said, the House had now arrived at the point from which the discussion of this question had been broken off on a previous day. Since then circumstances had occurred of a grave character—the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) had deferred his Motion in order that the House might have in their hands the Report of the Committee on Public Business. It was important to have the opinion of that Committee, because the state of the notice paper, with six or seven notices of Amendment or adjournment, proved that the opposition to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hertford by certain Irish Members had assumed a phase of procrastination and delay, by which it was competent to a minority of the House, if they chose to abuse and pervert the forms of the House, to bar the progress of the majority on inquiry into any subject, and to render inquiry by a Select Committee impossible. It was clear from recent circumstances connected with the subject before the House and analogous subjects, that it was in the power of the minority to coerce and render inoperative the action of the majority. Those, therefore, who were anxious for this inquiry, looked with anxiety for the Report of the Committee which had been appointed to consider the business of the House, thinking it impossible that the Committee should not notice the strange proceedings that had characterised the treatment of the subject of these conventual and monastic institutions in two Sessions, and in two Parliaments. That Committee had had the ablest advice; it had examined the Chairman of the Committee of the whole House, and the officers of the House of Commons, and it had had the advice of Mr. Speaker as to the changes which were deemed expedient. The witnesses, including Mr. Speaker, were unanimous. Evidence was given that some change was necessary in the first place as to the power of individual Members moving the adjournment of debates or of the House, and raising almost interminable discussions upon these Motions for the purpose of delay, and a change was also suggested as to the manner in which Select Committees were appointed. The witnesses were unanimous in recommending the appointment of a Committee of Selection, representing within itself the various parties and opinions prevalent in the House, whose functions it should be to nominate Select Committees, of from eleven to fifteen members, to consider and examine any subjects referred to them by the House, and that such nomination should be final. The Committee further recommended that the House should have by its majority the power of terminating factious debates, raised for the purpose of mere delay, and to defeat the action of the majority, by measures equivalent to the "clôture," which had been adopted by the French Assembly, or the call for a division upon the previous question, without debate, as adopted by the Senate and Assembly of the United States. To his surprise and regret, although certain recommendations of this character were embodied in the draft of the Report, proposed by the Chairman of the Committee (Sir John Pakington), they were rejected by the Committee, which confined its recommendations to some minor matters of detail. They recommended no change which would relieve the House from being at the mercy of a minority. Now, as the Committee had recommended no change, he conceived that it was not possible for the hon. Member for Hertford to proceed with his Motion for an inquiry into the state and relations of these monastic and conventual establishments, more especially as it had been proved that those for whose satisfaction the inquiry was instituted were the most determined opponents of all inquiry. How could the hon. Member hope to satisfy those who were determined not to tolerate inquiry? He, therefore, recommended the hon. Member to change his mode of proceeding. ["Hear, hear," and cheers.] He was far from participating in the feeling which dictated that cheer, for he regretted anything that was likely to bring the proceedings of that House into contempt. He was convinced of this, that if the majority of the House were to continue struggling against the power of a minority exercised by abuse of its own forms, without altering its forms and freeing its action, it would be subjecting itself to inconveniences and to aspersions which would be most detrimental to the character and authority of the House, and to the stability of the institutions of the country. He thought the hon. Member for Hertford would be doing his duty, not only to the subject, but to the House, by relieving it from a position so anomalous as that in which it now stood—paralysed, as it was, by the action of the minority. Let the House consider how they would stand if the minority chose to press its privileges with regard to every one of the fifteen or sixteen names composing the Committee, by getting up a debate on every name. They would have fifteen or sixteen subjects of debate, they would have the merits or demerits of every one of the Members whose names were proposed to form the Committee to inquire into the Conventual and Monastic Institutions discussed with all the acrimony and personality which Irish eloquence could impart. Before the present organisation of the Irish Roman Catholic Members—before the action of the Court of Rome was brought to bear directly upon their conduct in 1850, their conduct had been other than it now was. Since then the House had to lament a totally different system of action on the part of the Roman Catholic Members. Formerly the good feeling of the House was always sufficient to restrain the abuse of this privilege, which the organisation of the Irish Roman Catholic Members now encouraged them to practise. He regretted to see this different state of things—he regretted to see this organised system, alien to the House—he regretted that a band of Members returned to that House, nominally by their constituents, but really by the priesthood, and that priesthood the agents of a foreign Power, were united to defeat the action of the House by the abuse of its forms. Sooner or later the House would find it necessary to adapt their forms to the change of circumstances which this change in its own elements necessitated. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Hertford would change his mode of action; he trusted that he would embody his proposed legislation in a Bill, and bring it before the House, because, then, at least, they would have some chance of limiting the debate to the subject under consideration. As matters were proceeding at present, they had nothing but discursive debates, and he might say Irish rows, which were irritating to the House, arid disgusting to the country. The real question was, whether the House would permit itself to be dictated to by a minority, acting under an alien influence, for there could be no fairer or more legitimate subject of inquiry than that now before the House, in favour of which the majority of the House had over and over again recorded its decision. There was an attempt to increase these conventual establishments most enormously, and to exempt them from the operation of the law of England. At present monastic institutions were entirely illegal, but by neglect and carelessness on the part of the law officers of the Crown, if not by their connivance, these illegal establishments were increasing in defiance of the law. With regard to conventual establishments the case was in some degree different. They were per- mitted by the Act of 1829, but he did not think that the framers of that Act ever contemplated that such an increase of them as was now witnessed would take place; they probably calculated on not much, if any, more than the continuance of those then in existence. They had been deceived. All who had read the history of other countries and the history of the Church of Rome for centuries, knew that when these establishments increased, some supervision by the civil magistrate was necessary, and therefore they desired to cast round their fellow-subjects immured in them the protection of the law of England. There was reason to believe that the law was impotent for that purpose. The hon. and learned Member for Sunderland (Mr. W. D. Seymour) doubted whether it was so or not, and in the able speech which he made on a former day stated that neither the Habeas Corpus Act nor the 56th of George III. was framed in such terms as would enable them to reach this case, and he was of opinion that a declaratory Act was necessary. That was a point which he (Mr. Newdegate) hoped the hon. Member for Hertford, than whom no one was more competent, would include in the Bill to which he had referred. He would not dilate upon the importance of this subject, but he could assure the House that there was as deep a determination on the part of the people of England and Scotland to have the subject dealt with by law, as there appeared a determination on the part of the priests of Ireland to exempt these institutions from the operation of the law of England, to retain them subject to the canon law of Rome. Let not the Irish Roman Catholic Members flatter themselves that the representatives of Protestant England would abandon this question. It was an issue which could not lapse—it was an issue which must be decided; and he, for one, was quite determined to see it decided, and that in but one way, by the assertion of the supremacy of the law of England. This country was about to engage in a war for the defence of the independence of their ally from foreign dictation in matters ecclesiastical and civil. Did the Irish Roman Catholic Members think that they who supported the Government in extending that protection to a faithful ally would consent to see the independence of England itself invaded by any foreign Power? Hon. Members need not flatter themselves that by this abuse of the privilege of a minority they have escaped from the determination that was entertained to see this question settled in a manner due at once to the rights and privileges of the House, to the law of England, to the independence of the House, and to the privileges of the Imperial Crown, which, thank God, was placed on the head of so worthy a Sovereign. In that House there appeared to be a unanimity of action among the Roman Catholics on this subject, but when they assembled in large meetings in the country to consider this subject, there was no unanimity among them. There had been a large meeting in Dublin lately on this subject; that meeting was intended to be aggregate and unanimous, but in no sense was it so; it was disorderly and turbulent, and, considering the unworthy sentiments that emanated from some of the speakers, he would say that the cause of the difference among those who attended that meeting was far more creditable to some of them than the cause for which they had assembled. At that meeting, and at others, speakers had gone into ecstacies of zeal, or pretended indignation, against the insults which they seemed to suppose were intended the inmates of these conventual establishments by the inquiry under discussion. It was idle to pretend that any sensible man believed the allegations that were put forward, that there was a wish on the part of hon. Members in that House to outrage the feelings of the Roman Catholic ladies who inhabited, or were immured, in these convents. The character of the Gentlemen who supported the hon. Member for Hertford afforded a sufficient refutation of those calumnies. All this pretended delicacy, all this affected deference for the feelings of these ladies, was but an empty plea, a mere subterfuge. The real question at issue was no other than this: whether the Court of Rome should be permitted to establish an imperium in imperio within this kingdom; whether it was to be allowed to set up ad libitum these peculiar institutions, and to exempt them from the operation of the law of England, and keep them, and the inmates of them, subject to the canon law of Rome. Over and within these numerous and increasing establishments the canon law of Rome was supreme; from them the operation of the law of England was excluded; that was a state of things to the continuance of which the Parliament and the people of England would never consent.

said, that he had never before troubled the House with any words on this subject. From the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, he gathered that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) was about to with-draw his Motion, and that a Bill was to be introduced instead, embodying the views of those who were anxious for this inquiry. The hon. Member had spoken of the acrimony of Irish eloquence. He (Mr. Bright) would say nothing about the eloquence that came from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, though he could say a great deal about the acrimony which the hon. Member had imported into his speech. He thought it would have been difficult for any Member to make a speech more calculated than the one they had just heard to insult a large number of the Members of that House. The hon. Member had spoken of Irish rows, and of the acrimony and eloquence of Irish Members sitting in that House—not from the will of their constituencies, but of the priesthood, who were the instruments of a foreign Power. Now, he (Mr. Bright), as an English and Protestant Member, entirely repudiated the principles and policy upon which the hon. Member had dared to make use of such language towards any Members of that House. They came equal in their powers into that House to consider and discuss whatever was brought before them, and it would be just as reasonable for the Members from Ireland and those who belonged to the Roman Catholic Church to retort on the hon. Member for North Warwickshire the charge that he owed spiritual obedience to the Bench of Bishops, placed his belief in the Book of Common Prayer, and assented to that most monstrous proposition that the Sovereign of this country, whoever he or she might be, should be the head of his Church, and dictate the faith which he was to hold. The hon. Member complained that a minority should dictate as to the appointment of this Committee; but a minority was only omnipotent under the forms of the House when a majority attempted to do that which was improper. The hon. Member talked of a minority in that House, but there were in the United Kingdom 6,000,000—taking every man, woman, and child—who supported the opposition to the proposal for a Committee which the minority in that House maintained. That minority was acting in harmony, not with a majority only, but with the unanimous body of the Roman Catho- lic population, and they had a right to make use of all the forms of the House to prevent the members of another faith from insulting the faith to which they belonged. He expressed no opinion whatever on the nunneries question—he never had; but he, knew that those successive Motions, under covert of which they insulted the Roman Catholic people of the United Kingdom, Came there, not because those who promoted them were in favour of personal liberty or the freedom of any class of their fellow- countrymen, but they came there stimulated by a body out of doors, who might be actuated by an honest, but by what was certainly a mischievous fanaticism and hatred of the Roman Catholic population of the United Kingdom. Then, the hon. Member for Hertford was asked by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to withdraw his Motion for a Committee and substitute a Bill. But they had a Bill of the hon. Gentleman's during the last Session, and he did not get on with the Bill much better than he has got on with the Committee, and it was because the House found that there was no case for the Bill that the tactics were changed, and a Committee of inquiry proposed. It was hoped, by groping into every channel and every sewer, to make out a case in favour of a Bill; but surely, after the case for a Bill had already failed, and the proposal for a Committee of inquiry had been resorted to, the House would not permit the hon. Gentleman to go back again to a Bill, if it was at all of the nature such as he had introduced last Session. Therefore, he took it for granted that, if the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Motion, he would not make another on the same subject. He did not charge the hon. Member for Hertford with entertaining any personal ill-feeling towards the Roman Catholic Members of that House, or the members generally of the Roman Catholic religion. He believed that he was actuated by as good and just intentions as those which guided his own conduct. He assumed that the hon. Gentleman thought inquiry exceedingly desirable, and that he also thought the introduction of a Bill desirable. He would also assume that he obtained the very utmost advantage from these measures that he could ever hope for; but he must be sensible that on the other side of the account there must be a great amount of mischief and fanaticism, and great evil done by exciting in the Catholic mind the feeling that the English Parliament delight- ed far more in the exaltation of Protestantism and the forcible depression of the Roman Catholic religion than it did in doing equal justice to all classes of the people. Then, look at the bitterness of feeling created in that House—and, having taken all this into consideration, he wanted to know if the hon. Member for Hertford could believe that the balance of advantages to the Government, to the people, to the religion, and even to the Protestantism of this country, could by any possibility be with him in the course he was now, and had been pursuing? He knew that as long as there was an Established Church there must be occasional discussions in that House on Church matters and ecclesiastical affairs; but he earnestly implored the House to consider if it would not be better for all of them if they never introduced into the House these sectarian questions? They tended to enfeeble the House; they tended to break up the cordiality that ought to exist among the Members of that House; and, though they might be on an average more educated and intelligent than those for whom they made the laws, they might depend upon it these things were never discussed there without calling forth, unfortunately, the worst feelings out of doors, and stimulating passions that every lover of the Crown, the Government, and the country ought to deplore. He would admit, for the sake of argument, that there might be some small quantum of advantage either in a Bill or in a Committee of inquiry; but he would at the same time ask if there had not been already far greater evils caused to the country than could be counterbalanced by any good that could come from following either of these courses? He therefore implored the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Chambers), if he withdrew this Motion for a Committee, to wash his hands clear of the whole question, and never let them hear of it again. As a zealous Protestant, let him join with other zealous Protestants out of doors in spreading information and knowledge among all classes of the people, so that, if they really were under the domination of a priesthood, they might escape from it in the same way as the hon. Gentleman himself had escaped from it. He trusted the time would soon come when that House would give no countenance to these sectarian and religious discords, when all bitterness and strife would cease throughout the land, and when, although differing as we always must do on religious questions, we should live together in perfect harmony and toleration.

said, he rose to express the great difference of opinion which subsisted between him and his hon. and learned Friend on this question. [Mr. BRIGHT: I am not learned.] He begged pardon for the phrase, and supposed he must, in that case, say his not learned Friend. He differed from his hon. Friend in thinking that on any question whatever a minority ought to override a majority of that House. He ventured to think that if a precedent of that kind were to be established at any time it would be fraught with the most serious consequences. Why should a majority of that House not be allowed to decide on all questions that came before it? His hon. Friend said that the majority in this case was wrong; but were the minority to constitute themselves the judges? It should be recollected, too, that the majority in that House was supported by a large party out of doors. They all knew what difficulties a private Member had to contend against who sought the appointment of a Committee. With a little help from fiction, an interesting narrative might be drawn up of the adventures of an independent Member in search of a Committee. But his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Chambers) had overcome this difficulty. He had got this Committee; and why was his triumph to be interfered with by the dictation of a minority? He felt it his duty to protest against the doctrine advanced by the hon. Member for Manchester. Suppose, for one moment, that the majority had been obtained by the Government, and that it had been defeated by a factious opposition on the part of those who objected to the appointment of the present Committee, they all knew what thunders of indignant eloquence would be heard from the Treasury benches, and what crushing invectives would be hurled by the Times at the heads of the Irish brigade. He was at a loss to know why a majority of that House was less to be respected when it affirmed the proposition of a private Member than when it affirmed the proposition of the Government. He wished, in conclusion, to address one observation to the Irish Members. He did not express any opinion upon the question whether there was or was not anything wrong in those convents and nunneries. It might be that no priests were allowed to enter these institutions; it might be that the ladies who resided in them were con- fined with their own consent, but what he said was, if there was nothing wrong, why this horror of inquiry—why this dread of investigation? It did seem to him that the country would draw stronger inferences against these establishments from the refusal of this Committee, than it would do from any investigation which might be instituted under the authority of Parliament. He hoped the House would not allow the minority to override the decision at which the majority had arrived after full and ample discussion.

said, he should have been well pleased to allow this debate to terminate after the admirable observations of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright); but he thought it right that one of those Roman Catholic Members who had not offered an obstinate resistance to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) should protest in the strongest manner allowed by the rules of that House against some of the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). That hon. Gentleman, who deprecated acrimony, had thought proper to make a charge against those hon. Members who belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, to the effect that they acted under what he dared to call an alien influence. He could not tell what were the feelings of the hon. Gentleman himself, or upon what principles he regulated his own conduct, but certain he was that the vast majority of men, of every party and creed, would always resist that description of intrusion upon the sanctities of the domestic circle which had been attempted to be carried out by the hon. and learned Member for Hertford. He did not intend to enter into the general merits of the question before the House; but he might be permitted to remark that, if the House now found itself in a false position, unable to proceed with the appointment of the proposed Committee, the blame was to be attributed more to the hon. and learned Member for Hertford than to those hon. Members who had considered it their duty to oppose his proposition. Almost every day private Members succeeded in obtaining Committees—the hon. and learned Member himself had very recently succeeded, after a division, in obtaining a Committee; but his present attempt had failed, because there never had been so audacious an endeavour made to pack a Committee, to obtain an unfair advantage, to place upon the Committee men who were known to have their minds made up, and who would pay no regard whatever to any evidence which might be brought before them. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Why, it was notorious that the Mover of the Committee had placed upon the list the names of hon. Gentlemen who were the habitual attendants of those meetings at which the most insulting and condemnatory language was used with reference to convents and monasteries. The hon. Member for Manchester had well pointed out that the powers of minorities were limited; that minorities, in fact, were powerless, unless it was felt that they stood upon solid ground. In the present instance the minority was powerful, because it was supported, not only by a large party out of doors, but also by the sympathy of Protestant Gentlemen in that House. Very lately a distinguished Member of the House said to him that he thought the Roman Catholic Members would be justified in using any privilege that the rules of the House permitted, sooner than consent to the appointment of the proposed Committee. He therefore hoped that they had heard for the last time of a question which ought never to have been brought under the consideration of Parliament.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken of the violent language which had been used at public meetings by those who were friendly to this Motion for an inquiry into convents and monastic institutions. He begged, on the other band, to call the attention of the House and the Government to language which was reported by the newspapers as having been used at a public meeting only on Tuesday last. It was stated that a meeting of the Roman Catholic laity resident in London had been held at the Metropolitan Catholic Institute, Bishopsgate, for the purpose of affording them an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the threatened interference with the religious orders of their church. A Mr. Kertschener moved the first Resolution, which affirmed that—

"The inquiry proposed by Mr. Chambers was wholly uncalled for, was a gross violation of domestic privacy, and an insult to the Catholic body generally, and an insult to the members of the religious houses, their relatives, and friends."

And then a Mr. Wharton, in seconding this Resolution, made use of this language—

"The Catholics of England would not submit to such insults as had proceeded from Prince Albert, and if they were persisted in, their hopes must be directed to another quarter, and they must look for help to one who had manifested the greatest interest in the progress of the Catholic faith—he alluded to the Emperor Napoleon. If moral means were not sufficient, the Catholics must resort to physical force to prevent interference with their religious orders, which alone were able to wrestle with the villanies and vices of the day."

He (Mr. Frewen) was not aware if this language, which had been used with reference to the husband of our Sovereign, had been brought specially under the notice of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but he hoped the noble Lord would take the earliest opportunity of inquiring into it, and calling this Gentleman to account for the language which he was reported to have used on the occasion referred to.

said, he would not trespass long upon the attention of the House, but he wished to say a few words in explanation of the position in which he and the question now stood, and of time course which he meant to take. All he intended to do was to state the reasons that had influenced him in taking the course upon which he had resolved, namely, to discontinue the attempt to form this Committee and for the present abandon the inquiry. He had resolved to take that course after time most anxious consideration of what it became him to do with reference to the question itself, with reference to those who took a deep interest in the issue involved, and with regard also to the respect and deference which he owed to the decision of that House—a decision arrived at by a large majority, in a very full House, after a lengthened debate and the most careful consideration. He had received advice from many quarters which he felt it difficult to refuse, and yet impossible to assent to. He felt that the position in which he stood with reference to the question was a difficult one. If a Minister of the Crown proposed a measure, he brought it forward on his own personal responsibility as a Minister, and with the sanction of the reputation, position, and character of the Minister and of the Government with which he was connected. And although a proposal brought forward under such auspices might be affirmed, as in his case, by repeated majorities, it would not be extraordinary if circumstances should arise to induce the Government to withdraw the measure. They would withdraw it on the authority, and with the weight of a Government. But the analogy did not hold with reference to a private Member. In the present instance, for example, one of the charges brought against his proposal was, that it had been made by an obscure and insignificant Member. Now, he pleaded the fact that he was an obscure and insignificant person who brought forward this proposition as a proof that it must have been assented to on its own simple and substantial merits. His very obscurity and insignificance were arguments in favour of the reasonableness and justice of the measure. But he held that, such circumstances as he was now placed in, with his proposal repeatedly sanctioned by the House, a private Member had not such full property over the Motion which he had introduced, and which had been so received, as a Member of the Government in similar circumstances would possess. He held that this question was now the property of the House, which had adopted it. Whether it was a wise or an unwise proposition, the House had decided upon it, and his connection with it was now almost a formal connection. He was not justified in acting as he might have done before he brought the subject forward. It was then optional on his part to deal with the question or otherwise, as he might think right; but, having brought it forward, a deference to the decision and a regard to the wishes of the House became his plain and distinct duty. He agreed in thinking, notwithstanding the arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright), that it would be impossible to establish a more fatal precedent than that that House was to bow to the opinion of a minority; but the reasons which had operated on his mind to induce him not to press further, just now, for the appointment of the Committee were, that, from the position in which the question was now placed, it would be literally, and absolutely, he might add, physically, impossible to go on with it this Session. He had listened attentively to all the arguments that had been used against him, but he confessed that he had not been convinced by any of those arguments; and the only reason why he had come to the resolution not to press the appointment of time Committee was, as he had just stated, that it was literally and physically impossible to proceed with it. A great deal had been said about the war and time inexpediency of bringing forward such a measure as this at such a time; but he had never thought that such considerations ought to weigh with him as to the withholding or pressing forward so important a question as that involved in the Motion which he had thought it his duty to submit to the House. He could quite understand that it might be convenient for those who opposed this Motion to seize hold of such an excuse for the purpose of arguing that the present was a bad time to consider this important subject, and that the doing so might irritate the feelings and even arouse the animosity of the Roman Catholic soldiery who were now engaged in defending the honour of this country. Yet the futility of this objection was obvious, for at this moment the Roman Catholic soldiers and sailors in the service of Her Majesty were nobly refuting the calumnies uttered against them by their indiscreet advocates in that House, and both by their doings and sufferings were giving the lie to the assertions of certain Roman Catholic opponents of this Motion, that it was indiscreet in a time of war to raise a question of this kind. With respect to what had been advanced by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) he could only say that, while he quite allowed the propriety of every one having the privilege of drawing his own conclusions on any subject he might think proper, yet, at the same time, he felt bound to dispute the premises of the hon. Member on the present occasion, the incorrectness of which he should have no difficulty in proving, if he had not promised the House not to enter at all on this occasion into the general question. He could not help saying, that the consideration of this subject had been met with a very unfair and factious opposition, and such as he should be very sorry to see often brought to bear against a bonâ fide Motion before that House. If any fair proposition had been made by the opponents of the measure, he should have been happy to consent to it, but, instead of this, all the Amendments which had been proposed were evidently framed not with the view of improving the Committee, but only with the view of defeating the proposed inquiry. That this was so it was only necessary to look at the different objections to particular names on the Committee; such as, for instance, the name of the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), to whose name, he thought, no one could fairly object, and yet against this right hon. Member's name there were six Amendments entered, of which notice had been given. Every Amendment, in fact, that had been made, or was proposed to be made, had in view the defeating of the Committee. By doggedly persevering in those Amendments, the Roman Catholic Members had undoubtedly succeeded in defeating, for the present, the object which he (Mr. T. Chambers) had in view. He regretted to say that, for the first time in the history of our legislation, the Government had given their sanction to the factions proceedings of a minority. Without the aid of the Government, the minority would not, in the present instance, have been able to defeat the object of the majority, He would now withdraw for the present from the further prosecution of this question, but he did not abandon it. He was perfectly satisfied that the hon. Member for Manchester had not correctly represented the feelings of the 6,000,000 of Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom with reference to this question. He was satisfied that many of the Roman Catholic laity coincided, to a great extent, with him (Mr. T. Chambers) on this question. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] But, whether that was so or not, he was perfectly satisfied that the country would persist in demanding that some legislative inquiry, with a view to some legislative enactment, should take place with regard to conventual institutions. The history of every European country showed that such institutions could not multiply indefinitely without endangering the safety of the State. He had only one general complaint to make with reference to the way in which this question had been treated by the House. Throughout the discussion of the question hon. Members who had opposed him had uniformly and perseveringly argued as if the monastic system had no history—as if we had no experience with respect to it—as if nothing had ever been heard about it—as if no law had ever been passed for the correction and repression of conventual institutions—as if, from time to time, different countries had not had to pass measures against them. Even the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had argued the question as if, until the present time, nobody had ever heard of monastic institutions being liable to abuse, and as if no State had ever been imperilled by the multiplication of their numbers, their inmates, and their wealth—as if he had forgotten that the most gigantic remedies had to be applied to the gigantic abuses of those institutions, and that, too, in this country, in Roman Catholic times. With that single remark on the general fallacy which ran through all the arguments against him, he (Mr. T. Chambers) begged to say that he would not now persevere in the nomination of this Committee, but he was fully convinced that the country would not rest satisfied until this question was settled.

Sir, having already expressed the opinions which I hold upon this question, I do not think that I would have troubled the House with any observations upon the present occasion had not the hon. and learned Member for Hertford, who is now disposed to give up his Motion, accused the Government of setting an example which is injurious to the character of this House, and which, undoubtedly, would have been indefensible either on the part of Government or any individual Member. I really do not know to what it is the hon. and learned Member alludes. I thought it my duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I suppose he will not deny that I had a right to state the reasons which appeared to me to militate against that proposition. Sir, let me remind the House that the Government of Lord Melbourne, the Government of Sir Robert Peel, and other Governments, after being defeated by a majority of this House, have not thought themselves precluded from bringing forward and supporting a Motion for rescinding the Resolution which had been carried by a majority. I say this because the hon. and learned Member seemed to suppose that, a majority having once sanctioned his Motion, it was not competent for persons belonging to the Administration of the country to support any proposition that was contrary to the opinion of that majority. It is competent to a Minister, or to any Member of this House, if he thinks the majority has been mistaken in its vote, to bring the question again under consideration, and to ask the House to reverse the decision at which it had arrived. In the case of a Bill you have opportunities on purpose. It does not follow, because you have consented to the first reading of a Bill, you are obliged to agree to a second reading; and if you have voted for the second reading, you are not obliged to accede to the third reading. The meaning is, that the House should have an opportunity of affirming or of contradicting its former decision. Well, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) having proposed that the House should reconsider the Resolution to which it had come, I supported that proposal on the ground I have stated, namely, that it is perfectly competent to me, or to any Member of this House, to ask the House to reconsider a Resolution at which it has arrived. I do not remember of having given any vote with respect to the names of the Members of the Committee. When speaking upon the general question, I certainly said that I thought it a very partial and unfair Committee, too many of the Members being upon one side, and I had a perfect right, I consider, to have used that argument. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), what I said was, that I hoped, if the Committee was appointed, he would be named one of its Members, and that, indeed, I should like to see it formed very much under his direction. With regard to the course now intended to be pursued, I should lament, indeed, if it were to be established as a precedent that a minority of this House should dictate, according to the proposition of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), to the majority upon certain occasions, and, for my part, I have set no such precedent. If such a precedent has been set at all, I should say it has been set by the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who now appear disposed to give way to a minority. I have not advised the Members to withdraw their Motion. I even consented, most reluctantly, as the House may well believe, when arranging the business of the House for this evening, which is one of the evenings on which Orders of the Day take precedence, to place this one at the top of the list, for the precise purpose that the whole of the night might be devoted to it, and that the hon. and learned Member might, if he thought proper, proceed with the nomination of his Committee. I certainly rejoice that he does not intend to proceed with it, but it is on totally other grounds than those which he has stated. I do not think a minority should be permitted, under any circumstances, to control a majority; but I am glad the Motion has been withdrawn, because no case has been made out for it. If the Motion had been persevered in, I think it would have stirred up much religious bitterness, and much hatred and discord between Roman Catholics and Protestants, without any advantage or benefit whatsoever to the country. I think that the hon. Member for Manchester was quite right in much that he said upon that subject. I believe that discussions upon this question, without any obvious necessity, do tend to set one part of the country against another, and I know that there are many Roman Catholics, even in this House, who have felt themselves deeply aggrieved by the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Hertford. I cannot forget that which I think is at the foundation of this opposition—that if there is a grievance, if persons are kept imprisoned contrary to the law of the realm and their rights as British subjects, the Roman Catholics of this country, the Roman Catholic laity of this country, are as interested as any other part of the community in promoting inquiry, and it is an imputation on them that all are silent, all forbear from asking any redress from Parliament, and Protestant Members alone feel for the hardships inflicted on the country women of Roman Catholics. That is what I felt on this subject, and, therefore, I do rejoice that this Motion is to be withdrawn. With regard to the hon. and learned Member having observed upon my speaking as if ignorant of all that history has recorded on this subject, I can only state I have acted on what I know to be the present condition of this country and Ireland. I know very well that in Roman Catholic countries, where the Church of Rome has had great power, where it has been supported by the State, that State has been overbalanced, and well nigh overpowered, by the Church and its institutions; but from the establishment of monasteries and convents I do not perceive that danger. Therefore, I am neither ready to consent to the appointment of the Committee nor to agree to the introduction of any Bill. I believe that no legislation on this subject is required. If evils should arise, there will be full time to resort to legislation. All I can say now is, that although the hon. and learned Gentleman may have been threatened with opposition from Members of this House who have felt upon this subject very deeply—I will not say whether the character of that threatened opposition was justifiable or not, but I will say, as a Member of the Government, I will be no party to setting any precedent injurious to the general rules and maxims of this House, that the majority govern the minority, and that all legislation and the appointment of Com- mittees ought to be determined according to the will of the majority. As to the imputation the hon. and learned Member has been pleased to cast upon the Government, that will not prevent me giving my candid opinion freely and fully upon any proposition before the House.

said, he would not say that the Government had been parties, and he should be very sorry if they intended in any degree to be parties, to a very dangerous precedent—the precedent of minorities being able to prevail against majorities. But considering the extent to which the proceedings on this subject tended to establish that doctrine, and considering the high position of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), he thought it was to be regretted that he had not said more on the important point as to minorities controlling majorities in that House. He entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Hertford that, in the circumstances in which they were now placed, it was not a moment to discuss the merits of the original question. On that subject he would not say one word, but, as one of those who supported the original proposal, he most deeply regretted that the action of a majority of that House should have excited such strong feelings in the breasts of Roman Catholics. Looking to the declarations signed by many eminent noblemen and gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion—gentlemen entitled to the greatest respect—he should be most sorry to do anything to have their feelings or the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and he greatly regretted they should have taken up the question in the light they had. He begged distinctly to say, for his own part, that, in supporting the original proposal, lie did not intend anything like hostility or even disrespect to his Roman Catholic fellow-Christians; but he did consider, connected as this subject was with questions affecting the important personal right of personal liberty, and the important personal right of the disposition of the property, mixed up as it was with great constitutional questions, on which in his judgment, inquiry should take place, he thought it might be conducted, and ought to be conducted, in a manner which could not give any reasonable offence to gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion. He wished now to say that he thought, under all the circumstances of the case, the hon. and learned Member for Hertford was right in not per- severing further with this subject. The original Motion was made so long ago as the 28th of February; they had now arrived nearly at the end of May, and he thought any Gentleman who looked at the paper to-day, and saw that, in addition to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman for the appointment of the Committee, which would raise as many opportunities of debate as there were names to be proposed, there were six other Motions directed to the same object, must be convinced that whatever the majority who might support the hon. and learned Gentleman, there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining the appointment of the Committee in time to carry it to a useful conclusion in the present Session. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was right in the course he now took; but he appealed to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London and to the House itself whether they were not affording, by the course now taken, a very dangerous precedent. It would appear that, if a minority were unscrupulous, they could carry their power to the extent of the obstruction of legislation. No question could be brought before the House, no Bill could be discussed, in which the minority, however small, if they were disposed to abuse the powers they possessed, could not bring business to a stop, and completely obstruct the progress of business. The fact must be admitted; that they had now an instance of a minority, by availing themselves of the powers which the forms of the House gave them, having succeeded in stopping a measure supported by large majorities in that House. He hoped they would not see other such precedents. He thought the noble Lord must see the danger that, if such precedents were multiplied, they would be fatal to the character of that House, and to their mode of transacting business. He looked upon it as a very grave and serious question, the more so because the Committee upon the forms of their proceedings had thought it wiser to trust to the forbearance and discretion of the House rather than to frame stringent regulations to obviate the difficulty which those forms might create, and he thought it his duty to call their attention to the fact, that the course taken this evening did afford a very serious precedent, which he trusted the House would be very cautions in following.

said, the only occasion this Session on which there were not forty Members present to make a House, at four o'clock, was that night on which it was expected that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Hertford would be brought on. That showed that the House was disgusted with the subject; and it was, therefore, most unfair to charge the Roman Catholic Members with having defeated the majority by a factious opposition. This new persecution of Roman Catholics, if persevered in, would seriously embarrass the Government, and impede the progress of the country. As for the observations of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he treated them with the contemptuous indifference they deserved. He congratulated the hon. and learned Member for Hertford on having taken the course dictated to him by the general sense of the country in withdrawing his Motion, and he heartily hoped that this was the last they were to hear of the subject.

Sir, before the Motion is withdrawn, I wish to say, as one of the defeated party, that I consider myself defeated purely by factious opposition. There is no resignation, there is no possible dignity in our death, it is mere absolute murder without any qualification whatever. I do not wonder at the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) finding for the first time that a minority, exerting that power which a minority can exert, may get the country into a very serious scrape. It has at all times, ever since the House of Commons existed, for some 800 years, been in the power of any obstinate strong-headed man to sit down, cry "No, no," move the adjournment of the House, and put an end to the progress of business. I had the misfortune about thirty years ago to address a petition to this House—it was against Catholic emancipation—in which I stated that it was utterly impossible, if the Roman Catholics were admitted into this House, that the priests would ever suffer them to unite with the Protestants in carrying out any form of Government. Of course nobody believed me. I was called a bigot and a visionary. They were hard words, but they broke no bones, and so I bore them. Of course the country won't believe me now; but surely the country will believe these Gentlemen, and surely I, of all others, ought to be most grateful to them for having now fulfilled, for the conviction of the country, that which I stated thirty years ago. I think it is decidedly best that this Motion should be withdrawn—simply because there is no possibility of carrying it; but I certainly shall put on the book a notice of Motion for an Address to the Crown to appoint a Commission to inquire into this subject. There can he no question then about opposition to this name and the other name, and all these personal animosities will be avoided. But I would have you mark that, in this matter, the aggressor has not ceased. The only plain-speaking honest man in the transaction is the Pope. "Have this realm of England," says he, "I will;" and every convent he establishes is a little inclosure won from England, and attached to Rome. He shall have no more inches if I can stop him.

said, he could not consent to the Order for the appointment of the Committee being discharged, unless a majority of the House decided in favour of that course. He should therefore divide the House.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have expressed his intention of doing so before so many Members had left the House.

said, he rose to express his regret at the course which the House was about to take. It certainly was anything but creditable that, after the opinion of the House had been expressed over and over again on a subject by overwhelming majorities, it should now be confessed, for the first time, that legislation was impossible, and a measure must be withdrawn because the minority persisted in exercising all the powers which it possessed for the purpose of defeating the majority. If hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House had used such means to defeat a measure of the Government, there would have been no bounds to the speaking in that House and writing out of it as to the motives which actuated them; and the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), who had quietly acquiesced in this course on the present occasion, and had allowed two evenings to be passed in discussing whether the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) should be one of the Committee, would have lost no time in denouncing it, had it been used against one of his measures.

said, the hon. and learned Member seemed to think that, after the Government had voted against the appointment of the Committee, they should have come down to the House for the purpose of inducing hon. Members who opposed that Committee to withdraw their opposition. That, he thought, was really expecting too much from a Government. He had stated his objections to the appointment of the Committee, and when the discussion was over he had not thought it his duty to come down to attend the discussions on the nomination of the Members of the Committee. Had the discussion gone on that evening he should probably have taken a similar course, and have left it to those who were in favour of this Committee to proceed with their own Motion as they best could. As to being a party to saying that a minority should control the majority, he had always protested against any such thing, and, had he been in favour of the Committee, and the House had chosen to sanction its appointment, he would have sat there all night to get it nominated.

said, he would not be a party to making the House the laughing-stock of the country and of Europe by sanctioning the course of a band of Members who had abused the forms of the House in order to obstruct all legislation on this subject. He thought the country would regard the explanation of the noble Lord as a mere pretence. He hoped it would be clearly understood that this Motion was withdrawn through the factious opposition of a certain number of Roman Catholic Members, whose expressed determination it was to allow of no Parliamentary interference in these matters, and who were too candid not to allow, in private, that they meant to use every opportunity which the forms of the House allowed to prevent all attempts at such interference.

said, he disclaimed all desire to resort to factious opposition, but he thought hon. Members were perfectly justified in resorting to every means in their power to defeat an attack on their religion couched in so virulent a spirit as marked the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Hertford. He would not give much for any man's religion who would not do the same. On the first Committee, the proportion of Gentlemen proposed as members was twelve on one side to three on the other, and even in the amended state it was nine on one side and six on the other. That proportion did not look as if there was any great anxiety to have a very careful investigation. He repudiated the language which had been used at a recent meeting in Dublin; and with regard to the extract which had been read by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen), he must say that such language as was there reported was the furthest possible from his ideas, and he must point out that, as that language was used against the consent of the meeting, and as the person who used it was put down by the Chairman, it was rather unfair to bring it forward as an accusation against the Catholics.

said, that the noble Lord, the Member for Arundel (Lord E. Howard), having, as an English Catholic, thought it necessary to disconnect his name from some of the proceedings at a recent meeting in Dublin, he (Mr. Scully), as an Irish Catholic, would take the opportunity to disassociate himself altogether from those sentiments which the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen), had just attributed to one of the speakers at a late meeting in London, to the effect that Catholics must resort to physical force, and look for help to the Emperor Napoleon. He wished to state most emphatically on his own behalf, and he felt certain he might add of all the Catholic Members around him, that he and they utterly repudiated, in the strongest form, such language, not only as highly improper to be used at all, but also as most detrimental to the Roman Catholic body. He condemned such sentiments in terms as indignant as could be used by any Protestant Member. The expressions referred to had not been employed by an Irishman, and he trusted that Englishmen in the House and out of it, would draw a wide distinction between those few Roman Catholics, who, suffering under great provocations, did occasionally give utterance to extremely violent opinions, and the great mass of Roman Catholics, whose political views were quite as sound-thinking and right-minded as those of the Protestants themselves. He protested against the practice of inculpating all the Catholics of these kingdoms on account of every mischievous expression used by any one of their body. It would be as unreasonable to make them responsible for such expressions as it would be to attribute to sensible Protestants all those discreditable sentiments which some of them had been known to utter. A great deal of insulting language had been used that evening towards the Catholic Gentlemen of that House. To that language they had submitted patiently and quietly, in order to avoid protracting the present debate. But he wished it to be very clearly understood that the Roman Catholic Members would not suffer such language to be used towards them as a practice. For his own part, he was quite determined not to permit its continuance, and he desired now to put a stop to it in limine. For, if such unbecoming speeches as had been addressed to them that evening by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and others who had imitated his bad example, were to be tamely submitted to, the apprehension was that it might become a systematic practice, which sooner or later should be violently arrested. He utterly denied that this persecuting inquiry had been now abandoned in consequence of any factious opposition given by the Roman Catholic Members. That was a mere clap-trap delusion put forward by its originators in order to blindfold and bamboozle their own fanatical supporters out of doors. No—the Motion had fallen to the ground at a previous stage, not in consequence of any factious opposition, but because, when it was last upon the paper, its supporters were all of them absent. He (Mr. Scully) was at the House on the 2nd of May, and could state that upon that occasion not one of those Gentlemen, who had this evening expressed themselves so offensively towards Catholic Members and called them a factious opposition, was then present in order to prevent a count-out for the want of forty Members. It was, therefore, quite absurd and dishonest for those Gentlemen to attempt now to shift the blame from their own shoulders to the Catholic Members, or to accuse them, among other impertinences, of acting together under alien influence. He denied he was under foreign influence of any sort, but, perhaps, hon. Members opposite were acting under some Scotch influence. He knew well who were the originators and instigators of the whole of this bigoted movement, and might explain it more fully on sonic future occasion. He did not wish to speak offensively towards Scotch gentlemen, some of whom had expressed themselves to him in terms strongly reprobating the proposed persecution. He would simply reiterate that its promoters were attempting to practise an arrant delusion upon the public mind in now suggesting that they had been compelled to give way before the factious opposition of a minority of this House, and would repeat his warning against the future use of offensive language towards the Catholic Members.

said, he would not argue whether hon. Members opposite were or were not under Scotch influence, but he would admit that Scotch Members and their constituents were very much interested in this question. He was much satisfied with the declaration of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) that he would put a notice on the paper to move for a Royal Commission to prosecute an inquiry required by a great majority of that House, and of those they represented. He did not see the advantage of dividing against the withdrawal of the Motion, but, if pressed to a division, he should vote against it.

said, he should move the omission of certain words, with the object of making it compulsory upon the magistrates to impose imprisonment, and taking away their power to exercise a discretion as to the infliction of a fine instead of such imprisonment.

said, he understood the object of the hon. Member to be this—that whereas the clause, in its present shape, authorised the magistrate to punish any person found under certain circumstances, and giving a false name and address, either by imposing a fine, or by sending him to prison—he wished it to be so amended as to take away the option, and to make it compulsory to impose imprisonment. He was quite aware that this was a very important clause, and that nothing would have a more salutary effect in deterring persons from frequenting these dens of iniquity than the certainty that they would be compelled to give their real name and address, or would be liable to severe punishment. But, on the other hand, he could not help thinking, that as in these cases detection was a matter of some difficulty, and could only be brought about by great industry and activity on the part of the officers, it would be more expedient, and would be found more effectual, to give the officers an interest in pursuing the parties, by making the penalty a pecuniary one, and awarding them a certain portion of it. It was quite clear that, where the punishment was merely imprisonment, the officers had no interest in finding out the parties by whom false names and addresses had been given. It must be remembered, also, that young men who went to these places were very often looked upon only as dupes, and that all the indignation was directed against the keepers of these establishments, while the visitors, when they were young, were sympathised with rather than otherwise. On the whole, he thought the alterations which the hon. Member had proposed, instead of doing good, would do harm.

said, he had reason to believe that the keepers of gaming-houses looked upon the provisions of this Bill as a dead letter. The time required for disposing of the implements of gaming was not more than the tenth part of a minute, and men who were in the habit of hazarding hundreds every night were not likely to care for a penalty of 10l. or 20l.

said, he was happy to say, in opposition to the remarks of the hon. Member, that, having been in communication with the police, he was assured that the keepers of gaming-houses did entertain a most serious apprehension as to the effect of this Bill, and especially of the clause which enabled the magistrate to take some of the parties and make them witnesses against the rest. As a proof of this he was glad to be able to state that since he had obtained the sanction of the House to the introduction of this Bill, and had stated what would be its provisions, out of fourteen gaming-houses which used to be open nightly for these practices, nine had been closed.

said, he should support the clause as it stood, and he begged to bear testimony to the efficiency of the hon. and learned Attorney General's Bill against "betting" houses, which had been so successful in putting those places down, that he did not know in the borough of Southwark—nor, as far as he had heard, in any of the metropolitan boroughs—any betting shop which had not been suppressed.

said, he should support the Amendment. A penalty of 20l. was nothing when compared with twenty days' imprisonment. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would take this matter into consideration, for he was sure his object was to put down these places, and the only way to do it, with those who were above the value of money, was to make them the subject of imprisonment.

said, hon. Gentlemen did not seem to be aware that a discretionary power was vested in the magistrates to inflict either the fine or imprisonment. If, therefore, the magistrates found the infliction of a fine merely did not answer the desired end, it would be open to them to have recourse to imprisonment. He was willing, however, to increase the fine, by substituting 50l. in lieu of 20l.; and then, in order to make the two punishments more on an equality, he must also make the term of imprisonment one month instead of three weeks.

said, he had no wish whatever to oppose the second reading of the Bill, because he regarded it as a praiseworthy effort, on the part of the Government, to consolidate the mercantile marine laws of the country. He was also quite aware of the time and attention which had been bestowed on this Bill by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell), who had received with great courtesy every suggestion that had been made to him; still he could not avoid mentioning that there were some defects and some deficiencies in the measure, although he would not then enter into details which would more properly be noticed in Committee. He would observe, however, that he thought his right hon. Friend had made one or two mistakes in interfering with the enactment of the Mercantile Marine Bill of 1850. The first of these was very important—namely, his transference of the powers of the various local marine boards to the magistrates. Now, he had the honour of being a mem- ber of the Liverpool Marine Board for the last three years, having been nominated by the hon. Member for Taunton when President of the Board of Trade, and he could, therefore, bear testimony to the efficiency with which the affairs of that Board had been conducted. Indeed, he considered that no board could be more complete or perfect than that constituted under the Act of 1850. Yet it was proposed in this Bill to transfer their power to magistrates—none of whom might know anything about ships—perhaps not able to tell a bowsprit from a mainmast. Nor had he heard that there was any just or substantial reason for the change, except that some members of the Board complained that a considerable portion of their time was occupied. That, however, he did not at all hold to be a valid reason, because if gentlemen had not time to devote to their duty at the Board, they might retire, and others could be found to take their places. The alteration proposed he held to be very objectionable; but as he intended to move an Amendment to that clause when the Bill was in Committee, he would not then further allude to the subject. But there was also a very great deficiency in the Bill which he wished to point out—namely, that it did not re-enact the apprenticeship system, which he looked upon as of considerable importance. The House would remember that a short time ago he had moved for a return showing the number of apprentices in the merchant service in 1850, when the requirement was abolished, as well as the number during the three years after its abrogation. From that return he found that on the 1st of January, 1850, there were in the mercantile service 31,636 apprentices, while on the 1st of January, 1854, there were only 13,826. Now, he must say, if the mercantile marine was to serve in future as the nursery for the Navy of England, that it was the duty of his right hon. Friend to re-enact the requirement clause—which, however, he (Mr. Horsfall) readily admitted was originally abolished at the request of the shipowners themselves. The Board of Admiralty had been in communication with the local Marine Board of Liverpool, which Board had communicated with the Shipowners' Association of that port, and it was found that the language of that body was, that "That they were then under restrictions; but that if they were allowed to man their vessels as they liked by the seamen of other countries, they would he prepared to consider the question of the reenactment of the apprenticeship system." Well, concessions had now been made in that matter, and that body therefore now came forward with perfect consistency to petition Parliament in favour of re-enacting the clause requiring apprentices to be taken in all merchant vessels. He was aware, however, that his right hon. Friend had received a counter-memorial from a minority of the shipowners of Liverpool—gentlemen to whose respectability he was well pleased to testify. At the same time, it was his intention to move the re-enactment of the requirement clause in the terms of which he had given notice. But there was another far more important omission in the Bill; he alluded to the fact that no notice was taken in it of a question the most interesting to shipowners throughout the country. He referred to the operation of the Act, the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93, commonly called Lord Campbell's Act. Now that Act either did, or did not, apply to shipping; if it did, and it had been held by the courts of law to do so, he maintained it was the duty of the Government to have introduced a clause to that effect into the Bill. That Act was originally intended to apply to railway accidents only, but in consequence of the decision of the law courts, shipowners were placed in a position perfectly inconsistent with every principle of justice. For in what position did they stand? He was not desirous to exempt the shipowner from any responsibility which should legitimately fall upon him, but it had been admitted by Lord Campbell himself that he had never intended that Act to apply to shipping. Under its operation the wealthiest shipowner might be ruined in a single hour. There was no limit to his responsibility, and he asked that the shipowner should be placed in the position in which he was previously to the passing of the Act. Under former Acts the liability of the shipowner had been confined to the value of the ship and freight; and in asking now that their liability should be confined to that, he thought that they were not asking too much. With the law, as it existed, no prudent man could own a ship. He certainly would not undertake for any premium that might be offered to carry a cargo of passengers under the present law and the liabilities which it imposed; and he trusted that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman would insert some clause which should confine the liability of shipowners to the value of the ship and freight. If that were not done, he was satisfied that the Bill would frustrate one great object which the Government had in view the giving protection to emigrants going abroad; for it would prevent all prudent men from owning vessels, and none but speculators and adventurers would engage in the trade. If the right hon. Gentleman did not do so, he should himself propose a clause to that effect in Committee.

said, he must remind the House of the part which he had taken in the discussion on the "manning clauses" last year. Since then war had been declared, and he thought the value of the British seamen must have been raised, because the want of men was more felt. The commerce and the wealth of this country depended on our having the supremacy of the seas. To secure this, we must use every means in our power in the encouragement and cultivation of seamen, and it was a matter which deserved their grave consideration, that within a period of four years the number of the class upon whom our supply of seamen must depend had been diminished from 34,000 to 13,000. That was a change of the law which he had also objected to, and he had moved the House on a previous occasion to reinstate the apprentice clauses. Of all the measures he had ever known carried as affecting the moral supremacy of the country, these two measures for repealing the manning clauses and the apprentice clauses were the most serious, and he believed it would be long before the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty succeeded in repairing the mischief he had committed in supporting their repeal. He believed, however, the Admiralty had done their best in endeavouring to man the Navy, with this exception, that they had not, as was always done before at the beginning of a war, induced seamen to enter by the offer of a bounty. Bounties were offered to marines, to the coast-guard, to every department of the Army, but seamen alone were excepted from the rule. The consequence of this was, that they had got abundance of landsmen, but not abundance of able-bodied seamen. He therefore hoped the Government would take this opportunity of reinstating the apprentice clauses in the present Bill. They could never make men into seamen. It was rarely found, indeed, that a man of twenty-one years of age ever became reconciled to the sea, or that he acquired the smartness necessary for a sailor. He was glad to learn, how ever, that the Admiralty had entered a number of boys in the Royal Navy, and no doubt they would get good topmen in this way; but the good leading seamen— the men who could do their duty from stem to stern—must chiefly come from the merchant service where they had learned the necessary duties of a seaman. And yet how much this matter was neglected in the mercantile navy might be inferred from this fact, that of 400 or 500 ships that sailed from Liverpool in 1851 with emigrants, two-thirds of them had not a single boy on board. He thought legislation on this matter had been somewhat stealthy. In 1848, when the Navigation Laws were repealed, nothing was said about doing away with the manning or the apprentice clauses—nay, the present First Lord of the Admiralty opposed the suggestion when it was made, and yet last year these very points were carried. He hoped the Government would now take the advice of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall), and reinstate them, or at least the clause with regard to apprentices.

said, it was not his intention to offer any lengthened remarks upon this Bill, but, as a large shipowner himself, and as the representative of a large shipping port, he considered it his duty to oppose the suggestion that had been made with regard to the reinstatement of the apprentice clauses. The hon. Member for Liverpool said, that the reinstatement of these clauses was favourably looked on by his constituents. Now, the clauses might be viewed with favour by the Shipowners' Association, but that Association did not compose all the shipowners of Liverpool, and as soon as it was understood that the Shipowners' Association had petitioned in favour of the compulsory apprentice clauses, another memorial, most respectably signed, was sent off against the re-enactment of them. He should be very much surprised indeed if, to the grievances which the shipowners of this country already laboured under, this House were to add a new one. With regard to the subject of advance notes to seamen, he had had a long conversation on that question with the President of the Board of Trade that day, and that right hon. Gentleman felt, with him, that it would be most desirable to refrain from all legislation on the subject if it was possible to avoid it. Many attempts had been made to enable the sailor to realise the full value of those notes, but all had failed. It would be the greatest possible boon if the House could put down these advance notes altogether, not to the shipowner only, but still more to the seamen themselves. They were the great inducement to desertion; hut, still more, they encouraged improvident habits on the part of the sailors, who, if they once found that they could not get a supply of money to fit them out for another voyage, if they wasted what they had received from their last, would be forced to learn habits of economy, and to retain from each voyage at least as much as would fit them out for another. He thought legislative interference was injurious as between the shipowner and the sailor, in the same way that it would be considered injurious as between the master manufacturer and the mechanic and artisan. What he would recommend was, that there should be a savings bank and a money-order office in connection with every shipping office, so that the sailor, on being paid off, might send home a portion of his money to his wife and family at once, and place another in the savings bank, sufficient to provide him with the necessaries for his next voyage. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, as to the spirit of the law in reference to the limitation of the responsibility of the shipowners in the case of goods and merchandise, he saw no reason why that responsibility should not also be limited in the case of passengers. He thought that in a country like this every facility should be afforded to capitalists to invest their money in ships; but as the law now stood, capitalists had reason to dread such investments, because the responsibility was not limited to the value of the ship and freight, but extended to every penny the owner possessed; so that the wealthiest capitalist who held but a small portion of a ship might at any moment find himself a ruined man. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not consent to re-enact the manning or the apprenticeship clauses; and, though the law in this respect might be left as it was, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) that he need not be afraid that British sailors would ever be superseded by foreigners in our mercantile navy. For his own part, he had no dread of the competition of foreign seamen any more than he had of foreign shipowners, but the best way to maintain the supremacy of the British mercantile marine, and consequently of the Navy, was to remove all the restrictions which yet remained, and to give free scope, as far as practicable, to its energies and skill, that its resources might be fully developed.

said, he considered the re-enactment of the apprenticeship clause essential, in order that a sufficient body of effective and competent seamen might always be found available for the maritime service of the country. He always looked upon the mercantile service as the nursery for the Royal Navy, and was anxious, therefore, that the efficiency of the marine, both in numbers and competency, should be maintained.

said, he fully concurred in what had been stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) as to Lord Campbell's Act. He thought that the courts of law, having strained this Act to a purpose for which it was never intended, had inflicted a severe blow on the shipping interests of this country, and placed shipowners in a very disadvantageous position as regarded their American competitors. He should be glad if the system of advance notes could be got rid of altogether. He thought it was a fallacy to legislate for ships as a particular property, differing from all others on account of their presumed connection with the Royal Navy, and that it was equally a fallacy to mix up the interests of the two services. Merchant-ships ought to be left to their own regulations, and not be subject to codes laid down by that House for their internal management and government. These, however, were questions which would arise in Committee. The principle of the Bill he understood to be the consolidation of our mercantile marine laws, but it appeared to him that the Bill was rather the re-enactment of the shipping laws that existed than a codification. At the same time, he rejoiced that the Bill had been laid upon the table; and, as the representative of a mercantile community, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for it.

said, whether this Bill was a complete code or not, it would certainly be of the greatest service as a consolidation of about fifty different Statutes into one, and in the name of his constituents he begged to tender to the right hon. Gentleman his congratulations for the service he had rendered to the mercantile community. He agreed with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) that it was of the utmost importance to encourage habits of economy and forethought among the sailors, by putting down advance notes, and establishing savings banks. With regard to the question of unlimited responsibility in case of accidents, he admitted that that was in itself a large question; but that with which the House had now to deal was a question of a much narrower kind, and he would be glad to see it brought to an issue as it stood. Until the passing of Lord Campbell's Act the law was clear that the responsibility of the shipowner was limited to the ship and cargo. It was generally admitted that Lord Campbell's Act was not intended to alter that law; but, by some accidental negligence of phrases, without discussion or deliberate intention of the Legislature, it was held to have altered the law. Now, assuming that statement to be true, was it not reasonable to think that, in consolidating these Acts, the Government should declare the intent of Lord Campbell's Act to be what it was from the first intended to be? It would then be left open to the Government, if they thought the law should be changed, to propose the change in such a way as would bring the whole subject under consideration, and have it thoroughly discussed.

said, he cordially concurred in the second reading of the Bill, and begged to offer his congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the service that it would render to the shipping interests. There were many details, however, in the Bill, which he thought would require serious consideration in Committee, as they would not be likely to further the object the President of the Board of Trade had in view. A great deal had been said about apprentices; he differed from what the hon. and gallant Member for Bath had said on this subject, and trusted that Government would allow matters to take their course, and not attempt to legislate on it.

said, he was ready to bestow his pity on those who might lose their fortunes by the injury done to shipping, but his pity was still more called forth on behalf of those who lost their lives. It was quite intolerable to hear it contended in that House that shipowners should be exempted from the responsibility with regard to damage or injury, &c., which rested upon all the rest of their fellow-subjects. He thought this was a Bill for which the whole body of the mercantile marine should be thankful to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. As the law at present stood, it was hardly intelligible to lawyers. By spending an hour or two in his closet a lawyer might no doubt come to understand any point under dispute, and a shipowner might sometimes also be able to overcome the difficulty; but it was impossible for others to make out what the law at present was. He held, therefore, that this Consolidation Act would be of the greatest possible service. It had been said that it did not deserve the name of a code, but he maintained that it was more deserving of the name of a code than any that existed in any other country in the world, or that ever did exist. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of enacting that every ship of a certain burden should have the law on board for the use of the master, the officers, and the men, who might thereby be enabled to settle disputes when abroad. The hon. and learned Member for Sunderland (Mr. W. D. Seymour) took exceptions to the Bill, on account of the phraseology of the old laws not being preserved; but if the new phraseology was better than the old, he thought no great objection could be taken. He heartily thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the measure, and looked upon it as a great boon to the mercantile community.

said, he must deny that the shipowners desired to get rid of any responsibility that ought in justice to attach to them, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. and learned Serjeant. They were quite ready to admit that their ship and freight should be liable for injury, done either to property or persons. It should be remembered that masters and mates were to be examined by a Government Board, and that the master, the officers, and the ships were to be under Government inspection; and on that, as well as other accounts, the shipowners held that they ought not to be liable to a greater extent than the value of the ship and freight. He believed this was, on the whole, a very good Bill, though he thought some of the clauses might be left out with great advantage. As to measurement, he would recommend that a schedule should be inserted laying down the mode to be followed, but that power should be given to the President of the Board of Trade to correct the schedules from time to time, as science might point out.

said, he concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) in thinking this Bill a very good consolidation of the law of shipping. He considered that it was a mistake to suppose that shipowners were exempt from liability for the negligence or incompetences of their servants either under Lord Campbell's Act or the general law, nor did he think that they had any right to claim exemption from that responsibility.

said, he had listened with attention to many of the suggestions which had been made by Gentlemen well qualified to give opinions, and he was much gratified at the tone and spirit in which the Bill had been received, because it was one which, from its magnitude, ought to receive the general concurrence of the House before it could be passed into a law. If he might take the liberty of specifying a particular opinion to which he attached value, he should say it was that of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, who was the editor of Lord Tenterden's great work on the law of shipping, and therefore there was no one who could be a better judge of the difficulties of making any alteration in the law. The Bill, he wished the House to bear in mind, was an endeavour to effect, not a codification, but a consolidation, of the Statutes, which was a different thing from codification—a system which had been adopted without any success in this country, although there had been many instances of consolidating into a single Act all the enactments of Parliament on the subject of a particular law. In this Bill there had been repealed forty Acts of Parliament on the subject of shipping, ranging from the time of Elizabeth, and some 1,000 clauses, in order to bring the law within legitimate and intelligible limits. Then, with regard to the language adopted, they had made choice of new language where it was necessary for greater perspicuity and clearness. When there was a choice between new and old language, they employed the old, because it had the stamp of judicial decisions, and the risk of future lawsuits was thereby greatly excluded. The hon. and learned Member for Sunderland (Mr. W. D. Seymour) had suggested that they should leave out minute regulations, and only insert the general principles involved. That principle had been adopted where it was possible, but in the particular matter to which he had referred, the measurement of ships, it was found a matter of great difficulty. Now, it was not at all new for Parliament to endeavour to lay down the principle of getting the accurate measurement of a ship, but the difficulty was to say how they were to obtain that accurate measurement. He thought, therefore, it was a matter upon which the will of Parliament must be taken, and which must not be left entirely to the arbitrary decision of any individual. A great deal depended upon the mode of measurement. Toll was paid to every dock company in the kingdom, not according to the principle that you should have an accurate measurement of capacity, but according to the rule and mode by which you carried that measurement into effect. Now, the mode proposed in the Bill would leave the tonnage of the country at exactly the same quantity at which it now stood, doing, therefore, no injustice either as between shipowner or dockowner; but any alteration which did not comply with that principle would injure one or the other considerably. Speaking generally of the mode proposed by the Bill, of so taking an adequate number of measurements, and so applying a mathematical rule as to obtain, with a great approach to accuracy, the fair capacity of a ship, relieving the shipowner from those restrictions which now impeded the exercise of his skill and the improvement of models—this plan in the Bill had received the sanction of every authority to which it had been submitted, and of all those most competent to form opinions upon the subject. Besides the other objects contained in the measure, he proposed, if the plan of the Government relating to salvage received the assent of the House, to incorporate with the Bill the whole scheme with respect to wrecks and salvage, making the measure, therefore, one complete manual relating to the mercantile marine. The utmost pains had been taken in the consolidation of the Statutes, and he might state that he was indebted to the Judge of the Admiralty Court for the kindness with which he had, on two separate occasions, gone through the Bill, and given him the invaluable assistance of his great legal ability and knowledge. With regard to the objections which had been taken to the measure, the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) objected to the proposal to transfer certain powers from the local marine board to the justices in regard to the trial of masters charged with incompetence or neglect. It appeared that on this particular point the shipowners of Liverpool did not agree with their representatives, for they stated, after considering the clause, that they thought the mode in which he proposed to leave it a great improvement and a relief to the local marine board. But it was not intended to relieve or to disparage the local marine board. What the Government proposed was, that in cases where masters were charged with neglect or incompetence there should be a judicial inquiry. After having awarded an officer a certificate for competency, the local marine board ought not, he thought, to be judges as to whether that officer had conducted himself in such a manner as that his certificate ought to be withdrawn. His certificate ought not to be withheld upon any other than a judicial investigation, and by the finding of a recognised public tribunal. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) had alluded to the subject of savings banks and advance notes. No person could more regret than he (Mr. Cardwell) did the habits of improvidence into which seamen were but too frequently led, and in so far as the system of advance notes ministered to those habits they were no doubt to be regretted. He thought, however, they could not legislate upon the principle, that a sailor was to be treated like a child or a minor, as one who could not be intrusted with his own resources, and that he could not be placed under restrictions from which every landsman was free, in making his own contracts. Another subject alluded to by the hon. Member was that of savings banks, and the hon. Member would, no doubt, be glad to hear that he (Mr. Cardwell) had anticipated his proposition on this point, and that in the course of the last Session of Parliament, putting himself into communication with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had introduced into the Savings Banks Bill a clause for the special object of giving to sailors in seaport towns facilities for making their investments and for obtaining the advantages of savings banks. Those advantages, in London and in Liverpool, were already made use of, and nothing could be more satisfactory than the way in which the Sailors' Homes in those two places conducted the operations of their savings banks. He now approached the subject of the liability of the shipowner. Before committing itself upon this subject, the House should clearly understand what the law now was, and what was really the proposition intended when they were asked to create this limitation. The shipowner was under no legal liability, arising from what was commonly called Lord Campbell's Act, to which every other subject of the Queen was not equally liable. The difference between the two classes of persons was, that the shipowner was accustomed to be intrusted at one time with the charge of a very large number of lives under circumstances of hazard. The law had made no distinction between him and other persons, and with the exception of that important practical difference, no distinction existed. If an accident happened at sea through the neglect of his master, the shipowner might be liable, no doubt, to the whole extent of his fortune, just as a man was liable on shore if any accident happened through the carelessness of his servant while driving a vehicle. The subject was certainly a very important one for consideration, and he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Liverpool should have taken the opportunity of calling attention to the subject. With regard to the question of apprentices and seamen, the hon. Gentleman proposed in Committee to submit a clause, which had received the sanction of the shipowners of Liverpool, for making it compulsory upon shipowners to take a certain number of apprentices in proportion to the tonnage of the ship. That subject had been very fully discussed in the last Session of Parliament, and the House had then been of opinion that it was not desirable to have that restriction, nor did he think the House would be of a different opinion now. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath (Captain Scobell), had expressed his belief, that the provision for allowing our merchant ships to be manned by foreign seamen had been productive of much mischief. The hon. and gallant Member said—"Only think of the circumstances in which we are placed, and the difficulty of manning our fleet with British seamen;" and he complained—for this was what his complaint amounted to—that they had succeeded in manning the fleet without having recourse to impressment and without having even given a bounty. Now he (Mr. Cardwell) thought that, when we were wanting British seamen to enlist into our Navy, it was the worst possible time to endeavour to prevent the employment of foreign sailors in the merchant service. But he held in his hand a return supplied by the Registrar of Shipping, which showed the result of the mischief to which his hon. and gallant Friend referred—the mischief which had followed from setting free British shipping from every possible limitation and restriction. This return came down to the 31st of March last. The House would be aware that the last returns presented showed the very largest number of British seamen ever employed in the history of this country, and that it was in the last Session of Parliament that they removed all restrictions from the employment of foreigners. Well, the whole number of foreigners employed in British foreign-going shipping in the last quarter had been no more than 2,499 men. If this were multiplied by 4, it would give something less than 10,000 men; and if they looked at the returns already upon the table, they would find the whole aggregate of British seamen was, in the last year 190,000 men. Having abolished the restriction to which our shipowners were subjected, they found foreigners employed to the extent of only 10,000 men in the year, while 190,000 British seamen were in the service. This was the mischief which induced the hon. and gallant Member for Bath so seriously to exhort them to retrace their steps, an exhortation which they certainly were not prepared to comply with. The hon. and gallant Member had quoted returns to show that the number of apprentices had fallen off; the number of apprentices would very naturally fall off, when the shipowners were relieved from the necessity of taking apprentices, whether they would or not; but the returns by no means showed that the number of boys applying themselves to the sea service had fallen off; on the contrary, the number of boys in the commercial marine rising to be seamen was on the increase, though, now that the former restrictions upon the shipowners with regard to apprentices had been removed, these boys were no longer called apprentices. He had been in communication with the shipowners of London, Liverpool, Lloyd's, and with the principal persons interested in the Bill; and he had the satisfaction of knowing that the Bill had their general concurrence, and that they regarded the consolidation of the law into one Statute, as now proposed, as certain greatly to facilitate the operations of their trade. That being so, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass this Session.

said, he thought it due to the House and to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, that he should mention that he was fully borne out in stating, that the reply which the right hon. Baronet made to his statements in the early part of the evening was incorrect. In using that term he had not the slightest intention to say anything that could be considered offensive, but he spoke on the authority of men who knew what they said, and who were as good vouchers for the truth of their statements as the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Baronet stated that the Great Britain was not offered twice to the Government, but only once, and that the price was so exorbitant that it could not be accepted, that she would carry no more than 150 horses, and that she was incapable of performing the voyage within the time. Now, in a letter which Messrs. Gibbs and Bright had sent to the Morning Herald on the 5th of April, they distinctly asserted that they had offered the ship twice to Her Majesty's Government. As to the capabilities of the vessel for carrying cavalry regiments, and its means of affording them every accommodation, although there was considerable difficulty in fully explaining this subject, yet he had no doubt that the steamer was perfectly capable of carrying and affording accommodation to such troops, and this opinion of his was further confirmed by a letter which he held in his hand, and which fully bore him out in his opinion that the vessel would be now ready to go to sea in June, and that, if Messrs. Gibbs and Bright's offer had been accepted at the time it was made, three cavalry regiments might now have been, through its means, already at the seat of the war. The right hon. Baronet had said that the vessel would not answer the purposes of the Government, but he thought in this, as in many other things, the right hon. Baronet spoke inconsiderately, and without fully understanding the subject he was speaking on. He could tell the right hon. Baronet that the Himalaya went to Malta in eight days, and he considered the Great Britain capable of doing the same. The right hon. Baronet had reproved him for putting the question which he had done, and pre- facing it by the remarks which he had thought it his duty to make, but he begged distinctly to tell the right hon. Baronet that he did not look to him for an opinion as to what he ought to say or do, and that as he repudiated ever being a follower of the right hon. Baronet, so he would not permit the right hon. Baronet to dictate to him in the assumptive manner which he had thought proper to do. He (Mr. French) had said before, and he repeated it then, that he believed the massacre at Sinope would never have taken place unless it bad been for the orders from the Admiralty; that after such massacre the Russian fleet could have been taken if the orders from the Admiralty had permitted it; that our fleet, if it had not been for the conduct of the Admiralty at home, could have prevented the gathering of the troops from Circassia, as they might also, had it not been for the inefficiency or inactivity of the Admiralty, have prevented the closing up the mouths of the Danube. He wished to know, with reference to Odessa, why, when the Admirals had demanded that the ships from the inner harbour should be delivered up to them, that the fleet was afterwards desired to leave without such demand being complied with? He must complain, also, that the right hon. Baronet, in his answer to him relative to his question about Odessa, had stated, in a kind of off-hand way, that, upon leaving that port, the ships had sailed to Sebastopol, implying thereby they were going to bombard it, when he knew very well that such were not their orders. He believed that the result of the war, if it were left in the feeble hands that it was at present, would be that next year we might find 200,000 French, 200,000 Austrians, and 200,000 Russians hovering about Turkey, and that then we should not only find it impossible, with our small force of 40,000 men, to assist our allies the Turks, but probably difficult to defend ourselves. He did not consider the right hon. Baronet entitled to address him as he had, and he begged to repudiate his assuming any such privilege as he seemed on this occasion desirous of claiming.

said, he thought the House would agree with him that this was not a fit occasion for entering into a protracted discussion of the disasters which the hon. Gentleman had indulged himself in prophesying for this war, nor was he prepared that evening to defend the conduct of the war, to reopen the ques- tion of Sinope, or to discuss the bombardment of Odessa, or any expedition, past or future, on the coast of Circassia. If the hon. Gentleman was desirous of taking the opinion of the House on those subjects, let him give proper notice of Motion, and he (Sir J. Graham) should be ready then to take the field against him; but this was certainly not the proper opportunity. The hon. Gentleman had, in somewhat an adroit manner, tried to make him the assailant. Now, his complaint in the earlier part of the evening had been of what appeared to him a great violation of the forms and orders of the House on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who had put a question not so much, as it seemed to him, with a view of obtaining any information to gratify his innocent simplicity or ignorance with respect to the matter, but rather with a desire of conveying censure —"willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike." That was a course which appeared to him neither consistent with the rules of that House nor exactly consistent with fair play; and therefore he had met it in the manner of which the hon. Member complained. With respect to the facts of the case, he could only repeat that there had been one formal offer made of the Great Britain to the Board of Admiralty. That offer he held in his hand, and all the papers connected with it. Among the tenders sent in to the Board of Admiralty, there was one made on the part of the owners of the Great Britain, in the month of February, he believed, at the rate of 3l. per ton per month, which was a higher sum than had been paid in other cases, and that offer the Board of Admiralty thought fit to reject. Since that time, he believed, there had been no other offer made by the owners of the Great Britain for hire by the month, but there had been an offer—a public offer—made to sell her for a sum which the Admiralty thought was still more exorbitant than that demanded for the hire of her. That offer also had been rejected. With respect to her capacities the Government officer at Liverpool had been directed to survey her, to ascertain whether she was competent to convey a regiment of cavalry, with 340 horses. The report was that she was capable of carrying 180 horses on the lower deck, and twenty on the upper deck. That accommodation the Admiralty objected to. The result, then, was that she was unable to carry a regiment of cavalry, and that even to the extent of 180 horses her accommodation was not such as met the views of the Admiralty. With respect to her speed—and he had no wish to depreciate a vessel which the Government would neither buy nor hire—he did not believe that she could go from any port in England to Constantinople in a fortnight; it had not been achieved by any vessel yet, and he did not believe the Great Britain would be the first to do it. He was always delighted to answer any questions which were put to him, with a desire to obtain information, not intended to convey blame, and if the hon. Gentleman would always put his questions in that spirit, and reserve his censure for his Motions, no doubt they would always continue good friends. He was sorry that anything should have fallen from him to annoy the hon. Gentleman; but it certainly had appeared to him that the mode in which the question was put was not consistent with the rules of the House. He had mentioned more than once that, though he presided over the Board of Admiralty, these matters were mainly under the guidance of a gallant Officer who was not a Member of that House—Captain Milne. A more meritorious officer did not exist, or one who had laboured for the public service more faithfully or more efficiently, and it was very much on his account that he had been desirous of having this matter most fully explained.

If the right hon. Baronet's first answer had been in this tone, he would have heard no more of it.

said, he begged to move for leave to introduce a Bill "To render Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Scotland more available for the benefit of Juvenile Delinquents and Vagrant Children." It was not intended by this measure to go so far as the Lord Advocate's recent Education Bill, or to propose any rating for the support of schools. He wished to give power to magistrates where delinquents were brought before them, to send them to school instead of to gaol, thus removing them from the evils of depraved associates to a place where they would receive a good training, acquire habits of industry, and have some prospects of bettering their condition, instead of, as at present, being certain to come out of gaol ten times worse than when they went in. With respect to delinquents who had been convicted, it was intended by this measure to place them in certain schools sanctioned by the Lord Advocate, and to charge the expenditure on county and parochial boards.