rose to move that the following clause be inserted after Clause 1:—

"That Chief Constables appointed and to be appointed in counties, under the Acts of the 2nd & 3rd of Vict., c. 93; the 3rd and 4th of Vict., c. 88; and the 19th & 20th of Vict., c. 69, shall be styled County Commissioners of Police."

said, he saw no reason for a change in the name; at the same time, the Government had no objection to the alteration.

said, he thought the alteration in style would avoid the great inconvenience which now prevailed, and that it would enable the county and borough police to work more in harmony together.

remarked, that the change in name was a very small matter; still the name of constable was better known to the public, and constables had distinct rights and duties which should not be confounded with other names, for as Commissioners they would have no duties as such.

said, he thought that the object aimed at by the hon. Gentleman could be better attained simply by altering the name of "Chief Constable of Boroughs," and not attempting to change the designation of the Chief Constables of Counties to that of Commissioners of Police.

said, the reason he had moved the Amendment was to prevent the confusion and jealousies that existed between the county and borough police force.

said, he had certainly received some communications showing that there was much inconvenience arising from mistakes in the opening of letters by the one force which were intended for the other.

said, he did not think there was much in the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) because there was a Commissioner and a Chief Commissioner for the City of London.

said, this was not a very important question. He had received letters stating that sometimes inconvenience did occasionally arise, and it was thought by some that the heads of the county police should be called "Commissioners." By introducing that title they would not be introducing anything new, for it was now used in several cases where the parties did not hold commissions from the Crown.

opposed the clause. It was almost absurd that the Committee should be discussing such a question. He thought it would be better to change the title of the Chief of the Borough Police to that of "Head Constable."

said, the term "Commissioner" was essentially of French origin, and the term "Constable" was thoroughly English, and therefore he should vote for the latter. They ought to think more of the people and less of the wishes of the police.

said, as the point involved was of no great importance, he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment. Although he (Sir G. Lewis) was rather favourable to the proposed alteration, nevertheless as it had provoked so many objections, it was not worth while to sacrifice more of their time by discussing the matter.

said, he wished to move the omission of the words in parenthesis in lines 13 and 14. It was his intention to move the addition of a clause, which would give effect to the alteration he proposed.

said, he would assent to the Amendment, upon the understanding that the hon. Gentleman would move a new clause.

said, he rose to move the addition of the following clause:—

"The high sheriff of any county may agree with the justices of the peace for such county for the employment of the police constables in lieu of javelin men at the assizes, and thereupon the chief constable, on the requisition of the high sheriff, shall place under his orders a sufficient number of such constables to keep order in and within the precinct of the Court of Assize, and upon such agreement being entered into as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the high sheriff to discontinue the employment of javelin men.

The practice which he wished to establish by this clause obtained already in Hampshire, Lincolnshire, Westmoreland, and partially in Northamptonshire, and it not only considerably diminishes the expenses of the high sheriffs, but had proved satisfactory to the judges, as well as to all persons concerned in the administration of justice at the assizes.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman proposed to take a very unusual course. A few hours ago the House rejected a Bill which would practically have effected to a great extent the object contemplated by this clause, and he now endeavoured to attain that object by bringing up a clause which was not at all germane to the Bill under discussion. He (Mr. Wise) thought it was not right or just to propose such a clause after the distinct pledge which had been given to the House that a Select Committee should be appointed at the commencement of next Session to inquire into the whole question of the expenses of high sheriffs.

said, that such a proposition as was embodied in this clause had been made to the magistrates of the county he had the honour of representing (Somersetshire), and had been rejected by them. It was evident that the employment of the police in lieu of javelin-men might be suggested to courts of quarter sessions, who could deal with the question as they thought fit, and therefore he deemed this clause entirely unnecessary.

said, he did not agree with his hon. Friend in considering the clause unnecessary, because there was an Act of Parliament in existence which required the employment of javelin-men by high sheriffs. In his opinion the clause would prove advantageous, because it would enable each county to determine for itself whether javelin-men should be employed, or whether they should he superseded by the police force.

said, that with reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise), notice had certainly been given by an hon. Gentleman of his intention to move next Session for a Committee to make certain inquiries as to the office of high sheriff, but he was not aware that anything had been said on the part of the Government amounting to a pledge, or even an understanding, that such a Committee should be appointed. For his own part, he could not see that there was anything objectionable in the clause, which was merely permissive, and he apprehended that, under the existing law, chief constables would not have the power of placing the police under the orders of the high sheriffs.

said, the clause appeared very loosely and inaccurately worded, and would require to be very much altered even to effect the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view.

suggested that the clause should be withdrawn, and a new clause drawn up.

said, he thought that the clause might work inconveniently in respect to the will of the High Sheriff and the dictum of the Judge. The former might desire to get rid of the javelin-men, and thereby to save himself from what he might consider an unnecessary expense; but the latter, on the other hand, might require the observance of the usual customs in regard to the javelin men at the assizes.

then moved the addition of this clause:—

"The chief constable of any county police force, and the watch committee of any city, borough, district, or place, is and are hereby empowered to suspend or dismiss any constable within their respective jurisdictions for misconduct or dereliction of duty; and, in case of such suspension or dismissal, all or any arrears of pay due to the said constable shall he forfeited; and the said chief constable or watch committee is and are hereby also empowered, at his or their discretion, to fine any such constable in a sum of money not exceeding one week's pay, and to reduce the said constable from a superior to an inferior rank, such fine and reduction in rank to be in addition to any other punishment to which the said constable may be liable; and all punishments, penalties, and fines, such as above enumerated, heretofore imposed or inflicted under any rules framed under and by virtue of the third section, 2 & 3 Vict., c. 93, shall be deemed to have been legally imposed or inflicted."

said, he thought the clause unnecessary, inasmuch as the police authorities already possessed those powers which it was the object of the proposed clause to give them.

thought the Act passed in the 2nd & 3rd Vict. contained a provision which fully met the case which the hon. Gentleman wished to provide for.

said, that he was desirous of giving a fuller explanation of the object of this Bill than he had been able to do on a former occasion. It would be in the recollection of the House that some few years ago a general Act was passed creating a Commission of Charities, under whose jurisdiction all the charities in England were placed, with the exception of Roman Catholic charities, as it was objected that in their case certain trusts might be disclosed which would lead to questions of law. There not being time to consider the matter fully then, the course was resorted to of excepting the Roman Catholic charities from the operation of the Bill for two years, on the understanding that the subject should meanwhile receive consideration of Parliament with the view of introducing enactments to meet the case of these charities. Those two years expired, however, without any special legislation, and there had since been several successive annual exemptions. The question now to consider was, whether the House at the present period of the Session could deal with the case, or whether the practice of renewing the annual exemption should be repeated. One course that might be pursued was to assimilate the law with respect to Roman Catholic charities in England to that which obtained in Ireland and Scotland, to which countries the invalidity attaching to trusts, which the law of England called superstitious, had never been extended. Under these circumstances, if the House was prepared to adopt that course, he did not see that it could be said that any state of things would be introduced which was unprecedented or unauthorized by practice; but as there was always a great objection to make alterations in laws which had existed for a long period of time, the present Bill, framed upon a principle which he understood received the approbation of a large portion of the Roman Catholic body in England, had been brought in. The principle on which it was founded was to prevent any Roman Catholic endowment being, if he might use the expression, tainted or rendered invalid by the doctrine of superstitious uses, and for that end to give to the Court of Chancery or the Charity Commissioners power to convert every trust not recognized by the law into a legal trust, preserving the existing charities for the Roman Catholic body, but in certain cases altering their destination. He had hoped that this measure might have been passed before the close of the Session, but from communications which he had received he found that that hope was not likely to be fulfilled. He understood that there existed no exact agreement between professional authorities as to the state of the law, and also that there was a great discordance of opinion as to what would be the effect of a measure like the present giving great powers to the Court of Chancery and the Charity Commissioners. Under these circumstances he did not feel disposed, unless he found more unanimity in the House on the subject than he believed to exist, to press the Bill forward during the remaining fragment of the existing Session. He was the more encouraged to refrain from doing so by some remarks made in "another place," intimating that it was not possible for both Houses to consider the Bill properly in the present Session. He trusted, then, that if he introduced a Bill simply to continue the exemption for another year, it might be allowed to pass without objection, and he entreated hon. Gentlemen to consider this question in the meanwhile with a view to come to some practical settlement in the next Session of Parliament. It might be possible that valid objections could be made to the present Bill, but, at all events, it was a bond fide attempt to settle a very difficult question, and he believed it to have met with the approbation of a very considerable portion of the Roman Catholic body. ["Hear, hear!"—"No!"] That manifestation of opinion did not augur very favourably for future unanimity on the subject, but he hoped hon. Gentlemen who understood the difficulties of the question would approach the discussion of it next Session with a disposition to remove all obstacles which were not inherent in the subject, and to devise some satisfactory measure. He would now move that the order for committing the Bill be discharged.

said, he heard with great satisfaction the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this Bill, as he thought that a measure touching such delicate questions as those of religion and conscience should be brought in at a time when the House would be prepared to devote more time to its calm and dispassionate consideration. These annual continuance Bills exempting Roman Catholics from the operation of a general law were no doubt looked upon as objectionable, and the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) had been called on to afford his assistance in the framing of a satisfactory measure on the subject. That hon. and learned Gentleman had given them a notion of the measure which he thought ought to be introduced, but it did not appear to be one that was likely to produce the effects desired. He (Mr. S. Estcourt) did not think that any settlement of this question could be satisfactory which would not satisfy the feelings of those that were to be exclusively affected by it. They ought to show a considerable indulgence to the religious feelings of those who would be affected by such legislation, not only prospectively but retrospectively. He was glad to hear that a Bill on the subject would be introduced next Session. If the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, or some other Member of the same persuasion, would but frame a Bill on the subject, such Bill, as well as that of the Government proposition, might be sent before a Select Committee, who would be able to decide the matter in a much more satisfactory manner than perhaps the House would be able to do.

said, he was glad to hear the announcement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. He had endeavoured to place his views on paper as to how this question ought to be dealt with. Some Roman Catholics of the north of England, stated their own views in a petition to the House, but the right hon. Gentleman struck out a different course altogether in framing this Bill, which, in his opinion, was a highly objectionable one. The great objection to the Bill was, that it gave for the first time a legislative sanction to the law commonly known as the law of superstitious uses, in respect to which a question might still be raised before the House of Lords on appeal. There was a period when the Roman Catholic religion was altogeter illegal, but Roman Catholics were now placed upon an equal footing with Protestants, and he contended, therefore, that any religious practice pertaining to the Catholic Church ought not to be stigmatized by the law of England, if it involved nothing offensive or injurious to those who did not belong to that Church. He maintained that the law of superstitious uses was highly objectionable, and any Bill which had the effect of giving renewed legislative sanction to that law would be highly offensive to Her Majesty's subjects of the Roman Catholic religion. All the Roman Catholics asked was, that the Legislature would leave them to manage as they thought fit their own property, which was applied exclusively to the purposes of their own Church. He would assume that the Legislature were determined to subject Roman Catholics, with reference to charitable trusts, to the control of a Commission, as had been done in the case of Protestant charities; but if Catholics were subject to the same jurisdiction as Protestants with respect to administration, they ought in fairness to be placed under the same law. Parliament ought to cure those defects of title which arose from a system of law now obsolete, so that Catholic property might be placed under the control of the Commissioners without any danger. He hoped that next Session, in conjunction with some of his hon. Friends, he might be enabled to lay upon the table a Bill embodying the views of Roman Catholics on this subject, and he trusted that if such a Bill and any measure that might be prepared by the Government were submitted to a Select Committee, it might not be difficult to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion.

expressed his surprise at the course now proposed to be taken by the right hon. Gentleman. He had so frequently heard of there being no time for the enactment of a special measure on the subject, and that it would be therefore necessary to renew this exemption Bill once more, that he was quite sick of the matter, and he confessed he had a distrust of the whole proceedings in respect to this measure, He represented a considerable body of Roman Catholics in the north of England, who were most desirous for the passing of a Bill upon this question, and it was partly in consequence of petitions which he had presented, numerously signed by the members of that body, that his right hon. Friend had undertaken to deal with the question. He had that morning had an interview with a gentleman of the highest respectability and character from the north of England, who assured him that the measure proposed by the Government would afford perfect satisfaction to those with whom he acted; and he (Mr. Hutt) must therefore express his regret that the Government did not intend to proceed with it. He was so thoroughly impressed with the necessity of legislation on this subject that he would do all in his power to prevent any further exemption of Roman Catholic trusts from the operation of the general law. Such exemption had been granted for six successive years without any attempt having been made at practical legislation on the subject, and, therefore, with the view of inducing Parliament to deal with the question, he would oppose any continuance of the exemption.

said, he had not the slightest wish to take any part in the discussion, nor to interfere with matters relating to the Roman Catholics exclusively. He wanted, however, to know why the members of that body should, in respect to charities, be exempted from the general law of the land? He believed that a very large body of the most respectable Roman Catholics in this country were in favour of some such measure as that now before the House.

said, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hutt) had protested against the exemption of Catholics from what he called the general policy of English law. The hon. Member thought it was a very wonderful anomaly that this favourable exemption should have existed for the last six years. He would beg to remind the hon. Member that this was not the first-time the Catholics were exempted from the general policy of English law. A toleration Act was passed after the Revolution of 1688, from which they were exempted, and for a century and a half they suffered under penal enactments framed exclusively on their account. It was, indeed, to this century and a half of anomalous penal legislation that the half a dozen years of subsequent favourable exemption may be traced. Catholic charities were still surrounded by the débris of the penal laws, and until a fair and comprehensive measure could be passed it was absolutely necessary to look for an annual Bill of exemptions. The thanks of the Catholics were due to Lord Derby for having last night suggested in "another place" the expediency of a further renewal of the exemption. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had expressed a hope that the Government might receive the unanimous support of the Catholic members when they brought in a general measure next year. He would take the liberty of telling the right hon. Gentleman that such unanimity would be altogether unattainable if any of the principles laid down in the first, second, or third clauses of the Bill now withdrawn were to be re-introduced. Above all, he begged to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the impolicy, and, indeed, he might say, the intolerance and injustice, of applying the phrase "superstitious" to any doctrine or practice of the Catholic Church. The time had gone by when such a phrase could he permitted to appear in any Act of Parliament. It was an insult to a large number of Her Majesty's subjects, and he was very sorry to see a Bill emanating from the right hon. Gentleman containing it. The Members of the Government, and many other Members of the House, may conscientiously believe the sacrifice of the mass to be a superstitious practice, but there was no necessity whatever for giving such belief a statutory sanction. Speaking for himself, he never would consent to pass any Bill containing such a phrase.

said, that as representing a considerable number of English Roman Catholics, he could state that they entirely approved the Bill which had been introduced by the Home Secretary, and the opposition to that measure proceeded exclusively, he believed, from Irish Roman Catholics, whose interests it would not affect. [A cry of" No."] He could only say he believed that no English Roman Catholics were opposed to the Bill. [Mr. BOWYER: I am an English Roman Catholic] It was comparatively recently that the hon. and learned Gentleman had become a convert to that faith, and that perhaps accounted for the manner in which he persevered against the Bill. He could not, under all the circumstances, blame his right hon. Friend for withdrawing the Bill, especially after intimations which had been given in "another place," but he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have proposed to continue the Exemption Act. He (Mr. Beaumont) would join the hon. Members for North Warwickshire and Gateshead in opposing the renewal of the Exemption Act beyond a very short period—say, one or two months after the next meeting of Parliament—because he thought it of great importance that a decision should be arrived at upon this question without any unnecessary delay.

said, that six years ago he supported Sir Frederic Thesiger, now Lord Chelmsford, in his opposition to the clause which exempted the Roman Catholics of England from the operation of the general law as enacted in the Charitable Trusts Act of 1853. There were few higher authorities on all questions of this kind than the present Lord Chelmsford; and that learned personage declared emphatically that if those Roman Catholic charities ceased to be exempted from the general law no danger whatever could accrue to them. For there was no danger in 1853, and no danger now, that the Government would permit any of these Charities to be annulled under the provisions of the law against superstitious uses. They had now a distinct declaration that the Government desired that there should be no disturbance of the validity of those charities, and he felt confident he could not be doing any injustice to his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects by voting for the extension of a necessary legal protection to them; he should therefore follow the dictates of his conscience, and support the hon, Member for Gateshead in his opposition to these annual exemption Bills. The conduct of that hon. Gentleman was highly creditable to him and to those whom he represented in regard to this subject, and needed no eulogy when it was recollected from whence the opposition to the proposed legislation came. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) it was well known, was everywhere, and in everything simply the exponent of Cardinal Wiseman's policy. The evidence taken before the Committee on mortmain proved that it was the object of that person (the Cardinal) to get and to keep, if possible, in his own hands, the whole of the property in this country devoted to charitable and religious purposes by Roman Catholics. There was evidence of that fact on record, and subsequent evidence might be produced to corroborate it. This attempt was in accordance with the functions he had been sent to this country by the Court of Rome to perform. Cardinal Wiseman declared in one of his lectures, which was afterwards published by authority, that the Roman Catholics of England ought to be an organized community, apart from the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. He was not speaking of that which he did not know, and the Cardinal exercised his usurped and illegal authority to effect that object. There was ample evidence to show that the Roman Catholics of England year after year prayed the House to extend to them the benefit and the protection of the English law against the system of tyranny which was set up by Cardinal Wiseman. They had evidence before Committees of that House to show that such a system as that attempted to be established by Cardinal Wiseman would not be submitted to in France or in Spain, and had not been submitted to in Malta. The effect of the conduct of that House in reference to this question had been to leave Her Majesty's English Roman Catholic subjects exposed to a system of tyranny which would not be submitted to in the majority of the Roman Catholic States, and the effect of the exemption from British authority which was now contemplated would be to continue the same mischief. They might be told that this was no affair of theirs who were Protestants. But everything that brought their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects within the scope of a foreign authority deeply affected them. He should most heartily support the hon. Member for Gateshead in his objection to the continuance of this exemption. It was an exemption that did not give freedom, but entailed tyranny upon the Roman Catholics of this country.

said, that his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Lewis) had given notice of his intention to introduce another Bill on this subject, and when that measure was laid upon the table it would be the proper time to discuss its provisions. Considering the period of the Session, and the impossibility that a Bill of this importance could receive due consideration in the other House, his right hon. Friend had no option but to move the discharge of the order for proceeding with the measure. He might express his hope that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk would not content himself with suggesting clauses to the Secretary of State, but that at the commencement of the next Session he would lay before the House a Bill embodying his own views, and those of the gentlemen whom he represented, and it would then be ascertained what amount of agreement there was in the Roman Catholic body on this question.

said, the opinion of the late Mr. Frederick Lucas was that those interested in Roman Catholic charities had, in his judgment, committed a mistake in assenting to a Bill exempting them from the law affecting the charities generally of the kingdom. He would support the hon. Member for Gateshead in his resistance to another Exemption Bill.

acquainted the House, that he had this day received a Letter from Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, as Agents for Henry Clement Heard and Reuben Bond, informing him that it is not intended to proceed with their Petition, complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Bridgwater.

said, that this was just what he had expected, although in this case, as in some others, the petitioners had thought proper not to withdraw their petition until the eleventh hour. He felt satisfied that if the inquiry bad been proceeded with, the petition would have turned out to be utterly frivolous and vexatious, and he believed that it had been got up against the wishes of the most respectable of his political opponents.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce a Bill for continuing the exemption of Roman Catholic Charities from the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners.

said, that he intended to-morrow to move for leave to introduce a Bill to continue the exemption of Roman Catholic Charities from the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners.

said, he begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman, that he should give to the introduction of the Bill all the opposition in his power.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if there is any regulation preventing the men in the Preventive Service, Inland Revenue, from marrying, and if men have been dismissed in Scotland for this offence.

stated, in reply, that a regulation did exist, not to prevent men in the Preventive Service from marrying, but to restrict employment in that service to unmarried men. The reason was that Preventive Officers had to go over an extensive district, and were required to be absent from home at least four nights in the week, and experience had proved that married men were apt to neglect their duty in order to remain with their families. Gases had occurred in Scotland in which the engagements of married men had been terminated; but the words "dismissal for an offence" could not be applied to the termination of an engagement which was made upon the distinct understanding that such was one of the conditions of the service,

said, he rose to ask a question in connection with the late election for Norwich, but as it was a matter of privilege he should in any case be entitled to precedence. It would be in the recollection of the House that at the last general election two gentlemen, Mr. Schneider and Viscount Bury, were returned for that city. A petition for bribery was presented against both those gentlemen, one of whom, Viscount Bury, subsequently accepted office under the present Government. The attention of the House was expressly called to the inconvenience of issuing a new Writ while the petition against the former election was pending, but, nevertheless, it directed that a new Writ should be issued, and at the second election Viscount Bury was again returned. Two petitions were presented against that return, and they were referred to the Committee by whom the first petition was to be tried, but on the understanding that they were not to be proceeded with, so that in fact the only petition before the House was the original one presented against Viscount Bury and Mr. Schneider. The Committee to which that petition had been referred had decided that both those gentlemen had been guilty of bribery through their agents, and that consequently the original election was void. The question he wished to ask Mr. Speaker was this:—By the 36th section of the Corrupt Practices Act it was declared that no candidate who should be found guilty of bribery by himself or his agents should be capable to sit for the place in which the bribery had been committed during the Parliament then in existence. This was a very peculiar case, because at the time the House agreed to the issuing of the second writ, Viscount Bury had not been declared incapable of sitting, but since that time the decision of the Committee by which the noble Lord was declared guilty of bribery, through his agents, had been arrived at. This decision, coupled with the second election, placed the noble Lord in a very peculiar position. He did not know that the point had ever been raised, but he believed there was a Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury on the paper for Thursday evening, moving that one of these seats should be declared vacant. The question he wished to ask, therefore, was whether, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, both Members having on the original petition been found guilty of bribery through their agents, that fact did not in itself make void the recent election; or whether the noble Lord would stand in a similar position to that so long filled by Baron Rothschild, of being a Member of that House without being able either to sit or vote. It was desirable that the House should come to some decision on this question. In his opinion the House had acted indiscreetly in allowing the second Writ to be moved pending the decision of the Committee on the first petition. Under those circumstances, he begged to ask Mr. Speaker whether this seat was of itself vacant, or whether the noble Lord had the power of sitting and voting under his second election?

said, the subject was so important that he hoped he should be pardoned if he addressed a few words to the House before Mr. Speaker replied to the question of the hon. and gallant Member. The case stood thus. After the general election petitions were presented against the return of Viscount Bury and Mr. Schneider, on the ground that they had been guilty of bribery at the election for Norwich. Subsequently, Viscount Bury took office in the Government, when a question arose in this House as to whether the Writ, under those circumstances, should be allowed to issue. He (Mr. Walpole) was not present at the time, but he believed that upon that point the House decided, under Mr. Speaker's ruling, that the Writ could issue, if the House thought fit to direct that it should issue. If he might venture to express an opinion, he should say that that decision was unquestionably in accordance with the law and usage of Parliament, and he thought he could point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the greatest inconvenience would arise if it were not the law; for supposing any number of Gentlemen sitting opposite had been petitioned against, and they had been commanded by Her Majesty to take office, they would, under any other ruling, be totally incompetent to appear in their places as members of the Government so formed. The inconvenience in that case to the public service from the want of persons to explain and defend the acts of Government would have been the greatest that could be conceived. Since the election of Vicount Bury, consequent on the issue of the Writ, a second petition had been presented, praying not only that the seat may be voided on account of the bribery practised at the former election, but praying further that this House would confer the seat upon another candidate, on the ground that Viscount Bury was incapable of being elected, and that due notice to that effect having been given to all the voters, all the votes recorded for him were thrown away. When this second petition came before the General Committee for election petitions, they considered whether they could not tack the second petition to the first, and thus send them both to be considered by the same Committee. The House, however, on that point expressed an opinion—and in my mind a correct opinion—that since the General Committee was bound by Act of Parliament to take all the petitions in their order, and since the petitions arose in respect of different elections—one after the dissolution and the other when Viscount Bury took office—it was not competent for them to tack the second petition to the first. There was therefore nothing to be done but to proceed with the first petition separately and, as hon. Gentlemen knew, the Committee to whom the petition was referred had come to the conclusion that the election of the two sitting Members was void by reason of their having been guilty of bribery through their agents. The Act of Parliament was imperative under such circumstances, and declared positively that persons who had been found guilty of bribery, either by themselves or by their agents, should be incapable of sitting for that place during the existing Parliament. It did not, therefore, require any action of the House to prevent Viscount Bury from taking his scat as soon as he was declared incapable of sitting. If the noble Lord were to attempt to take his seat he would in the first place subject himself to the penalties attached to those who sit and vote contrary to the Act. But more than that, if he were to take his seat, the House would take notice of it, and recognising the law as prescribed by the Act of Parliament, he would be ordered by the Speaker on a Motion made in the House to retire. Under no circumstances, therefore, he apprehended, could the noble Lord attempt to take his Beat except at great peril to himself. But then came the question, what were they to do with reference to the seat being declared void? If the House were to continue sitting very little inconvenience would arise, for the second petition would come on in its turn, and the Committee to which it was referred would decide whether the other candidate's claims to the seat were well founded, or whether a new Writ ought to issue. But if they were asked now to issue a new Writ a question of immense difficulty would be raised, because by issuing a new Writ they would, in fact, be determining by anticipation that the petitioning candidate under the second petition was not entitled to claim the seat. He would therefore venture to suggest that the House should forbear to express any opinion that the seat was void, and that a new Writ ought to issue, lest they should deprive the person who claimed the seat, of those rights with respect to which the Committee on the petition was the proper tribunal to decide. There was in fact only one course for the House to pursue in the matter. There could be no doubt that a new Writ might issue for the city of Norwich with reference to one of the seats, but he could not allow that the Writ ought to issue with reference to the other; or the House, if it thought fit, might withhold both writs. But if both were issued now it would involve the House in immense difficulties with reference to the claim of the other candidate. The point, he admitted, was a new one, but speaking in the presence of the Attorney General he apprehended that he had stated nothing which was inconsistent with law. He must apologise for interposing between Mr. Speaker and the House, but he had done so because he felt that it was hardly a question, involving such difficulties as it did, in which they ought to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. The proper course was for the attention of the House to be called to the subject by a Motion, when they would be able to look at all the circumstances of the case.

said, that this was a very irregular discussion. There was no Motion before the House, and the question asked related to the construction of an Act of Parliament which he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite it was hardly right to call upon the Speaker to determine.

said, he rose to order. The right hon. Gentleman should be bound by his own statement that there was no Motion before the House.

said, he would move the adjournment of the House so as to put himself in order. It might be supposed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had raised this question on behalf of Viscount Bury, as though the noble Lord were anxious to sit and vote. Now, he (Sir George Grey) was assured that this was not the case; that the question was one spontaneously raised by the hon. Gentleman in order to satisfy his own mind on the subject; that Viscount Bury had not been within the House since the decision of the Election Committee, and had no intention of sitting and voting. Under these circumstances, he thought the subject might well be deferred until the next day, when notice had been given for the issue of one of the Writs for Norwich, the hon. Member for Finsbury concurring with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that, the seat being claimed, it would be premature to prejudice the claims of Colonel Boldero by issuing the other Writ. If Viscount Bury had presented himself within the House, it might have been quite right to take notice that he was incapacitated from sitting by the decision of an Election Committee; but to put a hypothetical case to the Speaker on a subject that must after all be decided by the House was, he thought, wholly uncalled for.

said, he wished to give notice that it was his intention to oppose the issuing of a new Writ. Though it was decided in the case of Dartmouth that he was wrong, yet he believed that in the case of Norwich he had good grounds to go upon, and he intended to move an Amendment to the hon. Member for Finsbury's Motion to the effect that the Writ ought not to be issued till the evidence was in the hands of hon. Members,

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) had taken it on him to assume a state of his (Colonel French's) mind which not a single word that fell from him would justify. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that his mode of lecturing other hon. Members was extremely unpleasant, and considering his position in the House it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to soften his tone. The right hon. Gentleman imputed to him that he professed to stand forward as the personal friend of Viscount Bury. He would put it to the House if a single word that fell from him justified such a statement. He made it a pure question of privilege, which as an independent Member he was desirous, for the honour of the House, to have ventilated. With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) had said, if it were correct in point of fact, he was satisfied; but he had received information that both petitions were referred to the Committee, but that the Committee declined to proceed with the second.

said, he believed there was a second petition before the House which had not been withdrawn, but it did not come under the cognizance of the Committee. It was still possible for the Committee to determine that the Gentleman who claimed the seat was entitled to it.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge had not interposed it would have been his duty to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the question which he had brought before the House was not one of privilege. The only answer he could have given to this question, whether Viscount Bury had a right to sit in the House, would have been to request him to examine the Act of Parliament, which is very definite and distinct on this subject. The Act of Parliament, and not anything which might have fallen from him (the Speaker) was the proper guide for the proceedings of the House.

said, he rose to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to enter into negotiations with the Government of the United States of America, for the purpose of presenting the assaults and cruelties committed on Merchant Seamen engaged in traffic between this Country and the United States, and of bringing to justice the perpetrators of such offences, many of whom escape with imounity in consequence of the defects of the present system of international jurisdiction."

The subject had engaged the serious attention of men in high places, and also enlisted the sympathies of a large body of persons both in this country and in the United States of America. The question was, whether many injuries should remain unredressed, and a large amount of crime should go unchallenged and unpunished. The point he was about to ask the House to consider was, in what manner they could best put a stop to the series of outrages and cruelties which were committed on the high seas in connection with the merchant traffic between England and the United States. It could hardly be considered a question especially affecting the United States, as the proportion of American seamen sailing under the merchant flag of the United States did not amount to more than 17 per cent. The remainder of the crews was made up of men belonging to all nations, no small portion of whom consisted of our fellow-countrymen. The outrages to which he alluded, had in a special manner attracted the attention of the inhabitants of Liverpool, which was the great entrepot of that traffic. It was stated by them that unhappy men arrived almost daily in their harbours who, in consequence of the cruel treatment which they had received on the voyage, were obliged to be conveyed to the hospitals of the city, where some of them died of the injuries which were inflicted upon them, while others remained there for a long time un-recovered. Now, the Government of the United States had expressed through their Consul a desire that so disgraceful a state of things should be remedied, while, on the other hand, the people of Liverpool had taken up the subject with a warmth beyond the wont of Englishmen. Yet it did not appear that Her Majesty's Government had taken any steps to bring the perpetrators of those crimes to justice. A résumé of the whole facts was to be found in a pamphlet, written by Mr. Bright, an eminent merchant of Liverpool, and addressed to his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whit bread), who was to have brought the subject before the House, but who, unhappily had joined Her Majesty's Government, and who was in consequence incapacitated from employing his talents out of his own department to the advantage of either the House or the country. He (Mr. M. Milnes) had therefore deemed it to be his duty to take the matter up. The grievance which he wished to be redressed divided itself into two branches. There were, first of all, the cases which came within the operation of the extradition treaty existing between this country and the United States. The clauses of that treaty, however, were so intricate and involved as to render it impossible, even in the case of the gravest crimes, to tiring any criminal to justice. There was, for instance, the case of the outrage on board of the ship Etivan, the case tried before Baron Bramwell last year, in which the offence was committed 2½ miles from what was considered the limit of the jurisdiction of England. Baron Bramwell charged the jury to acquit the criminal, on the ground that no case had been made out; but he gave him up to the American authorities, to be conveyed to the United States. The moment the man touched his native shore, he absconded, and got off scot-free. Two other cases of a similar description occurred within the last year. Only within the last month, a most atrocious murder was committed by a Corsican sailor on board an American ship called the Mountaineer. The vessel touched at Sunderland, on her voyage from Amsterdam to New Orleans, and the captain applied, through the Ame- rican Consul, to the magistrates at Sunderland, for a cell in which the culprit might be kept in safe custody until the return of the ship to America, undertaking, at the same time, to pay all the necessary expenses. This seemed a very reasonable request, but the answer written by Mr. Waddington, on behalf of Sir George Lewis, the Secretary for the Home Department, to the Consul, was to the effect that the request could not be complied with unless the offence came within the 10th Article of the Treaty of Washington between England and the United States; and that even if it did, the magistrates could not interfere without a warrant from the Secretary of State, granted upon the formal demand of the United States Government, under the extradition treaty. The consequence was that the murderer escaped within a few days after his arrival at Sunderland. He was recaptured and taken on board again, but he succeeded in escaping a second time, and he was now wandering about the country with perfect impunity. He thought it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make some arrangement with the United States by which prisoners so charged might be kept in safe custody, and every means taken to bring them to justice. The cases to which he had referred, although of a most serious character, were comparatively of rare occurrence, and they could scarcely be compared to the class of cases which he wished chiefly to bring under the notice of the House. He referred to those minor outrages which were continually occurring on board American ships, and excited so much indignation and reprobation in Liverpool. They knew that the Amercian merchant service was a rough and ready one, and he did not wish to complain of the captains of the ships. Indeed, in almost all the cases he had investigated the cruelty was committed not by the captain, but by some of the crew, and the captain did all in his power to restrain it. These cases were so frequent at Liverpool that they had obtained a name for themselves, and were known in the hospital there of "Consuls' cases." From June, 1857, to June, 1858, there were no less than 135 of these "Consuls' cases" sent to the hospital. From June, 1858, to March, 1859, the number of cases was 80; during the latter period 23 additional cases were treated in the workhouse. The Society of Friends of Foreigners in Distress had also published a report on the subject, which showed how great was the evil of which he complained From that report it might be learned of what kind and nature those cases were. In four of them the sufferers were Germans. One was a Hessian, who was set to work, and so ill-treated that he was obliged to be laid up in the hospital. The next was a Prussian, who had been a waiter in an inn, and who was engaged as a steward on board a vessel, but was put to work as a common sailor, and so injured that he was confined for fourteen days. The third was a Bavarian, who was engaged to assist in unloading a ship, and had his arm broken. The fourth was also a Bavarian, and had his arm smashed. Nobody could deny that there had been cases of violence and cruelty; and the continued impunity given to these cases operated most injuriously, not only upon the American merchant service but upon our own. These habits of ferocity and cruel treatment of merchant seamen in this country, of which we had seen examples, arose in a great measure from the anomalous state of the law. He had received a letter from a gentleman, whose name in American literature stood so high that every word which came from him was important, even if his character were not marked as it was by eminent feelings of humanity, he meant Mr. Hawthorne, the distinguished writer of fiction. He stated that in his view the majority of these cases of cruelty did not arise amongst Americans. It very often turned out that on board these ships the only American was the man who took no part in the affair, namely, the captain. Such was the tone also adopted by the New York Commercial Advertiser, which in a recent number had remarked,

"Certainly the subject is important. The humanity and generosity of this country and Great Britain should be glad to unite in some feasible reform to prevent this reign of cruelty and violence."

He hoped he had satisfied the House that the case was one of great grievance, and that the only question was how to remedy it. He thought the House would agree that the remedy must lie in one of two directions. Either to give additional power to the American consuls by which they themselves would be able to take the responsibility upon themselves and rectify the evil, or to obtain a convention with the United States, under which these offenders might be brought to justice, and treated as if the injuries had been com- mitted on English soil. He hoped he should not be met with technicalities, but that Her Majesty's Government would see whether, without contradiction of the principles of international law, that law might not be so supplemented as to prevent the evil which now existed. The giving of additional power to the consuls would naturally occur to any one who investigated the subject. It was true that it was the practice of the English nation to refuse extraterritorial power to any body of foreigners residing within this kingdom; at the same time, in that respect, we had acted exceptionally to the rest of Europe. The law during the middle ages, and down to our own time, was that for the purposes of public security and advantage a nation should permit foreigners to exercise within its boundaries such jurisdiction on its own subjects as might not be injurious to the common weal. This power had been asserted by the French Government, and the great memorial of Colbert, which had been treated as the manual of the consular service ever since, established that no Frenchmen should under any circumstances submit to be judged by any other country than his own. The consul, it was said, was nothing more than the executive Minister of the colony of his fellow-countrymen established in the country, and this principle had been carried out with great severity by the French nation. In 1814 it was urged that this principle should be abandoned, and this only took place after much resistance by the Due de Broglie. He thought, therefore, that by some extension of power they might enable the American Consuls to judge the more simple and more frequent of these cases. He know it might be said that other evils would perhaps arise. He was bound to say that he had heard of cases at Havre in which the absolute jurisdiction over American subjects, assured to the consul by a convention with France, had been grossly abused. If the giving power to the consuls was not the right remedy he did not see why they could not come to an arrangement with the United States by which these cases might be judged by the native tribunals of this country and America. It might not do to apply the rule to the graver cases, but it might be made to apply to all cases which would come ordinarily under the jurisdiction of a stipendiary magistrate. He hoped that in one direction or the other Her Majesty's Government would negotiate with the United States, and in settling the matter in a satisfactory manner perform an act not only of humanity but of justice.

seconded the Motion. He thought it a defect in the present state of the law, that in the case of serious crimes all the punishment the consul could inflict was to make the captain of the ship pay a sort of fine.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract had, he thought, done good service to his own country and to the community of the United States by bringing this subject under the consideration of the House, and he had stated with great distinctness the evils which arose from the existing state of things. He need hardly remind the House that the territorial law of this country was hardly competent to deal with the evils which had been brought before them. In the first place, this country could not, except by treaty, exercise any jurisdiction over crimes committed on board foreign ships upon the high seas. Their jurisdiction extended merely to crimes committed by foreign sailors on board foreign ships within three miles of the coast. Except within these limits the Crown of England had no power to exercise jurisdiction, and it was only by a ratified convention with the United States, or with any other Power, that this jurisdiction could arise. In the treaty concluded with the United States by Lord Ashburton in 1842 there was an article that stipulated for the mutual extradition of criminals. It included persons charged with murder, assaults with intent to murder, robbery, arson, forgery, and uttering forged papers. When a murder, or an assault with intent to murder, is committed on board an American ship on the high seas, it is by the construction of the law supposed to be committed on American territory. And if the ship put into an English port, and the offender were claimed through the American Minister, he would be delivered up and sent to America for trial. The expense incurred in sending the prisoner and the witnesses back to the United States to have the case investigated by the American courts would have to be paid by that Government. In practice it was found that this process was rarely carried into effect, and did not lead to the punishment of offenders. That, however, was the course under the present convention; and if it was not pursued the offender could not be made amenable, any more than if he had committed the same crime on the soil of the United States. The question then arose whether it was possible to make any convention with the United States by which this class of criminals could be brought to punishment. One obvious means of effecting this object would be to extend the number of crimes comprised in the article of the treaty of extradition, and include these cases of manslaughter and aggravated assaults on board ship. But under this article, the remedy, on account of the necessity of sending the witnesses to America, was difficult, expensive, and rarely resorted to. Another course suggested was to obtain for English magistrates a jurisdiction over those offences in this country, giving the United States a corresponding jurisdiction over English sailors committing similar crimes on board English ships. This would be in the power of the two nations to agree to by convention, with a legislative sanction in each country; and, if the Government of the United States were willing to agree to such an arrangement, he saw no injury in it to either nation. This would overcome the difficulty caused by each country exercising an exclusive jurisdiction over its own ships on the high seas. Another course suggested by his hon. Friend was to give the consuls of each country a jurisdiction in these cases. He was not prepared to say that even that plan, if the two Governments agreed to it, and Parliament gave it effect, could not be carried out. It was true that this country had never yet allowed any foreign Power to exercise any criminal jurisdiction within its territory, nor did the case of the consuls in the Levant furnish a precedent strictly applicable. But it should be observed that this would be a jurisdiction over offences committed on board ships on the high seas, and therefore, strictly speaking, within the territory to which the ships belonged. It would be an entirely new system. If they were to arm the American Consul at Liverpool with criminal jurisdiction he would still virtually be exercising jurisdiction under the English law, As the consul, however, could not be learned in the English law he would necessarily be forced to avail himself of the assistance of an assessor who could advise him upon the law of England, so that he would only be formally sitting in Court, while an English barrister would virtually be trying the prisoner. That would resolve itself into British administration of justice; and he doubted whether such a mode of solving this difficulty would find very much favour. At the same time he did not express a confident opinion against it, but he quite agreed in the general scope of the Motion of his hon. Friend, and that this was a matter which might form a subject of negotiation between this Government and the Government of the United States.

said, that this was a subject of no small importance, for no doubt within the last few years there had been many allegations of cruelty committed on board American ships. He wished that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion had told them whether many prosecutions had taken place for such crimes in the courts of the United States; for it was hardly possible that all the cruelty would be committed on the outward voyage and none on the voyage home to the States, and if it were committed on the voyage home there would be the American courts to appeal to on the ship going into port. The records of American courts might show what was the state of things and what view was taken of these crimes in America, and such information might go far to show how to remedy the evil, if evil existed. The Secretary for the Home Department had said, that it might be agreed that our stipendiary magistrates might deal with such cases, and that the American magistrates might deal with similar cases occurring on board our ships; and this might be all very well when American law and American courts only were in question; but if we came to this arrangement with America bow could we refuse to come to a similar arrangement with Austria, Russia, or Spain, and would the Government be willing to subject an Englishman who had committed an assault on the high seas to the tender mercies of the Russian police? He hoped that these allegations of cruelty on board American ships which had been made within the last two or three years, might have arisen from circumstances, from some cause or other, accidental, and that such things would not again be so much heard of. With regard to the question of Consuls dealing with these matters, there did not occur to his mind the same difficulty in carrying out that suggestion that there was in giving the courts of the two countries jurisdiction in such cases. The principal difficulty seemed to be that if the Consuls acted they must give the Consuls power to confine prisoners in their prisons. He did not think it necessary that they should act on the laws of the country in which they acted, but that they might administer the law of their own country. It was, however, a subject beset with difficulties, though certainly there would be no harm in negotiating upon it; but whether the negotiation would lead to any practical conclusion was another matter. He hoped that care would be taken not to get us into difficulties of a worse description whilst attempting to deal with an evil which was certainly not our own.

said, the subject of the Motion had engaged the attention of the law officers, not only of the present Government, but of those which had gone before it. All attempts, however, to induce the Government of the United States to agree to any rules in respect to the matter had proved unsuccessful from the jealousy with which they guarded against any interference with the administration of their law. The proposition of the United States Government always had been that an American charged with an assault upon the high seas should, on his arrival in this country, be taken before an American Consul, who should be invested with criminal jurisdiction. To that proposition, however, he, as the law officer of the Crown, in conjunction with his colleagues, would offer a most strenuous opposition. He certainly never would be a party to any criminal jurisdiction being exercised in this country, except in the name of the Queen, and according to the laws of the country. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had adverted to the possibility of our being required to extend the same principle to Austria, Russia, and other States having arbitrary criminal laws if we entered into a treaty with the United States; but he (the Attorney General) did not think that that consequence would at all follow, because in the case of the United States the bargain that might be entered into would be in accordance with our inalienable claim to reciprocity of jurisdiction, and that involved the administration of a criminal law similar to our own, and founded on the same principles as our own. The Amerians had conventions with France on this subject, and the representations that had been made to the Government of the manner in which the authority established by those conventions was exercised would surprise the House, and would be a warning against the adoption of any similar rule in this country. Nothing was more common than for the captain of an American merchant vessel, on entering a French port to go immediately to his own consul and accuse his whole ship's crew of mutiny and have them imprisoned, in order that he might keep them in safe custody until he intended to sail again, when the crew was delivered up to him on board. He mentioned that on the authority of our own Consul in France, and he thought the House would never consent to any similar jurisdiction being given to the American Consuls in this country. There were three things to which he hoped, if this Address were voted, the attention of the authorities would be directed. One was the facilitation of the working of the Extradition Act which, for the reasons mentioned by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, did not answer the object for which it was passed; the other was the establishment of a reciprocity of jurisdiction with reference to the offences that had been mentioned; and the third was the establishment, if possible, of a summary jurisdiction in order to dispose of those quarrels that arose with regard to contracts between British seamen and their employers on their arrival at a foreign port, and similarly with regard to foreign seamen on their arrival at an English port. He could assure the House this was no new matter—it had been frequently under discussion. The House itself had had cognizance of it eight or ten times during the past six years, and he earnestly hoped the Address moved for by the hon. Gentleman would be productive of some good understanding between the two countries as to the means which ought to be adopted for remedying the evil complained of.

said, in reply he had to thank the House and the Government for the consideration they had given to the subject, and he had no doubt the discussion which had taken place would materially promote the humane object he had in view. With respect to the number of trials in America he would remind the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Henley), that there was a great difference in the crews of inward and outward bound ships. There was no difficulty in getting sailors to go from Europe to America, but in manning ships to return to Europe there was fierce competition, an extensive crimping system was carried on, and much cruelty was practised. He hoped his Friends in the Government would not overlook the case of the murderer, who was now at large, because the authorities of this country had no power to secure him. The powers of the extradition treaty, which were now ex- clusively confined to the metropolitan magistrates, should be extended to the stipendiaries at Liverpool and the other seaports.

rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the rights as claimed by the Crown and other bodies connected with the Foreshores, Tidal Rivers, Estuaries, and bed of the Sea round the coasts of the United Kingdom, the various proceedings instituted of late years by the officers of the Crown with respect to the same, and to ascertain and report to the House whether any and what legislation might be required for defining the said rights, and for securing and protecting those of the public and individuals. By way of premise he might remind the House that the object and importance of his Motion had been ably expressed two years ago by the Earl of Derby in "another place," when presenting a petition in "another place." His Lordship stated then that it was a subject of very great importance involving questions of a very serious and complicated character, affecting the right of the Crown to the land between high and low watermark throughout the kingdom, the extent of that right, and the manner in which it was enforced. No one disputed that there was a right in the Crown, of a certain kind, to the dominion of the land between high and low water-mark; but the question was, whether that was such a right to the soil as would entitle the Crown to make it a means of profit by way of lease, or whether it was not merely a power with which the Crown was invested as a trustee for the purpose of protecting the public in their use of it. This latter was certainly the whole extent to which the maxim of the civil law went; and something to the same effect appeared to be the law of England as it stood in the time of Henry III. Bracton seemed to have the idea that it would be well for the public if such a power were acknowledged in the King as would enable him to protect the public use of it, but it did not appear that he went further. This view was confirmed by the dicta of Lord Hale, Judge Bayley, and several other learned Judges. In short, the result of the law authorities was, that the Crown was nothing more than a trustee for the public, to secure to them, collectively, and individually, the advantages and privileges that might accrue from the right to the sea-shore. When he looked to the older suits instituted by the Crown in reference to this subject, they appeared to have this object in view. But when he looked to the more recent cases, they appeared to have no other object in view than the increasing the territorial estates of the Crown, and that was in a manner which exposed the public to great inconvenience. This was evident from the suits instituted against the Corporation of London with reference to the foreshores of the Thames, and from other suits instituted against other public bodies in reference to the right to the foreshores of other rivers. Moreover, Lord Morpeth, the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, in giving his evidence before a Committee of the House which sat in 1848, said, in answer to a question, that he looked for a considerable increase in the revenue from the exercise of the rights of the Crown over the sea-shore.