claimed the indulgence of the House while he endeavoured to do justice to a most respectable gentleman, an old and esteemed friend of his own, who was rather unfairly dealt with last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he alluded to Mr. Twells. The right hon. Gentleman read part of Mr. Twells's evidence before the Committee on Banking, but the way in which he quoted that evidence was calculated to give a wrong impression of the views held by him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer read a long series of leading questions—he should rather call them misleading questions—which had been put to Mr. Twells by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and their answers, but he omitted to read other questions and answers in connection with them, which changed the whole character of the evidence. He did not read the questions consecutively, but omitted many intervening ones, and thus prevented the House from fully understanding the effect of the whole. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that he had been led into the error of supposing that he (Mr. Spooner) was the advocate of an unlimited issue of inconvertible paper, but that he had been made sensible of his error by a statement which he (Mr. Spooner) made to the House that he held no such views. He said he had been led into the error by the evidence of Mr. Twells, whose sentiments he had supposed him (Mr. Spooner) to hold. Now, he begged to say that he concurred in all that Mr. Twells said before the Committee, but not in the construction put upon it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman asked this question—

"You recommend the issue of £20,000,000 of bank-notes not payable in gold on demand, but receivable by the Government in payment of taxes.—Yes."

But the next question and answer were omitted, namely—

"Do you understand that those notes would be issued by the Bank of England or by the Government?—I think it is perfectly immaterial. I should say by the Bank of England, on account of the completeness of its machinery. In order to avoid as much as possible violating the feelings of the people with regard to that to which we have been so long accustomed, it would be merely altering the words, and inserting, instead of ' I promise to pay,' something of the same kind as is inserted in an Exchequer bill, ' payable for receipt of taxes.' It would of course be sanctioned by Government, but whether the notes were issued by the Government or by the Bank of England I think would be very immaterial."

The views of Mr. Twells were that we should have two sorts of currency, one for our own inland and domestic purposes, and the other to carry on our foreign trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also put the following question:—

"Of course it would be necessary to omit the words, 'I promise to pay,' because these notes would not, in fact, be promises to pay on demand?—Quite so."

But he omitted to put the next question, which was one of great importance—

"What do you conceive to be the advantage of an inconvertible note of that kind over a convertible note payable to bearer on demand?—It would prevent a drain of bullion when it is required for foreign trade, and it would give us, what is so very essential, a domestic currency which is not influenced by any foreign transactions whatever. If France or America wants a quantity of gold it ought not to interfere with our domestic currency. Our merchants and all our trade surely should not suffer because America wants gold."

Again he asked—

"Do you think that that currency would run the risk of ever being depreciated in value—that is to say, that inconvertible £5 notes would not exchange for five sovereigns?—I do not know as compared with sovereigns; that, I think, is of no consequence in the world. We want it for our internal commerce, and we want it to pay Government their taxes."

But the next question asked, and not given by the right hon. Gentleman, was—

"How would you determine the value of a £5 note?—I do not want any value beyond its passing for £5 for taxes; whatever the Government demands from me as a tax of £5."

What his friend Mr. Twells meant was that the Government which paid the five-pound note in discharge of a debt due from the Government, should receive back the same five-pound note due from the country to the Government. The Government, therefore, would be paid back in its own coin, Mr. Twells was afterwards asked his opinion as to the cause of the depreciation of the French assignats at the time of the Revolution, and his reply was—

"What I stated a little while ago, that a Government may issue in excess; it is very possible, and supposing it is a corrupt Government they have the power of doing it; but such an institu- tion as our Bank of England cannot do it, because they only issue against property, against something of equal value with their own notes, and we consider that the further value of their own notes is secured by the sanction of a well-established Government; that the guarantee of our Government, taking it as it is in England, is quite equal to £20,000,000 of gold deposited in a vault. I should be very sorry to think otherwise of it."

There was enough in that answer to explain the difficulty of his right hon. Friend about the matter, and which excited so much mirth and merriment in the House. It showed that Mr. Twells meant all his answers to apply not to notes issued by the Bank of England, but to notes guaranteed by the Government. He hoped this statement, which he had deemed it his duty to make, would receive as wide a publicity as that which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Twells was next asked—

"Under what does the country suffer, and why under a drain of bullion?—Because it cannot have supplied to it a sufficient circulation. The House of Commons was congratulated in the year 1811 upon the adoption of a measure for supplying the country with a circulating medium of undoubted credit proportioned to its wants; now I take it that to secure that is the object of a sound currency.

"From what is that an extract?—That was stated on Mr. Horner's Motion for the Bullion Committee. 'A circulating medium of undoubted credit, proportioned to the wants of the country,' I conceive, must embrace everything that can be required of a currency.

"Whose opinion is that?—That is what was stated by Lord Castlereagh, and he observed upon it that this circulating medium of undoubted credit had ' for the first time' solved the problem of reconciling national prosperity with a state of war; that the country had risen in manufactures, internal improvement, revenue, and commerce, with a velocity which had never been experienced in a year of profound peace.

"The gap which is created in the circulating medium by sending bullion out to purchase corn would be filled up for the time by the inconvertible note till the exchange is turned, and then gold would naturally flow in?—Yes, it would naturally flow in, just as any other commodity.

"But the bank-note, if issued entirely by the Bank upon the Bank's own responsibility, you would still keep liable to be paid in gold; you do not want to make any change in that?—Not at all.

"There would be no necessity for it?—None whatever.

"There are notes to the extent of £14,500,000 now issued upon securities?—Yes.

"Do not they, upon the face of them, bear a promise to pay on demand?—Yes.

"Supposing the demand was to extend to them, and to pay upon that £14,500,000, would they be able to be paid?—No, they would not be able to be paid; but the country is now put in such a position that they cannot demand it.

"Then paper is issued which is not capable of being paid on demand, but it is done in the confidence that the country would be in such a state before that demand could be made that it would be utterly impossible for the country to demand it?—Yes, quite so.

"Then it bears upon the face of it a fallacy, just as much as an inconvertible note?—Yes, just the same. Therefore I think it would be only the fair and judicious and honest course to take that those notes should bear an impress upon them of what they were intended to be.

"You therefore recommend that those notes, instead of being issued upon securities, and pretending that they are issued on gold, should bear upon the face of them that they are issued upon securities, and you would recommend that those notes so issued upon securities, should be made a legal tender'!—Quite so.

"And whether the amount should be £14,000,000 or £20,000,000 is a question upon which you do not give a positive opinion?—Not at all.

"But your experience has shown you that when there was a steady issue of about £20,000,000 the trade was carried on steadily and prosperously in the country?—Yes; that is why I say £20,000,000; but it is quite possible that £14,000,000 would effect a great deal; that is a matter which experience only can decide."

Mr. Twells was a man of great experience and sound judgment, and was mixed up with no particular party. He came before the Committee to tell them the result of his long experience, and it was not treating fairly a gentleman now nearly eighty years of age, to attack him by ridicule and joke, and to take up garbled statements of the questions put to him and the answers he had given.

wished to put two questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The first was, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce during the present Session a measure on the subject of church rates? The second question was one of more importance, because with regard to church rates people were taking the remedy into their own hands, and there was an unwillingness to enforce the law. The other question related to the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. That Bill was passed for a year, and until the end of the Session next thereafter. It was renewed for another year and for the Session afterwards. The latter Session had now arrived, and if anything should terminate the Session abruptly, corruption and bribery would be held under very pre-carious and slender control. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government intended to refer the subject to a Select Committee, or whether they would bring in a Bill to improve that bungling Act?

With regard to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, Her Majesty's Government hope to be able to lay before Parliament during the present Session a measure on the subject of church rates. Of course, I cannot make any positive engagement on the subject, because it will depend upon the state of public business. With regard to the second question put to me by my hon. Friend, we stated last year that we proposed to continue the Act for another year instead of at once appointing an Election Committee to consider the subject, because we imagined, as the election petitions were then about to be presented, that the decisions and investigations of the Election Committees would throw a light on the matter, and that it would he better to postpone until the present Session the appointment of a Committee to consider what alterations ought to be made in that Act. Of course we shall carry that intention into execution, and when Parliament meets again I shall be ready to propose the appointment of a Committee to consider the working of the Act. With regard to the contingency of an appeal to the country, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, we hope after what has passed in this House we shall be relieved from that necessity.

thought that after the answer given by the noble Lord on the question of church rates, it was hopeless to expect any measure on the subject from the present Government. For the last two years they had been making promises on the subject, and so far from having fulfilled them the pledge just given by the noble Lord was much less binding than his promise of last Session. The question had been before the country since 1833, and last Session it had given rise to great debates in that House, and had been referred to a Select Committee. The matter was, therefore, quite ripe for settlement. The noble Lord should at once say what horse he intended to name as winner. If he were the head of a Conservative party, let him say so; if of a Liberal party, let him declare it. He had a large majority, and he ought to come forward like a man, and not suppose that the country was going to be gulled in the way that the noble Lord's treatment of church rates would seem to indicate. The House was laughed at, and the people of the country treated like children.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to form a separate Naval Station for the Australian and New Zealand colonies?

The naval command for both New Zealand and Australia is vested in one officer, nor is there any likelihood that the command will be divided, certainly not for some time to come.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if upon the reassembling of Parliament it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to propose any alteration in the present Government of our Indian Empire?

said, his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston), who was not at that moment in his place, had already stated that on the reassembling of Parliament he would explain the intentions of the Government on that subject.

, in moving for a Copy of the Reports of the East India Company's Surveyors upon the Screw Steamship Austria upon which she was engaged for the conveyance of Troops to India, together with Copy of the Ship's Register, complained of the misrepresentations which had been made respecting that vessel. He said she was a new vessel of 2,385 tons, and built and fitted out at Greenock. Her engines were made by Messrs. Caird and Co of that plane, men of high repute in their profession. The vessel had a British register, and her owner was a naturalized British subject. Before being taken up as a transport to India she was surveyed by the East India Company's engineer, as were her engines by the assistant to the chief engineer at Woolwich Dockyard, and the reports which those gentlemen made of her were entirely satisfactory. The troops embarked at Cork, and thence the vessel sailed on the 5th of October. When in the Bay of Biscay she encountered one of those storms so common there. She was struck by a sea which swept her decks, broke down and carried away her bulwarks fore and aft, and compelled her to put back to Plymouth for repairs. On examination there her engines were found to be unharmed, and after the ship had undergone the necessary repairs she again proceeded on her voyage. She experienced another storm, however, and unfortunately in the midst of it a part of her engines gave way. The result was that the piston of the engine went through the bottom of the cylinder, and the vessel thus becoming perfectly helpless was towed back to Plymouth a second time. It had been stated that the authorities at the India House ordered that a spar-deck should be added to the vessel for the increased accommodation of the troops. The very reverse of that was the case. That proposition emanated from the owners of the ship; but the Company's surveyors refused their permission, and happily so, for the sea that first struck the vessel in the Bay of Biscay would probably have swept into the sea the whole 200 or 300 soldiers who would have occupied that temporary spar-deck. He thought when the House was in possession of the returns for which he was about to move, it would see that not a shadow of blame was attributable to the India House in the matter. This was scarcely the occasion, or he should certainly have offered some severe comment upon the loose manner in which subjects were often investigated before they were publicly discussed. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the papers.

said, having had an opportunity of going on board the vessel in question on her first return to Plymouth, after she had been nearly wrecked in the Bay of Biscay, he wished to state briefly to the House what he observed on that occasion. He did not profess to have any great knowledge of shipbuilding, but no one could have seen the state of the vessel without being convinced that she was not at all a ship in which to trust one of Her Majesty's regiments on a long voyage to India. There was hardly a door or panel in the ship that was not cracked or destroyed. There were no bulwarks whatever on the upper deck, and of the light iron railing used as a substitute for bulwarks two-thirds had been washed away; four out of the six boats on her deck had also been washed away, and the vessel had been as nearly wrecked as could be with all her troops and crew. Indeed one of the men of the 94th Regiment was washed overboard. The gallant Colonel had not stated the number of the crew and engineers on board the ship, and he (Sir W. Fraser) would endeavour to supply the deficiency. The number of the crew of this vessel of 2,300 tons, which had on board one of the finest regiments in Her Majesty's service, was eighteen; the number of engineers, stokers, and other persons employed in working the engines, was twenty-two; and out of the whole of those forty men only three could speak the English language. He was bound to say that the captain seemed to be a most intelligent man, and to have acted with the greatest intrepidity during those trying emergencies. He (Sir W. Fraser) was told that for forty-eight hours he never left the deck, and that it was mainly owing to his conspicuous energy and prowess that the vessel was able to reach Plymouth. There was a story circulating in Plymouth when he (Sir W. Fraser) was there, though he would not vouch for the accuracy of it, that during the storm in the Bay of Biscay the greater part of the men employed in the engine room declared that it was no use working any longer, because they saw no chance of saving the vessel; upon which the first engineer, procuring his pistols, said, "The first man that goes up that ladder," meaning the ladder leading from the engine-room to the deck, "I will blow his brains out." It was owing, it was said, to that circumstance and to the energy of the captain, that the vessel was brought back to Plymouth. He did not know much of shipbuilding, but he did not think that a regiment could have been conveyed to India in such a vessel.

said, a great deal of dissatisfaction was expressed last Session at the manner in which the East India Company hired transports, and he was then induced to moved for a return on the subject, but that return had not yet been laid on the table, which was much to be regretted, as it was only in that way that the House could form a just opinion on the subject.

wished to know from the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he, in his official capacity, had had any knowledge of the facts just detailed by the hon. Baronet?

said, that the vessel had been taken up by the East India Company, and the Admiralty had no knowledge whatever of vessels so taken up. He had not heard the facts referred to till they were stated to the House by the hon. Baronet who had just addressed them.

said, that in order to prove a case which he wished to establish, the hon. Member only moved for a portion of the documents relating to this Lighthouse. Fault was found with the Board of Trade for not sanctioning the erection of a Lighthouse on Godrevy Point instead of on a certain shoal near it; but in arriving at the conclusion which they had adopted they had acted on the advice of eminent engineers; besides which, the expense of the Lighthouse they had sanctioned would be only £8,000, while one on the other proposed site would cost £250,000. He had no objection to produce all the papers if the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with that.