The Sun. — London, England, 1845-05-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 5. Their Lordships met at Five o'Clock. - Earl FITZWILLIAM presentectpetitions from Bing ley and other places against the sale of spirits on the Lord's day. Lord COTTENHAM presented a petition from 300 tradesmen of Bristol against the Act which abolishes im prisonment for debt under 201. Lord MONTEAGLE presented petitions from Cam bridge against the Maynooth grant. Lord FAVERSHAM presented petitions from York shire against the grant. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions to the same effect ; also petitions against the Act which prohibits the imprisonment for debt or debts under 201. Lord MONTEAGLE wished to put a question to the Noble Duke opposite on a very important subject, of which he had given notice. He wished to know from the Noble Duke opposite, whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure into Parliament for the renewing of the Usury Laws ? The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was the inten tion of the Government to propose such a Bill during the present session. The Earl of WINCHILSE A presented p litions from different parts of Yorkshire, and also from Leamington Priors, in 'Warwickshire, against any further grant to the College of Maynooth. The Duke of RICHMOND presented 169 petitions from different parts of the country, praying their Lord ships in any reduction of taxation not to lose sight of the agricultural interest. The Noble Duke also pre sented a petition against the Customs Bill. The Earl of St. GERMANS presented a petition from Cornwall against any further grant to the College of Maynooth. PRIVY COUNCIL. The Earl of RIPON moved the second reading of the Privy Council Appellate Jurisdiction Act Amend ment Bill. Lord BROUGHAM thought that the East India Company were entitled to the highest credit for their desire to promote the ends of justice. They were ready to spend 40,0001. or 50,000/. for improving the appeals from the native tribunals. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought some means should be taken for making known these alterations to the natives and the tribunals of India, and it would be well, if the interests of the people of India were to be so largely affected, that every portion of the subject should be well inquired into. The Earl of RIPON said that he proposed to defer the operation of this Bill until the Ist October in the present year, but, if that were not sufficient time, he was quite ready to extend the period. Lord CAMPBELL suggested that it would be just as right for Government to defray the whole of the costs of appeals from Scotland, as to take the expense of those appeals upon its shoulders, and he thought it would be better that another Court should be established to con sider those appeals. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH had understood that these appeals were heard before a Committee of the Privy Council, and he thought it was strange that no one acquainted with India was a Member of that Council. Lord BROUGHAM explained, that though none of the judges were persons who had been in India, yet the Privy Council . had the advantage of such persons in the capacity of assessors. The Bill was then read a second time. AUCTION DUTIES BILL. On the motion for the second reading of the Bill for the remission of the auction duties, The Duke of RICHMOND said that he s'iould move that this Bill go into Committee this day six months, on the ground that it was uncalled for by the country and injurious to the agricultural interests. The Government, by their late measures, had brought distress upon the agricultural interests, and he should like to know how the farmer was to go on, if they continued removing the trifling protectioa he already possessed. When he asked for a repeal of the Malt Tax, the Mini:ter said it was impossible to get a revenue sufficient to make up for it; and when the Minister was asked to contribute 300,0001. or 400,000/. to the county rates, he turned round and said it would be of no use to the agricultural interest. Thus, on the one hand, it was too little; and on the other hand it was too much. The landed inte rest had to pay for the maintenance of every prisoner taken upon the land, and to pay for half his prosecution at the sessions or the assizes. Now, he should like to know upon what principle these charges were inflicted on the agricultural interest. Again, they had to pay for the support of clergymen in every parish, and yet the Government compelled them to provide a chaplain for all their gaols and workhouses. Now, he should like to know what the manufacturing interest could say to this extent. They had to maintain the wives and children of prisoners, and when they were transported, if the prisoner had any property it went to the Crown, and not to the county rate ; and, on the other hand, if there were any recognisances forfeited the Crown received the penalty. Now, he should like to ask their Lordships, whether it was right that the agricultural interest should bear all the loss, while the Crown received all the profit? Now, he would propose that Government should pay half of the county rate, and contribute at the same time from 20 to 50 per cent. to the poor-rates of the country. It was not fair that the whole of the expense should be inflicted on one party, and to establish that principle he would move that the Bill be committed that day six months. The Earl of DALHOUSIE said the auction duty was a most demoralising tax, and frequently led to the com mission of perjury. It was one, too, which pressed most severely npon the poor, while at the same time it was a convenience to the rich. The poor man was obliged to pay the duty, but the rich man resorted to an auction to ascertain the value of his property, and then sold it by private contract. Now, let their Lord shipa add to these considerations the fact, that the tax was one of an entirely unproductive character, and he was sure the House would be ready to admit with him that Government was not to blame in seeking to remove it. He considered that the present was a tax which the Government was bound to do away with, and they had brought forward this measure for the purpose of doing so, on the grounds he had stated. He would not retort on his Noble Friend, because he did not wish any bitter ness of spirit to be introduced in the measure. He was more anxious to prove to his Noble Friend that the attacks he had made on the Government were unfounded, than to retort upon him. He de fied his Noble Friend to show what were the articles in the tariff that had produced the results to which he had alluded. The Canada Corn Bill was not one of those measures that had been productive of the evils to which his Noble Friend had alluded. The importation of live stock could not have produced such an effect, for what was that importation ? About 4,0001b5., which was but a small quantity compared with the con sumption of this country. The quantity of meat con sumed in this country was no less than 234,248,0001 b. per annum, while the importation was only about 3,800,0001 b. ; was, it therefore, possible that they could have the effect of driving people to a workhouse, or producing the evils which had been alluded to. Then with respect to timber, he defied his Noble Friend to say that the reduction of the duty on that article had not been productive of great benefit to the consumer of that article. Then, again, the reduction of the duty on cot ton ; was not that of importance, he would ask, to the agriculturist ?—(Hear, hear.) Then, with respect to coffee ; was it to be said that that was not an article of great consumption among the agriculturists ? And, if it was so, could it be said that the reduction of the duty on that article was not a great boon ?—(Hear, hear.) What was the fact? Why, the duly on that article, in the first instance, was 16d., fom that it had been reduced to Bd., then to 6d., and lastly, to 4d.—(Hear, hear)—on colonial coffee. Then with respect to sugar ; had not a great benefit been conferred on agriculture by the re duction of the duty on that article ?—(Hear hear.) And the same observation might be made with repect to glass. The Duke of RICHMOND—We do not grow glass, but we do timber.—( Laughter.) The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that his Noble Friend might joke, but notwithstanding that, he should not be deterred from his assertion, that the reduction of the duty on glass had been of great benefit to the agricultural interest. There were other classes who were not in a condition to ohjeet to the im position of these duties whose case was equally hard with that of those to whom his Noble Friend had alluded, and who might bring the very same objection. But he was bound to maintain that the tariff bad been instrumental net only in promoting commercial prosperity, but also in improving the condition of the agricultural classes ; and if a discussion were to be raised on the several items of the schedule, he was prepared to defend every one of them, and to show that the agricultural classes had not been neglected by the Government. The Earl of MALMESBURY said that, unwilling as he was to intrude upon the attention of the House, he could not refrain from accepting the challenge which the Noble Lord had just thrown out. He would not descend into particulars, but he would beg to draw the memory of his Noble Friend back for a period of three years. 1 t would be recollected what were the principles upon which the present Govern ment began their reign, and what the expectations were which the country had formed on their first taking office. Three years ago they were told that the burden of the income tax would be unfelt because the remission of duties upon other articles would so decrease expenditure. There was another subject to which he thought it necessary to allude. The re mission of duties on timber had been classed with the remis sion of duties on glass. The agr iculturists might be benefited in some small indi rect way, Cut that benefit would be very largely exceeded by the in' by the e.ompetition of fo r eign w h ich they would have to en duremusotreign timber without our own. Lord MONTEAGLE f words, for if the Noble Duke on the cross benches should saa divide the House, he felt bound to go out with him, though he should vote on different grounds to those which the Noble Duke had assigned. The auction duty was about to be remitted, not l without any pressure from without, but in the absence o f al l complaint. It was a duty not diminishing, or likely to diminis h, for, during surplus. the last ten years, it had increased 50,000/. m ent had calculated upon erroneous data f or tbet G oyei•n That surplus was only about 150, 1 001., and grounded on the assumption that the sugar duties would bring a large su m w as expected that the greatest bulk of sugar wouldd b . e It in troduced at the highest duty , and would amount i n quantity to 3 65 , 000 cwt. ; but the contrary was the fact, for by a table now upon their Lordships House it appeared that the sugar brought in was of the lower qualities, and the quantity was not more than 2,283 tons, making a difference of nearly 300,000/. a year in the duty it would yield. His objection to this measure was that they were parting with this revenue at a time that they could but ill afford it, and he begged the House to observe that he did not agree with the Noble Duke who had moved an amendment, because he was far from think ing that agricultural interest had any just right to complain of the Government. There was nothing in the conduct of the Government calculated to injure that interest; and he was therefore somewhat surprised to hear the remarks which fell from the lips of the Noble Duke. He was prepared to contend that all the former measures of the Government, which the Noble Duke alleged inflicted evil on the agricul tural interest, had, on the contrary, a tendency to improve it. The Canada Corn Bill, which was one of the most important of those measures, bad certainly lowered the price of wheat in this country; but this fact was no proof that it had indicted injury on the agricultural interest. Then, on the other hand, instead of that interest having boon 'vegioded, • Parliament had always evinced a onerous desire to entertain any proposition of a practical nature, which was calculated to improve or relieve that in terest. For instance, the duty, some short time ago, was taken off the leather consumed in making shoes for agricultu ral labourers, while the taxes were removed from all horses, carts, and dogs used for agricultural p9rposes. The Noble Duke had asked, why the manufacturing interest was not taxed to the same extent as the agricultural? Now, in his opinion, it would be more wise in the supporters of the agriculturist to seek for a removal of the burdens imposed on manufacturers, instead of calling upon Parliament to augment them. The best customer of the agriculturist was the manufacturer; and their Lordships might depend upon it, the consumer of agricul tural produce had more right to complain of unjust taxation than the producer. On these grounds he should vote for the amend ment. Before he sat down, however, there was another point which he wished to bring under their Lordships' consideration. The income-tax was introduced in a time of exigence, and it was. therefore, thought advisable that her Majesty should con tribute to it. Now, as that time of exigency had passed, he thought the Sovereign ought not to be called upon to pay either the income or property-tax. The Earl of WINCHILSEA said the auction duties had frequently led to the commission of fraud, and on that account he was glad to see the Government were about to remove them. He did not altogether agree with his Noble Friend that the pre sent measures of the Government would be of no advantage to the agricultural interest. In his opinion, the removal of the duty on glass would prove a source of great benefit to the agriculturist. Lord STANLEY said great misapprehension existed on the effect of the import duties, and to prove bis assertion, he begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the following facts : In 1843 the quantity of salt pork imported into this country was 7,600 cwt., and in 1844 it was 1,090. In 1843 the quan tity of beef imported was 3,400 cart., and in 1844, 999 cwt. In 1 843 the quantity of bacon was 2,006 cwt., and in 1844 it was 280 cwt. Lord BEAUMONT declared his intention to support the measure, because he believed the varying and changeable cha racter of the auction duties led not only to great inconve nience, but to the committal of immense fraud. The Marquis of NORMAN BY, as he understood the Noble Duke intended to take the sense of the House on the question, wished to state that he should vote with him, not because he objected altogether to the measure, but on the ground that these reductions in taxation were calculated to render the in come-tax perpetual. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and their Lord ships divided, when there appeared— Contents Non-Contents Majority lB The Bill then went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time. CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL. The Earl of DALHOUSIE then moved the committal of the Customs Duties Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be committed that day six months. The LORD CHANCELLOR having put the question, de clared that the contents had it. The Bill then went through Committee, and upon the schedules being put, The Duke of RICHMOND again urged upon the House the necessity of protecting the agricultural interest. The Earl of DALHOUSIE denied that the interests of the agriculturists had either been injured or In-gotten in the present measure. After some observations from the Earl of WINCHILSEA and the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the Bill passed through Committee. The House then resumed, and the report was brought up, When the Duke of RICHMOND proposed that bark and other articles of a similar kind be left out of the schedule. On this motion the Bill was recommitted, when, After a few words from Lord STANLEY, the motion was negatived. The report was then brought up, and the schedule was agreed to. The House resumed, the report was brought up, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 5. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. On the motion of Mr. HODGSON lIINDE, the New castle upon Tyne Port Bill was read a third time. IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. Mr. FRENCH rose to move that the Irish Great Western Railway (Dublin and Galway) Bill be per mitted to proceed. He was glad to see the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee in his place, for he wished to show that there were peculiar circumstances in this case which might make it expedient to set aside in its favour the general rule. The Hon. Member then read from a document the opinion of the Government landed proprietors on this line, that the railway should be proceeded with. Mr. ESTCOURT opposed the motion. Mr. REDINGTON thought that, important as it might be that the standing orders should be observed, there were occasions, and this was one of them, on which they ought to be dispensed with. Mr. WILSON PATTEN opposed the motion. If the standing orders were worth anything they ought parti cularly to be enforced in cases like the present. Mr. STRUTT said that the present case was one especially in which the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with. The errors were quite evident upon the face of the drawings and documents, and required no ex amination of witnesses to expose them. He opposed the motion. Lord PALMERSTON hoped that if the standing orders were to be dispensed with on this occasion, a similar indulgence would be extended to the Mullingar, Dublin, Longford, and Sligo Railway Bill.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He did not think that any irregularity would be found in the management of that Bill.—(Hear.) But he hoped that, if it should so happen, the standing orders would be waived as well as in the present case. The Cashel and other lines to the south were looked upon as so important, that questions of form were not permitted to obstruct the passing of those Bills. The Dublin and Longford line was of importance equally great, particularly as it was to have branches to the im portant seaport town of Galway on the one side, and Sligo on the other. On these grounds, then, he did hope that if the present proposition should be carried, the House would act in the same way towards the Dub lin and Longford line, that bad been reported against—. (Hear, hear) —for the formation of lines of railway in Ireland would be attended by the best possible results, in giving employment to a large labouring population. Mr. WARBURTON said, that if the House indulged in such acts as those—namely, rescinding votes which would have a prospective effect—they might as well also let their votes have a retrospective effect—(Laughter) — in order that all Bills reported not to have complied with the standing orders, might be approved of, and thus throw the standing orders overboard altogether. Mr. HAMILTON would not be willing to do anything contrary to the standing orders ; but still he did think that with respect to railway property in Ireland, the House ought to pause before they rejected such Bills, for railways in Ireland might be looked upon as national works. Sir T. FREMANTLE said that, owing to the public position in which he was placed in reference to Ireland, he felt an anxious interest in that country, and was ex tremely desirous that railway projects should be carried on there. Being a member of the Standing Orders Com mittee, he would not be unwilling to advise the House to reverse those orders—(Hear, hear)—but when it was remembered that the capital had been subscribed, and every other step taken by which to expedite the Irish lines, it would be well to consider the Bills seriously before they were rejected.—(Hear, hear.) He had no particular interest i❑ any railway project, but he would say it would be well if the Committee had both those Bills before it, and decide whether they would pass either Bill, or neither of them, or both.—(Hear.) Sir G. GREY hoped the Standing Orders Committee would be spared the investigation of this subject, and thy. parties the expense of their doing so. He thought the standing orders ought to be relaxed with respect to Ireland. Lord G. SOMERSET said that if his Right Hon. Friend would propose that in future all railways in Ire land should be exempt from the ordeal of the Standing Orders Committee, he would give the subject his con sideration. Sir R. INGLIS never saw a case in which compliance with the motion of his Right Hon. Friend ought to be more resisted throughout than the present. The statements of his Hon. Friend the Mem ber for Kendal had placed the subject on a proper ooting and completely decided the question. If they agreed to adopt the present proposition they would be called upon to do so by every railway in the kingdom. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the Motion Against Majority..... —l6 The announcement of the division was received with loud cheering by the Opposition. The South Eastern Railway Extensions were read a second time. Mr. BUSFEILD presented a petition from Bradford in favour of the Leeds and Thirsk Railway. The Southwark and Vauxhall Water Works Bill was read a third time. The ltoyal Naval School Bill, and the Warwick Rec tory Bill, were read a third time. Mr. MORRISON wished to know on what principle the fares and rates on railways were regulated by the Committees ? Sir G. GREY said that there was a very great diffi culty in fixing any principle on which the fares and rates of railways should be determined, but the Committee of which he had the honour to be Chairman, hail endea voured to ascertain the existing rates on several lines of railway, and had founded the ir decisions thereon. He would suggest, before passing the Bill before the House, that it would be desirable that this point should be decided. 97 RAILWAY GROUP Q. M teeo r n . St the T R H a iEly‘l,aoyN Rillsr ep n o n r m t e d p r ifsreodm underth e Select the C letterim t i Q t that the Committee met at twelve o'clock, and that Mr. B. Escott was not present, and did not attend tho Committee. Mr. B. ESCOT I' said, if it was the pleasure of the House, he would state to them the reasons why he did nct attend the Committee to d•iy. He had in his possession some correspondence which, it ho had been informed of the intention of the Hon. Garilleman, he would have brought to the House. He could, however, satisfy the House that he had not only done his duty, but had taken that course, which alone was consistent with his duty as a Member of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Creed, an officer belonging to the Committee of Selection, wrote to him, asking him why he did not attend the Committee in question, and he wrote back to say that he could not attend, inasmuch as he was en gaged in two other Committees, and that attendance on two Committees was full as much as he could manage.--(Hear, and laughter.) He received another letter from the same gentleman, saying that his letter had been laid before the Committee of Selectio n , and that they did not consider it sufficient excu se f or h i s non-attendance. He (Mr. Escott) did not wish to be excused from doing any duty, but he thought he was himself the best judge as to whether he could dis charge those duties in a proper manner. He wrote a second letter to Mr. Creed, to this effect. After making that second statement lie mentioned the matter to his Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who took a prominent part in the Committee of Selection, THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, MAY 6 1845. and told him it was utterly impossible for him to attend. He was in hopes that this explanation was sufficient. It was quite impossible that he could do duty upon both these Committees. Mr. ESCOURT was not sorry that his Hon. Friend had brought this matter before the House, because it was of considerable importance with reference to the carrying out of that plan which they adopted, for the purpose of forming a Congress to investigate railway projects. His Hon. Friend had most accurately stated all that had passed on the occasion. When the letter of his Hon. Friend was laid before the Com mittee of Selection, they found that what he had stated was that he hal served upon two Com mittees, and that he could not discharge both duties. me apprehended that the House would consider whether the being appointed upon a public Committee exemyted a Member of that House from his Parliamentary duties. If his Hon. Friend, however, had stated, on a similar occasion, the facts which now appeared, considerable difficulty would have been avoided. He was very glad that he had an opportunity of stating to the House that if an Hon. Member felt reason for considering that he could not serve, it would be attended with great con venience if he instantly informed the Committee of his inability to act. The Committca of Selection did not consider the explanations of the Hon. Member sufficient excuse, and, therefore, did not excuse him. The same circumstance occurred in several other cases, and they were dealt with in the same way. However, the Com mittee of Selection would, of course, adopt whatever mea sure the House might think proper to adopt in reference to this rule. Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was quite obvious that the fact of an Hon. Member serving on a public Cum mittee could not excuse him serving on a Committee of this House. Mr. HUME differed altogether from the Hon. Gen tleman. The duties of the Committees were twofold. One of those duties was of national importance, the other related to private interests. Ile could not under • stand why Committees on measures of great public and national importance should be neglected for the business of private Committees. Attendance on public Committees nas not compulsory. It was com pulsory on Committees on private Bills. He himself was at the head of a Committee appointed to investigate a subject of great national importance. Several Members who were appointed on that Committee had been asked if they would attend; they had all replied that they should be most happy to attend, but that they were on Committees on private Bills, which they were com pelled to attend. Now there was the Committee on Prisons in Scotland; that was a subject of national importance ; but several Members who had been appointed on that Committee had been since drafted off into private Committees. Now, he thought the public business ought not to be neglected in this manner. Members should be compelled to attend on public Committees in the same manner a.; they were compelled to attend on private Committees, and Members who were placed on public Committees ought not to be compelled to serve on any others. His Honourable Friend had stated that there were upwards of one hundred Members serving on Railway Com mittees, but there were five hundred Members still to be chOsen from. He did not know whether or not there was a scarcity of Members, but if such , was the case they ought to have a call of the House, and compel the attendance of Members.--(Hear.) There were many Members absent, upwards of 100, as far as he knew, without any reason. Their attendance should be enforced, in order to compel them to attend on Parliamentary Committees. Sir J. TYRRELL had great satisfaction in seeing a large number of Irish Members present. They ought to call upon the gentlemen of Ireland to take their fair share of business. Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree with the Hon. Member for Montrose that the fact of a Member being appointed to a public Committee was an excuse for his not attending a railway Coinmi ttee upon which the at tendance was compulsory; because everybody knew that a Member upon a public Committee might leave London altogether, and go to reside in the country without being missed. But he agreed with the Hon. Member for Mon trose that as the House had adopted a compulsory course, they ought to re-quilt, the attendance of Members who kept away without leave of absence, or any justification.— (Hear, hear.) It was obvious that the absence of those Members rendered the duties more onerous to others. —(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He thought, therefore, that the House ought to be obliged to the Hon. Member for Montrose for calling attention to the subject.—(Hear, hear)—and he hoped that the House, by a call or other wise, would enforce the attendance of the Members who were absent without excuse. Lord G. SOMERSET said that as he was the person who proposed the compulsory resolution, the House might expect him to say something upon this question. It certainly was not intended that the resolu tion should be enforced without any modification. But he thought that the attendance of his Hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, upon the public Committee was not of that constraining character which should excuse him from attending to the railway Committee, which he (Lord G. Somerset) considered of as much importance to the public as the business of Committees called public. Dr. BOWRING thought as the House had come to a resolution on the subject of Railway Committees that regulation should to be enforced. The questions for the consideration of the Committees were of the utmost im portance, and it was quite impossible they could be attended to if Hon. Members were not compelled to attend. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said it would be impos sible to admit the excuse of the Hon. Member for Win chester without neutralising the effect of the very regu lation passed by the House. Mr. P. M. STEWART said he had been appoirted Chairman on a Railway Committee while he was serving on two public Committees. He had applied to the Hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committe of Selection, to be relieved from the Railway Committee, but he was informed he had no locus standi before the Com mittee of Selection in making such an application. Ile was therefore obliged to leave the comparative repose of the two Committees to consider ten Bills and listen to twenty lawyers. If the House should come to a de cision in favour of the Hon. Member opposite, be (Mr. Stewart), hoped it would be made retrospective. Captain BERKELEY said the Members who thought proper to attend the Repeal Association had never been summoned on any Committee. Mr. SOTHERON thought the Hon. Member for Winchester had better be relieved from further attend ance on this Committee.—(Cries of " No, no.") Mr. F. SHAW said he had served upon a Committee at great inconvenience to himself. He understood that about forty Committees would be appointed, so that a constant attendance of about 200 Members would be absolutely requisite. Sir GEORGE GREY said there ought to be some motion on the subject. He would suggest to the Noble Lord that the Honourable Member be directed to attend the Committee to-morrow. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that after the general expression of the House he thought no motion on the subject would be necessary. Viscount CASTLEREAGH wished to know whether, if those Irish Members did not attend, the Sergeant-at- Arms would not be sent over to Ireland to compel the attendance of such Members.—(Hear.) He agreed en tirely with his Hon. Friend opposite that some under standing must be come to on this matter, and he could not help expressing his surprise that none of the names of those gentlemen had yet appeared on the list.—(Hear.) He regretted that the Right Honourable Gentleman (the Recorder of Dublin) should have made such a friendly attack.—(Laughter.) Yes, a friendly attack on the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford. He seemed to say, "I will excuse you for non-attendance, and put you to serve upon another." If a preference was extended to one, it ought to be extended to all. Mr. M. MILNES wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen tleman what would take place if an Hon. Member re fused to attend the summons ? Mr. HUME said, that if this were made a compul sory matter, he hoped that a call of the House would take place immediately, so that every Hon. Member who could not furnish a sufficient apology might be compelled to attend. Lord CASTLEREAGH said he had put a question to the Noble Lord, and he hoped he would answer him. Lord G. SOMERSET said he was not aware that the Noble Lord had put a question to him. lie conceived that any Member who had been selected by the Committee of Selection to serve on a Railway Committee would, if he had not obeyed that call, be committed, by order of the House, to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The czse had not yet arisen, and the House expressed no opinion upon it. lie hoped, however, when the case did arise, that the House would not allow their resolutions, emanating from a Committee, to be considered as so much waste paper. He was afraid, if the attendance of Members was not enforced, that they would not attend at all.—(Hear.) Lord CASTLEREAGH said that the Noble Lord had not answered his question. He wished to ask him distinctly whether, in the event of certain Members from Ireland not attending, they would be compelled to do so ? Lord G. SOMERSET said that if any Member, whe ther from Ireland, Scotland, or England, did not attend when summoned by the Committee of Selection, he (Lord Granville Somerset) should certainly propose to the House that such Member be committed to the cus tody of the S ergea nt -at-Arms.—(" Hear, hear," and cries of " Move, move.") Sir G. GREY begged to move that the Hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. B. Escott) be directed to attend upon a Railway Committee to-morrow. The SPEAKER having put the question that Mr. Bingham Escott be directed to attend upon the Railway Committee, Group Q, to-morrow----(Laughter), Mr. ESCOTT said the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo site misunderstood the reasons which he gave for not attending the Committee. He did not re fuse to attend because be preferred being on a public Committee. What he meant to state was, that it was incompatible with bis duty on the public Committee to attend upon a railway Committee also. Not only as it seemed to him did he exercise a sound discretion in re fusing, but he took the only course that would enable to him to perform his duty to the House. The gallery was then cleared for a division but none took place. On our entrance Mr. HUME was addressing the House, and gave no tice that on Friday he would move for a call of the House, and that every Member not present be requested to attend on that day ten days. LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY. Lord JERMYN moved the second reading of the London and Croydon Railway Bill. Dr. BOWRING said a few words in opposition to it. There was a very large population in those towns that had been named ; but they would not object to the forMation of the line, provided 'no other line that d 7 six N e v i a ti a_ to be run near th e t own o f Newmarket. He con months. Mr. P. HOWARD ded by moving th at t h e Bill b e rea d a seco nd time conceived that that House should not delegate its powers to the Board of Trade, and be conceived it woulC be unjust to exclude this line from public competitioi. After a few 'eords from Lord JERMYN, the BM was read a secondtiwe. The Edinburgh Life Assurance Bill was read a third time. CONDEMNID SERMONS IN NEWGATE. Captain POLhILL gave notice that he should to morrow ask the Secretary sf State for the Home Depart ment if any communication had taken place between him and the Sheriffs cf London respecting the admission of persons to hear tie condemned sermon at Newgate ; and whether the Sheriffs had acted according to their un doubted right ani privileges ? EDI.73ATION IN ENGLAND. _ _ . Mr. COCQCIJOUN rose to put a question of which he bad given notice. He understood that an increased grant was intended to be proposed f.r education in Eng land, and he was anxious to ascertain from his Right Hon. Friend tie Chancellor of the Exchequer whe ther it was the intention on the part of the Govern ment to alter tae arrangement under .which sums of money were granted by that House for education in Encland ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he was aware that there was an uneasiness in the public mind about it.—(Hear, hear.) He had no such intention. CAPTAIN FITZROY. Captain RODS said the House would remember that in March last, when the Hon. Member for Dartmouth brought forward a motion respecting New Zealand, that motion was un opposed, but an opportunity was taken for making a fierce at tack on his friend Captain Fitzroy, the Governor of New Zealand. He was then absent, but he was happy to say that its effects were as feeble as the attack was fierce. The SPEAKER said the Noble and Gallant Officer was not in order. There was no question before the House. Captain ROUS said that he would put a question to the Hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hope), respecting the governorship of New Zealand. He had heard with great rain that that officer had been super seded. At the same time that he asked this question, he would appeal to Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, who knew the Gallant Officer, whether they did not believe him to be, both in public and private life, a straightforward, honour able man ? The SPEAKER said the lion. Gentleman was quite out of order. He could only 'preface his question with such ex planation as would make it intelligible. Captain ROUS—Then he would ask the Hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether or not it was true that Captain Fitzroy had been superseded as Governor of New Zealand ? _ Mr. G. HOPE said, his Hon. and Gallant Friend had given him notice, and, therefore, he was prepared to answer the question. But he understood that his Hon. and Gallant Friend wished him to state, upon what grounds the supersedeas was issued, and whether it affected Captain Fitzroy as a gen tleman, or as an officer in her Majesty's service. It certainly was the intention of her Majesty's Government to appoint a successor to Captain Fitzroy, but this intention had been com municated to none beyond the Members of the Government, except the members of Captain Fitzroy's own family, from whom the lion. and Gallant Officer must have received the intelligence. The step did not in any way affect Captain Fitz roy, either in his public or private capacity, nor was it in con sequence of charges preferred against him, by members of the New Zealand Company. He would not go into the details of the whole question, or any statement of them; but he would read a passage from the last dispatch from the colony in refer ence to that officer. The Hon. Member read the paragraph, which was to the effect that the Gallant Officer was entitled to much praise for the great personal sacrifices he had made. 'GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. Mr. BANKS said that upon bringing up the report on the Maynooth Bill, he would move that it be received that day six months. MR. CARUS WILSON. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, in answer to a question from Mr. ROEBUCK, that he had received letters and petitions from Mr. Carus Wilson, now confined in Jersey gaol, upon the subject alluded to by the Hon. Member for Bath, and he had referred them to the governor of the gaol of Jersey. SCOTCH BANKS. Mr. FOX MAULE said that the first notice on the paper was that for the second reading of the Banking Scotland Bill. He wished to know (as we understood) whether it was the in tention of the Right Hon. Baronet to take the discussion on the Bill before the holidays? Sir ROBERT PEEL said he hoped there would be no ob jection to take the discussion before the holidays, and he hoped that the House would allow the second reading, with the understanding that the discussion should take place upon the question going into Committee. POOR-LAW (SCOTLAND). Mr. F. MAULE said, that with respect to another Scotch Bill, he wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate as to his intentions ? The House would recollect that it was understood that every parish and county in Scot land should have an opportunity of considering this Bill before it would be passed. A great meeting had taken place, at which a committee had been appointed to examine the whole subject. The report of that committee was in preparation, but had not been published. He wished to know whether :the Lord Advocate would delay the Bill until the result of the in quiry was known ? The LORD ADVOCATE was understood to say that on Wednesday he would fix the day for the second reading. Mr. ROCHE wished to know from the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, when it was his in tention to bring forward the Irish Municipal Corporation and Registration Bills, and what the objects of those Bills were? Sir R. PEEL said that it was the desire of her Majesty's Government that the business connected with Ireland . . should undergo very full consideration during this session He had already expressed his desire to state the v p e o r s y ed etr w e i n t g h ly r t e h g e ar n d th t e o r n a ig ca n d t e b m y ic th al e m H a e t n t .e r A se ient H he e r w fe a r s Kerry general outline of the measures which the Government pros as to any measures which he might intend to introduce with re spect to landed property in Ireland ; but he was aware that the other House of Parliament would bring forward a measure during this session with reference to that subject. There were other measures with regard to Ireland which were also to be disposed of ; but there were no advantages to be obtained by placing several measures on the table of the House. It would be better to proceed with those which were most pressing. He .ce eh h p iwciahmal:warannuaodhi Hteb another thought that the principles of the measure which the Hon. Member referred to, would have the effect of extending the franchise in Ireland, and making it equal to that enjoyed in England. Mr. HUME wished to ask the Secretary for the Home Department a question with respect to a man who was lately brought before a magistrate in the parish to Which he belonged for an assault, and though it was a bailable offence, bail to any amount was refused. It had created a very strong feeling in he knew nothing of the his parish ; and he wished to know if the Right Hon. Gentle man had instituted any inquiry respecting it? Sir J. GRAHAM said that as yet case, s matteri r excep tßw.opul Ed what brought wished u e h ge h r d e t ta officially as i a n cyi a t lht that a public u et b fh l ewr i measureowu broughtla was bt to have a deputation from Marylebone to-morrow, when the then his duty to institute an inquiry. in contemplation, with respect to Ireland, relating to the banking establishment in that country, before the House this session. Mr. MACLEAN said that to-morrow he would put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet, relating to any com munication that may haue been made between the Tuilleries and St. James's, connected with the right of search question ; and also a question as to that part of the Emancipation Act which related to the Jesuits. Mr. ROSS wished toput a question to the Hon. Member for Montrose. He wished to know whether it was his inten tion to bring on his motion with respect to Sir Henry Pottinger to-morrow night? Mr. HUME said that when he came down to the House that was his intention, but he was compelled to postpone it on find ing that many Members who would support it would necessarily be absent on that evening. Mr. ESCOTT gave notice that it was his intention to call the House over on Thursday, the 22d inst. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—IRELAND. Mr. WARBURTON said that a matter of much importance occurred during the business of the day, relating to the Great Western Railway, Ireland, respecting which a motion was made by his Hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon to the effect that this Bill be allowed to proceed. The motion was under dismission, and the Chairman and several Members of the Standing Orders Committee spoke on the merits of die motion. It was stated that in 300 cases it was found that the standing orders had not been complied with, and that out of these 300 cases, there were thirty-four cases of very great importance. Other Gentlemen spoke in favour of the motion of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon, and stated that it was a matter of the deepest importance that this Bill should be proceeded with, its spite of its non-compliance with the stand ing orders. The House came to a vote, and the motion was carried by a majority of eighty or ninety. It was strange that a Member of the Government, and that Member the Secretary for Ireland, spoke in favour of that motion, and voted for it. Private applications had been made to himself (Mr. Warburton) to support motions for throwing over the reports of the Standing Order Committee, and particularly in the case of the Birkenhead and Manchester Railway, when all parties admitted that it was only in one or two cases where the standing orders of the Committees had not been complied with. Many desired that the Bill should be proceeded with, and to cast out the report, but he would not be a party to the upsetting of a report of the Standing Orders Com mittee, and it was his opinion that the House should not in dulge in the practice of throwing out such reports, for in many cases the question would not be decided on the merits. He now rose to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the course that he now would recommend after such a precedent had been set to Hon. Gentlemen. He now would ask him what course he would recommend the House to pursue. in respect to the sup porting or not supporting the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee. If they allowed the Bill in this instance to proceed, great injury would be done to the Birkenhead and Manchester Railway Bill. Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to state to the Hon. Gen tleman, as an exemplification of his own opinion, that a gen tleman principally interested in this matter came to him (Sir R. Peel), soliciting his interference to throw out the standing orders, but he told him that he thought that the report of the Standing Orders Committee was a judicious one, and made with perfect purity of intention, and he positively declined to interfere in upsetting it. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade had an interview with him that morning, when he (the Vice-President) said that although it was a private mea sure, it had beep usual for one Member of the Board of Trade to vote in favour of the opinion of the House, and to come to give his voice and vote in favour of the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. He had no connexion at all with the Bill, and it was, therefore, entirely dependant upon his own views of the merits of the case. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that be object e d to the Secre tary for Ireland coming down there to vote in that capacity. He hoped the Secretary for Ireland would not suppose that he was taking that opportunity of attacking him—he wished to see him using all fair means of ga inin g popularity, but he should say that he never recollected such a course as this. What he objected to on this particular occasion wan, that he as Secretary for Ireland took a particular course with regard to a private Bill, which he not only not supported, but resisted the sense of the Government as expressed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The decision was a most unfortunate one, and he quite agreed with what had been said by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Warburton). He (Mr. Labouchere) had been asked by some of his Irish friends to support their views, but he told them that unless the Chairman of the Committee had intimated to him that there were particular reasons which should induce them to deal with this Bill in a different way from the others, he would not s upport the motion which re sister' the report of the Standing Orders Committee. Mr. OSBORNE said that Hon. Gentlemen were not aware that in coming before the Standing Orders Cornmtttee there were many morekfficulties attending the tenure of land in Ireland, and in serving notice on middlemen there than in England. He thought that his Hon.• Friend (Sir T. Fremantle) exercised a sound discretion. Hon. Gentlemen who were not acquainted with Ireland, and who belonged to the Standing Orders Committee, were not aware of those difficulties. If the standing orders were to be complied with, it would be im possible to construct a railway in Ireland. Mr. ESCOTT said that he recollected that the very first words which the Secretary for Ireland used with respect to this question were these, that -he did not wish to induce any man in the House to vote in favour of the motion Lord J. RUSSELL said that it might be quite right that they should not require a strict compliance with respect to railway's in Ireland, but it should be regulated by some rule of that House.—( Hear, hear.) It would not be right that the Committee of Standing Orders should be respected u ith regard to all English Railway Bills, but whenever a report of an Irish Railway Bill was to be made it was to he set at nought. No public rca oils could be given for upsetting their au thority. He wished that the House would came to some re solution with respect to Irish Railway Bills. Sir T. FREMANTLE did not think that he was deserving of the imputation of the Noble Lord, that he did not give his authority for opposing this report. He was desirous that every Member of the House should exercise his own discretion. He would not say anything that would influence the mind of any other person. He certainly did not vote in the capacity of Secretary. In his own individual capacity, he could not think that it was important that a railway communication, from the east to the west of Ireland—( Hear, hear)—should pass this present session. Mr. A GLIONBY said he could assure the Hon. Member that he had no personal feeling whatever on the subject ; but having been a member of the Standing Orders Committee he wished to say a few words in reference to this Bill. Ile was not present when the discussion vsas brought on, nor did he happen to be on the Committee on private Bills either at the time, though a member of the Committee also; but he did now seriously call on the House to pay attention to this matter, par ticularly as to what had been said on the subject of standing orders.— (Hear, hear.) The House well knew that the Com mittee on private Bills had been sub-divided into four sub- Committees, and each of them had to sit three or four days in each week, and the chairmen of some of them had frequently to ask leave of the Speaker to sit after the House had met— ( Hear, hear.) Now, surely, if the same ule that regulated English Railway Bills was not to be applied to Irish Bills he would say the sooner the standing orders were alt. red to that effect the better.—( Hear, hear.) At present the Committees had somewhat of a judicial charactert and if that were not to be kept up, and its decisions respected, the [douse had better atter the standing or, ors at once.—(Hear.) If the House did not do that, then he would pray that it would respect the decisions of its Committees—( Hear, hear)—for if it reversed those de cisions easily, or lightly, or inconsiderately, then neither the public nor that Reuse could have any confidence in those deci sions in future.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard something said about the non-compliance with standing orders in certain eases not being sufficient to warrant the House in rejecting a Bill. Now, he was aware of an instance—that of the Manchester and Birkenhead, in which there were but a few instances of non compliance with the standing orders, and the line was not per mitted to be proceeded with that session ; but here was an in stance of a Bill which contained more instances of non-com pliance, fifty per cent greater than those:in the one he had men tionel, and yet the House had declared that the Bill was to be approved.—( Hear, hear). If the House meant to act with consistency, let them not approve of a bill that had 300 or 400 objections in it, or else alter the standing orders so as to suit Irish Bills.—( Hear, hear). Mr. F. FRENCH said, that if he and others bed not been led to understand that there would be no opposition to the Bill in question, he could have been prepared to show the Com mittee that none of the important standing orders had been violated. _ _ _ Mr. WILSON PAI TEN said it would be setting at nought the labours of the Committee, if such proceedings as had taken place here this evening were to be persevered in. And he should-also remark, that in his opinion the, House could not too strongly deprecate the practice of canvassing that had been going on—(tear, Lear)—for the purpose of procuring a majority in favour of a Bill that had been reported against.— ( Hear, hear). If such a practice were to be continued—if the House did not strenuously set its face against it, there would be an end of the duties of Committees.—(Hear, hear.) He now begged to give notice that he would, on to-morrow, move a resolution, by which the whole merits of the case now in question would he brought before the House, in order to show that the Committee on Standing Orders had done their duty. Lord HOWICK looked upon this question as one of great public importance. They all knew how loud and general were the complaints that this canvassing and other jobbing had been going on, and that by it many Bills had been passed that never should.—( Hear, hear.) If the Howe persevered in the deci sion it had just come to, all the old system of jobbing would again be revived.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham had stated, in his capacity of Chief Secretary for Ireland, that railway project , were of great importance to that country. He (Lord Howick) knew that perfectly well, but he conceived it would be much more important not to make Ireland the victim of a jobbing system. —( Cries of " Hear, hear.) Let this Bill now re main in its present position. A lapse of one year was all the time that could be lust, and it would be much better that that course should be followed than inflict upon Ireland the evils that would be certain to follow from the effects of jobbing.—( Hear, hear.) They all knew the dan gerous results that had flowed from doing business carelessly in that country, and the Irish people should therefore be taught to do it as it was done in England. He had heard of a deci sion that the House had come to in reference to one of those Bills this evening ; he looked upon that as a step taken in a wrong direction, which no time should he lost in retracing, and he believed it was competent for the House to do so.— ( Hear, hear.) He would therefore suggest that when this Bill should be presented, it should be postponed for six mond s. _-(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had spoken in favour of this Bill; but it was well known that it was not in his private capacity as Member for Bucking ham he did so, but as the Secretary of State for Ireland— ( Hear, hear)—and it would be impossible for him to divest himself of the weight of influence and authority that attached to him in his official capacity. —( Hear, hear. ) He would beg of the House not to take any step in this matter which they might have occasion to regret, but he hoped they would sup port the proper and wholesome authority of the standing orders. Lord WORSLEY said that this was the first he had heard of canvassing ; but he was greatly surprised at it ; and he would ask, if it were to be persevered in, where would it stop ? —( Hear, hear.) If it were not put a stop to, it might extend to the members of Committees. Mr. DUNCOMBE contended that there ought to be some appeal from the decisions of the Standing Orders Committee; if not, the appeals that had been made would be a mere mockery. Here the subject dropped. THE NEW ZEALAND QUESTION. Captain RODS wished to say a few words in reference to the New Zealand question. He would say that, in his opinion, it would be impossible for any officer to rule that colony with the present Company ; and if ever that Company brought the question before the House, he would prove that they had been guilty of most discreditable practices. Mr. AGLIONBY, as one of the Directors of the Com pany, begged to say that he could show that the Gallant Officer had been misinformed on the subject. Mr. RICE TREVOR said that no man could be more amiable in private life, or better intentioned than Captain Fitzroy. Mr. WARD said that no act of the present Government could have given more satisfaction than having recalled Captain Fitzroy. Sir ROBERT INGLIS said he knew that Gallant Officer well, and was aware that he had made considerable sacrifice when going out to New Zealand. Mr. G. W. HOPE fully confirmed the statement which bad been made by the Hon. Member for Westminster, that Captain Fitzroy had great difficulties to contend with. Mr. B. ESCOTT inquired when the Hon. Member for Sheffield intended to bring on his motion respecting burdens on land ? Mr. WARD said, that if Government could not fix days for public business, it was not to be expected that a private Mem ber could fix a day for any motion. MAYNOOTH BILL. The order of the day for bringing up the report on this Bill was then read. A number of petitions for and against the Bill were pre sented. Mr. P. HOWARD presented a petition from Carlisle against the Bill. Sir R. PEEL presented several petitions in favour of the Bill. Mr. SPOONER presented petitions from Worcestershire against the Bill. Petitions against the Bill were presented by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Lockhart, and Mr. Granger. The report was then brought up. On the question that the amendments be read a second time, Mr. S. CRA WFORD rose to move as an amendment, that any provision for the separate or exclusive education of any par ticular religious denomination, or for the support or endow ment of any religious sect or sects by State grants or funds raised by compulsory assessment, whether under the name of tithes, rents, cesses, taxes, regium donum, or under any other name or form whatever, is a violation of the rights of conscience, detrimental to religious truth, and dangerous to civil and reli. gious freedom ; and that all such establishments, grants, or en dowments now in existence in the United Kingdom ought to be discontinued, with as little delay as may be consistent with a due regard to the rights of those who have life-interests in the same. He had proposed this amendment in order to put on record the opinion of a large body of the people of this country, who bad entrusted him with their petitions against this Bill. He did not oppose this measure in a very hostile spirit to his Catholic fellow-subjects. He believed that if this Bill were ' allowed to pass, other denominations besides the Catholics would call for endowments. He was against all State grants for ecclesiastical purposes. He wished to go the full extent of repudiating all State grants. Religion was an ordinance of God, and not of man ; and man had therefore no right to interfere with it. It might be said that it was not in terfering with the conscience of a man to impose a tax upon him. But he contended that to make a man pay for a Church to which he did not belong, was to compel him to violate his conscience. In matters of religion the State ought not to in terfere. Let them render to Caesar the things which were ( - moor's, and to God the things which were Uod's. State establishments and forced contributions were not calculated to advance religious truth. The Establisbel Church in this country had large endowments, and yet they were im potent in extending their religion. The Dissenters were invading them with great strides. The State Church and the Church of the people in Ireland were always in a state of hostility to each other. Let them look at the dissensions which were at present tearing the Church in this counts v. There were dissensions as to the colour of a gown, or the shape of an altar. How was that state of things to be remedied? Could it be done by that House? No; the only remedy that could be found was in the Church itself. They did not find, in the churches of the State, that any provisions were made for the poor. If a State Church were necessary, why was there not provision made for all its members. In the churches of the State, provision was always made for the rich, while the poor were not cared for. State churches were hostile to religious liberty. State Churches were unjust and impolitic, and the proposition which he now submitted to the House, was a declaration against all Establishments. But while his proposition affirmed this principle, it did not violate any vested rights. He would propose that the revenues of the lands now applied to: ecclesiastical purposes should, at the decease of those parties w hotat present had a vested right in them, be placed in the consolidated fund. He objected to this grant to Maynooth simply because he supported the volun tary . principle. The Protestants of England had, on other occasions asserted the voluntary principle in preference to that of an Establishment, and if they were now opposed to the grant to Maynooth, on the voluntary principle, it ought not to be construed into hostility to Ireland. He was opposed to monopoly in religion, as he was to monopoly in trade. He might go into much detail in support of the proposition which he now submitted to the House, but as this subject generally was so much before the House of late, he would not now enter upon it, b u t wou ld con t en t hi mse lf with proposing the motion of which he had given notice. Mr. HINDLE Y seconded the motion. Mr. W. WILLIANIS regretted that the motion of his Hon. Friend was one of so comprehensive a character, and embraced so many important considerations, that he could not support it, brought forward, as it was, incidentally. He did not say that he disagreed entirely with the motion, but for the reason he had assigned he could not give it his support. Having voted for the present measure, he would state the reasons why he did so. When he considered the vast amount of money paid for the support of the Protestant religion, and that a large portion of this money was paid from the money contributed by the Roman Catholics and the Dissenters, in the shape of taxes, he was astonished that the Hon. Barnet the Member for Ox ford, and the Hon. Member for Kent, and other supporters of the Established Church should have given such opposition to the Govern ment,measure. The a mount of money so paid was absolutely astounding. In the Army Estimates, the Navy Estimates, the Civil Contingencies, and the Miscellaneous Estimates, he found large sums appropriated for the support of the Protestant establishment. There was no less a ewes than a million and a half paid for the building of churches. There was a million for tithes in Ireland. And he begged to say that that measure came upon the publie s urreptitiously. It was said that most effectual means would be taken to get - the money back, but when the Bill passed, they were told it was impos sible to collect ths arnourt. Then, again, since 1826. ?here were 400,00 e/. taken from the taxes for the support of religion in the West Indies, and a -11111 of 1 1,600/. was voted for the clergy in Canada. The Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford opposed this measure in an open and fair way. hut he begged to ask him this question. He begged to know from the Hon. 13aroeet why he del not °eject to the payment 1 ;Otto/ a year to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec, end of 700/. a year to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Newfoundland. When he (Mr. Williams) divided the Reuse upon the whole grant, he had not the honour of the Hon. Barenetes support. by so? Why, because of the 11,600/ no less a sum than 10.0001. was paid to the support of the Established Church, ant the Hon. Baronet, because he grit eo much for the bishops and clergy of his an Church, was not over enxistus to objsct to the small sum which was given to others. If this was not the reason he should like to keow what was. He fund that lt 91. was paid out of the taxes to which the Roman Ca holies end the' losenters contributed for tl,e expenses of a journey made by the Bishop of Gibraltar, to lesbon, in a steam-vessel, arid that 3101. was votee to the same Bishop for jeuritey s to Cadiz and Palermo last year. He had no doubt those were very pleasant excursions, but the Roman Ca th lies and the Dissenters contributed to pay for them, and that ought to be taken into account. The Bishop of Antigua had received 1471. for serilar expenses. and the Bishop of tearba does, who had 4,000/. a year, received 180/. f.r his travelling expenses.— (Hears hear. ) Now he should like to know how any person co Id justify the taxing of the Ro man Catholics and Dissenters for purposes like these. 13.0801. had been last year gie- n to the Scotch Universities. The revenues of the Scotch Church were only 17,31 01. a year, whilst three academies in the North of - In land received 27,000/. a year. He did rot f, e how honest men could tax Rion= Catholics so heavily, and yet refuse to allow so small a sum for the maint , nance end education of those designed to he religious teachers of the great body of the Irish people. The opposition to the measure was unjust, uncharitable and based on a bad principle. A suns of 5 600/. was annually paid to the dissenting clergymen in the North of Ire' .nd. and why had not those who now so valorously. and ots such a pretended as sumption of trinsiple opposed the Maynouth grant, on the voluntary principle opposed those other grants he had enume rated in previous years ? He supported this measure with pain, because he acted in opposition to the opinion of many of his warmest supporters amongst the dissenting, body. He could not conceive why this questieh of voluntary principle should now be so warmly espoused when it had been for so many years sufe red to lie dormant. It certainly showed a bad and art unkind feeling towards Boman Catholics. He would give his conscientious support to the measure. —( Cheers.) Sir R. INGLIS said the Hon Member for Coventry had asked him how he could consistently vote for taxing his Roman Catholic and Dissenting fellow-subjects for pecuniary advantage to the Established Chun: h, or why is should tax other sects to maintain one sect. Now it was because he did not believe the Church of England to be a sect, but the great depository of the religion of the State that he had supported, and eculd always support it. He would support the Establishment of the Church of England at hone and abroad. lie would no' follow the Hon. Member through all his statements, but would say that, with respect to the visitations to which tire Hon. Member .had referred as matters of exeense, that the visitors could de rive no other pleasure from them but just that which men who felt gratified in the discharge of their laborious and onerous duties could derive. The Hon. Member fur Rochdale was dealing with property the oldest and most sacred in the king dom—the property of God and of his Church. The general object of the lion. Member was the destruction of all established religions, but was more particularly aimed at the Church of England. If that motion shcoltl ever succeed, the poor, to whom tie blessings of religion were most important, could never hope to receive them. This was the chief revon why he had opposed, sad shoulu always oppose, such a proposition as that of the Hon. Member for Rochdale. Dr. BOW RING Said he c onsidered the position of the Hon. Baronet the Member for the Univei city of Oxford as unenviable as it was infatuated. The Hon. Baronet said, my doctrines are the true doctrines, all others are fslse, and no money shall be appropriated to any other; mine shall be endowed, and no other shall get a farthing. lie would vote against the amend ment, and did not think it a proper season to bring it forward. After much consideration he had, though at the sacrifice of the support of many of his firmest friends, who warned him not to do so, supported the grant. He thought the measure a just one, and that it would tend to conciliate Ireland. He thought it a st pin the right direction, and was grieved that it had been met with such bitter 'opposition, and that it had been connected with the question of Sate Church endowments. He felt de lighted to hear the Right Hon. Baronet say that. Ireland was to be conciliates by kindness, and not to be ruled by force. He was distressed to witness the feelines which this measure had given rise to—thousands of men banded together from hatred of Popery and hat. ed of Papists— but he trusted this feeline would speedily subside, and that a better feeling would spring up between the people of both countries. Mr. HUME stated that he expressed his opinion bef -re in that House. that this was merely an educational greet, arid riot an endowment of the - Catholic Church. It was on that ground he supported the measure Tey voted away annually a sum of money to make up the siaries of ele , gyman in Scot land e hose m-ant were under 1801. a year ; and in the same manner they voted money to the bishops. deans. rind all grades of clergymen of the Establise, t Church. There was not, however, in the Bill before the House a single word to endow the clergy of the Catholic Church. There was one point to which he would now allude. He should like to see a mixture of all classes—clergy and laity— in that establishment—( dear).— and he thought it would be of great importance if that could lee effected. He thought, that as they expected allegiance f tint all classes they were bound to extend to all the advantages of a moral and reli gious education. He regretted that some of his constituents differed with him. lie hal received communications from the Wesleyan Methodists and other I essere era, remonstrating weli him on the line of conduct he had adopted mi that question. but he had received none from the members of the Established Church. He thought this the more strange on the part a the Dissenters, for at the time the Test and Corporation Acts were under consideration, the Roman Catholics came forward to assist them to obtain that liberty of conscience for which they were then contending. He regretted therefore to see those very persons who had so much benefited by those exertions now come forward to exhibit so much ingratitude. He thought the Honourable Baronet ( Sir Robert Inglis) who had headed the Opposition to this measure. and of these who followed him, would have the tendency to call public attention to the enor mous wealth of the Establishment. and to the necessity or de voting it to educating the people at large. He would giv t his most cordial support. to the measure through all its stages. Sir ROBERT PEEL apprehended that there was nothing in the former acts relating to elaynooth, imposing on the State the necessity of providing exclusive religious education ; and if there had been, the Cath eies writ, not respenstble for it. for when in 1795 a proposal was made to establish a colleee, Mr. Grattan presented a petition from the Ro nan Catholics against its exclusive character—that it should be an instittitton for the education of Protestants as well as Catholics—but the Go vernment expressly stated that it should be devoted solely to the education of the Catholic priesthood. There was no de sire, therefore, on the part of the CatholiCs to make it an exclusive institution, and there was nothing in the 'ems relating to it to make it so ; but he was bound to sty that, in point of fact, it had become so. But before they should con demn it on this account, he begged them to read a letter or Mr. Burke's, written by that gentleman in 1795.—(The Right Hon. Gentleman then read the letter, in which the writer stated his conviction that the institution should be exclus.vely confined to the education of the priesthood.) Now that was the opinion of Mr. Burke, who was for making it an exclusive institution, not only so far as regarded Catholics, but also the priesthood of that body. As he stated before, there was no thing new now proposed. There was nothing in the Acts which necessarily made it an exclusive ins itution ; but he must own, on reading the opinion of Mr. Burke in its favour, he thoueht that. his opinions were entitled to every respect. Mr. HINDLEY repelled the charge of ingratitude made against the Dissenters on this occasion, for the very year after the time alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Huese), they manfully came forward to assist in removing the Catholic disabilities. But their opposition to this measure was based on very different grounds. They considered it—and he must say that it was his opinion also—that it was the initiative step in the endowment of the Catholic Church, and to this alone was to be attributed their opposition. They had one Church already endowed, and he wished to know why they en dowed it. Was it because it possessed the truth? If they had a secular power to tell what was truth and what was not, he would bow to its authority. But he wished to know where this power resided, Was it in the Lord flieh Chancellor of England, or in the Archbishop of Canterbury ? If that was not the reason why they endowed it, perhaps they did so because it was the Church of the maj .city. If that were the reason, why did they not apply that principle in Ireland ? The Honourable Gentleman then proceeded to show the superiority of the voluntary principle, and stated, that in the case of the London Missionary Society for the conversion of the heathen, there was subscribed during the first 10 years of its exi-tence no le s a sum than 47,000/. ; in the second 10 years, 67,000/, ; in the third 10 years, 280,0001. ; in the fourth 10 years, 407,000/. ; in the fifth 10 years, 800,0'10/. ; and during the last year the Wesleyan elethoeists subscribed for the same purpose 105,000/. ; and of that sum 1,200/. was subscribed by the emancipated slaves in Jamaica. --(Hear.) He might go through a great deal of statistics on the subject, but as the House had indulged him so much, he would not detain them any longer.—(Cries or " Divide, divide.") The House then divided, when there appeared — For the amendment Against it elajorey —139 THE BLOCKADE OF THE POR I'ENDIC. On our being admitted to the gallery, we found Lord PALMERSTON on his legs, addressing the House with reference to the blockade of Portendie. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether it was intended to lay before the House the papers re- lating to that subject.? Sir R. PEEL had no objection to lay all the papers and correspondence referring to this subject before the House, shortly after the recess. CASE OF LIEUTENANT BRIDGE. Captain PECHELL wished to call the attention of the Gal lant Admiral opposite to a cir c umstance which had appeared in the public prints , and which was viewed with considerable in terest in the profession to which he had the honour to beiong. Lieut. Bridge, et the Cormorant, it was alleged, had violated the 23d article of war, which related to disrespect to the supe rior officer, and be was tried by Court-martial for the offence, the captain appearing as a member of that court. He wished to know whether the Admiralty considered these proceedings regular, arid if they did not, whether any steps had been taken to compensate Lieut. Bridge for his undeserved calamities? Admiral COCK BU it N, who spoke in so low a tone as to be heard with difficulty, was understood to say that the Admiral , y had yet taken no steps, but that the great probability was, that that officer would agate be restored to the service of his country. Captain PECHELL said the Gal:ant Admiral had not yet answered his question. He wished to know if the proceedings of that Court-martial were considered regular by the Board of Admiralty ? Admiral COCK NAVY ES BURN—PerTIMAfeetIy re TE S.gular. The House then went into Committee on the Navy Es timates. Mr. CORRY proposed a vote of 610,545/. for the victualling, &c., of the navy during the current year. ENSLAVEMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS. Lord PALNIERSTON wished to notice certain returns, books, and papers for the years 1835, 18:j6, 1839, and 1841, and relating to the landing of slaves in the Havannah, in Cuba, and in other of the islands and on the coast of South America. He saw by reports from Cuba, the Brazils, and the coast of Africa that the slave-irade was undoubtedly on the increase. That was the distinct statement from these places. In Cuba and in Surinam there were considerable numbers of negroes who had been at different periods brougert truest the British colones to Surinam and ether parts of the. Dutch pos sessions, and sold as slaves. They had been brought off before the Act of Emancipation had been passes:. They were new in slavery, whereas if they had been left in the British colonies they would haver been - included - in the Act of Emancipation. Their case was brought under the consideration of the Go vernment, to which he t, Lord Palmerston s belonged. They thought it was the duty of the Government to en deavour {to procure the liberty of those parties..— ( Hear, hear.) The present Government. be was sorry to find, had taken a different view of the mat er, as he mule see from a dispatch by the Earl of Aberdeen to the Comminetiner, to this effect—that the Government had under steoil t has certain iwgroes from Itarbadoes were held in slavery in Surinam ; hut that it was the epinion of the Queen's Ac's vorate that Her Majesty's Government were not called on te take .ceps in regard to those negroes, as they clearly were not freemen, either by birth or by the benefits of the Aet of Emancit ation. If such had been the ease, then i n deed it would have been incumbent on the Geyer-nu-tete to have aneil its strenuous endeavours to erecure their freetiom• Bu t n 0 daub s xtsted that hese pi.rsiiits had been removed from the iiritish po•.sessioi s before the Act o , Emancipation had come into effect. He fund another dispatch to the ( ommissioners the Savannah laying down the very same doctrines. lie did eot wish to dispute the authority of the Queen's Advocate, but he must remind the House that there was another passee before that period, in the year 17-06 and lt4l7rw S iak r ely i°4 the retrieval of slaves fur the iturposes of sale illegal. u under thee circumstan es the British Governineut j.,tified in cleman e dig the freedom of those slaves. The Commissioner stated that in some of the plan - tenons it: the island of Cuba, the British l an g uage sohed been brought from British colonies. He hop ed nes setiken, a clew proof, he conceived, that the persons diving t h a t the Queetes Advocate would reconsider his opinion , end mat. Government would see fit to interest themselves in th is ter Three were ether persons also who had occupi ed sum share of the late Government's attention, he meant the slave' f captured in slave vessels, and disposed of under the authority at the Mixed Commission. Government, on pretence of findi n g them employmeut, hired them out to certain masters for a su p of money and for a period of five years. At the expiration ° thst period they still remained in the same condition , but in.- finitely worse treated than the real slaves. He ver y ouch feared that the i resent Governor of Cuba, General O' Donnel l was net Irks he Governor who had preceded him , that Gener a ,1;. a. ile (1.0111 Pe:Envision) greatly feared tha t / 2: etitieuraged, instead of discouraging a traffic in slav;e) for his own private purposes—(Cries of " Hear, hea' With regard to Cuba, the law was not repudiated by the Gba °• vernment, ear w s it repudiated by the Spanish, for in Cu d General Valdez stared that a very great number of negrot” h a been landed under that very law. Now it would be rente ru : bored th. t they applied to the Government of Spain to 'ige;s cenvention, the purport of which was that the mixed contin'.-: sion at the Havaimah should be authorised to inquire into tne condition of the m g. ors, and to ascertain what ought to bed snider the circumstances. The Spanish autnorities took 4 1 notice of that communication until 1841, and at the end of 18 : e the Spanish Government sent a very lengthy note , refatstls tit, compliance with the proposal ; and, eventually, the Bu • Gover men! acquiesced in the denial, and expressed theinselfes. satisfied with an additional clause in the Act of Treaty , P: l ° , siding a punishment for persons concerned in the sla ve 'la d e, Now, unless that law were acted upon, no Act whic h o f Spanish Government might hereafter pass, could be an - , any service. lode. d, if that law was not carried into execut.lhee no other was, and he del think the British Government 1,111, lightly acquiesce . in the refusal of the Spanish elite s i e . te s With regard to negeoes now in Cuha, they were as rail° t hat titled to their liberty as any of the Spanish peaeantry i tt . l eet island; atid certain.,. in his opinion, the mixed N aito" of ought to be Live ter' with power to decide in the o"s e ' a i tiegroes hat in.ght heft-atter be brought into Cuba. It w" T r to welt. for Govertnn ant to say, was a questi nof hono u ' in ta Spain, and that a foreign autherity had no right to 10 1 l itself up with their own internal—it was all very r that f r them to make that objection, but they must remembe e they hal all established a foreign jurisdiction by theist t,he with this country, and it was impossib le thta that proposal which was atterwards made to them could extol jurisdiction much further. It was impossible for him to relY . " ii rj e a the Governor of Cuba in csrr,ying out the treaty• lie we .co „ some British authority to see that the law eas put into,,ehaeco, tem. What eas the course pursued now ia Cuba: ? ih i s of thorities there said, that a man brought from the ‘ c 6t Africa where lie had subsisted in his native state was what for society, and therefore he was compelled to underge,,,,co, was called an apprenticeship before he was emancipated. let re what was his pet etiticeship ? Why the female slaves tet t.,h et out to respectable householders to act as domes tic serve° 'kept no security was taken to prevent them from always being o e is in a store of servitude. The male staves were cull"- to ot lighting the streets for a number of years, but the released would give eto undertaking, that they should be re _ ai rle. from th. it bondage at the expiration of their term of ser v ' seee rt ma- was there any power to compel them to do so. Every l t r d i s , which came to this country dwelt upon this disgusting 'P at bad gracetul traffic ; and he must say, of all the measures Wlll tea, t he • been brought forward to supptees it, the most effectu al ,b e re extension of the right o. search. With regard to that. the was a report from the Commissioner. at Rio, which strrr„,e the importance of the treaty with France being tulle ,c . ' we re out. Thr Commissioners stated that the French vessel. with lady getting more arid more employed in ihe slave ~ o. ° be Africa and Brazil This was in consequence of an anaP 24 beet witch was beginning to arise that the British cruisers r il e _ ga g ordered not to intercept or molest vessels sailing untie . l u v r i g hi of France. The returns evinced the efficacy of Wool) or search in suppressing this horrible traffic; leT et i e eila was another measure which had been exceedingly effe c tive 00 its operation. He alluded to the destructieu of t e e led the coast of Africa. 184 . 2 the slave trade dim ca uses' _ w oes, much. anti that. diminution was attributed but the principal one was the destruction of of ag 6ee' V. hen the present Government, however, came a l he first thing they did was to write a letter to the co_ra:tatieg officers, ere 'biting the destruction of these baracoo Iv that it was against the law of natious• eesee a really thought that was a mist e xtraora tu ( gear.) on the part of her .tiajesty's Goverrinseot*eeur $ He thought that if the two Governtnents were to cc .tra tle, the slave 't rade' and hottest determination to suppress 6 for sea they could effect it. If tney concurred in Measure, of s earee ing the whole of the coast, all debate about the rifett the vole. would cease. le ith respect to the " Razzias that i f Fort! cedo tr ( i: tery of Muscat, there was quite evidence enoo$ 1 ; t his gal had eo-operated with the Government ° ease d long la tette , robberies of human beings woutd hav e c o speti t Y' • to , to three ;coons. He did not wish to go into the subject with all e t alte It' lie would wish the Bight Hon. Ba onet opPo sl ‘ . •.h ,übjee ta 'till arid careful conederatien the condition of that in Cuba anti Surinam.—( Hear, hear.) He was ,opera if the Governments of France and England were to c t o, be ~ faithfully and sincerely. the slave-trade could arid I A O surpre,s,d. .0 1 : 1 ° . 4 sir ROBERT PEEL, who was throughout very I , i he tirictly heard, said that he rtiu.st do the Noble Lor u e ot justic to say, that he usually gave notice to the Goverowt s tr of any intention to bring forward a motion, or to P a of question involving the general or particular P° li leeel) tier Majesty's Ministers. But he (Sir R _ obert did net expect so important a question a s ei . te tes. to be put upon an order of the day for the navy " A t ,, i— s ter He ( Sir R. Peel) had riot expected that such an a"' „ ht to ,t snould be taken, and he thought that some time eu" eve have have been allowed to him before he was required t on 0 .) grave anti d liberate answers to Si) many question! : 5 1) 0 0 4 matey and Ertr:ri important. subjects. When elley, 3o o lilt e those matters had been put to him before, be h bii Britst:tis6. best to net ke himself understood; and if any elertt the ai xtb 4 " planation was .qttivot-al. he eoule take care th the ne erose guity should he rectified. With respect to W onee ot declare that if any c officer of the Crown hail peed pers°°' duty, in that case. the slave, or ra her the tiJo r should not be prejudiced by anything already tl"" e t e be a p hie e" tire , y concurred in the sentiteent that there slion.", thai feet cordiality between this country and France, a u 1a," .....t tlesrl arrangement should be most faithfully wiirked 0 the eagesr°l t l [-I steere ,!' hear.) He believed that the slave trade upou coast of Africa was carried on to a great extent. Ofthe eetre, been within the last few months a great ;tier. ase n o at P it t ture of slave ships. With respect to Cuba, he wa s a e d it le t • prepared to ge into the details, but he weulli 11; under the government of V.ridsZ, the facilities or slav 00 0 ' to ! • I tation had been increased. With reap• et to the bar eiailY e or was .tiling to admit, that if the naval powers were _ unp resse o co-operate, those depositaries of slaves might retie r o gh . t _„ aid that much towards the extinction of the tra:ehad gett; gained by their supotession. It the Noble Loroo__atio,,'_.. notice that it was his intent on to seek for this inf rn'opati. the ( sir It. Peel) might. be etiableit to enter into a tell es/ ,,,hich t he Let him ( Lord Palmerston) pi out the way in eredi t °f t information might be lurnisbed so 34 '0 suppurt the - er House, and it would no doubt he supplied. w ords I ties Lord PALMERSTi , N wished to say a few 11° ht planation. It was suite true that he hed not of askitig for this information ; but the statemen t " c ' e that e s Honourable Baronet would lead him to giveta f the M ho th h in rebY be was glad that no notice had been given, o.• e- ing le los enabled to avoid entering upon matters in which a .„%ot• t he too much Lord Palmer g ston's) oh s ct the was creditthe of t attennh Goeer o t oe of , 011 to la r. h y (et Government to the.e po j ints. I was not his inte e„eseee.° is on a di•cussion. He meant to say' that the course s"c7icabieto the Right I-lon. Baronet was the best, and was P r ie e s luee tae ele every case—namely, that they should hold out •Dity• which would enable them to do so with great p je t vi,mld roily say that the return contained very lrePe forraati , ,, ta th e . Mr. 11 UM E was sorry to be obliged to differ fro the t no L•-rd who had just. sat down. He agreed with bjrn s its desirable to put down the slave trade, an d he could la o bt bs e person could have exerted himself more strentoa9 y the si t te ll!e ot tt • that oh,ject. He (Alr. Hume), however, thought„, Wt w t he been carrying on effete eat expense, and in a great q. u '' oe 'tha! oe s. being able to effect his motives. He was of oPT l op era ti o t he trade remained as rife as it was when he began b is a e ven t e s s it It was not perfectly clear that they had not sae opig fee evils which they tried to suppress. They could ne t l ied °dr by holding out inducernen s, for the trade was c :, to V t . tile their profit end advantage; and as long as that W as kora rived, it would he impossible to cause even a I=l v e ot belli o pel trade. They might stroy their hartaeoons,and d rl if t he to in plat* io place, but the trade would continue If a f re e lith ° o ote and half the trouble were devotee to increase done eh their colimies, he believed they would have dO hieh the lowa-see putting af n cud to the slave trade. to We ft fr • Mr. WAR • URION stated that the paPe No Lord made refet epee gave the following 'l' 3 t he ',its, geared in the course t•l' the ye irs from lels to l' the iSicbi bee • f slaves transport , d from Africa to Cuba, and no tice, fey amounted to 639,145 souls, and according to th ets i e toe tyr e was appended to that return, in order to "her bl e the amount, they were directed to multiply that pt 140 which world make it 1,280 00 1 1 souls. Durir i g, r cet' i t 'f f olit number liberated were 18.04°. Otte-and-a-ball P: h ippee eee 01 all that they liberated of the slaves that Africa. Were they not to look to the past for, g , l ,h a t it .. , re' guiding their conduct in future. They were t O I L S , t he ]) o f * land and France joined to suppress the slave- t r a the ° lt: jfl sults would follow. To that he would reply a" . t ecil 43, ao Spartan—if they will cordially unite , to pu e t i ; to 18 tr e i then, they looked at their experence from f°_, a 61_1 . _ b ere t corn 'erect that the n it , thirty years would gty_' .9 i t , Knit !lid sult, then he might think that they might su per for by that this perseverance would soon have it. end, _ floe' were exciting more attachmei.t to the slave' that the bee Lord PALMERSTON in explanation la w ' t hat he ir eoti Member had tiro stated the number ot slavee t or ett i e ti liberated antl lardee Antertca. there were si x Y ti ead s thousand who erre landed at Sierra Leon ° au $0 0 : iher ir e. . th tile d j „, CII , ‘RLE. , -; N A PIER said, he astree o d ra wl es . tie b il oi te --- Member for [(yodel, and with the Noble,, L en et fel% fad' we re " perrior sat down, and twilt the Reht lion. p ar ' et to Ps, rodeo (lare, , :hter )—that •‘ if" the French could be g it co la pe er land in an efferr to put down the slave trad e, tha t theY eet eg o ; be very easily put down.—(Laughter.) B ut tha t rnt',,, 0 need expect to see ; for the French were at_ h 0 0 ; deavouring to put down the right of sear t ;_ (e ,. alaje s ,' av e t if the Right Hon. Baronet at the head d e ': t s s eell' . 000: 0 vernment would give up all the humbug n u° ,, b bark c' o tig that he had heart of late— (laugitter)- -a n , t i t ern the We-t India black troop in ships, and se the 130 1P t ..1 0 ,...-t o O d sea Shore and destroy ail the forts along t e s istigh e ' o e, without any regard to he law of nazi e° 9 b e ar. " 0 ' slave trade would soon be put art cot tor ld be 0 ‘l o° ' laughter). Until that was clone, there wu" er f ur ie making the attempt. Aiel pb tra— c. re Capt. PECHELL differed from the fle n '„f a rlot o ‘e we t ., tr ,e as to the mode of put! down this •;__ „ o rt ,( _ ri oerit ( Hear, hear.) The ships now built for T x ' n i 'b o se e l: ta ken; much hotter calculated to carry on this tr e tl ie e d t steps mere oot hi use,- and, therefore, uuless some de They ,he i t . k he it would go on at a greatei rate than ever. (hose of e ve " in war time. What had become of a t —4lO to the fine old seamen that used to man the n o t e bon 6n: ~,i nte e had gone through that excellent este blishme t Pl e° ship at Portsmouth ? Sir GEORGE COCKBURN. said be had gr"