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

)wn in aanner inisters aswers ase re ing in n. In which ;ive in- etitions ,o-mor- Id take seemed C. legis- I—only' irrypis- said in. ver the was t. Any r which d never )e how eolation• sy until 3 Noble that it d than assure• use him. e House Liter the ]sent to. )rdshipe Id have ce from Papal of ex - ill vros I be re - fittal oe ed, and ID, Bre-- notice. a very' I when,. L tion of .ed the it was of re t what orward would u nder motiorl ioe, to of th Land had 9 ices 1 to 5 cial anent would not expire till that time. He begged to 1. 0 : „ .s an amendment, to leave out all the words after the s s ' 4 , Committee," for the purpose of inserting these words .consider, first, the subject of steam communications, tu g: for its obj ec t a li ne or li nes connec ti ng I n di a , Eng tiS4.a s d Australia, and to report to the douse the most lit ras)de in which' such communication may be effected, do e care to economy, and with advantage to the public s st et s; and a ft erwar d s , t o i nqu i re i n t o th e ques ti on o f th e i ; steam communi c ati o n s b e t ween E ng l an d an d I n di a , iti s O report whether any improvements may be made in e,"°tl duct of those communications, previous to the grant there ontract to any company proposing to carry on oCt " k% DEULEY seconded the amendment. C. GLADSTONE admitted the importance of the clues- SYut drmbted the propriety of departing from the usual sZ of tying up the hands of the Committee. The Conn lvtsen they met would be the best judges as to the I sm ° of pro'edure, and he should suggest to the Noble Hl ether he had not better withdraw the amendment. eels. .: F , COTT hoped that none of the contracts would be c 1 from the consideration of the Committee. itt r . MACGREGOR regretted thet some measure had not it itroduced by the Government on the subject. Ales VII ad occurred there was some chance of the American siert) rnent taking up the question of steam communica tslllth Australia; but he would rather see our own Gu ll; lesat taking up the matter. ti s ; s • 'tIUAIE thought that more attention ought to be t e l' :to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman t t 7se tuber for Oxford. He would advise the Noble Lord 1 1 7 ' press his amendment. -'" • ANDERSON said it was with reluctance he took 1. 1 1 rt in the debate, as he had in some respects a personal O r i; ea' tin the matter. As a director of the Peninsular and Old Company he felt he should not be doing bis duty if ' wed the statement of the Noble Lord who introduced ktd 4 uesti on to pass uncontradicted. The Noble Lord had $ 4 t letter from the Bengal Chamber of Commerce as to !tett irrs.gularity and accommodation of the company's 1e• •s. To that letter an answer had been sent contain 1' v ery satisfactory contradiction. f • CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought they all agreed that a Committee should be appointed. He Et a a not admit that he was bound to enter into a contract Ily irrespective of the expense. His duty was to obtain .best and c he a pest communication. Since last ye ar h e It I called for tenders for a part of the service, but not one of s a 'al was worth the acceptance of the Government. He eed with the Rislat Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ox tthat there was no necessity for the amendment, as it 41 d be in the power of the Committee to take first what i o rt .. to . a of the question they pleased. It was impossible, he considering from; ius this question, to separate . one part communicationy the another. The whole hue must k t. s i )cia idered, and therefore the amendment would actually 1 / 4 74 - I,e the inquiry of the Committee, for it would exclude Qlwelaich was of great importance to the Australian colo -t he consideration of establishing communication be sie:o. them and India and China. He should therefore ad- L.t e Noble Lord to withdraw the motion, and should gge t that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into (Ls ibject 'of steam communication between India and ' u t and also as to the best mode of facilitating steam amication with the Australian colonies. t t I t count JOCELYN thought the suggestion would meet .ews. He agreed it would be unwise to fetter the Com lit r, CARDWELL suggested whether it would not be r to add words to the motion, so as to include all our c` l ll. it.s and commercial stations at the Antipodes. He It t i s sh t if that Committee was appointed there should be an t it ; n lade against refusing to examine anybody. It would tis s t .oment to insert words which would include the Mau istn . and all the other colonies approached by our eastern ti oo t HUME did not entirely approve of the latter sugges- Ti t e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEftUER considered s od ,(l rds which he had . used were sufficiently large to in t very route that nate ht be adopted.—(Hear.) Is! 'T. ACLAND wished to know whether the words were ;:' enough to inelude a matter in which the constituents i s ge Hon. Member for Liverpool were deeply interested— ,,,`" cant the point of final departure. The Hon. Baronet si' l t h into a detail of the mail arrangements between the ts is -west of England and London and Southampton, and k t s adeci that it was of great importance to all parties to seve.n or RlGurs in the transmission of letters. t e l f ; F.: T. BN said, that it would be throwing upon ( 0 ' Strimittee a matter which would much delay their report. tr t : In mission had been already appointed, which would do ku 4 1 E was necessary upon the subject. f. ADDERLEY said they were by no means agreed .the manner in which that inquiry was to be con 'd • They migh agree that it was important and useful is e colonies generally to enter upon such an inquiry, and trOo w how best the communication with the whole Lth e world should be carried on ; but whether /1 ilia was to be included at the fag-end or appen 'of that inquiry was quite another matter. Who qtfor that inquiry? Certainly not the colony. It was V v . :Sght Hon. Gentleman opposite alone (the Chancellor Noe, Exchequer), who wanted to get himself out of a diffi teke e:eape.—(Order, Oh, oh.) The point upon which they not agree was that Australia should be put at the k' ) ls,d of the inquiry, and he would therefore ask the 5 Member for King's Lynn to give them the assurance 1 1 "‘„ it would be taken first and not last. He would suggest e Noble Lord the Member for Kildare (Lord Naas) not ft is his amendment. DIVETT said it would be utterly impossible to do ti l l '!e to the Australian colonies on that matter without a tad complete inquiry. He knew the Chancellor of the ki r hesatter was most anxious to secure a proper communi kk, Jr. between this country and the colonies, and would have ty , eeded before now but for the opposition of the East k' i tt Company. The route from Singapore to the Swan tier had been overlooked, but it possessed great advan 0, though not yet fully approved of by the people of Syd lie conceived the attack made by the Hon. Member Lsloreh Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) on the Right Hon. Otlernin the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir C. Wood) 7 .. ex tamely unjust and uncalled for.—(Hear, hear.) ltilu,;(1 JOCELYN said he could not give any assurance to 1 1 / 4 ,(10 rt. Member for Staffordshire ; but he thought the at 10,1' wade on the Chancellor of the Exchequer most uncalled J:t was he (Lord Jocelyn) who had moved for the Com 134‘erx, and he had no communication with the Right Hon. °' set until within the last two or three days. He was fully t ° irzced that Australia formed a most important portio n o f k is :Proposed inquiry, but yet he could not agree to the pro tltio n of the Hon. Member, Oord NAAS would not divide the House on his amend- PRINSEP feared, if all the matters suggested were in psi into, the investigation would last a very long time. CAGLIONBY said all were equally interested in pro : the best possible communication between this country India, and our most distant colonies. In conclusion he ii i iiosed that the words " New Zealand" should be added to LArroposed amendment. )rd JOCELYN said that place was included in the 14) , Lima route. AGLIONBY wished the words he proposed to be in .led. ali en CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER — He had q eh no notice of that Committee, neither had be put Australia o „,the fag-end of the inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever Colon he might entertain, the question did not rest with ri s .. • (Hear hear.) With regard to the Hon. M ember f o r th`Orordshire'he had done more injury to the communication ell any one else. I s „ 4 fter a short discussion Mr. Aglionby's words were in eted'in the resolution, and the whole agreed to without a NVi s i on. SPANISH DUTIES ON BRITISH SHIPPING. Ors ANDERSON then rose to move " That, with a view hEI just protection of British navigation and commerce, it I s eXspedient that under the provisions of the Act 12th and tee Viet., c. 25, such additional duties should be levied in k e Ports of the British empire upon goods imported or ex ,sted in Spanish ships, and on the tonnage of such ships, as serve to countervail the differential duties on goods and rki nage levied in the ports of Spain and her dependencies on tisb, ships." HOME (interrupting the lion. Member) said he li, L thed to save his Hon. Friends some trouble. If that was a k ale to take into consideration matters connected with dele and commerce, was he not obliged to have the sanction 'a Minister? to ''the SPEAKER said, if the motion made was intended to chide with leave to bring in a Bill, then the Hon. Mem ir for Montrose might be right, but as it was, the Hen. ember was in order. (Hear.) oo sar. M. GIBSON said, if an increase of taxation was pro oughtdought not such to have the sanction of the Minister? 41 1 e SPEAKER said it might be moved in a Committee of te.whole House; the object of the present motion, however, Was different. 1 14t'. ANDERSON then proceeded with his motion. It ight be necessary that he should , in the first place, ex "toot the meaning of the term differential duties. They L eant duties not imposed for the purposes of revenue, bu t e m I give one country a monopoly in the shipping trade over t r i e llr other. In-that respect Spain had a greater monopoly ss on any other country in the world, and its conduct to zards ou r s hippi ng h a d bec o me a great practical grievance. he Honourable Member then referred to and read some t Xtracts from the petition which he had presented , com - Naining of the great extent of the impost levied in Spanish tests upon British ships. He would then proceed to con ast the treatment which British ships received in Spanish Aorta with that which Spanish ships received in British Ports. In one place the differential duties were one-third c hore. In Cuba the import duties on British vessels were 'torn 21 to 30 per cent., while on Spanish vessels they only I ,ertennted to from 17 to 21 per cent., and the export duties ere on British ships 4 1 e s per cent., while on Spanish ships ; 4l ey were only 2 1 7 ( per cent. Under that highly pro sgctive system the Spanish ships were notoriously among Vie. most deficient in the world. He had himself known an i nstance in which a Spanish vessel and an English vessel ad entered the port of Ramsgate together; but as Spanish ,e asels not only did not proceed to sea in unfavourable W eather, but were kept waiti n g for s e veral days even in fine Heather for the purpose of ascertaining that that weather was ,t s t/sed the English vessel went to Bilboa, ad on her return tic.,.'ond the Spanish vessel still in the harbour of Ramsgate. from had himself employed a Spani s h s hip to carry salt fish '`Sorn. the Shetland Islands to Bilboa, and she had been t hree months on the voyage just about the time that a good English vessel would s p en d on the p assage to Calcutta.— Soltear, hear.) The shipo wners of thi s coun try were corn ?ailed to submit to theSe differential duties, although we had 1411 1sitted Spanish vessels into our ports on the same terms as t hose of other nations. In the Navigation Act of last ses ssoo there were provisions calculated, in his opinion, to meet th at grievance. By the 10th and 11th clauses of that Act it W as provided, that if British vessels were subjected in any i i , ()r e,lgls country to prohibitions or restrictions, it should be 1 :tol for her Majesty, by an order in council, to impose in ; 1 111 tis such restrictions as her Majesty might deem fit on the th iPs of that foreign country entering our harbours; and "t, if any partiality were shown in a foreign country tgainst tsritish vessels, it should be lawful for her Majesty an order in cou ncil, to impose in British ports co untervailing disadvantages on the ships of that 4 : ) tliatry. We had several treaties with Spain, of which the st, he believed, was that of the year 1653, providing that s tz ! e vessels should enjoy in the Spanish ports as extensive i S 3 ",tivile ges , liberties, and immunities as the vessels of any f .'ller country whatever. Now Spain had violated those breaties. She had given to French vessels the privilege of he on the coasting trade of Spain, while she had refused . 1 e Sam e privilege to our shipping. The tariff of Spam bad aht.elar a been changed, and the differential duties against our 'Prang had b en increased ; and the result of that had been great falling off in the amount of British tonnage, at the Port of Alicante among others. lie, as a British ship °Waer, was perfectly ready to run the risk of the conse quences of a repeal of our navi ga ti on laws, and he had , i c r v en his support to that measure in opposition to the jinion of the great majority of the members of his 'lvo class. But while he was ready as a British ship - Z w ner, to run the risk of competition with the foreigner , s e ask e d f or f a i r p l uy , an d th a t h e might be subjected to 2to unjust o b s t ruct i on . The Hon. M em b er conc l u d e d by so eole nding his motion, that it proposed that th e H o use should r esolve itself into a Select Committee, fo r th e pur pose of Co nsidering the subject he had brought under th e i r no tice. The SPRAYER said that the .110. Member could not THE SUN, move that the House should then resolve itself into the pro posed Committee. The motion was then amended by the substitution7of 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 operation 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 salt 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. He 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 wa had for centuries been entering into treaties of commerce and of amity with Spain ' • 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 , nd 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 se'Vement 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 differential duties on the greater portion of commodities. These duties had amounted previously to that ye it 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 foreige 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 callel 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 in that trade. On the contrary, it was a remarkable fact that no nation which had adopted the protective and restrictive sys tem of navigation was to beleared 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 not 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 he 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 Council a retalia tory 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 had not been reciprocated by Spain, and that English vessels trading with Spain did not enjoy the same advantages which were enjoyed by Spanish vessels trading with this country. It' the Act were allowed to remain inoperative in that instance, then he said that such an example might work very prejudicially; for what security could they have 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 subjected 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. Mr. 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. He should certainly like to see the correspondence which had passed between her Majesty's Government and the, Government of Spain upon that subject. Ha believed filet its publis ca tion might have som e influence in shaming Spain Into fair dealing with th is countr y . He was no advocat e of retaliation ; and if Spain c hose to p a y 25 p er cent. more for articles of which she stood in need than was necessar y , let her do so. They had had one or two instances which showed the folly of retaliation t andhe should be very sorry to see such things repeated. He thanked the Hon. Membe r for bringing the subject forward , and should be old to hear from the N o bl e Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs what steps had been taken in the matter, for he did not think the s t a t ement o f the Hon. President of the Boardof Trade q u it e sat i s f actor y. They were entitled to some thing more. Mr. M. GIBSON urged the Hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Anderson) not to press his motion to a division, after what had fallen from the President of the Board of Trade. The Hon. Alderman opposite counselled retaliation, but he begged to a:k him whether, even if he thought retaliation, would be good policy, the time had come for exercising it towards Spain ? This country had been pursuing a protective policy for many years, and let it be remembered after what a struggle a free-trade policy was at length carrie d. How then could they exp ec t other Powers a t once to alter their views and adopt our commercia l arra ngements ? Our old navigation laws gav e certain priv il eges to the goods of foreign nations which were imported in the ships of those nations both with respect to this country aad her colo lonics. That privilege, however, was actually withheld from Spain for 20 years, and an order in Council in 1828 declared that Spanish vessels should not be allowed to carry on a direct trade between Spain and the British possessions abroad. What was the effect? A struggle with Spain, which certainly was mot calculated to make her less restric tive in her commercial arrangements or more l ibera l t ow ards this w country; e had contrary, it appeared th at i t was only since side policy th at she ha d ma de adoptede - tr any advance in the direction of free trad e . I t wou ld be mos t unfortunate if they were at that m oment to counte nance on the are 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 diffi c ult to find a ma r k e t f or 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, expect 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 Rams- LONDON, gate harbour while the English captain went to Bilboa and back--(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) lie believed that about 20,000 of the most active, strong, and useful parts of the po pulation in Spain were employed as custom-house 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 I xcibly felt latterly by the Government of Portugal; for when 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 be 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 'panish Government was looking in the right direction, if it had not made much proq,Tess. He assured the House that the Government had been, and was still, engaged in urging the Spanish Government upon those particular points to which his [lon. Friend had directed their attention. It would not be expected that he should comply 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 political government, hut the latter, he feared, would not be found very instructive. Seriously speaking, he assured the House that the Govern . . meat were urging this in the mani.er 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 un 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 :nvolved—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 unfavoured 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 Aet 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 motion. 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 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 Dorsetshire bad referred to the conduct of Spain in sending away our Minister and refusing to pay her debt; but he hoped they would abstain from 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 determined, 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 atop 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 bow 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 Spain 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 of the Noble Lord 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 Hon. 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 bad derived these advantages, and hoped both countries would find beneficial results in the repeal of these laws. The Hon. Member for Whitehaven 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 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. lt 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 Agraiust it ... ... .. 53 ... 98 .. -45 - 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 ; but, 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 better 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 of justice. In bringing the question before the House he should first state the changes that had been made since the year 1812, when the Bill for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor passed through Parliament. In 1811 it was found that the.duties then performed by Lord Eldon were of so laborious a nature that notwithstanding the known industry and learning of that eminent judge, it was consi dered impossible that he could perform all those duties, together with the duties belonging to him as supreme judge in the House of Lords as a court of appeal. Lord Redesdale moved the Committee in the House of Lords, and subse quently brought in the Bill for the appointment of a Vice- Chancellor. It was found at the time that there were writs in arrear of 276 causes, which would require twelve or thirteen 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 Samuel 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 Romilly, 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 th e a ppointment of a Vice - Chancellor, and that at th e ti me of the appointment a g reat num ber of cases were waiting to be heard in the Court of Chancer y. But he imagined the d t delayshe indifferenceprevailed thetb a t judgestim e in alone the was the cause that variou s matters whi ch could have come factcou Court to of have been nce r 3 h, a a n t Ch a before the Court, if there was a prospect of an early settle d ment, were withheld, and in that way injustice was done to the suitors. He found that from 1810 to 1812 the average number of causes was 540 ; from 1822 to 1825 the average that number was 840 ; from 1833 to 1835 the average number Was 1,301. I t was thus evident that the appointment of a Vice-Chanc e ll or h a d l e d to a great increase of business, and causes that would probably never 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 number of causes brought into the court could not be decided owing to the arrear, or whether the causes were not 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 of justice to the suitor. Lord • Cotten- EVENING, 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 1,187 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, 1843, the number of petitions was '2,715, being nearly the same number as there were in 1832. But in 1849 they had increased to 3,984, and in 18F:0 to 3,724; showing a great increase over former years. On looking at the other return—he did not wish to go into detail—he found the total of the matters which had b"en 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 ... . 7,639 giving an average of 7,278. lie found further that the re turns for three years subsequent were— 1848 .. ... 8,332 1849 8,697 1850 ... ... 8,356 giving an average of 8,461, which proved the increase of busi"ess in the Court of Chancery as regarded the two pe rio is. Upon looking through these returns in detail he perceived that the Court of Chancery in 1848 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 term 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 1849750, 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. He (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 18 A. 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 Ito . Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce . Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranwurth 219 90 290 173 Giving a total of ... ... ... 772 While on the first day of Hilary Term, 1851, they were— Lord Chancellor ... ... ... ... 106 Master of the Rolls ... ... ... 136 Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce .. ... 532 Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth ... 242 Total . . ... 1,016 The accumulation of business in the latter period was very much owing, no doubt, to certain Acts of Parliament re cently passed, among others the Winding-up Acts; and no doubt much of it was therefore temporary, and of a nature that the judicial strength of the Court, increased by the appoint ment of another Vice-Chancellor, the Bill for which was before the House, would reduce. It was not, consequently, to that subject that he wished to point attention; but he considered it to be very desirable that the House should see generally the state and progress of the judicial business of the Court of Chancery, and judge by the agency of facts of the very great importance that attached to any change in the constitution of that court. The progress of society in these days, and the complicated state of the property of the country, had led more and more to the concentration within the circle of that court of a vast deal of property; making it, therefore, a matter of the greatest importance to the nation at large that there should be justice in that court.--(Hear, hear.) He next came to the nature of the office of Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor, who was at the head of that great court, had other most important functions to perform also. In the first place he was at the head of the Court of Chancery, and, though he seldom now a days heard original motions, the daily business of the court wa s transacted by him, and lie heard appeals brought from the other judges is Chancery before him. The Lord Chancellor was likewise the judge who presided in the House of Lords while that House remained the great court of appeals in this kingdom. Ile had, besides, various administrative functions; he was a member of the Cabinet for the time being, and as such he was consulted by the Government of the day on all poli tical questions which came before the Government, more es pecially those relating to the constitution, to arfiendments of the existing law, and to the enforcement of that law when it became a question in what manner it should be carried into execution. He was also the adviser of the royal family in all difficulties respecting their interest which might ,arise, and in consequence of all these functions he was placed in a very high position. Under these circumstances he (Lord J. Russell) thought it right to state to the House his view of the advantages and disadvantages of this union of functions in that high position before he proceeded further. In the first place, he thought it a great advantage that the Government of the country could have the aid and the authority of a person who had risen by his 'talents at the bar to a place of the greatest eminence in the State—a person who, for that cause, as well as from the high position he had acquired, must have great weight with the country. This he considered as one of the greatest advantages possible to the executive Government. It was, however, a still greater advantage if that were possible, that the Lord Chancellor sh ou ld pres id e in the House of ords, and be there the ultimate judge of appeal, because thereby the House of Lords had the security that their decisions were presided over by a man of whose capacity and authority there could be no manner of doubt.— (Hear ) There was, however, a still further advantage in this constitution of the office of Lord Chancellor. It was an office always reckoned the great prize of the legal pro fession ; and, therefore, while the Lord Chancellor sat at the 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 ments to the country, it was felt that this high eminence might be reached by men of talent from the humblest sta tion, by men who had devoted their early lives to the cul tivation of the law, and who might truly say that they had earned by their talents that eminent station.—(Hear, hear.) It was, therefore, one of many instances in this country whereby the most aristocratic body in the state was con nected with those, who, by no original advantage of birth or fortune, bat solely by their own merit and abilities, had attained the highest station. These were the advantages. He should next state some of the disadvantages of the pre sent constitution of the office. The chief disadvantage was that the functions of the Lord Chancellor as judge were of so weighty a character—the attendance in the Court of Chancery to deliver judgments, for instance, was of such high importance, and involved such great labour of mind and body, that its junction with the requisite attendance on the House of Lords, and with the solution of the great questions of State which came before the Cabinet for discussion, all formed a mass of business so important and so weighty that it seemed hardly possible for any one man to be found ade quate to the duty. It was evidently another disadvantage also, that while the Executive Government for the time being had the advice and assistance of the Lord Chancellor, it was requisite he should be a man whose general political sentiments coincided with theirs, and that, when the Cabinet was changed, the country and the Court of Chancery lost all the advantages of the accumulated experience of this high officer. These considerations had been placed before the couctry, and weighed by eminent men of various minds and dispositions; and the result was that various plans had been I roposed from time to time in order to secure the great advantage which he had already mentioned, and to obviate the disadvantages by a change in the ma chinery of the Court of Chancery, of the House of Lords, or of the Administration. The first plan he should men tion for the purpose was propounded with all that ability and all that clearness of statement for which he was so famous, by Lord Langdale. In that •I an a perma nent judge was proposed for the Court of Chancery, who should not be changed with the Administraiossi of the day. It was proposed, likewise, that a Lord President should sit in the House of Lords as a permanent judge; and, further, that there should be a third officer, with the title of Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, or Minister of Justice, who should belong to the Administration of the day, and whose whole duty should be directed to the framing and advising such changes in the law as the Government or individuals should see fit, from time to time, to propose to Parliament. It ap peared to him (Lord John Russell), however, that however plausible such a proposition might be—however sit might agree with theoretical views of a separation of the judicial from the political functions of the Lord Chancellor, he could not think that such a plan would be found beneficial. In the first place, he did not think that the objection to the mixture of judicial and political functions in the Lord Chan cellor was well-founded in all cases—but more especially as regarded the impartial administration of justice to suitors in the Court of Chancery. To say nothing of Lord Mans field and Lord Ellenberough, he (Lord John Russell) thought it would be found that this might be of some weight in the case of a criminal judge; but with regard to a judge who presided in a court for the settlement of questions solely relating to property, he could not think it at all likely that any political case would occur to bind, in the slightest degree, the decision of the Lord Chancellor. —(Hear, hear.) In the course of the debates which had taken place on the subject, it had been maintained, he be lieved by Lord Haddington, that, notwithstanding the repu tation of Lord Chancellor Je ffre y as a politician, his decisions on property were equitable , and frequently looked back to on that ground. But witho ut referring to such an extreme case he (Lord J. Russell) t h ought he might say that since the Revolution—a period during which many decided poli ticians e had et de d sat in with the re fe r eCnocuer Court of politicaleh y—, none of them to parties .—(Hear, Therefore, if the re w a s n o reason why a political Chancellor should not decide cases of property justly, and if from the Revolution to the present time no practical evil had arisen on that ground, he was bound to say, upon a full con sideration of the question, that, however plausible, he could not agree with it. But to come to the practical evil of the plan. The Lord Chancellor, appointed to the permanent office of Judge of the Court of Chancery, would no doubt dis charge his duty like all the other judges -with zeal and ability; the presiding judge in the House of Lords would doubtless do the same; but when the House came to con sider that which was so useful and advantageous in the pre sent constitution of the office of Lord Chancellor—namely, that a person of authority and,weight was always ready to assist the Government, and to take part in all - debates on constitutional and legal questions in the ;House of Lords— then the plan entirely failed. In the first place, to obtain a first-rate man at the bar in that capacity, looking at all the chances of the change, the House would be obliged to give a higher salary and a higher retiring allowance than was at present given to any member of the Government; and he (Lord John Russell) could not but foresee that the House, though it might grant them at first, would soon begin to complain and to inquire why such an officer should have a higher salary and retiring allowance than any other political person. He did not, therefore, think this part of the plan could be maintained. In respect of the other offices, that of Lord Chancellor and Lord President in the House of Lords, he should say nothing ; b ut it would be found, however, that the judgeships of the common law courts would be more sought atter than that of the Keeper of the Seals or Minister of Justice. The country would, therefore, be liable to have an inferior man in this situation, who, when he advised the Government, would be liable to have his advice overthrown by the dicta of more eminent men in the other high situations. If that was the case he (Lord J. Russell) did not see why such large provision should be made for such officer, or why the Home Secretary of the day should not be competent then as now to perform all the duties of Lord Keeper or Minister of Justice. With regard to one of the duties of the proposed Minister of Justice, he (Lord J. Russell) should say from his own experience that no such high officer was required— he meant that of superintending Bills to be brought into Parliament, and seeing that no errors crept into their legis lation, either as regarded truth or language. But the legis lation of this country was settled by both Houses-one of which was elected by the popular vote; and, therefore, all Bills that passed through them should not only. **WY ; MARCH 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 l'.is 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 wh, 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 fromany duties in the Court of Chancery. but preserving him with the office and name of Lord Chancellor rather as the appellate judge in the Have 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 clearend able statement of Lord Lyndhurst, and referring to the euthories which that Noble and Learned Lord quoted—Sir Samuel Romilly, Lord Redesdale, and others—on consulting also with those whom he 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 Appall 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 be formed of separate judges, who were to be chiefly, he believed, the Vice-Chancellors. The objection made to that plan, and it seemed to him (Lord J. Russell) to be an objec tion which was fatal to it, was, that by depriving the several Courts of Chancery of their chiefs, in order to form this court of appeal, they paralysed the action of those courts, and that the time which these judges ought to be able to give in their respective courts to the cases brought before them there, would be thus consumed in the appeal court.— (Hear, hear.) At the same time there was a statement of Sir Edward Sugden made before the Committee upon Judicial Salaries, which was well worthy of attention, because he himself was stating his own experience as Lord Chancellor of Ireland—and he (Lord J. Russell), believed that no man had ever presided in the Court of Chancery in Ireland with greater reputation and authority than that Hon. and Learned Gentleman.—(Hear.) If any man had a right to be con fident in his own opinion, and to feel that by his learn ing and acuteness of mind he was likely to be right in his decision, Sir Edward Sugden was that man.—(Hear, hear.) [The Noble Lord here read an extract from the evidence of Sir E. Sugden before the Committee on judicial salaries, in which that Learned Gentleman stated that he considered the office of a single judge the most painful that a man could fill; qualifying that opinion, however, with respect to those who did not hold the situation of appellate judge—and the Vice-Chancellors were in that position—who must have the feeling that if they were in error their decisions might be re heard and corrected by a court of appeal.] He (Lord John Russell) found also in other quarters that there was an opi nion, which had gained great strength of late, that it was desirable when parties came to the Lord Chancellor's Court, that they should have the decision of more than one judge. Now, he thought that this view would be still further strengthened if the House agreed with him that it was desi rable not to make an alteration in that practice by which an eminent man at the bar or on the bench was taken at once into the Court of Chancery to preside there as a judge. Of course it would be very unjust, and the occasion of a great loss to the Government and the public in general if the rule were absolutely laid down that none but a man who had always practised in the Court of Chancery should obtain the office of Lord Chancellor; and that those eminent men who, at the common law bar and in the courts had distinguished themselves, and risen to the greatest: repute in their pro fession, should be excluded from the highest eminence to which a lawyer could attain.—(Hear.) If such a rule were adopted, then the difficulty would be all the greater for a single judge to take upon himself the responsible duties of this court. Now, Sir (proceeded the Noble Lord) the Bill which I have to propose to the House goes, first, upon the foundation that it is desirable to have more than one judge sitting in the Lord Chancellor's Court. It goes upon this other foundation. that the wear and tear being such as Sir E. Sugden describes, and the political functions, and the atten tion not only to political questions, but to all the forms of law, being so desirable, it is likewise desirable that the Lord Chancellor should have a greater portion of time than he now possesses to devote to the consideration of these subjects. —(Hear, hear.) It has been my fortune to be connected in the administration of the Government with my Noble and Learned Friend Lord Cottenham. And I believe no man ever imparted more satisfaction, by the attention which he gave to the cases in the Court of Chancery, and the clear judgment which he brought to bear upon all questions which came before him than my Noble and Learned Friend. But I must say that that great attention which was shown, not only by his judgments in the court, but by his study of the cases in his own house—far I have found him late at night in his study consulting precedents, and I know that he very often sat up until two or three in the morning— I must say that that great attention, which, with all his learning and familiarty with the law, he gave to these subjects, did render him less able to devote the time which ethers would desire to political ques tions and to questions of administration.—(Hear, hear) I think, therefore, that it is desirable on this ground that the Lord Chancellor should be enabled to have relief from at tendance in the Court of Chancery, and that he should be able—not to enter into that work which I have mentioned of criticising minute details and the precise language of Bills—but too give sufficient time, for the consideration of all measures which affect the administration of the law, or which may tend to alter in any respect any of the institu tions of the country. Now what I venture to propose is, that there shall be established a court which shall be called the Supreme Court in Chancery, or the Lord Chancellor's Court, whichever may be decided upon; and that in that court shall tit the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and one of the judges of the courts of law, to be summoned from time to time for that purpose. lam informed that, in the present state of the business before the common law courts—at least it is the opinion of the present Lord Chancellor—it would not be difficult for those courts to give the assistance of one of the judges for the performance of this duty. I propose, therefore, that there shall be three judges—the Lord Chan cellor, the Master of the Rolls, and one of the judges of the common law courts; that any two of them shall have the power of hearing causes in the Court of Chancery ; and that, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the two others shall have all the powers and authority in the Court of Chancery which the Lord Chancellor himself possesses. It is also part of the measure which I shall have the honour to propose, that appeals in bankruptcy, and all other statutory juris diction now exercised by the Lord Chancellor, shall be ex ercised by this Supreme Court ; and that the Lord Chan cellor alone shall not exercise the authority which he now exercises in the Court of Chancery, but shall always exer cise it as a member of the Court. By this provision the Lord Chancellor would be enabled—indeed, would be re quired to attend to the business of the Court of Chancery. He would sit there as a judge. All the interlocutory matter, and other matters which would come before the Court, would be heard by him, and at the same time he w ou ld no t b e so entirely absorbed by those duties as not to have time for the other high and important functions which he has to fulfil. In the same way questions of lunacy shall be heard by this Supreme Court, and an arrangement shall be made with the judges of the law courts for dispensing with the attendance of one of their body for the purpose of attending to this court. With regard to the salaries in future to be paid, it will be recollected that the Committee upon Judicial Salaries proposed last year that if no division of the office of Lord Chancellor was effected, the salary should be reduced to 8,0001. a year. It is our opinion that that reduction is a greater reduction than ought to be made in so high an office, and we think especially, that the pension to be paid on the retirement from office of the Lord Chancellor should not be diminished, because when the situation itself must de pend upon the changes in political life, it is desirable that there should be a retiring allowance sufficient to induce men who would otherwise hold permanent situations, to accept of an office of so much importance to the country. What I propose, therefore, is, that the salary should be 10,0001. a year, and that the retiring allowance should remain as at present, 5,0001. a year. There is another change which I should, perhaps, have some difficulty in mentioning, be cause it would certainly seem as if, being First Lord of the Treasury, I had an interest in the proposal I am about to make. There is a great deal of ecclesisastical patronage vested in the Lord Chancellor. Originally, I believe, it was vested in him by the arrangement under which the persons who then assisted him in the Lord Chancellor's office were clerks in holy orders, and benefices were given them as a mode of rewarding them for the performance of their duties in the Court of Chancery. In fact, this pa tronage belongs to the time when the Lord Chancellor was usually an ecclesiastic, and held ecclesiastical livings. It is now disposed of, not by reference to the Crown—not by taking the Queen's pleasure, as is the case with the political offices of the State, but by the Lord Chancellor's own discre tion. A Commission, which reported last year, recommended that the whole of these benefices should be sold for the pur pose of increasing the means of spiritual instruction; but the Government, upon taking that proposal into consideration, were decidedly averse to it—(Cheers)—thinking, in the first place, that it was not advisable to part with a great public trust, and sell it to whoever might offer the best price for it —( Hear, hear) and thinking, in the second place, that such a separation of a great part of the Church from connexion with the State was in itself not at all desirable. What I pro pose therefore is, that this patronage should in future be vested in the Crown, and that the Minister of the Crown should take the pleasure of the Soverign with reference to its distribution, in the same way as with the ecclesiastical titles which are vested in the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) I have now stated the general provisions of the Bill which I shall hive the honour to propose ; but I should mislead the House if 1 gave it to suppose that I was now carrying into effect all the proposals which the Government and the Lord Chancellor will have to make for the improvement of the administration of justice. In her Majesty's Speech at the commencement of this session, it is said:— " The administration of justice in the several departments of law and equity will no doubt receive the serious attention of Parliament ; and I feel confident that the measures which may be submitted, with a view of improving that administra tion, will be discussed with that mature deliberation which important changes in the highest courts of judicature in the kingdom imperatively demand." Now, Sir, one of the changes which has been male, as any one who consulted the newspap ers o f the da y will have seen, is a reduction and an abolition of many of the fees which are now paid on proceedings in the Court of Chancery.— (Hear, hear.) lam persuaded that there is nothing more desirable than that the suitor should be enabled to obtain justice without those very great expenses, which must deter many from entering the courts.—(Hear, hear.) I have heard it said by some, that it is desirable the avenues of jus- 28, 1851. s tics should be closed upon them, because, otherwise, of jus tice were made too cheap, litigation would be increased. ' I Now, if it be desirable to discourage litigaion, 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 he 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 c.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 20,0007. or 30,000!. a year, who to indulge his spite, or to revenge himself upon some person 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 100/. to obtain redress. So that whilst the rich man would be at liberty to indulge a vexatious spirit of litigation, the poor ;man 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 Chance'ry. Without mentioning any particular measures which are under their deliberation, I may state that , I am persuaded the result of these Commissions will be very much to prevent the continual transfers fr. - sm one court to another; to prevent those tedious proceedings which have hitherto greatly embarrassed our courts of justice. I believe they are devoting their attenticn 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 i i 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.—(Bear, 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 Rouse of Lords. . .. . Mr. BEADLAM 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 abolished, 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 as amended, Sir W. 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 young 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. WILLOUGHBY 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 3,000/. instead of 3,5001. So far as diplomatic services were concerned, the pension did not exceed 1,7801. 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 3,0001. Up to 1825 the retiring pension in the judicial service was 2,0001. a year; and, in that year, the retiring pension of the puisne 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 3,0001." 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 COPYHOLDS BILL. __ Mr. AGLIONBY moved the second 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. MULLINGS 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 to be referred to a Select Committee. CIVIL BILLS (IRELAND) BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENE AL 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 )RNEY-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 manner, 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. He 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. lie was anxious to explain why the Irish Mem bers took this course; they thought that legal Bills affectin g Ireland ought not to be left to the English Attorney-Gene ral, the,or should law be officers explainedof the by Crown Irish wnin l E a n w gl ofi a f nd e , er b s u o t f th u a le t 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 hsd quite business enough of theirf the Bill. own.—(Hear, hear.) He should supp ort the principle o The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND explained that on the introduction of the 13111 he had stated that it was a consolidation of numerous s-atutes in Ireland, and intended to form a " manual" of reference. He must now say that there was not an Irish Me m b er i n this House who was no t in formed on the subj ec t. IT —e Was erfectiv aware of the habitual objection mad e t o the introduction r' of Bills at that hour of the morning ; and all he at present wished was the second reading of the Bill, and then to refer it to a Select Committee. Hon. Gentlemen however , were anxious to express their opi n i ons 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 • which we should in future resent. He thanked the House tbr the patiez Ice with which they had heard him, but be pat it to the House, whether in an assembly of Illaglish gentlemen the course pursued towards him was a becoming one.—(Heg.) Mr. APCULLAGIi thought that at that late hour thoap who objected to the introduction of the Bill ware not out et order. Mr. ANSTEY hoped that Hon. Gentlemen wquld give consideration to this matter, so as to allow the Bil to be read a second time, and go to a Seleot Committee. He ap proved of the object of the Bill ; 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 Rouse Ifni sometimes wasted by difference of opinion, b 4 it was rather hard that they should be kept out o f their lAds 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 subjeet, concluded by proposing that they should all agree to post the Bill. Mr. REYNOLDS and other Hon. Members_approved of the proposition, and the Bill was accordingly p-stpontii. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Two o'clock. FRIDAY PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION S. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the Howe of Comsnons ) 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 IV. r. Sandal's, George Baird James Gaskell, J. M. Seully,Jrancis Bankes, George Grace, 0. D. Spoonef, Eiobard Barrow, W. H. Gwyn, Bowel Stanford, J. F. Beresford, William Higgins, George Stanley, Edward Blakemore, It. Hodgson, W. N. Stanley, E. H. Boldero, 11. George Hotharn, Lord Stephenson, Robert Booker, T. W. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Stuart, John Booth, Sir R. G. Lennox, Lori A. Sullivan, Michael Cayley, Edward S. Macaghten, Sir E. Thompson,:Aldenna Child, Smith Maher, N. Tyler, Sir G. Clive, H. B. Moffatt, George Tyrell, Kr J. Cobbold, J. C. Mullings, J. lt. Walpole, Spencer Cottony, Thomas O'Brien, Sir Lucius Wawn, J. T. Dodd, G. O'Flaherty, Anthony Willoughby, Sir R. Duke, Sir James Pakington, Sir J. Farrer, James Prinsep, H. T. =MM. Forbes, William Stanton, J. C. Newdegace, C. N. Frewen, C. H. Reynolds, John Ilildyard, R. C. MAJORITY-NOES, 98. Abdy, T. N. Fox, W. J. Paget, Lord C. Aglionby, H. Freestnn, Colonel ,_ Palmerston, Vis. Alcock, Thomas French, F. Parker, John Anderson, Arthur Graham, Sir James Pattee, J. W. Anson, Colonel Grey, Sir G. Peel, Frederick Anstey, Thomas Guest, Sir John Pilkington, Jana Baines, M. T. Harris, Richard Power, Dr. Baring, Sir F. Hastie, Alexander Power, Nicholas Bass, M. T. Hatchell, John Ricardo, J. L. Bell, Jacob Hawes, Benjamin Rieh, Henry Bellew, R. M. Hayes, Sir E. Romilly, Sir John Berkeley, Admiral Hayter, W. G. Russell, Lord John Bernard, Viscount Headlam, Thomas Russell, P. C. Blair, Stephen Heald, James Salwey, Colonel Bright, John Heathcoat, John Seymour, Lord Buxton, Sir E. Henry, Alexander Smith, J. B. Calvert, Frederic Herbert, Sydney Somerville. Sir W. Carter, John B. Hepworth, Lawrence Strickland, Sir G. Clay, James Hill, Lord M. Tancred, H. W. Clay, Sir W. Hobhouse, T. B. Thompson, Colonel Cockburn, Sir A. Hume, Joseph Thomely, Thoms Colebrooke, Sir T. Kershaw, James Verney, Sir H. Craig, Sir W. G. Labouchere, Henry Villiers, Charles Cubitt, William Lewis, G. C. Walmsley, Sir J. Denison,jEdmund Loveden, Pryse Watkins, Colonel Duncuft, John M`Gregorl'John Wilcox, Brodie Dundas, Admiral M'Taggart, Sir J. Williams, John Dundas, Sir David Matheson, Colonel Wilson, James Ellis, John Milton, Viscount Weod, Sir Charles Elliot, J. E. Mitchell, T. A. _ Wood, W. P. Fagan, William Morison, Sir W. Ferguson, Sir it. Morris, David TELLS S. Fitzpatrick, J. W. Mowatt, Francis Brotherton..2. Forster, Matthew Munts, G. F. 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 ," an d i nsert th e "not exceeding in," instead thereof:—Question pat " 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 Romilly, Sir John Bernal, Ralph Hawes, Benj. Russell, Lord J. Brotherton, Joseph Hayes, Sir E. Russell, F. C. H. Calvert, Frederic Headlam, T. F. Somerville, Sir4W. Carter, J. B. Hobbouse, T. B. Thompson, Colonel Cockburn, Sir A. Labouchere, Henry Thornely, T. Cowper, W. F. Lewis, G. C. Vesey,:Thomas Craig, Sir W. G. Megan, W. H. Walpole, S. H Dundas, Admiral Mahon, O'Gorman Wilson, James Dundas, Sir D. O'Connell, M. J. Wood, W. P. Dunne, Colonel Paget, Lord C. Wortley, J. S. Ebrington, Viscount Palmer, Roundell Elliot, J. E. Palmerston, Viscount Tama,. Ferguson, Sir R. Parker, John -- Hill, Lord Marcus Fitawilliam, G. W. Patten, W. Hayter, W. G. 4rench, F. Pilkingten, James MINORITY—NOES, 32. Arkwright, George Hodgson, W. N. Sadleir, John Bankes, George Jollifre, Sir W. H. Saiwey, Colonel Beresford, William Keating, Robert Sandare, George Blair, Stephen Keogh, William Scally, Francis Blilke, M. J. Kershaw, James Smollett, A. Burghley, Lord Knox, W. S. Spooner, Mallard Duncuft, John Dl`Cullagh, W. Sullivan. Michael Edwards, Henry Mullings, J. R. Williams, John Grogan, E. Neeld, Joseph Gwyn, Rowel Nugent, Sir Percy TELLII3II. Henley, J. W. Reynolds, Jonh Willoughby, Sir H. Hitiins, George Roche, E. 13. Sibthorp, Colonel MR. PET() AND LORD WARD. 47, Russell.square, 27th March, 1851. To THE EDITOR OF TILE MORNING POST. Sir,—l have read Lord Ward's letter to you in yo* paper of this morning. My only object in making the statement which I did at the meeting of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company was to rebut the unjust aspersions of herd Ward; and if, in doing so, the declarations which I was then compelled to make, and am now forced to reiterate, are disagreeable to Lord Ward, it is by no fault of nine that they are so. Bat even now Lord Ward does not deny " the statentegi which I made at the meeting," to the effect that he, beirk chairman of the company, did, pending negotiations with the London and North-Western and Midland Oompanies, de mand, through the party deputed to act on behalf of th companies, 5,000 preference shares at par, those shares bei 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 eenfines tfs 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 quit* unnecessary to say what was necessarily implied, but Lord Ward cannot be permitted by this special pleading to avoid the statement which I made circumstantially and in 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 he proposed to be a condition of his acclaim ence, and a part of the treaty, why was the demand of thoee 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 thie—Whether his Lordship would or would not adopt it? I am, sir, your obedient servant, S. Monvox Pam MR. PETO AND LORD WARD. TO mix EDITOR OF THE MORNING POST. Mivart's Hotel, March 26, MI. Sir,—Mr. Peto, in a letter published in your columns to day, repeats the charge made by him against me at the Ox ford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway meeting, on 28th of last February, of having demanded 500 Preform°. 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 ibr them, as one of the conditions to assenting to the proposed arrangements 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 o distinct denial of having done so, as a " preliminary to," or "condition of," my subscribing the proposed arrangement. I enter into these details to recal to Mr. Peto's recollection the facts as they took place, as I am unwilling to sea in hi s letter of this morning a studied insult to myself, or to believe that he would convey such to me through the columns of the public press. I am, sir, your obedient servant, WA THE GREAT ANTI-PAPAL LEAGUE.,....ThO orila i• nators of the Great Anti-Papal League, to w hi ch we all uded a few days ago, as being in the course of formation met ligau 2 yesterday in Osborne's Hotel, in the Adelphi. There was a very large attendance of distinguished laym en , eierglfmon of the Church of England, and Dissenting ministers a - various Evangelical denominations. Among th o „ pres ent were, the Earl of Winchilsea, Lord Ashley, Si r C o ng Eard I p er Si r Harry Verney, Bart., M.P., Mr. Childers, ILP" Mr. - nul l ' tre, M.P., Mr. Tollemache, M .12. _ R. a Bevan, BK., e City banker; Admiral Hope, H on " . 'c o tain Maude, the Hon. and Rev. Montague Villiers, Rev. D . Wilson, Roy. W. W. Champney s , R ev. E.n d o !, Rev. Henry Vern, Rev. Dr. Steane, R ev. Dr. B4pt i nff , Rev. Dr. Cox, Rev. Dr. Hoby, Rev. D r . M orison, Bev. Dr- Tidman , Rev. Thomas presided, Binney, &c. L or d Ashley and the meeting re mained in d e lib eration for three hours. The proceedings were charact er i sed throug h o ut by the greatest earnestness of spirit and un an i m i ty. we are not at liberty to refer in detail to what transpired ; A meeting was only preliminary, w ith confidence, tha t out of the meeting but this we can say of yesterday will arise one of the most powerful religions eon ocothnefrrocnotuntre p . o an pi d sh th f a o t e ' federati ons - o f which we have any example in this or in any w are fully developed, the Church of hen the measures to be adopted to Rome will s tand aghast at the bare idea of the amonat of resistance wh ich is about to be offered to he r aggressions.—. Ad v ertiser. (ADVERTISEMENT.] — A remarkable Cure in Hobart Town by Holloway's Pills and Ointment. —Major Welob, of Wellington-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 ad become so miserable emaciated and weak that he could only move about with the assistance of persons supporting him. In this condition he commenced using these medicines, which have so completely renovated his health that he is now become a stoat, healthy. looking man, and his cure he solely attributes to the use of Holloway's Pills and Ointment. Sold by all druggists, ant at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 2 44 . Strand. London. The Rev. T. H. Davies, incumbent of the Churoh of the Holy Trinity, Nottingham, has been appointed to the vs cant office of Archdeacon of Melbourne, /South Australia. 1 , 1 '