said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the Bill promised to be brought in early next Session on the liability of Shipowners, Pilotage, and other matters, it be intended to provide for relief to the owners of British and Foreign vessels using certain public Harbours, from taxation for the maintenance of local institutions, and for payment of the debts of the municipalities where such Harbours happen to be situate?

said, his hon. Friend must pardon him for declining to enter into a detail of the provisions of a Bill that was to be introduced in the next Session. He did not think that the subject embraced in the question of the hon. Gentleman strictly belonged to a Bill for amending the Merchant Shipping Act.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he is enabled to fix a more decided time for the settlement and distribution of the Delhi and Lucknow Prize Money than he did on the 3rd of August last year, and again at the commencement of the present Session, and what is now the cause of the delay?

said, he wished to ask if there are any medals granted for Military Services in India still undistributed? The reason he asked the question was that one of his constituents in Birmingham, who had been attached to the Sappers and Miners in India, had received neither Medal nor Prize Money.

said, he was not able to fix any period relative to the distribution of the Delhi Prize Money. The Government of India would lose no time in preparing the rolls preparatory to the payment. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he was not aware whether there were any medals undistributed or not. Perhaps, however, the constituent of the hon. Gentleman had not applied to the right office.

said, if no person more competent to do so should take up this subject next Session he would call attention to the mode in which Prize Money is issued, and the delays which take place in the same, and move for an inquiry, with a view to a better system being adopted.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps have been taken by the British Government to cause the liberation of Henry de Wolfe Carvell, Esq., a British Subject, who, having proceeded to Lima as executor of the will of the late Michael Winder, Esq., also a British Subject, after the opinion of the late Attorney General had been obtained that the jurisdiction of the Court of Probate did extend to the said will, has not only been unable, through the connivance of the local authorities, to recover the property of the testator, but has even been prohibited from leaving Lima, though it has been certified by proper medical authority that his detention in that climate is likely to prove fatal to him?

said, that this gentleman arrived at Lima in February last with the will of his father-in-law, Mr. Winder, and applied for execution of that will in regard to property in Peru. On his arrival, however, he found that a Mr. Winder, a natural son of his father-in-law, was in possession of the bonds which constituted the property in Peru, and Mr. Carvell applied to the Peruvian Government to attach such bonds as had not then been presented. In the meanwhile this Mr. Winder absconded. But then appeared Mrs. Winder, the widow of the father-in-law of Mr. Carvell, and she had gone out to dispute the will of which this gentleman had possession. Well, the Peruvian Government called upon him to remain in Peru, either himself or by authorization, to sustain his own case. He denied, however, the competency of the Peruvian Government to adjudicate in the case, and he applied to Mr. Jerningham, who addressed the Peruvian Government and requested that this gentleman might be released from the legal necessity of remaining in Peru for the purpose of carrying on his suit. That application was refused by the Peruvian Government. The case was rather a complicated one, and it had recently been submitted to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The Government had their Report, dated the 26th of the present month, and instructions founded upon that Report would be sent in a couple days to Mr. Jerningham. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would not expect him to state then what was the nature of that Report or of the instructions that would be sent out.

rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee of Council on Education (1860 and 1861, p. 195), so far as respected the Reports of the Roman Catholic Inspectors on Roman Catholic schools receiving grants of public money, and to ask why the Reports of certain Inspectors had been omitted from the Reports presented to Parliament, and moved for further papers. He observed that, out of three Roman Catholic Inspectors, the Report of only one was published. Not less a sum than £184,000 of the public money was applied for the benefit of Roman Catholic schools, under the superintendence of Roman Catholic Inspectors, and there existed no means of knowing whether the money was properly applied. There was reason to think, from all the information they had been able to obtain, that very small results in the way of education had been obtained from that outlay; but they knew that by the side of the schools there were rising up Roman Catholic churches and chapels, and consequently an apprehension was excited that the money granted ostensibly for the purpose of education was applied to the endowment of Roman Catholic chapels, nunneries, and institutions of that nature. However that might be, he contended that the accounts of the persons to whom the money was entrusted should be under the same revision as the other educational grants. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of Further Reports of Inspectors on Roman Catholic Schools receiving Grants of Public Money."

seconded the Motion, for he thought that the subject was one really deserving attention. Every other denomination supplied accounts showing that the money received for education was applied to that purpose; they stated what was the number of their scholars and the general results of their teaching; but, from the absence of the Reports alluded to, there was no security that the money was in the case of these Roman Catholic schools applied at all to the object intended. He would call attention to another point which showed extreme reticence on the part of the Committee of Council for Education. It appeared that Mr. Moseley, one of the Inspectors, had expressed the opinion that the system of the British School Society commended itself far more to the great bulk of the population of Wales than the system of the National Schools under which the Government grants were made. In consequence of that declaration the secretary of the Archidiaconal School Society of Carmarthen, thinking—he (Mr. Newdegate) concluded—that the Church should, if possible, avail itself of the terms, upon which grants were made to the British schools, addressed three questions to the Secretary of the Committee of Privy Council. He asked, first, whether the Inspectors of the British schools were instructed to report on the knowledge of the children in the Scriptures; secondly, whether the pupil-teachers in the British schools underwent an examination in the Scriptures at the end of each year; and, thirdly, whether candidates for the Queen's Colleges and certificates of merit were obliged to answer the questions in the Scriptures which were given to the candidates from the Church of England Schools. Those questions were addressed to the Committee of Privy Council with a view to produce union between Protestant Dissenters and the Church of England, and at the same time to obtain security that a Scriptural education should be given; but they received a very curt and unsatisfactory answer, the Secretary of the Privy Council Committee merely stating that, "My Lords decline to reply to your inquiries respecting the instructions issued to the Inspectors of the British schools, or to enter into any correspondence with you on the subject." He hoped the House would express an opinion to the effect that, when respectful inquiries were addressed to them for information, the Committee of Privy Council should be more courteous and explicit in their replies. It certainly appeared to him that Parliament had a right to expect that all the information should he laid before them that could enable them to see how the money they voted for educational purposes was expended.

said, there could be no objection to furnish the fullest information with respect to the expenditure of the Privy Council grants for Roman Catholic schools, or to produce any Reports which might be useful for that purpose. But he would request the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) to renew his Motion in a more explicit form, giving a more precise description of the documents which he wished to call for; and if the hon. Member were to bring forward the subject again either to-morrow or on Thursday, the Vice-President of the Committee of the Privy Council for Education (Mr. Lowe) would then be in his place, and would be able to give fuller information than he could pretend to afford. The matter was, no doubt, one which deserved the attention both of that House and of the Government, and he believed the Committee of Council would profit by the observations which had been made in the course of this debate.

could fully bear out the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) as to the reticence of the Privy Council. An inquiry had been made of them respecting these very Reports of Mr. Marshall and Mr. Morrell, and they had refused to give any reply to the question asked. He had come down to the House at great personal inconvenience, being much indisposed, but he would renew the Motion on Thursday.

in moving for copies of the despatches of Mr. Dunlop from Pesth, when acting lately as diplomatic agent of the Government in that locality, said he was anxious to ascertain the policy of the Government with regard to Hungary and Austria. There were several indications of what it was when they were qualifying for the benches which they now adorned when they proclaimed a policy of alliance with France and distrust of Austria, and he was desirous of knowing whether they remained of the same opinion now as then. He thought the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had shown a leaning towards Austria in despatches which he had written. However, on a subsequent occasion, in answering him (Mr. Griffith) the noble Lord said the Government would be perfectly impartial, and that he hoped Hungary would attain whatever liberties were compatible with her adhesion to the Austrian Empire. During the time over which these despatches and questions extended, a gentleman had been sent from our Embassy at Vienna to Pesth, and he was allowed to remain there until the last answer to which he had alluded was given by the noble Lord. Now, the House really had no information of a trustworthy nature as to the proceedings of the Government in the matter, and such information, he believed, could only be obtained from the despatches written from Pesth. He wished to know whether the Government leaned to liberty as against authority, or to authority as against liberty. This information the despatches would help them to obtain. There was no reason in the world why these despatches should not be published—unless, indeed, Government should think that Mr. Dunlop expressed more liberal views towards the Hungarians than they were prepared to adopt. For himself, he must say he thought the Hungarians deserved their best wishes. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of the Despatches of Mr. Dunlop from Pesth, when acting lately as Diplomatic Agent of the Government in that locality."

Sir, I cannot consent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Dunlop was attached to the Embassy at Vienna, and was stationed a certain time at Pesth in order to give the Government confidential reports as to the state of parties, as to the turn of events, as to the character and views of individuals, and a variety of matters very interesting and useful for the Government to know, but which were of that character that it would be quite wrong to make them public, inasmuch as that would entirely prevent any other person employed on such a mission from giving information that would be really useful. It is obvious that a person in a position like that of Mr. Dunlop writes without reserve a confidential despatch to his employers; he enters into many details respecting men and things which it is very useful for the Government to know, but which no man would write if he expected his despatches to be made public, and the parties with regard to whom he expressed opinions would know what those opinions were. Therefore, I am sorry I cannot agree to the production of these papers. With regard to the general observations made by the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that we are quite sensible, as he is, of the great importance of the events now passing between Austria and Hungary. We attach due importance to the maintenance of the Austrian Empire as a great Power in the centre of Europe, holding, I may say, a sort of balance between opposite and conflicting interests; and we should consider it a great misfortune to Europe if that empire were to be dissolved by any internal convulsion which could possibly be prevented. It has not, on the other hand, been deemed by the Govern- ment right or fitting, or their duty, to take any part in the dissensions now unhappily prevailing between the Austrian Government and the people of Hungary. These are matters in which really we see it would do no good to interfere. We do not feel called on even to express any opinion as to which party is in the right and which in the wrong. We confine ourselves to the expression of a fervent hope that these differences will be settled amicably, and in such a manner as shall leave Austria a great, powerful, and prosperous State in the centre of Europe. When the hon. Gentleman says he wishes to know whether we take part with liberty against authority or with authority against liberty, my answer is that we leave liberty and authority to settle their own disputes in Hungary, and that we do not presume to judge which party is in the right and which in the wrong. Whatever opinion we may entertain on the matter, we do not feel it the duty of the Government to express that opinion; nor do we think there would be any utility in expressing it or endeavouring to give it force. I, therefore, have only to say that we hold with regard to the unfortunate dissensions in Hungary the same course we hold in regard to the dissensions on the other side of the Atlantic—namely, a position of entire neutrality, and I should hope that the hon. Member will not press for the production of despatches which could not be given without detriment to the public service.

regretted that the noble Lord had not thought proper to produce the despatches. The noble Lord said they had no right to interfere in the disputes between the Emperor of Austria and the people of Hungary. He (Mr. White) should be very glad if that strict principle of non-intervention had been rigidly adhered to in the foreign policy of this country, but he did not understand that flexible sort of policy which could now advance as a reason for not interfering the principle of non-intervention, when it was intended to support a great power at the expense of a struggling people, and yet did not hesitate at other times to interfere when the assertion of popular rights was supposed to suit the convenience of British interests in other parts of the world. If ever there was a cause in which it was proper to interfere it was that of Hungary, because we had treaty rights with Hungary. There was frequent reference to the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, Degenerate statesmen of Whig principles too often intruded upon their notice that treaty, which had been denounced by Sir James Mackintosh and other distinguished Whig writers in years past. But it was hardly the time to talk of treaties when a people of 15,000,000, making use of the right which was distinctly laid down in their Magna Charta, of taking up arms against their Sovereign, presented the most magnificent of spectacles—that of a people united as one man — all classes combined in upholding what they believed to be their dearest rights and privileges, and resisting usurpation on the part of Austria, The idea of keeping up Austria as a first-rate Power arose from jealousy of France; but if the keeping down of a great people were thought necessary for that object, nothing could be a greater mistake or delusion. The Emperor of the French had succeeded in recognizing that the time had come when the principle of nationalities would dominate, and hence he had been enabled to maintain a constant influence, to the detriment, it might be, of the peace of Europe, but which influence the present Government were aiding and abetting by showing unmistakeably their sympathy for the Austrian cause. He need not allude to the seizure of the arms at Galatz, or to the general tenor of our policy, which had been decidedly hostile to the Hungarian nation, and a most disagreeable contrast to that sympathy which we were wont to lavish upon some other nations. He could not sit down without doing homage to the great Hungarian leader, M. Deak, who, by his strict deference to a constitutional course, had earned for himself and his people the affection and respect of every person who had taken the trouble to investigate the subject.

said, he hoped they might confidently rely upon the observance of the principle of strict neutrality which had been laid down by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and on that ground would not press for the production of the papers referred to in his Motion.

said, this Bill proposed among other statutes to repeal certain revenue Acts, and he wished to direct attention to the fact that this was the first instance in which a measure for the repeal of revenue Acts had originated in the other House of Parliament.

said, the Acts referred to had ceased to be in force.

said, he had an Amendment to propose. The object of the Bill was stated to be the removal of useless and obsolete matter from the statute book; and as in his opinion the Act of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, passed in the year 1851, intituled the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, properly came under this designation, he proposed that it should be included among the obsolete Acts to be removed by this Bill. Amendment proposed, at the end of page 105, to insert "14 & 15 Vict. c. 60 (Ecclesiastical Titles Act); the whole to be repealed."

said, the Bill repealed Acts which had fallen into desuetude, or been by implication virtually repealed; but its main object was to expunge those Acts from the statute book in order to reduce its bulk. With regard to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, some maintained that it was in operation, and had been efficacious for its purpose. [Laughter.] That, no doubt, was a matter upon which opinions were not agreed; but the Motion of the hon. Member partook rather of the nature of a practical joke than a serious proposal. The Ecclesiastical Titles Act was passed so recently that it could not be included in the category of obsolete Acts which should be expunged from the statute hook by this Bill.

wished some of Her Majesty's Ministers would point out that the Ecclesiastical Titles Act had had any practical effect whatever. The Act provided that certain ecclesiastics should not call themselves the Bishops of certain dioceses; but every Roman Catholic believed that Cardinal Wiseman was Archbishop of Westminster, and Dr. Grant Bishop of Southwark, and for the simple reason that those dioceses were created by the very same authority which created the diocese of London, and all the other dioceses of the Anglican Protestant Church, except those established by the Act of Parliament in the reign of Henry VIII. Those two dioceses, together with the dioceses of York and Durham, were created by the Holy See, without any concurrence on the part of the civil power. As the Act never had been and never could he enforced, it could only be considered by any person of common sense as a mere absurdity, which ought at once to be removed from the statute book, and he should, therefore, cordially support the Motion of his hon. Friend.

said, that when Dr. M'Hale, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, was examined before a Select Committee of the House, and was asked who he was, he said, the "Archbishop of Tuam." He was then examined as the Archbishop of Tuam, and his evidence was printed by order of the House as proceeding from one holding that dignity. It was surely a practical joke, after such a proceeding, to insist on keeping this Act upon the statute book.

thought the prohibition in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act was intended to prohibit Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops from taking the title of any See in the Anglican Church. There was no Protestant Archbishop of Tuam.

said, the right hon. Baronet had made two mistakes. There was a Protestant Bishop of Tuam; and, next, the Act prohibited the assumption of titles for any place within the United Kingdom. The Act also referred to Deans, Archdeacons, and minor dignitaries of the Church.

said, if the hon. Gentleman had formed any design to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act it would have been better for him to have directly introduced a Bill for that repeal. If the hon. Gentleman wished to be consistent, why did he not bring in a Bill to repeal the provisions of the Roman Catholic Relief Act? The hon. Gentleman had the example of Sardinia before him, and he had also the example of Roman Catholic France; and he might derive instruction from the course of M. Dupont in the latter country, and of Count Cavour in Italy. It was vain to attempt, by a side-wind like this, to get rid of an important Act of Parliament, and he should certainly vote against its repeal.

renewed his objection to the embodiment, in a Bill sent down from the Lords, of the repeal of revenue regulations, inasmuch as the House of Commons persisted in the right of originating all measures relating to finance. He wished to know whether, if the Bill were passed, a special entry ought not to be made on the Journals of the House containing the reasons for so doing.

said, he believed all the statutes referred to were obsolete Acts, and that under them no duties were at present levied.

said, that in a Bill similar to this the Lords had moved an Amendment having reference to money, and that Amendment, therefore, could not be acceded to by this House. He now moved to bring in this Bill, and he hoped that under the circumstances the House would allow it to be read a first and second time this day. Bill "to exempt the Volunteer Forces of Great Britain from the payment of Tolls," presented, and read 1°.