said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War from what fund the German Legion at the Cape of Good Hope have been paid during the last year the Field Allowances and Full Pay which the Governor of that Colony is stated to have issued to them. He would also beg to ask by what authority the Governor has placed those Troops on Field Allowance at a time when there was no war.

said, that he was instructed to say that the Field Pay and Allowances were paid out of the Commissariat Chest, by order of the Governor. But when this order came home his predecessor, Lord Panmure, gave directions that no more Allowances to this force should be paid out of the Imperial Fund; that if they were to be paid it must be out of the Colonial Chest. In that direction he entirely agreed, and the House would observe that there was no sum charged in the Estimates this year for the Cape Corps.

said, he rose to put a question which, to make intelligible, he must preface with a short statement. He had himself brought in a measure to put a stop to attacks made on defenceless females. But since that Act was passed he had reason to believe that it was perverted to purposes to which it was never intended to apply, and such a case he believed had occurred now. He begged, therefore, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case which has recently occurred before the Wareham Petty Sessions, when a carpenter of the name of Craft was sentenced, under the Aggravated Assaults Act, to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for kissing the daughter of the Rev. H. C. Collins of Farringdon Rectory, Devon, on landing from a steamer between Poole and Swanage?

said, in answer to the question of his right hon. Friend, he had to state that his attention had not been called to the case; but if his right hon. Friend would cause the facts of the case to be laid before him in the ordinary way, he would look into it, and see if the Act of Parliament, of which his right hon. Friend was the author, required amendment, as might very possibly be the case.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any truth in the reports which appear in the French Papers of an arrangement restricting the discretionary powers of the Plenipotentiaries in China, and ordering them to negotiate at Canton, Pekin, or elsewhere?

said, he had to inform the hon. Member that there was no truth in the statement contained in the French papers that any arrangement had been made restricting the discretionary power of the Plenipotentiaries in China. Those Plenipotentiaries had full discretionary power to negotiate either at Canton, has they had hitherto done, or to proceed to the North in order that they might have more direct communications with the Chinese Government. The step which the British Plenipotentiary had recently taken in proceeding North appeared to him to be most judicious, and he hoped that that step would lead to an early termination of the differences, at which Her Majesty's Government, in common with the rest of their fellow countrymen, would sincerely rejoice.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War if it was his intention to recommend the disembodiment of any additional regiments of Militia, and if he will inform the House on what principle the sixteen regiments lately disembodied were selected. He should not have been induced to make the inquiry had the Secretary for War given a decided answer to the question put a short time ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier.) That hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked whether it was intended to replace the regiments sent to India by embodying an equal number of militia regiments. No decided answer was given; and he was rather surprised that his hon. and gallant Friend had not followed up his question. However, he wished now to follow it up with reference to his own regiment, the Roscommon Militia, which, he believed, had not been fairly treated. Every officer and man of that regiment had volunteered to serve in India or China, and when he wrote to communicate that offer to the War Office the only answer he received was in the cold official style, informing him that the offer had been sent to the Horse Guards. A short time afterwards he heard from the Horse Guards that he ought to have made the offer to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He wrote accordingly to the Lord Lieutenant, and received a reply thanking the regiment for the offer, and that was all he had heard of the matter. The regiment was then at Roscommon; shortly afterwards it was sent to Aldershot, and after remaining there a short time it was ordered to Portsmouth where its efficiency had elicited the praise of Lord William Paulett. While there, orders were issued for the regiment to hold itself in readiness to proceed to Ireland, as it had been included in the sixteen regiments selected for disembodiment. The reason given was that it had not furnished its quota of recruits to the regular army; but that was simply because no opportunity had up to that time been afforded to it for volunteering. When an opportunity was at length afforded them they availed themselves of it, and 136 men were accepted. He imputed no blame to the right lion, and gallant Officer opposite, but he complained of the system. If he had had only one authority to deal with he could have satisfied it of the justice of his claim, but the system under which persons were bandied about from one authority to another was calculated to excite the greatest dissatisfaction. He could not but express his fears that if the militia regiments were dealt with in this manner, considerable difficulty would be experienced in inducing the men to come forward upon future oc- casions, besides occasioning a vast amount of dissatisfaction amongst the officers.

said, that the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend were somewhat different from the notice he had put upon the paper, which was merely an inquiry as to whether the Government intended to disembody any more regiments of militia. His hon. and gallant Friend also referred to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier) the other evening, as to whether it was the intention of the Government to embody any more regiments. He would advert to both these questions. In the first place, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government either to embody or to disembody more militia regiments at present. The only reason why he did not answer the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark at the time was, that his question was based upon a misunderstanding of what was contemplated for India. There was no additional force of 10,000 men going out to India, and therefore there was no necessity for embodying ten more militia regiments to replace them. The drafts that were about to be sent out were the usual monthly drafts, which were larger than usual this month, because the drafts for last month were delayed till now, that the recruits might not arrive in India in the middle of the hot season. As to the principle on which the sixteen militia regiments were disembodied, he had often explained it to the House. He could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that this was no case of divided responsibility between the Horse Guards and the War Office. It was perfectly and completely within his power as Secretary for War to have selected the regiments for disembodiment in the most arbitrary manner, but instead of that he had laid down the principle that those regiments which had given a certain number of recruits to the line by a fixed date, and still remained efficient, were first to be retained; afterwards, those that had given the number nearest approaching to that standard and still remained efficient. He, therefore, sent to the Horse Guards for a return of the recruits received from the different militia regiments up to the day agreed upon, and all the responsibility that rested upon the Horse Guards in relation to the matter was for the accuracy of this return. He would be the last to deny the great services of the Roscommon or any other militia regiment, but he had rigidly adhered to his rule, and he must add that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would refer to the return he had alluded to, he would find that the Roscommon had given the smallest number of recruits to the line of all the militia regiments.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to order any one of the Prize Designs for the Wellington Monument, now exhibited in the Conference Room, to be executed for Saint Paul's? and if not, whether he will state the course which the Government proposes to adopt with regard to the design and construction of the Monument? The result of the competition for the Wellington Monument was the exhibition last year in Westminster Hall of a number of designs, which, as a whole, he must say, with all respect, turned out to be a failure. In this opinion he was fortified by the concurrence of every one with whom he had conversed on the matter. This was, in the main, a subject of great regret; for it was a melancholy thing to see so much time, thought, and genius, as must have been expended in their preparation completely thrown away. There were, no doubt, monuments of great merit exhibited; but many of them were wholly in-applicable to the purpose for which they were intended. There were designs in the rich and fanciful style of the sixteenth century, very beautiful in themselves, but totally incongruous with the severe and chaste architecture of Wren. He thought that these mistakes and all this waste of labour were greatly owing to the want of more explicit conditions than those which had been laid down for the guidance of the competitors; for those who had issued the conditions appeared to have forgotten the important fact that in these times sculptors were no longer architects, as was the case in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when every great sculptor was also a great architect, and every eminent architect was a sculptor. As an instance of this, it was sufficient to name Michael Angelo and other eminent men. He thought he might safely say that since those professions had been separated monumental art had declined, and very few good monuments had been erected in the churches. As for Poet's Corner it represented an undertaker's shop rather than a collection of works of art. A piece of sculpture placed in a building depended as much for the effect which it produced upon the architecture which surrounded it as upon its own intrinsic merits; for a work charming in the studio might be utterly destructive of effect if placed in an inappropriate situation. The fact was that if anything really good were to be expected in this direction the architect and the sculptor must work hand in hand, and the sculpture must be made subordinate to the architecture; for the latter was, as it were, the cloth, and the former was the mere trimmings which adorned it. Taking this into consideration, it appeared to him that the instructions which had been issued for the guidance of the competitors were extremely meagre and insufficient. The instructions issued to the artists contained a ground plan, showing the proposed site of the monument, and that was all they had to guide them. They were told that it was to be placed in a certain position—that the space was not to exceed thirteen feet by nine feet, and that the cost was not to exceed £20,000. The consequence was that artists all over the world seized their moulding tools, many with very little knowledge of architecture; the result was the loss of their time, pains, and trouble; for some of the designs were more fitted for a confectioner's shop than for Saint Paul's. If it were to be a mural monument an architect must be employed. If it were to be an isolated monument, which he hoped it would not be, very strict directions should be given as to its dimensions and outline. He hoped that his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) would not adhere to the site which had been chosen, and which was under one of the arches on the north side of the church, next the centre. If the monument were placed under that arch it would necessarily interfere with the north window immediately behind it. Saint Paul's, as it was, was by no means too light, and he was sure that those who visited it in November would admit that there was no window in which marble could with advantage be substituted for glass. There was also this objection—that for the sake of symmetry it would be necessary at some future time to erect another monument, which would block up another window, or at least have partially that effect. Moreover a monument erected on the site selected would interfere with the space that it was to be hoped would be required by the worship- pers at Saint Paul's, and the monument itself would be very badly seen. Everybody knew how difficult it was to observe the features of a face behind which was a strong light. The monument should not only be worthy of the Great Duke of Wellington, but also a landmark of our national art. What had been done hitherto had been done extremely well. The sarcophagus in which rested the remains of the Duke was one of the most beautiful ever erected in this country. It was made from a single block of granite, and altogether. was one of the finest monoliths of modern times, and he saw no reason why the monument should not, in accordance with the wish of the House and the country, be worthy of the man and the place—of the man whom they delighted to honour and the place which was the most beautiful and classical church in the world.

said, that with the permission of his hon. Friend he would postpone his answer, as another question on the same subject was to be asked him.

said, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of the Notes taken by the Solicitor General for Ireland in his examination of the informer Burke, after the revelations said to have been, made by Burke to the policemen and driver of the car who took him from Nenagh to Roscrea; and also a copy of Burke's evidence on the trial of the Cormacks. He was induced to give notice of this question by the great excitement which prevailed in the county he had the honour to represent on the subject of the execution of the two Cormacks for the alleged murder of the late Mr. Ellis. This excitement had its origin in no unworthy feeling of sympathy for the crime of murder, but from a general belief that the course adopted at the trial, and previous to that event, was contrary to the ordinary mode of judicial investigation in a free country, and evinced on the part of the authorities rather a desire to punish some one than a determination to discriminate carefully between the innocent and the guilty. If this unfavourable impression was not removed from the minds of the people by the removal of all unnecessary secrecy and mystery, the consequences to the cause of or- der would be most injurious, for the reliance of the people on the integrity and impartiality of the administration of justice would be seriously diminished. The circumstances of the case were so extrordinary that he trusted the House would allow him to recapitulate them. Mr. Ellis met his death in October last as he was returning from Dublin to Templemore. He left Dublin by the half-past seven train, and arrived at Templemore at eleven. The night was extremely dark. While a boy named Burke, about sixteen years of age, was driving home to Templemore on an outside car, he, suddenly perceiving an obstacle in the road, got down from the car to remove it. While thus engaged a shot was fired by some one concealed behind the hedge, or a stunted tree, and the result was the death of Mr. Ellis. The usual Coroner's inquest was held, and among the jurors sat one of the Cormacks, who was eventually executed for the murder. The boy Burke was one of the witnesses at the inquest. His evidence implicated no one. He, however, subsequently changed his mind, denied all that he had said, accused the Cormacks, and became the principal witness, on whose testimony they were sent to the gallows. Hence, it was very evident that Burke was a perjurer, for he must have sworn falsely, either at the inquest or at the trial. After the inquest Burke was taken in charge by the police, and from October to the 15th of January he was kept in the gaols of Thurles and Nenagh. The resident magistrate, Mr. Gore Jones, threatened to keep him in gaol until he rotted unless he told all he knew about the matter. That Mr. Gore Jones had thus threatened him appeared to be true, for although Burke's statement to that effect had been long made public, Mr. Jones had not contradicted it. One of the other witnesses was a man named Spillane, the son of a policeman, who had seen the placards offering a large pecuniary reward to any one who would bring the murderers of Mr. Ellis to justice; and another witness was Sadler, the gaoler at Thurles. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had represented the Crown at the trial and he (Mr. O'Donoghoe) wished to be informed by him whether he did not think that Burke and Spillane, the two witnesses, were quite as culpable as the Cormacks, and whether he concurred in the summing up of the Judge, who told the jury not to regard Burke as an accomplice, because but for that expression of opinion it was, probable from the disinclination of the jury to believe Burke, that the Cormacks would not have been sent to a premature grave? At the first trial, which was that of only one of the brothers, the jury were discharged. That was on a Saturday. The whole of Sunday was spent in scouring the county for jurors. (On the Monday following both the brothers were placed on their trial, and the Crown stretched their right of challenge to the utmost—challenging persons because they were Roman Catholics, or on some equally justifiable plea. After some difficulty a jury was got together which seemed to have stomach for such a proceeding. The new trial commenced with the same witnesses, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite exhausted his eloquence and imagination in his cause; but the thing reached its climax when the learned Judge charged the jury in a way in which he trusted juries were seldom charged within these realms. The court was crowded, and there was not one of that large assembly that must not have been shocked and dismayed by the speech of the learned Judge, who, setting aside the calm and impartial bearing which ought to distinguish the judicial bench, addressed the jury in the excited tones and language of an impassioned advocate. Mr. Justice Keogh addressed the jury as if he were determined not to expound the law to them, but to frighten them into returning a verdict for the Crown. They did return a verdict for the Crown, and the result was that the estimation in which the law was held had been very seriously diminished, as had also been the reliance upon the impartiality of justice. The two Cormacks were sentenced to death, and between the sentence and the execution every effort was made to obtain a commutation of the sentence. He had himself, with an hon. Friend of his, waited upon the Home Secretary upon the subject, and they had been told that the matter rested in the hands of the Executive in Ireland; the Executive in Ireland however, acting no doubt upon the advice of Mr. Justice Keogh, allowed the law to take its course. Upon the 11th of May the two unfortunate men were hanged, and since that time many things had occurred to shake all reliance in the credibility of the witnesses who had given evidence on the trial. He did not know what had become of Spillane, but Burke, the principal witness, when he was being taken out of the country confessed to two policemen and the driver of the car upon which he was being driven, that the whole of his evidence upon the trial was a fabrication. That statement produced a strong impression upon the public mind, for it was impossible to forget the dying declaration of their innocence by the two unfortunate men, and also the fact that Burke had been proved to be a perjurer. The confidence also in the credibility of the witness Sadler had been much shaken by what had taken place at the petty sessions at Thurles last Saturday. Sadler had written to the professional gentlemen engaged on behalf of the Cormacks, stating that he was in possession of information which would enable them to test the falsehood of the statements made at the trial, and last Saturday, before a large bench of magistrates, he had acknowledged having written such a letter, but denied that there was a single word of truth in it. Now, that was a grave matter for investigation, and it was an extraordinary thing that Burke should be got out of the way, and thus prevented being examined upon the subject. It was said that Burke wrote that letter, in order to please certain persons, but it appeared to him that, if credible at all, which was very doubtful, he was as credible in the one case as the other. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would produce the documents he had asked for, but whether he did so or not he was determined not to abandon the subject until it should be made apparent who were the guilty parties.

said, that he thought the hon. Member had done great service in bringing the matter forward. He himself had received numerous communications from various parts of Ireland—from Dublin, Clonmel, Waterford, Cork, and other places—which clearly proved that the impression generally prevailed that the men who had been hanged were as Innocent of the crime for which they were executed as the learned Judge himself. He had to acknowledge the courtesy which he had received from the right hon. Gentleman opposite in all the communications which he had had with him on the subject; but the fact was, that it was generally believed in Ireland that there had been a failure of justice. In some of the newspapers opinions had been expressed that these men had not got a fair trial, and that they were innocent of the crime for which they had suffered. The Limerick Reporter spoke of the charge of the Judge as being violent and passionate, and as being more like the harangue of an advocate than the impartial summing up of a Judge. He was told that it was not an uncommon thing in Ireland to send witnesses who had given evidence on such trials out of the country. He regretted it should be so. He concluded by expressing a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would grant the paper asked for by his hon. Friend, and that the House would institute a most searching investigation into the subject in order to give security to human life in Ireland.

said, he wished to confirm in every respect the statements which had been made by the two hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him. He had no hesitation in saying that there had never been a trial which had created so much excitement, or in which there was so strong an impression that justice had not been done. Indeed, until the law of Ireland was made the same as the law of England with regard to the police, it would be difficult to satisfy the people of Ireland that justice was impartially administered in that country. At present, if any crime were perpetrated the executive had the power of sending any number of police they pleased to any district in Ireland, and keeping them at the expense of the district until there was a conviction, and, consequently, a readiness to convict was the very natural result.

said, that in bringing forward this question the hon. Gentleman was taking a course which was hardly legitimate, as it was making the House of Commons a Court of Appeal from the regular and ordinary tribunals for administration of justice. In this case two men had been tried and found guilty, according to law, for the crime of murder. They had been executed, and now, some two months after their execution, the statement which they had just heard had been made by the hon. Member. When he succeeded to office, he found that this case had been partly advised upon by his predecessor, and a most frightful case it was. The murdered gentleman (Mr. Ellis) was an agent, and, at the same time, an active and successful farmer in Tipperary. He was a Scotchman, and a strong man in the prime of life; and he attended the market in Dublin every Wednesday, on which day it was known that he usually returned. He was murdered within a short distance of his own home; and an investi- gation was instituted on the part of the Crown, in order to discover the perpetrators of the deed. There was, and there ought to be, sympathy for the accused; but there sometimes was a great want of sympathy for those who endeavoured to assert and maintain the law. The House was called upon to believe that twelve gentlemen, as grave, serious, and considerate as any panel he had ever seen in a jury box, had consigned two of their fellow-creatures to death upon insufficient evidence, and that the learned Judge who tried the case had not merely erred in point of law—for that was not pretended—but had taken a false and prejudiced view of the facts. The two prisoners had been in the employment of Mr. Ellis, whose wages they received; and the man Spillane, the informer, was likewise in his service. Burke, the driver of the car, a lad about eighteen years of age, was also the deceased's domestic servant. The two Cormacks lived a short distance from Mr. Ellice's residence; and that gentleman could not reach or return from the railway without passing by their door. It was said there was a popular impression in favour of their innocence. On the night of the murder there was a card party at their house; and, he must say, that though he had some knowledge of strange trials, he had been astonished to learn, in the course of that inquiry, the amount of the demoralization that existed. The card party broke up about half-past nine o'clock; and the accused were proved by independent evidence to have been not long after that time at a place within twenty minutes' walk of the spot where the murder was committed. Spillane stated that the Cormacks wanted him to wait till all the rest of the company had left, and they saw Mr. Ellis's car driven past by the boy Burke, whom they knew perfectly well to be going to the railway station for his master. Spillane also swore that they had arranged with him before for the murder of Mr. Ellis. No doubt this witness admitted that he had previously borne a hand with the same two men in a business of the same kind; but he said that they had missed the gentleman, and it was not necessary to name him because he was still alive. Spillane swore that the prisoners desired him to leave the house with the rest of the company, and then to return. The hon. Gentleman had omitted to mention a most material fact. An innocent man, who had come from Connaught in search of work, and who, with his family, occupied a room in Cormack's house, gave important testimony. He stated that he went out into the kitchen after the company had gone and saw the two Cormacks, and heard them talking about going to bed. This man retired to his own room, and he afterwards heard the latch of the door raised, and the sound of the footsteps of some persons leaving the house. These men had exhibited a dexterity and ability which, if applied to a better purpose, might have made their fortunes. They laid their plans skilfully. They went with a blunderbuss to the part of the road where the car must pass and placed a number of branches at a particular spot. As soon as the vehicle approached, Mr. Ellis naturally asked the driver to get down and see what was on the road. Burke got down accordingly. The blunderbuss had been loaded with pieces of iron and slugs obtained from a blacksmith's forge, and the whole charge was discharged at the body of Mr. Ellis, who fell without a groan. The blacksmith proved that the punch with which he punched his iron had a defect in it, and two bits of the charge found in the deceased's body contained exactly the same mark as was borne by the pieces of iron in the smithy of the blacksmith. The informer swore that to load the blunderbuss in the most deadly manner they sent to the forge for the pieces of iron. Burke, the driver, said he was much terrified; that to save his own life he stooped down and took away the branches, and that he looked into the very faces of the men. After the shot had been fired, what followed? The nearest house to go to was the Cosmack's; but instead of hastening there, the lad Burke galloped as fast as he could to the police station, then to the doctor's, and next to the clergyman's. Meantime the prisoners separated, one of them going to hide the blunderbuss in a haystack a mile distant. One of them was nearly arrested by the police before he got back to his house. These men had had the benefit of a fair trial. They challenged thirty or forty jurymen, and three or four were challenged on the part of the Crown. It was easy to say to the counsel for the Crown, "Why did you take that course?" Being a stranger in the county, if he were informed that there was a man in the jury box who was not indifferent between the parties, he had a right to ask him, while he was unsworn, to stand by. The counsel for the prisoner had thanked him for What he had done, because when the men were both put upon their trial they got the advantage of the full challenge; and there was not a scintilla of objection taken to the mode of proceeding. It was true that, connected with the coroner's inquest, there was this extraordinary fact—that one of the Cormacks was empannelled as a juryman; and that constituted one reason why the jury law ought to be corrected. And when the young man Burke was asked on the trial why he had not told the coroner that he knew who it was that had murdered his master, his answer was, "Because the murderer stood before me, and I was terrified out of my life." Nobody, who had not had personal experience of them, could tell the difficulties which encompassed those who had the task of administering justice in Ireland, and it was most unfair for the hon. Member to say that twelve gentlemen, every one of whom had given his verdict at the peril of his life, had given that verdict against his conscience, and contrary to the evidence. [The O'DONOGHOE explained that he had said nothing of the kind]. He certainly understood that the hon. Gentleman had impeached the trial, and spoken somewhat severely of the learned Judge. Now he could state that he had seen the Report of the trial, which had been drawn up by the Judge, and it was only due to that learned person to say that it was a most faithful and minutely accurate report. He (Mr. Whiteside) gave no opinion upon the case, the executive Government decided upon the advice of the Judge, assisted by the Lord Chancellor. He had only one word further to say. It was stated there were only two witnesses against them. That was not so. There was the third, who heard them leave the house; and the very circumstances were witnesses against them. There was one witness, Mr. Sadler, on whom some reflection was attempted to be cast; but what did he prove? He was the keeper of the Bridewell in which the Cormacks were at first confined. He swore that when the man named Connaught Jack, who had been arrested along with the other inmates of the house, was being taken to the Bridewell, one of the Cormacks asked the other, who could see the road from his cell, "Whom have they got now?" "Connaught Jack."—"What do they want with him?" "Because he was in the house."—"Has he been examined yet?" "No."—"Tben if you see him tell him to be sure and say we did not leave the house that night." That was all the evidence given by Mr. Sadler. Had this evidence been obtained by corruption or other unworthy means, of course it was worth nothing; but when one conspirator chose to address another, and was overheard, it was quite right to give in evidence what he said. It was true that on the Saturday, when only one of these men was tried, the jury did not agree; but he understood that there were ten for a conviction and only two against it. On the Monday morning he felt it his duty to put them both upon their trial. The hon. Gentleman complained that the whole country was scoured for jurors. It was true the usual notices were served, but the reason was that the panel was then nearly exhausted, and it was necessary to obtain additional jurymen. The summonses were sent out in the regular manner, and he denied that any man was set aside on account either of his politics or of his religion. Some one had said that the members of the jury were descendants of the old Cromwellians. He did not know whether or not that was the case, but he could say that they appeared to be honest and conscientious men, and to be affected by the solemnity of the occasion. They tried the case, they found their verdict, and that House had no authority to sit in review upon that judgment. He did not blame either the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county, or the other hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gilpin) who had spoken according to his own humane feelings and convictions. He had been before asked what had become of Burke and Spillane. If the Crown had allowed Spillane to be seen in Tipperary for an hour after he gave evidence he would have been torn into a thousand pieces. He would not tell the hon. Gentleman what had become of Spillane, because it might reach the ears of those who had no sympathy with a witness. As to Burke, he must say a more dangerous witness to an accused person could not be found, for he was an ingenuous young man, with a countenance which betokened innocence, and from whom the counsel for the prisoners were not able to extract the confession of a single act of which he need be ashamed. Burke, however, was not an informer, although Spillane was. He was the servant of the murdered man, and under such circumstances, was he to be censured for giving evidence of what he swore that he saw? After the trial, however, it was thought desirable to remove him from the country. The Crown never deserted a witness—and it was important that this should be known—whose life was put in jeopardy by his giving evidence of the truth, and so long as he had anything to do with the administration of justice it never would. It was necessary to send the young man to the seaport to embark. He was placed on a car with two policemen. The car driver began to question him, and said, "Are you the fellow that gave evidence against the Cormacks?" The whole of this notable charge was got up out of a conversation under such circumstances between the young man and the driver. Neither of them were on their oaths, and anything they said could not be allowed to impeach the testimony given on oath, sifted by cross-examination. The car driver's report spread through the country, and the hon. Gentleman was quite correct in stating it had created a great sensation; the local papers were full of charges against the administration of justice. As soon as the Solicitor General heard of the matter he had Burke fetched from Liverpool, a step which, although well intended, was not, in his (Mr. Whiteside's) opinion necessary, inquired into the facts to discover whether there was any reason to impute perjury to him, and came to the conclusion that there was not. The result was that Burke was sent to a place which he (Mr. Whiteside) would not name, even if he knew it. These were the facts of the case, and he trusted that after this statement the observations of the hon. Gentleman, with regard to the Judge, would not be thought to be any impeachment upon that learned person; because one Judge might speak more decidedly than another, and if he stated the law and the facts fairly to the jury, it would be unjust to censure him for what might be no more than his ordinary manner. The trial took place according to law, the judgment was submitted to Lord Eglinton, six weeks elapsed between the passing of the sentence and its execution, the learned Judge furnished his report upon the case; from first to last the proceedings were conducted according to law and ought to be satisfactory to that House.

said, that as might be expected, they had heard an excellent oration from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But these unfortunate men had been tried and convicted upon evidence, particularly from one of the witnesses, of a most unsatisfactory nature, and he must add, after a most partial charge from the presiding Judge. He thought the whole of the evidence in this case was wholly un-substantiated, and the witnesses unworthy of belief. The ends of justice had not been attained in the manner in which they ought to have been. He believed that Burke spoke the truth when he stated that the whole of his evidence was a fiction, and therefore he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would feel it to be his duty to lay the whole of the papers on the table of the House.

said, he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which he had given notice in consequence of the practices alleged to have taken place at the Confessional in the district of St. Barnabas, Pimlico, and the statements that similar practices are adopted by other ministers of the Established Church in that neighbourhood. In asking these questions, he (Mr. Butler) desired to say that he had always been of opinion that matters affecting religious feelings and prejudices were better avoided in that House; at all events, if it were necessary to mention such subjects, it would only be under a strong sense of public duty. He felt that with reference to this important question he had a duty to perform to those who had sent him to that House. The borough of the Tower Hamlets contained a population of over half a million of souls, and it was scarcely necessary for him to say that his constituents were deeply interested in the matter; on their behalf he desired to know if the time had not arrived when the serious question whether they were to have Auricular Confession in the Established Church of England should be decided? He (Mr. Butler) had only this morning been informed that the decision of the Bishop of London in the case of the Rev. Mr. Poole would be appealed against, and that the matter for which that rev. gentleman had been censured would be brought under the cognizance of the Primate of England. God forbid, therefore, that he should prejudge the case, or utter one word in that House to the prejudice of the rev. gentleman. He had the utmost confidence that justice would be done. But other cases had occurred, and the subject was one of the greatest importance, not only to the inhabitants of St. Barnabas, Pimlico, but to the whole community, from the Queen on the Throne of these realms but to the meanest of her subjects. Without trespassing further upon the attention of the House, he would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman the head of the Government in that House, the questions which he had put on the paper in order that the people might receive the assurance of Her Majesty's Government, that such practices would not be allowed to be continued. Those questions were, whether it was the intention of the Government to take any steps in consequence of the practices alleged to have taken place at the Confessional in the district of St. Barnabas, Pimlico, and the statements that similar practices are being continued by other members of our Church in that neighbourhood, and whether the Government is in communication with the proper ecclesiastical authority, in order to the punishment of all who may have taken part in such practices.

said, that as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have other questions to answer, and could address the House only once upon that occasion, the hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, allow him (Mr. Walpole) to offer the explanation which the Government had to make upon that subject. He had no hesitation whatever on behalf of the Government, in distinctly stating that if such practices as those complained of had taken place as alleged, the sooner they were put an end to the better; but if, on the other hand, doubts existed that those practices had taken place as alleged—and denials had been made as to the truth of the charges—it would be better to leave the matter for the present in the hands of those under whose judicial cognizance it would come, and as the subject would come under judicial cognizance, the less they discussed it in that House the better. He believed that all discussions at present would be premature, and therefore they ought not to be sanctioned by the House.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to refer the claims of Meer Tamer Ali Khan to the private property of the late Nawab of Surat to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In explanation of his question he had to state that the East India Company having sequestered the property of the Nawab, had passed an Act legalizing that which they had done, and providing that there should be no appeal from the decision of their Commissioner, into whose hands the Nawab's affairs were put. On appeal being made to the Privy Council, that tribunal decided, on a somewhat technical ground, that they had no jurisdiction over the matter, as it had not been the subject of judicial decision. The President of the Council then gave the Nawab twelve months to endeavour to arrange his disputes, and as this arrangement had not been come to, and the twelve months expired in August last, he had put his question to the noble Lord.

I do not think the House is very much inclined to go into the affairs of the Nawab of Surat. At any rate I will only say now that as there is, as the hon. and learned Gentleman very well knows, a considerable legal difficulty in the way of adopting the course which he recommends the Government to take, it is my intention to consult the law advisers of the Crown, and until I have received their Report I cannot state what course we shall be prepared to take.

said, he had given notice of his intention to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the proceedings of the English squadron engaged in the suppression of the Slave Trade, and with respect to our relations with the United States. He did not wish at all to enter into a discussion of the question alluded to, although it was a question which was just now exciting so much interest in the public mind, both on this and the other side of the Atlantic, as he understood that, before very long, an hon. Member who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and who had for many years taken an interest in the slave-trade question, had determined to submit the whole question to the consideration of the House. He might, however, observe that his (Mr. Bright's) own opinions had always been very adverse to maintaining an armed squadron for the suppression of the slave trade. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government had received any information with regard to the unfortunate matters which have occurred in the Cuban waters—information which could be laid before the House, in order to place the public in full possession of all the circumstances of the case, and to allay the apprehension which existed in this country and perhaps also in America. What was said in that House passed over the world as soon as the post, and the present was precisely one of those occasions in which great frankness and openness on the part of the Government would prove most advantageous. There might be some persons in both countries who would not object to something like a quarrel, but he believed that the great bulk of the people, both in this country and in the United States, were disposed to take a rational and moral view of the question, and would sincerely regret anything which might promote discord between the two countries. Perhaps, also, the hon. Gentleman would have no objection to state the number of vessels sent out last year, and whether the officers upon that station had received any new instructions. He perceived that the Earl of Aberdeen had stated on the previous evening in his place in the other House, that, if the instructions of 1844 had been strictly acted on, it was impossible that transactions such as had been complained of could have taken place. Now, of course, he did not know whether any further instructions had been sent out, but he thought that it was highly improbable that British officers could have committed the acts alleged, unless they had received fresh instructions beyond those referred to by the Earl of Aberdeen. He asked the question that evening instead of postponing it until Monday, because the steamer left Liverpool on the following day, and, in his opinion, it was very desirable that anything which might be said should be said that night, in order that it might reach the United States as soon as possible, and he trusted that what might be said would tend to allay the alarm which existed both in that country and in this.

Sir, I concur with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) in deprecating any extended discussion upon this subject, which is one of a very delicate nature, and which, if it has not produced alarm, has certainly occasioned much uneasiness and anxiety both in this country and in America. I shall then content myself with making as concise a statement as I can in reference to the question now before us. The hon. Gentleman first asked me whether we had received any more explicit information upon the occurrences that have recently taken place in the Cuban waters. On a former occasion I took the opportunity, while speaking on this question, of stating that the information which Her Majesty's Government had then received was not of an official character, and that we had not received such information in reference to those circumstances as would enable me to give a satisfactory answer to the inquiry put to me. But from the continuous statements made by several American journals, I think it is possible that the over zeal of some of our officers may, in some few instances, have led them into acts somewhat beyond the instructions they have received. I can only say, if that be so, it is the most anxious wish of Her Majesty's Government to acknowledge the error, and to repair, as far as possible, any wrong which may have been committed by any of our officers—indeed, to meet that wrong with the most frank and candid acknowledgment. I hope, Sir, that the time is far distant when this country will be willing to give up any one of her rights to which she considers herself justly entitled; but I equally trust that that day is also far distant when, from any motives of mistaken pride or dignity, this country shall ever refuse to acknowledge she had committed a wrong, and to make a full reparation for any wrong which through her officers she may have committed. Now, in reference to the hon. Gentleman's questions; first, whether we have received any additional information upon those transactions? We have not received any further information on the matter, and I trust the statement I have just made will be considered so far satisfactory. But there is One point upon which I hope I may be permitted to make one or two observations, because I think the House will see that they justify the hope and confidence I entertain that upon a fuller explanation and consideration of the facts, both on this side of the Atlantic and in America, all those circumstances which have hitherto created feelings of an anxious and disagreeable character will be peacefully and satisfactorily arranged. The first point to which I desire to refer involves an act of simple justice to our officers abroad. As I have before stated, although there may have been a few instances in Which over zeal may have led some of our officers to exceed that discretion which generally characterises their conduct, yet it is obvious, from all the circumstances that have come to our knowledge, that the statements which have been made in relation to what are termed British outrages have been most grossly exaggerated. I will not at this moment enter fully into the explanations contained in the papers which I hold in my hand; but in the last statement published in a New York paper, and carefully copied into every other journal in the country, it was alleged that there were thirty-two American vessels which were improperly detained and searched, and which proceedings are classed under the fame of British outrages. Now I may be permitted to state what this affair really turned out to be. I take the ease of the brig Charles F. O'Brien. According to the statement,—

"She was boarded on the 2nd of May, in the harbour of Sagua la Grande, by an armed boat from a British steamer. The boat pulled alongside without hailing, and boarded without asking permission to do so. The usual questions as to the name, ownership, and destination of the vessel were asked and answered, and the captain was requested to produce his papers. These, he informed the officers, were at the office of the American Consulate. He made no further search of the vessel, and having satisfied his curiosity, departed. His behaviour was civil, and no threat or intimidation was suggested.'

I will also read a concise statement which appeared in one of the American newspapers, and which, as it gives the name and residence of the party making it, I think may be considered important. In this appear the names of three vessels said to have been boarded by us:—

"Ship Escort was on her voyage from Havre to New Orleans; when off the south side of Cuba, the wind being quite light, a British steamer ranged alongside, and her commander said that he wished to communicate with the ship if her captain had no objection. Captain Bryant said he would be happy to receive any communications the steamer pleased to make. The ship was not requested to heave to, but the steamer ranged ahead of the ship and dropped a boat, which came alongside. An officer from her went on board, asked where the ship was from and bound, but made no request to see her papers. He stated that the steamer was from Port Royal, Jamaica, and was then under sealed orders, to be opened off Cape May. The officer asked if he could render the ship any service, and, being thanked, returned to his boat. Captain Bryant states that from first to last the conduct of the steamer, her officers, and men, was friendly. He states, Moreover, that the ship's hold might have been filled with negroes for aught the officer seemed to care. His visit was not prying in any sense. Captain Bryant could not call to mind the name of the steamer without referring to the ship's log,"

"The brig Pulaski, Captain Hawthorn, from Cienfuegos, arrived here last evening, and reports that on the 11th inst., in lat. 23 deg. 21 min., long. 83 deg. 34 min., she was hailed from a British war steamer, barque-rigged, and asked where she was from and bound, but was not requested to heave to, nor was she boarded, nor did the steamer fire at her. Captain Hawthorn says the commander of the steamer conducted himself just as any decent shipmaster would when speaking another vessel at sea.

"The brig Eliza Merrithew, Captain Gordon, from Sagua la Grande, arrived here yesterday afternoon. While at Sagua her captain says she was not troubled by the British, and he believes two-thirds of the stories in circulation about outrages, &c., are made out of whole cloth."

In America it is usual to say, in reference to a statement not quite correct, that the party making it was "spinning a yarn," but as regarded a statement which was Wholly untrue, the Americans called it "whole cloth." Here is another statement of Captain Cline, who is the boarding officer of the Merchants' Exchange of Boston. This gentleman says:—

"Captain Cline, the boarding officer of the Merchants' Exchange news-rooms, says that he has conversed freely with the officers and crews of every vessel from Cuba which has arrived at this port, and he declares that not one of them considered himself damaged to the amount of one cent. Many of the stories about having been fired into need confirmation. In two cases where the captains report having been fired at, neither the crew nor the mates knew anything about it; and the nonsense about the overbearing conduct of the officers was too often invented. Frequently a man-of-war's boat has dropped alongside, and the officer, without leaving her, has asked questions and shoved off again. Those who wish to create a sensation, and see their name in print, make outrages of common courtesy. The British officers generally, the crews of our Cuba trade report, appear anxious to avoid giving offence."

Now, I do not wish by making those observations to throw any doubt upon the bona fides of the American Government or to deny that they thought that they had really good grounds for their representations. I only desire to place those facts before the public eye, first in justice to our own officers whose conduct has been called seriously into question, and also to explain to the House why I entertain the confidence that upon further inquiry into the circumstances of the case which first appeared so extraordinary it will be satisfactorily arranged. The other point to which I wish to refer strengthens me in the opinion that, from the documents even laid before the Congress by the American Government itself, the use or rather the abuse of the American flag to cover the slave trade has become prevalent. I do not say this in an offensive sense. What I mean to say is this, that the American flag was made use of by other ships than American—by ships which had no right whatever to the use of it, for the purpose of enabling them to carry on this abominable traffic—that that flag, instead of being the ensign of liberty and civilization on all occasions was frequently prostituted to the foulest purposes. I cannot, therefore help thinking, and with the greatest confidence, that when all these circumstances are brought to the notice of the American Government, when they find that this country is disposed to deal with them in the most frank and friendly spirit—that our relations upon the other side of the Atlantic will be inclined to meet us in a similar spirit, and that a satisfactory settlement of the whole matter will be the result. As we are all, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, most anxious to allay any queasiness or irritation that may exist in the United States, I beg leave, in reply to another question of the hon. Gentleman, to make a brief statement as to the course Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take, and what are our views as to the right of search or visitation. The question, then, is this—whether we are prepared to abandon that principle as a right, and what course we mean to take under these circumstances? In reference to this right of visitation, it is no doubt a positive source of irritation between the two countries, and whatever may have been the practice of preceding Governments of this country, the right of boarding her vessels has never been admitted by America. Consequently it becomes our duty, in the face of circumstances so serious, to ascertain what our rights really are; whether we are prepared to stand by them, and if not, candidly to acknowledge our intention of giving them up. Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, taken the advice of the law officers of the Crown upon the whole question. It is their decided opinion that by the international law, in times of peace, we have no right of search or visitation whatever. And that being the case, we think we should be acting in a manner unworthy of the British Government if we delayed one minute communicating that information. But while we admit we have no right to visit American vessels peacefully pursuing their ordinary trade, it would be wrong of us, and-unbecoming this great country, to say that we are willing at once to abandon that great policy which has so honourably distinguished her and cease our efforts to put down the slave trade. In reference to this point the position taken by the English Government is the same as that distinctly laid down in one of the best papers I have ever read on the subject. I allude to the document addressed by General Cass to Lord Napier, which, with the permission of the House, I will now read.

"A merchant vessel upon the high seas is protected by her national character. He who forcibly enters her does so upon his own responsibility. Undoubtedly, if a vessel assume a national character to which she is not entitled, and is sailing under false colours, she cannot be protected by this assumption of a nationality to which she has no claim. As the identity of a person must be determined by the officer bearing a process for his arrest, and determined at the risk of such officer, so must the national identity of a vessel be determined at the like hazard to him, who, doubting the flag she displays, searches her to ascertain her true character. There, no doubt, may be circumstances which would go far to modify the complaints a nation would have a right to make for such a violation of its sovereignty. If the boarding officer had just grounds for suspicion, and deported himself with propriety in the performance of his task, doing no injury, and peaceably retiring when satisfied of his error, no nation would make such an act the subject of serious reclamation."

Now that, I believe, is strictly the position we are entitled to take by the authority of international law. The American Government have themselves acknowledged it on the face of General Cass's State paper to be such as no nation would make the subject of serious reclamation, and consequently that is the line of conduct which it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to instruct the officers commanding our cruisers to follow. In reference to one other point to which the hon. Member referred; the hon. Gentleman asked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any addition to the fleet which is stationed in the Cuban waters, and whether any addition had already been made to it. I beg to say, that during the time Her Majesty's Government have been in office, no increase whatever has been made to that fleet; and I may say further, that it will necessarily come under the consideration of the Government whether they will continue to maintain this squadron in the Cuban waters. Whether the squadron there is necessary to carry on the object we have in view—whether, in fact, objections of a more or less serious character are not applicable to the maintenance of our squadron in those waters. It is obvious that a squadron on the coast of Africa is altogether differently circumstanced from one maintained on the coast of Cuba. In the latter case the squadron is stationed upon the highway of American commerce, and each day they could scarcely fail to meet a number of American vessels peaceably engaged in trade. It is, therefore, obvious in carrying out those instructions which were necessarily given to our officers, that a considerable amount of discretion must be allowed, and that when there is much discretion given there must be a far greater risk of misunderstanding occurring, if not of actual collision. Whereas, on the coast of Africa, where the general commerce is more scattered, it is much easier to ascertain the character of suspicious vessels than amid a crowd of foreign ships. It is, therefore, under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government whether it would not be desirable to withdraw altogether our squadron from the Cuban waters. The original plan by which a species of blockade was instituted, was instituted on the suggestion of the American Government, though neither that Government nor ourselves seemed to see the serious objections to it that afterwards arose. The last question of the hon. Member for Birmingham was, whether any additional instructions had been sent out to our squadron. In reference to that question, I have to say that the instructions to which the hon. Member for Birmingham alluded, which were given by the Earl of Aberdeen at the time of the late Sir R. Peel's Government, applied to the position of our cruisers on the coast of Africa. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty thought it necessary, since he came into office, to give more stringent instructions enjoining greater caution and discretion on the part of our cruisers on the coast of Cuba. Whether there were any other instructions given in the meantime giving rise to increased activity on the part of our cruisers there, I am not in a position to say. I can only assure the House that all our earliest efforts were directed to enjoining the greatest caution and prudence on the part of those who were engaged in our behalf on the coast of Cuba. Sir, I do not know any other information I can communicate to the hon. Gentleman. I can only say, expressing I believe not only the sentiments of every hon. Gentleman in this House, but also the sentiments and opinions of every man in this country, that a more fatal thing to the civilization and the happiness of either country could not occur than a misunderstanding between us and the United States. We shall meet the case in a frank and generous spirit, and fully confiding in the justice of the American Government, and in a reciprocity of feeling upon the part of the American people. I entertain, Sir, a firm hope and confidence that the questions at issue between us will, at an early date, end in an arrangement satisfactory for both nations.

Sir, the position which I hold in this House, I think, makes it desirable that I should express very humbly the view which I entertain upon this question. I do not think the time of the night is any objection to my stating very shortly what I desire to say. Sir, things have recently happened in America which, if properly understood by Americans, would lead them to a very different conclusion than that to which they have arrived. At the present time there are two peoples in the world at the head of civilization, and who are marching steadily onward in their course, as I believe, to the civilization of mankind. They are identical in language—they have the same institutions, and they have nearly the same form of Government. They are identical in race; they are derived from the same origin; they are, in fact, one nation. Now, these two nations are, I have said, at the head of civilization. They are going onward in that course; and, if in that course any obstruction unhappily interposes, surely it is the business of those who wish well to mankind to brush away that obstruction, and to make and keep those two nations friends. I think, Sir, the statement of the hon. Gentleman to-night is in accordance with these sentiments. The hon. Gentleman has, in a most satisfactory manner, stated the views of his Government upon this occasion. Not one word has escaped his lips derogatcry to this country or insulting to America. He has shown throughout that he understands the delicate position in which he is; and he has shown that he knows full well the great—I may say the overwhelming—duty which is now imposed upon both nations. Sir, certain language has been employed by gentlemen on the other side of the water, and I am bound to take notice of these facts, because it is supposed that we shall notice them. I am quite prepared to admit the destinies of the great nation we have planted on the other side of the Atlantic. I believe that from their country, their position, their institutions, their character, which they have derived from us, they are destined to be the leaders of mankind. But, Sir, I am not one of those who wish to derogate from the dignity of England. Language has been used in the American Congress which is not worthy of gentlemen—which is more worthy of ancient Pistol or of Bobadil than of the representatives of a great people. It has been assumed that England desires to insult them. Let them take a lesson from what has been said to-night as signifying the disposition of the people of England—that we do not desire to do anything which will give offence to our brethren over the water—that we are desirous of maintaining good relations with them, that we are desirous of maintaining our institutions and dignity; but that we do not intend to wound or alarm them. I thought myself bound to say these few words, because it has been said we shut our ears to the statements made by leading men in America. Sir, things have been said there which cannot pass unnoticed. I have been insulted through my country by what has been said. People on the floor of the Congress—to use the language of America—have only been gratified to meet with an opportunity to insult England, and as an Englishman I am bound to answer that insult. I say that we, acting as a great people, have only the desire to put down a great blot upon humanity—I mean the slave trade. In order to do this, we have given certain instructions. Be it that in the heat of the moment, and in the desire to do their duty, your officers have been induced to go beyond the very letter of their instructions, would a great people, a friendly people, have made this an opportunity for indulging in abuse of this country, from whom they suppose those instructions emanated. I believe that reports have been exaggerated. I believe that our officers have merely done their duty, and I believe that people, pandering to bad appetites, had put into papers in America what is not true. A cant phrase has been used by the hon. Gentleman, to signify stories which are not true. I will use a shorter word, and I hope it will go across the water—I say that they have been telling "lies." I say that, pandering to bad passions, they have been telling lies. Sure am I, that the people of England wish to maintain kindly relations with the people of America. Sure I am, that the people of England wish to employ their great power—and we have a great power, though we don't wish to boast about it—I say we only wish to employ that power in the service of mankind. If we wish to put down the slave trade, it is merely for the good of mankind. We may have injudicious or generous officers, but I don't believe one-half or one-tenth of the stories talked about, and I won't believe that any Englishman has done anything which calls upon the Government he has served to believe that he has deviated from his duty. Sir, the people of England will maintain that great position which they have ever held; they will not be bullied out of their rights; they do not wish to maintain a power which they ought not to have; they do not desire to do anything which shall excite hostility with America, which shall wound feelings or injure relations on the other side of the Atlantic, but they will take care of their own honour.

Sir, I wish to say that Her Majesty's Government may rest assured, if they conduct the affairs of the country in that temperate spirit in which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has stated it to be their intention to conduct them, while at the same time they are determined to maintain our rights, this House will afford them its ready support. With regard to the facts of the case immediately under consideration, it appears to me that there is much remaining to be told. The instructions given by the Government of 1844 to our cruisers have never been altered since, except, as it appears by the statement of the hon. Under Secretary, by those additional instructions which were given by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty, advising greater caution and prudence in the demeanour of our officers towards American ships. With regard to the original instructions, the order issued by the Earl of Aberdeen was framed after much consultation and advice of the most eminent authorities, and amongst others Dr. Lushington. The instructions were framed in the most temperate spirit, and previous to being issued they were communicated to the Government of the United States. During the fifteen years they have been in operation they have been acted upon without any interruption of the amicable relations which have existed between this country and the United States. The question is, whether the complaints which have recently arisen have arisen from the increased vigilance of our cruisers, or from the fact of our commanders overstepping their duty; or whether they arose from the unwillingness of America to submit to the carrying out of those instructions, although for a period of fifteen years she had recognized them. What is the duty of Her Majesty's Government under the circumstances? In the first place, it is their duty to restrain the over-zeal of our commanders, and if it be found that they have exceeded their instructions, it then becomes us as a great nation to acknowledge that fact, and to repair any wrong that we may have committed. On the other hand, if the American Govern- ment are prepared to say that these instructions are objectionable to them, it is the duty, and at the same time true wisdom, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to advise with the Government of America as to the nature of the measures which ought to be adopted in order to effect the objects which both countries have in view. I will not venture to say what those measures ought to be. But it is quite clear, as admitted by General Cass himself, that this right of search is absolutely necessary for both countries, in order to protect the national interests of both on the high seas. The Americans are a maritime nation as well as ourselves, and it would never suit their commerce in the China seas, for instance, where piracy prevails, if after a pirate ship had taken and plundered an American vessel, and perhaps killed the crew, she had only to hoist the British ensign to protect herself from all examination on the part of American Commanders. They should have the right, as well as ourselves, of searching a suspicious vessel hoisting a flag to which it was not entitled. I think too much importance has been attached to the statement made even in the American Congress. It is obviously the interest of the two nations to remain united; and I am happy to hear from the Under Secretary of State that whatever may be the decision of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the squadron on the coast of Cuba, it is not their intention to deviate from that great line of policy which we have followed for so many years, and which has been justified by so many treaties into which we have entered with foreign Powers for the suppression of the slave trade. I now only wish to express the pleasure I have felt at the explanation given by the Under Secretary of State, which, while upholding the dignity of this country, has, at the same time, been characterized by much good temper and ability.

Sir, as some questions have arisen with regard to the grounds upon which our cruisers have been sent to suppress the slave trade upon the coast of Cuba, I beg to remind the House that that arrangement was adopted in deference to the frequently expressed wishes of Parliament and of numerous deputations which waited upon the late Government, recommending the adoption of such a course. The Under Secretary of State has truly stated that the arrange- ment had been acceded to by the American Government itself; therefore, there was nothing whatever about those proceedings which were not prompted by good and sufficient reasons. It is always, no doubt, to be expected that when an additional number of inspecting and preventing ships appear on a particular station, those with whose traffic they interfere should endeavour to raise a cry against it, and misrepresent the objects we have in view. I hope, Sir, it may turn out that the complaints we have recently heard so much about have originated in some such source. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman has stated, every reasonable and proper complaint will be attended to by Her Majesty's Government. It is but just to the American Government, however, to say that they have always not only expressed, but actually manifested, the same feeling which has actuated the people of England with regard to the suppression of that most abominable crime—the slave trade. The American Government actually made it a law that the slave trade was an offence liable to the heaviest punishment, and whenever the American cruisers have been stationed to operate with the British cruisers for the suppression of that trade, the American officers have done their duty, and co-operated in the most cordial manner possible with the officers of the British cruisers in every step thought necessary to be taken with that object in view. Those of them especially that were employed on the coast of Africa did their duty in the most prompt manner and with the best spirit. I think, therefore, Her Majesty's Government might urge upon the American Government to send cruisers to the coast of Cuba to prevent, by their own legitimate action, the abuse of her flag which is now practised by Spaniards, Portuguese, and bandits of all nations, whose conduct has, in fact, led to the present disputes. I concur with my noble Friend the Member for London, in thinking that it is impossible we can assent to the naked principle that the hoisting of the flag of a particular country is to be adopted as a conclusive proof that the vessel belongs to that country whose flag it hoists. It is well known that vessels are in the habit of carrying flags of different nations for the purpose of making signals; and if it came to be understood that the hoisting of the flags of England, or of France, or of the United States, or of the numerous States of South America, were to be a sufficient proof of the identification of a vessel, piracy of the most frightful description would be rampant over the seas, and every country possessed of a mercantile navy would soon feel the necessity of combining to put an end to the system. I do not understand that the hon. Gentleman said that Her Majesty's Government have admitted the principle to the extent I have mentioned. I may state that I was informed the other day, by my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty, that no instructions had been sent to our cruisers on the coast of Cuba different from those instructions which were issued by the Earl of Aberdeen. I believe, therefore, that our officers are still acting on the instructions issued with the consent of the Americans themselves; and I presume that if any fresh instructions are sent they will be communicated to Parliament, so that we may see the extent of the modifications.

said, he had listened with very great satisfaction to the observations of the noble Lord the Member for London, and he agreed with him that the best answer to the violent speeches that had been made in the American Senate would be the calm and dispassionate discussion that had taken place that evening. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary, in his very clear statement on the part of the Government, had not stated what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might mention, that without conceding the point to which the noble Lord had just referred, and which they had not in any way conceded, Her Majesty's Government, after pointing out the terrible abuse of their flag under the present system, and that piracy of the most flagrant character might be committed, had invited the Government of the United States to favour them with their suggestions as to the mode by which such things might be prevented, and had offered to take those suggestions into consideration, and, if possible, to combine with that Government in any arrangement that might promise a satisfactory solution of the difficulties which both Governments at present experienced. They had not as yet received any answer to that proposition, but he was inclined to believe that it would be received by the Government of the United States in the same spirit as it had been offered. His hon. Friend had so fully entered into the question, as far as at present we were masters of the de-ails, that it was not necessary, nor indeed would it be convenient for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to go at any length into the subject. He confessed he looked forward with great confidence that the existing misconceptions would soon disappear, and that their occurrence now would lead to an understanding upon this subject that would prevent a renewal of them hereafter. He was sure that both the American Government and the American people, when they had examined thoroughly this subject, and had paused and pondered over all that had occurred, would feel that it was for the advantage of both countries, and for the benefit of civilization, that there should be some clear understanding as to the united course which both Governments should take upon this matter. Far from being alarmed, he was not displeased to hear that American ships of war had been sent into the Cuban waters, because the crews of those vessels would themselves be witnesses of what was taking place there, and he did not doubt that they would act with the same promptness and fidelity they had shown on other occasions and to which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had borne witness. There was also another reason why he took no gloomy view of our relations with the United States, however threatening they might appear. It was because upon all the great principles of policy which influenced the system of the United States there was between the Government of that country and that of Her Majesty, generally speaking, a complete accordance. We witnessed with no jealousy the expansion of the United States; we did not find in the general course of their policy any of those causes which create distrust between States; and knowing that their was in general among the public men of America a sincere desire to cultivate friendly relations with the Government and people of this country, he could not allow an accidental ebullition to induce him to believe that a policy founded upon deep reflection and an intimate acquaintance with the mutual interests of the two countries could be terminated or disturbed by circumstances which could only be regarded as of a transient nature, but which, if neglected, might no doubt assume a far more serious character than their essential merits could justify.

said, he thought it was not to be regretted that this discussion had taken place. There was one point to which he wished to advert. He thought he collected from the Under Secretary of State that our Cuban squadron would shortly be withdrawn. [Mr. S. FITZGERALD: I said it was under consideration.] He thought he was justified in assuming the probability of its withdrawal. If, however, we withdrew our squadron, and the United States did not substitute one of their own, then slavers under any flag, once escaping from the coast of Africa, had nothing to fear, and could not be prevented from landing their cargoes on the island of Cuba. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had thrown out a hope that the American Government would themselves undertake to maintain a squadron off the coast of Cuba. How far her Majesty's Government in their negotiations upon this delicate subject might be disposed to suggest such a course he could not tell, but he was strongly impressed with the belief that if there were no squadron in those waters, impunity, if not encouragement, would be given to the slave trade.

said, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to bring in any Bill to make better provision for the retirement of Assistant Barristers, and whether any such measure has been prepared either by the present or late Advisers of the Irish Government?

said, this was a question of great importance, for the administration of justice had suffered in Ireland in consequence of persons retaining their seats as Assistant Barristers when they were too old to perform their duties. The question had been under the consideration of the late Government, and they had a measure in contemplation to put an end to this unseemly state of things. The question was also under consideration of the present Government, and late as the Session was they hoped to be able to pass a measure on this subject before its close.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War when the Reports of the Commissioners on the Hospital at Netley will be laid on the Table of the House, and whether any steps have been taken to suspend the works or any part thereof? A Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) was at the head, reported against the site of this hospital, but the gallant Officer opposite refused to act upon it till he had made further inquiries. He wished to know when the result of those inquiries would be laid before the House. For his own part, he was well acquainted with the neighbourhood of the hospital, and he believed the site was unobjectionable; but he believed the construction of the building was faulty, and he would urge upon the right hon. and gallant Member not to spend more money on the buildings till those faults were removed; and further, he would advise him to trust no more to Commissions or Committees, but to take the advice of a competent architect on the subject.

said, he had known the site of Netley Hospital for many years, and he was convinced that it was most salubrious. He also thought that with regard to the construction of the hospital, it contained no faults which might not be easily repaired. There were two systems on which hospitals were constructed—one was the block system, which was advocated by the French, the other was the continuous system which was in use among ourselves. As the block system was adopted at Aldershot they would have an opportunity of testing the merits of both; his own experience led him to prefer the continuous building system as best, both for the medical officers and the men.

said, he had repeatedly urged the presentation of the Reports referred to, and he hoped that in ten days or a fortnight he should be able to lay them upon the table of the House. He believed that the scientific and medicial men who were sent down to Netley had reported in favour of the site. As, however, alterations might be proposed in the construction, directions had been given to the officers in charge of the works to arrange with the contractors not to proceed with those portions which might hereafter require alteration, but at the same time to do nothing which would vitiate the contract.