would read to them the language of the decree to which he was referring, and then he would ask them whether it did not distinctly prohibit the profession of any religion in Spain, whether by native or by foreigner, except the religion of the Church of Rome. He held in his hand the Gazette of Madrid of the 25th of November last, which contained the decree bearing date the 17th of November. He was then referring particularly to the 25th article of the 3rd chapter, which stated, in reference to the civil condition of strangers domiciliated or travelling in Spain, that "No such strangers shall profess in Spain any other religion than the Catholic Apostolic Roman." Now, he asked his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, whether it was consistent with their duty as Members of that House, or with his duty while he had the control of the intercourse between his Sovereign and Foreign Powers, to permit such a decree to pass by unnoticed in Parliament, or without any representation to the Government by which it had been issued? When he had first called the attention of the House to that subject, the case had been considered utterly unreasonable and incredible; but his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), at that time the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had told him that although he could not believe the statement, he would write to Spain to inquire about it. The evidence upon which he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had first asked the attention of his noble Friend to the case, had been to himself so conclusive that it had left no doubt upon his mind. His noble Friend had written to Spain according to his promise, and he (Sir R. H. Inglis) understood that the noble Lord at present at the head of the Foreign Office had since received some information upon the subject. He wished distinctly to ask him whether any such information had recently reached him; and whether, if it had, it was his intention to lay it before the House; and further, whether he had, in the name of the Queen of this Protestant country, taken any means to prevent the probable wrong which such a decree was calculated to inflict upon Her Majesty's Protestant subjects? Let him not be told that that was a mere paper decree. It might not be for the moment convenient for the Court of Spain to put in force such a decree against the subjects of such an ally as the Queen of England; but if it were to remain unrepealed, he would venture to say that the time might not be very distant when the Government of Spain might think it desirable to carry it into effect, and to seize a Protestant traveller in Spain, not because he was preaching in the street, or opening a conventicle contrary to law, but because he was assembling his own family for Protestant worship. In conclusion, he had to ask his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he could lay before them any information upon the subject?

said, that, before his noble Friend answered that question, he wished to ask another question which had an incidental relation to this subject. It had been stated not long ago by our Foreign Minister at the time, that, after sundry negociations with the Spanish Government, permission had been given at last to open a Protestant burial-ground near the city of Madrid. But he (Mr. M. Milnes) had reason to believe that that permission had been limited by a provision to the effect that no religious ceremony whatever should be performed over the grave of the person interred in such ground. Now, it appeared to him that this condition was altogether derogatory to the position of this Protestant country; and he would ask his noble Friend whether, if that provision still continued in force, he would be prepared to instruct the British Minister at Madrid to reopen that question, with a view to procure the removal of that disgraceful prohibition?

said, that, with respect to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, he had to state that it was certainly quite true that by the 25th article of the law to which he had referred, it was declared that no foreigner could profess in Spain any other religion than the "Catholic Apostolic Roman" religion. The noble Lord who preceded him at the Foreign Office had asked for an explanation of that decree; and he held in his hand the answer which Lord Howden had given to the despatch in which that explanation had been demanded. Lord Howden, after stating that he understood the question to be, whether it was intended by the decree to deprive foreigners, whether domiciliated or travelling in Spain, of any right or privilege, in regard to matters of religion, which they had previously been permitted to enjoy, said that he had put that question verbally to the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that the answer he had received was, that "the contents of the said article did not in the slightest degree change the practice hitherto observed, nor could any alteration be introduced thereby in what had previously obtained with regard to the point to which the said article had referred." There were one or two more despatches relating to the subject, but that was the information given upon the point to which his hon. Friend had specially referred. If his hon. Friend wished that the despatches upon the subject should be laid before the House, he (Lord J. Russell) could have no objection to comply with that wish. With regard to the question which had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract relative to a Protestant burial-ground at Madrid, he had to state that some correspondence had lately taken place upon that subject. A spot of ground had been offered for a Protestant cemetery by the Spanish Government, but there were some objections made to that particular spot. There had, however, been no question, he believed, lately with reference to the performance of religious ceremonies at the interments of Protestants. He had not been aware that a question would have been put to him upon that subject; but he should say he thought there was no correspondence which could be laid before the House with respect to it. He believed that no objection had been made by the Spanish Government upon the point, except an objection to the erection of a chapel.

thanked the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for his promise to produce the papers for which he had asked, and trusted that they would be laid on the table at as early a period as possible.

wished to put a question with reference to the very distressing mortality which, according to the accounts recently received, had taken place on board four vessels chartered by the Emigration Commissioners to convey emigrants from Liverpool to Melbourne. In one of those vessels, which made an unusually favourable passage in point of time, the voyage having occupied only sixty-four days, no less than 104 persons perished, and the remainder on reaching Melbourne were in a state of great prostration from sickness. The question which he wished to ask was, whether the Government had caused inquiry to be made into the mortality which, according to the recent accounts from Australia, took place on board four vessels chartered by the Emigration Commissioners to convey emigrants between ports of Liverpool and Melbourne?

said, the Government had received an account of the great mortality which had occurred on board the vessels to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded. He believed that upwards of 104 deaths had occurred on board one vessel, and that on her arrival in the harbour at Melbourne no less than 300 persons were labouring under sickness arising from one cause or another. No doubt a great mortality had occurred on board all the four vessels. They were vessels of unusual size, and carried more than the ordinary number of passengers, having two decks prepared for their accommodation. Up to that time it had never been the practice of the Emigration Board to put passengers on board vessels with more than a single deck; but the state of the shipping interest at the period the vessels were taken up rendered the engagement entered into unavoidable. He understood when the vessels were engaged by the Emigration Commissioners, that no other vessels were tendered for that purpose. On board the three other vessels he found, from the information which had been received, that no less than 175 deaths had occurred; but of that number 163 were the deaths of children—an unusual number of children in proportion to the number of adults having been sent out by these vessels. That arose from the relaxation of the regulation of the Emigration Commissioners, made in compliance with the urgent representations of parties connected with the colony, and interested in agricultural and other pursuits. But immediately on the receipt of the information by the Emigration Commissioners of this deplorable loss of life, they issued instructions that for the future no vessels with move than a single deck should be engaged by their agents; and they had refused to take out at the expense of the colony families having more than two children under seven years of age, or three under ten years of age. He believed these regulations would prevent the recurrence of such deplorable events for the future. The communication which had been received from Melbourne had been referred to the Emigration Board, with directions to report thereon. That report had been received, and there would be no objection to lay all the papers connected with the subject on the table of the House.

wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department (Viscount Palmerston) to the disgraceful state of the graveyards in the metropolis—a state which was most shameful, and most injurious to the public health, and which rendered the largest thoroughfares dangerous. He wished now to refer more particularly to that of St. Clement Danes, in the Strand. Great complaints had been made of the state of that churchyard, and many persons had been attacked by serious diseases in consequence of passing along that part of the Strand. One gentleman, who happened to be passing at the time of a funeral, was struck with a most virulent disease, which assumed an appearance very like the plague, swellings having arisen under each arm, and he remained for a considerable time in a state of great danger. Many medical men of eminence considered it dangerous for persons to pass along the streets, and were of opin- ion that many deaths had taken place from that cause. He had been assured by one medical man that putrid flesh and blood had sometimes been thrown up by the gravedigger when exercising his functions in that churchyard. He wished to ask his noble Friend whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to this matter, and whether the noble Lord would not exercise the authority given him by the Act of Parliament, in order to put a stop to the practices to which he had referred?

said, the particular case to which the noble Lord had alluded, was brought under his notice a few days ago, by a deputation from the parish to which that graveyard belonged; and the result was, that a meeting of the vestry was held, and an application was made to him for an Order in Council to shut up that graveyard, and that Order would as soon as possible be passed. He considered the state of the graveyards in this metropolis, generally speaking, a disgrace to a civilised community, and he trusted that the authorities of the parishes with whom it rested to take steps to correct so dreadful an evil, would not be deterred by any consideration of local expense from taking those precautions which would have the effect of removing from the metropolis a source of pestilence which might be attended with the most disastrous results, should it be the will of Providence that any outbreak of the cholera, which was raging in some parts of the Continent, should occur in the metropolis. He could assure the House that the attention of the Government would be anxiously directed to the subject to which the noble Lord had drawn their attention.

wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) a question of which he had given notice. In a printed paper, purporting to be a report of a speech delivered by Mr. Sadleir, one of the Lords of the Treasury, at the recent election for Carlow, it was stated that "the noble Lord had proffered a political refutation of the course which he had taken with respect to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which that distinguished nobleman had had the manliness to proffer." He wished to ask whether the noble Lord had proffered such a refutation of the principles of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill? On the same authority, Mr. Sadleir was likewise reported to have said that "the principle of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill had been deliberately and openly abandoned." He wished to ask the noble Lord whether that statement was correct—whether that principle had been abandoned? And he should also be glad if the noble Lord would kindly state whether he still retained the opinion that the aggression of the Pope, which induced the Government to bring forward the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, was "insolent and insidious," and fully justified that measure.

said, that on reading the report in the newspapers, he did not consider it necessary to ask Mr. Sadleir for any explanation, thinking that a statement so obviously incorrect could not have been made by that Gentleman. However, Mr. Sadleir had yesterday voluntarily informed him that the report was entirely inaccurate, and that certain words had been attributed to him by the Tory journals which he had never used. Mr. Sadleir went on to state that what he did say was in effect that the composition of the Government gave the Irish people a guarantee that the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill would not be made use of to infringe the religious liberties of the Roman Catholic people—that the acceptance of office by Lord John Russell, in conjunction with those who had opposed the principle of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, ought to be regarded as a refutation of a false charge that he would use the Act to the injury of the Catholics of the United Kingdom. This was the statement of what Mr. Sadleir did say, and it was a statement of which he (Lord John Russell) had no reason to complain. He ought, however, to say that it was never intended, nor would it have been permitted, while Lord Clarendon was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Sir George Grey was Home Secretary, and he and his Colleagues in the Cabinet held office, that the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill should have been used against the religious liberties of the Roman Catholics. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask whether he still thought that the aggression of the Pope, which induced him to bring forward the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, was "insolent and insidious," and fully justified the introduction of that measure? He certainly thought the hon. Gentleman had taken a very considerable latitude in his inquiries, when he proposed a question with respect to his thoughts. But as the hon. Gentleman was so curious on the sub- ject, he would take the opportunity of stating that he still thought the same as he did two years ago.

wished to know whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to a statement made by Mr. Everett, expressive of the sympathy of the United States with the Madiai, and also stating that a vessel should be provided to convey them to that country. If the noble Lord was in possession of such a document, he wished to know whether it would be laid on the table, together with any papers or extracts of correspondence relating to the case of the Madiai.

was unable to answer the first question without referring to the documents in the Foreign Office; but had no objection to lay on the table the extracts of correspondence referred to by the hon. Member.

wished to know whether the obstacles which had arisen with regard to the completion of the constitution of the Cape of Good Hope—those relating to the franchise and the separation of the two Provinces—had been removed, and whether there was any prospect of the speedy completion of that constitution according to the letters patent of 1850? Also, whether the Government had any intention of forming a convict settlement in any part of South Africa? And whether the movement of the troops upon the territory of the Basuter was likely to lead to a prolongation of hostilities, or promised a speedy and permanent establishment of the British authority over the Orange River Sovereignty?

, with reference to the first question, said that the nature of the franchise, and all the other details to be decided upon before the introduction of a new form of legislature, were at present under the consideration of the Government, and he had reason to believe that the matter was now in such a state of forwardness that it would admit of the constitutional ordinance being sent out to the colony by the mail of next month. It answer to the second question, he had to state that the Government had no intention of establishing a convict settlement in any part of South Africa. With regard to the third question, General Cathcart had advanced with a body of 2,000 troops to the Orange River territory, but there was no indication that the presence of the troops was likely to lead to a hostile collision; and he had not gone into that Sovereignty in pursuance of any decision of the Government of this country in connexion with the Sovereignty of that part of South Africa.

wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) whether, in the present state of Turkey, he intended any longer to leave this country unrepresented at Constantinople, or whether he intended to send out Lord Stratford, or some other individual?

replied that he had seen Lord Stratford de Redcliffe that day on the subject, that he had had several previous communications with the noble Lord on the affairs in Turkey, and that it was now arranged that he should go out almost immediately to resume his functions as British Ambassador at the Porte.