said, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield), who had given notice of the Question, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any intention exists to issue any new warrant affecting the position of Masters in the Navy.

replied that the question of the position of Masters in the Navy was under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. There were considerable difficulties attending this question, because it involved the corresponding rank and position of other officers, who were similar in grade of rank with the masters. The late Board of Admiralty effected an improvement in the position of surgeons, and he thought it was to be regretted that they had not, at the same time, taken into consideration the position of masters and paymasters in the navy.

said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there is any objection to lay on the Table Copies of the Official Reports made by the Civil and the Military Authorities who held investigations regarding the recent rioting at Kinsale between some of the soldiers of the regiment of Antrim Militia Artillery and some of the inhabitants of that town.

said, there would be no objection to lay on the table the reports to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but the best course he considered would be to put the question into the form of a Notice, and move it the following day, as an opposed return.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works what reply, if any, he gave to a Deputation of the Lord's Day Society, which attended him upon the subject of preventing the performance of Bands in the Parks on Sundays?

said, he was afraid he could scarcely give a satisfactory answer to the question, as he had no written document to refresh his memory; but, so far as his recollection served him, he would state what took place on the occasion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. He believed that the deputation waited upon him under the erroneous impression that some new application on the subject of Sunday Bands had been made, or was about to be made to him. The Deputation went, consequently, into the merits of the whole question, discussing it in a religious point of view. He replied that he fully agreed with them as to the right of every man to the enjoyment of one day of rest in the week, and that he would be most unwilling to be a party to anything that would affect that right; but at the same time he stated that the performers who composed the band were free agents, and undertook the duty voluntarily; that according to the showing of the deputation, vast numbers of persons frequented the parks to enjoy the music; that the privilege had been continued for several years; that no complaints of riot or improper conduct had been made with respect to the parties frequenting the parks: and that he would not feel justified in abolishing the existing practice, which had been so long continued without leading to any inconvenience.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to issue a Commission to inquire into the effect of prolonged labour of children in Mines of Coal and Ironstone, as the Act for the Inspection of Mines expires next year?

said, he believed that an inquiry would take place on the subject, but that it had not yet been determined whether it should be conducted by a Commission. The matter, however, was under consideration, and he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would make a statement on the subject early next Session.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the practice of orders being sent from the War Department to Officers commanding Militia Regiments to release deserters from their corps who have enlisted into the Line; and to ask the Secretary of State for War if such a practice is not contrary to the Articles of War?

said, there could be no doubt that, whether politic or impolitic, the practice was strictly legal; because it was laid down in the Mutiny Act that a deserter from the Militia who enlisted in the Line was to be received, but that his time in the army was not to count till the time for which he had enlisted in the Militia was expired.

But how does the right hon. Gentleman get over the perjury of these men?

I don't get over it at all. The question is how the law gets over it.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to issue a Medical Commission to decide which among several competing kinds of knapsack was the best for the soldier?

said, that acting in accordance with what he had stated some time ago, he had thought that the men themselves would be far better judges which knapsack it would be most convenient for them to carry than any Board of General or Medical Officers could be. He had, therefore, ordered a number of Berrington's knapsacks, as well as some of the knapsacks invented by Colonel Spiller, to be served out to the companies of certain Regiments, with a view to their being tested by practical experiment.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government is prepared to carry into effect the recommendations of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, as specifically set forth in Sir John's Pakington's Letter to Lord Derby, dated April last, respect- ing the treatment of Catholic Sailors in the Royal Navy?

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman he was mistaken in supposing that the late First Lord of the Admiralty had made any specific recommendation whatever on that subject. On a previous occasion he had told the hon. Member, when he asked a similar question, that there was a Letter of Sir John Pakington to Lord Derby respecting the treatment of Roman Catholic Sailors in the Fleet, but it merely contained vague expressions of opinion on each of the points laid before the right hon. Baronet. He could, therefore, only advise the hon. Gentleman to ask the permission of the late First Lord of the Admiralty to lay that Letter on the table, and then he would see that it really contained no specific recommendation whatever.

said, he wished to know if the Letter referred to the case of the Ajax, at Kingstown?

said, that the Letter in question did not refer to the Roman Catholics on board of Her Majesty's ship Ajax only, but to the Roman Catholic sailors of the Fleet generally.

said, in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (General Upton), he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if, considering the facts detailed in the Petition from the Ayr and Maybole Railway Company alleging the breach of an Agreement to which the Lords of the Treasury were a party, it is intended to lay out any public money on the Harbours of Portpatrick and Dona-ghadee, until the Mail Contract Committee shall have reported on the facts?

said, he could only repeat the answer he had given on this subject when the Estimates were under discussion, namely, that a bargain having been entered into by the Government and confirmed by the late Secretary to the Treasury, they could not now postpone acting upon it. The case did not at all come within the scope of the reference to the Mail Contract Committee. The sum to be laid out on those works would not exceed £20,000.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board if his attention has been called to the present unsatisfactory system of Poor Law Medical relief?

said, the subject had occupied the attention of the President of the Poor Law Board, but he could not give any assurance as to his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject.

said, he had not seen it; and perhaps it would be better if the hon. and earned Gentleman read it to the House.

then read the official copy of the Report, which stated, amongst other things, that at the last election for Hull, 487 persons were employed by Mr. Hoare, and 493 persons on behalf of Messrs. Clay and Lewis, as messengers, amp;c.; that more than 300 of the persons employed by Mr. Hoare were voters for the borough, and were paid by his agents for such employment sums varying from 2s. 6d. to £3 5s. The paragraph to which he wished particularly to call attention was this:—

"That it does not appear to the Committee that any act of bribery was committed with the knowledge or consent of the said Joseph Hoare, Esq., who appears to the Committee to have always shown the greatest anxiety to check any irregular proceedings in the conduct of the election."

The Report, it would seem, did not in terms find Mr. Hoare guilty of bribery either by himself or by his agents, and it was only by inference that they could collect that any act of bribery had been committed at all. There could not have been a more explicit acquittal of the late hon. Member for Hull, and unless he had been declared guilty of bribery by one or the other this Sessional Order did not apply. If there had been any doubt upon the question he should not have brought it before the House without the two days' notice, and this being the last day of the Session that notice would be impossible; and therefore the question really was whether they should suspend the writ for six months or issue it now. For suspension of the writ there ought to be a strong and clear case made out. He was not aware that the Committee had made out a case for suspension, and indeed four of those hon. Gentlemen were distinctly of opinion that the writ ought to be issued. Under these circumstances what was there to prevent the issuing of the writ? It was clear that unless the Committee made a special Report the writ ought to be issued; but no special Report had been made, and therefore he trusted the House would be of opinion that the Sessional Order was no obstacle to the issuing of the writ. No doubt practices had prevailed in the borough of Hull, such as the employment of messengers, which were objectionable. But that was not done with corrupt motives, and no doubt those practices would after this Report be put a stop to. If this writ should be issued there would be no danger of similar practices being resorted to at the next election. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the issuing of the writ.

said, he had no authority to express on behalf of the Committee any opinion, one way or the other, whether this writ ought to be issued. They did not take that question into consideration. The Committee wished that the evidence should be printed, and that he would move; but, speaking for himself, he did not wish to interpose any obstacle to the issue of the writ. Indeed, having regard to the interests of the borough it was very undesirable that it should be kept in suspense for six months.

was in hopes that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who had been Chairman of the Committee, would have explained to the House why the Report of the Committee was couched in these terms. The Report did not say, as was usual in other Reports, that Mr. Hoare had been unseated on the ground of bribery, nor was there any distinct statement that Mr. Hoare had by his agents been guilty of bribery. It appeared to him that the only possible inference that could be drawn from the Report was that Mr. Hoare was unseated on the ground of bribery through his agents; while at the same time it was reported— what was very creditable to him, but not so unusual a remark in reports of Election Committees as the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford supposed—that Mr. Hoare had done his utmost to prevent bribery. If the Chairman had told them that the Committee had come to the conclusion that Mr. Hoare was not duly elected, yet it was not on the ground of bribery, the Sessional Order would not have stood in the way, and the writ might have been issued at once. But he could not put that construction on the Report. Mr. Hoare must have been unseated on the ground either of bribery or treating. Treating was not suggested, and therefore, considering the only influence that could be drawn from the Report, the Sessional Order was not to be set aside merely for considerations of the convenience of the borough.

said, there could be no doubt it would be a great inconvenience to violate the Sessional Order; but it would be a greater to keep the borough in suspense for six months. The object of that Order was that the House should not be taken by surprise in issuing a writ to a borough, which had been proved to have misconducted itself, or whose conduct might appear to call for inquiry. But he had no hesitation in stating, from his own personal knowledge, that this was not the case in the present instance. With regard to the hon. Gentleman who was yesterday his colleague, he felt certain not only that that Gentleman had no cognizance of bribery, but that he had done everything man could do to make his agents respect the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wallingford had done but scant justice to the borough when he said that this employment of messengers was a continuation of old corrupt practices in the borough. He believed no man knew more of electioneering practices in Hull than himself, and he could assure the House, upon his honour, that there was no place in the kingdom where there had been so great an improvement in electioneering practices as in the borough of Hull. They were not a continuation of old practices but the ghost and pale reflection of old practices. There had been a rapid improvement of late years; and it would be a great hardship that his constituents should be for some months deprived of a Member, and exposed to all the excitement of a contested election merely because the period of the Session rendered it impossible to give the notice required by this Sessional Order.

, as a member of the Committee, concurred with the Chairman in the opinion that there was no ground for withholding the writ. He occupied a peculiar position respecting this application, for had he been present to be sworn on the Wednesday this Election Committee might have met On Thursday morning, and the proceedings might have terminated two days ago. As it was, they did not meet until the Saturday morning, and though they sat for ten hours it had been found impossible to finish in time to give the requisite notice. If the writ were not issued now, it would be tantamount to a six months' notice, and this, he thought, would be hard measure to the constituency.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir George Grey) regretted that Hull should be put to inconvenience; and he also regretted that there should be a postponement of the writ for six months; but let him (Lord Hotham) ask the right hon. Gentleman where was the necessity for that regret? Hon. Members had assumed that to-morrow would be the last day of the Session; but the Session would not be closed until the business of the House had been disposed of, and he imagined that to keep the representation full was one of its first duties. If Her Majesty had intended to prorogue Parliament in Person he would not have interfered: but as it was understood that it was to be prorogued by Commission he saw no inconvenience if the prorogation were postponed until Monday or Tuesday. There was no question whether the writ should he issued; but it was one as to a point of form, and although he should be sorry to keep the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker in the Chair a moment longer than necessary, still he felt sure that that right hon. Gentleman would not grudge coming down to the House on Monday for an hour or two to dispose of this business. He, therefore, put it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir George Grey) whether he did not think that on the part of the Government this course should be departed from?

was of opinion that to postpone the prorogation of the Session for the purpose of issuing the writ would not be a desirable course to pursue, inasmuch as the day for the prorogation had been fixed by Her Majesty for tomorrow. The best plan he thought which could, under the circumstances, be adopted would be that the hon. and learned Gentleman should give notice that he would move the issue of the writ to-morrow, and at the same time move the suspension of the Sessional Orders, so that one day's notice might serve instead of two.

said, he should have given two days' notice if circumstances had admitted of his doing so; but as matters stood he would withdraw his Motion, and give notice that to-morrow he would move the suspension of the Sessional Orders, and also the issue of the writ.

should be glad to know what the expense of this Commission would be. Reports weighing no less than eleven tons had been made by similar Commissions, but nothing had been ever done upon them, nor had a single individual living ever read them.

said, it was but too true that the inquiries of these Commissions did not produce the desired results; but he believed that was the fault of the House, and not of the Commissioners. In the Galway case the existence of extensive corruption had been clearly brought to light by the Commissioners, but a desire had been shown by Members on both sides of the House to screen the culprits. It was his conviction that the House was not sincere in its avowed determination to put down corrupt practices at elections, and until that was the case the issue of such Commissions as that which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone now moved would be found to be nugatory.

thought that if this Commission was issued one Commissioner would be quite as good as three, which would be a considerable saving of expense.

said, that with respect to the Galway case he believed the charge of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Griffith) was justified by the result, the House having managed in that instance to render nugatory the Report of the Commissioners. Inquiries of that description would be nothing better than a farce and a sham unless the House should resolve to give them practical effect, and until he saw better evidence than had yet been furnished of its determination to carry out its professions in those cases he should oppose the appointment of Commissions.

looked upon all these Commissions as a complete delusion, and no beneficial result could come from them. If the House really wished to put down bribery, let the Committees recommend that the persons bribed and the persons bribing should be prosecuted. The only object of the Commission appeared to be to give employment to three barristers during the long vacation.

said, that he also had a strong opinion against issuing these Commissions. There had been already fifteen inquiries of the kind, the results of which were embodied in fifteen blue-books, which he would venture to say fifteen persons had never read. It was hardly possible for poor people to resist the temptation of sums larger than they had ever possessed or even hoped to possess: but why did not the House proceed against the bribers? If they would resolve that when a Committee found that a person had practised bribery that person should be prosecuted by the Attorney General, they would be doing something towards putting an end to these discreditable practices. It was not the poor man who accepted the bribe that was most to blame in these cases, but the rich man who practised upon his poverty for the purpose of influencing his vote. They had already agreed that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the alleged corruption at Wakefield; but he regretted that he had not opposed the Mo- tion in that case, and he hoped that they would have no more of those ridiculous and expensive proceedings.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone, in bringing forward that Motion, was merely seeking to carry out the provisions of an Act of Parliament. There was a statute—the 15th and 16th Vict., c. 57—which expressly provided that when a Committee had specially reported that bribery had extensively prevailed in a county or a borough, the House might address the Crown, praying that a Commission should issue for the purpose of inquiring into the case, and the Commission when appointed had all the powers vested in it by the Act to ascertain whether bribery had existed and to what extent. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wallingford seemed to think that the Commissioners would only pursue the poor electors, who had accepted the bribes and that they left unnoticed the wealthy and the more guilty parties, who had thrown the temptation in their way. But that was not an accurate view of the matter. If the Commissioners should report who were the bribers, the House was surely not powerless to punish them, whatever might be their station. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that none of those inquiries ended in any good. Now, in the Galway case a Bill had been introduced for the purpose of disfranchising a particular class of voters who had been proved before the Commissioners to have been extensively corrupted. That Bill was generally supported by the party with whom he (Sir George Grey) usually acted; but it was opposed by the late Government and their supporters, and it had consequently been lost. The House had recently agreed that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the corruption practised at the election for Wakefield. Gloucester and Wakefield were the only two cases in which Election Committees had reported specially that bribery extensively prevailed, and it would be inconsistent to issue a Commission in the one instance and not in the other. If the Motion should be negatived there must be an end to any further inquiry into the corrupt practices which, according to the report of that Committee, had extensively prevailed at the late City of Gloucester election; and to morrow the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford would perhaps give notice that he would move the issue of a new writ for that city. [Mr. MALINS: Certainly not.] Well, but he (Sir George Grey) should protest against the suspension of a writ except for the purpose of some ulterior proceeding; and if the House did not contemplate any such proceeding it would have no right to suspend a writ indefinitely. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Had-field) asked what might be the expense of such a Commission. He (Sir George Grey) could not undertake to answer that question. But he believed it was not at all likely that the expense in that case would be as great as it had been in the Hull inquiry, from the very fact that such strong complaints had been made of the cost incurred in that latter case as would prevent the occurrence of a similar outlay upon any future occasion.

said, that as he was then the only member of the Gloucester Committee in the House he felt it his duty to state that a grosser case of bribery could hardly be conceived than that which had been brought before them. He should himself have moved the appointment of a Commission in the case if he had not been anticipated in his intention by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone.

observed, that no less a sum than £768,000 had been spent upon Commissions. Last year no less than £33,000 was expended in that way, and he thought it was high time the House put a check upon such extravagance,

said, that looking at the precedent furnished by the Wakefield case, he should feel it his duty to Vote for the Motion, but he hoped that would be the last Commission of the kind that would be issued. These Commissions were perfectly useless. If they wanted to effect any good they ought to call upon hon. Members to come to the table to make a clear and distinct statement upon their honour that they had neither been guilty of bribery, directly or indirectly, and that they had not paid and would not pay any expenses beyond those properly certified by the Election Auditor.

said, that as a general rule Commissions of this kind were not attended by any useful result; in point of fact, that they were utterly futile. But then that was entirely the fault of the House of Commons itself. It had been suggested that Committees should order the prosecution of both the bribers and the bribed; but if the suggestion were acceded to it would be altogether impossible to obtain evidence upon which the Committee could reply.

denied that he had any interest in the patronage of the appointment of the Commissioners who were to conduct the inquiry, and he indignantly repudiated the idea that the members of the Bar had sunk so low as to seek the appointment of such a Commission merely for the sake of the patronage. The Commission for which he asked was in strict accordance with the Act of Parliament, and if it should come to nothing, that was not the fault of the Commissioners, but of the House, which might decline to act upon it afterwards.

protested, that he had meant nothing personal towards the hon. and learned Member.

said, there would be no objection to the return, and stated that the Home Secretary had taken all the necessary steps to ascertain the facts from the local authorities. He must say that, according to the statement, the sentences seemed almost an enormity. But he hoped there might be some circumstances not within the knowledge of the House which justified the conduct of the magistrates.

brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition of Mr. H. E. Childers with reference to the recent election for the borough of Pontefract; and moved that it be printed. [Cries of "Read."]

hoped the House would allow the Report to be printed. The Committee had been engaged all the day in considering their Report. Many alterations had been made in the document, which the Clerk would find it very inconvenient to read. He believed that its reading would occupy from half an hour to three quarters of an hour, and that the better course would be to order the petition to be printed, and it would then be in the hands of Members to-morrow.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he would not detain the House except to say that that question was of much more practical importance than might at first sight appear. He knew that the Portuguese themselves were anxious that there should be some such expression of opinion on the part of the British Parliament as that now proposed, which would have the effect of placing them in a better position with respect to their efforts to suppress the slave trade than they were in at present.

quite agreed in the Motion as far as Portugal was concerned. With regard, however, to France, he asked were they quite certain that the Emperor of the French had resolved to cheek the slave trade in all its forms throughout his dominions? He had himself received information from Martinique that a vessel with several hundreds of negroes on board, and belonging to a firm at Marseilles, had lately landed at that island; thus showing that a traffic was being carried on which our Government had stigmatized as the slave trade, and in consequence of which they addressed remonstrances to the Emperor. It was also stated that the vessel in question, after landing her cargo, was to return to the coast of Africa for a fresh one. It might be asserted that these negroes were free emigrants; but when it was known that they were sometimes placed in irons and put on board vessels which carried them to French possessions, it certainly did not seem as if they were allowed to exercise much free agency in the matter. Some of them had escaped from Martinique and Guadaloupe to British territory, while others had been drowned in their attempts at flight—circumstances which threw considerable doubt on their alleged freedom. Negotiations were said to have been set on foot by the Emperor of the French with our Government with a view to substitute Indian Coolies for these negroes. To the immigration of these Coolies to our own colonies there was no objection, because their embarcation and debarcation were both conducted under the strict surveillance of our Government agents. But if they were to be carried from the British possessions to Martinique, Guadaloupe, or Bourbon, immediately they had sailed, they would be withdrawn from the control of our authorities, and when they had arrived at their destination there would be no security for their proper treatment. If that was to be the compensation which we were to pay for the Emperor's apparent abandonment of the slave trade. he maintained that the price was too high.

regretted that such a Motion should have been brought forward so late in the Session in so thin a House, and when his noble Friend at the Government and his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, were both unavoidably absent. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject would not think it necessary to press his Resolutions. He believed the Portuguese Government had acted with great zeal in restraining the exportation of negroes from the coast of Africa, and that the Emperor of the French had also been earnest in his endeavours to check the slave trade. But a correspondence was still going on with respect to that subject between our Government and the Government of both of the countries referred to in the Motion; and if these Resolutions were passed they might lead those two Governments to say that we were entirely satisfied that they had done all that was necessary. Its effect, therefore, might be to weaken instead of strengthening the hands of the Government in its further correspondence with these Powers. Moreover, even if the Resolutions should now be adopted, they could not have the weight which they ought to carry with them, owing to their having been passed in a very thin House, and without discussion, at the close of a Session.

concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, and trusted that the Motion would not now be persevered in.

said, that if the right hon. Baronet had had the goodness to read the terms of the Motion, he would have seen that it referred, as far as regarded Portugal, to transactions which were already concluded, and therefore could not inconvenience but must rather aid the Government in any correspondence now pending between them and that State. But under all the circumstances, and seeing that the Resolutions did not appear to command that support from the Government which was necessary to give them due authority, he thought he should best consult the feeling of the House by withdrawing them. At the same time, while following the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, he must throw upon him the whole responsibility for the evil consequences which must flow from the postponement of the Motion.

rose and was proceeding to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which Mr. S. H. S. Pullen, medical Officer of the third district Otterton and Briton of St. Thomas's Union, Exeter, had been dismissed by the Board of Guardians of the district; when. Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present: House counted; and Forty Members not being present,