The Sun. — London, England, 1851-03-28 00:00:00

assurance. G. ,sident of the .vas carveted .ion Bill? ig bad notice lb exaetnesm, Nuns both at le passing of question to- uiro when it ing ins J3►ll lugs banks• een made by , Lich law was this session tilt upon the QUEIZ said state, and little faster to bring the le session• that unless Government ► the subject Le law with tb the object luced to des rAand. RITY OF AlllOl.lO to ask whe ;consider the lobate. gis no means of eh had been topping til l Members °, of deb*te oh the basis end, there ak as freely h those hors 'le that un e repressed beta collets insulting to aken down 41 Hear. IS of of unneces lbate, but be renewed. ND) BILL• intend to add ould state to t. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 28, 1851. Government would not expire till that time. He begged to ' Move as an amendment, to leave out all the words after the word " Committee," fur the purpose of inserting these words —" to consider, first, the subject of steam communications, having for its object a line or lines connecting India, Eng land, aed Australia, and to report to the douse the most fit ting mode in which such communication may be effected, with due care to economy, and with advantage to the public interests; and afterwards, to inquire into the question of the exiting steam communications between England and India, and to report whether any improvements may be made in the conduct of those communications, previous to the grant of a further contract to any company proposing to carry on that line." Mr. AD DERLEY seconded the amendment. Mr. GLADSTONE admitted the importance of the ques tion, but doubted the propriety of departing from the usual course of tying up the hands of the Committee. The Com mittee when they met would be the best judges as to the mode of prcredure, and he should suggest to the Noble Lord whether he had not better withdraw the amendment. Mr. SCOTT hoped that none of the contracts would be excluded from the consideration of the Committee. Mr. MACGREGOR regretted thet some measure had not been introduced by the Government on the suhject. Af.er what had occurred there was some chance of the American Gov rnment taking up the question of steam communica tion with Australia, but he would rather see our own Go vernment taking up the matter. Mr. HUME thought that more attention ought to be given to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford. He would advise the Noble Lord not to press his amendment. Mr. ANDERSON said it was with reluctance he took any part in the debate, as he had in some respects a personal interest in the matter. As a director of the Peninsular and Oriental Company he felt he should not be doing bis duty if he allowed the statement of the Noble Lord who introduced the question to pass uncontradicted. The Noble Lord had read a letter from the Bengal Chamber of Commerce as to the irregularity and accommodation of the company's steamers. To that letter an answer had been sent contain ing a very satisfactory contradiction. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought they were all agreed that a Committee should be appointed. He could not admit that he was bound to enter into a contract totally irrespective of the expense. His duty was to obtain the best and cheapest communication. Since last year he had called for tenders for a part of the service, but not one of them was worth the acceptance of the Government. He agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member fer Ox ford that there was no necessity for the amendment, as it would be in the power of the Committee to take first what portion of the question they pleased. It was impossible, he thought, in considering this question, to separate one part of the communication from another. The whole line must be considered, and therefore the amendment would actually paralyse the inquiry of the Committee, for it would exclude that which was of great importance to the Australian colo nies—the consideration of establishing communication be tween them and India and China. He should therefore ad vise the Noble Lord to withdraw the motion, and should suggest that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject of steam communication between India and China, and also as to the best mode of facilitating steam communication with the Australian colonies. Viscount JOCELYN thought the suggestion would meet his views. He agreed it would be unwise to fetter the Com mittee. Mr. CARDWELL suggested whether it would not be better to add words to the motion, so as to include all our colonies and commercial stations at the Antipodes. He thought if that Committee was appointed there should be an order made against refusing to examine anybody. It would be of moment to insert words which would include the Mau ritius, and all the other colonies approached by our eastern states. Mr HUME did not entirely approve of the latter sugges move that the House should then resolve itself into the pro posed Committee. The motion was then amended by the substitution of the word " to-morrow," instead of the word " now," as the pe riod for the proposed Committee. Mr. MOFFAT seconded the motion. He could confirm all that had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman as to the unfair mode in which those duties were imposed in Spain. But he complained more particularly of the ope•ation of the system in the case of the trade between Newfoundland and that country. By the alteration of the Spanish tariff. in 1849, the duty on silt fish imported into Spain had been very considerably raised, and especially on salt fish imported in British vessels. And let it be remembered that salt fish was one of the main articles of our commerce with Spain, There was a distinct infraction of our treaties with that country, by the preference which she gave to French over British vessels. French vessels could at present carry coals from one Spanish port to another, while that privilege was wholly denied to our vessels. In all the commercial treaties between Great Britain and Spain, it had been expressly pro vided that we should enjoy equal privileges with the subjects of any other country. That stipulation had, however, been wholly disregarded. Ile believed there would be some difficulty in the way of the adoption of that resolution. It might be said that we were bound to treat Spain in con formity with what was known as " the most favoured nation clause." But we had for centuries been entering into treaties of commerce and of amity with & s lain ; and as these treaties had constantly been violated, it became a questi n whether it would not be wise on our parts to throw over all our treaties with that country, and act towards her exactly as we might think fit and pro per at the moment. No nation in the world had shown the same arrogant disregard of justice which Spain had shown, and he thought they ought to fight such a nation with weapons suitable to her own mode of warfare. If Spain were resolved not to come to any fair understanding with England, it might be alike the duty and the policy of England to force her to it. He feared that we had but little chance of obtaining justice from Spain with the present con dition of her Government by amicable means. But if that Government were to find that we would not, import sugar from the Havannah, or wines from Malaga, without the payment of a much higher duty than that at present exacted, we should, he believed, find them clamorous for an equitable statement of the commercial policy of the two countries.—(Hear.) Mr. LABOUCHERE said that both his Hon. Friends had very accurately stated the facts of the case. The question might be divided into two distinct portions. Spain was at present levying, and had for a long period levied, differential duties of a very onerous description on goods exported from, or imported into, her harbours in foreign or in Spanish ves sels. It should, however, be admitted, that in the year 1849 Spain had decreased the amount of those oifferential duties on the greater portion of commodities. These duties had amounted previously to that year to about 33 per cent., and had then been reduced to about 20 per cent. The levying of these differential duties was the first ground of complaint we had against Spain. Our second ground of complaint was of a totally different description. It was that Spain, in certain respects, treated the shipowners of this country not only less favourably than her own subjects, but less favourably than the shipowners of other foreign nations, and more especially those of France. His Hon. Friend ( Mr. Anderson) had truly said that we had entered into repeated treaties with Spain, which laid down in express language the obligation that she should deal towards us on the terms of the most fa voured nation. Now we certainly had a right to complain of the conduct of Spain in contravening that stipulation. Under the second head of complaint to which he had adverted, he believed that the most important item con sisted in the fact that higher harbour dues were levied in the ports of Spain on British vessels than on French vessels. Complaints had some time ago been made to the. Spanish Government upon this subject, and that Government had professed its willingness to set the matter right. But, in point of fact, the only way in which that could be done con sistently with the law of this country would be by the Spa nish Government entering into a convention with us, upon which an order in council might be issued empowering the Lords of the Treasury to repay the duties on Spanish ves sels entering our harbours. The French Government pro fessed itself willing to adopt the proposed principle, but stated that they did not wish to proceed by way of convention, which might fetter their independent action. They said that if we were to adopt the practice in question without any convention, they would imitate our example. Now it ap peared to him that was an unfriendly mode of proceeding, and a mere quibble and pretext to evade a compliance with a just and reasonable demand. His Noble Friend the Secre tary for Foreign Affairs had very recently renewed his re monstrances with the Spanish Government upon that sub ject, and he (Mr. Labouchere) had every reason to hope that those remonstrances would prove effectual. But if that hope should not be realised, it appeared to him that the best course which her Majesty's Government could pursue would be to come down to that House and ask for powers to effect that arrangement for mutual concessions on the part of Spain and of England, without the necessity of any previous con vention. With regard to the greater question, namely, the manner in which Spain treated not only English vessels, but also all other foreign vessels, he should observe that no one could feel more strongly than he did the great injury which it inflicted on the trade and commerce of this country. But he felt convinced that any person who had listened to the statement of his Honourable Friend who had introduced that motion, must see that it was against Spain herself that that restrictive policy operated most prejudicially. His Ho nourable Friend had told them that the Spanish mercantile marine, which that policy had been meant to foster, was reduced to a most helpless and inefficient condition - (Hear, hear.) Now he should say, that that was no great encou• ragement to this country to revert to anything like a restric tive system---(Hear, hear).-with a view of protecting our shipping interest. He should also remind Hon. Gentlemen that that burden on our commerce had been of long standing, and had not dated from the repeal of our navigation-laws; and neither had it been greatly aggravated by that measure. It was quite true that by the repeal of the navigation laws we had thrown open what had been cello 1 the general carry ing trade of the world to Spain as well as to other foreign nations. But he believed that no one would contend that we had any reason to look upon Spain as a formidable competitor ie that trade. Oa the contrary, it was a remarkable fact that no nation which had adopted the protective and restrictive sys tem of navigation was to be feared in that great branch of com merce. Which were the nations that enjoyed the largest share of the carrying trade of the world, and that possessed the greatest mercantile navies? Why, they were the United States, the Baltic powers, and England-the countries, in fact, that had shown the least disposition to dread the com petition of foreigners. But he did not on that account say that it would not be most desirable for this country to obtain a repeal of the differential duties to which his Hon. Friend had called their attention. All he would say on that occasion was that that question had not been lost sight of by his Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and by her Majesty's Government. They were at the present moment in active correspondence with the Spanish Government upon the sub ject. The diplomatic negotiations with respect to it had nst yet been brought to a close ; and he trusted that the House would not then interfere in the matter by coming to any vote upon a point which, in his opinion. it would be better to leave in the hands of her Majesty's Ministers. He be lieved that the debate which was then taking place, and the expression of feeling in the British House of Commons that the trade between Great Britain and Spain ought to be conducted on a more just and liberal system, would not be lost on the Spanish Government. It was not, therefore, with any doubt of the importance of that subject, and still less with any disposition not to promote the objects which the Hon. Gentlemen had in view, that be ventured to express a hope that the House would not think it necessary to come to any formal vote upon that occasion. -(Hear, hear.) Alderman THOMPSON said, it appeared to him that that case might be met by a clause in the existing Navi gation Act. That Act gave her Majesty in Come it a retalia. wry power against those foreign countries which did not re ciprocate our mode of dealing with the shipping interest. It was well known that our policy bad not been reciprocated by Spain, and that English vessels trading with Spain did nut enjoy the same advantages which were enjoyed by Spanish vessels trading with this country. If the Act were allowed tion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEqUER considered the words which he had used were sufficiently large to in chide every route that might be adopted.—(Hear.) Sir T. ACLAND wished to know whether the words were large enough to include a matter in which the constituents of the Hon. Member for Liverpool were deeply interested— he meant the point of final departure. The Hon. Baronet went into a detail of the mail arrangements between the north-west of England and London and Southampton, and contended that it was of great importance to all parties to save seven or right hours in the transmission of letters. Sir F. T. BARING said, that it would be throwing upon the Committee a matter which would much delay their report. A Commission had been already appointed, which would do all that was necessary upon the subject. Mr. ADDERLEY said they were by . no means agreed as to the manner in which that inquiry was to be con ducted. They migh agree that it was important and useful to the colonies generally to enter upon such an inquiry, and to know how best the communication with the whole of -the world should be carried on ; but whether Australia' was to be included at the fag-end or appen dix of that inquiry was quite another matter. wpo asked for that inquiry? Certainly not the colony. It was the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite alone (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), who wanted to get himself out of a diffi cult scrape.—(Order, Oh, oh.) The point upon which they could not agree was that Australia should be put at the fag-end of the inquiry, and he would therefore ask the Noble Member for King's Lynn to give them the assurance that it would be taken first and not last. He would suggest to the Noble Lord the Member for Kildare (Lord Naas) not to press his amendment. Mr. DIVETT said it would be utterly impossible to do justice to the Australian colonies on that matter without a full and complete inquiry. He knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer was most anxious to secure a proper communi cation between this country and the colonies, and would have succeeded before now but for the opposition of the East India Company. The route from Singapore to the S.van River had been overlooked, but it possessed great advan tages, though not yet fully approved of by the people of Syd ney. He conceived the attack made by the Hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) on the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir C. Wood) was extremely unjust and uncalled for.—(Hear, hear.) Lord JOCELYN said he could not give any assurance to the Hon. Member for Staffordshire; but he thought the at tack made on the Chance llor of the Exchequer most uncalled for. It was he (Lord Jocelyn) who had moved for the Com mittee, and he had no communication with the Right Hon. Baronet until within the last two or three days. He was fully convinced that Australia formed a most important portion of the proposed inquiry, but yet he could not agree to the pro. position of the Hon. Member, Lord NAAS would not divide the House on his amend ment. Mr. PRINSEP feared, if all the matters suggested were in quired into, the investigation would last a very long time. Mr. AGLIONBY said all were equally interested in pro curing the best possible communication between this country and India, and our most distant colonies. In conclusion he proposed that the words " New Zealand" should be added to the proposed amendment. Lord JOCELYN said that place was included in the Panama route. Mr. AGLIONBY wished the words he proposed to be in serted. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—He had given no notice of that C o mmittee,neither had he put Australia at the fag-end of the inquiry. —(Elear, hear. ) Whatever opinion he might entertain, the question did not rest with him. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the Hon. Member for Statibrdshire he had deue more injury to the communication than any one else. After a sh , ,rt discussion Mr. Aglionby's words were in serted in the resolution, and the whole agreed to without a division. SPANISH DUTIES ON BRITISH SHIPPING. Mr. ANDERSON then rose to move " That, with a view to the just protection of British navigation and commerce, it is expedient that under the provisions of the Act 12th and 13th Viet., c. 29, such additional duties should be levied in the ports of the British empire upon goods imported or ex ported in Spanish ships, and on the tonnage of such ships, as may serve to countervail the difiereatial duties on goods and tonnage levied in the ports of Spain and her dependencies on British ships." Mr. HUME (interrupting the Hon. Member) sa id he wished to save his Hon. Friends some trouble. If that was a motion to take into consideration matters connected with trade and commerce, was he not obliged to have the sanction to remain inoperative in that instance, then he said tha such an example might work very prejudicially; for what security could they hive that other countries would not imitate the conduct of Spain? They all knew that the Dutch Government also imposed, in certain instances, diffe rential duties, to the disadvantage of the British shipowner. In the island of Java British vessels landing cargoes were suisjeeted to double the amount of duties imposed on Dutch vessels. Remonstrances in such cases might be all very well ; but when remonstrances were carried beyond a given point they became totally worthless. gr. HUME said it appeared that our trade with Spain was in a very unsatisfactory state. No country in Europe owed so much to us as Spain, and he saw with regret that she had shown but little gratitude for the obligation. lie should certainly like to see the correspondence which had passed between her Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain upon that subject. He believed that its pubhi cation might have some influence in shaming Spain into fair dealing with this country. He was no advocate of retaliation ; and if Spain chose to pay '25 per cent. more for articles of which she stood in need than was necessary, let her do so. They had had one or two instances which showed i he folly of retaliation, and he should be very sorry jeepeetatfeerd;arHd,e athhdanekheedultdheheHgone.d6ithemhbeaerr for bringing the things red. to see such b from the Noble Lor d, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs what steps had been t a ken in the matter, for he did not e titled to some of Trade quite satisfactory. They wer e h o think the statement o f the Hon. President of te Board thing more. to a division, after what had fallen from the Presi dent of the Mr. M. GIBSON urged t he Hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Anderson) not to press h is motion retalaton, but he The Hon. Alderman opposite counselled ii Board of Trade. begged to a- k him whether, even if bared after what exercising he thought retaliation, for would be good policy, the time ha d comeg it towards Spain? This country had bee n pursuing a protective policy for many years, and let it be remem a struggle a free-trade policy was at th carried. How then could they expect other Powers a t once to alter leng their views and adopt our commercial arrangements Our old navigation laws gave certain privileges to the golds nd her colo of foreign nations which were imported in the ships of those nations both with respect to this country lonies. That privilege, however,actuallyil in 1828 from Spain for 20 years, and an order in Council d to carry declared that Spanish vessels should not be allow s _ ons was a withheld on a direct trade bete/ten Spain and the British posses abroad. What was the effect? A struggle with SPa." l 9 which certainly was not calculated to make her less restric tive in her commercial arrangements or more liberal towards this country; on the con tr a r y , it appeared tha t it was only since we had adopted a f re e- trade policy that sh e had made any advance in the direction of free trade. It would be most unfortunate if they were at that moment to counte nance the idea that any considerable party in the country was inclined to carry out the policy his Hon. Friend recom mended. He might also mention, that, having been among the Honourable Gentleman's constituents in Shetland during the last autumn, he got certain information which led him to doubt whether those constituents would approve of his proposal; for if they found it difficult to find a market for their fish now, in consequence of the duties imposed by Spain, what would be their condition if they were deprived of ex porting it in Spanish ships? Viscount PALMERSTON quite agreed that the question brought forward by his Hon. Friend the Member for Orkney was one of very considerable importance to a large portion of the community. He also admitted that we had good cause of complaint against the Spanish Government for the course which they had pursued— a complaint, however. which ap plied more to a long course of prejudice with regard to commercial matters, rather than to any recent disposition on the part of Spain to pursue an unfriendly course against the commerce of this country. In fact, as his Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had stated, latterly the Spanish Government had rather relaxed than increased the restrictions in its tariff. It was well known that both Spain and Portugal were very far behind many other countries of the world with regard to the principles of commercial policy.—(Hear, hear.) But Spain had begun to move.— (Hear, hear.) They could not, however, e,xpect her to move much more quickly than the captain whom they had heard described, who waited to see whether the wind would blow steady for some days; and he only hoped they would not delay following the example of Great Britain as long as their captain who watched the weathercock in Ditlll3- of a Minister? The SPEAKER said, if the motion made was intended to conclude with leave to bring in a Bill, then the Hon. Mem ber for Montrose might be right, but as it was, the Hen. Member was in order.— (Hear.) Mr. M. GIBSON said, if an increas 3 of taxation was pro posed, ought not such to have the sanction of the Minister? The SPEAKER said it might be moved in a Committee of the whole House; the object of the present motion, however, was different. Mr. ANDERSON then proceeded with his motion. It might be necessary that he should, in the first place, ex plain the meaning of the term differential duties. They m e ant duties not impose d for the p urposes of revenue, but to give one country a m ono p ol y in the shipping trade over every other. In that respect Spain bad a greater monopoly than any other country in the world, and its conduct to wards our shipping bad become a great practical grievance. The Honourable Memer then referred to and read some extracts from the p b etition which he had presented, com plaining of the great extent of the impost levied in Spanish ports upon British ships. He would then proceed to con trast the treatment which British ships received in Spanish ports with that which Spanish ships received in British ports. In one place the differential duties were one-third more. In Cuba the import duties on British vessels were from 21 to 30 per cent., while on Spanish vessels they only ameunted to from 17 to 21 per cent., and the export duties were on British ships 4 1 / 2 per cent., while on Spanish ships they were only 2 1 ,4 per cent. Under that highly pro tective system the Spanish ships were notoriously among the most deficient in the world. He had himself known an instance in which a Spanish vessel and an English vessel had entered the port of Ramsgate together; but as Spanish vessels not only did not proceed to sea in unfavourable weather, but were kept waiting for several days even in fine weather, for the purpose of ascertaining that that weather was fixed, the English vessel went to Bilboa, and on her return found the Spanish vessel still in the harbour of Ramsgate. He had himself employed a Spanish ship to carry salt fish from the Shetland Islands to Bilboa, and she had been three months on the voyage—just about the time that a good English vessel would spend on the passage to Calcutta.— (Hear, hear.) The shipowners of this country were com pelled to submit to these differential duties, although we had admitted Spanish vessels into our ports on the same terms as those of other nations. In the Navigation Act of last ses sion there were provisions calculated, in his opinion, to meet that grievanc e. B y the 10th and 11th clauses of thati Act it was provided, that if British vessels were subjected in any foreign country to prohibitions or restrictions, it should be lawful for hPr Majesty, by an order in council, to impose in return such restrictions as her Majesty might deem fit on the ships of that foreign country entering our harbours; and that, if any . partiality were shown in a foreign country against oritish vessels, it should be lawful for her Majesty by an order in council, to impose in British ports countervailing disadvantages on the ships of that country. We had several treaties with Spain, of which the oldest, he believed, was that of the year 1653, providing that our vessels should enjoy, in the Spanish ports as extensive privileges, liberties, and immunities as the vessels of any o th er country whatever. Now Spain had violated those treaties. She had g i ve n to French vessels the privilege sod of carrying on the coasti n g trade of Spain, while she had refu The tariff of Spain had the same privilege to our shipe in g• lat e ly been changed, and the differential duties against our - shipping had b en increased ; and the result of that had been a great falling off in the amount of British tonnage, at the Port of Alicante among others. He, as a British ship owner, wasp erfectly ready to run the risk of the conse quences of a repeal of our navigation laws, and he had given his support to that measure in opposition to the opinion of the great majority of the m embers of his own, class. But while he was ready, as a British ship owner, to run the risk of competition with the foreigner, he asked for fair play, and that he might be subjected to no unjust obstruction. The Hon. Member concluded by so amending his motion, that it proposed that the House should resolve itself into a Selec t Com mittee , for the purpe considering the subject he had brought under their notice. The SPE AKER paid that the 911. Mater could het gate harbour while the English captain went to Bilboa and back.—(ll , :ar, hear, and a laugh.) He believed that about 20,000 of the most active, strong. and useful parts of the po pulation in Spain were employed as customhouse officers, and as many more as smugglers in defeating their labours; the whole 40,000 being thus engaged in preventing the revenue from coming into the treasury. He could assure the House that this was not the only impression on his own mind, but was f•>rcibly felt latterly by the Government of Port u g al ; for whea the Spanish Government were recently about to alter their tariff the Government of Portugal were apprehensive that they would lose a very con iderable portion of the re venue which they derived from goods which came through Portugal paying duty, and thence were smuggled into Spain duty free, which was thought a more profitable method of supplying the Spanish consumer than paying high duties at the Spanish custom-house. The Spanish Government, how ever, still persevered, and he trusted the result might be not only to lower the Spanish tariff, but to induce Portugal, by way of retaliation, to lower her tariff also. At all events, the Z'panish Government was looking in the right direction, if it had not made much progress. He assured the House that the Government ha't been, and was still, engaged in urging the Spanish Government upon those particular points to which his Lion. Friend had directed their attention. It would not be expected that he should cmiply entirely with the request of the Hon. Member for Montrose, by detailing all the argument used by the Government, and all the re plies of the Spanish Government in return. The former might, perhaps, be useful as a lesson in politic al g overnment, but the latter, he: feared, would not be found very instructive. Seriously speaking, be assured the House that the Govern ment were urging this in the manLer and to the extent which they thought most likely to accomplish the purpose in view, and he should very much regret to see his Hon ur able Friend press his motion to a division, because he thought such a resolution on the part of the House would be prejudi cial to the interests he had in view. There were two main and distinct questions involved—one, the 20 per cent. dis criminating duty levied upon this country in common with all other nations, and in regard to which we stood upon the footing of the most favoured—or rather the most unfavourel nations (Hear, hear, and laughter)—and with respect to which we must deal with the Spanish Government on general principles; the other, a point of less importance, though certainly a greater grievance, namely, the preference given to French vessels over British in Spanish ports. With regard to that, the only question was the method of doing it, and where both parties were agreed upon a common object, they could not long differ as to the particular mode by which they should carry their mutual design into execution. He, therefore, begged his Hon. Friend to be content with the effect which, no doubt, this discussion must have upon the Spanish Govern ment in convincing them, on the one hand, that the British Parliament felt these grievances, and, on the other, that they were disposed to meet Spain on the most liberal and enlarged principles in regard to commercial arrange ments.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BANKES said the Noble Lord had, as usual, made a very amusing speech ; but the greater part of it had been very wide of the very narrow question before them, which was whether the proviso contained in the Act for the repeal of the navigation-laws, was not intended to meet a case like this? Surely, if they had a right to exercise it against any nation, they might justly put it in force against Spain, from which, as the Noble Lord had told them, they had suffered a long series of injuries. It would not be difficult to name some of recent occurrence, such as the dismissal of our Am bassador and the repudiation of the debt—the former the greatest disgrace which had been inflicted on this nation. He was by no means satisfied with the assurance of the Noble Viscount that he had the matter under consideration, especially as he had not condescended to give them so much as an outline of the negotiations.—(Hear, hear.) He would certainly resist the withdrawal of the moti^n. He did not be lieve in the effect of a discussion in that House upon the Spanish Government. He doubted whether they ever read our newspapers. Give them an order in Council, and then, and only then, they would understand what was meant. For these reasons he would give his hearty support to the ham at the same time stated that there had been a great in crease in the number of petitions, and that they had increased from 1,487 in 1823 to 2,817 in 1832. In looking at the late returns from 1841 to 1851, he found that in the year ending November, 1813, the number of petitions was 2,715, being nearly the same number as there were in 1832. But in 1819 they had increased to 3,984, and in 1850 to 3,721; showing a great increase over former years. On looking at the other return—ho did not wish to go into detail—he found the total of the matters which had been brought into the Court of Chancery under various heads, which were known to every lawyer, to be— In 1842 ... 7,325 1813 ••• ... 6,873 1844 ... ..• ... 7,635 giving an average of 7,278. He found further that the re turns for three years subsequent were -1848 ... ... • . ... 8,33 1849 ... 8,697 1850 ... 8,356 giving an average of 8,461, which proved the increase of business in the Court of Chancery as regarded the two pe riods. Upon looking through these returns in detail he perceived that the Court of Chancery in 1818 seemed fully adequate to the functions it was called upon to perform; that the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the three Vice-Chancellors, were quite adequate to the business, and that the number of cases in arrear on the last day of the last terra of that period was not more than would probably be disposed of in the course of the next ensuing term—cer tainly not more than had existed forseveral years previously. But, upon looking through the returns for the year 1849-50, one might observe how essential it was that the Lord Chan cellor should not alone have an adequate number of judges to assist him, but that he and they should be in the full and entire possession of their health, strength, and intel lect. Ile (Lord J. Russell) found by these returns that, in the Easter term as 1849, and in the other term which fol lowed it, during which the Lord Chancellor had not been able to attend his court from illness, a considerable arrear had arisen, and that the number of cases to be heard was very much greater than in the preceding terms. He (Lord J. Russell) would, however, now refer only to the quantity of business before the judges of the Court of Chancery on the first day of Michaelmas Term,lBso, and the first day of Hilary Term in 1851. At that time there were only two Vice-Chancellors, the Act for the appointment of two additional Vice-Chancellers having made no provision for the appointment of a third. He found in these two terms that the cases set down before the judges of the Chancery courts, viz. :—motions, pleas, demurrers, &c.— were— Lord Chancellor ... Master of the Ro'ls... Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce ... Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth .. ... 219 90 290 173 While motion.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. CARDWELL thought the House much indebted to the Hon. Gentleman for bringing the subject before them, and giving them an opportunity of showing that the House of Commons was not asleep. The motion, however, if car ried, would take out of the hands of the Noble Lord the negotiations in which he had told them he was now en gaged ; and the question, therefore, was simply this, whe ther they believed they were more likely to carry their object by strengthening the hands of the Noble Lord in using the powers with which they had entrusted him ; or step in, and take the duty on themselves. The Hon. Mem ber for Dorsetahire had referred to the conduct of Spain in sending away our Minister and refusing to pay her debt; but he hoped they would abstain fro m mixing up ancient grudges with a question the importance of which they all felt so anxiously. It certainly would be most unfortu nate if the Spanish Government should see that, on such a question, they had not given a unanimous, but a divided vote.— (Hear, hear.) Let it rather go forth that the Go vernment was determinel, and the House of Commons unanimous. Mr. WAWN supported the motion. The question was whether the British shipowner was to be left to suffer an in tolerable grievance. He taxed the Right Hon. Member for Manchester with indifference to the interests of the ship owner, who could not enter any port he pleased, like the Right Hon. Member in his yacht. Mr. RICARDO could not imagine how any one could have contemplated the possibility of changing the whole commercial policy of the country by means of the clause in question. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire advocated re taliation; but if we took that step would it stop there? Would they not retaliate upon us? He could not under stand how the Honourable Member for Orkney proposed to increase the trade of his constituents by laying a tax upon it.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HILDYARD said if the clause that had been intro duced into the Bill for the repeal of the navigation-laws was not sufficient for its purpose, he should be glad to know how it was that the Bill had passed. It could only be upon the House having reposed faith in the promises of the Government, that if foreign nations did not reciprocate they would carry out the clause. He would give them the statistics of their trade with Spain in the years immediately preceding and following the repeal of the navigation-laws. It appeared that in the year ending the sth of January, 1850, the number of vessels entered in wards from Spaia was 117, with a tonnage of 17,842 tons. In the year succeeding the repeal - the number was 150. and the tonnage was 23.742 tons. He asked, was the clause adopted in good faith or not? That was a question they should insist on having answered.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. MITCHELL said his constituents were very deeply interested in this question, and they found their trade very much injured by these Spanish ships. He entirely concurred in the opinion of the Hon. Member for Liverpool, that the question should be left in the hands •f the Noble Lsrd the Foreign Secretary. Mr. NEWDEGATE said the motion did not call upon the Hon. Gentleman who had last spoken to violate his consis tency—it merely asked him to strengthen the Government in carrying out the provisions of a measure which he had been instrumental in passing. Notwithstanding the asser tion of the Hon. Member for Montrose, he believed that in the repeal of the navigation-laws the Americans had obtained by far the best of the bargain. Lord J. RUSSELL would not at that moment enter upon the general question of the navigation-laws, but wished to say a few words as to the circumstances in which they were placed with regard to Spain. When the question of the navigation-laws was discussed he thought it would be found that the result was more favourable than the lion. Gentleman imagined for the adoption of a more liberal commercial policy. He admi ted that there were a few exceptions. but they were not nations of great maritime importance. What ever advantages America had derived from that change, they had derived greater advantages still. He was not sorry that the United States had derived these advantages, and hoped both countries would find beneficial results in the repeal of these laws. The Hon. Member for Wbitehaven said they must no longer listen to trifling negotiations; but if that were to be so the proper course would he to call for all the dispatches and treaties with Spain, and thus anticipate the pending negotiations. They might have all the papers before them, and form their own opinion upon a review of the whole question; but to come to a conclusion without knowing what representations had been made, what answers had eibaprsaijymtotml Lords, tlndhoolaatgrdemosi twelve . i , , v e been given, or what was the state of the engagements be tween the two countries, was a step which it would be most imprudent to take. It was one which could hardly be taken with any consistency, as the House might expose itself to this, that the Crown would be unable to comply with its re solution. Mr. ANDER' ON replied, observing that he was content to leave the question in the hands of the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), and would withdraw his motion. Mr. BANKES and other Hon. Members objected to the withdrawal of his motion, and The House divided, when there appeared— For the motion •• • Agrainst it ... • -- Majority against the motion COURT OF CHANCERY. Lord J. RUSSELL then rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better administration of justice in the Court of Chancery. The subject was one of the greatest import ance, and if this proposal concerned merely the administra tion of justice, he should be disposed to ask those who were more familiar with the proceedings in courts of justice to un dertake the task he now proposed to perform ; bat, feeling that the office of Lord Chancellor and all connected with his high functions, deeply affected the whole of the Government and the Legislature of that country, he had undertaken the task, thinking it beater that the whole views of the Govern ment should be stated, than that those views should be con. fined to the present distribution of offices in the courts oo industry found so justice. lathatba on rt diho l eul h n rewsdtauLaer b i atsnnor that d i ierhfn n adostuaa g ghsutttit i netia se n hiodsrn g hefeunaeabt ittht t elci h h ilpatocoehtae e ounfr ftueoHrge q trlotniodm u rniotuomi question perform eweaee t eet d i proanit o n before he should first state the changes that had been made since the year 1812, when the Bill for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor r l nesseod n : iginrwttdpEht l aerwto B oni rehßdseaf l dmeeoes l wandekd i crejny t uiowsuto w dtnisdiweease s a griei 1 nne- s e itdci subse quently un o e ti g r nta c e vhn d t eehcd Vice- Chancellor. brought with 0. si Committeeut impossiblellgrto arrear of 276 causes, which would years to dispose of, not taking into account the other cases that would be accumulating. It was, therefore, decided that a new judge should be appointed, under the title of Vice- Chancellor, to perform a part of the duties of the Lord Chan cellor. It was said at the time by no less a man than Sir S imuel Romilly that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor was not necessary, and that the business then before the Court of Chancery was not greater in amount than it was in the time of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. Lord Cottenham, however, in 1836, when making his statement in favour of the Chancery Bill, said Sir Samuel Romilly was mistaken in that, for the business was greater than in the time of Lord Hardwicke. He thought, however, that there was a great foundation for the statement made by Sir Samuel Rornilly, for he found in the report cited by Lord Cottenham, that while in 1761 to 1765 the cases averaged 411, they had in creased from 1831 to 1835 to 1,283, or more than three times the number; and he stated at the same time that from 1810 to 1812 there were not more than 540. It was clear, therefore, that there had been an enormous increase consequent upon the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, and that at the time of the appointment a great number of cases were waiting to be heard in the Court of Chancery. But he imagined the fact to have been that delays prevailed at that time in the Court of Chancery, and the indifference of the judges alone was the cause that various matters m th a a t t te: ,a w y h in ic j h us c t o ic u e ld w h a a s v d e o c n o e m to e before the Court, if there was a prospect of an early settle ment,, n h e e n suitors.t.,numbervl er f e e withheld , l u i s eeaw foun d that ; from 1 1 8 8 2 1 2 0 t r o . o 1812 the e average v e ra ge number was 840 ; from 1833 to 1835 the average number was 1,301. It was thus evident that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor had led to a great increase of business, and causes that would probably. n ever appear in the Court of Chan cery were brought there in consequence of the additional judge. He thought it was nearly the same thing whether the ae c i n d e u d m o b w e r t o o g f c t causes e a b rr r e o a u i g ., l o it r, i into t h t e h re the courtc auses cou I I d v e n r e o t n b o e t brought in through despair of their being able to get them heard. In either case the evil was the same, and amounted to a denial ofjustico to the !suitor. Lord Cotten- .. 53 ... 98 .. -45 Giving a total of ... 772 on the first day of Hilary Term, 1851, they were— Lord Chancellor ... 106 Master of the Rolls Vice-Chancellor Knight Brace ... 532 Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth ... 242 legal gentlemen, but should also express the sense of the legislative body, composed as he had said it was. But a great advantage was hoped from the supervision of the language of Bills. He, however, did not, for Hs own part, perceive that the greatest lawyers with the largest views were always more competent to carry out these views in a Bill than those learned persons who spe cially devoted their time to the framing of laws, and who were practically engaged in the construction of? the Acts that passed both Houses. So that, probably, it would be found that the Minister of Justice would himself, instead of framing and amending Bills, revert to such men as Mr. Gregson, who had assisted him (Lord John Russell) in the Reform Bills, or Mr. Colson who assisted his Right Honourable Friend the Home Secretary, as at present, for their valuable services in the matter. He should be afraid, therefore, if this plan were adopted they would be parting with that which had, he thought. been a great ad vantage to the country, an advantage which it had possessed ever since the Revolution, of having belonging to the Execu tive Government, and at the same time presiding in the House of Lords, a man of the most eminent legal abilities, chosen from among those who had achieved the greatest suc cess at the bar. He thought that the Executive Govern ment would sink the weight of their authority by such an arrangement, whilst their judicial machinery would not re ceive any equivalent gain. He could not, therefore, advise the House to adopt this plan, though so ably recommended, of a division into three of the office of Lord Chancellor. There was another plan which had been much considered, which did not go the length of that which he had been con sidering, but was at the same time a very considerable alteration—he meant the plan of giving a per manent judge to the Court of Chancery, of sepa rating the Lord Chancellor altogether from any duties in the Court of Caaneery, but preserving him with the office and name of Lord Chancellor rather as the appellate judge in the Howe of Lords. He owned he thought that plan had very great advantages over the one he had just noticed. It preserved to the Executive Government a per son of great authority and weight in legal matters ; but he must say that on consulting the debate which took place upon the subject, and observing the clear and able statement of Lord Lyndhurst, and referring to the authories which that Noble and Learned Lord quoted—Sir Samuel Romillv, Lord Redesdale, and others—on consulting also with those whom be thought had the best opinions upon the subject he found that there had been a very general, if not nearly a unanimous opinion in the profession of the law, that a judge who sat merely in the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords would not have the weight and authority, and would not be so capable of acting as a judge, as one who sat in the daily practice of a court where matters were continually occurring to call for the exercise of his office. That opinion he found stated over and over again in the discussions which took place in 1836. And, notwithstand ing the arguments of Lord Cottenham on the plan then proposed, the House of Lords decided by 94 to 29 against it. There had been other schemes proposed upon this subject, and none, perhaps, more deserving of attention, on account of the authority, and the learning, and the eminence of the person from whom it emanated, than that of Sir Edward Sugden. Now, Sir Edward Sugden's plan contemplated an immediate court of appeal, which was to Total . . ... ... .... 1,016 be formed of separate judges , who were to be chiefly , he The accumulation of business in the latter period was very believed, the Vice-Chancellors. The objection made to that much owing, no doubt, to certain Acts of Parliament re- plan, and it seemed to him (Lord J. Russell) to be an objec cently passed, among others the Winding - up Acts ; and no lion which was fatal to it, was, that by depriving the several doubt much of it was therefore temporary, and of a nature that Courts of Chancery of their chiefs, in order to form this the judicial strength of the Court , increased by the appoint - court of appeal, they paralysed the action of those courts, ment of another Vice-Chancellor , the Bill for which was and that the time which these judges ought to be able to before the House, would reduce. It was not, consequently, give in their respective courts to the cases brought before to that subject that he wished to point attention • but he them there, would be thus consumed in the a pp eal court.— considered it to be very desirable that the House should ' see (Hear, hear.) At the same time there was a statement of generally the state and progress of the judicial business of Sir Edward Sugden made before the Committee upon Judicial the Court of Chancery, and judge by the agency of facts of Salaries, which was well worthy of attention, because he the very great importance that attached to any change in himself was stating his own experience as Lord Chancellor the constitution of that court. The progress of society in of Ireland—and he (Lord J. Russell) , believed that no man these days, and the complicated state of the property of the had ever presided in the Court of Chancery in Ireland with country, had led more and more to the concentration within greater reputation and authority than that Hon. and Learned the circle of that court of a vast deal of property ; making it, Ge' ntleman.—(Hear.) If any man had a right to be con therefore, a matter of the greatest importance to the nation fident in his own opinion, and to feel that by his learn at large that there should be justice in that court.—( Hear hear.) He next came to the nature of the office of Lord ing and acuteness of mind he was likely to be right in his Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor, who was tit the head of decision, Sir Edward Sugden was that man. — (Hear , [The Noble Lord here read an e xtract from the evidencehear.) of that great court, had other most important functions to Sir E. Sugden before the Committee on judicial salaries, in erform also. In the first place he was at the head which that Learned Gentleman stated that he considered the of the Court of Chancery, and, though he office of a single judge the most painful that a man could seldom now a days heard original motions, the daily business of the court was transacted by fill ; qualifying that opinion , however , wit h res pe ct to those who did not hold the situation of appellate judge—and the him, and he heard appeals brought from the other judges in Chancery before him. The Lord Chancellor was likewise the Vi ce -Chancellors were in that position—who must have the feeling that if they were in error their deci s ions might be re • judge who presided in the House of Lords while that House heard and corrected by a court of appeal.] He (Lord John remained the great court of appeals in this kingdom. He Russell) found also in other quarters that there was an opi had, besides, various administrative functions; he was a nion, which had gained great strength of late, that it was member of the Cabinet for the time being, and as such he desirable when parties came to the Lord Chancellor's Court, was consulted by the Government of the day on all poli- that they should have the decision of more than one judge. tical questions which came before t h e Government , more es - Now, he thought that this view would ibe still further pecially those relating to the constitution , to amendments of strengthened if the House agreed with him that it was desi the existing law, and to the enforcement of that law whea rable not to make an alteration in that practice by which an it became a question in what manner it should be carried eminent man at the bar or on the bench was taken at once into execution. He was also the adviser of the royal family into the Court of Chancery to preside there as a judge. in all difficulties respecting their interest which might tarise, Of course it would be very unjust, and the occasion of a and in consequence of all these functions he wa s p la c e d in a great loss to the Government and the public in general if the very high position. Under these circumstances he (Lord J. always practised in the Court of Chancery should obtain the rule were absolutely laid down that none but a man who had Russell) thought it right t o state to the House his view of the advantages and disadvantages of this union of functions in office of Lord Chancellor ; and that those eminent men who, that high position before he proceeded further. In the first at the common law bar and in the courts had distinguished place, he thought it a great advantage that the Government themselves, and risen to the greatest' repute in their pro of f the country could hav e the aid and the authori ty of a ession, should be excluded from the highest eminence to person who had risen by his :talents at the bar to a place which a lawyer could attain.—(Hear.) uh f the greater for a cause, as well as from the high position he had acquired, single judge to take npon himself the responsible duties of must have great weight with the country. This he considered this court. Now, Sir (proceeded the Noble Lord) the Bill as one of the greatest advantages possible to the executive which I have to propose to the House goes, first, upon the Government. It was, however , a still greater advantage if foundation that it is desirable to have more than one judge that were possible, that the Lord Chancellor should preside sitting in the Lord Chancellor's Court. It goes upon this , in the Heim of Lords , and be there the ultimate judge of other foundation, that the wear and tear being such as Sir E. Sugden describes, and the political fuoand the appeal, because because thereby the House of Lords had the security that their decisions were presided ever by a man of whose tion not only to political questions, but acti o ns, al the forms of capacity and authority there could be no manner of doubt.— law, being so desirable, it is likewise desirable that the Lord Chancellor should have a greater portion of time than he (Hear ) There was, however , a st i l l f ur th e r advantage in now possesses to devote to the consideration of these subjects. this constitution of the office of Lord Chancellor. It was —(Hear, hear.) It has been my fortune to be connected in the an office always reckoned the g reat p rize of the le g al p r o - administration of the Government with my Noble and fission ; and, therefore, while the Lord Chancellor sat at the Learned Friend Lord Cottenham. And I believe no man head of the Court of Chancery, and at the head of the House of Lords, to deliver, in the name of that House, its judg- ever imparted more satisfaction, by the attention which he to the cases in the Court of Chancery, and the clear ments to the country, it was felt that this high eminence gave udgment which he brought to bear upon all questions which might be reached by men of talent from the humblest sta- j tion, by men who bad devot e d their early lives to the col- ca me b-fore him than my Noble and Learned Friend. But I must say that that great attention which was tivation of the law, and who might truly say that they had earned by their talents that eminent station. — ( Hear , hear.) shown, not only by his judgments in the court, but by It was, therefore, one of many instances in this country his study of the cases in his own house—for I have found whereby the most aristocratic body in the state was con- him late at night in his study consulting precedents, and I know that he very often sat up until two or three in must n e t ted with those, who, by no original advantage of birth or attention, fortune, bet solely by their own merit and abilities, had the morning— I say that that great which, with all his learning and familiarty with the law, attained the highest station. These were the advantages. he gave to these subjects, did tender him less able to Ile should next state some of the disadvantages of the pre devote the time which others would desire to political ques sent constitution of the office. The chief disadvantage was tions and to questions of administration.—(llear, hear) I that the functions of the Lord Chancellor as judge were of think, therefore, that it is desirable on this ground that the so weighty a character—the attendance in the Court of Lord Chancellor should be enabled to have relief from at - Chancery to deliver judgments, for instance, was of such tendance in the Court of Chancery, and that he should be high importance, and involved such great labour of mind and able—not to enter into that work which I have mentioned body, that its junction with the requisite attendance on the of criticising minute details and the precise language of House of Lords, and with the solution of the great questions Bills—but too give sufficient time for the consideration of all of State which came before the Cabinet for discussion, all m eas ures which affect the administration of the law, or formed a mass of business so important and so weighty that it seemed hardly possible for any one man t o o be found ads- which may tend to alter in any respect any of the institu tions of the country. Now what I venture to propose is , that quote to the duty. It was evidently another disadvantage there shall be established a court which shall be called the also, that while the Executive Government for the time Supreme Court in Chancery, or the Lord Chancellor's Court, being had the advice and assistance of the Lord Chancellor, whichever may be decided upon; and that in that court shall it was requ c is o i i t n e ci h d e ed sh w ou it l h d generalewenh te Cabinet political sit the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls , and one of t be hei a rs in , aannd whose that, o 8 h the judges of the courts of law, to be summoned from time sentiments was changed, the country and the Court o f Chancer y lost all to time for that purpose. lam informed that, in the present the advantages of the accumulated experience of this high state of the business before the common law courts — at least officer. These considerations had been placed before the it is the opinion of the present Lord Chancellor—it would country, and weighed by eminent men of various minds not be difficult for those courts to give the assistance of one and dispositions; and the result was that various plans of the judges for the performance of this duty. I propose, bad been i roposed from time to time in order to secure therefore, that there shall be three judges—the Lord Chan the great advantage which he had already mentioned, and cellor, the Master of the Rolls, and one of the judges of the to obviate the disadvantages by a cha n g e in the ma common law courts; that any two of them shall have the chinery of the Court of Chancery, of the House of Lords, or of the Administration. The first p lan he should men.. power of hearing causes in the Court of Chancery ; and that , in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the two others shall tion for the purpose was propounded with all that ability have all the powers and authority in the Court of Chancery and all that clearness of statement for which he was which the Lord Chancellor himself possesses. It is also part so famous, by Lord Langdale. In that plan a perma of the measure which I shall have the honour to propose, nent judge was proposed ter the Court of Chancery, who that appeals in bankruptcy, and all other statutory juris should not be changed with the Adminis tration of the da y . It was proposed, likewise , that a Lord President should sit di c tion now exercised by the Lord Chancellor, shall be ex in the House of Lords as a permanent j ud g e; and, further, ercised by this Supreme Court; and that the Lord Chan that there should be a third officer, with the title of Lord ce llor alone shall not exercise the authority which he now i Keeper of the Great Seal , or Minister of Justice, who should e xercises in the Court of Chancery, but shall always exer cise it as a member of the Court. By this provision the belong to the Administration of the day , and whose whole d u ty should be directed to the framing and a dvisin g such Lord Chancellor would be enabled—indeed, would be re changes in the law as the Government or indiv iduals should q uired to attend to the business of the Court of Chancery. le weuld sit tere as a jude. m atter, see fit, from time to time, to propose to Parl iament. It ap a and other matters which would com All the e be interlocutor fore the Cour y t, would peered to him (Lord John Russell), however, that however be heard by him, and at the same time he would not be so plausible such a proposition might be—however:it might entirely absorbed by those duties as not to have time for the agree with theoretical views of a separation of the judicial other high and important functions which he has to fulfil. from the political functions of the Lord Chancellor, he could not think that such a plan would be found beneficial. In In the same way questions of lunacy shall be heard by this the first place, he did not think that the objection to the Supreme Court, and an arrangement shall be made with the mixture ofju, judicial and political functions in the Lord Chan- judges of the law courts for dispensing with the attendance cellor was well-founded in all cases—but more especially of one of their body for the purpose of attending to this as regarded the impartial administration of justice to suitors court. With regard to the salaries in future to be paid, it in the Court of Chancery. To say nothing of Lord Mans- will be recollected that the Committee upon Judicial Salaries field and Lord Ellenberough, he (Lord John Russell) proposed last year that if no division of the office of Lord thought it would be found that this might be of some Chancellor was effected, the salary should be reduced to weight in the case of a criminal judge ; but with regard 8,000/. a year. It is our opinion that that reduction is a to a judge who presided in a court for the settlement greater reduction than ought to be made in so high an office, of questions solely relating to property, he could not think and we think especially, that the pension to be paid on the it at all likely that any political case would occur to bind, retirement from office of the Lord Chancellor should not in the slightest degree, the decision of the Lord Chancellor. be diminished, because when the situation itself must de -(Hear, hear.) In the course of the debates which had Pene upon the changes in political life, it is desirable that taken place on the subject, it had been maintained, he be- there should be a retiring allowance sufficient to induce men lieved by Lord Haddington, th at, notwithstanding the repu- who would otherwise hold permanent situations, to accept tation of Lord Chancellor Jeffrey as a politician, his decisions of an office of so much importance to the country. What I on property were equitable, and frequently looked back to propose, therefore, is, that the salary should be 10,0001. a oa that ground. But without referring to such an extreme year, and that the retiring allowance should remain as at case he (Lord J. Russell) thought he might say that since present, 5,0001. a year. There is another change which I the Revolution—a period during which many decided poli- should, perhaps, have some difficulty is mentioning, be ticians had sat in the Court of Chancery, none of them cause it would certainly seem as if, being First Lord of the more so, perhaps, than Lord Hardwicke—not one case had Treasury, I had an interest in the proposal I am about to been decided with reference to political parties.—( Hear make. There is a great deal of ecclesisastical pa t ronage hear.) Therefore , if there was no reason why a political vested in the Lord Chancellor. Originally, I believe, it Chancellor should not decide cases of property justly, and if was vested in him by the arrangement under which the from the Revolution to the present time no practical evil had Persons who then assisted him in the Lord Chancellor's arisen on that ground, he was bound to say, upon a full con- office were clerks in holy orders, and benefices were given sideratien of the question, that, however plausible, he could them as a mode of rewarding them for the performance of not agree with it. But to come to the practical evil of the their duties in the Court of Chancery. In fact, this pa plan. 'The Lord Chancellor, appointed to the permanent tronage belongs to the time when the Lord Chancellor was office of Judge of the Court of Chancery, would no doubt dis- usually an ecclesiastic, and held ecclesiastical livings. It is charge his duty like all the other judges —with zeal and now disposed of, not by reference to the Crown—not by ability; the presiding judge in the House of Lords would taking the Queen's pleasure, as is the case with the political doubtless do the same; but when the House came to con- offices of the State, but by the Lord Chancellor's own discre sider that which was so useful and advantageous in the pre- tion. A Commission, which reported last year, recommended sent constitution of the office of Lord Chagncellor—namely, that the whole of these benefices should be sold for the pur that a person of authority and;weight was always ready to p Go pos verne of mentincreasing te mean g s of at spiritual instruction ; but the assist the Government, and to take part in all - debates on , upon t h akin throposal into consideration,e constitutional and legal questions in the House of Lords— were decidedly averse to it— (Cheers) --thinking, in the first then the plan entirely failed. In the first place, to obtain a Place,that it was not advisable to part with a great public looking at all the first-rate man at the bar in that capacity , trust. and sell it to w hoever mi g ht offer the best p rice for it chances of the change, the House would be obli ' —(Hear, hear) —and thinking, in the second place, that such ged to give a higher salary and a higher retiring allowance than was at a separation of a great part of the Church from connexion present given to any member of the Government; and he with the State was in itself not at all desirable. What I pro (Lord John Russell) could not but foresee that the House, pose therefore is, that this patronage should in future be though it might grant them at first, 'would soon begin to vested in the Crown, and that the Minister of the Crown complain and to inquire why such an officer should have a should take the pleasure of the Soverign with reference to its higher salary and retiring allowance than any other political distribution, in the same way as with the ecclesiastical titles person. He did not, therefore, think this part of the plan . which are vested in the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) I have now could be maintained. In respect of the other offices, ' stated the general provisions of the Bill w hich I shall have that of Lord Chancellor and L or d President in the House the honour to propose; but I should mislead the House if I of Lords, he should say nothin g ; but i t wou ld b e gave it to suppose that I was now carrying into effect all the found, however, that the judgeships of the common law proposals which the Government and the Lord Chascellor courts would be more s ou ght after than that o f will have to make for the improvement of the administration the Keeper of the Seals or Minister of Justice. The of justice. In her Majesty's Speech at the commencement of country would, therefore, be liable to have an inferior man this session, it is said : in this situation, who, when he advised the Government, " The administration of justice in the several departments would be liable to have his advice overthrown by the dicta of law and equity will no doubt receive the serious attention of more eminent men in the other high situations. If that of Parliament; and I feel confident that the measures which was the case he (Lord J. Russell) did not see why such large may be submitted, with a view of improving that administra provision should be made for such officer, or why of j udicature in the the Home lion, will be d i s cussed with that mature deliberation which of the day should not be competent then as now important cha n g es in the highest courts J to perform all the du ties of Lord Keeper or Minister of kingdom imperatively demand." Justice. With regard to one of the duti es of the proposed Now, Sir, one of the changes which has been male, as any Minister of Justice, he (Lor d J. Russell) should sa y fro m one w ho consulted the newspapers of the day will have teen, his own experience that no such high officer was required— i s „ e d uc tion and an abolition of many of the fees which he mean t, t e a t o f superintending Bills to be brought into are now paid on proceedings in the Court of Chancery.— Parliameet, and seeing that no errors crept into their legise ( Hear, b ea r.) lam persuaded that t he r e is nothin g more Wien, either as regarded truth or l a n guage. But the kee l - desirable than that the suitor should be enabled to obtain Wien of this country was fettled by both Houses one of j us ti ce w ithout those very great expenses, which must deter which was elected by the popular vote; and, therefore, all m an y from entering the courts.—(Hear, hear.) I have Bills that passed through them should not only satisfy heard it said by some, that it is desirable the avenues cf jua ,.. tice should be closed upon them, because, otherwise, of jus tice were made too cheap, litigation would be increased. Now, if it be desirable to discourage litiga ion, this is not the way in which it ought to be discouraged.—(Hear.) If a person comes with a frivolous complaint, or brings a fri volous action against another, let him by all means pay the penalty of such a proceeding, by the costs which would be awarded against him. That is a fair way of discouraging litigation; but to say that a man shall pay a particular amount of money before ho can obtain justice on a fair com plaint, that I hold to be inconsistent with all the prin ciples which ought to regulate the administration ( f justice. And when you say that it would discourage litiga tion, I really think that even in that point of view the greatest error would be committed, because it evidently depends upon the fortune of the person upon whom this pe nalty is inflicted. Take a man of 20,000/. or 30,0001. a year, who to indulge his spite, or to revenge himself upon some per on who is his enemy, would have no hesitation in spend ing 1,0001. in a court of justice in order to obtain that end. But take a poor man, who has had real wrong done him, he would not be able to spend even 1001. to obtain redress. So that whilst the rich man would be at liberty to indulge a vexatious spirit of litigation, the poor =an would be actually debarred from obtaining the redress which he deserved the making justice cheap, therefore, so far as it can be done, I hold to be one of the duties of the State, and I think we cannot in this respect err in abolishing or reducing as many fees as it may be found possible to abolish or reduce. But there are other measures in regard to which we have issued two Commissions—one to inquire into the proceedings in the common law courts ; the other to consider all the proceedings in the Court of Chancery. Without mentioning any particular measures which are under their deliberation, I may state that which we should in future resent. He thanked the House fc the patience with which they had heard him, but he put it, to the House, whether in an assembly of English gentlemen, the course r ursued towards him was a becoming one.—(llear.y, Mr. M'CULLAGH thought that at that late hour those who objected to the introduction of the Bill were not oat of order. Mr. ANSTEY hoped that Hon. Gentlemen would give consideration to this matter, so as to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and go to a Select Committee. He ap• proved of the object of the Nil ; but he thought it quite im• possible the Right Hon. Gentleman could put fifty statutes, as he had said, in one. Lord PALMERSTON said the time of the House was sometimes wasted by difference of opinion, but it was rather hard that they should be kept out of their beds when they were all agreed.— (Hear, and laughter.) The Noble Lord, in his happy vein of humour, then proceeded to criticise the course taken by the various Members on the subject, and concluded by proposing that they should all agree to postpone the Bill. Mr. REYNOLDS and other Hon. Members approved of the proposition, and the Bill was accordingly pcstponwl. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Two o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. From the Votes and Proceedings of the Howe of Commons ) THURSDAY, MARCH 27. DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES (SPAIN). Motion made, and Question put," That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the following Resolution: That, with a view to the just protec. tion of British Navigation and Commerce, it is expedient that, under the provisions of the Act 12 and 13 Vic. c. 29, such additional Duties should be levied in the ports of the British Empire upon goods imported or exported in Spanish ships, and on the tonnage of such ships, as may serve to countervail the differential Duties on goods and tonnage levied in the ports of Spain and her dependencies on British ships." The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 53. Arkwright, George Gallwey, Sir W. P. Sanders, George Baird James Gaskell, J. M. Scully, Francis Bankes, George Grace, 0. D. Spooner, Richard Barrow, W. H. Gwyn, Howe! Stanford, J. F. Beresford, William Higgins, George Stanley, Edward Blakemore, R. Hodgson, W. N. Stanley, E. H. Boldero, H. George Hotham, Lord Stephenson, Robert Booker, T. W. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Stuart, John Booth, Sir R. G. Lennox, Lord A. Sullivan, Michael Cayley, Edward S. Macaghten, Sir E. Thompson,:AldermA Child, Smith Maher, N. Tyler, Sir G. Clive, IL B. Moffatt, George Tyrell, Sir J.' Cobbold, J. C. Mullings, J. R. Walpole, Spencer Conolly, ThomaS O'Brien, Sir Lucius Wawn, J. T. Dodd, G. O'Flahcrty, Anthony Willoughby, Sir a. Duke, Sir James Pakington, Sir J. Ferrer, James Frinsep, H. T. TSLLUS. Forbes, William Renton, J. C. Newdegate, C. N. Frewen, C. H. Reynolds, John Hildyard. R. C. I am persuaded the result of these Commissions will be very much to prevent the continual transfers frlm one court to another; to prevent those tedious proceedings which have hitherto greatly embarrassed our courts of justice. I believe they are devoting their attention to get rid, as far as possible, of those technicalities which do not belong to the real circumstances and merits of a case. I believe that if we proceed in this course very great good may be effected; and lam sure there ii no subject which more deserves the attention of Parliament. This I can assure the House, that however difficult these questions may be, the Government will continue to pay the most earnest attention to them, convinced not only that it is their duty to pay such attention, but that if there is any right which the people of this conntry possess, it is the right to have justice not only impartially and fairly administered, as I believe it is, but administered at as little cost to the suitor as his state can sustain.—(Hear, hear.) With those opinions, and without asking the House to pledge itself to the details of a measure on this great subject, I conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better administra tion of justice in the Court of Chancery. Mr. STUART said he only rose to say that the Noble Lord, in speaking of the office of Lord Chancellor, and the ad ministration of justice in the Court of Chancery, had ex pressed himself so admirably with respect to the general ob jects of the Bill, that although he entirely disapproved of the latter portion of the measure, he could not refrain from express ing his admiration of the views which he had expressed. The Noble Lord's proposal assigned to the Lord Chancellor cer tain judges for his associates, though it might be that he would prefer the assistance of others. In his opinion there was no occasion for this arrangement, because at the pre sent moment the Lord Chancellor had the power of calling any of the common law judges to his aid, an invitation that was never refused. Then the removal of the Master of the Rolls from his court would have the effect of closing it on every day that the Lord Chancellor sat.—(Hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL—That was by the direction of the Lord Chancellor. Mr. STUART—He regarded it as an improper arrange ment. The Noble Lord had made up his mind not to sepa rate the political and judicial functions of the Chancellor, and upon that point he agreed with the Noble Lord, that no man filling that office would be biassed in giving a decision on property by political motives. He thought the Chancellor would give a better opinion singly than assisted by assessors. The single judgments of Lord Cottenham were better than those which he gave in conjunction with his assessors. He had a great objection to have the ecclesiastical patronage at tached to the office transferred to the Treasury. He would prefer that it should be vested in the keeper of the King's conscience. Mr. R. PALMER felt satisfied that this Bill would not be satisfactory to the profession or to suitors. It was proposed to relieve the Lord Chancellor from the details of the busi ness of the court, and give him the benefit of the services of the Master of the Rolls, and of another judge. He would ask what was to become of the Rolls Court? It was, in fact, tantamount to its abolition. Mr. S. WORTLEY had heard with pleasure the constitu tional principles developed by the Noble Lord. There were one or two points only upon which he would venture to offer an opinion. He thought the business of the equity courts, which was increasing, should have an increased judicial staff. The business of the common law courts was decreas ing, yet they had fifteen judges, while the equity courts had only five judges. The plan was, however, mainly deficient, in not providing for an efficient court of appeal in the House of Lords. Mr. HEADLAM thought that there should not be a per manent judge at the heaa of the Court of Chancery, as it would place too much power in the hands of one individual. Lord J. RUSSELL thanked Hon. Members who had made so many suggestions in a friendly spirit. There were some offices connected with the Lord Chancellor that it was neces sary to maintain. There were others that might be aboli-hed, and at present the Lord Chancellor was paying every atten tion to this subject. Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY said, that what the public desired was some mode of decreasing the expense of conduct ing a suit in Chancery. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that was an object of the greatest possible importance, and he hoped that further opportunities would occur for discussing this subject. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. APPRENTICES AND SERVANTS BILL. On the consideration of the Apprentices and Servants Bill Abdy, T. N. Aglionby, H. . _. Alcoek, Thomas Anderson, Arthur Anson, Colonel Ansley, Thomas Baines, M. T. Baring, Sir F. Bass, M. T. Bell, Jacob Bellew, B. M. Berkeley, Admiral Bernard, Viscount Blair, Stephen Bright, John Buxton, Sir E. Calvert, Frederic Carter, John B. Clay, James Clay, Sir W. Cockburn, Sir A. Colebrooke, Sir T. Craig, Sir W. G. Cubitt, William Denison, (Edmund Duncuft, John Dundas, Admiral Dundas, Sir David Ellis, John Elliot, J. E. Fagan, William Ferguson, Sir R. Fitzpatrick, J. W. Forster, Matthew MAJORITY-NOES, 98. Fox, W. J. Paget, Lord C. Freestun, Colonel Palmerston, Vb. French, F. Parker, John Graham, Sir James Patten, J. W. Grey, Sir G. Peel, Frederick Guest, Sir John Pilkington, Jewell Harris, Richard Power, Dr. Butte, Alexander Power, Nicholas Hatchell, John Ricardo, J. L. Hawes, Benjamin Rich, Henry Hayes, Sir E. Romilly, Sir John Rapier, W. G. Russell, Lord John Headlam, ThomaS Russell, F. C. Heald, James Saiwey, Colonel Heathcoat, John Seymour, Lord Henry, Alexander Smith, J. B. Herbert, Sydney Somerville, Sir W. Hepworth, Lawrence Strickland, Sir G. Hill, Lord M. Tancred, H. W. Hobhouse, T. B. Thompson, Colonel Hume, Joseph Thornely, Thomas Kershaw, James Verney, Sir H. Labonchere, Henry Villiers, Charles Lewis, G. C. Walmslep, Sir J. Loveden, Pryso Watkins, Colonel M`Gregor, John Wilcox, Brodie M'Taggart, Sir J. Williams, John Matheson, Colonel Wilson, James Milton, Viscount Weod, Sir Charlet Mitchell, T. A. Wood, W. P. Morison, Sir W. Morris, David Mowatt, Francis Hunts, G. F. TELLERS. Brotherton, J. Gibson, T. M. APPOINTMENT OF A VICE-CHANCELLOR BILL, As amended, considered ; Amendment proposed in Clause C, line 3, to leave out the words " of the same," and insert th e words " not exceeding in," instead thereof:—Question put . " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the' Clause." The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 49. Aglionby, H. A. Grenfell, Charles W. Ponsonby, C. F. Anstey, T. C. Grey, Sir G. Romilly, Colonel Baines, M. T. Hatchell, John Hominy, Sir John Bernal, Ralph Hawes, Benj. Russell, Lord J. Brotherton, Joseph Mayes, Sir E. Russell, F. C. H. Calvert, Frederic Headlam, T. E. Somerville, SirlW. Carter, J. B. Hobhouse, T. B. Thompson, Colonel Cockburn, Sir A. Labouchere, Henry Thornely, T. Cowper, W. F. Lewis, G. C. Vesey,;Thomint Craig, Sir W. G. Magan, W. H. Walpole, S. a Dundas, Admiral Mahon, O'Gorman Wilson, James Dundas, Sir 1). O'Connell, M. J. Wood, W. P. Dunne, Colonel Paget, Lord C. Wortley, J. S. Ebrington, Viscount Palmer, Roundell Elliot, J. E. Palmerston, Viscount =LIMA. Ferguson, Sir R. Parker, John Hill, Lord Id arm Fitzwilliam, G. W. Fatten, W. Hayter, W. G. French, F. Pilkingten, James MINORITY—NOES, 32. Arkwright, George Hodgson, W. N. Sadleir, John Bankes, George Joiliffe, Sir W. H. Salwey, Colonel Beresford, William Keating, Robert Sanders, George Blair, Stephen Keogh, William Scully, Francis Blake, M. J. Kershaw, James Smollett, A. Burghley, Lord Knox, W. S. Spooner, Richard Duncan, John M'Cullagh, W. Sullivan, Michael Edwards, henry Mullings, J. R. Williams, John Grogan, E. Neeld, Joseph Gwyn. Howel Nugent, Sir Percy Henley, J. W. Reynold., Jonh Higgins, George Roche, E. B as amended, Sir \V. JOLLIFFE moved the addition of a clause, to the effect that, where any young person, under the age of 18, shall be taken from the workhouse, and apprenticed or hired, a written notice of such hiring shall be sent to the guar dians, to be registered, and the guardians shall cause the said ycuog person to be visited frequently. Mr. BAINES said he would not oppose the clause, and it was-accordingly agreed to; and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Monday next. APPOINTMENT OF A VICE-CHANCELLOR BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having proposed the third reading of this Bill. Sir H. W'ILLOUGHBY rose to bring forward the amend ment of which he had given notice for the reduction of the retiring pension of the Vice-Chancellors. The point he wished to present to the House was this, that the retiring pension of the Vice-Chancellor under this Bill should be 3,0001. instead of 3,5001. So far as diplomatic services were concerned, the pension did not exceed 1,780/. To take the civil service, in all the other departments of the State, there was nothing like it, and in the military service he believed there was no pension that exceeded 3,000/. Up to 182 a the retiring pension in the judicial service was 2,000/. a year; and, in that year, the retiring pension of the puisna judges was increased to 3,5001. a year. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, to Clause 5, after the word " annuity," the insertion of the words, "not exceeding 3,000?" The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was no one who accepted the office of Vice-Chancellor, without incur ring a considerable diminution of income. The retiring allowance was a considerable inducement to men of ability to accept of the office, and if they decreased that allow ance they must of necessity increase the salary. He earnestly besought the House not to adopt the amendment of the Hon. Baronet. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment ... 32 Against it ... ... 49 Majority ... ... —l7 The Bill, as amended, was then considered. ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPY HOLDS BILL. Mr. AGLIONBY moved the secood reading of this Bill. He believed that there was no objection to the principle of the Bill, seeing that it had already twice received the sanc tion of the House; there were, however, objections to the details, and, in order to meet these, he proposed, if the House agreed to the second reading, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Mr. MU LLINGS did not oppose the principle of the Bill, but because it was one that involved such minute, and, at the same time, such important details, that he thought it should be brought forward under the sanction of the Go vernment. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered tl be referred to a Select Committee. CIVIL BILLS (IRELAND) BILL. TELLIB.S. Willoughby, Sir li. Sibthorp. Colonel MR. PETu AND LORD WARD. 47, Russell-square, 17th March, 1851. TO THE EDITOR oT THE MORNING POST. Sir,—l have read Lord Ward's letter to you in your paper of this morning. My only object in making the statement which I did at the meeting of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhamptoa Railway Company was to rebut the unjust aspersions of Lord Ward ; and if, in doing so, the declarations which I was the-i c mpelled to make, and am now forced to reiterate, are disagreeable to Lord Ward, it is by no fault of mine that they are so. Bat even now Lord Ward does not deny " the statement which I made at the meeting," to the effect that he, being chairman of the company, did, pending negotiations with the London and 1\ orth-Western and Midland ampauies, de mand, through the party deputed to act on behalf of those companies, 5,000 preference shares at par, those shares being at that time at a very considerable premium. He merely re-asserts a former denial of a particular expression attri buted to his solicitor, namely, that " His Lordship required three things to be done before he would undertake to assent to the agreement." On returning to the report to which Lord Ward now refers me, I find that the denial was given simply in these words, " I never said that ;" and in like man ner, in his Lordship's letter of yesterday, he confines hie denial to the use of the words, "as a preliminary to, or con dition of, his subscribing the proposed arrangement." This, I repeat, is no denial of my statement. Whether Lord Ward used the words `‘ as a preliminary to, or condition of," is obviously beside the question. It might be quite unnecessary to say whst was necessarily implied, but Lord Ward cannot be permitted by this special pleading to avoid the statement which I made circumstantially and is full detail, not of having used any particular form of ex pression, but of having demanded and insisted upon the 5,000 shares as a sine qua non (for that was the expression in which Lord Ward's ultimate determination was, in the hearing of more than one, conveyed) to his adhesion to the proposed arrangement. If Lord Ward did not intend the terms which be proposed to be a condition of his acquies. ence, and a part of the treaty, why was the demand of those terms made directly to the companies with whom, as he knew, that treaty had been all but concluded? the only question, then, remaining open being this—Whether his Lordship would or would not adopt it? I am, sir, your obedient servant, S. MORTON PETO. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND moved the second reading of this Bill.—(" Oh, oh," from a number of Irish Members, who had taken their seats on the Opposition benches.) If there was the slightest objection on the part of Hon. Members opposite to proceed with the Bill, he would postpone it to another day. Mr. F. FRENCH hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would persist in carrying a measure so urgently required, and of so beneficial a character.—(oh, oh.) The ATT PRNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND, seeing the opposition, would withdraw it, and move the second reading this day. Mr. REYNOLDS opposed a Bill of this kind containing 160 clauses, being considered at this time of night, or rather of morning. It made an entire alteration of the practice in Ireland. It was understood that the principle was to be discussed on the second reading; but instead of that, the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in the most private and confidential wanner, asked them to take it on his credit. — (Laughter.) That appeared to be a practice of his—(Hear, hear)—but he could not agree to it. rle asked the Right Hon. Gentleman to explain the clauses, and if he refused to do so, on the plea that it would be considered in Committee, he (Mr. Reynolds) would ask whether it was in a select or a full Committee of the House, as that was not the case at this advanced hour of the morning, he would move, as an amend ment, that this House do adjourn.—(No, no.) The amendment not having been seconded, The O'GORMAN MAHON said he would have seconded the motion if he had not thought the Bill deserved the sup port of the Hon. Member for Dublin, above all others. He would not support any factious motion made by those who assumed to be the representatives of Ireland, because at this moment they chose to band themselves against the only party who ever did justice to his country.—(Adjourn.) He had supported the cause of Ireland at a time when many of these Members had not a seat in that House—(Question) — but he would not be a party to any factious opposition, and he should, therefore, give;his vote in favour of the second read ing of the Bill. Sir W. SOMERVILLE defended the course pursued by the Goverment. The question had been urged upon them by many Honourable Members representing Ireland, and there was not the slightest intention to make it a party question.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. KEOGH though the course taken on that side had been misunderstood. There was no objection to the .prin • ciple of the Bill, but they thought a Bill of this importance and magnitude, brought before the House after long delibe rati n, ought to have been explained by the law officers of the Crown. He was anxious to explain why the Irish Mem bers took this course; they thought that legal Bills affecting I re land ought not to be left to the English Attorney-Gene nil,- or the law officers of the Crown in England, but that they should be explained by the Irish law officers of the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) They thought, and he had no doubt that the English public thought so too, that the offi cers of the Crown in England had quite business enough of their own.—(Hear, bear.) He should support the principle of the Bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IREL AND explained that on the introduction of the Bill h e had stated ' that it was a consolidation of numerous s atutes in Ireland, an d i ntended to form a "manual" of refer ence. He must now say that there was not an Irish Membere was perfectly aware of the in this House who w as not in formed on the subje c t. habitual objection m a d e t o the introduction of Bills at that hour of the morning ; second reading of and all he at presen t wished was the the Bill, and then to refer it to a Select L Committee. Hon. Gentlemen, however, were anxious to express their opinions on the Bill, not so much, he regretted to say, for that purpose as for the more congenial one of • giving their opinions, and indulging in abuse of him, abuse MR. PETO AND LORD WARD. TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING POST. Blivart's Hotel, March 26, 1851. Sir,—Mr. Peto, in a letter published in your columns to day, repeats the charge made by him against me at the Ox foril, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway meeting, on 28th of last February, of having demanded 5,000 Preference Shares as a" preliminary to considering the arrangement proposed with the London and North-Western and Midland Companies," and adds, " that it is due to himself to declare that I did not at that meeting deny having done so." If he will turn to the report of that meeting, he will see that when he ventured to make the assertion that I had asked for than, as one of the conditions to assenting to the proposed a-rangemeuts between the other companies, or in other words, when he ventured to impute motives to me in having asked for them, I met him—Mr. Peto—face to face, with a distinet denial of having done so, as a " preliminary to," Of "condition of," my subscribing the proposed arrangement. I enter into these details to recal to Mr. Peto'a recollectioa the facts as they took place, rs I am unwilling to see in hi s letter of this morning a studied insult to mys9ll; o r t o b elieve that he would convey such to me threugh the column& of the public press. I am, sir, your obedient servant, W ARD. THE GREAT ANTI-PAPAL LEAGUE....Th e ori nators of the Great Anti-Papal League, t o w h ich we allu ded a few days ago, as being in the course of formatiou, met again yesterday in Osborne's Hotel, in the Adel hi. There was a very large attendance of distinguished l a y m en, clergymen of the Church of England, and Dissenting ministers of various Evangelical denominations. Among those present were, the Earl of Winchilsea, Lord Ashley, Sir Culling Eardley, Sir Harry Verney, Bart.. M.P., Mr. Childers , tre, M.P., Mr. Tollema c h e, r . , hI.P., Mr. Plump- MC. Bevan, Esq. t _the City banker; Admir a l R ope, Hon. Captain Maude, the Hoe. and Rev. Montague Villiers, Rev. D. Wilson, Rev. W. W. Champneys, R ev. E. Andel, Rev. Henry Venn, Rev. Dr. Steane, R ev. Dr. Bun ting, Rev. Dr. Cox, Rev. Dr. Hoby, Rev, D r. M orison, Rev. Dr. Tidman, Rev. Thomas Binney, tee. L ord Asb l eY presided, and the meeting re mained in deliberation for three hours. The proceedings were characterised throu g hout by the greatest earnestness of spirit and unanimit y . As the meeting was only prelimina, but this we can say.wi th confidence, t at out of the meet ing we are tot a t liberty to re f e r in detail h to what transpiV. ; of ye s t er d a y will arise one of the most powerful religious con which we have any example in this or in any and that, when the measures to be adopted to federations of other country. t the Popish foe are fully developed, the Church of stand aghast at the bare idea of the amount of resistance which is about to be offered to her aggressions—. Advertiser. (ADVERTISEMENT.]— A remarkable Cure in Hobart t° Ro n nl fr e ol ill Tolen by Holloway's Pills and Ointment.—Major Welch, of W e llington-bridge, Hobart Town, writes that Holloway's Pills and Ointment enjoy high reputation in Van Diemen's Land ; he speaks of one man who for years had been under the treatment of the medical practitioners, and was discharged from the hospital as incurable, an d h a d b eco me so miserable emaciated and weak that he could only move about with the assistance of persons supporting him. In this condition is commenced using these medicines, which have so completely renovated his health that he is now become a stout, healthy. looking man, and his cure he solely attributes to the use of Holloway's Pills and Ointment. Sold by all druggists, and at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. The Rev. T. it Davies, incumbent of the Church of the Holy Trinity, Nottingham, has been appointed to the vs cant aka of Archdeacon of Melbourne. South