said, he wished to call the attention of the House to this class of Hills, which came down from the House of Lords in the shape of an estate Bill, and therefore in the form of an unopposed Bill. The present Bill was in the form of a petition from a clergyman who was ordained in the Episcopal Protestant Church of the United States, and who was, therefore, excluded by the general law of the land, namely, by the 26 Geo. III., from holding any preferment in this country. Mr. Shepherd attended three terms as a theological student in the University of Durham, from whence he proceeded to Tennessee, where he was ordained a deacon, and afterwards a priest, and took the degree of M.A. His health became impaired in America, and he returned to this country, where he recovered his health. His object now was to get an Act of Parliament to remove the disqualification which prevented him from holding preferment in the Church of England, or carrying out the sacerdotal or priestly office. In 1840, an Act was passed which relaxed to some extent the restrictions imposed by the Act 26 Geo. III. He was not aware that any measure of this nature had been proposed previously to 1843. These attempts were now becoming of more frequent occurrence, and the present was the fifth case in which application had been made to Parliament for the removal of the disabilities imposed by the general law. He had not a word to say against Mr. Shepherd; but he wished to know from the House whether it was their pleasure that these private Bills were to be treated as unopposed estate Bills, or whether it would not be better, as there were such frequent examples of exceptional legislation, that the general law should be amended, so as to put the whole of this class of clergymen on the same footing as these private Acts placed particular individuals.

said, that most private Bills proceeded on the same principle as the present. Mr. Shepherd was educated in an English University, and he performed the duties of a clergyman in America with satisfaction and credit. It should be recollected that holy orders were indelible, and that every other avenue to employment was closed to the clergyman. Each case ought to be tried on its own merits.

said, that the House was indebted to his right hon. Friend for bringing this question before it; but he begged leave, though with great diffidence, to differ from the view taken by his right hon. Friend. He would assume that the ease of Mr. Shepherd, of whom he knew nothing, stood upon the same grounds as the other cases to which his right hon. Friend had referred. The Act 26 Geo. III. was passed soon after the independence of the United States was proclaimed, and its object was to take precaution that individuals who claimed to exercise spiritual functions in this country, were loyal and properly educated, and ordained. He himself brought the first case of the kind before the House in 1843, and though the Bill was originally met by a terrible array of opposition, he had at last succeeded in convincing them that the principle was sound and that it ought to be agreed to. As the question which had been submitted to the House by the right hon. Chairman of Ways and Means was, whether they would in future deal with these as exceptional eases, or whether they would pass a general Act to embrace all, he must say, that in his opinion the 26 Geo. III. was a very good Act, and that he should object to repeal it, but as the cases which were brought before the House for special legislation were cases of great individual hardship, he considered that they ought to be treated as individual eases, and each one should be dealt with on its own merits. He should, therefore, vote in favour of the present Bill, and oppose any measure for interfering with the general law on the subject.

said, that he concurred in the principle that when they had adopted a general Act of Parliament they ought not to be continually called upon to sanction private Acts, the effect of which was to supersede the public measure. He was happy to bear testimony to the merits of Mr. Shepherd, but on public grounds he must oppose the present Bill. With respect to the last case, he did not suppose that a single Member in that House understood what it was. The Bill passed through the House as a private Bill, though it practically repealed two Acts of Parliament. He therefore thought that there ought to be some general legislation on the subject, and he for one would be glad to open the doors of the Church as wide as possible; for why should all the colonial clergy be excluded from the advantage which the present applicant desired to obtain?

conceived that it would be rather hard to upset in the present instance a practice which had prevailed in other instances. It was objected that this was exceptional legislation, but hon. Members would find on the paper of business for that day two divorce Bills, which also constituted exceptional legislation, as far as the law of the land was concerned. If it were right to have general legislation on the subject, that consideration ought not now to prevail against the claim of an individual who was only asking for what had been granted in other cases.

observed, that he was inclined to take the same view as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken with respect to this particular case. He did not think they could now turn back in the case of this individual and refuse to do for him what they did for others. In fact, the Bill rested upon a series of precedents, and the House had, at least upon one occasion, come to an unanimous decision upon the subject. That unanimous decision protected individual cases until some new general Resolution was come to on the question. With regard to the general law, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird). By the existing law an episcopally-ordained clergyman in the United States or Scotland was under a ban and stigma which did not affect any other class. A Wesleyan, a Jumper, a Shaker, or a Mormon, might come over here, and if he conformed to the law and was regularly ordained he might officiate and hold preferment in England; [Mr. SOTHERON-ESCOURT: No, not Mormons.] Yes, they could, if they repented of their Mormonism, while an episcopally- ordained clergyman of the United States or of the Episcopal Church of Scotland was barred from holding any preferment in this country. There was a case, known to many hon. Members of that House, of an episcopally-ordained clergyman of the United States who came over to this country, where he became a Roman Catholic, and he believed a Roman Catholic clergyman. He again saw fit to come back to the Protestant religion, but he could not hold any preferment or officiate here in consequence of the law. He was not excluded because he was a Roman Catholic, for Roman Catholic orders were held to be valid by the Church of England, but he was excluded because he was an ordained clergyman of the Episcopal Protestant Church of America. This surely was an anomaly which ought to be amended.

said, he agreed with his right hon. Friend as to the anomaly in the existing state of the law on this subject. No doubt the object of the Act 26 Geo. III. was to prevent irregular ordinations, and the inconvenient consequences which might affect the Established Church. He thought that as there were precedents and no notice that the Bill would be opposed, it would be a great hardship on Mr. Shepherd if the Bill were rejected; at the same time, if Parliament thought fit to retain the existing law, these privileges to individuals ought not to be continued.

said, that the effect of the existing law was not to prevent irregular ordinations from acting as a disqualification here. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, who was opposed to exceptional legislation in this matter, would support the Divorce Bill on the same ground, for the present divorce Bills which were passed by the House were nothing but exceptional cases of legislation.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, namely, whether he was aware that an announcement had been made in one of the public journals that a telegraphic despatch had come from Bombay stating that the army of Bombay had broken out into mutiny? He (Mr. Roebuck) therefore wished to know if Her Majesty's Government had received any information tending to support or contradict that announcement.

said in reply, that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Court of Directors of the East India Company had received any information on that subject. Perhaps in the present state of the public mind it might be considered desirable that he should state the way in which intelligence was brought from India. There were two mails from India in the course of each month, and on their arrival at Suez, communication was made with Trieste, and thence a short account was sent to this country by telegraph, the mails themselves following in due course. There was no other mode of communication that he was aware of, and therefore he was at a loss to conceive how such information as that to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded could have reached this country from India. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) would be the last man to attempt to interfere with the arrangements by which intelligence was transmitted to the public press; but he did hope that in the present excited state of public feeling in reference to the calamitous events which had occurred in India, the editors of respectable public newspapers would abstain from publishing rumours calculated to prejudice the minds of the people of this country, unless they were assured in every instance of their perfect accuracy. He would only further add, that at present he could not believe in the rumour to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, and that opinion was strengthened by the impressions he had received from the last accounts that had come into the hands of the Government. He had no reason whatever to believe from them that the slightest disaffection existed either in the Bombay or Madras army.

said, he would beg to inquire of the Secretary of the Treasury if the attention of Government has been directed to the importance and facility of making Great Yarmouth Haven a Harbour of Refuge; and whether he is prepared to order evidence to be taken and a Report to be made on the subject, and to lay such Report before the Committee on Harbours of Refuge?

said, that no doubt the evidence taken before the Commissioners upon the point alluded to by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, would be duly considered, but he was not aware that any peculiar circumstances existed which would render it necessary to take the question of Great Yarmouth Haven especially into consideration.

said, he wished to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to establish Asylums to be exclusively devoted to the confinement of criminal lunatics.

said, that the Government had such an intention, and negotiations were in progress for the purchase of the necessary sites.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether it is true that the order to send additional cavalry from this country, on account of the news which was brought by the last mail from India has been rescinded or suspended?

said, two regiments of cavalry had been under orders for India for some time, and recently an order had been given for sending out a third regiment, but that order had been suspended.

said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, considering the advanced period of the Session and the fact of there being thirty Amendments to the Savings Bank Bill on the Notice Paper, he will consent to withdraw that measure, and refer the whole subject next year to a Select Committee.

in reply said, that looking at the present prospects in regard to public busi- ness, there being many questions of importance still to be brought before the House, he did not think there was any likelihood of obtaining time for the consideration of the Bill referred to. At a later period of the evening the right hon. Gentleman moved that the Order for the further proceeding in respect to the measure should be discharged, which was agreed to.

said, that seeing the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex in his place, he wished to put a question to him relative to the public business. He (Mr. Walpole) saw that to-morrow week there was an important notice given by the noble Lord for an Address for a Commission for the purpose of considering whether the Liturgy of the Church of England was not capable of such modification in its arrangements and services, as to render it more profitable than it now was for the religious instruction and edification of the people. He wished to know whether the noble Lord proposed to bring forward that Motion?

said he must admit that the 28th of July was a very late period on which to bring for ward a Motion so important for the discussion and consideration of the House. He had, indeed, been very desirous of withdrawing it, but he found there was such an extraordinary misconception as to the scope of the Motion and the intentions both of himself and those for whom he acted, that it would be necessary for him to trouble the House with a statement on the day mentioned; but if, after making the Motion, there should be any objection to it, he would not ask the House to divide, but would, in that case, ask leave to reintroduce it at a more convenient season.

said he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade upon the subject of foreign tariffs. He believed that the Government of Russia had agreed to a new tariff which had been published for the information of its commercial subjects. Great changes, he understood, had been made in the old tariff—changes which affected many persons in the Russian trade in this country. He had on a former occasion given notice of his intention to move for it, but was informed that it would be useless for him to do so, as it had not then been officially made known. He wished now to know whether instructions had been sent to our ambassador, (Lord Wodehouse,) urging him not to delay sending the information, inasmuch as considerable anxiety existed in this country with respect to it.

replied that he had received a dispatch a short time since on the subject, in which it was stated that the authorised French edition of the tariff had not yet been published. As soon as it was, it would be sent to the Foreign Office. The original was of course in Russian, and it was necessary that a translation should be published by authority before it was available. When the French copy was received, it would immediately be laid on the table.

having brought up the Report of the Resolutions in Committee of Supply,

in rising to call the attention of the House to the state of the Naval and Military Defences of the Country, said:—Sir, considering the national importance of the subject involved in the present question, I think that I may fairly ask the indulgence of the House while detain them a few moments. It will be in the recollection of the House that when I attempted upon a former occasion to call the attention of the House to the state of the military defences of the country, I then stated that I was anxious to do so in consequence of a certain statement made and certain opinions expressed both by the noble Lord at the head of the Government and by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty. But, Sir, I was unable to elicit any reply, or rather the reply I received was so unsatisfactory, that I have been again induced to call the attention of the House to the subject, and I trust I shall be able to elicit a clearer and more satisfactory statement. Upon the occasion to which I more particularly refer, I understood from the noble Lord at the head of the Ministry that in the present state of public affairs he saw no reason whatever for embodying the militia this year; and I understood the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, to say that he had not at present any steam fleet in that state of preparation that it could be employed for the conveyance of troops to the East. That was the most important part of the statement of the right hon. Baronet. It appears to me that the combined results of these two statements amount to this: that, taking into consideration the drain upon our military resources which has been caused by recent events in India, this country is about to be left almost entirely denuded of all its defences, both by sea and by land. I certainly think that we ought to have some explanation from Her Majesty's Government on that subject. The right hon. Baronet, when he told us that we had no steam line-of-battle ships to convey troops, told us that which was tantamount to saying that none of the now improved steam line-of-battle ships were in a fit state to be used if an emergency occurred with respect to our national defences; for, in fact, our steam ships, which are not in a sufficiently advanced state to be employed at a few days' notice in carrying troops to the East, could not be brought to bear for our national defences. Indeed, with one or two exceptions, I think I can show the House they are in an extremely indifferent condition, and the result is, we are left destitute of that great and most important arm of the service. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government told us, that up to the present time the state of public affairs, was such that there was no necessity for calling out the militia. But he did not tell us at the same time what his resources were, or what means he intended to adopt in order to supply the deficiencies in the military force caused by sending such a large number of troops to India. That subject he passed entirely over, and therefore, as respects the military branch of the service, we have the authority of the noble Lord for saying that the country will be left defenceless. I need not say anything with reference to the recent outbreak in India, but it is perfectly obvious that many causes might arise which would result in our finding ourselves engaged in hostilities with the most powerful kingdom in Europe; and, therefore, I think it is the bounden duty of the Government to explain to the House and the country what steps it has taken, or intends to take The noble Lord told us with his usual frankness that there is no probability of an outbreak in Europe; and although I admit that no one is better qualified to give an opinion on foreign affairs, yet the noble Lord is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and he could not tell what result an unfortunate death might not lead to. It was impossible that he or any one could say what might occur in the next few weeks. No opinion on the probability or improbability of au outbreak in Europe was worth anything, because it could be only a speculation, upon which they would not be justified in acting. Within a few weeks we might be engaged in hostilities with one or two of the most powerful States of Europe, and there ought to be means at our command to insure the safety of the country in the event of the occurrence of such a contingency. The noble Lord seemed to hold doctrines more becoming the Peace-at-any-price party. He said, with reference to the militia, that "We must cut our coat according to our cloth."

said that he was obliged to interpose, and remind the hon. Member that these constant references to previous debates were contrary to Parliamentary rules.

without presuming to dispute the right hon. Gentleman's ruling, would submit that if, on an occasion like this, when he felt it his duty to call their attention to the opinions of the noble Lord, he were not permitted to advert to those opinions, as expressed on former occasions, the rigid enforcement of the rule would put an end to all freedom of debate. He understood the noble Lord, on a former occasion, to say that the expenditure of the country must be calculated by its income; but that appeared to him to be an unsafe principle to be laid down by a Minister. He could not imagine a more dangerous doctrine, and he must say that it was one which he heard with the greatest surprise from the noble Lord, who, he always thought, was disposed to take a more liberal view of public affairs. It was calculated to raise strong doubts as to whether the noble Lord had taken proper means for maintaining our defences by sea and land. His object in bringing forward this question was not so much a desire to explain his own views as to call forth an expression of opinion on the part of those who were better qualified to give one, and to induce Government to give full explanations of their intentions on this important subject. He trusted, therefore, that Go- vernment would fully explain their views as to the mode they intended to adopt for supplying the deficiencies in the naval and military defences of the country, caused by the drain now going on in the prosecution of the Chinese war, and for the purpose of suppressing the rebellion in India.

said, that in deference to the feelings of the House the other evening, he did not persist in his Motion for postponing the Vote for an increase of seamen in our navy, He submitted, however, that in the present critical condition of India, and with hostilities going on in China, the noble Lord at the head of the Government ought to have made a statement to the House with respect to the exigencies of the country, and explained how he proposed to meet them. In lieu of that, when on Friday evening the vote for 2,000 additional seamen was handed to the Chairman in Committee of Supply not a single remark was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty or any other member of the Government, and had he not ventured himself to address a few observations to the House the Vote would have been agreed to in solemn silence. We could not disguise from ourselves the fact that a large military force would be required to suppress the revolt in India, and therefore it was somewhat extraordinary that the only Vote which the Government had proposed for an increase of our armaments was one for an addition of 2,000 seamen to the Navy. It had been stated by the public journals—not by any member of the Government—that 25,000 soldiers were about to proceed to India. He wished to know what measures the Government intended to take in order to fill up the void created at home, and at the same time keep up that large force in a state of efficiency. Nothing could be more dangerous than to denude this country of the whole of its military defences, and yet, while the Government had maintained a studious silence on the subject of any increase to our regular army, the Prime Minister had positively declared that, in his opinion, the calling out of the militia was unnecessary. He wished to warn the noble Lord at the head of the Government that if he looked forward to recruiting the army with the facility which his sanguine temperament led him to suppose, he would be mistaken, as he had reason to know, from personal intercourse with men who had served during the late war, that there was no great desire generally entertained to re-enter the service. The people had not forgotten the excessive favour shown to the soldiers of the Foreign Legion, and the rewards bestowed upon the members of the various civil corps, and they would not be found so ready to enlist into the army as some persons seemed to expect. Moreover, it ought to be remembered that at the close of the last war our army was 50,000 men under the Estimates voted by Parliament—a fact which showed how necessary it was to take immediate measures for replacing the large force about to be sent to India. With respect to the conveyance of troops, he might state that a portion of our Crimean army was brought home in Her Majesty's screw line-of-battle ships, although the First Lord of the Admiralty had previously declared that no vessels belonging to the navy would be used for that purpose, and he was convinced that the employment of screw steamers in conveying troops to India or China at the present time would be productive of both efficiency and economy. He did not look with alarm at the state of India, but he confessed that he saw no intention on the part of the Government to guard against danger that might arise nearer home. He should be wanting in his duty if he did not join in calling the attention of the Government to these points. With regard to the use of screw line-of-battle ships for the conveyance of troops, he might remind the House that when he returned from the Crimea he put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty in reference to employing those ships in bringing home the army, and asked whether the admirals in the Black Sea and Mediterranean had not recommended their employment. The answer given was that there was no such intention, and that no such official recommendation had been received. Two months after, the Government ordered the ships to be employed to bring home the army; and if they considered the risk the men had been exposed to for that time they must regret it had not been done sooner. If they looked to the Estimates, they would find the advantages on the score of economy in the course which had been adopted during the war both by France and Sardinia. In conclusion, the questions which be begged to ask the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) were, what was the full amount of the force to be sent to India, by what means the Government intended to transmit them, whether by sailing vessels or steamers, or, in fact, by Her Majesty's vessels at all? He wished, also, to know whether the Government had considered any measure with reference to the recruiting of the army, and, if so, to what extent; and, finally, whether the noble Lord was prepared to reconsider his answer with respect to the calling out of the militia?

said, he was well acquainted with the tendency of some hon. Gentlemen to increase the expenditure for the purpose of keeping up a large standing army; but he would oppose to their opinion the high authority of the Duke of Wellington, who declared that 80,000 men were quite sufficient for all the purposes of the country, including 25,000 stationed in India. The number actually voted this year was 126,000, leaving 46,000 available for India over what the Duke of Wellington had considered necessary. Her Majesty's Government were much better judges of what was required for the purposes of the country than the noble Lord opposite, and he always found them ready enough to make demands, but he had no doubt that if they came down and declared an increase of the army necessary for the defence of India, the House would vote the increase unanimously. It was to be presumed that there was no such necessity.

said, he was surprised that the hon. Member should talk so superficially upon the subject. From the numbers of the army voted the 30,000 men sent to India or China must be deducted. The hon. Member allowed civil service votes to pass without objection, but had a hobby of his own—that was, the decrease of the army. The men sent to China and India must be replaced, or the army would not be adequate to its duties. The noble Lord stated the other night that when the proper time arrived he should not fail to increase the army, but he (Colonel Knox) would remind the noble Lord that during the late war the country had to pay exorbitantly for men, and was obliged even to have recourse to a foreign legion. If Government did not at once begin to fill the vacancies constantly occurring, they would find considerable difficulty in so doing at a later period; and he could assure the House that this was a subject which occupied the serious attention of experienced and military men.

Sir, it is, I think, not usual for men who have at any time been anxious for the attainment of a certain object to become less eager for it, when they are placed in a position which makes them personally responsible for its attainment. Now, at a moment when the question of adequate national defences was not quite so popular as it is now, I was one of those who, out of office, as before that; time when I was in office, urged upon Parliament the necessity of making more ample provision for the defences of the country. I retain that opinion now, and, being a member of the Government and more responsible for providing adequate defences, I hope hon. Gentlemen will give us credit for not being neglectful in accomplishing an object which all must admit to be of paramount importance. Now, the hon. Gentleman who spoke last seemed disposed to taunt us with evincing an inclination to too much economy in our arrangements. I have always felt and urged that Parliament ought to provide ample funds for whatever may be necessary in the way of the military or naval defences of the kingdom. I can only say that the experience of the past leads me confidently to rely upon the fact that Parliament never is backward in answering the calls of the Government, whatever that Government may be, whenever it is felt that increased exertions are necessary to enable the Government to provide adequate means for the national defences. But, Sir, it is one thing to call on Parliament in a great emergency to increase the burdens of the country, with a view to protect the country from danger; it is another thing, in ordinary times, to call on Parliament to go beyond that amount which the Government, acting upon its own responsibility, has deemed to be sufficient for defence, although perhaps they might have an opinion that the amount was not quite so large as they would have desired had there been more ample means at their disposal. At the beginning of this year Her Majesty's Government laid before Parliament a statement of the amount of military and naval force with which we agreed to be responsible for carrying on the service of the country, both with regard to the defence of the realm and those other exigencies to meet which we in time of peace are likely to be called upon. Therefore, as far as the defences of the country are concerned, looking at the state of Europe, I see no reason why we should call upon Parliament to give us a greater number of men than we asked for originally. The hon. Gentleman who Commenced this discussion thinks we do not look with sufficient foresight to events which might happen to disturb the tranquillity of Europe and involve this country in the necessity of making greater exertions. I can only say I see no prospect at present—no question impending which is likely to involve us in any struggle in Europe. I trust the hand of Providence will protect us from any of those events which may unexpectedly produce a state of convulsion. But if such an emergency should arise, Parliament is sitting, to whom we could at once apply; and if Parliament were not sitting, we have the power of calling it together and asking its advice and assistance. Upon these grounds I feel there is no immediate cause for us to apply to Parliament for a greater amount of force for the service of the United Kingdom than that which we asked for at the beginning of this year. But it is quite true that events unexpectedly arising in India have compelled us to send from this country a portion of that force which had been intended to remain here for the purposes of national defence or for furnishing reliefs upon those stations where they might be needed. We, however, took steps to fill up the gap that would be created. We at once ordered the most active recruiting to take place. The only immediate way in which a drain of this kind can be met is by enlisting fresh recruits to augment the establishment of regiments remaining at home and in other places, or for the purpose, if it becomes necessary, of raising second battalions with a view of increasing the number of corps for relief abroad; but that operation will go on without any assistance from Parliament up to the amount which Parliament has already sanctioned for the military establishment of the country. Parliament has voted a certain number of men and given us the means of paying them, and although the position of affairs in India has rendered it necessary that a portion of that number should be sent out to that country, we are still at liberty to fill up by recruitments the gap thus created, and to restore the establishment to the same amount at which it stood before these events occurred. I entertain very sanguine hopes that at an early period that gap will be filled up by the ordinary process of recruiting. If not, it will become the duty of the Government to see what other steps may be required. One of the methods which has been suggested, and which has been much pressed upon us by hon. Members on the other side of the House, is that we should have recourse to the militia. I think hon. Gentlemen do not accurately picture to themselves a distinct idea of what it is they recommend. If they recommend that the militia should be called out for training and exercise for the limited period of twenty-eight or fifty-six days, to which in time of peace they are confined, is that intended as a means of inducing the men of those regiments to volunteer for the line? I dare say, if we were to call out a large body of the militia for training and exercise, many of them would volunteer into the line; but it would be a most expensive mode of raising men, because, in order to recruit 100 or 200 men, you would have to pay the full establishment of the militia regiment for twenty-eight or fifty-six days. Thus, the two-thirds or three-fourths of the regiment who would not volunteer must be paid in order to induce the remaining one-fourth or one-third to join the line. I apprehend that will strike every hon. Gentleman as being a most expensive mode of adding to the strength of the army. Other hon. Gentlemen say we ought to embody the militia as a permanent part of the home garrison; but if they looked at the Act of Parliament they would see that we have no power to do so. The law gives the Crown the power of embodying the militia in case of war with some foreign power, or in case of insurrection or danger at home. We are not at war. I see no likelihood of our being engaged in a European war, and certainly there never was a moment when the country was less likely to see an insurrection at home. It is possible, no doubt, that events may have happened in India, of which we may receive information before Parliament rises, which will necessitate so large a detachment of forces from this country that the ordinary process of recruiting will not be likely to fill up the gap; and I admit that, without any apprehension of particular danger at home, or anticipating any unfavourable change of political circumstances in Europe, it would not be right and fitting to leave this country, I will not say entirely destitute, but with any diminution for any length of time of the force that is necessary for its home defence. It might, therefore, in such a case be proper to ask Parliament to give the Crown for a limited period powers to embody a portion of the militia, though not in a state of war. I merely mention that as one of the possible events that might make a recourse to Parliament necessary, though I hope no such necessity will arise. The noble Lord (Lord A. V. Tempest) opposite has asked me to tell him the number of troops going to India—a question which I beg to say I have already answered. The force sent out, or being sent out, is, in round numbers, 20,000, consisting partly of recruits for the European corps in the service of the Company—recruits however they can be hardly called, seeing they have been a long time under training—partly of infantry of the line, partly of cavalry, and also of artillery, all of which latter belong to the Queen's service. There are about 1,000 artillery, consisting of six companies of foot, and two troops of horse artillery; there are three regiments of cavalry going, and the rest will be infantry of the line. We have, sent out what we think to be sufficient to meet the emergency, judging from the last communications we had from India, and the amount of force sent rather exceeds that which the Governor General in his last communication thought it was essential he should have. If, unfortunately, further accounts should necessitate our sending larger reinforcements, we shall then consider what steps we ought to take, and whether it may not be necessary to have recourse to Parliament for further powers.

said, the noble Lord had by no means answered the question—(Order).

said, hon. Members seemed to think that there was a dread of invasion, from France or elsewhere. But in case of invasion there would be no difficulty in equipping in a couple of months an enormous naval force from the mercantile marine. The real question, however, which the House had to consider, was, what was the best mode of sending our troops to India, He was one of those who were of opinion that troops could not be conveyed in screw line-of-battle ships, except at a far greater expense than in merchant vessels. A merchant in tendering for this service made allowance for the home freight which his ship would earn, but a man-of-war would get nothing of the kind. Another question was, as to the employment of steamers or sailing vessels. From inquiries which he had made, he found that in the month of January last, twenty-three sailing ships had arrived at Calcutta, after an average passage of 132½ days; in the same month two steamers had arrived whose passages averaged only ninety-four days, including ten days' stoppages at various ports, showing an advantage of thirty- eight days in favour of the steamers. But throwing aside stoppages, there would be a saving of forty-five days by sending troops to India in screw-steamers. This, he thought, was a matter of grave consideration at the present moment. The passage homewards from India showed nearly the same results, and the returns he had went to prove that in the passage out and home by screw-steamers there would be a saving of about one-third in point of time. The Government ought also to consider that the sailing ships now leaving this country would arrive in the Bay of Bengal in October, when the north-east monsoon was blowing, and would be detained for a considerable time.

said, he was of opinion that, if the home squadron had been, as it ought to have been, maintained, the whole of the force mentioned by the noble Lord might have been, within a space of forty-eight hours after the receipt of the news from India, placed on board of the vessels composing it, and be now as far on the way out as the Cape of Good Hope. That was the course which he should have adopted, but as matters stood he considered it impossible to send the troops to India by line-of-battle ships, as they could not be fitted out in less than three-months from the day the order was given. Great difficulty too, would he found in raising men, and he therefore thought the Admiralty were right in going into the market to hire vessels. He did not care what the cost was, but he thought the Government ought to send out screw ships, and, in order to save their coals, they should take care to have them towed out to catch the trade winds; they would then be able to start with a full supply of coals, and make the voyage without putting in anywhere. With respect to the defences of the country he had always been of opinion, and he believed that the Government themselves were of the same opinion, if they would only speak out, that this country never ought to be left without a Channel squadron for an emergency. It was no use for the Government of England to rely upon sailing ships when other nations had steam, and, instead of paying off our steam vessels, he contended that we should have paid off our sailing vessels, and have maintained our screw ships. Our station blockships, as they were called, were not blockships in reality, but were only bad steamers, fitted out on an emergency, and had not sufficient power to enable them to keep off the coast in bad weather. Instead of such inefficient craft, we ought to have first-rate screw ships at every out-port, and as the coast-guard were now a well-organized corps, they would have been competent to man the ships, if the ships only had been ready for their reception, He trusted that the Government would recall from the outports those bad and useless vessels, and that they would substitute for them the best steamers at their disposal. It was well known that ships in commission with their full crews aboard did not wear out as fast as ships that were laid up in ordinary; nevertheless it had been the custom of this country to have the best ships laid up in ordinary, while the worst ships were in commission. In conclusion, he again pressed upon the Government the absolute necessity of embarking the troops for India in screw ships.

said, that before agreeing to the reception of the Report, he wished to ask this plain and practical question—what was the advantage gained by this country by the expenditure of the money in the Persian war which they were now asked to sanction? £500,000 was not the whole vote which they would be called upon to provide—it was only an instalment of a larger sum which already amounted to £930,000; and, as it was one of the most important duties of the House of Commons to see that the public funds were not wasted, he could not conscientiously consent to this Vote until he had heard some explanation with respect to the value received from; the outlay. He was not going to discuss the policy of the Persian war; but he wished to know what was the difference between the terms agreed to at Paris, and those which were offered and were within our grasp at Constantinople. As far as he understood the papers which had been submitted, he gathered that the terms which we had accepted at Paris were not nearly so advantageous as those which had been offered at Constantinople. At Constantinople we demanded compensation for certain inhabitants at Herat, and we peremptorily demanded the dismissal of the Prime Minister. Both those points were conceded at Constantinople, but they were not insisted upon at Paris; while by the 12th article of the Paris treaty, England gave up a right which at Constantinople she was not asked to concede—the right of protectorate over certain per- sons in Persia. That being so, he asked how the House could be justified in sanctioning the expenditure of this £500,000. The only plea on which it could be justified was, that Ferukh Khan, the Persian ambassador at Constantinople, had not full powers. In the event of such a statement being put forward, however, he begged to remind the House that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, writing to the Earl of Clarendon on the 2nd of January, said that—

"Were his Excellency to accept the whole of our terms, he would engage that upon those being immediately complied with, no further demand should be made."

Thus showing that, in the opinion of Lord Stratford, Ferukh Khan possessed full powers. Moreover, he, (Lord C. Hamilton) found that on three separate occasions Ferukh Khan himself stated that he was armed with full power. This was a commercial country, and he begged to repeat in plain terms the question which he had already asked—what had this country gained by the expenditure which Parliament was now called upon to sanction?

said, he thought that it would be very inexpedient at the present moment to resucitate the past or anticipate any future debate upon the Persian war. However, the question which the noble Lord had asked would be easily answered. What we had gained by the war was the exaction of a promise from Persia that she would perform the solemn engagement which she had broken—not again to occupy Herat, an engagement the performance of which all persons who were acquainted with the interests of India considered to be indispensable for the safety of our empire in the East. Quitting that subject, then, and referring to the questions which had been raised with respect to the transport of the troops to India and the defences of the country, he must say that he adhered to the opinion which he had before expressed, that it was undesirable to employ Queen's ships in conveying troops, but that it was far better to engage transports for that purpose and employ Queen's ships in providing naval assistance in the war. The hon. and gallant Admiral and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) had adverted to the question of sending troops in sailing or steam ships, and it had been said that the average length of the voyage to India, as taken by sailing vessels was 132 days, and that screw ships took only ninety-seven. But the whole question was one of date. If the sailing vessel could avoid the monsoon, then, as he had stated so lately as Friday last, the average time taken in the passage to Calcutta by the fastest sailing ships, starting at this period of the year, was from ninety to 100 days. Now, he had a return of the times occupied by auxiliary crews in that passage. They were bound by contract to deliver the mails in Calcutta in seventy-four days; but the first performed it in 107 days; the second, the Tynemouth, in 121; the third, the Robert Lowe, in 100 days; and the fourth, in ninety days. He had stated the other night that some clipper ships had been taken up for the conveyance of troops, and the owners were willing to be bound to pay heavy penalties if they did not beat the screw ships starting at the same time. Therefore, the certain advantage of employing screw ships was not so great as had been represented. He must remind the House, too, of the exceeding difficulty of finding coal for so large a number of vessels. The Government had stores at the Cape, but they had been largely drawn on by the steam vessels proceeding to China. Large additional stores had been sent out; but, taking into consideration the two circumstances, that starting at this time sailing vessels were as quick as steam vessels, and that there was a possibility of the supply of coal falling short, he thought the East India Company had done well in determining in reference to expedition to send a portion of the troops in sailing vessels. With respect to the question of defence, it was quite true that he admitted the other night that there were not at present in commission sufficient line-of-battle ships fit to carry troops to India, but he was far from wishing to convey the impression that there were not sufficient in commission for the defence of the coast. He agreed with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) that it was not likely the people of this country would awaken some morning and find their country invaded, or a Russian or French fleet bearing down upon their shores. War did not break out in that way, for before any such step took place there would be diplomatic notes to be exchanged, friendly relations to be broken off, and the other formalities which civilized countries invariably observed on such occasions: and if the country was always to be prepared to meet the utmost amount of force that might be brought against it, where would be the possibility of attaining—what it was the aspiration of the country to accomplish—a peace establishment and peace estimates? It was perfectly impossible and absurd to suppose that in the midst of profound peace the country should be as ready to meet an attack as it would be in a time of war. In estimating the amount of preparation necessary to be made, common sense and the ordinary run of affairs must be taken into account. A man might be knocked down in the streets of London, but every person would not on that account walk the streets with a revolver in his pocket. They trusted, and with wisdom, to their experience, which taught them the improbability of such an occurrence. What were the circustances of the country at the present moment? It had lately emerged from a great continental war, and he had a suspicion that the great Powers were unwilling to involve themselves in war again. There was as little danger of war between this country and any, European Power as there had been at any time during the last forty years; yet the country was in a far better state of preparation than at any period during the last forty years. Though there were not sufficient ships in commission fit to carry troops to India, still there were a considerable number of the finest screw ships in a state of forwardness, with a view to being commissioned if needed; there were sailing ships in different ports, and there were, moreover, in commission, eight steam line-of-battle ships called block ships, which the country never had before. These last might not be fit to cruise in the Atlantic, although two of them had been across, but they had done good service in the Baltic, and were efficient and formidable vessels for home defence. The hon. and gallant Admiral said that vessels kept better in commission than in ordinary. That was an entire mistake. When he was Secretary to the Admiralty in 1836 it was thought necessary to increase the number of vessels in commission. There were then a number of vessels called "advanced ships," being vessels in some state of preparation, and on examination it was found that the tanks of the ships had gone to decay and that the rigging was rotten. The Government, then, instead of having to commence with empty vessels and getting for them whatever was necessary, had first of all to get the decayed things out and then to start de novo. Those ships were in some degree filled up, and decay was the consequence, for it was the free circulation of air that preserved the ships. Therefore, if the Government kept the ships in the way proposed by the hon. and gallant Admiral they would only be wasting away the ships, which would not be found in time of war so serviceable as they would under the system now pursued. Of course, if war threatened it would be the duty of the Government to bring the ships into a more forward state, and as a few weeks were sure to elapse between a quarrel and hostilities, there would be ample time to prepare them. With respect to men, let the number now maintained be compared with the number during any period of the last forty years. At one time in that period, when there was the greatest apprehension of interruption of peace, the number of seamen and marines voted was 43,000; the number this year voted was, together with the addition recently proposed, 50,000, being 7,000 more than were voted at a time when, for the last forty years, the apprehension of war was the greatest. Under these circumstances he thought neither the House nor the Government could be reproached with having neglected to provide ample means for the defence of the country. He had no doubt the House would authorize any expenditure which might be requisite in order to place the national defences in a state of efficiency, but he thought Her Majesty's Government would not be justified in calling upon the country to make sacrifices which were not absolutely necessary, inasmuch as such preparations had been already made as would be sufficient to meet any emergency. He had not yet adverted to the naval reserve which had been recently established—the coastguard and coast volunteers. The first of these forces had been organized by the present Government. The establishment of coast volunteers had been proposed by the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), but during the war the suggestion had not been carried out. He (Sir C. Wood) was happy to say the enrolment of those forces had been successful beyond his warmest expectations. He had asked for 8,000 men for the coastguard, of whom 5,700 were seamen and 2,300 civilians, who would, he hoped, be gradually replaced by seamen. He found from a return he had received to-day that the whole 8,000 men had been raised with the exception of seven. He had asked the House to vote as many men as he thought he could obtain in the course of the year, but men had come in much more rapidly than had been expected, and three months after the Vote had been sanctioned there was only a deficiency of seven men out of 8,000. During the war, some 2,000 men, not in all cases the most efficient, had been draughted from the coastguard into the Baltic fleet, and they had formed a solid and steady nucleus for the crews of the different ships. At this moment, however, if it were necessary, he could put on board ship 5,000 picked seamen, many of them wearing medals, clasps, and the legion of honour, most of which distinctions had been gained during the late war. With regard to the Naval Coast Volunteers, it had not been found possible in several districts to call out that force; but up to this time more than 1,200 men had been called out and trained, and he was sure the House would be happy to hear that the greatest readiness had been evinced to enter that branch of the public service. They had in that force a body of men who would be prepared upon any emergency to defend the shores of this country. If the crews of the block ships were transferred to seagoing ships the coast volunteers would be available for manning the block ships, and he ventured to say that so far as coast defences were concerned the country had never at any former period been so well prepared as it was at present. He was glad the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bcntinck) had brought this subject under the notice of the House, and had afforded him (Sir C. Wood) the opportunity of making a statement which he thought could not fail to be satisfactory to the House and to the country. He hoped that when next year he proposed an addition to the number of the coastguard and of the coast volunteers he should receive the support of the House in strengthening a reserve force, which was as cheap and efficient as any to which they could have recourse.

observed that the statement of the right hon. Baronet was extremely satisfactory. He believed that the ships to be engaged in conveying troops to India would be taken up by the East India Company, and examined by Admiralty inspectors, and he wished to impress upon the Government the importance of employing none but first-class ships in this service. He had before him a list of the ships already taken up, and he found among them the Robert Lowe, of only 100- horse power, another ship of only 150-horse power, and sailing ships of 600 and 700 tons. It was only by embarking the troops; in efficient vessels that due regard to the, comfort and cleanliness of the men could, in any degree, be had.

said the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that sailing ships were best adapted for the conveyance of troops from England to Calcutta, but as three weeks must elapse before many of those ships could be despatched, it was scarcely likely they would arrive at Point de Galle before the north-east monsoon set in, and if they did not do so it would take them from a fortnight to three weeks to beat up to their destination, while by steamers the distance could be accomplished in a week or ten days. It was of the first importance that the strength and discipline of the troops should not be impaired when they arrived at their destination, and he thought on that ground the advantages of steam-vessels could not be overrated. Certainly sailing ships of 600 or 700 tons were not calculated for the conveyance of troops to India. He had made the voyage to India, and had been for three weeks in a dead calm on the equator; but a ship which could employ steam power for one hundred miles might get into a wind which would enable her to proceed rapidly on her voyage. The right hon. Baronet had stated that the voyage to India could be made by sailing ships in 101 days. The quickest passage he (Admiral Walcott) had heard of was made by the Medusa frigate, which took out a Governor General, and which made the passage out in eighty-four days, and the passage home in eighty-seven days; but that was an unparalleled circumstance. He agreed with the First Lord of the Admiralty, that it was not generally advisable to employ ships of war in the conveyance of troops, because he must say, without any imputation upon the soldiers, that it was almost impossible to maintain proper discipline in a crowded vessel. He did not wish to create any alarm, but it was necessary that they should not regard the existing crisis lightly, and if the troops were to be sent out in ships of the mercantile navy, he earnestly entreated the Government to take care that the ships were efficient and properly adapted for the conveyance of soldiers. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said that the ships would be engaged under contract to land the troops within a certain time. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not excite a spirit of competition among the commanders of these vessels. In the day time all hands would be ready to shorten sail if a squall came on, but at night there would be few hands on deck, and the system of contract to which he had referred might induce the captains to incur risks which sound prudence would condemn, by carrying a heavy press of sail during the night. He thought, therefore, that such rivalry should not be excited, but that the commanders of these vessels should feel that full reliance was placed upon their ability, zeal, and promptitude for reaching their destinations at the earliest possible period consistent with due regard for the safety and the lives of those committed to their charge. He would have been much gratified if a number of our screw line-of-battle ships could have been employed in the conveyance of troops. They were ships of unrivalled strength and speed, and commanded by officers upon whom the fullest reliance could be placed. During the voyage of such ships at this period of the year from England to Calcutta there would scarcely be nine days during which the lower deck ports could not be open on each side, which would give a circulation of air of the greatest advantage to the health of the troops. This class of ships would also afford accommodation for one thousand men, or an entire regiment, and military officers justly attached great importance to the shipment of large numbers of troops in the same vessel, in consequence of the facilities afforded for the maintenance of discipline. The First Lord of the Admiralty said, however, that he had not screw ships sufficiently manned for the conveyance of troops. He (Admiral Walcot) held that the whole House, and not the Government alone, were responsible for the diminution of the income tax in such a manner as to render the reduction of our naval and military forces unavoidable. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) always contended for such reductions, but it was a penny wise and pound foolish system. That was proved in the case of the Crimean war, when enormous sums were expended in raising recruits and in obtaining stores and provisions. He thought that a great maritime country like this ought always to be prepared to maintain its naval superiority, and the expense of a few more thousand soldiers and sailors would be amply returned in case any emergency arose. He therefore submitted that, though he was no advocate for keeping up a large army or navy in time of peace, we ought at all times to be prepared for every emergency. Each of those line-of-battle ships could carry one thousand men. The First Lord of the Admiralty had stated he had not men at his disposal to man them all; but the right hon. Baronet might remove all the seamen from the block ships, and put on board of them the volunteers of whom he had spoken. With five thousand men those line-of-battle ships could he readily brought into commission, and if steam-ships could not be provided in time to take the troops in question to India, he thought it would be imperative on the part of the Government at once to have recourse to the screw ships.

said, he had heard it stated, with considerable surprise, that the average passage to India with steam-ships was beyond one hundred days. As he knew something of the subject, having been sixteen years in the Company's service, and having made eight voyages to India, and China, he was able to state that only on one occasion were they one hundred days at sea. That was in a sailing vessel. [Sir C. Wood: Hear, hear!] Some years ago, also, he had occasion to investigate the logs of a considerable number of ships, for the purpose of assisting a friend of his who was interested in the result, and he found that, on an average of one hundred voyages, with ships fitted with small auxiliary steamengines, the calm weather in which it would be necessary to get up steam was about twelve days. He considered our system of transports was entirely wrong. In the first place, he thought that iron transports were entirely a mistake. It was perfectly impossible that they could touch ground in the Indian Seas, where coral reefs abounded, without sustaining such damage as to risk the loss of a whole regiment at once. Moreover, they were very hot, and rolled very heavily. These were faults and defects which it was difficult to remedy. The Transit, of which they had heard so much, he believed was originally an efficient vessel; but with her large heavy forecastle and square quarters it was utterly impossible that she could be otherwise than unsuitable for carrying troops. He was able to bear out, from his own experience, what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Walcott) as to the condition of the men on landing in India. It was requisite that they should be allowed during the voyage as much exercise as could be had on board ship, such as dancing and other games, in order that they might be able to land in a condition to enable them to carry their knapsacks for the first five miles. We had the most perfect means of remedying the existing state of things. There was a class of ships in the navy which went by the name of "The Forty Thieves," and which would make the fincst transports in the world. They had two tiers of ports, and with engines which would enable them to make over fourteen days of calm weather, they would perform the whole passage in from seventy to eighty days. He would put it to the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in sending out these troops to India, it would not be desirable to tow nil the ships round Cape Finisterre, which would have the effect of materially accelerating their speed. If twelve or fifteen line-of-battle ships were fitted up with auxiliary screw engines, and were manned with 250 able seamen each, and with officers accustomed to the passage, a great result would be achieved, because the House must hold in view that they must be in a condition to send troops to India in larger numbers and more continuously than they had ever done before. He had always observed that the system of taking up ships for the transport of troops was a commercial error, for it raised the price of freights, kept our own ships out of commission, and prevented us having a large additional reserve of able seamen who would be able to man them. If the House would give him 250 men for each of those line-of-battle ships he had referred to, he would undertake to navigate any one of them with the greatest possible case.

said, he wished briefly to impress upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government the urgent necessity there was for making arrangements for the systematic relief of the large number of troops that would henceforward be permanently employed in India.

said, he thought the character of these auxiliary screw ships was hardly understood, for they were, to all intents and purposes, sailing vessels of a very high class. A vessel of that description, under sail alone, had frequently gone fourteen miles an hour, while she had the additional advantage of small engines, and consumed a very limited quantity of coals—just sufficient to carry her into the trade winds, and from thence her passage to India was short and easy. Just before he rose he had a return put into his hand of the number of vessels which had sailed from London to Calcutta between the 1st of July, 1856, and January, 1857, from which it appeared that ninety-eight sailing ships had performed the voyage during that period, the average passage of each being 130 days, and that seven auxiliary screw steamers had performed it on an average of ninety-three days, showing a difference in favour of the latter of thirty-seven days. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Elphinstone) said he disapproved of iron ships, but the ships to which he (Mr. Dundas) alluded were altogether of iron. It was curious to contrast the passages made by Her Majesty's steamers to the Cape of Good Hope with those of the auxiliary screws. The Hermes made the passage in fifty-four days. The Vulcan made the passage out in seventy-two days, and home in sixty-four days. The auxiliary screws, to which the First Lord of the Admiralty had referred, made the passage in thirty-eight days. It was a marked difference, and confirmed the statements which had been made of the advantage of employing auxiliary screw in preference to sailing ships.

said—I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to obtain from Her Majesty's Government some further explanation, with respect to the position of this country in the unfortunate quarrel which has arisen with China. Sir, it is impossible to regard the present position of that quarrel without feelings of considerable anxiety, and I must say that, in my opinion, the explanations of the noble Lord as to the mode in which Her Majesty's Government hope to bring those unfortunate differences to a termination have been by no means satisfactory. It is impossible to conceal the momentous nature of the crisis in India, and I am fully convinced that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will say, as I do most heartily, that the noble Lord, in adequately addressing himself to that crisis, is entitled to all the support which the House of Commons can give him. But, on the other hand, I do think that either the Government should give the House the most candid and explicit explanations upon all points on which expla- nations are demanded, or state that it is, in their opinion, inconsistent with the interests of the public service to enter into explanations. In the latter case, I am sure the House would defer to such a representation. Now, I am obliged to say that I do not think that the explanations of the Government with regard to our position in China have been as candid and distinct as the House had a right to expect. The noble Lord said a great deal on a former evening about carrying on hostilities in China, but not being at war with China, which seems to be a favourite idea of the noble Lord, when we endeavoured to ascertain the mode of action by which the Government proposed to bring that unfortunate transaction to an end, the noble Lord was extremely reserved, and failed to give any satisfactory explanation. I confess I cannot even now understand the statements of the noble Lord and the present facts with regard to the diversion of the forces despatched for the settlement of the Chinese quarrel to India. Some ten days ago I gave notice of my intention to put questions to the noble Lord upon the subject. When the day arrived the noble Lord did not come down at the usual period of putting questions; but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that he was prepared to answer if I would address my questions to him. Accordingly I asked whether the Government had given authority for diverting the troops intended for China to India, and whether the Governor General had sent any instructions to Ceylon for the diversion of those troops? The right hon. Baronet said distinctly that no instructions had been sent from England, and that no authority had been sent by the Governor General to Ceylon. [Sir C. Wood made a gesture of dissent.] I beg the right hon. Baronet's pardon. He said distinctly that the Governor General had not sent to divert the troops, but had made a communication to Lord Elgin to know whether Lord Elgin would consent to divert them. I asked what authority Lord Elgin had to consent, and I recollect the First Lord of the Admiralty said that he must have acted on the principle of salus populi suprema lex. In answer to a question which I put to the noble Lord on Monday last with respect to the action fought before Delhi, the noble Lord referred to the diversion of troops from China to India, and expressed his perfect approbation of the application which Viscount Canning had made, seeming to imply an expectation that Lord Elgin would comply with that demand. In a third instance totally different language was held. In an answer which the noble Lord gave on Friday evening I understood him to leave it to be inferred that the Government of this country had authorized and sanctioned the diversion of those troops. I wish to say most emphatically, as the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) has said, that I can take no exception to that course if the affairs of India are of that peremptory nature that the interests of the country require that the troops destined for hostilities in China should be diverted to India. But I think, in that event, the noble Lord should have frankly and fairly stated that in the opinion of the Government the emergency described had arisen. I cannot, however, understood at this moment whether, in the opinion of the Government, that necessity has arisen. I cannot understand to what extent, if it has arisen, the Government have acted, cannot understand whether the Government have or have not distinctly authorized the diversion of those troops. Instead of a simple and candid statement upon this subject, it appears to me that the language of the noble Lord has been inconsistent with the language which he held in March last upon the Chinese quarrel, and inconsistent with the dispatches contained in the papers which came from the authorities of the Government in China. It is upon these grounds that, with the permission of the House, I am desirous to draw attention to the present state of affairs in China. I do not wish to go back to the question of the lorcha— whether she had the British flag flying or not. I do not wish to enter into the circumstances which attended the commencement of this miserable quarrel, further than to say that I, for one, have not in the slightest degree changed the opinions which I formerly expressed upon its injustice. I cannot forbear expressing one other opinion, that if Her Majesty's Ministers had received—as I confess I think they must have received—warnings of the danger which existed in India—if they had received warnings of the volcano upon which they were standing, the guilt of that unrighteous quarrel with China is rendered tenfold greater. I cannot conceive any imprudence or rashness greater than for the Government to sanction the circumstances under which that quarrel with China was commenced, if they had reason to believe, as I cannot resist the impression they had, that the danger existed in India which has since come forth in so striking and remarkable a manner. Let me remind the House of the peremptory and menacing dictation which marked the language of Sir J. Bowring, Admiral Seymour and Consul Parkes. Consul Parkes writing to Commissioner Yeh in October says, "I have made certain demands. I have demanded the men to be returned. I have demanded an apology to be made. If not complied with within twenty-four hours from this time you shall feel the force of the naval power of England, which will compel satisfaction of our demands." There were only two conditions which would have justified this language. One was that it should be held in a just cause, a point upon which I have already expressed my opinion; the other that the persons who used it should have the power of enforcing it. Now, I think I shall be able to show that this language was rashly used, and that the persons who used it had no power to enforce it. The truth is, that these menaces—these peremptory and offensive demands—have never, up to the present hour, been enforced. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords held language much to to the same effect. He said that it would be impossible to adjust our differences with the Chinese if we were to wait four or five months while a reference was made to England; that it was absolutely necessary to the authority and power of England that we should act immediately, and that no delay should be permitted to take place. But what I ask is, whether we have acted immediately? When did these transactions occur? Nine months ago. It is not only that we have lost four or five months, the period which Lord Clarendon thought so objectionable, but nine months have occurred since these differences began. Have we carried out one of our menaces? Do we now stand in a better position in China than we did nine months ago? We all know that this menacing language produced no effect upon the Chinese authorities. Yeh was not alarmed. He refused compliance, and what was the result? That bombardment took place which, if I heard aright, was denied the other night, and with respect to which the right hon. Gentleman the first Lord of the Admiralty was to read some private letters this evening. I think the right hon. Baronet will have considerable difficulty in proving that Canton was not bombarded, or that the Chinese were not justified in those touching complaints they made of the destruction of life and property which ensued. Such was the, conduct of our authorities in China. Did that conduct produce the results intended? By no means. The next event that occurred was that, in revenge for the bombardment of the Yamun, or residence of the Commissioner, the Chinese made an attack upon the British factories at Canton and burnt them to the ground. Every effort was made by the forces of Her Majesty to prevent that destruction of British property, but in vain. What was the next thing that occurred? Sir Michael Seymour wrote a dispatch intimating his intention, although the factories had been destroyed, to erect fortifications in the factory gardens, to remain at Canton, and to keep Her Majesty's ships in the river, for the purpose of prolonging hostilities. A very short time elapsed before Sir M. Seymour found that this plan of operations was impossible. He was not able to carry it out. He abandoned his intention of fortifying the factory gardens, or of remaining at Canton. At last he was even obliged to abandon his intention of keeping Her Majesty's ships in the river. He retreated to Hong Kong. A dispatch written in January and received at the end of February shows the view which Sir M. Seymour entertained at that time of the position of Her Majesty's servants and forces in China, and the line of action which he thought essential to the support of British interests in that country. Sir M. Seymour wrote:—

"The necessity of maintaining my communication with Hong Kong has decided me to modify my plan of operations, and to confine myself to keeping the river navigation open until the arrival of reinforcements. I shall therefore withdraw from the Dutch Folly and Factory Gardens, and occupy the Bird's Nest Fort, which, with the Macao Fort, will give me a most commanding position. By this measure I shall release the Niger and Encounter from a confined anchorage, where they are in continual danger of being burnt by fire rafts or from rockets from either shore, and secure their services for any emergency."

He then goes on to say, and upon this passage I shall have to beg some explanations from the Government:—

"On a consideration of the circumstances herein set forth I trust their Lordships will concur in the propriety of my having, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary, applied to his Excellency the Governor General of India for the assistance of 5,000 troops. As, however, the warm weather will be approaching before any force can be assembled, and the Chinese are active in their preparations for the defence of their city, it would be expedient to have such an army as will, by their numerical strength, render a successful result the more certain."

I wish to ask the Government what was the result of this application for 5,000 troops from Sir M. Seymour to the Governor General of India? The noble Lord at the head of the Government told us the other night that the force at Hong Kong is now sufficient for any purpose to which it is likely to be applied. I do not understand on that hypothesis why an additional force was sent from this country. But I am disposed to believe that the force at Hong Kong is very far from being sufficient for the end required, and therefore I want to know whether this application was made by Sir M. Seymour to the Governor General of India; what the answer was; whether any troops have been sent from India to reinforce Sir M. Seymour in China; and if no such reinforcements have been sent, how the noble Lord opposite reconciles with that fact his statement that the British force now at Hong Kong is sufficient for any demand that may be made upon it? How can we hope to make such inconsistencies tally one with the other? The noble Lord has also told us that Lord Elgin is going to carry on a negotiation in China. How is that statement to be reconciled with the language held by the Earl of Clarendon in another place, that the only argument which the Chinese understood was the argument of force? The noble Lord was told the other night by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. James White), who has himself resided in China, that it was perfectly useless to send Lord Elgin to negotiate with the Emperor. He was informed that the Emperor would refer our Ambassador to Commissioner Yeh at Canton; and what the result of that reference will be, the House may easily conjecture, when it recollects how Yeh received our demands eight or nine months ago. If Yeh did not then comply with the demands of the British Government, menacing as they were, and supported by a certain show of naval power, is he likely to comply now, when our naval power has been tried and has failed, and when, instead of threatening the Chinese with fire and sword, we are ourselves reduced to a defensive position at Hong Kong? I cannot but regard these circumstances as being of the most serious character. It appears to me that they are of a nature to endanger the power, the reputation, and the authority of England in the East. I for one utterly condemned the policy of this Chinese war ab initio, nor have I since modified that opinion. But Her Majesty's Government: having embarked in it, I hold they are bound by every consideration which can influence British statesmen, to see that at least our honour shall, if possible, remain unsullied, and that we shall not be exposed to insult and disgrace in consequence of these unfortunate transactions in China. I have already admitted, to use the language of Shakspeare,

" that good reasons must give place to better,

" and that there may he paramount considerations why these troops should he diverted from China to India. But let the Government be more frank and explicit than they have been. Let them tell us what the necessity is. Even then I must ask them how they propose to carry out this Chinese quarrel. Divert troops to India if you please, but you must adopt some substitute. We are embarked in a war. Hostilities have been going on for some time, and no one can deny that to a certain extent we have failed. I hold it, therefore, to be of the very first importance that the noble Lord should give this House and the country some fuller and more intelligible explanation than he has yet given as to what his intentions and prospects are with respect to the prosecution of this unhappy Chinese war. Where is General Ashburnhara? Is he to go with these diverted troops to India, or is he to go to Hong Kong, there to be a general without an army? Where is Lord Elgin? At what place is he to negotiate? At Pekin or at Canton? Above all, is he to negotiate with or without that strong and indispensable support which a military force could give in China? If he negotiates with that support, I am afraid he cannot be successful. Let me ask the noble Lord another question. To what extent is the diversion of troops to be carried? He has told us that the portion of the Chinese expeditionary force which has been sent to Singapore may be diverted to India; but he has never told us what portion has been sent to Singapore, and what portion goes straight to Hong Kong. Therefore upon that point we have no information, and for the sake of the public interest, I entreat the noble Lord to give us some intimation of what, in the event of a diversion to India of the troops sent out, will be the military force in China. I thought it indispensable to make these inquiries, not in any hostile spirit towards the Government, to whom in this emergency every support should be given, but because this is a matter upon which I feel great anxiety, and also, I must say, some apprehension. I do trust that this unhappy quarrel, begun in injustice, may not terminate in disgrace.

I hope the House will allow me to repeat some of the statements which I made the other night, which it is necessary I should do in order to reconcile those inconsistencies and wonderful contradictions which the right hon. Gentleman has conjured up. I must say I do not understand the object of a considerable portion of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. He said he was unwilling to revive the discussion of which we had had so much in the preceding Parliament, but, nevertheless, he contrived to indulge in a few strong epithets of the injustice of our cause and the cruelty of our conduct. Another observation, too, I think he would have done well to withhold until he had read the papers which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control has just laid upon the table. The right hon. Baronet attributed great blame to the Government for undertaking the war in China, having been warned of the volcano upon which we were standing in India. If he had waited for the papers he would have found that his supposition was wrong, for they will distinctly show that no such warning was ever given. However, to take the right hon. Gentleman's complaints in chronological order. He first complains that threats were used by Mr. Consul Parkes which were never enforced. It is quite true that Sir J. Bowring and persons more experienced in China than he, were mistaken in their estimate of the effect which our operations would have upon the Chinese I authorities. They believed that each successive step would produce the effect of enforcing compliance with our demands, and such was the universal opinion of the authorities of Hong Kong, which was to some extent justified by a preceding case, when Captain M'Dougal, with a much less force than was at the command of Sir M. Seymour, obtained all that was required. If I am called upon to say to what I attribute the non-compliance of the Chinese with our demands on the present occasion, I should I attribute it to the mild course we have pursued, and the anxious care we have displayed to spare life and property, which have led the Chinese, like most barbarous nations, to attribute our forbearance to a sense of weakness. I will now say a few words in reply to the tirade we have heard about the bombardment of Canton, The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. James White) the other night gave a very correct account of what was done there or rather what was not done. The public buildings were shelled, as were also buildings in which troops were seen, and magazines were exploded, but none of the habitations of the peaceful portion of the people—the inhabitants who took no part in the warlike proceedings. It was not an indiscriminate bombardment, by which the dwellings of the peaceful inhabitants of Canton were destroyed. I deny that such was the case. The only passage in the Canton papers upon which such a statement could be based is at page 139, where Sir M. Seymour says, "I am now shelling the city from the Dutch Folly. "The question is, what is the meaning of these words? Do they mean that the Admiral was shelling what the hon. Member for Plymouth called truly the peaceable portion of the city of Canton—that part wherein were situated the dwellings of the people who took no part in offensive operations against us; or do they mean what is expressed in another page of the papers, wherein Sir M. Seymour says, "A few shells were thrown into the city yesterday from the Dutch Folly, in the direction of the Government buildings?" [Lord C. HAMILTON: That was on the 14th of December.] The question is, whether the words of Sir M. Seymour which have been so criticised mean that or more. Do they mean that he wantonly bombarded the city? He was quite ready to admit that they might bear the larger construction which had been given them, but whether justly or not was another question. It has been my duty most carefully to read all the dispatches of Sir M. Seymour, and referring to the course which he pursued on former occasions as evidence to guide us in reading these dispatches, I thought at the time that it was utterly impossible that he could have done that which is attributed to him, which is totally contrary to the spirit in which he conducted other operations. He says in a dispatch, which will be found at page 97—

"I resumed operations on the following day (October 28) from the Dutch Folly…I had previously given the fullest warning to the inhabitants in the vicinity to remove their persons and property (Captain Hall having lauded twice for that purpose), in which occupation they were engaged during the whole of the night. Before the landing took place I assembled the officers and urgently impressed upon them (as I had previously done by written order) the necessity of restraining the men from molesting the persons and property of the inhabitants, confining warlike operations against the troops only; and I have pleasure in bearing testimony to the forbearance and good conduct of the seamen and marines. No straggling took place, and when the orders were given to re-embark, the men returned to their boats with regularity and despatch."

Thus, when the course of military operations rendered it necessary for him to attack those buildings, he sent his flag—captain twice on shore to induce the inhabitants to quit with their property, and delayed his attack to give them time to do so. With this view of the character of his proceedings it is perfectly impossible to believe that on a subsequent occasion he should have done that which is so contrary to the spirit of his instructions, so contrary to the feelings of an Englishman, and so contrary to the character of an officer who is designated even by those who differ from Government as one of the best and most humane of men. I said in one of the discussions which took place upon the subject, that hon. Gentlemen were not justified in placing the construction which they did upon these words of Admiral Seymour. I said I was convinced that what he did mean was, that he simply bombarded the public buildings and places where troops were assembled. Since which I have written to Sir M. Seymour to ask him whether the construction which I placed upon the words was the correct one. I can truly say that there was not the slightest personal feeling in my mind with reference to the contradiction which I had received as to the right interpretation of the passage to which I have referred, but when I alluded to the matter the other night I certainly thought that those who had denounced a gallant officer for his inhumanity would have received with pride and satisfaction the contradiction that wiped away such an imputation from the character not only of that gallant officer, but of the nation to which he belonged. I was astonished at the attempt to throw discredit on the statement then made, seeing that it was calculated to remove an imputation cast on the nation as well as on the character of one of our most gallant officers. As I have already said, I wrote to Sir M. Seymour, with reference to the bombardment of Canton, and from him I received an answer, in which occurs the following passage:—

"I must not omit to thank you for the caution you are kind enough to give me in the instance (p. 139) where I inform Sir J. B. that 'I am now shelling the town,' which, it is scarcely necessary for me to say Incorrectly conveyed more than the reality. The world at home will by-and-by learn that there has been no indiscriminate destruction of Chinese persons or property at any period of our operations, and how studiously I have avoided such a repugnant course, notwithstanding the most urgent advice for a very different proceeding from classes ' many and various.'"

Since I came down to the House I have had put into my hands confirmation of this statement from an independent quarter—namely, from the Belgian Consul at Shanghai, and published in the "Moniteur Beige." In a letter written by that gentleman, and dated "Hong Kong, May 9, 1857," he says:—

"Admiral Seymour has conducted all his operations in the most humane and mildest manner. I can, as an eye-witness, guarantee that the so-called bombardment of Canton was so conducted as to inflict as little injury as possible on the inhabitants, while punishing the authorities."

I hope, after these statements from the gallant Admiral himself, and from an eyewitness in the person of the Belgian Consul, that the imputation cast on us as a nation and on that gallant officer will not be repeated in this House, and that in future a more generous view will be taken of the conduct of officers discharging responsible duties in distant parts of the world. So much for the alleged bombardment of Canton. It is true, as the right hon. Baronet states, that the measures then taken had not the effect of inducing Commissioner Yeh and the authorities at Canton to come to terms with us upon the question in dispute. After the attack on Canton and the destruction of the public buildings, the vessels were withdrawn and moored at intervals on the river from Bird's-nest Fort to Hong Kong, as it was thought necessary to have a check on the war junks and keep open the communication. There was no object to be gained by holding the river suburb of Canton after the destruction of the factories. It is true, also, that the Governor General of India was requested to send a body of troops to assist in making an attack on Commissioner Yeh, and that he declined to send them; but it appear; that afterwards part of two regiments were sent from Madras to take up their position in Hong Kong. Such was the state of matters when last we received intelligence from China. My noble Friend, when this question was first before the House, announced—and the announcement was received with the greatest satisfaction by the House—that Lord Elgin had been sent to open direct negotiations with the Imperial Government of China, to endeavour to get the present dispute brought to a settlement, and to place the relations between the two countries on a sounder foundation for the future. My noble Friend (Lord plamerston) repeated that announcement two or three nights ago; and therefore I hardly understood what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he asked what were the views with which Lord Elgin was going to China. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not have misunderstood the statement made by my noble Friend so short a time ago, and yet he has asked for what purpose Lord Elgin has gone out to China. It was further stated that the Government had sent out 5,000 men to China, that it was not thought desirable they should arrive before autumn as the climate of China was such as to render it impossible for European troops to act during the hot weather. It was expected they would arrive at the time when Lord Elgin returned to the south, after completing his negotiations at Pekin, when, if his efforts had been successful, and all questions were satisfactorily settled, they would; be again sent home. If, on the other hand, his negotiations failed, then the troops would have arrived there at a time when I their services were most desirable. A considerable naval force has also been sent out, but as far as we have any information up; to the present time one vessel only has arrived, which had not been sent to China wholly independent of these transactions. I thought it desirable, in sending out vessels, to relieve those which had served their time on that station, to include seven or eight gunboats, to be employed in co—operation with the Chinese authorities in protecting the trade against the pirates that infest the Chinese waters. By the last; accounts we were informed that seven of these gunboats had arrived, and I have no doubt that ere long we shall have a good account of their operations against the war junks, a service for which they are peculiarly adapted, inasmuch as they can follow them into the shallow water where vessels of larger draught are unable to go. At the present moment Sir M. Seymour holds the Bird's Nest Fort, which is one-and-a-half mile from Canton, as his advanced post, and from thence to Hong Kong, the whole way down the river is occupied by our vessels moored at intervals and keep- ing up an uninterrupted communication. Canton is effectually blockaded, and it appears is reduced to a state of great distress—there is a great scarcity of provisions—money being raised at 7 to 8 percent, per month, and, strangely enough, an application has recently been made to the Admiral to allow grain to pass through our fleet to the relief of the inhabitants of Canton. At all other places in China with which we have communication the greatest harmony prevails between us and the Chinese authorities, and piracy has to a great extent been put down. But the right hon. Baronet asks why we do not take efficient means for prosecuting hostilities with China; though he has been informed time after time that it is impossible our troops can act in China till the autumn, and they would be there when Lord Elgin returned from Pekin. I have also said, that 5,000 troops have been sent out, which will be ready to act should Lord Elgin fail in bringing the matter to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation. In the former Chinese war, when Lord Gough landed, he had only 2,700 men, which be found sufficient to boat the Chinese. Then the right hon. Gentleman, with a grave face, asked what were the circumstances that induced the Governor General to divert the troops on their way to China. I was certainly astonished to hear that question, as I thought it was obvious enough what those circumstances were, and that they were a perfect justification of the course which the Governor General had taken. And if those circumstances are a sufficient justification in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet as they were in the minds of everybody else, what does he mean by saying that the Government have not prosecuted the war in China with sufficient vigour to obtain our demands? The Government have taken active measures to send troops to China, but a greater necessity arose, and they have diverted those troops from their original destination to meet that necessity. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the different accounts were contradictory, but if the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the difference of date, he would find everything consistent. The right hon. Gentleman asked me last Friday week whether any orders had been given to Lord Elgin by the Government to forward any portion of the troops then on their way to China to India. I replied that no such orders had been given. He then asked if Lord Canning had sent any orders to divert the troops from Ceylon, and I stated that, so far as I was aware, no such orders had been sent. He then asked whether Lord Elgin had authority, in case of receiving an application from Lord Canning, to divert the troops. My answer was, that when Lord Elgin left this country we had no idea that such a need would arise in India, and therefore no authority had been given him on the subject. That was then the exact state of the case; but on Saturday morning a different state of things arose. A telegraphic message was then received from India, and the first measure which we took upon its receipt was to stop the India mail which left here on Friday night, and to send out orders to Singapore to stop all the troops which had not passed that place, and to divert them at once to India. At the same time we received intelligence that Lord Canning's letter which had not reached Lord Elgin at Ceylon, had overtaken him at Singapore, and that Lord Elgin, acting upon a most proper estimate of the emergency of the case, had taken upon himself to divert all the troops originally destined for China to the graver need which had arisen in India. That was the step which Lord Elgin took, acting upon the principle salus populi suprema lex, and the measure has met with the perfect approval of the Government. I believe that the whole of the 5,000 troops sent from this country and intended for China will touch at Singapore, and that, in accordance with the direction of Lord Elgin, and the orders subsequently sent from home, they will all there be diverted to meet the greater need in India. When Lord Elgin wrote, the first regiment which had been sent on from the Mauritius had not reached Singapore, consequently there is reason to believe that the whole of the force will go to India. The hon. Gentleman then asked what is our present position in China? Up to the latest accounts, Lord Elgin was at Singapore, waiting for the frigate which is to convey him on to Hong Kong, from whence he was to proceed to Pekin to open negotiations with the imperial Government of China; but what he might do under the circumstances he might have to meet when he arrived there, it is impossible to say. He has ample naval force at his command to meet any emergency that might arise, and he must act upon his own responsibility and according to his own view of what the necessities of the case demand. It is impossible to judge here of what circum- stances he may have to meet, or to give specific instructions in reference to negotiations carried on at the other end of the world. Lord Elgin is a man of discretion and sound judgment, and by that discretion and judgment he must be guided. Probably before his arrival the war junks in the river will have been destroyed, but no further operations will be undertaken until the result of his negotiations are known. Hon. Gentlemen are aware that a large additional force of gunboats has been sent out. These will reach China probably in the autumn after the arrival of Lord Elgin, and will be available for any operations that it may then be thought necessary to carry out. A considerable force of marines is also to be sent out, which will furnish garrisons for the forts and allow a greater force to be brought against Canton. The force now under the command of Admiral Seymour will enable him to hold his own until they see what effect Lord Elgin's representations to the Imperial Government have, and by that time there will be an ample naval force in China to enable Lord Elgin to carry on whatever operations the circumstances of the case may render necessary. My own belief is, that there will be no interruption of peaceful relations in any other part of China, for at no time since the last Chinese war have the authorities and the inhabitants of the other ports exhibited more friendly or more amicable feelings towards the people of this country. Whatever hostilities take place will, I believe, be confined to Canton. It is the wish of Her Majesty's Government, that they should be confined to that place; and that seems also to be the wish of the Chinese Government and people. At present the efforts of Admiral Seymour will be directed to the maintenance of his present position, no further hostile operations being intended until the result of Lord Elgin's mission is known.

said, he felt deeply that England was compromising her honour and her high character in entering upon these hostilities with China, and he must protest against the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down to cast upon those who differed from the Government as to the policy and conduct of the hostilities against Canton, the invidious imputation that they were, therefore, desirous of running down the gallant Admiral whose misfortune it was to be obliged to be engaged in these discreditable proceedings. As Sir M. Seymour was a gallant Admiral, he must from his inmost soul detest the task which was intrusted to him, and must feel degradation and humiliation in pouring shot and shell and fireballs into a city full of a peaceful commercial population. Because he (Lord C. Hamilton) was obliged to condemn the conduct of the Government then, let it not be supposed that he blamed the gallant Admiral. The right hon. Gentleman who began his speech by asking the House to look into the blue-book which contained a narrative of these events, fell into a strange error in quoting them, by disregarding the dates of the different dispatches, and treating them as if they were arranged in the book according to their dates. In this manner the right hon. Gentleman was in error as to the period at which the Admiral wrote that he was shelling the city from the Dutch Folly, and he appeared to be in error also as to the period at which the inhabitants were said to have been warned previously to the shelling of the city from the Dutch Folly. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to meet a public statement by a private letter, but his vindication entirely rested on a confusion of dates, for the dispatches clearly showed that while on the 14th of December the fire was turned on the public buildings and the wall, on the 15th of December the city itself was shelled. It was said that the object of the Admiral in the Chinese seas was to prevent the destruction of private property. He had no doubt of the Admiral's desire, but it was impossible, if the Admiral acted in conformity with his instructions, but that there must have been an enormous destruction of private property. The noble Lord had said we were not at war with China, but he would ask what possible effect could have been produced by all these cruelties, occasioned, as stated in the Friend of China, by a "terrific and continued cannonade for five hours," and by a "tremendous conflagration," as mentioned in another account? In the Morning Post there appeared a private letter of the date of the 15th of December, in which it was stated that they had created a great hubbub among the Chinese (Laughter). He would take that laugh as an index of the humanity of those carrying on the war against China. The sufferings of the inhabitants of Canton could not force Commissioner Yeh, who was acting under orders from the Emperor, into compliance, and therefore the infliction of those sufferings was wanton and cruel. But when the House heard so much about moderation, it was right that the House should know that the Admiral rather discountenanced moderation, for it would be seen in the bluebook that he said, "compulsion is the only argument to convince the Chinese," and "moderation is considered but another name for want of means to enforce compliance." However, the Admiral was not to blame for acting on his instructions; but the right hon. Gentleman had completely failed in his attempt to prove by a private letter that the impressions borne out by these public despatches was not correct. The noble Lord the other night said, that the public had approved the proceedings at China, but if that were the case, why did not the noble Lord propose to wipe from the journals of the House the Resolution adopted in the last Parliament? If the noble Lord made such a proposition he would find that the House would come to a similar decision, for not a single person representing a large constituency had declared that he would concur in an approval of the proceedings at Canton. The noble Lord knew very well that other circumstances besides approval of what had occurred in China affected the decision at the hustings, and, indeed, some of the noble Lord's colleagues had been obliged, in order to please their constituent, to state in their addresses that they did not like the whole of the proceedings there, but that they should have been wanting in liberality if they had not supported a distant public servant.

said, he did not know what the noble Lord meant when he said, that the Admiral in the China seas had received instructions to commit horrible cruelties. The Admiral only received orders from the Admiralty, and if he had received orders to commit horrible cruelties he would not have obeyed the orders. He had himself received a communication from Admiral Seymour, in which that Admiral said, that they did not call it war in China, but only the punishment of some people for insulting the British flag; and that they threw a shell into the town occasionally. He believed that was quite right, for it was the only way to bring the war to an end. Under present circumstances at Canton weapons must be used at a distance, and nothing else was to be done but to throw a shell in now and then in moderation. To hear the noble Lord one might suppose that Admiral Seymour was massacring the whole of the Chinese at Canton, but he understood from that gallant Admiral that he thought it hard that he should be abused by persons who were thousands of miles from the scene of action and who knew nothing of what occurred.

said, he believed that the transactions in China all arose out of what was technically called a "trade falsehood," which, it seemed, was not regarded everywhere with all the dislike which other falsehoods created. There was evidence of a foregone conclusion to quarrel with the Chinese, and a wretched and dishonourable subterfuge was got up about a miserable boat and some men who were taken from it. It was said that the British flag was insulted. They had all heard of the British flag and the British lion at the elections; there had been no end of the cries, "The British flag! The British flag! The British lion and the British flag!" and evidence had now come out, that there had been no British flag at all. The plea had been, that there was a kind of fetishe stuck up, which the Chinese were bound to have recognised and venerated; but now the evidence came that there was not even the fetishe. The floods of falsehood which followed were only equal to the first. Was there a man who believed in the poisoning at Hong Kong? Call the whole College of Physicians, and ask whether they could poison 300 men with arsenic without any of them dying, the arsenic not being weighed out by grains and scruples, but put into bread of which they ate according to their appetites, some more, some less. That was falsehood the second. Then there was falsehood the third, which came down to Huddersfield, where a most able and respected servant of the public, formerly a Member of that House, was excluded from a scat. The news came down there, that all was over; that the Emperor of China had conceded everything that was demanded; that the British lion was triumphant; and that there was nothing more to do but turn out of Parliament the gentleman to whom he had alluded. He would suggest to the House the consideration of a counter case. Suppose a fleet—Russian it might be—appeared in the Humber to enforce the landing of alcoholic drinks in defiance of the Excise. Suppose the director of that armament declared that he was not at war with Queen Victoria, but with the Mayor of Hull, and then the fire of the fleet was directed upon the Mayor's cucumber-frames, —would any one maintain that this was conduct worthy of a, great nation, or, indeed, of any nation, and that it did not sink the nation guilty of such an net below the ordinary level of civilization and humanity? Would not such a nation be degraded to the rank of Filibusters and pirates? What would everybody say of a Government that adopted such falsehoods, that patronized such actions, and that gave every public officer in its service reason to believe that he might commit any wanton or foolish thing he pleased, and would receive their support? Believe none of us, —never trust a philosopher or a Benthamite again,—for there was no knowing to what lengths he would go when he once got his head turned by communications with men who regarded opium-smuggling as the grand virtue, and its enforcement by violence as the merit of merits.

said, he had to present a petition signed by 110 out of 116 proctors of Doctors' Commons, representing that as the Bill now stood their occupation would be altogether destroyed, and that they had invested large sums in qualifying themselves for their offices, and praying the House to grant them just compensation.

said, he had to present a petition from bankers, solicitors, and others of Lincoln, against any limitation with regard to the amount of property for which probate might be granted in the District Courts.

proposed four new clauses, the first providing that the Court of Probate may cause questions of fact to be tried by a jury before itself, or direct an issue to a court of law; the second defining the powers of the court for the trial of questions by a jury; the third providing that the question shall be reduced into writing, and that the judge shall have the same autho- rity as a judge at Nisi Prius; and the fourth enabling the court to direct issues to try any fact.

said, that he had now, in conformity with the promise made by him when the House was last in Committee on the Bill, to move the addition of the following proviso after Clause 41:—

"That no probate or letters of administration shall be granted by a district registrar where the deceased was at the time of his death possessed or entitled, either beneficially or as a trustee, of or to any Government stock, funds, annuities, or securities, or any stock of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, or of the East India Company, or of or to any stock or shares of the capital of any other company, corporate or Unincorporated, of which stock or shares the transfers are usually either made, or registered, or perfected, by entry in books kept in London or elsewhere within the Metropolitan District; and any probate or letters of administration granted contrary to this provision shall be subject to revocation by the Court of Probate; but all acts done under the probate or letters of administration before revocation in respect of any property other than any such Government stock, funds, annuities, or securities, or any stock of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, or of the East India Company, or any such other stock or shares as aforesaid, shall be as valid as if such probate or letters of administration had been lawfully granted; and for the purposes of this provision, the Metropolitan District shall include all places within the, jurisdiction of the Court of Probate not included in the districts specified in Schedule A to this Act."

And also the following proviso:—

"Where any probate or letters of administration has or have been granted contrary to the provision lastly hereinbefore contained, it shall be lawful for the Court of Probate either to revoke the probate or letters of administration granted by the district registrar, and to make a now grant, or to confirm such probate or letters of administration, under the seal of the principal registry of the Court; and any probate or letters of administration so confirmed shall be as valid as if originally granted by the Court; and, in the case of any probate or letters of administration, with the will annexed, granted contrary to the said provision, it shall be lawful for the Court to cause the original will to be brought up from the district registry, and deposited in the principal registry thereof."

The effect of those provisos would be, that with regard to property locally situated in any District, and to any amount, the probate granted by the district registrar would be sufficient for all purposes; but that when it was necessary to produce a probate in London in order to effect a transfer either of funded property, stock of the Bank of England, or of the East India Company, or shares in any railway company, it would be requisite that the probate granted by the district registrar should have attached to it the seals of the metropolitan office, in addition to those of the district registrar; so that property of that description would not be transferred on the entire credit and faith of the probate of the district registrars. Supposing, therefore, there was a small railway, the head office of which for the transfer of shares lay in any registrar's district, it would not be necessary, in case of an estate comprehending shares in such railway, that there should be a metropolitan probate. If, on the other hand, a testator possessed property in any of the large railway companies, such as the Great Western or the Great Northern, the shares of which were principally transferred in the offices of the companies in London, then it would be necessary to have a metropolitan probate. He trusted the proviso, as he had described it, would be found to correspond with the agreement he entered into with the Committee when the Bill was last under consideration.

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated that these new provisos had been brought up under an agreement he had made with certain hon. Members who took part in a former discussion. He (Sir J. Trollope) must repudiate altogether the notion of being a party to any such proviso. The course which he and those who acted with him took on that discussion was to object to any limitation, and that principle was confirmed by a considerable majority of the Committee. So far as he was concerned he would readily assent to the proposition that probates passing funded property should be counter-sealed in London; but he could not conceive the necessity why persons residing in the provinces and holding probates in reference to any species of share property, that happened to be corporated or unincorporated in London, should be subject to the expense of having such probates counter-sealed in the metropolitan office. He believed no instance had been quoted either by the hon. and learned Attorney General or any other hon. Member of the commission or attempted commission of any fraud with regard to the stock of either the Bank of England or the East India Company in the provinces. The only notorious case of that kind was the fraud of Fletcher on the Bank of Eng- land, but that was wholly concocted and carried out in London. There was scarcely a small tradesman or farmer in the country who did not hold a share in some joint-stock company or other; why should his will be proved in London when it could be done just as well near the home of the testator? The House had confidence in the registrars to be appointed by the Commission; and though he conceded the protection required as to Bank or East India stock, he objected to the extension of it to the stock or shares of other companies. He thought that the Clause which the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) had on the paper was more in accordance with the wishes of the Committee, and he would therefore move that this clause be negatived.

observed, that the London and North Western, the Great Northern, the Eastern Counties, and the Great Western Company were not confined to London; they took in almost the whole country, and it was absurd that shareholders in the provinces should be called upon to go to the double expense and trouble of obtaining probate in London.

said, he had always protested against shares being placed in the same category as the funds. He had never heard any share company express a wish to that effect; the Bank of England might desire that all their business should be done in London, but joint-stock companies did not, and that was a sufficient reason why shares should be struck out of this clause. Leaving the matter optional, that would be the best mode of proceeding; but at all events he hoped the clause; would be so amended as to leave out the part relating to shares. If everything were to be done twice, there would be double trouble and double expense; but it was doubtful if it would give double security.

said, he fully concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Sir J. Trollope), and therefore objected to the clause, which was founded on no principle or reason. As the Bill was originally framed the country probate was limited. The House negatived that, the main principle of the Bill; and now the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed that the country probate should not be good to transfer stock or shares. That was a limitation of jurisdiction without any just reason. Why, as to railway companies, it often happened that their principal places of registry were in the country, as at York or Derby. Where was then the necessity of bringing the probate to London? The testator might have half-a-million of money in a bank at York or Derby, and no London probate would be required; but if he had £100 in shares of a railway having an office in London, probate in London would be required. Take another illustration of the absurdity of the clause: a man possesses a few shares in the London and Westminster or the Union Bank of London; in that case the country probate would be good for nothing, but he might have thousands of pounds deposited in the particular bank, and in reference to that the country probate would be good. Was not that a manifest absurdity? And would the House adopt it, merely to get the Government out of a difficulty? It would reintroduce the vicious principle of bona notabilia, which caused the whole evil of the old system. The clause was opposed equally to reason and to the principle of the measure, and was a violation of common sense. The Bank of England only required that proper care should be taken. Did his hon. and learned friend hold out to the Committee that the local accounts were not to be trusted to the local courts, or that those courts should not be allowed to give authenticity to a will? If so, the Bill was useless. But if they were to give authenticity in one respect, they ought to be allowed to do so in all cases. Though he advocated that those whose business was destroyed should be compensated, yet if they could not be protected otherwise than by such a clause as this, he thought they must consider their days as numbered. The clause, in his opinion, was altogether bad, and he should oppose it.

said, the clause had been evidently framed on the principle of giving additional protection to certain joint-stock companies in London. The bankers of London were at present in the habit of acting only on probate in London, and they felt great interest in this Bill, and it was their opinion that there was no reason for making a distinction between the Bank of England and the other banking companies of the metropolis. The transfer of stock and shares was a process that required time, but the transfer of money was effected at once, and, therefore, if additional security was to be given in the shape of probate in the London court, he thought it should be extended equally to all joint-stock companies and dealers in money. The same principle applied to all, and it ought not to be confined to the Bank of England.

said, that he thought that a special claim might be made out for the Bank of England and the East India Company. The stock of those establishments was, in reality, Government stock, and the tranfers were so numerous that it would be desirable to have one uniform probate. There should be one uniform court, and one seal to ensure regularity, and it was not on the ground of uniformity only, or as a matter of protection, but in order that the public might have full confidence in the tranfers at the Bank that he thought this clause was necessary. With respect to railway shares registered in London and other places, he did not see what ground there was for making a valid distinction between them. He, therefore, would suggest that the clause should be confined to Government stock.

said, the liabilities would fall on the Bank of England, and not on Government stock in the case of fraud.

replied, that it would be better that there should be one general Court of Probate for the Metropolis.

said, he had hitherto been silent during the discussions upon this Bill, and he would frankly tell the Committee why. Last year he ventured to differ somewhat from the hon. and learned Attorney General in the progress of a similar measure; his hon. and learned Friend reprehended him so severely upon that occasion, and he had retained so lively a recollection of the attack made upon him that he had not dared to express an opinion this Session. But he was a humble follower of the Attorney General in the course taken by him in the Commission to which frequent reference had been made. On one occasion he voted with the Master of the Rolls and the Attorney General against the rest of the Commissioners upon a point which appeared to him of great importance. The majority naturally prevailed, and both the measure of last year and the present Bill departed from the principle which he, under the auspices of the Attorney General, ventured to support. He was then, and still remained, decidedly of opinion that the same tribunal to which the duty of granting probate was confided ought also to construe the instrument. That, he thought, would conduce both to economy and the public interest. With the Attorney General and the Master of the Rolls, he likewise thought that that tribunal should be a branch of the Court of Chancery; but the horror of the very name of Chancery so appalled the public and the House, that it was now utterly impossible to give effect to that proposition. He considered it very doubtful whether the court now proposed—simply a Court of Probate without the power of construction—was a competent tribunal; but that part of the subject, he thought that the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) gave a great deal too much of indirect praise to the proposition that the local probate should be limited to £1,500 when he designated it as a principle. There was no principle in it whatever. More than a half of all human affairs depended upon compromises, and, to let out the secrets of the prison-house, he might state that the proposition in question was neither more nor less than a compromise, into which the idea of principle did not enter at all. Some members of the Commission were for fixing the limit at £1,000, others at £3,000, and £1,500 was taken as a compromise. He had intended to support the clause as it originally stood in the Bill, and, if the Government had sought to restore it, he should have held himself bound by what took place in the Commission, and voted for its restoration. But that was not the question before the Committee, for the Government having consented to an unlimited power of probate in the local districts, that question was set at rest. Now the system of Scotch banking prevailed to a great extent on the Borders, and it was very common for a shopkeeper or a small capitalist to confide his money to a joint-stock bank. A man in that position might deposit £1,000, bearing interest in the Carlisle bank, and, at the same time, possess stock to the value of £200. As he understood the clause before the Committee, while the local probate would be applicable to the deposit, it would not apply to the stock, which would require a metropolitan probate. If the local probate would cover the £1,000 deposit, he saw no reason why it should not equally cover the £200 of stock. The practice of the Bank of England, as he understood it, was very sound. The production of the probate elsewhere, whether at a county bank or at the place where railway shares were deposited, was conclusive, and the transfer immediately took place. But that was not the practice of the Bank of England. There greater caution was exercised. The probate was required to be left in their hands, and the parties must act through a broker. Therefore in the Bank of England the probate was tested by a severer scrutiny than in any other banking concern throughout the kingdom. A probate in common form was neither very mysterious nor very difficult. It involved the simplest mode of proof that any one capable of judging of evidence could be asked to institute. Assuming the statement of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Westhead), as to the immense sums constantly passing under probate at Chester and York without fraud or difficulty, to be perfectly accurate, that fact would sustain the opinion of the House that probate to an unlimited extent might be safely allowed in the country. If then the absence of fraud was a justifiable, ground for conferring an unlimited power of probate on the local districts, why was it not a justifiable ground for extending the same power to the country registrars in regard to stock? The noble Lord at the head of the Government acted wisely in yielding to the distinctly expressed opinion of the House the other night against limiting the amount to which local probate should extend. The only other question which remained was as to the compensation to be made to the London proctors. He Knew not whether those gentlemen thought that this clause would materially affect their claim to compensation; but he had often said, and he now repeated, that a great measure of legal reform ought not to be retarded by the consideration of what was due to the individuals who might suffer from its adoption. Therefore his advice would be to pass this Bill in the form which they believed to be most conducive to the public interest; and if the change operated detrimentally to the London proctors, let their claims be dealt with in a just, fair—aye, and liberal spirit. He trusted he should not be again reprehended by his hon. and learned Friend for what he had ventured to state on this subject. On the whole, he should be sorry if the Government pressed them to a division on this clause. The principle which induced the noble Lord at the head of the Government to give way the other night ought to induce him to give way in respect to this clause; and if this clause; were withdrawn, nothing would remain to be considered but the compensation due to the London proctors, which ques- tion also, he hoped, would not be suffered to retard the measure.

said, he regretted that they had lost an opportunity for trying the experiment of a fusion of law and equity, by conferring on one great court the power of dealing at once with the questions of common law and equity as far as they came within the scope of its jurisdiction. Although the Bill comprised much that he did not strictly approve, still it was so loudly called for by the country, and contains so many provisions calculated to improve the administration of the law that he would cheerfully concede much for which he would have struggled, had he been adequately supported, in order to secure the passing of this measure in a form that would entitle it to the approval of the House find of the country. With regard to the particular clause under discussion, they were not called upon to consider whether the case of the Bank of England stood upon special grounds, and should be dealt with differently from any other depository of property, but whether the jurisdiction proposed to be conferred on the country District Courts in relation to stock or shares should be altogether taken away. This clause was framed with a view to guard against the danger of fraud or irregularity in granting probate and administration by those courts. But having examined this question attentively, he was convinced that this apprehension of fraud or error, sufficient to justify the introduction of a clause like the present was wholly chimerical. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Westhead), the other evening told them that the country Courts had long dealt with wills affecting property amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds, and yet that in no one instance had fraud, forgery, or malpractices of any kind been detected so as to throw the slightest doubt on the propriety of conferring unlimited jurisdiction on the country districts. The Bank of England, having under its control £800,000,000 of public property, might justly be considered in a different position to other banks, but not because it was exposed to greater fraud or danger from fraud. It should be remembered also that they were not treating of contentious cases, but only of the ordinary cases which happened every day; and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), had truly stated that there was no difficulty attending the ordinary probate of a will. An unopposed will was taken by the parties interested to a competent person, who looked at it to see whether it had been properly executed and attested according to the Statute. If the Statute had been duly complied with, probate might be granted at once. If there had been any slight error or irregularity the country registrar would know perfectly well how to deal with it. He thought too that the apprehension of danger with respect to this description of property was fallacious. The only forgeries upon the Bank of England were those committed by Fletcher some years ago, which took place through the London Courts; but such things had not been heard of since, owing to the wise measures which were adopted after that event. The change proposed would strike at the very principle of the Bill, and therefore with respect to the clause itself, he was of opinion that it would be better to omit it altogether, and to allow all descriptions of property, with the single exception of trusts, to be dealt with the country Courts. Although it was somewhat in anticipation of discussion on future clauses, he could not help repeating that the Bank of England stood on a totally different footing from any of the institutions, not only on account of the magnitude of its operations, but because it was peculiarly bound by Act of Parliament.

said, he hoped the Committee would favour him with their attention for a short time, while he explained how this matter really stood; it would be in the recollection of the Committee that the Bill which he introduced last Session was founded upon a different principle. It was his opinion that all wills should be admitted without limit or distinction, and be received in the offices of the district registrars for the purpose of probate. He sought to combine the principle of economy with that of unity, by requiring that papers when received in the country should be forwarded to the Metropolitan office for registration, a proceeding which would cause but few hours' delay, even from the remotest part of the country, and but little expense. The Bill of last Session was undoubtedly framed upon the principle which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) had approved. The House would recollect that he proposed to abolish altogether the distinction in favour of the London proctors, and to open a new and enlarged court with complete powers to deal with all questions of law and equity. He also proposed to give to the London proctors that compensation which they then rejected, but which now, through the medium of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), they were so desirous to secure. How had that Bill been met! None were so loud in their opposition as the hon. Member for Wallingford and the hon. Baronet the Member for South Lincolnshire (Sir J. Trollope). They asked for a Bill framed on the Commissioner's Report. "Give us that," they said, "and we will support it." Unfortunately he had trusted to that assurance. A Bill was brought in at framed upon the Report of the Commissioners, and then, to his utter surprise, the hon. Member for South Lincolnshire, who was the organ of his party upon that occasion, turned round and said there was no principle in the limitation of £1,500. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had already stated, the limitation of £1,500 was undoubtedly a departure from the true principle, but, as he (the Attorney General) had stated the other day, it was a sacrifice of principle in order to obtain something which was imagined to possess great good and to be a general benefit. Well, the Bill was drawn upon the footing of that compromise, and when he was, in consequence, pressed in Committee to justify the limitation it contained, he frankly stated that his opinion was then, as now, in favour of a different rule. When, therefore, his noble Friend at the head of the Government, observing that the Committee were of opinion that the limitation was a departure from principle, yielded to the general opinion of the Committee, he was only adopting the course of which he (the Attorney General) had always been in favour. But then there arose this very important question—a question to which he requested the serious attention of the Committee, because they were the guardians of the people of England, and they must give a reason for what they were about to do. They were about to deprive the people of England of a very great protection and a great security; and he would proceed to endeavour to show them how. But then arose an important question, whether the House of Commons, who were the guardians of the people of England, were not about to deprive them of a great protection and security. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Westhead) gave instances of property to a large amount, which, he said, had been proved without question in the district courts, but then the hon. Gentleman, it must be remembered, spoke of the Metropolitan Court of York and the Probate Court of Chester. These were not fair instances, because the Metropolitan Court of York had always had experienced officers and an array of proctors and advocates, and experienced men were also to be found at Chester. He did not wonder, therefore, that wills comprehending property to a great amount had been proved without question in both those Courts. But this Bill established about forty offices in various parts of the country, at any one of which property to any amount might be conclusively proved. There was an extremely technical minutely-word-ed law, which laid down an iron rule as to what should be the character of the document to be proved. That document must be examined to see if it corresponded with the rules laid down by the Statute, and that examination required legal skill, great accuracy, and considerable experience. The question, therefore, now to be decided by the Committee was, whether the wills of the people of England were to be submitted to a competent or incompetent tribunal? [Cries of "No, No!"] That murmur was unnecessary unless it could be made out to the satisfaction of the House that the single officer whose constant attendance they could never expect to secure, and who would perform his office by an incompetent deputy ["Oh!"], constituted a competent tribunal to decide upon questions of so much importance; for they must remember, that the moment probate was granted, no inaccuracy or insufficiency of the document could be considered. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) supposed that there would be some security by the probate copy being left at the Bank of England. But from the copy of the will, for anything that would appear to the contrary, it would seem that the will had been written without erasure, alteration, or interlineation, and that its attestation was regularly executed and authenticated, every part of it. In short, nothing would appear on the probate copy inconsistent with the supposition that the original document was in conformity with all the provisions of the law, and therefore, this copy would be no protection to any party. A competent judicial officer was required to examine the original instrument, to ascertain that it complied with the law, and to stamp it with the character of a document that ought to be admitted to probate. Now, he (the Attor- ney General) had no confidence, nor would any lawyer, who had examined this subject, have any confidence that the problem would be always solved by the person to whom this business was committed in the district office. He admitted that he was indebted for a good deal of his present argument to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins), when he vindicated upon a former Bill the right of the London proctors to compensation. Times were now changed, and with them were changed the mind, judgment, and arguments of his hon. and learned Friend. He, (the Attorney General) was afraid that if the Bill passed without his proviso, the House and the country would ere long be startled by the discovery of some great frauds, and the House would then discover that it had subjected the probate to a most insecure and unsafe test of examination. This was the warning that had been given by every experienced person who had been examined before the Commissioners, and they had arrived at the conclusion that all wills ought, for greater security, to be proved in the Metropolis. This principle had been departed from in wills of small amounts, limited to £1,500. He had no particular feeling on the subject, but he should be glad to bring back the Bill to the form which his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) and himself had endeavoured to embody last year in the Bill which it was found impossible to carry. But if the Committee adhered to its decision, he (Sir R. Bethell) was undoubtedly driven to this admission—namely, that he could not point out any distinction between a will which would affect £5,000 worth of stock transferable in the country and £5,000 transferable in the metropolis. The distinction he had endeavoured to draw the other day was, between property which could be got possession of instantly, and without any overt act, and property which could not be realized except through the medium of a public sale—a distinction, in short, between funded stock or share property and agricultural stock or produce. The Committee did not seem disposed to abide by that distinction, and accordingly it had now been proposed that the line should be drawn between property which required an act to be done in London and property the transfer of which might be completed in the country. The distinction was not, perhaps, justified by the princple of the Bill, but it was necessary to draw the line somewhere, and it was probable that some cases on each side of the line might approximate very nearly together. Where parties, acting upon the will, must come to London to obtain and realize the property, he thought there would be no hardship or difficulty in saying that the will must be brought to London to be proved. These were the grounds upon which the Government, giving up their own opinion upon the details, had adopted the principle laid down in the Report of the Commissioners, from which the Committee had departed. The question now was, whether the Committee would make the country probate give a title to every description of property, or whether they would require the protection of a Metropolitan Court in certain cases. That was a proposition which it was for the Committee to decide, and there could be no doubt that it was one which very greatly affected the interest of the country. Far be it from him to use any language that might be represented as intended to intimidate the Committee; but he could not refrain from observing that this great radical change must be accompanied with other changes in the Bill,—changes so great as to place the measure in imminent peril, and probably render it impossible to carry it in another place.

had listened with the utmost anxiety to the Attorney General, and with an earnest desire to be guided by him in the vote which he was about to give; but he must say he had left him very much in doubt. He had said something about not wishing to intimidate the Committee—an idea which he (Sir J. Graham) was sure he never entertained, when he stated that the rejection of this clause might lead to the withdrawal of the Bill; but he thought it would be the duty of the hon. and learned Attorney General, occupying the high station he did as counsellor to Her Majesty on all questions of Law Reform, if he was of opinion that the decision which the House arrived at the other evening would have the effect of transferring from competent Judges and competent Courts to incompetent Judges and incompetent Courts the business connected with the probate of wills, to arrest at once the progress of that Bill—not with the view of intimidating the House, but in the simple discharge of his duty. More than that, he would say that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, naturally consulting the Attorney General, ought not to have given way on a former occasion when this Bill was before the House. The very arguments which the hon. and learned Attorney General had used with reference to the character and extent of the property involved, were the arguments that in the Commission prevailed with him to limit the amount of probate in the local Courts. Those arguments were deduced from the evidence taken before the Commission, and in his mind they were conclusive against the decision which the House arrived at the other evening. He was quite at a loss to know whether it was the intention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to press this clause. From those very arguments, drawn from the Report of the Commission, on which the hon. and learned Attorney General relied, he (Sir J. Graham) was prepared not to have given way on a former evening, and to vote for the restoration of the clause to its original form; but the Attorney General deliberately refrained from taking that course, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government consented to adopt the decision of the House. That night the Attorney General, after full deliberation, had told them that the effect of the decision of the House with reference to property of an immense amount, in which the people of England were deeply interested, would be to transfer it from competent to incompetent judges. The Attorney General might not wish to intimidate the House, but such a statement, from so high an authority, was most alarming, and therefore he wished to know positively what course he intended to pursue. If the learned Attorney General thought there was any danger in transferring these powers to the local courts, if he thought the measure had been destroyed or rendered absolutely prejudicial and dangerous, then he ought to give effect to that decision, and no longer press the Bill upon the House, for they had arrived at a time when the Government ought to adopt a decided line on this subject.

observed, that he shared in the surprise expressed by the right hon. Baronet with reference to the language of the hon. and learned Attorney General, though he could not at all agree with him that the tribunals to which they were about to give so much authority, at all merited the language which the hon. and learned Attorney General had used towards them. In the Commission he never was satisfied with the propriety of the limit to £1,500. The right hon. Baronet said the evidence on that subject satisfied him; but there were seventeen witnesses examined before the Commission, and sixteen of them were proctors and other persons connected with the London Courts, while not one witness was examined from the country. No doubt, if they took the opinion of the London professional gentlemen, every mother's son of them would say that the country Courts were not equal to the duty. In the Commission the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) wanted to give the new court all the powers both of a Court of construction and a Court of Probate, and he wished to carry it into the Court of Chancery; but his hon. and learned Friend (Sir. F. Kelly), who equally wanted it to be a Court of construction, would not have the Court of Chancery at any price. That was a matter which they might settle between them; but while they were settling it the country never would get an amendment of the law. For his own part, he did not see that it was important that the Court of Probate should be also a Court of construction; for the question of will or no will, and those with respect to the rights of the legatees, arose between different parties. Before they were driven to vote for this clause they ought to know the opinion of the Government more distinctly than they did at present. He could not understand why if a person was competent to pass a will for property of any amount, property in shares should be excluded from his supervision. He denied that the parties who would have to deal with that and other kinds of property were incompetent, as described by the hon. and learned Attorney General.

remarked that, like his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), he also was somewhat embarrassed by the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General. His right hon. Friend said in a former speech that this Bill ought to be settled in the manner most advantageous to the public, and that if compensation was afterwards to be found due, that should be a matter for future consideration. In that he entirely agreed. He did not think that for the sake of the London proctors they ought to make the Bill so different to what the public interest required. But then the difficulty was with regard to the line which the Attorney General wished to draw with respect to the funds of railway companies. He could understand the argument that the district registrars were incompetent, and therefore ought not to have any amount of pro- perty committed to their charge; but, if it were admitted that they were competent to deal with large sums of money, he could not comprehend why it was that they should not be held equally competent to dispose of questions which affected railway property in London. The Attorney General, indeed, seemed towards the latter portion of his speech to have leaned to the opinion that the District Registrars were incompetent, and that they ought not upon that account to have under their control money lodged in the Bank of England or invested in railway stock; but, if that were so, upon what good ground could the great mass of other property be committed to their hands? The hon. and learned Gentleman had further observed, that he wished to draw a line between property which could be sold only by public auction and that which might be transferred by mere writing; but if he were to draw that line, then, as the hon. Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had remarked, a balance placed in a banker's hands, whether in London or elsewhere, would come under the operation of the principle for which the hon. and learned Gentleman contended. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, did not propose to include property of that kind, whatever might be its amount, within the provisions of his Bill, but allowed it to be disposed of by those very persons upon whose competency; he cast a suspicion. He (Lord J. Russell), under those circumstances, felt that there existed many obstacles in the way of his agreeing to the clause as it stood. Whether the Attorney General could make out any special case with respect to requiring metropolitan probates for the £800,000,000 in the funds was another question. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to have laid much stress upon the clause in that respect, and indeed had spoken of his own proposal in such terms as rendered it extremely doubtful whether he himself could, with any degree of consistency, vote in its favour.

said, it had been asked what the opinion was which the Government entertained with respect to the competency or incompetency of the district registrars? Now, that was a point which the Committee had already decided, and although Her Majesty's Ministers would have preferred an arrangement different from that at which the decision of the Committee had compelled them to arrive, yet deeming the Bill to be one of a very useful and valuable character, they had deemed it expedient to concur in that decision rather than that the Bill should be thrown overboard. The point that evening under discussion was, whether the Committee should agree to the clause which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General proposed, as it stood, or whether they should confine the metropolitan probate to stock in the Bank of England; in short, whether they should adopt the clause of his hon. and learned Friend or that which the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk had submitted to their notice. Now, he might be permitted to observe that it would test the ingenuity of any man living to perceive any well-defined distinction between both propositions. The fact, indeed, was, that they were not the only propositions that had been laid before the Committee, as the utmost variety of opinion upon the subject under discussion appeared to prevail; in fact, there were almost as many opinions as persons. All the schemes which had been pressed upon their attention were perhaps open to considerable objection; but, so far as he was concerned, he should be prepared to agree to a clause by which district probates should be made applicable to every species of property, except stock in the Bank of England, and East India Company stock, and that for the transfer of these stocks metropolitan probate should be requisite, not that the country probate should be invalid altogether. If the will applied to stock in the Bank of England or East India stock, it would be valid for other property; but that for the transfer of these stocks it should be necessary to have a metropolitan probate.

said, he wished to express his astonishment at the circumstance, that the Attorney General should in the name of the Government have stamped the district tribunals with incompetency. If such were the opinion which Her Majesty's Ministers really entertained, then it was their duty, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) to withdraw the Bill altogether.

said, he rose to state that he should consent to the withdrawal of the clause, and that he should be prepared at a future stage of the Bill to bring up another clause based upon the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), and merely exempting from the operation of county probates stock in the public funds. He thought it better to take that course than to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.

then moved the substitution for Clause 51 of, a clause to the effect that any parties who, under the operation of the Bill, might be dissatisfied with the decision of a County Court Judge, should have aright of appeal from that decision to the new Court of Probate, instead of the superior Courts of Common Law.

said, he did not rise to object to the proposed clause, but to ask the Chairman whether it ought to be entertained before the clause which he had announced it to be his intention to submit to the consideration of the Committee in lieu of that which had just been negatived?

It has always been the practice in Committee of the whole House to give precedence to those clauses, which have been brought up by the promoters of the measure, in which it is intended they should be embodied.

said, he was anxious to know whether the clause which had been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk was to be discussed while the Bill was still in Committee, or at a subsequent stage?

It is my intention to bring up a clause, carefully expressing the objects which the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk seeks to attain upon the Report.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the House due notice as to the precise nature of the clause before it was laid before them.

said, that if he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General, his proposal was that a clause which went to the very root of the Bill should not be discussed until the Report. Now, such a course appeared to him to be fraught with so much inconvenience that if such were the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman he should move that the Chairman report progress. There were other clauses in the Bill, such as the compensation clauses, which could not be properly discussed until the relative positions between the Metropolitan and District Courts had been established, and he thought it would be better to postpone the further consideration of the Bill until the Government had made up their minds upon that subject.

said, that he could have no object in postponing the discussion upon the clause of the hon. and learned Member for West Suffolk, and if the Committee considered that the discussion might then be advantageously taken he would offer no opposition to such a course.

hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Motion.

then moved that the following Clause be inserted before Clause 42:—

"No probate or letters of administration granted by any district registrar shall be of any force or effect so far as relates to any stock transferable at the Bank of England or the East India House, unless and until the same shall have been sealed with the seal of the principal registrar of the Court of Probate in London; and such probate and letters of administration, when so sealed, shall be of the same force and effect as if originally granted by the said Court of Probate; and it shall be lawful for the principal registrar of the said Court of Probate, and he is hereby required, unless good cause be shown to the contrary, to seal all such probates and letters of administration, upon application made to him for that purpose, by or on behalf of the executor or administrator therein named."

He could assure the Committee that the clause was not one for the benefit of the Bank of England but for the benefit of the fundholders. The public funds were administered by the Bank of England, under divers Acts of Parliament, which compelled the Bank to act under different rules from those which governed other institutions. The Bank of England was bound to act on the probate when it had been once granted, and until recalled, notwithstanding any notice it might have received that the will was a forgery, or that administration had been improperly obtained. All that the Bank of England had to do was to see that the probate was genuine. It had nothing further to do with the will whether it was a forgery or not. The Bank, therefore, had no power to obtain any indemnity as railway and other companies had. The object of the clause, then, was to enable persons to prevent the Bank of England from acting under a genuine probate when the validity of the will itself was questioned, and thus to afford security to fundholders. There might be some question as to the process by which this counterseal could be obtained; but, for his own part, he thought it would be better to leave that matter to be regulated by the rules and orders which under this Bill were to be made by the Judges.

said, he believed that the clause was altogether void of substantiality. Its principle was that a country probate should not be good for India stock or for Government stock. If it were not to be substantial in its operation it would be a mere form and waste of labour; if it were to be substantial it would amount to a reconsideration of the will and a double probate. The total number of probates for England and Wales was, upon an average, 25,000 a year. All the wills affecting the public funds—that was, all those taken to the Bank of England, in the year, affecting the transfer of public funds—did not exceed 4,000. No one could say that that great establishment would be embarrassed by considering twelve probates a day, which would be the average number. The question really involved was whether the District Courts were competent tribunals or not, and if they were competent he contended that they must be trusted, and trusted to the fullest extent. It appeared to him perfectly ridiculous to say that if a country probate were sent up to the Bank of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) for £30,000 or £50,000, he must transfer the amount as directed, but if the same probate were sent up for £500 three percent, stock it would go for nothing and the will must be proved over again. For these, amid many other reasons, he should oppose the clause.

said, he should support the clause, because he was persuaded that under the new system, in spite of their utmost precautions, two probates might be issued, and then there would arise a question as to which of the two was the valid one. Suppose a man left two instruments, one leaving his stock to the widow and the other to his son. The widow rushed to Durham and obtained probate, and the son posted off to York and obtained probate. In such a case he believed that the first probate granted would be the valid instrument in the eye of the law; but still the person who obtained the second probate might get up first to the Bank of England and might procure the transfer of the stock. He believed that that transfer would be invalid, and it appeared to him that the clause proposing a metropolitan probate would obviously guard against such a contingency, because the Metropolitan Court would not affix its seal to more than one instrument. On behalf of the public, then, and not looking to the interest of the Bank of England, he thought that the protection proposed was reasonable, and ought to be granted. If, however, the clause were not agreed to, it seemed to him, in reference to the class of cases referred to, that it would be desirable to introduce into the Bill an indemnity clause. If he received any encouragement from the Government, he would propose a particular clause with that view.

said, that the accounts of the Bank of England in connection with the public funds were greater than the accounts kept by any other body, and amounted to about 250,000, belonging to persons scattered all over the world. The only risk the Bank of England ran in respect to acting on probates was this, that the person whose will was brought before them with probate attached might be still alive. It was, therefore, he thought, necessary that the Bank should not only have proof of the will, but also of the death of the person whose will was supposed to have been proved, for, otherwise, he might claim to have his stock restored. Considering the number of accounts which the Bank of England had connected with the public funds, a distinction ought to be drawn between their case and the case of any other body or individual; and the public creditor had some claim that his security in all respects should not be altered without his own consent. There had been a certain amount of security in dealing with the public funds in this and other respects, and it was hardly fair that it should be altered.

remarked, that he thought that the hon. Gentleman had given a most potent reason in favour of a local probate. He hoped that the present Bill would pass.

said he was not satisfied with the reasons of the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Weguelin). The Bank of England wanted protection from only one danger, that of the party supposed to be dead turning up on a future day; and this clause did not give it. The Bank, in point of fact, had the means of protecting themselves in their own hands. By this Bill they were constituting forty-one distinct courts over the country, every one of which was to have a separate seal. In order to enable the Bank of England to know all those seals they were in effect saying that every probate should be brought up to London, and that the Bank of England should have a voucher proving that the seals were the proper ones that should be affixed. He wanted to know what right the Bank of England had to this protection more than any other body. Why should not the London bankers generally demand the same protection? If any establishment had the proper staff for their own protection it was the Bank of England. He considered that the proposed clause rendered necessary a proceeding which would be either an idle ceremony, for which, however, a fee must be paid, or, if it were meant that the proceeding should be substantial, it would amount to a second probate, necessitating the reinvestigation of the whole case at considerable expense.

said, the effect of the clause would be that if the estate of a, testator comprehended funded property, and the will had been proved in a District Court, it must be brought up to London to be again inspected, in order that probate might be confirmed in the Metropolitan Court. Such a course would be attended with considerable delay and expense, but it was for the Committee to determine whether or not they would give their assent to the clause.

observed, that when the Bill was last under discussion, it was represented as entirely a voluntary, and not a compulsory measure. It was, however, a voluntary Bill only so far as ragarded the 12,000 or 15,000 magistrates of England, while it was compulsory so far as 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 ratepayers were concerned. He believed that if the Bill were passed, its tendency would be to discourage the support of existing Reformatories.

said, he should support the Bill as one which effected an excellent compromise.

said, he objected to the increased pressure upon the county-rates which would be occasioned by the measure.

complained that there had been no time to send this Bill to Ireland for consideration.

said, the Bill had been introduced at the request of many hon. Members from Ireland. He thought, therefore, the House ought to affirm the principle of the Bill, after which it would be competent for hon. Members to consider whether the measure should be proceeded with this Session.

remarked, that he thought the Bill would prove a very useful one.

said, there had been a meeting of the Scotch Members that day on the subject of the Bill, the result of which was that he had determined to omit the superannuation clauses, which were generally looked upon as unnecessary. Some other modifications and alterations had been resolved upon, which he would explain in Committee.

said, he must charac- terize this measure as a miserable attempt at a compromise. It was an atrocious thing to put a toll on a new bridge in London. The Bill merely proposed to exempt foot passengers, and in Committee he should move the exemption also of carriages and horses. Instead of imposing new tolls, they ought rather to endeavour to get rid of the existing tolls over all the bridges in Surrey and Middlesex, which might be done by imposing a rate of three farthings in the pound upon those two counties. Such a rate would free all the bridges on the river, from London Bridge to Staines.

submitted, that it would be absurd to have a large park at Battersea, and that the inhabitants on the opposite side of the Thames should have no means of getting to it. There was a property belonging to the Crown on the south side of the river consisting of ninety-five acres of land, which he was certain would be greatly improved in value by the bridge in question. He would add, that the money for building the bridge was furnished by a Vote of the House of Commons.

said, the money for building the bridge was advanced by Parliament on the understanding that it was to be defrayed by the tolls on the bridge, but it was never contemplated to place such a large sum upon the finances of the country. He did not approve of the attempt to subvert the original understanding on which the bridge was built, and he would decidedly enter his caveat against such a dangerous principle; at the same time he should not oppose the particular proposition.

reminded the House, that no less than £120,000 had been granted for the erection of this bridge on the faith that it was to be repaid by the tolls. Besides, Vauxhall and Battersea bridges, which were in close proximity to the new one, were subject to tolls, and if the necessity for abolishing the tolls was urgent in one case, why not apply it in the others? He admitted that it was highly important in general to have free bridges; but he would remind the House that Battersea Park was intended for the accommodation of the population on the south side of the river, and not of that on the north side. Unless, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Benjamin Hall) was prepared to go to the full extent of abolishing the tolls on Vauxhall and Battersea bridges, he should divide the House against the second reading of the Bill.

said, he regarded this proposed exemption of foot passengers from toll as an attempt on the part of the First Commissioner of Works to introduce the thin edge of the wedge, and that next year they would have him coming to Parliament to claim a similar exemption in favour of carriage traffic, on the ground that such exemption would enhance the value of some ninety-five acres of land on the south side of the river.

said, he could not refrain from stating the way in which Ireland had been treated in a matter of this kind. In 1853, the principal bridge in the city of Cork was destroyed by a flood, and with it thirteen human beings, besides property of the value of £20,000. The citizens of Cork raised £3,000 by a public subscription to relieve the families of those who had suffered from the calamity, and it cost the city an enormous sum of money to pin up the tottering bridge. A few days ago some gentlemen called on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and showed him how £60,000 had been sacrificed in one way and another from that cause. They asked him for a small sum of money in the shape of a grant to defray the loss, but not a single farthing could they get from him. That was the way in which Irishmen were treated in that matter. They could got no grant from the Consolidated Fund for the purpose he had mentioned, but in the case before the House a toll was put on a bridge for recouping the Consolidated Fund for the money expended on its erection, and now the very men who were parties to that arrangement proposed to weaken the security on which a large sum of public money was advanced. He protested also against the injustice by which the Crown quit-rents of Ireland were expended, not in Ireland, but upon the embellishment of London.

said, he thought if the land was to be so much increased in value, the land-owners ought to be made to pay for the bridge. In the country they had to pay for their parks and their bridges, and it was too much to call upon country Members to assent to a Bill that was to tax their constituents for giving those advantages to the inhabitants of London out of the public purse.

said that, as had been stated by his right hon. Friend (Sir Benjamin Hall), there was land attached to the park which belonged to the public, and would be increased in value by the formation of the park, as well as by the abolition of the toll upon the new bridge. The sale of the land would, in all probability, repay the whole expense which had been incurred. The public having gone to the expense of forming this park professedly for the benefit of the lower classes, the imposition of a toll on the bridge would exclude them from the enjoyment of the park, and therefore militate against the object which Parliament had in view in voting a large sum of money for its construction. It was quite a mistake to say that the public on the north side of the Thames would not enjoy the benefit of the park. There was a large population there of the labouring classes, and if a workingman with his wife and family had to pay a toll in going and returning, the proposal of making the park for the use of this class of the community would be a mockery. He therefore hoped that the House would assent to the Bill, and thus take off the toll, which, if imposed, would have the effect of excluding the lower classes from that rational amusement which it was intended should be given to them by the establishment of Battersea Park.

said, this was one of the most extraordinary propositions ever made to the House. He looked upon it as a distinct breach of faith with the House and the public. As much as £120,000 had been spent upon the bridge, and Parliament would never have granted that sum except on the security of the tolls which it was now proposed to abolish. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

said, he would second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norfolk. They ought to know where this kind of expenditure was to stop.

had no interest in the abolition of the toll, but he was sure that the value of the ninety-five acres of the land to be sold would be more than sufficient to make up for the toll.

wished to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Works to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, according to the usual practice of the House?

observed, he did not consider it necessary to refer the measure to a Select Committee. It consisted of one plain clause, which provided for the remission of tolls paid by foot passengers. The ninety-five acres to be sold would pay for the toll.

said, the Bill involved the breach of a solemn bargain, by which the public money had been obtained to build the bridge. The Government did not pledge themselves that should their anticipations of profit for the land not be realized, the public should not suffer. It was a deliberate attempt to relieve certain classes at the expense of the public. He represented a constituency who paid tolls for their bridges, because they were honest, and never came whining to Parliament for relief.

said, that he could not consent to these tolls being taking off at the expense of the public, but he was sure than any one who took the land in question would find it a good speculation, besides paying a compensation for the tolls.

said, there was some force in the suggestion that had been made, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill was, no doubt, as the right hon. Baronet said, a very small one, but it involved a very large principle. It ought to be recollected that the conditions under which this bridge was to be built were very special. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee evidence should be required as to the improvement which it was said would be effected upon the property adjoining the site of the bridge. It was quite clear that if taking off the passenger toll would improve it, it would be still further improved by taking off the carriage toll. If, then, this Bill were agreed to, a foundation would be laid for a further stop hereafter with respect to the carriage toll. The abolition of both passenger and carriage tolls would no doubt be an advantage to the Metropolis, and he submitted that the Metropolitan Board of Works should tax the whole of the Metropolis to purchase that advantage. The counties paid for their bridges, and so ought the Metropolitan counties to pay for their bridges.

said, one of the results of modern legislation had been to drive a large portion of the working classes of the Metropolis from the northern to the southern side of the Thames. At this moment there was a working population exceeding 35,000 between Westminster and Vauxhall. The scattering of the working population which had been pent up in crowded and miserable dwellings on the north side of the Thames was conducive to its morality, and he believed that the small tax which the abolition of the toll on Chelsea bridge would impose on the country, would be more than counterbalanced by the reduction which it would effect in the general taxation for the punishment of crime. Battersea Park would be comparatively valueless unless the access to it were without toll.

said, he thought that the people of the Metropolis ought to imitate the example of the people of York, who got rid of the toll on one of their bridges some years ago, by subscribing among themselves the funds necessary to purchase the fee simple of the tolls. Those hon. Gentlemen who had professed such desire to improve the condition of the working classes might, if such a subscription were started in London with regard to Chelsea bridge, prove the sincerity of their professions.

said, he would not oppose the Motion.

hoped that the hon. Member would allow the House to dispose of the remaining orders.

said, the present system of midnight legislation was giving great dissatisfaction out of doors. He therefore hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury would persevere with his motion.

observed, that it was partly out of consideration to the Speaker that he had made the Motion; it was nearly half-past one o'clock, and the House was to meet again at twelve o'clock this day (Tuesday). On the understanding that no opposed orders would be taken, he would, with the consent of the House, withdraw his Motion for adjournment.

said, he rose to move to nominate the Select Committee on Mr. Somer's petitions, as follows:—Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ireland, Sir FREDERIC THESIGER, Mr. BAINES, Mr. BUTT, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. G. A. HAMILTON, Mr. GREGORY, Mr. HILDYARD, and Mr. WARREN.

said, that an elector for Sligo having been refused the right to vote, he brought an action against the returning officer, and recovered £100 damages; and a Committee of that House had been appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Judges, the counsel, and all the parties concerned in the trial. The practice of that House deciding by Resolution on the law of the land was highly objectionable.

assured the hon. Member that the Committee had been agreed to by the Government, in order to avoid coming to a hasty decision upon the matter.