asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Her Majesty's Government had considered the expediency of keeping the troops in China as much on board ship as possible until the close of the unhealthy season renders field operations practicable; and whether, when the troops are encamped, they are to be supplied with the Indian tents?

said, that the Government had taken measures to keep as many of the troops on board ship as possible until the end of the hot season. Supplies of tents would he sent from India to China when they were to be encamped.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government would have any objection to appoint a board, consisting of two military, two naval, and one medical officer, to examine and report upon all ships appointed to sail with troops, in order to obviate the sending of troops in vessels unfit for that service.

said, that what the hon. and gallant Member suggested had substantially been carried out by the Admiralty. He had before him a Report upon the last two ships sent to China, signed by two naval officers, an assistant-quartermaster general, and a deputy inspector general of hospitals.

inquired of the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has made rules and orders under the 30th Section of Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act, and when they may be expected to be laid before Parliament, as directed by 31st Section of said Act?

replied that he had in his hand a printed copy of the rules which had that day been issued in Dublin. The delay which had taken place had arisen from a desire to assimilate the rules of the Irish courts to those which were enforced in England.

said, he would further ask whether the Lord Chancellor, the Lords Justices, or the Master of the Rolls in Ireland had made any rules in pursuance of an Act passed during the last Session of Parliament?

replied, that such rules had been made and would be published in Dublin on the first day of next term.

asked the Under Secretary for War whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to include the militia medical service in the inquiries about to be instituted relative to the Army Medical Department?

said, Her Majesty's Government did not intend to include the militia medical service in the inquiries about to be instituted.

said, he wished to put a question to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council for Education with reference to a statement represented to have been made by him of the manner in which medical degrees are conferred by the University of St. Andrew's. His right hon. Friend had been represented to have said that those degrees were made a matter of commerce, and given without regard to the qualifications of the candidate. Now, this, he would assure the House, was wholly at variance with facts, and he wished to give his right hon. Friend the opportunity of correcting the impression that had gone abroad, by asking him whether he had intended to make the statement attributed to him.

said, he had no hesitation in informing his hon. Friend that if the impression to which he referred had been conveyed by what he (Mr. Cowper) had said, he must have been greatly misunderstood. He particularly stated that the practice of giving diplomas without examination was one which formerly prevailed at the University of St. Andrew's, but which had now ceased. He mentioned the old practice as an illustration of the necessity for the adoption of more definite rules than at present existed, but he never meant to imply that that practice prevailed at the present time.

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty by what authority the Order in Council of 1819, granting half-pay to naval officers, is set aside in regard to the captains, commanders, lieutenants, and masters of Greenwich Hospital; and why the practice does not equally affect the Governor, lieutenant governors, and commissioners of that hospital?

, in reply, said, that the Order in Council and the Act of Parliament founded upon it had not been set aside, because they did not grant half-pay under any circumstances. What they did, in point of fact, was to enable the Treasury to allow either the whole or a certain amount of half-pay to officers holding civil appointments. The Act was only a permissive one, and did not grant pensions. In reference to the subject before the House the officers in question had been from the first considered as retired officers of the navy and not as civil officers. At the time these offices were instituted the Order in Council was not in existence.

said, the subject of his Motion, though apparently of merely local interest, was in reality of imperial concern, for the object of the measure, which he sought to introduce, was to relieve a particular class of traders from an impost which ought to be levied on the whole community. It was with respect to certain duties imposed for working the Harbour of Kingston that he chiefly referred. That Harbour had great capabilities as a refuge Harbour for all vessels on the eastern coast of Ireland that were in distress. It had been the means of saving a vast amount of life and property, in vessels belonging to other ports. It was, in fact, the only harbour of refuge on the east coast of Ireland. In the reign of George III. an Act of Parliament had been obtained to build a small pier at a place called Dunleary, chiefly for the accommodation of the Dublin merchants. For that purpose certain dues wore imposed upon the trade of Dublin. Several years after that, a Bill had been passed for making a great harbour of refuge, intended for the relief of vessels from all parts of the world. By some inadvertence, the duties intended to apply to this small pier were realized for the making of the great harbour. Forty years had now elapsed, but no steps had been taken to make that harbour. The consequence was that the trade of Dublin continued to be burdened with these imposts, which were of a most absurd, ridiculous, and unfair character. As an illustration of the unjust character of the tolls levied, he would state that a vessel passing the harbour of Kingstown to go to Dublin, paid 4d. per ton, while a vessel which took refuge, and was saved, hut did not go to Dublin, paid nothing. The dues, too, in many cases were enormous in amount. Thus, a cargo of tea imported to Dublin paid 2s. on every chest entered in the warehouse, while a cargo of tea in the same vessel, and under similar circumstances, but bound to another port, paid nothing. The consequence of the inequalities was, that the people of Dublin paid to provide a refuge for vessels from all parts of the world. The Committee upon local dues had recommended the abolition of those imposts, and the collector in Dublin had stated that the port of Drogheda derived more benefit from the harbour of Kingstown than Dublin did. Another of the duties imposed on the trade of Dublin was 2s. on every entry at the Board of Customs, for the purpose of building the Corn Exchange; also 6d. for the purpose of keeping up the Royal Exchange. The Exchange was no longer used for commercial purposes, but had been transferred to the municipal corporation. The dues received by the Government from the trade of Dublin, on account of Kingstown Harbour, amounted to some £3,000 a year, but in addition to that, they paid the Ballast Board of Dublin £2,500 a year, as compensation for differential dues which it might levy on foreign ships. When these duties were first imposed, Kingstown belonged to the port of Dublin, but it was now entirely distinct from it, and had a separate set of Commissioners. All that he asked the House to do, was simply that which the Government had attempted unsuccessfully to do in the last Session of Parliament. He thought he had been enabled to prove that the duties he had referred to were obsolete and levied unfairly. He believed the hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade had stated some intention of bringing forward a general measure during the present Session, but thought it might be fairly inferred that there was considerable doubt of such a measure passing during the present Session. He had been requested by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to bring forward a Bill for the purpose of repealing those dues at once; and he had given notice for the first day of the Session of the measure which he now proposed to the House. Redress had been promised for years, but all general measures had failed. He, therefore, felt himself entitled to claim the support of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will now resolve itself into a Committee to consider of a Bill to repeal certain Duties on Ships entering the Port of Dublin, and other imposts affecting its trade and commerce."

said, under ordinary circumstances he should not have objected to the introduction of such a measure; but the circumstances of this case were so peculiar, that the Government felt it their duty not to allow the measure to move a single step in that House. He would briefly state to the House their reasons for that determination. The dues referred to amounted to about £3,000 a year, and they formed part of the Consolidated Fund. They were given to the Consolidated Fund as interest upon certain sums advanced by the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of making Kingstown Harbour. The Government of this country had spent £314,000 in those works, which undoubtedly were intended—whether they had succeeded in doing so or not was entirely beside the question—to improve the Harbour of Dublin. They had also, beside the other sum, paid off the debts upon the Corn Exchange, Dublin, out of the Consolidated Fund. For that, the Government had got those dues and some other small payments, which paid but a small rate of interest annually for those enormous advances. The proposition of the hon. Member for Dublin, who might be said to represent the debtors, was to cancel the debt altogether, and leave the Government without any equivalent or compensation whatever. That was a proposition so extraordinary, that he was bound to resist it in limine, and not allow it to go a single step. There was another thing still to be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman had stated that not only did the Government receive £3,000 from the tolls levied in Dublin, but that the Government paid £2,500 to the Dublin Ballast Board as compensation for differential dues which it might levy on foreign ships. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman, therefore, was, that although Dublin received £2,500, and paid £3,000 to Government, the House was to cancel the £3,000 which they paid, and leave untouched the £2,500 which they received. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he (Mr. Lowe) proposed to do the same thing in his Bill. He had done so, but it was as part of a system, and that which might be just if universally applied, would be the height of injustice in a particular case. The principle affirmed by that measure was that all dues on shipping, not applied to shipping purposes, should be abolished, and in following out that principle, the Government had been willing to forego those dues. By his Bill both payments would have been abolished. The hon. Member had opposed that Bill, but now he came forward to ask the House to confiscate the revenues of the Government in a particular case. He submitted to the House that, until they could deal with the matter as a whole on some definite principle, they ought not to deal with it at all; much less should they sanction the principle of defrauding the Imperial Government by giving hon. Gentlemen leave to introduce Bills in that House to cancel just debts.

said, he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with considerable surprise. The right hon. Gentleman contended that, because the Government had advanced a certain sum of money for the construction of a harbour or refuge at Kingstown, they were justified in continuing to levy upon the city of Dublin a duty amounting to £3,000 per annum. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had expressed himself as having been perfectly willing to abandon that charge in his measure of last year, and it seemed to him (Mr. Grogan) that the right hon. Gentleman was scarcely warranted in refusing to remedy a manifest injustice, because the House had thought proper to pronounce that measure an act of confiscation. The duty was one which operated most injuriously upon the trade of Dublin, and in order to prove that such was the case, he should enter into a few details connected with the subject. Any foreign vessel might go into the harbour of refuge in Kingston and pay no toll, whereas if she proceeded to Dublin she was liable to a charge of 4d. per ton; and he should like to know how it could be said that it would be just to continue that charge, because a large sum of money had been spent upon the harbour. The next duty was one of 2s. upon entries inward in the Custom House, and with the permission of the House he would call their attention to a few instances, in order to show the practical working of the tax. Its aggregate amount was £21 13s. upon the cargo of a vessel which arrived in Dublin from Oporto on the 31st of May, 1848; while in the case of the ship Creole, which entered that port from Cadiz in 1838, it amounted to £31 1s. 6d. A charge of £31 10s. was levied upon the cargo of the ship Douglas, which had reached Dublin on the 17th of February, 1845; while upon that of the Old England, which was chartered by a Dublin merchant, and which arrived in that city in 1848, laden with tea from China, a duty of £131 12s. was imposed. How was it possible, he would ask, that, under these circumstances, the trade of the port could increase? The consequence of the imposition of the duty, indeed, had been that the trading community of Dublin found it to their interest to have their goods brought from foreign countries to Liverpool and thence to tranship them to Ireland. They took that course because, although when Kingstown Harbour had originally been constructed, the duty had been made payable on all goods imported into Dublin, yet, owing to the influence exercised by important commercial interests in England, the charge upon the cross-channel trade had been subsequently abolished. Great injury to the port of Dublin had been the result, and he should, therefore, appeal from the right hon. Gentleman, who appeared to have been actuated by spleen in consequence of the two Members for Dublin, having voted against his Bill of last year, to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and beg of him to take the matter into his consideration, and to accede to the proposition of his hon. Friend near him, which, while it aimed at the abolition of certain duties, differed from the measure of last year in the circumstance that it left several other charges in the position in which they now stood.

said, the two Members for Dublin, with that fraternal unanimity for which they were so distinguished, had proposed to the House the remission of certain local dues in which their constituencies were interested. They had founded their application on a principle to which he hoped the House would not accede. Objecting to a general measure which was laid before the House last Session, the effect of which would have been to include those duties within a general arrangement—objecting to the principle of that general arrangement, they came forward and selected certain duties which pressed peculiarly on the port of Dublin, and asked the House for leave to bring in a Bill for the remission of those duties, although they had by a previous arrangement, to which that House had been a party, been appropriated as security for the advances of public money previously made for the benefit of the Port of Dublin. Those dues had been transferred to the Government in consequence of the large advances of public money made for the improvement of the Port of Dublin and for the construction of the Harbour of Kingstown. Taking those duties as they exist, they afforded but a small interest upon the advances of public money which were then made. The arrangement was to be considered one of the nature of an advance of public money, for which those dues were assigned as the only security. Now, the hon. Member for Dublin proposed what could only he considered a simple act of repudiation of a debt due by Dublin to the public. He would not deny that in particular cases those dues might fall with hardship upon certain vessels and a portion of the trade of Dublin; but the same objection applied to numerous other duties in which the hon. Gentleman did not propose to interfere. He must object to a measure of this sort coming singly, when not only that particular case, but the whole system would be dealt with by the Government. For those reasons he felt it his duty to resist the Motion for the Speaker leaving the chair. No benefit would arise from the House going into Committee to consider the measure. They knew what the measure was, and what was the object sought. It was simply the repeal of duties levied.

observed, that it was unusual to refuse a Member leave to introduce a measure, and it was unfair that the first instance of refusal this Session should be in the case of an Irish measure—a measure for the relief of Irish trade. Several measures had been already allowed to be brought in, though it was announced that they were not to be allowed to proceed; amongst others that of the Judgements Execution Bill, to which the great majority of the Irish Members were so strongly opposed. He trusted the noble Lord at the head of the Government would accord the permission for the introduction of the Bill, which had been refused by the hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. If this were not done, he would attribute it to the intention of the Government to deal with Ireland exceptionally. The Harbour of Kingstown was as much for the benefit of the trade of the empire at large as the breakwater at Plymouth, and the trade of Dublin should not be left to bear the whole burden of it.

I am afraid I cannot comply with the appeal made to me by the hon. Member. So far from the Government wishing to make Ireland an exception, it is the hon. Member for Dublin who wishes to deal with Ireland in an exceptional manner. I am willing, however, to make a compromise with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vance), and if he will engage to support the Government in a general measure on passing tolls, I will pledge myself to include these Irish tolls in a general measure. We do not wish to make Ireland an exception in legislating on this subject, but the object of the hon. Gentleman is to repeal a particular duty applicable to Dublin, leaving the same duties leviable upon other parts of the kingdom. I should be glad to assist the representatives for Ireland individually and personally in assisting the commerce of Dublin, but public duty is paramount to private considerations, and I cannot, therefore, give my consent to the Motion.

said, he wished to remind the Government that they would not be pledged to vote for this Bill if they consented to its introduction, and that it was very rare for the Government to refuse to an hon. Gentleman the courtesy of allowing him to bring in a Bill. Was it that the Government knew the case of Dublin to be so strong that they dreaded its disclosure, and feared that a sense of duty would induce hon. Members to pass the Bill? They were told the Government had an enormous majority in the present House; but he hoped the House would not allow itself to be dictated to in this manner by the Treasury bench. He wished the House to understand, that all his hon. Friend (Mr. Vance) asked was, simply an opportunity to do that which, by a technical rule of the House, he was prevented from doing. All he asked was, permission to state his case. He trusted hon. Members on both sides of the House would exercise their own plain sense, by expressing their opinion that the House should hear his hon. Friend state his case.

said, that the noble Lord had been kind enough to make him an offer; he would now make the noble Lord an offer in return. If he would allow him (Mr. Vance) to introduce his measure, and the hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, afterwards brought in a general measure, he (Mr. Vance) had no objection to postpone any further consideration of his Bill. It was for fear that no general measure would be brought in and carried, that the merchants of Dublin had entrusted him with that Bill. He thought the merits of the case so great, and the arguments by which it had been met so weak, that if permission was not given to introduce the Bill, he should feel it his duty to divide the House.

I think that the position of my hon. Friend has not been correctly appreciated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. I give no opinion upon the merits of the case which my hon. Friend has brought under the notice of the House, but he wishes to bring in a Bill upon a subject on which the Government in the late Parliament introduced unsuccessfully a comprehensive measure. If my hon. Friend, in wishing to introduce a Bill to meet a particular grievance, were met by the assurance on the part of the Government that, while they opposed the proposition, they were prepared to legislate in the new Parliament upon the general question, then the resistance of the Government to the proposition would be a fair and plausible opposition; but, as we do not collect that the Government intend to bring in a measure relative to these dues in the present Session, and as we have not heard that even next Session they intend to deal with the subject, are we to come to the conclusion that, because the Government were defeated in a defunct Parliament in a comprehensive measure that, therefore, they will allow no hon. Gentleman, whose constituents are affected by these duties, to obtain redress for the grievance? I do not believe that either the Government or the House will maintain a proposition so unjust. If the Government will pledge itself that, either in this or the next Session it will deal with this subject by a general measure, then that will be a ground for dissuading my hon. Friend from attempting to obtain redress at the present moment. The House will observe that I give no opinion upon the merits of the case. I make these observations without considering myself bound to support my hon. Friend's Bill when it may be introduced; but I cannot sanction the course which the Government have taken, because I think it extremely harsh and unjust, contrary to the practice and injurious to the privileges of Parliament. I hope the noble Lord will reconsider the question, and that my hon. Friend will be allowed to submit his Bill for the consideration of the House.

wished to say a word in explanation. He had already stated this Session in answer to a question, that a Bill such as had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared, and would be introduced as soon as the state of public business permitted.

wished to ask a question, upon the answer to which his vote would depend. It had been stated that these dues had been pledged by the city of Dublin to the Government in repayment of certain sums of money advanced by the Government. If so, he did think that the House would be guilty of an act of repudiation by consenting to remit these duties, and he should vote against the Motion.

said, that the hon, Member had correctly stated the facts.

, presented petitions to the same effect.

:^* I crave the kind indulgence of the House whilst I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to state the reasons which induce me to ask it to go into Committee on the acts for the endownment of Maynooth, with a view to their repeal. But first, Sir, I would assure those hon. Gentlemen who are of the Roman Catholic faith that I have no ground of quarrel with them at all. I attack no individual opinion; I respect individual opinion; and as a Protestant I would do all I could to assert the right and maintain the privilege of private judgment. I believe that many Roman Catholics, both in this House and out of it, and with whom I am on terms of intimacy, give me full credit for the sincerity with which I now declare that I am actuated by no individual dislike to Roman Catholics themselves; that I am actuated by no wish to curtail their privileges, or dictate to them what religion they shall follow, or in any way whatever to interfere with the full and free exercise of religious opinions, which every man has a right to exercise and maintain, within the due bounds of law and morality. Having said thus much, I must request the House to believe that I have no personal motive to serve in bringing this subject forward. I have no ambitious purpose to satisfy. I can safely say, that it is a very painful task which I have undertaken, and that an imperative sense of duty alone compels me to undertake it. I do not pretend to hide from the House that there are several hon. Friends, with whom I am in the habit of acting, as well as those with whom I do not act, who would be much better pleased if I had not brought this Motion forward. I can assure them that nothing but the conviction that I should have otherwise deserted a most bounden duty compels me to bring forward a subject without the cordial support of those with whom I generally act. But I will not, I cannot, sacrifice what I believe to be my duty, even that I may receive cheers such as I have just heard. And I wish here to allude to another point. I have been accused, and in no very courteous terms, by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), whom I do not now see in his place, of venturing to lay down my own opinion as the test of truth to be followed by others. I may refer to the language used by the hon. and learned Member, as, although it was uttered in February last, it has passed into the records of Parliament. I am anxious to notice this accusation now, as at the termination of the last debate on this subject, I had not an opportunity of doing so. The hon. and learned gentleman not only accused me of venturing to lay down my own opinion as the rule for others, but he said that I was bigoted to my own opinions: and he asked me, rather sneeringly, what I supposed there was, either in my intellect or position, justifying me in setting myself up as a dictator as to truth. The hon. and learned Member mistook my argument. I then expressed no mere opinion of my own. I did not ground my accusation against the College of Maynooth on any of my own opinions; I grounded them on the Articles and Rubric of the Church of England, of which he professes to be a member. I certainly have used no arguments whatever except those founded on the principles of the Church of England, and on the Oath taken by the Sovereign. That was the ground which I took then, and which I intend to take now. But knowing that hon. Members may get up and make assertions to which I should not have an opportunity of adverting in reply, and to which the House might not be in a temper to listen, I will proceed to anticipate some of the objections with which I may be met on the present occasion. The object I have in view, in bringing this matter before the House, is to show, that Parliament is at the present moment paying for the teaching of doctrines hostile to the Protestant Constitution—hostile to the principles of civil and religious liberty—destructive of true morality—and completely antagonistic to the doctrines of the Established Church, and which the Sovereign is bound by oath to maintain; and which we are by the oath of allegiance sworn to enable her, to the best of our power, to maintain. It is perfectly unjust that we should be called upon to pay for the teachings of doctrines antagonistic to that Church which the Sovereign is bound by her solemn oath to uphold. What is it, Sir, that the Sovereign is bound to maintain? I will read shortly the 31st Article on "The Sacrifice of Masses." ["Oh!" from the Ministerial benches.] I do not know what that exclamation means. Do hon. Members mean to say that this does not form a legitimate ground of argument? Do they mean to say that if the Church lays down a certain doctrine we are to pay Roman Catholic Priests for teaching a perfectly antagonistic doctrine? The Article of the Church is this—"The Sacrifice of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." The doctrine of the mass is clearly upheld and supported in the College of Maynooth; Parliament, therefore, by supporting that College, is aiding to teach "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." What says the Rubric of the Church? Many of my opponents are known as mighty sticklers for the Rubric. It declares, (after the Communion Service,) "The Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substance. They therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians." By the missal or prayer book of Roman Catholics they are taught to adore the bread and wine, and they are therefore doing that which the Rubric declares is "idolatry to be abhorred of all true Christians." I ask those who support our Rubric, how they can contribute to that "idolatry?" That, Sir, is the first ground on which I hold the justice of repealing this grant. Three times has this House declared by a majority in favour of my proposition. [Colonel FRENCH: In the last Parliament.] Certainly, in the last Parliament; and I hope that that which the last Parliament deliberately considered, if it did not determine, will have some weight and influence on those hon. Gentlemen who form the present Parliament; for not any one of the charges I brought forward was disproved, not a single quotation I used received a contradiction. They were all assented to, and were even confirmed by the evidence taken before the Commission of Inquiry, in 1855. And what, Sir, is the oath of the Sovereign? Some hon. Members may not know how solemn an oath it is. The Sovereign is asked, "Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion, as established by law?" To which the Sovereign's answer was, "All these I solemnly swear to maintain." That is the form of oath; and I ask whether it is consistent in a House of Commons, representing a great nation, to require from the Sovereign, a solemn oath, and then ask the consent of the Crown to money grants in order to bring up and educate a priesthood in the College of Maynooth, who are to teach the people the exact contrary of that oath—to teach, also, that it is a duty to put down the Established Church, and that all who belong to the Established Church, and others who are true Protestants, are heretics, and ought to be punished? I repeat, that the oath taken by the Sovereign is inconsistent with the teaching of Maynooth. The next point is the supposed "Parliamentary compact." A great many hon. Members, for whom I entertain a high respect, who totally disagree with the teaching and doctrines held at Maynooth, would be glad to see the College done away with, but consider themselves to be met with the difficulty of the Parliamentary compact. Where is that compact? Up to 1845, no one can maintain that there was one. I do not think, moreover, that by any construction could any compact be inferred from the articles of the Union. Those articles alluded to certain medical and other charities, and limited the extension of assistance to twenty years. I very much question if Maynooth could properly be included at all under the category. But I will give you that point. It was an annual grant, continually subject to the will of Parliament, and was not at first meant for the education of Priests only, but to help the Roman Catholics to build and support a College, in order to prevent the foreign education of their priests, so that these persons might be brought up in their own way in Ireland. This, by the way, I would observe, was a great mistake. Any departure from sound principle for the sake of expediency, no matter how plausible the arguments in favour of such a course, was always sure to end badly, and the nation was sure to suffer the consequences of wrong-doing. In this instance, however, no compact could be said to exist, when it was every year within the power of Parliament to say "Aye" or "No" as to the continuance of the grant. But then, it was said the compact began in 1845. Well, if it were contended that an Act of Parliament conferred a Parliamentary title, and that this title could in no shape or way be altered, all I can say is, that those hon. Gentlemen who voted the other night with the hon. Member for Cork, to abolish "ministers' money," by no means recognized such a principle. And the compact as regards ministers' money, was a much stronger one than any agreement on the subject of Maynooth; for the former was a grant made in order to induce Protestant settlers to go over to Ireland, and to maintain their religion in that country; it was a grant in return for a consideration, and, as such, was a very different thing from a free gift. But what said Sir Robert Peel upon this question of compact? These were his words, in 1845:—

"It is, I trust, conceived in, a liberal and a confiding spirit. We have not introduced it without a communication with the leading members of the Roman Catholic Church, but it has not been a subject of stipulation or of contract with them."

These were the motives which influenced the statesman who induced Parliament to pass the measure of 1845, and who said distinctly that it was a free gift, made without any sort of stipulation or compact. I will quote another authority on this point—that of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London—who said—

"I do not mean to argue the question of compact; but if you found that there was ground sufficient to refuse the grant,…then I can see no valid reason why any compact should restrain you from so doing."

This, I think, disposes of the argument that a compact existed, I should be the last to countenance any breach of faith; but as I understand them, the Roman Catholic Members in this House did not rest their case upon any such ground. I now come to the question of the public code of social morals taught at Maynooth; and I beg the hon. Members to listen, for I shall show that those morals were not taken merely from old musty books, seldom lifted from the shelves, but were contained in new publications, recognized by the highest possible authority. What said Scavini upon social morals? I must first, however, tell you who Scavini is. He is, I believe, a living authority. The work quoted was Theologia Moralis Universa, Pio IX., Pontifici Maximo, dicata; Paris, 1853. And the present Pope had condescended to write a commendatory letter to Scavini himself, extolling his work; and specially so, because he so closely followed "the salutary doctrines of the most holy and most learned Alphonsus Maria Liguori." Now, that is no "musty volume." The works of this writer are introduced to supersede those of Bailly, and are at present made use of by the students at Maynooth. In vol. ii., page 234, this passage occurs—

"What are we to think as to a fictitious promissory oath? Ans. Anything may be fictitiously promised in three ways: either, first, without the mind to swear; or secondly, without the mind to be bound; or thirdly, without the mind to fulfil."

Scavini then lays down, that he who evades the truth in the first manner, sins, and he refers to a proposition of this kind, condemned by Innocent IX.; but he says that "All the doctors teach that he sins only venially." He then adds—

"He who promises any thing with an oath, without the mind of being bound by his oath, the doctors commonly teach, sins grievously, since it appears to be a grave irreverence to call God to witness, and to be unwilling to be bound by His testimony. But there are who teach this to be only a venial sin, and that indeed very probably, for without the intention of binding himself, there is no oath, and therefore he cannot violate the oath; and, therefore, there has only been a vain use of the name of God."

And in a note at the foot of page 235, Scavini adds—

"Indeed, this is more probable, because, in swearing, he is not bound to observe his oath, as well because from his words it is invalid, as also because God did not accept his promissory oath except according to the intention of the person swearing."

Can we wonder, then, that juries give improper verdicts, or refuse to find any verdicts at all, when we ourselves pay priests to teach the doctrine that a man might call God to witness and be guilty of no sin if he broke his oath, having at the time a secret intention in his mind not to keep it? I beg hon. Members to lay aside their prejudices, for I am sure if they would do so, and would exercise their independent judgment on this question, they would not be prepared to follow the noble Viscount, who is now in the ascendant into the commission of so vile a sin as the active sanctioning of these doctrines. But now for a little more of Scavini, the Pope's special divine. He deals largely in quotations from that great saint and high authority, Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Book iii., No 172, &c.; and who states, in that Book at No. 151, that to

"Swear with equivocation when there is a just cause, and equivocation itself is lawful, is not a bad thing; but if truly it be done without a just cause it is not necessarily perjury, since, according to one sense of the word, or according to his mental reservation, he might swear to what was true; yet such swearing would be of its own nature a mortal sin against religion."

All depended, evidently, upon what was a just cause; and Liguori very distinctly explained what was a "just cause;" his answer being "any honest end for the preservation of good things for the spirit or useful things for the body." That was a "just cause" which authorized false swearing and made the breaking of an oath no sin against religion, and in no way punishable! Liguori proceeds—

"But whether it is a mortal sin to swear with amphibology, or not purely mental restriction, and without a just cause?"

He then quotes Sanches, &c., who says it is not mortal—

"The reason of this more probable opinion is, that in such an oath already truth and justice are present, and only judgment and discretion are wanting, which detect is only a venial sin. Neither does what Viva says oppose this view, namely, that a person swearing in such a manner invokes God to witness a falsehood, for in very deed he invokes God to witness what is true, according to his own sense, though he allows, for a just cause, another person, through his own carelessness or inadvertence, to be deceived."

Will hon. Members suffer such a system to continue? Will they make themselves partakers in that iniquity by contributing money to propagate such doctrine among the ignorant people of Ireland or anywhere? I trust that they will not look upon this as a trifling matter, or as a party question. I have no party views in the affair, as is perfectly clear from the state of the benches on this side of the House. But although this is no party subject, and although I have been opposed by a powerful Ministry on one side, and by a dead and defunct Ministry, hoping to be resuscitated, on the other side, I have thrice, in the last Parliament, obtained the vote of the majority of the House in favour of my proposition. There must therefore, I contend, be something of vital importance in the question, which appeals to the feelings of independent men, when in spite of these adverse circumstances I could succeed in obtaining such a result as I have adverted to. I appeal to this Christian assembly whether this is a system which this great Protestant nation should continue to uphold, whether it is a system which ought longer to enjoy the countenance of Parliament and the support of Ministers? I am satisfied that if you will lay aside your prejudices and view the question as unconnected with politics, there is not one of you who would endeavour to justify such a system. And yet the Sovereign of this country is actually coerced into sanctioning the teaching of these abominable doctrines. The consequences of such a system are not yet half developed. There is something looming in the future to which I will yet call the noble Viscount's earnest attention; for I believe that it will be realized in a way which is little imagined. Now, let hon. Members understand what are the notions of Scavini with respect to family morals, and let them then say if they would like the following doctrine to be acted upon by their clerks and servants—

"You ask whether it may be permitted to servants, that they should secretly compensate themselves from their masters' goods upon pretence that their masters have not given them sufficient? A. I say generally speaking they are not (quoting a proposition condemned by Pope Innocent XI.); but we say generally speaking, for the Salamanca doctors teach two things relating to this opinion of Pope Innocent; … one, that the pontifical decree was not meant to bind servants contrary to justice."

Then, in a note—

"Hence, if a servant be compelled by necessity to agree for a small sum (insufficient price), he may compensate himself up to the lowest price (paid to other servants).

"A second teaching of the Salamanca school is, that if a servant, of his own choice, augments his work, he can make himself no amends; … but if he adds to his stipulated work by the expressed or tacit consent of his master, compensation will be due, for the labourer is worthy of his reward."

Then, in a note, he continues—

"But you say, is every one to judge for himself as to the justice or injustice of his stipend as compared with other servants similarly employed? The Salamancas hold that of himself the servant himself may so judge, and according to his own conscience compensate himself for his work. And this appears to us (Scavini) sufficiently probable; provided the servant be prudent, modest, judicious, correct, &c., which rarely happens."

Then he refers to Liguori on the subject, B. iii., No. 522. Liguori says, 521, n. 2—

"Compensation should be regularly sought by an appeal to law; but to omit this is only a venial sin, nay, it is no sin (citing authorities) if hostilities, expenses, and other similar evils are dreaded."

Let the House remember that Professor Furlong, of Maynooth, second part of Report, 1855, p. 91, and Professor Neville, p. 51, both mention Liguori as an authority at Maynooth. Is this the morality for the teaching of which, among ignorant classes completely subject to the priesthood, any Christian assembly ought to pay? And this, let it be remarked, is in no ancient book, but in one recently introduced (see Appendix B). I have almost done with quotations on this point. I could yet furnish an abundance more of them, but I give what I have submitted to the House as samples only, and any hon. Gentleman who would take half as much pains in examining these books as I and an hon. Friend of mine who assisted me in the translations have done, will soon see that the samples, fair and not garbled, which I have adduced, form but a very small portion of the large mass of this most abominable teaching which is carried on. Well, we now come to the power of the Pope, and first of all I will quote the evidence of the Rev. James O'Kane, the junior dean of Maynooth, as given before the Commission. He is asked:—

"Question (241).— Have you reason to suppose that the students are in the habit of reading books … conflicting with that doctrine (of the Pope having no temporal or deposing power)?—A. I have no reason to suppose that they do so, except controversial works, as Bellarmine, for instance; of course they are in the habit of reading these."

Now I remember the noble Lord at the head of the Government reminded us upon a former occasion that in our classical studies we used necessarily to read many things that were objectionable, and so he would have us excuse the peculiar teachings of Maynooth. But, mark, these abominable doctrines are not casually put forward, but they come before the students in their works on controversy, which all must read and study. The works of Bellarmine are not read for their language merely. Bellarmine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) knows, is a great authority with his Church, and was the champion of Rome at the time of the Reformation. Now what does he say as to the power of the Pope:—(Bellarmine de Rom. Pont, lib, vi., cap. 6, Venice, 1599.)

"The Pope, as Pope, cannot ordinarily establish civil laws or annul them, hut he can do all this in the case where a civil law is necessary to the salvation of souls, and kings are not willing to make such a law; or where other laws are established hurtful to the salvation of souls, and kings are unwilling to repeal them."

But, it may be said, what care we about such doctrines, they can have no effect here? Now, I tell you that they have effect here, and that you are suffering men to go about with all the authority which their Church gives them, propagating this amongst an ignorant and superstitious people. This is a doctrine which is taught at Maynooth, at the expense of the people of this country, and I would warn you that the time may come when you may be told, "You cannot complain of the deposition of your Sovereign, because you have paid for teaching that the power of deposition is inherent in the Pope." I am sorry to say these doctrines are but little known amongst Protestants as being taught at their expense; if they were, my task would be comparatively easy. I will, therefore, continue my extracts, and here is what Bellarmine says as to the power of the Pope over princes:—

"Ordinarily the Pope, as Pope, cannot depose princes, &c., but he can change (the rulers of) kingdoms—can take a kingdom from one king and give it to another, as the chief spiritual prince, if it be necessary to the salvation of souls. Where the matter of law endangers the salvation of souls the Imperial law may be abrogated by the Papal law."—[Bell., tom. i. p. 889.)

Well, will you subscribe to that doctrine? and yet remember that you are paying for its inculcation? You find fault occasionally with the people for obeying the teaching of the priests, but you have no right to do so, for it is you who pay the priests who teach them. Now a word as to what may be termed "a just cause." Bellarmine continues:—

"It is not lawful to Christians to tolerate an infidel or heretical king, if he endeavours to draw away his subjects to his own heresy or infidelity; but it belongs to the Pope to judge as to this, to whom is committed the care of religion. Therefore, it also belongs to the Pope to judge whether the sovereign is to be deposed or not … And if such princes attempt to turn their people from the faith, they may, by the consent of all, and ought to be deprived of their dominion.

Now, let us not forget that our Sovereign is, in their view, a heretic. By-and-bye, no doubt, we shall hear something about "material" heresies and "formal," and other nice Jesuitical quibbles; but, be that as it may, we are told plainly enough what are the consequences of endeavouring to pervert the subjects of this realm to "heresy." Now surely the noble Lord will allow that the time has come for putting a stop to the propagation of such doctrines. The majority of us are all heretics in Rome's esteem; and if we have not as yet been punished, it is because we are powerful. Prudence in dealing with the strong and powerful is enjoined by Rome on her agents; but where they are merely confronted by the weak and powerless, energy and despatch are to be the rule. The Pope, according to the doctrines here disclosed, may cause one of his vassals to send over an army to assist the Roman Catholics of this country in a struggle against the authority of the Crown. Again, here is further evidence as to the power of the Pope according to the teaching at Maynooth. Dr. Moriarty, a gentleman well known, then president of All Hallowes College, Drumcondra, is asked:—

"Are there no circumstances under which the Pope could release a citizen from his oath of allegiance?—A. Most emphatically I say, none. But as our greatest constitutional lawyers, and, as I think, our best theologians, hold that there are cases when the allegiance of the subject ceases, and when the Government of a country may be justly overthrown, I consider that the Pope is the fittest authority to decide in many cases whether such circumstances have arisen."

The Pope, therefore, was to have the power of deciding whether any differences of opinion which might arise between a sovereign and his people, justified his subjects in violating their allegiance. Dr. Moriarty further said:—

"In many cases he (the Pope) could not decide, and I firmly believe that in such cases he would not undertake to do so. In no case can he cause the allegiance of a subject to cease, his power in such a matter being simply declaratory, not enabling,"

The examination of Dr. Moriarty proceeded:—

"But he (the Pope) would have removed the obligation from the conscience?— A. He would declare it removed by circumstances.

"But it would have the effect of removing the obligation from the conscience, would it not?— A. No; he merely decides and declares that it is removed, and thus he may enlighten a conscience which was in error, which erroneously judged itself under an obligation that had ceased to exist."

"With whom does the responsibility rest? Is the responsibility of disobeying removed from the party by virtue of the opinion expressed by the superior authority?—A. Were we to consult the Holy See upon our allegiance or obedience to our temporal Sovereign, and that an answer were given us, it ought to satisfy the consciences of Catholics, considering the maturity with which the Holy See proceeds, and considering, also, that we know it to be an authority divinely appointed and divinely assisted for our guidance in the way of salvation, and consequently in the path of duty.

"Does not that leave the question of the allegiance of all the subjects of the world to their several sovereigns entirely dependent upon the opinions that may be pronounced by the Pope from time to time?"

And now see how this Jesuit evades the question:—

"I think it would be well for the sovereigns and the subjects of the world that the matter were left to the Pope; but it seems to me that this opinion leaves allegiance no more dependent on the Pope, than Protestant theology leaves it dependent on individual conscience."

True, yet the decision or consultation of individuals in a nation, all responsible for their decisions, is one thing; but the dogmas of a foreign Prince thus interfering in our concerns is another thing—is intolerable. The question is, who rules the Roman Catholics here, the Pope or the Queen? Yet, with these answers before them, the Commissioners came to the notable resolution, that they did not find from the evidence, that the Roman Catholic doctrines had a tendency to destroy or weaken the allegiance of subjects to the Crown! There is another very important question, and there is a great deal more in it than appears at first sight to a superficial observer—that is, the question of teaching with respect to marriage. This is the doctrine which Scavini laid down on that subject, vol. iv., p. 378:— In those places where the Council of Trent is published—which applied to Ireland, for it was published there—"every marriage entered into otherwise than in the presence of a priest,"—a Romish priest being meant, of course,—"and two or three witnesses, is null and void." As see the words of the Council, in its Decree, Session 24, cap. 1:—

"Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise (than as above), them doth the Holy Synod render incapable of thus contracting, and declares such contracts void and null."

The House is, therefore, in point of fact, sanctioning the expenditure of the public money in teaching that the Queen is illegitimate, for, according to the doctrine there laid down and inculcated by the Romish Church, her parents were not married, and it follows, also, that she herself is not married, in a valid sense. It is important to bear in mind, that Parliament is now paying for the dissemination of that doctrine, the danger of which cannot be overrated, should any contest ever arise about the succession to the throne. Again, according to Dr. O'Hanlon, Bailly held a different doctrine from that of Scavini, and one very distasteful to the Pope of Rome—namely, the separability of the contract of marriage from the sacrament; but Bailly's book, in which that doctrine was laid down, is now prohibited from being taught at Maynooth, while that of Scavini, who inculcated an opposite one, is allowed; so that the result is, that the Pope, "as Pope," has formally laid down, at Maynooth, the maxim, that no marriage among Christians can be valid, unless it is celebrated as a sacrament. Here, again, the doctrine, which Parliament pays for teaching, is that the marriage of our Most Gracious Sovereign is not a valid marriage, and, therefore, according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, all the consequences must attach to it that result from a marriage that is not valid. The time may come—God grant it may not!—when disputes might arise in reference to the Act of Settlement of William III.; for I may remind the House that Mr. Burke, the well-known writer on the Peerage, &c., in his Royal Families of England, Scotland, and Wales, vol. ii., p. 27, demonstrates that though there are no descendants of James II., there are descendants in the female line of Charles I. Once establish that fact, and once admit the truth of the doctrines on marriage now taught at Maynooth, and such descendants of Charles I. will no longer be hors decombat as respects any pretensions they may have to the throne of this realm. The present Duke of Modena, Francis V., is a nearer claimant of the throne than Her Most Gracious Majesty, barring the Act of Settlement of Will. III. and her Protestant oath. I therefore warn the House how they continue to sanction such dangerous delusions. On the same subject of marriage, the Rev. H. Neville, a Maynooth Professor, states (p. 407, part ii.), in answer to the question—

"Is it taught at Maynooth, that a, man who enters into a marriage contract, which is valid by the law of the land, but invalid by the law of the Roman Catholic Church, may, on that account, abandon the woman, and contract marriage with another woman?— A. The man in the case proposed is free to abandon the woman, and contract marriage with another, as far as any obligation from the ecclesiastical contract is concerned."

And we know that whatever be the civil "inconveniences," the ecclesiastical effects are paramount with Romanists. I now come to another point, touching the light in which heretics and schismatics are viewed by the Romish Church. Every Member of this House who is not a member of the Romish Church, is, in the estimation of that Church, a heretic; and subject to the denunciations laid down in the book from which I am quoting. This celebrated author, Devoti, takes great pains to show that none are to be tolerated who dissent from that Church. Let the friends of civil and religious liberty bear this in mind. Give that Church the power, and it will soon he seen what are its notions of civil and religious liberty. In the College of Maynooth, the doctrine that heretics and schismatics are to be punished is now taught; and Parliament itself is sanctioning the expenditure of public money in teaching that doctrine. I contend, therefore, that the time has come when Parliament ought to tell the Roman Catholic priesthood that if they continue to teach such doctrines to the people of their communion they will do it at their own cost, and their own risk and responsibility. Devoti, in this Institutionum Canonicarum, lays down the most intolerant doctrines. This book has been adopted by the College, and is returned in the Report of Evidence, 1826; and has lately been put forth in a new edition—the one now quoted. As regards the punishment of heretics, the author of this work says (vol. ii. p. 259)—

"Many punishments are appointed for heretics in both the civil and ecclesiastical laws. By the civil laws are decreed infamy and the prohibition to devise property or receive any donation of property. Especially their goods are confiscated and their money, and similar punishments are inflicted. Moreover the Roman law punishes certain heretics with death." (Vol. ii., pp. 264 and 271), "To schismatics who separate from the universal Church the same punishments are awarded as to heretics. … None are to be tolerated who dissent from the truth. … But the prince placed over the civil state ought to coerce, and with punishments to expel the enemies of the Catholic religion … Wherefore when any one is adjudged by the Church to be an enemy of true religion, the prince should endeavour by all means to remove the moral contagion by which the whole State may be corrupted … But if the fear of great evil and danger should not allow him (the prince), to expel heretics and the like, from the city or State, the law of necessity must be obeyed. Then heretics must remain in the city or State, if they cannot be expelled.''

The doctrine is, that all who are baptized are subject to the Romish Church—that there is truly but this one Church, and consequently the very moment that we separate from that Church we become heretics, and are subject to the denunciations above laid down. We, having dissented from the doctrines of the Romish Church, are not to be tolerated—we must suffer the pains and penalties of heretics. Give the Church of Rome but that power which she is every day aiming at, and you will soon see, to your cost, what her notions of civil and religious liberty are. And recollect that, by endowing this College, you are, in effect, teaching those doctrines respecting heretics and schismatics to which I have just referred. These are books which, with your money, you are contributing to teach. And yet you assume the character of defenders and supporters of civil and religious liberty. [A laugh.] Some hon. Members may attempt to ridicule these facts; but it ought to be made the subject of serious reflection by the Members of the Government, who are participators in the sin arising from the teaching of doctrines which are subversive of all order and propriety, and of the civil and religious liberties of this country. Bellarmine also teaches as to the extirpation of heretics—

"When, therefore, our Lord prohibits us to extirpate all the wicked, he does not prohibit that individuals should be slain. If, indeed, it can be done, they (heretics) ought undoubtedly to be extirpated; but if they are stronger than we, and there is danger if we attack them in war that more of us would fall than of them, then are we to keep quiet." De Laicis, chap. 22. Appendix C.)

Here then are books whose doctrines you help to spread all over the country; justify this if you can! There is a document actually before the House, to which I wish to call the noble Lord's attention. It is a document in the shape of a petition; not from any Protestant individual or body, but from a Roman Catholic gentleman. I do not mean to express any opinion whatever as to whether the statements made in it are true or not. That is a question which is yet to be tried. But observe the way in which the priests exercised their power at the last election, as described by this Roman Catholic gentleman. This, Sir, is a petition from Colonel Higgins, who was a Member of this House in the last Parliament. I did not myself know that gentleman intimately, but I always heard him spoken of as a man of great veracity, of highly honourable principles. Well, here are the allegations of Colonel Higgins, as set forth in this petition. He says—

"The Roman Catholic clergy of the county of Mayo, previous to and during the late election, convened large meetings, at which, and in their chapels, they openly denounced your petitioner, and made the people believe that the electors and others would be advancing the glory of God, and saving their own souls from eternal damnation, and bringing blessings upon their own families, by voting for the present sitting Member for the county. "… … "The said Roman Catholic clergy openly invoked the curses of the Almighty on all who should refuse to vote for the said sitting Member, and stated that the souls of those who voted against the sitting Member, or who declined to vote for him, would be consigned to eternal punishment hereafter; and that the said priests had acted at the election as tally agents."

Now, recollect, that these are the statements of a Roman Catholic gentleman, and who states that he is ready upon oath to produce witnesses to prove his statements. Now, what does Professor O'Hanlon say, in effect, in his evidence, upon this subject of the interference of priests at elections? He says, "Oh, no, the priests have no right to interfere at elections"—then comes the "but"— "but the vote may be one that may occasion sin, and, therefore, although they have no right to interfere with the right of voting, yet if the vote occasion sin, they have a right to refuse to the sinning voter all the rites and sacraments of his Church." Now, I ask you, can you believe that the priests educated by such men as O'Hanlon, who go out amongst the voters, and who tell them that these are the doctrines of Maynooth, which England maintains with her money—which the Crown and Parliament sanctioned—can you, I say, doubt but that the voters will assent to them, and will implicitly believe what their priests tell them? There is a gentleman who, by the negligence and non-performance of his duty by the Attorney General, assumes to himself a title which is directly contrary to the intentions of the law that was passed to prevent such pretensions. This gentleman assumes to himself the forbidden title of "Bishop of Liverpool." The following appears in a newspaper called The Tablet, which I believe is a special organ of the Roman Catholics of this country—

"Diocese of Liverpool, May 9, 1857.—Laying the Foundation-stone of St. Peter's new Church, at Lancaster.—Referring to the maintenance of their civil privileges, the Bishop said, 'They must prove their rights, by standing up for them. The day had gone by when Catholics should bow their heads and live; but they must claim their rights, and have them. He considered that either bishops or priests degraded their position, when they appeared at the hustings, but when they had the right of voting he hoped they would always be found at the head of their people. [And here in the petition of Colonel Higgins, the House may see how they 'head their people.'] For 300 years they had been taken as they were described to be, but now they were beginning to be seen as they really were, and were found to be not quite so bad as they were represented.'" Rather, are they not much worse?

Now, these observations of the bishop remind me of the old story of a father's advice to his son, "Get money honestly if you can; but, if not honestly, get money at all events." The bishop advises them to stand up for their rights, and they should get them. [Cries of Hear, hear!] Oh! these cheers of hon. Members will be well understood—the public will understand them. I say to the Romanists, "You shall have your rights as loyal subjects, but you shall not have that domination you are contending for. You shall never be allowed to make your Church the dominant Church in the land." I have heard it said over and over again—and I was cheered when I challenged the fact—that you would never be content with what you were pleased to sneer at, toleration. [Ironical cheers from the Roman Catholic Members.] No! it is quite evident that your party will never be content until they have placed themselves on a level with the Established Church; and that only as a step to supplanting her entirely. That Church, however, calls upon the Sovereign to take care that you shall not stand on a level with it; nor supplant that Church. For every step we give you, you take three or four more without our leave. You have shown what your intentions are. You aim at supremacy, and you will use your utmost to gain your object. If that time should ever arrive, it is easy to conjecture the manner which Protestants would be dealt with. That treatment may be gleaned from the doctrines put forth by the priests to whom I have referred. ["Hear!" from the Roman Catholic Members.] I perceive that I am telling you too many home truths which you do not wish to hear. These truths, however, will be read in the organs of public opinion. I call upon this House and the Government to defend the integrity of the Protestant Church, for which our ancestors have fought and bled, and which you may rely upon it we shall never quietly surrender. I wish to tell the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), that this House has been and will be a party to those pernicious doctrines, if we continue to maintain with our money the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. I say, further, that this endowment will furnish a reasonable excuse for the conduct of those persons, both priests and people, who are instructed in such pernicious principles. The seed you have sown at Maynooth is bearing abundant fruit; and I can give you a very recent instance of it. I find the following report in a Dublin newspaper, called Saunders's News Letter, which has been sent to me. It relates to the Rev. Mr. Bradby and his pretensions—

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Acts for the Endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any Endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights and interests."

said, the arguments of the hon. Gentleman reduced themselves to a statement of his conviction—very sincere no doubt, but possibly not well founded—that when clashing sects put their contributions into the same box, his sect ought to prevent any other from taking anything out, because his sect was right and every other wrong. Was that, or was it not, the pith of the argument which the hon. Gentleman had propounded to the House? He would invite hon. Gentlemen who had any hesitation on this subject, to consider the effect if the circumstances were reversed, and the case arose of a Protestant interest in Prance or Sardinia struggling for a portion of the money which they themselves, out of their own pockets, had contributed. Did any man doubt that the Roman Catholics had contributed to the public fund out of which the Maynooth grant came? If so, let him state the reason why. Did any man doubt that, if the case existed which he had put, the Protestants in those continental countries would feel the injustice of being told that they were not to have a portion of the money, because the Catholic religion was the only true one? If the question were put to sects in general, there was not one which would not declare itself the only right one. He would leave the consideration of the question of mortal and venial sins to those better able to do it justice. "Between two horses, which doth bear him best, he had, perhaps, some shallow spirit of judgment;" but on the knotty distinctions to which the hon. Member had referred, his care should be confined to keeping himself as clear as he could of either.

—who had on the paper an Amendment to the Motion, to add the words, "and to consider the expediency of withdrawing all further grants of public money for religious purposes in Ireland"—said that, seeing the feeling of the House was anxious to proceed at once to a division, he would not press his Amendment, although he would have been glad of an opportunity to make a few observations upon this subject.

who was received with loud calls for a division, assured the House—first, that he did not intend to occupy much of their time, and next, that although a young Member, he was not a man to be put down by clamour at any time or in any place. He did not intend to attempt any reply to the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but he wished to express his regret that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield) had not brought forward his Amendment, which he (Mr. Gilpin) had consented to second, although it did not go as far as he desired. He objected to the Maynooth Grant as strongly as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but he did so upon quite different principles; still he should feel great pleasure in going into the same lobby with the hon. Gentleman. If the question before the House had been, as he hoped it soon would be, whether the State ought to support any particular religious sect, he should have said, "No; all religions should stand, in the eye of the State, upon a footing of perfect equality." The Roman Catholics were justified in standing up for their rights; but then came the question of what these rights were. He would support them in their endeavours to be placed on the same footing as any other sect; but he protested against the House being made the arena for theological controversy. Nor were these lobbies proper places to settle questions of doctrine. It was his earnest hope, in which he represented the feelings of a large body in the House, that all religious grants by the State would speedily be abolished, upon the simple and intelligible proposition that Parliament was not intended to decide upon questions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, but to maintain the equal rights of all good citizens throughout the Empire.

took this opportunity of expressing his regret that a time had not come for putting an end to these controversies in that House. He trusted, however, that after the division of Monday night on the question of ministers' money that time would soon come; and he recommended the Catholics to put themselves in a position of independence with regard to the State, which would relieve them from the necessity and opprobrium of submitting to such discussions as these. If he were a Catholic he would not for the sake of this paltry grant of £26,000 a year incur the shame which was brought upon them by this grant. Although the Protestant Dissenters contended that they were the majority of the inhabitants of this country, they had never been heard coming to that House whining and whimpering for grants in aid of their religion. In Ireland the Catholics had only this small grant, and the only other bodies who had the meanness to take the taxes of the people for the support of their institutions were the Presbyterians and the Unitarians. It was not a little singular that the bodies that were most able to support their own clergy were precisely those that sought for State aid. He thought that it was unjust to tax any man for the support of the religion of another, and for that reason he should vote with the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner); and he must at the same time appeal to the Roman Catholics to say, whether the period had not arrived for terminating these heartburnings and these painful controversies by a surrender of the grant to Maynooth, now that ministers' money was abolished.

put the Question.

then moved the adjournment of the House, for the purpose, as he said, of explaining what had passed amongst some Members who were not accustomed to the forms of the House. They were not aware that they could rise after the Speaker had put the question. He (Mr. Newdegate) expected they would rise, and thus waited till he was too late to catch the Speaker's eye. He mentioned this without in the least impugning the decision of the chair.

intimated that the hon. Member for Warwickshire had moved the adjournment of the House, and was therefore at liberty to proceed.

said, he had been induced to adopt the invidious course of moving the adjournment for the purpose of allowing him to explain how many hon. Members had been precluded from expressing their opinions on a subject which deeply interested their feelings, and from the decision on which many had been excluded. He would not withdraw his Motion for the adjournment until the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had taken any exception which he might think fit.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

, after the remarks which had just fallen from the hon. Member for Warwickshire, felt bound to say that the House had appeared so utterly indifferent to the subject that during the eloquent and stirring speech of the hon. Member there were only two Members on the benches near him. The hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) was perfectly aware of the forms of the House, and ought to have known better than to miss his opportunity. If the hon. Member intended to convey to the country the idea that there had been any surprise—

declared that he had not made any such insinuation.

or that the interest of hon. Members was very great, those who had been present since the commencement of the debate could testify that the Opposition benches had been empty nearly the whole time.

I do not rise to complain, Sir, of what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite. It is perfectly true. None of the Members on this side of the House appear to have thought it worth their while to attend. They must exercise their own judgment, and I don't mean to find fault with them. But recollect, Sir, that none of the Members on the other side could answer my arguments. Hon. Members on this side being satisfied with the arguments, I am content to leave hon. Gentlemen opposite in full joy of their triumph, while it will go to the country that with force of numbers they defeated what they could not meet with force of argument.

congratulated the House on having escaped the dreary miseries of a Maynooth debate. They had had a specimen of such debates in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and they all knew the infliction. He had heard the greater part of it, and only spoke his own feelings; but the majority of Members opposite were at dinner during the time—a very much more agreeable operation, no doubt. Again he congratulated the House on having escaped the misery of that bigoted appeal which was constantly being made to them. He was glad, too, that it had been answered merely by votes, and that no one had attempted a refutation of that which did not deserve to be refuted.

I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means.

What I mean is this—

The hon. Gentleman has risen to order, and must confine himself strictly to stating the reasons why he thinks the hon. Member for Enniskillen is out of order.

In my humble opinion the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen is out of order, because the question being the adjournment of the House he was entering into the question of Maynooth, which had just been decided on by the House.

The hon. and learned Member who was addressing the House was perfectly in order.

said, he had always remarked that those who were most clamorous in favour of liberty of discussion, and the free expression of opinion, invariably endeavoured to stifle the expression of opinions which they did not like. But he wished to know what course the noble Lord intended to take in reference to the report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into Maynooth College. That Commission had been issued, he believed, when the noble Lord was Home Secretary, and had reported that there was no branch of education pursued there which met their entire approval, and in the conduct of which some alterations were not requisite. Now, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had been overhauled. The University of Dublin had been very properly reformed, and scholarships had been founded—and he fully approved of the step—to which Roman Catholic gentlemen were admissible. He wished to know whether anything was to be done in order to carry out the report of the Commissioners, and to effect the reforms recommended by them in the system pursued at Maynooth. Were they to be told that hon. Gentlemen opposite might express their opinion on ministers' money, and that the hon. Member for Cork might put a Motion on the paper for an inquiry into almost every matter connected with the Irish Church, and yet that those on that side of the House were not to ask what was to be done with an institution upon which there was a Report of a Commission that had never been complied with?

I hope the House will not be led into renewing the discussion of the main question on the question of adjournment, although it is competent for it to do so, as you, Sir, have very properly decided. With regard to the boast of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that his speech was not answered because it could not be answered—those who heard it might infer in their own minds other reasons why Gentlemen who differ from the hon. Gentleman were unwilling to enter into a course of discussion upon a polemical question, which, if entered into, could not be carried on without creating irritation which it is desirable to avoid. I have heard many speeches from the hon. Gentleman, but I never heard one which invited, to a greater degree, dissent on the part of those who do not agree with him in regard to the topics which he was discussing. With regard to the question just addressed to me by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen, the report of the Commissioners did recommend certain alterations, not of a very material character, in the course of education at Maynooth, and I believe those alterations are now in course of being carried into effect by those who have the conduct of that establishment. I am not able to say whether they have all been carried out or not, but as far as I am informed they are in train.

pointed out the loss of time which would arise from the practice of hon. Members reopening the discussion of a Motion which had been disposed of by resorting to the expedient of moving the adjournment of the House. It would be most unfair to other hon. Members who had Motions on the paper, particularly as there were only two nights in the week on which Motions could be brought on.

congratulated the House that this subject had now been brought under their consideration by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in a speech which was worthy of his reputation and the interests involved in it. There was among those whom he had the honour to address scarcely one who had not in all probability, at some period or another of his life, dischared the duties of an executor or a trustee, and to them, of course, it was needless to say that the question with which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to deal was one which was worthy of their most serious attention. He himself had long been of opinion that breaches of trust under aggravated circumstances should be rendered liable to criminal prosecution, and he might add that the present Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas had, when Attorney General, introduced a Bill by which it was intended to carry out objects similar to those which his hon. and learned Friend had in view. That hon. and learned Gentleman had felt, however, some difficulty in prosecuting that measure on account of a doubt entertained by some of the most distinguished Judges of the land as to whether it would be expedient to endanger the civil remedy by giving a criminal one? The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was, he was glad to see, fully alive to that danger. No doubt it was a very poor remedy to afford those who had been injured by a breach of trust, to send them to the Court of Chancery. It was, indeed, a poor consolation to those who had been ruined by the misconduct of a trustee, in appropriating to his own use that which he was bound to protect for the interest of those in whose behalf it was committed to his charge, to send them to the Court of Chancery for redress; not on account of any defect in that court, for in this matter it was perfectly innocent, and there was no part of its jurisdiction more beneficially exercised or more frequently brought into operation, and he regretted to say, also, very frequently brought into operation in working great hardships on trustees. There were few gentlemen in society but had at some time or other committed a breach of trust. And why had they done so? Families, or members of families, applied to the trustees; a pressing necessity had arisen; family arrangements were proposed; and it was urged upon the trustees that if a certain sum of money could be advanced, a certain property purchased or sold, or something done which was not strictly regular, the interest of the family would be greatly promoted. Trustees had frequently and most correctly been described as an unfortunate class of persons. Theirs was, indeed, a thankless office; for whilst they incurred great perils they could not, from the rigid rules of the Court of Chancery, themselves derive any personal benefit. It was of the highest importance, then, that there should be thrown around them guards and precautions to prevent that, which was done from motives of benevolence, being attributed to motives of criminality. He concurred with the Attorney General in thinking that the law ought to be made more stringent in cases where trustees had deviated from their duty from a regard to their own interests, and especially in gross cases where executors and trustees knowingly and abominably sold out, perverted, and appropriated trust property to their own use. At present the only remedy was by a bill in Chancery to make them restore the funds they had appropriated. That would be an effectual mode of proceeding if the delinquents had the money forthcoming; since, for the honour of human nature, it generally happened that the Trustees had acted under some pressure of poverty and necessity, and that deceived by false hopes they had trusted at some future period to be able to replace the money. Seeing the difficulties by which the question was beset, he thought it would require the exercise of the greatest possible care on the part of the House:—all the experience and ability of his hon. and learned Friend, and the assistance of all sides of the House, to make the measure effective for the object he had in view—preventing its going too far, and making those criminals who acted from the best and purest motives. It was with the greatest satisfaction, also, that he found his hon. and learned Friend was prepared to grapple with that other great question of the criminal misappropriation of trust property by the direction of the Trustees and Managers of Joint-stock Banks. Numerous instances of this kind had of late occurred which were perfectly familiar to the public. Need he mention the Tipperary Bank, the Royal British Bank, and an Indian Bank which had lately failed. These were three prominent instances; but not all. Gentlemen who practised in Chancery were daily being made acquainted with others. He himself would tomorrow be professionally engaged in the case of an Australian Banking Company, with respect to which this state of things occurred. The Bank was established in 1844 or 1845, with a capital nominally of £300,000 or £400,000. The Company never raised more than £40,000. The Directors, however, at once proceeded to trade on a large scale; borrowed more than £300,000 on debentures, and misappropriated the whole of the money. Process was instituted in the Court of Chancery, which had wound up the affairs as nearly as possible, and it had done so under the Winding-up Act by calling upon the unfortunate shareholders in the Company to pay up upwards of half a million of money. Such cases frequently occurring with regard to these Joint-stock Banks, produced the painful impression upon his mind that there was in this country—from what cause he knew not, but he deeply deplored the fact£an absence, to a lamentable extent, of commercial integrity. Of course, these were exceptional cases; for, as a rule, the commercial classes of England were composed of men of high respectability and great integrity, but unfortunately the public could not discern those who were from those who were not, and thus a stigma was cast upon our country which lowered us in the scale of nations. He rejoiced to find that his hon. and learned Friend had made up his mind to see if the law, as it stood, was not strong enough to reach such criminal acts as that of declaring dividends of a large amount in order to deceive the public, at the very time that those who declared the dividend knew that the capital was all gone. In conclusion, he rejoiced at the introduction of this most important measure—important, not only as affecting the law, but as making a strong effort, which he trusted every Member in the House would aid in rendering successful, to put the law in such a state as would enable it to uphold, as far as the law could do it, the integrity of commercial transactions, as well as the integrity of all men who took upon themselves the administration of trusts.

, whilst welcoming the introduction of the measure, was of opinion that the utmost care and caution were necessary not to offend gentlemen who undertook the management of others' interests in the capacity of trustees. It was already one of the most difficult things to get suitable persons to act. He himself had always refused to be a trustee beyond the circle of his own family. With regard to Joint-stock Banks it was most desirable that they should be looked into closely. He considered them as engaged in a profitless competition; and it was matter of surprise to him how a man of property could ever consent to take a share in anyone of them. The Directors themselves were generally chosen from a class of men who were utterly unfitted for the office.

asked if the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to extend his Bill to Ireland?

replied, that the measure was to be a general one, applicable to the United Kingdom.

expressed his gratification at this announcement, and

begged the patient indulgence of the House while he called its attention to a measure of a somewhat peculiar character, because it intended to deal with an existing state of things, and was therefore, to a certain extent, retrospective. He had a Resolution to move on which would be founded a Bill to amend the particular Act under which public companies were liable to be made bankrupt, and also to amend the Winding-up Acts. The spirit of the enactments which he wished the House to accept was precisely the same as that of the Bill passed last Session with regard to all joint-stock companies with the exception of banking and insurance companies. The Act of last year, he might observe, was introduced after the greatest consideration, and would, he trusted, prove very beneficial in its operation. The present state of the law respecting banking and insurance companies was this:—There was now a great conflict between the remedy of bankruptcy and the remedy, as it was called, of winding-up under the Acts passed for that purpose. It was a most unfortunate peculiarity of this country that we did not confide to any one tribunal the duty of administering complete justice on an entire subject, but gave to different tribunals the charge of its fragmentary parts. Where a joint-stock banking company fell into difficulties and became insolvent two things had to be effected. The one was the payment of its creditors and the putting of its assets in their power. The other was the determination of the measure and relative proportions in which individual shareholders should contribute to make up the deficiency in the fund available for meeting the company's obligations. It would be imagined that both of these processes might be conducted by one tribunal. But, in fact, when a public company became insolvent the duty of winding-up the estate for the payment of the creditors might belong to the Court of Bankruptcy, while the operations for apportioning the contributions required from the various shareholders and for settling their respective equitable rights could only be effected through the medium of another tribunal—the Court of Chancery, under the Winding-up Acts of 1848 and 1849. In a company consisting of many shareholders particular individuals might be called upon to pay the debts of the concern in unequal ratios. For example, one shareholder, whose fair contribution was only £2,000, was liable to be called upon by the creditors for say £20,000, and could be compelled to pay it too. And the question was, how could this person come upon his fellow-shareholders, who were equally liable, to recover the remaining £18,000? The difficulty attending the solution of this point, and the mode of working it out, had led to the introduction of the Winding-up Acts of 1848 and 1849. Then there arose from this state of the law a conflict between the two jurisdictions, of which the whole community had recently had a most painful and distressing exhibition brought before their eyes in the notorious case of the Royal British Bank, to which previous reference had been made, and in which it would be recollected that all the several branches of that great tribunal, the Court of Chancery, were occupied for a considerable period, not in determining either the rights of the creditors or the liabilities of the shareholders, but in deciding between the claims of the official managers under the Winding-up Acts, and the rival claims of the assignee under the bankruptcy to have the benefit arising from the cutting up and distribution of the estate. Thus, for a considerable time our Courts were engaged, not in the actual administration of justice, but in settling the preliminary question in which of our courts that justice must be sought. Another serious evil arising from the same conflict of jurisdiction lay in the liability of the shareholders of the insolvent company to as many actions as there were creditors. What was the consequence of this state of affairs? Keeping to the example of the British Bank as an illustration, the creditors of which were about 6,000 in number, and the shareholders some 280 or 300, at present every single creditor had a right, after certain preliminaries, to bring an action to recover his claim against every single shareholder. Thus they had 6,000 creditors multiplied by 300 to represent the number of actions which the existing law allowed to be brought as the consequence of the failure of this particular company. What was the practical result? He held in his hand an exceedingly long list of actions, from which he found that one creditor, for a sum of less than —150, had commenced no fewer than twenty-five different suits. He had a second list giving the number of shareholders who had fled the country; and a third—which was also very long—giving the number who had become bankrupts. Many others had, no doubt, made settlements of their property and arrangements as to their effects in the hope of evading the consequences of this state of the law, because they found it utterly impracticable, with 6,000 creditors, and 300 shareholders, to come to any mutual understanding. Common sense would dictate that somebody should have the power of representing the interests of the shareholders, and somebody else the power of representing the rights of the creditors, with the view to an arrangement by which the liabilities of the shareholders should be determined, and each of them rescued from what was perhaps even worse than the original loss—namely, the accumulated costs of the innumerable actions, which seriously aggravated the first misfortune of the unhappy shareholder. He (the Attorney General) had, therefore, to submit to the consideration of the House a remedy in regard to the existing state of things and for all future cases of this description. Let the creditors of a banking, or any other public company, not included in the late Acts, be called together by advertisement, and be enabled, subject to certain conditions and under the approval of the Court, to choose one or more persons to represent their interests; and let those persons be armed with authority to make any arrangement with the representatives of the shareholders for the purpose of obtaining that amount of contribution from each individual shareholder which might be right or practicable. When this was done, let the shareholders be protected from liability to actions on the terms—of immediately making application to the Court, having the direction of the proceeding, and submitting to such conditions as it might think fit to attach to the privilege of immunity from action by the creditors. In the case of a bank a shareholder was placed by the existing law in a situation of peculiar hardship, because as soon as the bank was made bankrupt he was liable to pay the whole of its debts, although the whole of the company's available assets might have been seized by the creditors. It was most unjust to leave a man liable to pay the entirety of the debts, when, probably, in the course of three or four months the whole of the difference between the dividend realized under the bankruptcy and the full amount of the debts might be forthcoming by means of contributions levied under the Winding-up Act rateably upon the shareholders. Suppose the assets realised 7s. in the pound, was it not most unjust to permit a shareholder to be sued for the whole 20s.? His liability ought to be confined to the 13s. Under the present Bill the Court would give protection against this oppression upon the terms of the shareholder giving security for a reasonable amount. The Bill resolved itself into two propositions. Instead of the interests of the most important and largest creditors being destroyed by the refusal of some one or two creditors of inferior amount to concur in an arrangement, it was proposed to empower the majority of the creditors, in number and value, to appoint a person to carry a just and equitable arrangement into effect. At present a person might be a creditor at the time of the bankruptcy for some £40 or £50. An attorney came to him and said, "Sell me your debt;" the rights of the creditor were transferred to the attorney for a consideration, and some 200 or 300 actions were brought upon that miserable debt. As many hon. Gentlemen were no doubt aware, this was done in the case of the Royal British Bank. The shareholders found it impossible to meet the demands of the creditors with any chance of settling the claims or making a fair compromise. The object of the Bill was to enable the creditor to be represented, and by that mean to bind the whole body of creditors to advantageous terms. The other proposition was this—to enable a shareholder, as soon as terms had been agreed upon, to apply to the Court for protection against vexatious proceedings, by giving security to answer the amount which, so far as he was concerned, should be required of him to carry out the arrangements already agreed upon by the representative of the creditors. He believed that the Bill would be beneficial alike to creditors and debtors, because while the former would be more likely to obtain payment of their debts, the latter would be saved from ruinous litigation. The Bill would apply to all existing as well as to future companies, and would therefore supply a grievous defect in the Bill of last Session. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving, that the House resolve itself into Committee to consider the said Acts.

believed that many of the provisions of the contemplated measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman were almost identical with those of a Bill which came down from the Lords last Session, but which unfortunately he was not able to carry beyond a second reading. If it had become law he believed that much of the misery which had been occasioned by the failure of the Royal British Bank might have been avoided. Many of the unfortunate shareholders had fled the country, not to avoid payment of their fair share of the debts of the bank, but to save themselves from the entire ruin which might have been brought upon them by the multiplicity of actions alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The object of the Bill was to effect a compromise of the existing law, but he would suggest an improvement. By the present law the person as well as the property of the creditor could be taken. The course adopted was an exhausting process; for instance, a call was made on 350 shareholders, to which only 200 responded; a second call was then made, which reduced the number to say 100, and on that 100 a third call was made. He would suggest that directly an order to wind-up was made, the right of creditors to sue individual shareholders should cease. It might be said that if this were so the shareholders would leave the country or make away with their property. At present, however, under the Act for the Abolition of arrest under Mesne Process a creditor had the power, by permission of a Judge, to arrest a debtor who was about to leave the country, and he would give the same power to creditors in this case, under a Judge's order, to arrest shareholders where there was evidence to show that they were about to abscond to avoid their liability. Such a provision as he had suggested would get rid of the enormous evil disclosed in the case of the Royal British Bank, where there were 350 shareholders, abundantly able to pay all their debts, and where, if the right of sueing individual shareholders had not existed, he believed the affairs of the bank might have been wound up, calls made, every creditor satisfied, and the shareholders set perfectly free. The Bill which came last year from the Lords was unfortunately lost owing to the opposition of many hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the Channel, who were under the impression that he supported it in order to favour some of the shareholders in the Tipperary Bank—which was far from his intention. That Bill, if it had passed last year, would have saved the shareholders of the British Bank from almost all their troubles, and he accused the Government of a want of moral courage in connection with it. Because there was a great feeling against the measure on the part of those whose support Ministers desired to have, they left the battle solely in his hands, with the result he had indicated. This was the sort of support which private Members got in attempting to improve the law. Now, however, the Government was obliged to come forward and do that which it refused to do last year. Still he should support the present measure, though the details of course would require consideration.

thought the House was much indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) for the introduction of this measure. If it had been the law at the time of the failure of the Tipperary Bank he believed the creditors would have got at least 10s. in the pound, whereas now they would not receive one-fourth of that sum. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would accede to the suggestion made from the opposite side of the House, as it was a provision which would greatly increase the benefit that would be derived by both debtors and creditors from this enactment.

said that, had the Bill been in operation last year, the creditors of the Royal British Bank would have been in receipt of, if not of the whole, at least of a very large portion of their claims. As it was, £17,000 had been expended upon law costs in the attempt to recover from the shareholders the amount to which they became liable, while one-third of the more wealthy shareholders were at this moment living in exile abroad. A large proportion of these persons would have offered a composition, and if some individual had been empowered to give discharges a considerable part of the whole debt would by this time have been paid. Both the debtors and the creditors of the Royal British Bank must feel much indebted to the Attorney General for the time and care he had bestowed upon this measure, and he only hoped that much time would not be suffered to elapse before it was passed into a law.

said, that the object which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Malins) desired to see accomplished was practically effected by the Bill, for the moment the Winding-up Order was made, or an adjudication in Bankruptcy took place, the advertisement for the creditors would be issued. That advertisement operated immediately as an injunction against all proceedings without the leave of the Court. The shareholders would be cited when the creditors applied to obtain that leave; they would have to propose terms, or to show adequate cause why the court should not make an order, and thus both parties would be properly protected.

having formally moved a Resolution:—

"That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Act seven and eight Victoria, chapter one hundred and eleven, for facilitating the Winding-up the affairs of Joint Stock Companies unable to meet their pecuniary engagements; and also, the Joint Stock Companies Winding-up Acts, 1848 and 1849."

wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how he proposed to treat the question of fees? The contest between the rival judicatures of Chancery and Bankruptcy in the case of the British Bank seemed to be nothing more than a contest between the officers of two courts of law, which should pray upon the carcass, and he should like to know how the hon. and learned Gentleman would deal with such a case as this?

hoped that no long time would be suffered to elapse before some comprehensive measure on the subject of Bankruptcy and Insolvency was introduced, in which due provision would be made with regard to fees, but that in the present Bill he did not propose to interfere with them.

objected to the Committee, which was now composed of fifteen Members, being enlarged so as to consist of seventeen Members. There were already three Government men on it, and to add a fourth would be giving, what was undesirable, a preponderating weight to the Government. If the Committee were to consist of seventeen Members, he should propose, instead of the two Members now named, the addition of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Jackson), who was on the last Committee, and the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Nicoll), who was probably more conversant with the question of the clothing of the army than any other Member.

did not know on what principle the Committee was nominated. It was usual in Committees of inquiry to reappoint the Members who had previously conducted the inquiry, but in the nomination of the present Committee several of the previous Members had been passed over.

said, that the object of adding to the number of the Committee was to place on it two Gentlemen who would assist its deliberations by a great deal of practical knowledge—namely, his right hon. Friend, who had been Chairman of the Committee before, and the hon. and gallant Member for Northampton. He hoped, though, on general principles, a Committee of fifteen Members was quite large enough, yet as the two Members now named would be found most useful for the inquiry for which the Committee was constituted, that the House would agree to make the Committee consist of seventeen Members.

said, he thought it important to have some system for the composition of these Committees. The other night the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary maintained that, looking to the amount of private business likely to come before the House, and to the number of Election Committees which must be nominated, no Select Committee ought to consist of more than fifteen Members, and the same opinion was enforced by the Chairman of Committees (Mr. FitzRoy). He, therefore, thought that it was the intention of the Government to proceed on that principle during the present Session. The proper time for making such a Motion as the present would have been when the names of the Committee were proposed. After a few words from Sir C. NAPIER and Colonel BOLDERO, both of whom objected to so many Members connected with the Government being on the Committee,

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Select Committee on Contracts (Public Departments) do consist of seventeen Members."

then moved, that the names of Mr. Monsell and Colonel Gilpin be added to the Committee.

said, the Committee was one of considerable importance. Lately the Government had changed the system of contracts for supplies for the army, and in 1856 the House sanctioned the appointment of a Committee on the subject. That Committee, of which he (Colonel Boldero) was a member, did not meet until late in the Session. They had sixteen sittings, and on the 15th July agreed to report the evidence to the House, recommending at the same time that in the ensuing Session of Parliament another Committee should be appointed to investigate the subject. At the beginning of the present year an hon. and gallant Friend of his moved the re-appointment of the Committee, which was agreed to, but the second Committee only sat four times previous to the dissolution, and the inquiry still remained incomplete. He had taken upon himself the responsibility of moving the appointment of another Committee, and in doing so he advisedly selected several Members to be upon it who did not sit in the last Parliament. There were four interests concerned in the Committee—namely, the Government, the Army, the Navy, and the Mercantile interest. There were three Members of the House on the Committee who were supposed to represent the Army, three who represented the Navy, four the Mercantile interest, and three connected with the Government—namely, the Secretary of the Admiralty, the Under Secretary of War, and a Lord of the Treasury. He thought three Members connected with the Government were sufficient, and he had, therefore, to object to the addition of a fourth, as giving an undue preponderance to the Government in the Committee. He had proposed as members of the Committee several independent country gentlemen, with some of whom he was personally unacquainted, but who were entirely unconnected with the army and navy, or with trade, and whose good sense would check any improper bias on the part of their colleagues. He thought it unfair to the House and to the public that a Committee of this nature should be overwhelmed with Government officials. He had moved the appointment of the Committee, and gave the names of the members to the Secretary of the Treasury, who had disapproved of many of them; but he believed that he had acted with the most perfect fairness in the constitution of the Committee. Usually, when Committees were struck, the mover was allowed to have eight members to seven, but he had only selected five members from that (the Opposition) side of the House, while he had taken ten from the Ministerial side. It was, therefore, impossible that the Committee could be more fairly constituted.

wished to say a few words in explanation on this subject. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Boldero) having moved for the Committee showed him a list of fifteen Members who he proposed should constitute it, and he was surprised to find that there was not on the list the name of a single Member of Her Majesty's Government. He, therefore, suggested to the hon. and gallant Officer that as such a Committee would necessarily have to make inquiries connected with the War Department the Under Secretary for that Department should be placed upon the Committee. He also suggested that some Member of the Government connected with the Naval Department should be a member of the Committee. At the head of his list the hon. and gallant Member had placed five or six names which were bracketed with the memorandum—"Upon the last Committee." His (Mr. Hayter's) impression was that those were all the Members of the present Parliament who served upon the former Committee. He asked the hon. and gallant Member whether he had a list of the old Committee, and he replied that he had not. He (Mr. Hayter) might perhaps be blameable for not having made more strict inquiry on the subject, but his impression certainly was that every Member of the existing Parliament who had been upon the former Committee had been placed by the hon. and gallant Member upon the proposed Committee. Acting upon that impression, and seeing that certain public departments to which the investigations of the Committee would apply were not represented upon it, he suggested that the names of some hon. Members of those departments should be placed upon the Committee, and he must say that the hon. and gallant Officer at once acceded to his suggestion. Subsequently, however, the hon. and gallant Member for Bedfordshire (Colonel Gilpin) told him that although he did not care about being upon the Committee, he thought it was not quite fair to strike him off without reason, and that hon. and gallant Officer said he had understood from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Colonel Boldero) that he (Mr. Hayter) had objected to his name. He (Mr. Hayter) assured the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Gilpin) that he did not even know that his name was not upon the list, and that it was a total misapprehension to suppose that it had been omitted at his suggestion. The hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Moffatt) was also upon the former Committee, but his name was omitted from the new Committee. He had afterwards ascertained that the name of his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), who had moved for the former Committee, and had presided over it, had been omitted from the new list. Now, he certainly thought that Members who had been engaged in an investigation in a former Session would naturally be the persons best fitted to renew it in another Session; and he hoped the House would see the propriety of placing on the Committee the names of his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, and of the hon. and gallant Member for Bedfordshire.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayter) had described with perfect accuracy the conversation which had taken place between them. Until he saw in The Times, as he was coming up to town that day, the Parliamentary notices for the evening he was not aware that a proposal was to be made by the hon. Member for Berwick to add his name to the Committee. He had felt some surprise that after having served on the Committee during two Sessions, that his name was not on the Committee, but he had had no communication with that hon. Gentleman on the subject, and although he was ready to serve upon the Committee if it was the desire of the House, he should feel no disappointment if he were excluded from it. He was also surprised that the name of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Monsell), who had originally moved for this Committee, and who had paid the greatest attention to the subject, had been omitted from the list.

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hayter) had entirely misconceived the nature of the opposition to this Motion, and he had therefore defended himself against charges which had not been made, and which he felt sure were never imputed to him. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Boldero) said that he at once acceded to the names which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and he thought that what the right hon. Gentleman had stated would be of great value to hon. Members in appointing these Committees. The hon. and gallant Member went to the representative of the Government, and submitted to him a list of Members, heard what he had to say, acceded in the frankest manner to all his suggestions, and agreed in fact to everything; and then, after several days had elapsed, he found that another hon. Member on the benches behind the Government, without giving any notice whatever to the hon. And gallant Member, and without assigning any reason, intended to propose the addition to the list of two more names. On the opposition taken to this course not a voice, except that of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, was raised, and there would have been no division if the noble Lord himself had not wished it.

said, he had served on the former Committee, and when he had found that his name had been omitted from the proposed new one, he had spoken upon the subject to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter), who had appointed him to serve again upon that inquiry.

said, it was a practice of the House that when Committees which had sat for a considerable length of time investigating important questions were reappointed in succeeding Sessions, the Members who had previously served should, if possible, be replaced upon such Committees. The obvious reason for this course was that Members who had heard evidence and who had become familiar with the details of any subject were much more competent to arrive at a satisfactory decision than new Members, who might be altogether unacquainted with the matter, and would have to read up the minutes. He thought the hon. and gallant Officer who had moved this Committee ought, in the first instance, to have proposed the reappointment of all those hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the Committee in the last Parliament. It was not necessary for him to inquire what reasons had induced the hon. and gallant Member to deviate from the ordinary practice of the House, but it was quite clear, from the statement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, that he was under the impression that the list shown to him by the hon. and gallant Officer did contain the names of all those Members of the present Parliament who were members of the Committee during the last Parliament. That impression was, however, erroneous—although he did not accuse the hon. and gallant Member of intending to produce an erroneous impression, and the result was that two Members of the last Committee—his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell,) and the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Gilpin), had been omitted from the new Committee; the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) having originally moved for the Committee, having been its Chairman, and being from his official position and experience, of all persons, perhaps, the most competent to assist the Committee in their investigations. He (Lord Palmerston) must protest against the assumption of the hon. and gallant Officer that the subject of the Committee's inquiry was one in which the Government were personally interested. The only interest of the Government was that the system of contracts should be placed upon such a footing as was most advantageous to the public. The Government had no interest in maintaining a system of contracts which was disadvantageous to the public. On the contrary, the Government were the parties who had the greatest reason to desire that the investigations of the Committee might result in improving the system of Government contracts. In order to effect that object, however, it was necessary that the Committee should consist of persons who were acquainted with the present practice regarding contracts, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) was especially qualified to guide and inform the Committee as to army contracts. He thought it would be most unreasonable if the House refused to place that right hon. Gentleman upon a Committee of which he had been Chairman for twelve months, and which he had assisted by his advice during two Sessions. The hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Colonel Gilpin) would also bring great zeal and information to bear upon such an inquiry, and although he (Viscount Palmerston) agreed that in the present Session it was not desirable that Committees should consist of more than fifteen members, he thought the peculiar circumstances of this case would justify the House in making an exception.

added to the Committee.