said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any arrangements have been concluded, or are now under the considera- tion of Her Majesty's Government, for extending the Mediterranean System of Telegraphs to Alexandria, and for bringing India into Telegraphic Communication with this Country by the way of the Red Sea, or by any other route; and whether, in the event of such arrangements having been resolved upon, Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence in reference thereto. He might, perhaps, be permitted to state, in explanation of the question, that a similar question was addressed to the noble Lord lately at the head of the Government, at the commencement of the Session, to which he replied that Government had been in communication with parties in reference to the extension of the telegraphic communication between Corfu and Alexandria, but that no arrangements had been entered into on the subject, and that no proposals had been made to the Government with regard to the extension of the telegraphic communication with India.

No arrangements, Sir, have yet been made to effect the objects to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have hopes that in a very short time arrangements embracing all those objects will be concluded.

said, that he had a notice on the paper for certain Returns relating to this subject, but, as the negotiations were 3till pending, he was ready to postpone his Motion, if such was the wish of the right hon. Gentleman.

It will be more convenient if no papers are moved for until all the arrangements are completed.

said, he would beg to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay upon the table the correspondence on this subject, and also an estimate of the expense of establishing the proposed communication?

Until the arrangements are completed I cannot pledge myself to produce the papers, but in all probability there will be no objection to lay them on the table. As, however, I cannot foresee what communications may take place, I cannot at present give any pledge that they will be laid before Parliament, neither can I submit to the House any estimate of the expenditure until the nature of the engagements into which it may be necessary for the Government to enter, is fully known.

said, he wished to know whether any arrangements were pending with the Austrian Government on this subject?

Although, Sir, I think it advisable that the rule of the House which requires that hon. Members should give notice of their questions, should be adhered to, I feel no difficulty in answering the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman. Arrangements on this subject are at present in progress between the Austrian Government and that of Her Majesty, but I may be permitted to say that a portion of those arrangements as originally planned, which would have given a monopoly to the Austrian Government, does not form part of the negotiation now pending.

said, he would give notice that on that day fortnight he should call attention to the subject of telegraphic communication with India, and would submit a Motion to the House.

said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to take any steps during the present Session with a view to providing increased accommodation for the National Collection of Pictures?

I should be sorry to say that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to take any stops on this subject during the present Session; but it is not in my power to state specifically what measures they may propose. The matter is one which for many reasons cannot be long neglected; but I cannot at present submit any specific proposition to the House.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Sir James Hudson is to remain at Turin as Her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary; and whether it is intended to recall the Secretary of Legation, Mr. Erskine, from the same Mission?

In reply to that question, I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention of recalling Sir James Hudson from Turin. Great services are not can- celled by an act of carelessness, however it may be regretted for the moment. With respect to Mr. Erskine, he has been recalled to this country in order to explain his conduct, and he has been suspended.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the condition of the settlements in the Straits of Malacca,—namely, Penang, Singapore, and Malacca — commonly called the Straits Settlements; and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there would be any objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to except the Straits Settlements from the action of the Bill for placing the territories of the East India Company under the control of the Crown, and to place them under the immediate control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He had put his notice on the paper in the form in which it stood, because as Her Majesty's Government had given an intimation that they were willing to submit a series of Resolutions on the subject of the Government of India in Committee of the House, perhaps they would allow this matter also to form one of the points so to be considered by the House. If hon. Gentlemen referred for a moment to the geographical position of the Straits Settlements, they would perceive that they were so situated at the base of the great Malayan peninsula as to be in the highway, as it wore, of the commerce between the east and the west, and that they also formed the most natural depots for the trade of the south and the east. This being the case, it was evident that the subject to which he now invited attention—the condition of the colonies of Singapore, Malacca, and Pulo Penang — was one of great national importance. In the earliest times, before Europeans traded in those seas, the Arabs and Hindoos, who then held the trade and commerce of India, had stations at those places, and every succeeding Government which had held the command of those settlements had invariably established trading points on the coast there, and regarded them as of great commercial importance. When the Dutch held the settlement of Malacca, when the British power was growing up in India, and when British traders began to establish commercial intercourse with China, it was found necessary to impose some check upon the aggressive and regressive policy of the Dutch, the object of which was to prevent the native States from trading with British merchants, and at the latter end of the eighteenth century the settlement of Penang was formed. It was not, however, until 1819 that Sir Stamford Raffles, who had been Governor of India, appreciating the enormous commercial importance and valuable resources of Singapore, inaugurated that policy which had the effect of establishing British ascendancy in the Straits of Malacca. After great trouble both with the authorities in India and at home, he obtained leave to establish a settlement at Singapore, and in the course of a year the trade which had heretofore been carried on at Penang was almost entirely transferred to the new settlement. From that time to the present the trade of the Straits Settlement had enormously increased, and according to the last return for 1857 it amounted to the value of £15,000,000. After Sir Stamford Raffles had made the settlement at Singapore, and whilst it was progressing in this rapid and almost unprecedented manner under the control of the East India Company, whose servant he was, and in whose name he had founded and maintained it, the trade of the East India Company with China ceased to be a monopoly; consequently it ceased to be a matter of great importance to India whether Singapore and the Straits Settlements continued to flourish or not. But in proportion as it ceased to be an object of exclusive importance to India whether the trade flourished or not, in that proportion did ft become a matter of importance to this country. These Straits Settlements were, in the strict sense of the word, "colonies;" for bodies of men were established there under British rule, attracted by the security of British laws, and perhaps the personal influence of British subjects. These were by no means a conquered people, such as were the inhabitants of India, who were ruled and kept under entirely by the strong hand. In very many respects they were placed in a much more advantageous position than the people of India. Their trade, which in 1840 amounted to only £4,000,000, had, as already stated, increased to £15,000,000 in 1857. By a very fortunate accident, at the first establishment of Penang the land tenures were granted in perpetuity. When the Dutch were in possession of the country they granted enormous tracts of land to any one who chose to claim them; but when the settlements were ceded to the English there was a difficulty in carrying out the land tenures as they had been ceded by the Dutch, because, though the Dutch settlers were willing enough to give up all the lands which they did not use, yet they reserved to themselves the right that if these territories should afterwards pass out of the hands of the British, then their heirs would be replaced in possession. The Straits Settlements had properly no connection with India. They had ceased to be of any importance to that empire since India had ceased to trade exclusively with China, in fact, they appeared to be only regarded by the Indian Government as useful for a convict station. The whole of the convicts of Bombay, Madras, and Bengal were sent there, and one of the principal complaints made in the Singapore petition, which he had the honour of presenting to this House some few weeks ago, was that they were not only made the receptacle of the scum of the Indian population, but by a system of injustice, which he believed to be almost unprecedented in history, were compelled to pay the whole expense, not only of the convict establishments, but of the military who guarded them. Another instance which showed how little the Government of India knew or cared about the prosperity of Singapore was an interference with their currency. The East India Company wished to establish one uniform currency all over their territories, and introduced the rupee and smaller Indian coinage into the Straits Settlements, which had always hitherto been accustomed to a dollar currency. The small Indian coinage did not fit into the dollar currency, and great confusion and embarrassment to trade had resulted. Another complaint made by the inhabitants of Singapore related to the restrictions which at various times had been sought to be imposed on the freedom of their trade. The great foundation of the prosperity of Singapore was that it had heretofore been a free port, and therefore attracted much of the shipping which passed the Straits on its way to China. The East India Company, however, attempted to impose tonnage dues upon shipping frequenting the port, and were only prevented from inflicting this injustice upon the people of Singapore by the most energetic remonstrances to the home Government. All these circumstances proved, he thought, that the interests of the Straits Settlemenrs were very much more Imperial than Indian, and that those settlements would be much better govern- ed if they were brought immediately under the control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Another point was that Singapore required protection against the aggressive policy of the Dutch, who prevented the native States from trading with them and diverted their trade into Dutch ports. At present these settlements were under a delegated authority from India, consisting of a governor at Singapore with resident councillors at Penang and Malacca, on whose reports, made secretly, the Indian Government were obliged entirely to depend. The population had no means of forwarding their views to head-quarters, and questions were often decided without any regard to their feelings, and in fact entirely at variance with them. One advantage, indeed, they possessed. Their laws were not administered by the Company's civil servants, but by trained barristers; and they also had the advantage of a grand jury, which might, he hoped, hereafter form the nucleus of a constitutional Government there. These grand juries had repeatedly, when the Judges were on their circuits, pointed out the different requirements of the colonies; but the unvarying answer of the Indian Government had always been that, without entering into the rights of the question, they were not prepared to entertain the subject at all. Since the Singapore petition had been sent home all public works in the Straits Settlements had been stopped; but it was surely very hard that this colony, which had really nothing more to do with India than Nova Scotia or Canada, should be deprived of all useful public works simply because of the events which had happened in India. These were the principal grounds on which they begged that they might be removed from the control of the East India Company, and placed immediately under the authority of the Crown. Looking at the enormous progress which these settlements had made in a few years, the large European community assembled there, and their peculiar advantages and position for trading purposes, he hoped to hear from the Government a satisfactory answer to the question of which he had given notice. In 1809 the island of Singapore was nothing but a resort of Malay fishermen and pirates; now there was a large settlement there under English laws, which, situated as it was, midway between India and Australia, effected a junction between the trade of the North and the trade of the South. In addition, he begged to move for copies of any correspondence which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the East India Company on the subject of the Straits settlements, in order that the House might have the advantage of listening to any discussion which might arise.

said, he was free to confess, as the noble Lord had anticipated, that the subject which he had brought under the notice of the House had not sufficiently occupied the attention of the Government. The fact was that they did not consider it necessary, at a time when the whole Government of India was about to be discussed in this House, to deal with questions of detail respecting what must at present, at all events, be considered a portion of the Indian empire. Nor was it possible for the Government to have taken this subject into consideration, for in order to do that, it would have been necessary to communicate with the Home Government ', of India and the Governor General, since, j as the noble Lord had stated, this colony was one of the great penal stations for Indian convicts. With regard to the complaints made in the petition, which had been presented by the noble Lord, and reiterated to-night, he (Mr. Baillie) could not altogether admit their justice. It was alleged, first of all, that the Indian Government had made repeated attempts to impose duties on the trade of Singapore, which attempts had only been frustrated by appeals to the home authorities. Now, the petitioners could hardly complain that their interests were unattended to when their grievances had thus been redressed. Again, with regard to the complaints about their currency, it was very natural that the Governor General should desire to establish a uniform currency throughout the whole of the territories subject to his authority. But, after the complaints made at Singapore, this grievance also was redressed, and the currency which had been imposed on the colony was changed back to the dollar currency. He thought that this, therefore, did not give the petitioners a right to complain. The only just ground of complaint which, in his opinion, those colonists could urge was, that Singapore had been made a penal settlement, and that, no doubt, was a complaint which was well entitled to consideration. It should, however, be borne in mind that Singapore had been made a penal settlement before it had risen to its present importance, and that the prosperity which it now enjoyed was to no small extent the result of convict labour. The convicts had been employed in dock labour and on public works, and now, as often happened with the colonies, when they rose to wealth and power, they desired to get rid of those very means by the help of which they had risen. But, although he was prepared to admit that the complaint to which he had just adverted was one which was deserving of notice, he could by no means concur in the justice of the statement which had been made by the noble Lord, to the effect that the expenses connected with the maintenance of the military establishment at Singapore were entirely defrayed by the colonists. Such was by no means the case, and he might add that the military defences of the colony involved a question of the utmost importance for the consideration of the Government; because, if Singapore were to become a Crown colony, this country would have to take upon itself the onus of defraying the charge for its military defence—a charge which could not be estimated at a less sum than £300,000 per annum. The House would recollect at the commencement of the Chinese war great excitement prevailed in Singapore, inasmuch as there were 40,000 or 50,000 Chinese at the time in the colony. It had, therefore, been deemed expedient to increase, to a considerable extent, its military defences, and he believed that there were at the present moment no less than three regiments stationed in the settlement. At no period, indeed, could its garrison, in his opinion, be estimated at less than two regiments and a battery of artillery, the maintenance of which would cost this country nearly £300,000 per annum at the very lowest calculation; for that was an amount of expenditure which could not be thrown upon the resources of the colony itself, inasmuch as its revenue was barely sufficient to defray its ordinary civil expenditure and to admit of its furnishing £15,000 a year towards the outlay for military purposes. The subject, therefore, was one which was well worthy of serious consideration; and before Parliament proceeded to take any active steps with respect to it, it would do well, he thought, to bear in mind that the commerce of Singapore had within the last six years increased at least 75 per cent.—a fact which afforded the best evidence of the prosperity of the colony. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the noble Lord would be satisfied with the explanation which he had given in refer- ence to a subject which had not as yet been brought under the special consideration of the Government, and which, when the future Government of India was settled, might at any time press itself upon their attention.

said, he thought the case of Singapore was one of those instances in which the Legislature showed an ignorance of, and want of sympathy with, the settlements and dependencies of the country by no means creditable to it. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down treated this question as if it were one of complaint against the East India Company, but he believed, from all the information he had been able to obtain, that the question was rather one of public policy. There was not in history an instance of such remarkable growth as the settlement of Singapore. Forty years ago it was a mere haunt of pirates, but now its trade had risen to the value of £10,000,000 per annum,—a trade which had, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, increased 75 per cent. during the last six years. Now, that progress had been made in spite of misgovernment which, if it ever came to be detailed, would surprise the House. Take two of those cases which had been mentioned. Nothing could be more natural, said the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, than that the Governor General should think that the currency which was suitable for India would also be suitable for Singapore, and so by a single stroke of the pen the prosperity of the whole island was jeopardized. The other case was still more remarkable. Singapore, though a small island, was made the depot for criminal convicts from all parts of India, and the colony was not only made to pay their expenses, but, as if to cap the climax, they had to receive Sepoy regiments to guard them. Now, suppose these Sepoys had sympathised with their brethren in Bengal and mutinied, let the House conceive what would have been the effect in Singapore. The real question for their consideration was, what had Singapore to do with India? They were now legislating on the principle that India should govern India; but why should it govern Singapore? Ceylon was only eighty-five miles from Singapore, but it was a colony independent of India; but Singapore, though it was nearer to China than to India, and though it had more trade with England and with China than with India, was dependent upon India. They might as well have made Hong-Kong, or Australia, or the Cape of Good Hope, colonies dependent on India, as Singapore. Singapore, with its thousands of Chinese inhabitants, was well called the Liverpool of the East, and he thought they ought to seize every opportunity of fostering its trade. The hon. Gentleman, however, had stated very fairly that this question had not yet been considered by the Government, and his noble Friend had properly refrained from pressing the Government to come to an early decision on the subject. He thought his noble Friend had acted wisely in doing so. If the Government should—which he did not anticipate—decide against Singapore, it would then be time to appeal to the House, and he had no doubt the House would support him.

said, as one possessing some knowledge of Singapore, he wished to say a few words upon the occasion. He, certainly, had never until now heard any suggestion that Singapore should be placed under the control of the Colonial Office, and he was not at present prepared to give an opinion upon the point; but, having been at Singapore in 1820, when the settlement was first formed, he would give the House some information respecting it. At that time, it was an island, inhabited only by a few Malay fishermen; but, being singularly well adapted, by its position, to intercept the whole trade of the Eastern Archipelago, Sir Stamford Raffles, one of the ablest men who ever visited the East, recommended its settlement. In consequence of its advantageous position, the progress of the settlement had been extraordinarily rapid, and it was now a vast entrepot for the commerce of that part of the world. In the first instance, it was necessary to send thither convicts, to perform public works, roads, and harbours; and a very small military force was sent, to keep them in order; but, as the settlement increased in importance, the elements of disorder increased likewise, for the population, which resorted to Singapore for the purposes of trade, was drawn from the most lawless and savage of Eastern races, —the Bugis, from Celebes; the Sarawak Dyaks, from Borneo; the Syaks, inhabitants of Sumatra, and other wild races, furnished their quota to the population of Singapore. In addition, however, there was a largo Chinese population, who resorted to the settlement in order to make money, with which to return to China. Those men came unaccompanied by women, and they associated with the natvei women of the country, from which connection had sprung a numerous race, called Klings, a most disorderly people. It had, therefore, become necessary to increase the military force, to preserve order among those people, and not on account of the convict population in the settlement, of whom he had never heard any complaints made, but from whom, on the contrary, the residents usually selected their domestic servants. He once knew a lady, the wife of an officer in high position, at Penang, who told him she always selected her servants from that class; and, upon his asking whether she preferred thieves or murderers for service in her nursery, replied that she always chose murderers, their crimes having been generally committed from motives of jealousy, and those motives ceasing, they were very desirable servants. He had never heard that the convicts were at all disagreeable to the residents in the settlement; hut he knew that they were useful in constructing roads, bridges, and other public works, which otherwise would not be performed. He was inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Control, that it would be a great burden for this country to take upon itself the charge of maintaining peace among that mixed and lawless population. He had no doubt there might be defects in the management of the Strait Settlements, but there could be no doubt but that these settlements were rising in importance. There was, however, an insuperable obstacle to the colonization of the island of Singapore, and that was the immense number of tigers which swam over from the opposite shore, from which Singapore was separated only by a small stream. The opposite coast was an impenetrable jungle, tenanted by vast numbers of tigers, more bold and ferocious than any to be found in other parts of India; and scarcely a month passed without some native being carried off bodily by those animals. That circumstance operated to prevent the cultivation of spice and sugar, for which, otherwise, the country was excellently adapted.

said, that he did not wish, on the part of the East India Company, to put forth a decided claim to the control over the Strait Settlements; but he wished to correct some statements which were contained in a pamphlet, written by an esteemed friend, Mr. John Crawford, the author of Our Eastern Archipelago. In that pamphlet, it was stated that the revenue of the three Strait Settlements— Malacca, Penang, and Singapore—were burdened with charges which were never imposed upon the local revenues of any colony, and that out of it were defrayed the expenses of the military and naval services, and also for the maintenance of transported felons from Madras, Bombay, and Bengal. The fact, however, was, that the charge for the convicts was borne by the Presidencies whence they were sent, and all the military and naval expenses were also defrayed by India. The gross revenues of the Strait settlements in 1855–6 was £97,904; the expenditure for purely local charges, independent of the cost for military and naval purposes, was £74,753, leaving only a balance of £23,151, to meet those expenses which, it had been said, were defrayed by the inhabitants of those settlements, but which, in fact, were paid for by the poor ryots of India. At this moment, the Indian Government was building gunboats at Bombay, to put down piracy in the Straits, the expense of which must come upon the British Government if the wishes of the noble Lord were agreed to. The right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had stated that the settlement of Singapore was exposed to danger from the convicts; but the last speaker had shown how unfounded was the apprehension. The real danger—and a most serious one it was—arose from the large Chinese population in the Strait Settlements; and he would warn the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the House, that, unless strong measures were taken, such as the Government of India were now considering, with respect to the Chinese population and their secret societies, the safety of the settlements would be more jeopardized by those people than ever it would be by the convicts or the tigers. That being the case, he did not know that the control of those settlements was of great importance to the Indian Government, especially as, having lately taken possession of the Andaman Islands, they no longer needed Singapore as a depôt for their convicts; but he would advise the Government not to deal with this matter without consulting the Governor General. If that officer should see no objection to the change, he did not know that the East India Company would be at all unwilling to part with its control over these settlements.

:^* Sir, I rise to move an Address to the Crown with the avowed object of obtaining the abolition of the Stade Dues. Every one who has paid attention to the Returns of the Board of Trade must have looked with alarm at the falling off of our exports during the last two or three months. The amount of our exports during the first two months of 1858, as compared with the corresponding months of 1857, is less by £3,800,000, while for the same period the amount of tonnage has diminished 207,000 tons. I am aware that the House and the country have of late been more inclined to look for prosperity to ships bristling with cannon than to fleets laden with merchandise, and to regard our armies in the field as of more importance than the legions labouring in the factory; but trade has created a population which we cannot maintain, but which can maintain itself if we give free scope to its labour and full development to S its industry, and any obstacle or impediment in its way demands the anxious and patient consideration of this House, and the immediate attention and action of the Government of this essentially commercial country. On this ground I ask the indulgence of the House whilst I make a short statement on the subject of the Stade Dues, which I regard as no mean impediment to the progress of our trade. Not the least important part of our foreign trade is that which we carry on with the free city of Hamburgh. It involved a money value, during the last year, for exports alone, exceeding £13,000,000 sterling. The approach to Hamburgh, as every one knows, is by the River Elbe, one bank of which is in the territory of the Duchy of Sleswig Holstein, and the other is under the dominion of Hanover, by whom it was somewhat irregularly acquired only in the year 1715. About forty miles distant from the mouth of the river, and twenty-three miles from Hamburgh (I speak in round numbers), just at the confluence of the Elbe, and the smaller stream of the Schwinge, is a little town called Stade, and an insignificant fortress, and still more insignificant harbour, designated as the Port and Fort of Brünhausen. At this point every ship of every country, with the exception of those of Hamburgh and of Hanover, is called upon to interrupt her passage, and is compelled to bring-to and show her papers (many of which are specially required for the purpose) to the Hanoverian functionary; and on these being considered satisfactory by that redoubtable individual, she is graciously permitted to proceed on her voyage. On her arrival at Hamburg, a Hanoverian Commissioner stationed there makes his appearance, and proceeds to charge duty on the goods forming her cargo—such duty amounting to from one-fourth to three-eighths per cent. ad valorem, though upon many articles, principally the staple commodities of the country, the charge is considerably higher; and not until all demands are satisfied, and all the arbitrary regulations imposed by the Hanoverian authorities are complied with, is the ship permitted to break bulk, and the cargo allowed to be discharged. It is an axiom in political economy, indeed one of the universally acknowledged rudiments of that science, that the cost of production of an article is not the outlay expended on the manufacture of the merchandise when it leaves the factory door, but the cost which has been incurred in respect to it when it arrives at the market where it meets with the competition of other manufacturers. The only proper way therefore in which we can calculate the incidence of this tax, is to look to the proportion that it bears to the freight, and to ascertain how far the cost of carriage is enhanced by the additional burden of the Stade Dues. Now I have before me a well-authenticated statement with regard to a cargo of goods from Hull to Hamburgh, which shows the relative proportions of the freight paid by the merchant, and the toll levied upon him by Hanover upon the absolute cost of the goods; and it will be found that the cost of the carriage of goods to Hamburgh is increased by the exaction of these dues in a proportion the House probably will hardly credit. From the statement to which I refer, it appears that on two cargoes of woollen carpets, the freight was 1 5–8 marcs banco, and the toll 11–16, showing 65 per cent. additional expenditure on account of the toll. On five casks of drugs there were paid 18 9–16 marcs banco for freight, and 12½ for toll, being 66 per cent. additional expenditure. On 28 bales of woollen goods (five cases) there were paid 59 7–16 marcs banco for freight, and 57¼ for toll, being 96 per cent. additional expenditure. For one cask silk goods there were paid 13 marcs banco for freight, and 14g for toll, being 108 per cent. additional. For 58 bales of cotton goods there were paid 158 marcs banco for freight, and 202 for toll, making an addition of 128 per cent. For two cases of cotton and silk goods there were paid in freight 2 marcs banco, and for toll 3 3–8, or 168 per cent. additional expenditure. This is startling enough; but in addition to this increased cost there is another and still more serious impediment to the free course and current of all commercial transactions. Under pain of a heavy fine, levied upon the slightest infringment of the regulations, on the sole assumed authority of Hanover, in a port not her own, the British merchant is obliged to carry two sets of papers with his ship, and, beyond the ordinary documents usually required, he has to furnish a description of the origin, nature, and value of his cargo, and to state particulars that he is not called upon to show at any other ports in Europe. I need not say how great is the delay, inconvenience, expense, and annoyance of these arbitrary proceedings, but it is only on a due compliance with her despotic commands that Hanover condescends to allow British ships to enter a port where she has no natural authority whatever, or accords to the Englishman her affable permission to return home to a British harbour. But this not the full extent of the evil. Not very long since Hanover, contrary to the position of things when the treaty of 1844 was signed, had joined that combination against maritime trade, and that antagonistic system to British commercial interests generally, which is known as the Zollverein, and has thereupon proceeded to make a political engine of the Brunhausen Toll, by exempting ships going to Harburgh from the operations of the tax, while those bound to Hamburgh remain subject to the imposition. The object of this, of course, is to divert the trade from the free port of Hamburgh to the inconvenient and shallow harbour of the Zoll- verein at Harburgh— to drive our trade from a city and population where we are received with every facility, all free reciprocity, and with a cordial and friendly co-operation which for centuries has endured, and which I trust may continue for centuries yet to come—to a port where we are met by every form of protection and prohibition, and regarded as rivals and antagonists. It may be said now, as indeed it has been said privately to me by those high in office, and for whose judgment I am bound to feel respect, that this is a question not between England and Hanover, but between Hanover and Hamburgh, and that it matters little to England whether their commerce is carried on through one port or the other. But those who advance this position, however sound and undoubted may be their diplomatic experience, can have little practical knowledge of the details, the necessities, and the deep-rooted habits of commercial intercourse. Do they imagine for a moment that it would be an easy matter for British merchants to change the course of that mighty trade which has long been directed through Hamburgh, scattering thence our goods and manufactures to all parts of Germany and the north of Europe? Do they suppose that it is a simple, nay that it is a possible, task to change at once their agents and correspondents, to repose in new men, under new conditions, that confidence and to afford that credit which is at the bottom of all commercial transactions. If the trade of Germany is to be diverted from that great city which has made for itself wealth, population, and importance—without territory, without an army, with no fleet save its merchantmen, but by the mere force of its industry, its energy, its perseverance, and its enterprise—let me warn the House to beware lest it be diverted not only from Hamburgh but from Great Britain—lest it be carried on, not by British ships, but by foreign railways, and lest the restrictions and the protections of the Zollverein come to the aid of the Hanoverian Stade Dues to the exclusion of British merchants and British shipowners—not altogether, perhaps, for British energy is not easily defeated, but in a degree that will be seriously felt by the working classes and the manufacturers of England. We complain, then, that we are subject to a toll which enhances the cost of our manufactures, and militates against our competition in the German markets and in those of northern Europe; we complain that we are subjected to a differential duty as between our ships and the ships of Hanover and of Hamburgh; we complain that an attempt is being made, by means of these duties, to divert our trade into a new channel, where we shall meet our rivals under a disadvantage; we complain of expense, delay, annoyance, and injustice, and we call upon the House of Commons and the Government to come to our aid in our emergency. And what is it that we receive for all this arbitrary interference with our traffic? What service does the Crown of Hanover perform for which payment is required? None whatever. The whole expense of maintaining the navigation of the Elbe, from its mouth to its last navigable point, is defrayed, not by Hanover, but by this very city of Hamburgh against whom the taxation and the exemption are, with equal oppression and injustice, more especially levelled. Surely there must be some remarkable or extraordinary circumstances which can induce Europe and the United States to submit to this tax upon their commerce for the benefit of a country which is not concerned in it, and which has no means of enforcing its arbitrary demands. If such there be, I have been unable to discover them. We might just as well consider ourselves bound by a law enacted by Edward the Confessor to pay a toll to a private individual for the power of passing through the street as to hold ourselves shackled by an edict of Conrad the Second, passed in the year 1038, to pay for the privilege of passing a particular point on the river Elbe. But such is the position; we are submitting now to an ordinance of eight hundred years ago, when might was right, and each man took who had the power, and each man kept who could — the ordinance of an almost forgotten dynasty ruling over a long since dismembered empire. It is not my purpose to trace the history of the Stade Dues over this eight hundred years, it may suffice to say that this right of mulcting the commerce of the world and levying black mail on ships of free nations trading to a free port has been bought and sold and given as a marriage portion and made the subject of treaties and wars, just as if it had been a territory or a property to be bartered like merchandise. I shall come at once to the year 1715, when Hanover first assumed the right of that imposition; and I call the attention of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom I see industriously taking notes of what I say, to put this down among them. In the year 1715, Denmark, having conquered from Sweden the Duchies of Bremen and Verden, the possession of whose territory involved under the edict of 1.038 the assumed right of levying these dues, sold them to George the First King of England and Elector of Hanover, for a sum of £150,000. £150,000 was paid from the taxation of the people of England for the territory which claimed the power of exacting the Brüuhausen Toll. I know very well that it was pretended, and it was asserted in Parliament, that the King paid this amount, to use his own expression, "out of his own pocket." "Out of his own pocket!" when it is well known that he arrived in this country an impoverished man surrounded with a rapacious following. "Out of his own pocket!" when no less a sum than £700,000 was voted in that very year of 1715 for his civil list and personal expenses. But this £150,000 was hut a small part of the cost to England of the acquisition of these dominions: one of the stipulations made by Denmark and the main part of the consideration demanded and accorded for the cession of the Duchies was, that England was to declare war against Sweden, to raise an army to defend her new possessions, and to send a fleet to the Baltic; and in accordance with this agreement a fleet did actually sail under Sir John Nicol, which is a matter of history. Will any man say, will any interested functionary have the effrontery to assert, that this war expenditure was defrayed from "the King's own pocket"? Will anyone assert that the taxation wrung from the people of England was not used to purchase a power, or a claim to a power, now exercised against us, and that we ourselves have not paid for an imposition levied against us till this day? I am not asserting here anything which is not a matter of historical record. In 1717 the King sent a message to Parliament, asking for an extraordinary supply to fit out a fleet to maintain possession of the Duchies of Bremen and Verden, hut the vote only passed by a majority of four, and that not without opposition. I think that there are few here who will doubt that, notwithstanding the Parliament of that day was an unreformed representation of public opinion—that it was a Parliament composed of men more of less under the influence of the Government and of the Court—nevertheless there was sufficient patriotic feeling even then to make it certain that that majority of four would have been converted into a considerable minority had any one been able to suppose that there was the slightest probability that the Stade Dues would be continued to be levied against us, or that it were possible that it would be necessary in the year 1858 that any Independent Member of Parliament should be standing up in his place to protest, as I am protesting now, against the interference of Hanover with British commerce and British shipping. I will not weary the House (which has been good enough hitherto to accord to me so close an attention) by quoting historical authorities, but I cannot refrain from reading a short extract from Belsham's History of Great Britain, describing the manner in which part of the money for the expenses of the fleet raised for the Baltic was granted by the House of Commons. Belsham says (this was in January, 1817): —

"A supply of £250,000 was accordingly voted, but by a perilous majority of four voices only, and not without vehement debate and opposition, chiefly in consequence of an alarming division in the administration, and the eventual secession of various of its members distinguished equally by eminence of station and ability—amongst whom Lord Townshend, sometime Secretary of State, and lately appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Mr. Walpole, who had succeeded the Earl of Halifax as First Commissioner of the Treasury, appeared most conspicuous.

"The leaders of the secession, by the faint and languid support which those who took any part in the debate gave to this Motion, and the obstinate silence of the rest, sufficiently showed their disapproval of the conduct of the Court, which, for the sake of an useless acquisition of territory in Germany, scrupled not to involve Great Britain in an expensive, dangerous, and destructive war. And it was now clearly perceived, though unfortunately at a period too late, that the separation of the Kingdom from the Electorate ought to have constituted the basis of the settlement of the Crown upon the House of Hanover. The Message was declared by Mr. Shippen to be unparliamentary and unprecedented; penned, he supposed, by some foreigner totally unacquainted with their accustomed forms of procedure, and their invariable usage of granting money only on estimate and for certain specified services."

Such was the manner in which this outlay was regarded in 1817; but the cost to this country of the Stade Dues did not end here. Not only did we pay the sums to which I have alluded on being involved in a war with Sweden—the political consequences of which went nigh to change the dynasty of England, and had almost led to an in- vasion of the country—but on the termination of hostilities, which happily occurred on the death of Charles the Twelfth, a further sum of a million of rix dollars was paid by England, not out of "the King's own pocket," but out of the taxation of the people, to retain peaceable possession of the ceded territories, including of course the power of levying the Stade Dues. But, so strongly was it felt, and so universally was it admitted, that England had been sacrificed in these transactions, and that the position that she was to be called upon for heavy contributions to achieve her own disadvantage was utterly and demonstrably indefensible, that in the reign of George the Second the duties were remitted; the Brünhausen Toll was abandoned so far as regarded the ships of Great Britian; and there is a Memorial extant from the merchant adventurers trading to Hamburgh, "thanking his Majesty and accepting only as their undoubted right this act of justice and equity;" even as there is a Memorial or rather a remonstrance in the succeeding reign indignantly complaining of the re-imposition of these dues; for it was not until long after the accession of George the Third to the Throne, and under a Regency of which we have no reason to be proud, that the Stade Duties were re-imposed. Their re-imposition was submitted to only because it took place at a time when it was supposed that the Congress of Vienna, which was about to meet, would settle all matters relative to the navigable rivers of Germany —and so it was. By the Treaty of Vienna it was agreed that the navigation of all German rivers should be free, and that no charge should be levied upon the ships of one country which was not paid by those of another. By the Treaty of Vienna the navigation of the River Elbe became as open and as unimpeded and as free as is the navigation of the River Thames, so far as pen and ink could make it. Article 108 of the Convention of the Congress of Vienna, dated 9 June, 1815, sets forth as follows:—

Les Puissances dont les états sont separés ou traversés par une même rivière navigable s'engagent a régler d'un commun accord tout ce qui a rapport à la navigation de cette riviére.

Elles nommeront à cet effet des Commissaires qui se réuniront au plus tard six mois après la fin du Congrès et qui prendront pour bases de leurs travaux les principes.

109. La Navigation dans tout le cours des rivières indiquées dans Particle précédent, du point oú chacune d'elles devient navigable jusqu'à son embouchure, sera entiérement libre, et no pourra, sous le rapport de commerce, être interdite a personne, bien entendu, que l'on se conformera aux réglemens relatifs a la police de cette navigation, lesquels seront conpus d'une maniére uniforme pour tous, et aussi favorable que possible, au commerce de toutes les nations.

110. Le système qui sera établi tant pour la perception des droits que pour le maintien de la police, autant que faire se pourra, sera le même pour tout le cours de la rivière, et s'étendra aussi, a moins que des circonstances particulières ne s'y opposent, sur ceux de ses embranchemens et confluens qui dans leur cours navigable separent ou traversent differents etats.

But the Elector of Hanover, represented by the Regent, counting upon the support of a subservient ministry in England, and obtaining that support, I am ashamed to say, even against the best interests of her people, had no idea of abandoning a revenue exclusively enjoyed by himself, and being a part of his own private emolument. Using therefore his power as King of England to serve his purpose as Elector of Hanover, what was the pretext he availed himself of for continuing the Stade Duties, and thus evading the arrangement of Vienna? When the Commission of the Riverian States assembled to adopt the necessary police regulations, it was contended on behalf of Hanover that this was a sea and not a river duty, and under that miserable pretence the impost was retained. Had the interests of England alone been considered in Downing Street, had the Government of that day not aided and abetted in the infliction of a great wrong to the trade and commerce of their country, I do not believe that this argument would have been sustained for twenty-four hours; but every possible influence was brought to bear upon the Commission, every possible delay and impediment was thrown in the way of the settlement of all the complicated questions before them, until this point was attained, until at last the Commissioners, worn out by the pertinacity with which it was advocated, and protesting that they submitted to an assumption which they were powerless to prevent, reluctantly and guardedly allowed the dues to be continued. In the year 1844 the manner in which the dues were levied, which I am bound to say was still more vexatious than the present mode adopted, and their injurious effects on our commerce, led to a compromise being effected, and somewhat precipitately, and, as I think, very unwisely, in that year a treaty was concluded, under which the arrangements I have mentioned still remain in force. That treaty and that alone is the one single acknowledgment of England's submission to be taxed at all. What, therefore, I want the House to do is to present a respectful Address to the Queen, asking Her Majesty to instruct Her Ministers to take advantage of a clause in the Treaty of 1844, which was evidently penned in contemplation of the arrival of a time when the people of England would no longer submit to this imposition, and to give notice that at the expiration of twelve months the treaty would terminate. I am far from advocating such a proceeding as that of attempting to evade a treaty. The Treaty of 1844 undoubtedly exists, and so long as it continues in force every remonstrance addressed to Hanover will be met as it has been met by the simple rejoinder, that she will not argue the question with us; that, right or wrong, whether reasonably or unreasonably, we have entered into a treaty in which we undertake to pay tribute for the privilege of trading with Hamburgh, and she will call upon us to act up to the provisions of that treaty. And consistently with that good faith which is the pride and boast of Britain, we have no alternative but to bow our heads and submit. If, however, notice were once given (and I say it is incumbent upon us that it should be given without delay) of the termination of the treaty as provided for by its 8th Article, we should be free to place Hanover upon her defence, while she herself would be compelled to adopt a very different tone, and to show herself more accommodating and more accessible to our reasonable remonstrance. I have carefully studied this particular point: I have sought for information on the subject both from English and foreign jurists, and I cannot concur with those who, having given, perhaps, less attention to the subject than myself, apprehend that the extinction of the treaty would send us back to the complicated and still more onerous state of things which existed previous to the arrangement of 1844. By the Convention between the Elbe-bordering States, signed at Dresden April 13th, 1844, the tariff now in force has been determined; and the first article of that Convention distinctly lays down that it cannot be altered without the consent, not of the majority, but each particular one of the contracting States. The words are: "That the Regulations which will come into force in October, 1844, cannot be altered without the common consent of the contracting States." It is true that Hanover may withdraw, if she be allowed to levy this duty at all, so much of her concession of 1844 which accepts two-thirds of the toll specified in the tariff of the 15th of April, 1844, on certain articles; but these same reductions have been granted subsequently to the vessels and goods of all other nations, and it is not to be anticipated that she will be enabled to make a general advance, however trifling, in her arbitrary claim upon the commerce of the world. So that if the Treaty of 1844; were abolished to-morrow, it would scarcely be otherwise than that the existing regulations would, so far as Hanover desires, still continue in force, while there will be no official acknowledgment on our part of the power of Hanover to levy these duties at all, and we shall be at liberty to take any course we please with regard to them. Doubtless, by the same rule under which Hanover levies ¼ per cent she may levy 50 per cent; by the same rule and right under which she detains ships four and-twenty hours in the Elbe she may lay an embargo upon them for a fortnight: but surely the forbearance of Europe has a limit, and it is possible that we may pluck up courage enough to defend the interests of England, even though we have no Treaty of 1844. There are those, and they are to be found principally in the ports more immediately and especially injured by this toll, who advocate the redemption of these duties by a money payment, and who look to a simple, easy, comfortable, and speedy severance of the knot by the purchase of the Brunhausen Toll upon the same principle as that upon which the Sound Dues were redeemed; but it is plain, obvious, and undeniable that no analogy exists between the two cases, and, for my part, I have no idea of calling upon my constituents to subscribe a sum of money for the purpose of funding an injustice or of capitalising a wrong. Whether this tribute be paid annually or all at once, it is equally indefensible and equally extortionate. If it can be shown that there exists any international law which justifies the interposition of one country for its own, private benefit between the commerce of others; if it can be explained that there is any, the slightest, service rendered which justifies a demand for a reasonable payment in return; if it can be proved that any strategical position is occupied which comprehends a claim for an acknowledgment in the shape of tribute from the ships of the world: if this levying of black mail can be defended by any fiscal right, or is authorised by any commercial usage, then it will be time enough to consider, not what amount we shall pay for its redemption, but what sum should be deducted as a set-off from our claim upon Hanover for the cost of the Duchies of Bremen and of Verden. In submitting my Resolution to the House, I have no wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in the matter, and I cannot but think that if they accept it they will thereby strengthen their position, inasmuch as Hanover will perceive that the Parliament of Great Britain will no longer submit to an unfounded and an unjustifiable claim. The Thames, and the Tyne, and the Mersey, and the Clyde, are as free to the ships of Hanover as to those of the United Kingdom. Every British port from Plymouth Sound to the Frith of Forth is open to the merchantmen of the world on the same terms and under the same regulations as to our own. And it is a humiliation and a disgrace to the flag of England that it should be under the command of any country in any particular spot of the world, and that our ships should not enjoy the same immunities and the same facilities as we ourselves accord to those of other nations. I believe that the exaction of this toll is an infringement of international law, a sordid and grasping attempt to interpose between the intercourse of nations, and a disgrace to the usages of the civilised world, and, so long as I have the honour of a seat in this House, I shall not cease my exertions to abrogate what I regard as a most oppressive tax upon the commerce of this country; and so, Sir, I beg to place in your hands a Resolution.

seconded the Motion. He most cordially concurred with the hon. Mover in thinking that this obstruction, which it Was now in the power of the Government to put an end to, should no longer be allowed to exist. It was a burden upon the commerce of the country, and an obstacle to its increase. He hoped the Government would avail themselves of the power which the treaty gave them to put an end to it. Last year they had voted £1,125,000 for the redemption of the Sound Dues, but he hoped the Government would never entertain the notion of buying up the Stade Dues, because they had been purchased with English money. Hanover might have had some pretext to levy them if both banks of the Elbe had belonged to hon. It would he derogatory to England to submit longer to pay these dues, because she did not enjoy the same privileges as other nations did in the trade to Hamburgh.

said, he should only make a very few observations in answer to the hon. Member. He thought it was nut necessary for him or any one to say that the payment of a turnpike was a great nuisance, and ought, if possible, to be got rid of. That nuisance might also be accompanied by circumstances as disagreeable as the payment of the money itself. He believed in respect to the present case some of those circumstances existed; such, for instance, as the obligation to stop and deliver in papers at the place where the toll was originally paid. It was not necessary for him to say that the toll amounted to a considerable charge on vessels going into the Elbe; but he must say, in passing, that he was extremely glad to find the new-kind of light which had come on the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion, because the House used to be told that all these charges on an article fell on the consumers. However, let that be as it might, he should be very glad to see the toll in question properly got rid of. His observations in answer to the Motion would have been very short, if it had not been for the interesting historical question raised by the hon. Member, and the conclusion he deduced from the facts he narrated. The hon. Member by no means confining himself to the inconvenience of the payment in question and to the actual trouble it occasioned to the persons engaged in shipping, had distinctly and directly raised the question as to the legality of the payment. There was no doubt, however, but that the question was surrounded with considerable difficulties. The length of time during which the tolls had been paid, the quasi recognition the payment had received from treaties, and the declarations made by no less a person than the noble Lord opposite within a recent period, all showed that the case was not so simple as the hon. Member seemed to consider. He thought the course suggested by the hon. Member was, perhaps, not the best calculated to get rid of this matter. The question having been broadly raised as to the legality of the payment of the duties, he thought that before the House asked or compelled the Government to take so decided a step as the giving notice of an intention to put an end to the treaty, it would be more prudent to have the matter investigated, in the same way as in the case of the Sound Dues, by means of a Select Committee. It would put the Government in a position of advantage if anything like the cases put by the hon. Member should be made out by investigation in a Select Committee; but he must say that he had seen no facts that led him to believe that such would be the case. Still as the mover and seconder of the Motion had raised the question of the legality of these dues, he thought the question would be best submitted to a Committee. The investigation would not take up a long time, and would put them in a better position to deal with the question. Some doubts might arise whether, if the tolls were put an end to, the same advantages would be enjoyed by the trade as at present. Quite agreeing, however, that it would be a desirable tiling if these tolls were got rid of, he thought the wiser course for the hon. Member to adopt was, to move for a Committee of inquiry, as in the case of the Sound Dues, rather than call on the Government to take at once so decided a step as putting an end to a treaty. If the hon. Member should adopt that course, he was quite ready on the part of the Government to assent to the appointment of a Committee.

was not disposed to take the same view of the question as the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for it appeared to him that the present was not a parallel case with the Sound Dues, and was one that ought to be referred in the first instance to a Committee of the House. The question with regard to the Sound Dues was this: the Government wished to propose to Parliament to buy up and redeem those dues; and the question referring to a Committee to consider was, whether, balancing on the one hand the charge to the public by that payment, with the relief on the other to our commerce from the cessation of the Sound Dues, it was expedient for Parliament to grant the sum, which, it was agreed, would be received, if Parliament sanctioned the grant for the redemption of those dues. That was therefore a very fit subject for the consideration of a Committee. The Government had first acted on their own responsibility in ascertaining what were the terms on which the Sound Dues could be redeemed, and it was proper for the House of Commons to determine whether they would sanction the payment of that amount. But, as the right hon. Gentleman put the question, the point to be considered relative to the Stade Dues was whether they were legal,—whether, according to international law, to long-standing custom, to the proper interpretation of treaties, to the admissions made by the British Government at different periods, Hanover was entitled to continue to exact these payments. Now, with all submission, it appeared to him that that was not a question to be thrown loose before a Committee of the House of Commons; it was rather a question which the executive Government, in conjuction with their law advisers, ought to investigate. They ought to make up their minds, after proper investigation and legal advice, whether the Hanoverian Government were entitled to require the continuance of the Stade Dues, and they should then state to Parliament the views which they had formed, and propose whatever course they, upon their responsibility, might think it right to pursue—either that the treaty should be put an end to by the notice which his hon. Friend suggested, or that payment should be refused; or, if they were advised to concur in the opinion that the dues could not legally be refused, recommended Parliament to adopt the same course as was pursued in the case of the Sound Dues. He did submit to the right hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Henley) therefore, that the reference of this legal and international question to a Committee of the House of Commons would not be a proper course to pursue. On the other hand, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that we were hardly prepared as yet to concur in the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), and that so decided a measure as giving notice of the cessation of the treaty would be premature, at least before it was known in what condition the country would be loft if that treaty were terminated. It might be that in such a case we should fall back on some anterior state of things out of which we were extricated by the treaty, and that we should be for the moment in a worse position than that which we now occupy. At all events, he hoped the Govern- ment would bestow full consideration upon the question, and, having made up their minds as to the legal obligations of the country, would state to the House the course which, on the whole, appeared to them most desirable for the national interest.

said, that the comparison drawn by the right hon. Gentleman, between these dues and the toll taken on turnpike roads was not a very apposite one, because it was necessary that roads should be kept in repair; but, in this instance, the persons who received the tax did nothing in return for it. Nor did it meet the case to suggest that the consumer paid these dues, because the vexation and annoyance caused by them were of even more consideration than the mere amount of money levied. He was glad to find that his hon. Friend had brought forward his Motion, because he felt quite sure that an early abolition of the nuisance must he the result of a discussion of the subject in that House. He fully believed that, in consequence of the toll, our trade with Hamburgh was in course of rapid diversion. A gentleman, largely concerned in the Baltic trade, had told him that his vessels to Stettin were going out full of cargoes which formerly went to Hamburgh. It might be said that, so long as we carried these cargoes, it did not much matter to which port they went; but the Hamburgh route was naturally the cheapest and most convenient, and it was hard that the legislation of man should close up the channel which nature provided. He believed the matter to be really urgent, and required to be dealt with at once; but he certainly doubted whether the course suggested by his hon. Friend would provide the most rapid means of getting rid of this nuisance. The Earl of Clarendon had been engaged, for at least a year, in endeavouring to put an end to the tax by negotiation; and the records of the Foreign Office would supply ample evidence of the necessity which existed for getting rid of the dues, and of the means adopted by the late Foreign Secretary with this object. He believed, however, that the Earl of Clarendon made up his mind at last that the impost could not be removed by negotiation. If the treaty were put an end to, it appeared to him (Mr. Clay) that they would return to the state in which they were immediately before it was made, or something worse. Under these circumstances, then, he thought that the best course which could at present be pursued would be, to treat the question as the question of the Sound Dues had been treated, and to purchase out the right claimed by the Government of Hanover. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke had expressed his disapproval of such a step, and had argued that no advantage would he gained by paying a certain sum in a lump, instead of spreading it in the shape of small contributions over an indefinite period. But his hon. Friend seemed to forget that the great objection to that tax was not so much its amount, as the delay and the vexation to commerce which it occasioned. He (Mr. Clay) believed that a sum of about £200,000 would be sufficient to purchase a cessation of the nuisance; and the cost of the operation might be considerably diminished, if an allowance could be obtained in favour of this country, as a compensation for the payment of £150,000 made out of the English funds in the time of George I. to Hanover, for the purpose of purchasing the right of that country to exact the charge.

said, he regretted to find, from all he could gather, that the President of the Board of Trade appeared to have no opinion at all on this subject. He often had occasion to admire the acumen and the ability displayed by the right hon. Gentleman; but he confessed, that never during the whole time he had occupied a seat in that House did he remember an instance in which a Minister had come down so little prepared to express an opinion on a subject which had for so long a time occupied public attention. By the course he had recommended, the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues might perhaps save themselves from some trouble at present, but the time was not far distant when they would certainly regret it. The Stade Dues had been ceded to the King of Hanover through the mediation of England, and this country had paid a good round sum of money for the precious bargain, by means of which that arrangement had been effected. Sir Robert Walpole, however, had defended that expenditure of money upon the ground that it was extremely desirable that those dues should be placed in the hands of the Hanoverian family. At the time of the Congress of Vienna the question of the collection of the dues had been referred to the consideration of the river-bordering States, with the injunction that they were to observe in their mode of dealing with the subject certain liberal principles. The King of Hanover, however, who had been repre- sented at the Congress of Vienna, had refused to submit to its jurisdiction, and the consequence had been that the tolls continued to be levied in the most arbitrary and illegal manner. Subsequently, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had taken the matter into his hands, and had prevailed upon the Government of Hanover to agree to a proposition for referring the Stade Dues to a mixed Committee, in which this country should be represented. A Committee had accordingly assembled in Hanover in 1841, in which Mr. Ward, a gentleman of great intelligence, had represented England, and had laid it down as a principle that the stipulations of the Swedish treaty should be adhered to, and that Hanover should not be permitted to levy more than one-sixteenth per cent upon the commerce of the Elbe. The King of Hanover, however, had refused to accede to that limitation, and the Committee had separated, having effected nothing beyond placing upon record its deliberate opinion that the Stade Dues should not exceed a certain amount. In 1843 the question had fallen into the hands of the Earl of Aberdeen, and he had succeeded in inducing the Government of Hanover to submit to the jurisdiction of the Elbe Committee, which had awarded the King of Hanover ¼ per cent upon all the traffic of the river Elbe, notwithstanding that the Swedish treaty in the most explicit manner had set forth that the duos should not exceed one-sixteenth per cent. Instead, however, of protesting against that illegal proceeding on the part of the Elbe Committee—which might just as well have handed over to the King of Hanover the right of closing the Elbe altogether—the Government of England had adopted the decision with complacency, and had made it the basis of a convention, stipulating only that certain articles of British manufacture should be liable to a lower rate of charge than that which the Committee had fixed. Such was the position in which we now stood in reference to the question; and his hon. Friend who had introduced the subject to the notice of the House simply proposed to relieve British commerce from the grievous imposition under which it was suffering, by repealing the convention of 1844. That proposition, however, would not, even if it were carried into effect, release our shipping and commerce from the Stade Dues, which differed from the case of the Sound Dues which had been levied by the King of Denmark in so far as that, while the latter had contributed in some degree to facilitate navigation by the erection of buoys and lighthouses, no such advantages were afforded by the King of Hanover. For his own part, he saw no means of escaping from the difficulty except by following the plan proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), and buying up these vexatious and mischievous tolls altogether; but whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in a position to take that course during the present year it was not for him (Mr. Hutt) to say. He should, however, maintain that the necessities of British commerce required that some decided step in the matter should be speedily taken.

said, the question under discussion seemed to him to have become somewhat complicated. He had listened to the speech of his hon. Friend who had introduced the subject to the notice of the House with great attention, and he felt convinced, by the arguments which his hon. Friend had adduced, that it must soon become the duty of Her Majesty's Government to devise some mode by which the Stade Dues should be abolished. The question certainly could not be allowed to remain in its present position, but he confessed that he was anxious to see some fruit produced by the Motion at the present time. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton objected to the proposal which had emanated from his (Mr. Gibson's) hon. Friend, and also to the proposition of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee of Inquiry; but the noble Lord had failed to point out any means by which a profitable result should flow from the Motion which had been submitted to their consideration. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) and the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) had told the House that the revenue derived from the tolls in question by the King of Hanover must be redeemed, and, as his hon. Friends had devoted much attention to the subject, he (Mr. Gibson) thought it was a question well deserving of consideration whether a Committee should not be appointed to inquire how far it was worth the while of the Government to redeem the Stade tolls out of the taxes of the people of England. He should therefore advise his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo) to accept the offer of the Government of a Committee of Inquiry. It was quite certain that the operation of these dues was most injurious to the trade of the manufacturing districts, and, without en- tering into detail at present, he would only mention the simple fact, that upon cotton goods sent from Hull to Hamburgh the tolls levied amounted to 128 per cent upon the freight. Inasmuch as the ships of Hamburgh and Hanover were exempt from those dues, he thought it would be admitted that British shipping and commerce were most unfavourably affected by them. He repeated his advice to his hon. Friend to accept the offer of the Government, being convinced that a full investigation of the subject must lead to satisfactory results.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had misconstrued the observation of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who did not object to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry at the proper time, but said that the question of legality having been distinctly raised, it was the duty of the Government to satisfy themselves upon the point by investigation and reference to the law advisers of the Crown. When that matter had been determined, it might be proper to have a Committee of Inquiry, but in the first instance he should wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take the opinion of the law officers upon the question of legality.

said, that as one of the Members for Hull, he wished to impress upon the House the necessity for taking some steps with regard to this most vexatious tax. They might appoint Committees without end, but it was certain that the only way to get rid of these dues was to purchase them. He had formed part of a deputation that waited upon the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs upon this subject, who made a very satisfactory declaration that the matter was undergoing the consideration of the Government. His constituents were ready to make any reasonable sacrifice in the way of expenditure that might be necessary to get rid of these tolls, as, in truth, it was not merely a matter of money, but of annoyance and delay. At present every master of a merchant ship visiting Hamburgh had to make out a separate manifesto of his cargo, and, in addition to that inconvenience, there was the delay arising from the visitation of Customs officers. He trusted that the time would speedily arrive when this most obnoxious restriction upon our trade would be completely removed.

said, he believed they were all agreed on one point, and that was that this was not a party question. Upon the part of the Government there was certainly no desire to evade the discussion of this subject, or to abstain from attempting to bring about a satisfactory settlement of it, they being as fully aware as any of the hon. Members who represented commercial constituencies that the tax was not only objectionable in amount, but that there were other circumstances connected with it which rendered it of great importance to the trade of this country that the tax should at the earliest possible moment be abolished. There were now two proposals before the House, and he would refer first to that made by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who suggested the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had met that proposition by urging that it was not becoming on the part of a Government to throw loosely before a Committee a question of legality which the Government themselves had the best opportunities of solving through their own law officers. If the question had been simply one of legality, the noble Lord's argument would have been unanswerable; but the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke must have satisfied the House that besides the legal question there were many other important and historical circumstances connected with these dues which could not properly be submitted to the law officers, and which could be best considered by a Committee of the House. The hon. Member for Stoke had raised a question as to the mode in which these tolls had been acquired by Hanover, and had contended that, as they were bought with English money, in any arrangement for their purchase from Hanover the amount originally contributed by English tax-payers should be taken into account. That was a point upon which there was considerable dispute, for although it had been alleged that the £150,000 which had been paid to the Duchies was part of the grant to George I., that statement had been met by a direct negative from the Government of Hanover. Another point which would best be inquired into by a Committee was the question of how far we were estopped from questioning the legality of the tax by our recognition of it in the treaty of 1844. There was a further point, on which the hon. Member for Stoke made a very positive statement, but a statement which he (Mr. FitzGerald) had not been able to satisfy himself was entirely correct. The hon. Gentleman said that if we were to give notice to put a determination to the convention or treaty on this subject, we should be in the same position as before, and should not be called upon to pay an additional tax. That might be so, though he had not been able to obtain any satisfactory information upon it. Indeed, he rather thought it was a grave question, whether this country would not be in a worse position than now; whether we should not be called on to pay a very increased amount of duty on all articles whatsoever, and lose the advantage which we now had of paying about one-third less than other countries on certain descriptions of articles. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) spoke of referring the matter to the law officers of the Crown; but he begged to remind the noble Lord that only last year he had declared that these Stade Dues could only be treated in the same way as the Sound Dues, and be made subject to redemption or purchase. The noble Lord, however, had never taken any step for that purpose—not even the step which he said the present, Government was bound to take in the matter, for he had neglected to obtain the opinion of his law officers as to the legality of the tax. The Government were fully alive to the importance of getting rid of the toll, and all they had to do was to ascertain how that object could be best accomplished. The question as to whether a large sum of money should be paid out of the public revenue was one which it was their bounden duty to submit to a Select Committee, not only because they would then get the best materials on which to form an opinion, but because they would satisfy the people, from whom the money came, that it was properly, judiciously, and well expended. He therefore hoped that the proposition of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) would be accepted. He hoped the hon. Member for Stoke would accept the proposition of his right hon. Friend, and consent to the appointment of a Committee as the most likely mode of hereafter arriving at a judicious settlement of the whole question.

said, that as he was connected with large commercial interests of the country which were especially affected by these tolls, he trusted he should be permitted to make one or two observations on the Motion before the House. They were told that of all places Hull was one which was most interested in the question; but he was not about to advocate the interests of that town, which had been ably supported by hon. Gentlemen who had already addressed the House. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) had put the question very clearly before the House, and then stepped in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) who truly stated that, unless the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to refer the matter to a Select Committee were agreed to, they would be in the agreeable position of getting absolutely nothing; and therefore he thought it the wisest course which could be pursued. In that opinion he (Lord Hotham) concurred. He thought that referring it to a Committee was the only method of coming to a just and reasonable conclusion, and although he had no authority for saying so, he believed that that was a course which the parties who were more immediately connected with the question desired.

said, he was very much of the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton as to the inutility of a Committee on this subject, but it seemed to him that he had no choice left in the matter. He had stated certain facts which ought to be refuted before his Motion could be properly rejected; but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had not done so, but had rather chosen to refer the matter to a Committee, and he had no other alternative than to accept it. He scarcely thought that it would be denied by any one that the Government ought to take steps to get rid of these tolls. For himself, he was prepared at any time to prove all the assertions he had made before the Committee, and he was quite sure the result of the investigation would be, that the Government would feel it their duty to assert the right of England to carry on its commerce without undue interference.

What I stated has been misunderstood. I thought the better course was for the Government to make up its mind to a definite proposal and to submit it to a Committee, instead of a Committee framing a definite proposal and submitting it to the Government. However, as the Government and the right hon. Gentleman seem perfectly agreed, of course I will not press my views further.

inquired in what manner the question would be submitted to the Committee.

said, that when he heard the statement of the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion, and found that he referred to a great many facts, the accuracy of which he was neither in a position to controvert nor to affirm, he thought that the best way to deal with it would be to submit it to a Committee, in which the accuracy of those facts could be tested. After they had been affirmed he quite agreed that it was the duty of the Government to take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the whole of the case. On the whole he did not see how the matter could be so fairly and fully dealt with as by referring it to a Select Committee.

asked whether the Government would move for the appointment of the Committee?

said, that he had no objection to do so.

said, that since the House met his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had received an important telegram from India, and perhaps it would be agreeable to the House if he should read it. The right hon. Gentleman then read the telegram, containing the announcement of the fall of Lucknow, amid the cheers of the House.

rose to move "That the receipt of any species of reward by a Member, in consideration of the exercise of his influence in that capacity, is calculated to lower the dignity and authority of this House, and is a high breach of the Privilege of Parliament." The hon. Member said he had no wish to conceal the fact that his Motion was unquestionably founded on certain circumstances which had recently formed the subject of investigation before a Select Committee of the House, and upon the evidence adduced in the course of that inquiry. It was not his intention to impugn in any way the decision of the Committee in that case; but he thought, nevertheless, that something should be done to vindicate the character of the House. To offer money or other advantages to a Member for promoting any matter depending in Parliament was by a Resolution of 1695 a high crime and misdemeanour. A whole series of decisions confirmed that general proposition; and yet, according to the evidence taken before the Butt Committee, if that evidence were true—and it must be true, for it was the evidence of Mr. Butt himself— it had become the duty of the House to take some step to uphold the principle it had laid down, and to prevent the recurrence of what had taken place in that case. According to that evidence it seemed to be considered that Members were at liberty, by means of Parliamentary Motions, to endeavour to bring about an event upon which might turn a valuable consideration for themselves. If such a notion were to be acted upon, there would be an end to the independence of Parliament, nor would any Member willing to receive a reward find it difficult to evade the terms of the law. To allow the matter to remain where the recent Committee had left it would be a course most injurious to the public interests. It would then be in the power of a Minister at any time to crush an obnoxious Member by charging him with corrupt conduct upon some former occasion. It was for the interest of all parties that it should be clearly laid down what should and what should not be done. The late President of the Board of Control told the Butt Committee that it was believed that hon. Gentlemen advocated Indian claims for a consideration. That ought of itself to put the House on its guard. Members might be deterred in future from doing what was right by a fear of being accused of acting for a reward;—for instance, the grievances of the Colonies might in this way be prevented from being brought before Parliament. He was afraid, also, that the local Government of India would be lowered in the estimation of the people if it were believed that for a reward persons might be retained in the British Parliament to advocate the claims of the Native Princes and to endeavour to induce Parliament to overrule the decisions of the constituted authorities. Far better lock the doors of Parliament at once than allow it to be said that justice was sold to the highest bidder. He was a Reformer, but he wanted to see a reform in as well as a reform of Parliament. Internal corruption was fatal to the existence of public bodies, and if the conduct against which his Resolution was aimed should be exhibited to any considerable extent, or without calling forth the indignation of that House, fare- well to our free institutions. How could they punish electors for selling their votes when they themselves were open to the charge of receiving bribes for services rendered in their capacity as Members of Parliament? It would be recollected that in the Life of Beranger it was stated that his friend Manuel died poor, for that after he became a deputy he refused all fees as a barrister, under the notion that a deputy could not be a paid advocate without the risk of raising suspicion. That House was part of all free communities, and if it showed by its example that such things could occur, all minor communities, such as boards of guardians and petty sessions, would be found to act in a similar manner. Nay, more, the debates of this House were read in America, Belgium, Sardinia, and wherever free representative assemblies existed or were likely to exist, and a precedent set by that House would be considered as a rule by the rest of the world. The Members of that House represented, after all, but a small part of the population, and there would be great outcry for a large change in the constitution of the House, if they did not do their duty in the position they held. In making the Motion he was not actuated by an affectation of purity. So far from that, he was ready to say that he was not sure whether, if tempted, he would not give way himself; but he wished to make it difficult to himself and others to give way. He had no ill-feeling towards the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butt), who might possibly in the course he took have mistaken the rules of the House in these matters; but as a Member of Parliament he had thought it his duty to bring forward the Motion with which he now concluded.

seconded the Resolution.

said, that he was exceedingly reluctant to offer himself to the notice of the House on a subject of such great importance, and he had hoped that some of those hon. Members who were in the habit of taking the lead in the proceedings of the House would have given the House the benefit of their opinions on the present occasion. No one felt more strongly than himself how disagreeable it was to speak on a subject apparently having a personal aspect attaching to it; but they were not sent to the House to consider what was agreeable or disagreeable before they proceeded to discuss it; and he was one who felt that the less agreeable the subject the more it was their duty to express their views, when they felt strongly with regard to it. The subject brought forward was one of manifest importance. Whether it were true that such scandals as his hon. Friend had referred to really did take place he would not venture to say; but there was a general belief on the part of the public that those practices did take place, and that opinion had received a colour in consequence of the disclosures made before the Committee referred to. It was the duty, then, of the House to see if it were not possible to devise some plan by which these practices, if they existed, might be put an end to, and their constituents prevented from entertaining the shadow of suspicion, that those they had sent to represent them could be guilty of conduct of flagrant scandal. He did not think that his hon. Friend had brought forward his Motion in any way calculated to raise the real issue; for he had not ever heard it imputed to any hon. Member belonging to the legal profession that he accepted money on the promise of giving his services in the House in return. What was imputed was,that Members of the legal profession, having seats in the House, were retained; but by fees of large magnitude in the ordinary manner for business professing to be about to come into the courts of law, and that afterwards certain meetings or consultations took place, when somebody suggested that the matter could not be satisfactorily worked in a court of law, and that an appeal should be made to Parliament. An application was then made to one of the learned Members, who had been retained, to take the matter up. In this way hon. Gentlemen who had received those fees were appealed to take up in Parliament matters on which they were professionally engaged. That was the imputation he had heard constantly made, and the imputation was that money had been indirectly, if not directly, received by persons circumstanced as he had described. That was a practice to which the House was bound to see if a stop could not be put. He was not going to enter at large on the matter, having risen at the moment he did because he perceived that the question was about to be disposed of. He never scrupled in private to criticize these sup- posed proceedings in what he conceived proper terms, and he should be ashamed of himself if he did not on a proper occasion similarly criticize them in public. He would not presume to say what should be done, but he should like to see something done which would bring the House to something like the condition in which it was when he first had the honour of a seat in it. In those days, no Member felt himself at liberty to interfere in any matter in respect to which he had a personal interest. As a proof of this, he would state that it happened to himself to be told on one occasion that he could not relieve the Members of his county to whom belonged the trouble of passing through the House of Commons an unopposed Enclosure Bill, simply because he had a field in the parish in which was the land proposed to be enclosed. He desired very much by some means, either by Resolution or by the general understanding of the House, that in future hon. Members should be relieved from such disgraceful imputations as were cast on the whole House if any one were supposed to be guilty of the practices described. They all witnessed occasionally in the courts of law one of the learned Judges declaring that he could not take part in a certain trial, because he had been concerned in the case as counsel. If that was a valid reason for a learned Judge declining to undertake his duty in his court, how much more improper was it for a person entrusted with the high privileges and important duties of a Member of Parliament, to use those privileges for the advocacy in that House of private interests, and in return for pecuniary remuneration. He made these observations without intending any personal reference, for he had long desired to see this important question raised. He was not a Member of the legal profession; but he desired to see both that profession and the House of Commons stand well in public estimation; and this neither could do, unless it showed the most earnest desire to purge itself from even the possible imputations of conniving at acts which were disgraceful alike to individuals and to the House to which they belonged.

Like my noble Friend behind me, I have been long a Member of this House, the honour and integrity of which are very dear to me, and I need hardly say that anything which would tend to sustain its purity would receive my most anxions consideration and support. I do not think it at all necessary to refer to the case of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) in discussing the Resolution proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite. That hon. and learned Member, grave accusations being preferred against him, challenged inquiry. The House referred the question at issue to a Committee, which was thought to be fairly constituted. I had the honour to preside over that Committee, and I think I may fairly say that no question ever received from any body of men more careful, more anxious, and, as I believe, more impartial consideration. The inquiries of that Committee ended in the acquittal of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is fully entitled to the full effect of the report of that Committee, and it would be unworthy of any Member after their decision to refer to this subject in a manner adverse to him. With all submission, however, I do not think that any new Resolution on this subject is requisite. At the very earliest period of Parliamentary government after the Revolution, a Resolution was passed (in 1695)—the same to which the hon. Baronet has already referred—a Resolution express in its terms, plain in its language, and invariably enforced when facts bore out an accusation of this nature. It would be extremely difficult to carry a decision of this House further than it is carried by that Resolution. The fact, Is the infringement of the rule proved or not? —is always a question of evidence. I quite agree with my noble Friend behind me (Lord Hotham) that cases will arise which run very closely to a violation of the rule. But it is impossible, without losing to a most serious extent the learning of this House, to exclude gentlemen of the bar who are in great practice. Questions will arise in courts of law which ultimately may become subjects of discussion in this House; and the real test of good faith, as it has always appeared to me, is the publicity of the transaction. If there be complete publicity, and if the quantum of the fee given be not above that which the station of the advocate requires, I think there is no danger in permitting gentlemen of the long robe, in great practice in the courts, to take part in discussions here upon matters respecting which they may be professionally consulted out of doors. Now, my noble Friend refers to the early practice in this House, when he and I first became Members of it, and has alluded to that practice as regards colonial questions. And what are the facts? I will mention but one most distinguished Member before my time—I mean Mr. Burke; but besides him the House will remember that Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Huskisson, and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) have been the paid advocates of different colonies. In those cases the very publicity of the payments made, did, to a certain extent, when such Members advocated the cause of the particular colony for which they were concerned, diminish pro tanto the value of their opinions: and that very publicity counteracted, in my opinion, all the evil effects which might have arisen from their having received pecuniary rewards. Now, take the words of the hon. Baronet's Resolution as they stand. I cannot say that at different periods, and even very recently, distinguished Members of this House have not received for their labours here—their most effective labours—pecuniary rewards. But in such instances, as I have observed, publicity has prevailed. Even very recently, distinguished Members of this House have, on account of the influence exercised by them in Parliament (they being in circumstances which may have rendered pecuniary reward more acceptable or necessary than any other), received remuneration in money for their services. I see the right hon. Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) in his place. He will remember the rewards given to Mr. Grattan for his services in Parliament. I think Mr. Grattan received £50,000, with which sum an estate was purchased, which is still enjoyed by his descendants, and which remains part of the inheritance awarded by a grateful country in recognition of the merits of that distinguished individual. I will not particularize similar instances in more modern times; but to say that there shall be no pecuniary reward for great and eminent services rendered in Parliament, which I think would be the doctrine established by this Resolution, would be carrying the theory of extreme purity further than would be desirable or necessary. In the case of any gross violation of the rule of Parliament, and of any charge of corruption impeaching the conduct of a member of this House, I think no new Resolution would be required for his condemnation. From the earliest period such corruption has been branded as rendering a Member unworthy to continue his seat in this House. Even a person who had filled the office which you, Sir, now so worthily occupy, was expelled on account of the receipt of 1,000 guineas for services rendered by him in his place in Parliament after he had vacated the chair. Again, a gentleman who filled the office of Chairman of the Committee, received, I think, a reward of only 20 guineas, whereupon, a corrupt motive having been proved to the satisfaction of the House, he was also expelled. I am quite sure that even the recent investigation, terminating as it did in the complete acquittal of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), marks the jealousy of this House in respect of any conduct capable of being misconstrued, as being actuated by corrupt motives. The very circumstances of such an investigation having been made is a warning, as I think, of a most sufficient character. I certainly entertain an apprehension that any new Resolution of this kind might receive some new construction. The old practice, the old Resolution, and the construction put upon it seem to me to afford to the House an adequate protection against corruption on the part of its Members. I am not surprised that such a proposition as this should be made by the hon. Baronet, actuated, I am sure, by the purest motives; but I venture to suggest to him that the discussion which will no doubt take place on this subject, backed by the opinion of Members of higher authority than I can pretend to, will have the effect of a solemn warning for the future to all members of the long robe, more especially to those who receive large fees for services rendered out of doors, and who afterwards take part in discussions on the same subject within these walls. Such a warning, I think, will be amply sufficient, and I doubt extremely, the policy of adopting any new Resolution on the subject.

thought that the cases referred to by the right hon. Baronet were scarcely applicable to the question before the House. In Grattan's case, for example, the money voted to him was for eminent public services, and was voted from the public purse. Other instances there had been in more modern times to which reference might be made, but the rewards there had usually been the result of public subscriptions, openly carried on by those who had benefited by the great exertions of some individual for the public cause. Now, such cases differed entirely from those which formed the subject of the hon. Baronet's Resolution; and, therefore, scarcely touched the question which the House now had to discuss. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), that this Motion did not, in the slightest degree, affect his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal. He (Mr. FitzGerald) looked upon the Resolutions of the Committee as the complete and perfect acquittal of his hon. and learned Friend; and he would add that, in his opinion, the evidence of the principal witnesses examined in support of the charge was of such a character that no Committee could have acted upon it with safety. With reference to the question immediately before the House, he concurred in every word which had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Hotham). At the same time, as a member of the long robe, he rose to defend that profession from the imputations which had, perhaps, to too great an extent, been fastened upon it. Among the instances of expulsions from the House, for a breach of what was an inherent rule of the House, he could not call to mind a single case in which a member of the long robe had been thus expelled. There were, however, unfortunately, upon the records of Parliament, instances in which other Members had been punished with extreme severity, because they had infringed the fundamental rule, that no one should take a reward of any kind for his services in Parliament. This rule stood recorded in no written Resolution; it was part of the law of Parliament; and, if it was not so, then the House of Commons would cease to hold the position it did in public estimation. If Members were allowed to take rewards, one could not fail to see that the respect which Parliament ought to possess would be enjoyed no longer, that all confidence in its integrity would be destroyed, and that, in the end, the constitution would be subverted. Now, the Resolution of 1695, which had been adverted to by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny), did not, as far as he could see, touch the evil upon which the House was called upon to express its opinion. The Resolution of 1695 was to the effect that "the offer of any money, or other advantage, to any Member of Parliament, for the forwarding of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament, was a high crime and misdemeanour, and tended to the subversion of the English constitution." It was not, therefore, against the person accepting, but the person offering the bribe, that the Resolution was directed, and that was so because Members of Parliament had, over and over again, been expelled the House, for receiving rewards for their services, in their capacity as legislators; and the rules of Parliament, upon that particular point, had thus been placed beyond all doubt. Well, but what, let him ask, had led to the adoption of the Resolution of 1695? It was the occurrence, in the previous year, of the case of Sir John Trevor, Speaker and Master of the Rolls, who had been expelled the House of Commons because he had received a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London, after the passing of the Orphans' Bill; and of the case of Mr. Hungerford, the Member for Scarborough, who had accepted twenty guineas for his pains and services as Chairman of the Committee upon the same Bill. But those were not the only precedents to which he could refer. In 1667, Mr. Ashburnham had been expelled the House, because he had received a gratuity of £500, for promoting the business of the French merchants; and, upon that occasion, a Resolution had been passed to the effect that he had thereby committed an offence to the dishonour of the House, and was therefore discharged from service as one of its Members. It was clear, therefore, that the punishment of Members who had so far forgotten the position which they held as to accept rewards in their capacity as legislators depended upon no written laws, but was based upon well-established Parliamentary practice; and he could not help thinking that to allow that old practice of Parliament to stand was a course which it was preferable to take, to attempting to weaken it by framing any new Resolutions upon the subject. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had adverted to the circumstance that many distinguished Members of the House of Commons, and among them no less eminent personages than Mr. Burke and Sir James Mackintosh, had received rewards I for the services which they had from time to time rendered to the interest of some of our colonists by advocating their cause in. Parliament. Now be (Mr. FitzGerald), for one, did not hesitate to Condemn such conduct, notwithstanding the high position of the men who were implicated in those transactions. Possibly it might have been tolerated because the Colonies were not represented in that House, and Members who undertook laborious duties might be per- mitted to receive pecuniary rewards. But was not the practice open to great objections? A Member of that House did not come there so much the representative of a particular constituency, as one of the representatives of the empire, whoso duty it was, laying aside all minor considerations, to advise the House of Commons to the best of his skill and judgment upon all questions connected with the interests of the empire at large. But how, he would ask, could a Member discharge that duty efficiently if it were lawful for him to place himself in a position in which interest and duty must be found to conflict? If he were the advocate for a colony, he must support its interests by his voice and vote, and if the evil was lessened, it was only because the House knew he was a paid advocate. Such a state of things must derogate from the character of a Member of Parliament, and could only be tolerated as a necessary evil. The House of Commons itself had always regarded with the utmost jealousy the conduct of its Members in that respect, and its Journals contained more than one instance in which, after a division upon a certain measure had been taken, the name of some Member had been struck off the list because it had been found that he had had a pecuniary interest in the matter, which was held to disqualify him from voting. He referred to these rules to show that the House had amply provided against its Members advocating questions, either as paid agents or when they had their own interests to advance. He would again press on the hon. Baronet that, as the law of Parliament now stood, there was no necessity for a new Resolution. Still he thought that the discussion of this question could not fail to be of great advantage. He was sorry to hear what the noble Lard (Lord Hotham) stated to be the case. [Lord HOTHAM: Believed to be the case.] Well, believed to be the case, that distinguished legal Members of Parliament received large fees, and by management, the questions on which they were retained were thrust into Parliament and those Members advocated those questions there. If there were such cases, he believed that they were rare and exceptional, and he could say on behalf of his profession, which was bound by no law or Act of Parliament, but only by a code created by itself, and which had maintained its high character in all times, that these instances, if they did exist, were of the rarest. He found in the records of Par- liament in 1666, a rule to the effect, that such Members as were of the long robe should not be of counsel on any side on any Bill in the Lords' House. On all the grounds he had stated, if he thought it necessary for the House to come to any Resolution on this subject, he would have supported that of the hon. Baronet; but, believing that it was not necessary, he would urge on the hon. Baronet not to press it.

said, that although he had seconded the Motion, he felt assured that any Resolution upon the subject to which the House of Commons might give its assent would only tend to impair that security against the occurrence of those breaches of privilege complained of which the House at present possessed. The question had assumed greater importance in consequence of the observation of the noble Lord (Lord Hotham,) following what had been said by a Member of the recent Committee of Inquiry with regard to a genera belief that Members of that House received pecuniary reward for the advocacy of Indian claims. If such a belief existed, great advantage would be derived from this discussion. As far as the members of the legal profession were concerned, that code of honour to which his right hon. and learned Friend had just alluded was, he thought, a sufficient guarantee that they would not be found to resort to practices which all parties must concur in condemning. There could be no difficulty in distinguishing between a colourable fee and the real just reward for bona fide legal services. The noble Lord (Lord Hotham) said, that gentlemen of the long robe were open to these temptations. [Lord HOTHAM: Some of them.] He knew that in some instances temptations had been offered to eminent Members of that House who were also members of the profession to which he belonged, but these offers had always been rejected. He thought, as the hon. Member for Tavistock had achieved all he could desire by the discussion which he had raised, he would be satisfied with the result, and would withdraw the Resolution. If the hon. Member thought fit to press it, he (Mr. Mellor) should feel bound to support it, as the House could not too often record its opinion upon this important point.

said, he could not concur in the request which had been made to the hon. Baronet for the withdrawal of the Resolution. He thought it most desirable that the sense of the House should be expressed on this subject in plain language, which could be understood not only here, but in distant territories. In the few words he was about to say, it was not his wish to make any observations that might be disagreeable to the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, for he readily accepted the verdict of the Committee as a complete acquittal of that gentleman; but still he knew that great mischiefs had resulted from a practice that had largely prevailed of legal gentlemen taking large fees from persons having grievances to complain of against the Government of India, and then advocating, or professing to advocate, those claims in that House. Whether that advocacy was stimulated by the fees received it was impossible to say, but undoubtedly some who had received large fees as barristers had appeared as advocates of the same cause in that House. It was most important that the Natives of India should believe in the purity of that House, and when they came to this country they could never be brought to understand the distinction between gentlemen who receive large fees as legal advisers and Members of Parliament. The people of India were generally a corrupt people, and thought it no offence to accept what we should call bribes, but which they regarded as absolutely necessary to expedite all business. Those Natives of India who came to this country with grievances to complain of would not fail to tell their countrymen that the services of Members of that House could be obtained for money, and that opinion would prevail as long as the present practice continued. The Natives of India would not make any distinction between the legal and the non-professional Members of that House, or between one Member and another, but would believe that every Member could be bought if they could only pay his price. Every one had heard stones of presents made of shawls and jewels, not only to Members, but to individuals of the fairer sex who might be supposed to have influence over Members of that House. Those stories went to India, and the result was, that the wealthy Natives believed that Parliament was entirely a venal body, and every Member willing to be bought. Some means should be adopted whereby it should be declared that it was not honourable or proper for any gentleman of the long robe, a Mebmer of that House, to support in that House a cause on which he had received a legal retainer, especially in cases coming from India. If that could be done by Resolution or by a plain expression of the opinion of the House, he thought it would redound alike to the credit of Parliament and the good government of India, by removing the false impression on the subject which prevailed there.

said, he did not agree with those who advised the hon. Member for Tavistock to withdraw his Motion, and he thought the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. FitzGerald) justified his opposition to that course, for he showed that, not only was there a general law against the acceptance of pecuniary rewards by Members, but that the Resolutions to that effect had been renewed from time to time. That being so, there could be no objection to a renewal of the Resolution at the present time. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) had spoken of the effect which the Resolution would have upon a generally corrupt people like the Hindoos; but he (Mr. Fox) thought of the effect which it would have upon a people who were not generally corrupt—the people of this country, who would not wish to regard that House as a venal body; and he thought that a decided expression of opinion would tend to impress them with confidence. It was the apology for the great Lord Bacon that, although he had sold justice, yet he had never sold injustice. That was a very dangerous apology, which it required a very strong mind to observe. It involved a double danger—a danger to the individual who sold and to him who bought. There was the double danger of the effect upon the individual's conscience and also of inducing others holding different opinions to shape their views upon a belief in his sincerity. Much of the present discussion had turned upon the conduct of gentlemen of the long robe, and he did not intend to offer an apology for any Member having a pecuniary interest in any cause advocating that cause as a Member of Parliament; but he would remark there were gentlemen, not lawyers, who had interests in matters which came before the Mouse, railways and other schemes, which they advocated, notwithstanding the advantages which success would confer upon them. The true principle was for every man to divest himself of every consideration save that of the public good. Was there nothing in the connection between constituencies and their representatives as to obtaining places which was to the purpose in this discussion? Was there not subserviency on the one hand and corruption on the other? If a line was to be drawn it should be drawn as widely as possible to include all such cases. He would go the length of making it a misdemeanour for any legislator not connected with the Executive Government to interfere in making any public appointment whatever. Getting a place for one of his constituents might be as much a money matter on the part of a Member of that House as giving a fee to a member of the long robe would be. They were looking forward to the time when they expected to effect a considerable change in the constitution of that House, and he trusted they would be able to do away with influences that were now operating injuriously, both in the way of bribery and intimidation. Looking to that time, they should do all they could to keep up among the people a pure spirit of patriotism; and by sanctioning such a Resolution as that before the House they would show that the cause of purity and patriotism was not dead among themselves.

thought the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) had not shown his usual clearness of perception in the view he had taken of this matter. He argued that, because they had adopted Resolutions on this subject in past times, therefore they ought to pass another now. But he should recollect that all these Resolutions were passed after some one had been found guilty; whereas he proposed to pass a Resolution after an inquiry had taken place, and the Member whose conduct had been inquired into had been fully acquitted. He was a member of the Committee which sat upon that gentleman's case; and his understanding was, that when they went into Committee, it was not because there was no rule on the subject, but because there was a rule; and the object of the Committee was to ascertain whether the Member had broken that rule. Before they took any evidence, the right hon. Baronet who was the Chairman of the Committee went through a number of cases that had previously occurred, and read the Resolution of the House upon each of them, and he was sure there was no member of the Committee who was at all at a loss to discover what was the rule of Parliament with regard to these questions. At the conclusion of the proceedings there was some discussion as to whether any recommendation should be made to the House to make the rule more clear and more stringent; but it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that no good result would flow from any such course. It was his own distinct opinion that the rule was perfectly clear to every man's mind and conscience, and that, therefore, no Resolution was required. With regard to the Resolution now proposed, every Member must see—whatever his opinion was as to the desirableness of doing something—that this was not the proposition which the House ought to pass; because those cases to which the hon. Member for Oldham had referred, in which Members were interested very remotely, would come under the language of the Resolution. He was quite sure that, with these words, unless they allowed them to become obsolete, as they would do to-morrow, they would be laying traps for themselves, without in the slightest degree adding to the security for the honourable performance of their duty. One of the purest, highest names ever placed on the muster roll of Parliament was that of Andrew Marvel, yet he received a regular salary for his services in the performance of his Parliamentary duties. And when that change took place, to which the hon. Member for Oldham referred, when, probably, they might get rid of the property qualification, and obtain a more extended suffrage, they might possibly have some Members of that House who were not men of property— not, to use a professional phrase, men of station—but men of character and intellect, belonging to an order of society that had not been directly represented there hitherto. When such men got into the House, was it not likely—would it not be a thing to be commended and admired— that the constituencies should undertake to furnish them with salaries of £200, £300, or £500 a year, that they might be able to subsist and attend to their duties in Parliament? He should be very glad to see such a case. It would show them that the constituencies were improving, as at present the burden lay in the other direction. But if such a Member were in that House, he would violate this Resolution in the form in which it now stood. The discussion had turned a good deal on the case of lawyers. It was not necessary for him, or any man not a lawyer, to defend them; but, if the Resolution was intended only for lawyers, let it plainly say so. Lot them have a net with meshes made for them alone, and not one which would involve Members of every class. He would gay, generally, that unless they had good grounds for new legislation, they should not legislate. Unless they had some clear and specific ground for new legislation, they should not pass resolutions of this kind. There was a tendency to do too much. The case before them was one in which the Member was not guilty of the accusation brought against him. The sum of money he had undertaken to receive had no reference to Parliamentary proceedings, but had reference strictly to an engagement to go to India, leaving, as he did, a lucrative employment at home. He believed that contract would be fulfilled, and that, at the end of the present Session, the Gentleman would probably go to India, to transact the business he had taken in hand. There was no case made out by the evidence; the Gentleman charged was fully acquitted, and no member of the Committee believed him, in the slightest degree, guilty. Therefore, there was no cause for new legislation or new resolutions on this subject. The public did not believe that Members of Parliament were corrupt, in the sense in which this Resolution implied they were. They knew that, in the fights of parties, men sometimes did things that, in their cool hours, they could not justify; but that was not the sort of thing referred to in the Resolution. He had not the slightest fear that the country would judge any of them as if they were in fear of their reputations. He would rather stand on their character and honour, which the country knew, than endeavour to set themselves up for something purer than they had been heretofore, by passing a Resolution like this. If the House divided, he should certainly vote against the Resolution of the hon. Baronet.

I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I think if it were intended to impeach the conduct of the Member for Youghal on the ground of any evidence taken before the Committee held for the purpose of inquiring into the matters in question, that there ought to have been a specific Motion made for the purpose. I think, therefore, we can only make use of that Committee and the proceedings before it to this extent—as probably inducing the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) to bring forward the Motion; and if he has done so with the view of either con- firming an old custom of Parliament, or of introducing a new custom, he ought distinctly to make out to the House which of those two propositions he wishes to establish. If it he that he wishes to pledge the House to this Resolution as the introduction of a new rule, I shall beg leave to take issue with him on that point, and say that no new rule is necessary on the subject. If he wishes, by this Resolution, to confirm an old rule, I say that it is much better the old rule of Parliament should be left in the breast of the House, than that any attempt should be made to tie it up by the introduction of any new words. And I am perfectly confident that if you do attempt to tie up (for such I will presently show you will be the effect of these new words) the known rules and usages of Parliament, you will hamper yourself in a manner that you little imagine; and the very Resolution you are proposing to apply to one object you will find applies to objects to which you did not intend it to be directed, and that you will not be able to apply it to the objects which were the subject matter of your original intention. I do not quite agree with the limited view that my noble Friend the Member for the East Riding (Lord Hotham) took of this question. He discussed it as if it related solely to the gentlemen of the long robe—to those who are engaged in professional pursuits connected with the law. The rules of Parliament on this question are applicable to all Members— certain rules are applicable to all Members, and certain rules are applicable to Members of the legal profession. Those rules are very old. Those applicable to the legal profession are as old as the year 1666, and their application is perfectly well known. No Member belonging to the legal profession can undertake any business pending in Parliament, or which is likely to be pending in Parliament, and with a view to Parliamentary proceedings, without violating the known rules of the House. So much is this the case that we very well know, in one instance, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) asked permission of the House to conduct a matter in the Upper House. He was allowed to do so because it was a public Bill. I allude to the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill. But we know that another Member made a similar application, and the House refused to sanction such a proceeding. But why? The distinction laid down by the Speaker was this: that a Member of this House, being a barrister, may have the permission to conduct business in the Upper House of Parliament accorded to him if it relate to a public Bill, but he cannot have that permission if it relate to a private Bill. The application in the second instance to which I alluded, had reference to a private Bill, and therefore it was refused. Then, there was another rule distinctly laid down with reference to Parliamentary agents, and in that instance it was particularly applied to Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey. It was decided that he was not entitled to transact any business as a Parliamentary agent with reference to matters proceeding in Parliament, he being the partner of a person who was conducting that business. If, therefore, you want to apply the rules of this House to professional men for the purpose of preventing them from undertaking any business which has any reference to Parliamentary proceedings, you see you have the power already, by existing rules of this House to prevent them from doing so. And if you ascertain that, contrary to existing rules, any gentleman has attempted to transact such business, then he is amenable to this House, and he may be reprimanded, be may be censured, or— as in some instances it has been done—he may be expelled from this House. Therefore, as far as relates to that part of the question, as to the consideration of the duties of Members of the legal profession, I say, with confidence, that it is not necessary for you to lay down any new rules. And I say, further, that if you intend to apply any new rule, you may desire to introduce to any Member of the long robe, you ought specifically to have mentioned it in your Resolution. I now come to the greater question—namely, whether Members of this House, belonging to the legal profession or not, are, or are not, bound by the rules of Parliament to refrain from the acceptance of any reward of any sort or kind which can corrupt the influence to be exercised on their duties in Parliament. I say that the rule of Parliament has been invariably against it, and that there has been no exception to this rule from the oldest times down to the present moment. The very instance which has been referred to, of 1695, brings us back to the most remarkable period of our history. In that year, remember, it was proved to the House that certain Members—the Speaker included—had received rewards, in the shape of pecuniary bums, advanced to them for the conduct of what was called the City of London Orphan Bill; the House instantly took notice of the matter—expelled the Speaker, Sir John Trevor—yes, expelled the Speaker for that conduct; and he, I am sorry to say, was a gentleman of the long robe. I only mention that because of what fell from the hon. Member opposite — they expelled the Speaker and Mr. Hungerford, the Chairman of the Committee, and reprimanded Mr. Guy. That was the conduct pursued by Parliament with reference to the City of London Orphan Bill. But what was its conduct with reference to the Best India Company's charter? No less a sum than £100,000 was ascertained to have been distributed by the East India Company for the purpose of procuring a renewal of their charter, and large portions of that sum of money had come into the hands of some Members of the House. How did the House deal with that question? Did the House say it wanted a Resolution passed specially to deal with it? No, the House simply used its powers—singled out the particular cases, censured one, expelled another, and directed the impeachment of a third—the Duke of Leeds. It then passed the Resolution of 1695, which was not intended to apply, and does not apply to Members of the House, but which was intended to reach those beyond the House. That is the meaning of the distinction drawn between "the offer of the money" and "the acceptance of the money." The Resolution was intended to apply to the offer that was made by gentlemen outside the House to Members of Parliament. The House evidently thought that it had no necessity for laying down any Resolution as to the acceptance of money by its Members, because, by its inherent power and authority it could deal with such Members, and effectually mark its sense of such offences. That being so, I put it to the hon. Member who has brought forward this question, whether the Resolution now proposed is at all necessary? For confirming those rules that exist it is clearly not necessary, for your own Resolution was only made in pursuance of a larger and greater power which is inherent in this House. As the introduction of a new rule, it should not be passed, because it will hamper and fetter this House in the exercise of its discretion on future occasions, when particular cases of bribery and corruption may be brought under its notice. No words can so well specify what this House intends to do, when any undue influence is exercised on its Members, as those already in existence; and no power can be given to it superior to that which the House can itself exercise by its own inherent authority of taking notice of any particular case which is brought before it, dealing with that case according to its merits, and refusing to be hampered by any words which possibly, if introduced, may hereafter raise questions as to whether the case before them is brought within those words or not. For these reasons, entertaining a strong opinion that every species of corrupt influence on the conduct of Members of this House, fettering their judgment and freedom of opinion in the smallest degree, ought to be condemned at once, and believing that it will be condemned quite as effectually and much more readily under those powers which the House itself possesses than by introducing any new Resolution—which may or may not meet particular cases when they are hereafter brought forward— I say it is safer for the House to proceed upon its own known laws and usages than to introduce a new Resolution, which in one sense may be considered as too limited and in another sense much too extended: too limited if it does not meet every case of corrupt influence which may be brought under your notice—too extended, if it attempts, as it does in these words, to impugn the conduct of Members who have received testimonials publicly and honourably. Many such cases can be mentioned that have occurred within our own memories, and one especially. It happens, undoubtedly, in the instance I refer to, that it was given by the vote of this House, and not by his constituency, or rather perhaps that the country gave it to him through this House. But we do know that not even a twelvemonth has passed over our heads since one gentleman of this House was presented with a testimonial by his constituency. Not many years have passed over our heads since another gentleman, not now, but then, a Member, received a testimonial for his great exertions in a great cause. I think I may include honourable testimonials of that description which gentlemen may receive as instances which would render such words as those proposed too extensive. If you introduce words too extended in your Resolution, instead of stopping corruption, as you intend to do, you are much more likely to stop the honourable exertions of mankind. For all these reasons, I think that the hon. Member will do well not to press his Resolution. I think the declaration of opinion that he has heard from all sides of the House, of an intention to put down any reward which is corrupt in its character, must fully answer his purpose—must maintain the dignity and authority of this House in the country, and will not endanger the existing rules, or prevent their application wherever they may be found to be requisite.

I think that in a matter which concerns the honour of Members of this House, nothing is more important than that the rules laid down should be clear and precise. Anything like a vague declaration of the impropriety of certain conduct, while it is a mere trap for tender consciences, is no restraint upon those of a different description. The present law of Parliament, which is known and understood, appears to me to be sufficient for the purposes for which it has been established; and I think the Resolution now proposed is objectionable on account of the vagueness of the terms in which it is couched. If I had entertained no doubt upon that point before, the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox), opened a view which would have induced me to pause, because, if the Resolution is to apply in the extensive manner contemplated in that speech, there is hardly a function which Members of this House could perform in regard to matters connected with their constituents which might not render them in some degree subject to censure. Therefore, holding as high as any one can, the necessity of maintaining the honour of Members free from any imputation of corruption, I am disposed to think that the present regulation, with the discretion which the House must always possess of judging of the conduct of its Members, when that conduct comes before them, affords a sufficient security for the integrity of Members; whilst there would be great danger in the vagueness of the Resolution now proposed. I think the appeal made to my hon. Friend not to press the Motion to a division is, an appeal which he will exercise a wise discretion in acceding to.

said, it was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman neither understood the Mutiny Act nor the rules of Parliament. He was very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who he believed was a lawyer, should have put such a notice on the paper. He asked for "a return of the alterations in the Mutiny Act, which such arrangements would have rendered necessary;" in fact, for a return of alterations which had never been made, and which, in fact, could not have been made at the time. It was plain that the right hon. Gentleman had never read the Mutiny Act. It gave authority to enlist and attest recruits in different parts of the world for Her Majesty's service; but it gave no such authority to the East India Company; and the alteration, if it could have been made, would have been to give this power to the East India Company. As regarded the instructions, the right hon. Gentleman should not only have them, but something more. It would be impossible to understand these instructions without having all the papers relating to the matter, and he should, therefore move, as an addition to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, for—

"Copy of a Letter of Mr. Spence, relative to the enlistment of Kroomen:

"And, Memorandum of Interview between the Court of Directors of the East India Company and Mr. Spence relative thereto, and all subsequent Correspondence and Instructions relative thereto; together with Memorandum of the Amendment required in the Mutiny Act, to enable the East India Company to enlist and attest in the same manner as Her Majesty's Government."

I quite agree in the opinion which seems to have been entertained by Her Majesty's Government, that it would have been desirable to enlist a negro force for employment in India. I believe it would have been an expedient arrangement, and I know that that is the opinion of the Governor General. They would be exceedingly useful, they would stand the climate better than Europeans, and would be free from those objections which apply to Native Indian troops in respect to their peculiar feelings of caste. The difficulty would be, how to raise a Black force, without giving any indirect encouragement to a renewal of the slave trade, and I presume that was the view taken by the Government in this matter. I do not know that it was likely we should have been able to obtain any efficient troops from that coast, for so far as the information which I have received goes, these Kroomen are generally seafaring men, and are not willing to engage for more than a temporary absence from home. They will only take short voyages, and would not be likely to engage for service in India. Neither my right hon. Friend nor myself, wish to imply any objection to the principle of raising Black troops for India, if proper means had been taken for that purpose; what we wish to impress upon the House is, that in raising such a force, great care should be taken that no means be employed which will have the effect of indirectly renewing the slave trade.

I cannot pretend to give an opinion on the capabilities of the Kroomen, because, though I have had the advantage of recently conversing with two gentlemen who have had great personal experience of the country in which this particular section of the human race resides, their accounts were unfortunately very much opposed to each other. The one told me that they were a race admirably adapted for naval warfare; the other, that their capital accomplishment was shooting with the rifle. One told me that they were perfectly willing to quit their country for any length of time; the other, that they could be relied on only for a very short time. My noble Friend at the head of the Board of Control has in this matter been actuated solely by a feeling of public spirit, and by a desire to omit no opportunity at a moment of exigency of obtaining resources for carrying on the war in which we are engaged in India, and which, from the news we have received to-night, will, I trust, soon be brought to a successful termination. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) may be perfectly certain that, however desirous we may have been to raise a black force for service in India, we should avoid everything which could in the slightest degree have the appearance even of renewing that slave trade which this country has made such immense sacrifices to put down. The tone of the noble Lord requires no comment, and he has taken a very fair view of the matter. I think the Secretary of the Board of Control has made a perfectly sufficient and satisfactory answer to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), whose tone certainly did not resemble that of the noble Lord.

said, it had once been his fortune to be a commandant of Kroomen, and unless they were greatly altered from what they were when he knew them, he believed no Kroomen ever hit a mark yet. He had once held a field day with them, when threatened with an attack from the interior. The Kroomen formed a loose line—in what the old English disciplinarians would have called "some filthy order"—and then each man ran out, and after, like a prudent man, he had turned his face to the rear, he discharged his piece and ran back to the line again. He could not help thinking that somebody had been attempting a joke upon the Government, for they might as well talk of forming a regiment of Cuirassiers out of the journeymen shoemakers of London on account of their aptitude for the prœlium equestre, as attempt to turn the Kroomen of Africa into light infantry.

said, he had been reprehended by the Secretary to the Board of Control for his ignorance of Parliamentary practice, because he said that a Bill when it stood for a third reading should be recommitted and Amendments introduced. He reasserted that statement. By a recent order the House had given up its power of amending Bills substantially on a third reading, but they could recommit a Bill and place it for a third reading on a future day. It might not have been worth while to mention it but for the unmerited contradiction of the hon. Gentleman.

withdrew his Motion.