Sitting of 30 March 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Excise Licences' (Ireland); Land Tax Commissioners Names; Court of Session (Scotland); Bankrupts' (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Colonel ANSON, from the Corporation of Yarmouth, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, in favour of the Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers. —By Major CUMMING BRUCE, from Inverness, for the Repeal of all Stamps on Knowledge; from Leith, for the Repeal of the Duty on Paper; from Inverness, for a Bill for Better Regulation of the Coast Light; and from the Fishermen of the Moray Forth, against the Salmon Fisheries' (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, for the Abolition of the Duty on Salt; from the Presbyterians in Lancashire, that their Ministers may perform the ceremony of Marriage in private Houses; and from Montreal, against the Alteration of the Timber Duties.—By Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. BINGHAM BARING, from the Licenced Victuallers of Cockermouth and Winchester, for the Repeal of the Duty on Licences.—By Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, from Gravesend, for Inquiry into Lieutenant Colonel Bradley's Case.—By Mr. WAKLEY, from Chichester, for the Abolition of Flogging in the Army; from Stanton, for the Repeal of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act; from St. Marylebone, that the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, be instructed to file a Criminal Information against the Orange Association; from Brighton, for the Repeal of the Septennial Act; and from Finsbury, that Evidence in Cases of Summary Jurisdiction be taken in Writing and preserved.—By Mr. HARVEY, from Chichester and Hereford, for Inquiry into the Pension-List; and from Colchester, that the Elective Franchise be extended to all Burgesses created by the Municipal Reform Bill.—By Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER, from Buckfastleigh and Dean Prior, for Relief from the Horse Tax.—By the LORD-ADVOCATE, from the Merchants of Leith, for a Bill regulating the construction of Merchant Vessels; and from the Solicitors
842
of Leith, for the Abolition of the Tax on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Fox MAULE, from the Handloom Weavers of Glasgow, complaining of Distress and asking for Relief.—By Mr. HUTT, from the Wine Merchants of Hull, for the Equalization of the Duty on Foreign Wine.— By Mr. MARSLAND, from the Dissenters of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for the Endowment of New Churches in Scotland, and for the discontinuance of the Regium Donum.—By Mr. SHAW, from the Corporation of Tailors (Dublin), against the Municipal Corporations' Bill (Ireland).—By Mr. WAKLEY, from Northampton, for the Repeal of the Poor-Law Amendment Act.—By Mr. HAWES, from St. Clement's Danes, for increasing the Penalty on Sunday Trading.—By Mr. CALLAGHAN, from Balyhooly and Killatly, for the Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).

CHURCH OF IRELAND.
Mr. Mark Phillipspresented a Petition, agreed to at a very large and respectable meeting held in Manchester, on the subject of the Irish Church. The Dissenters of that town were among the petitioners, as were all interested in the prosperity and welfare of Ireland, and anxious for the removal of the grievances which press upon the Dissenters from the Established Church. The petitioners stated their regret at the measures hitherto introduced and adopted on the subject of the Established Church, and to enforce its acceptance by the Irish people; they believed that any connexion between Church and State was injurious to the interests of religion, and they desired the abolition of the abuses allowed to exist in the Church of Ireland. They complained that the property of the State should be appropriated to the support of the religion of a very small section of the people, and they therefore prayed that, after the due maintenance of the Irish clergy, the surplus should he applied to national purposes. They stated, that the Dissenters of the United Kingdom had waived their claims to a redress of grievances till the present Session, in the hope that they would be dealt with in a more complete manner than hitherto. They also prayed that the grant to the Dissenters in Ireland, called the Regium Donum, might be withdrawn, and that the revenues of the Irish church should be resumed by the State. They prayed that the Bills for the registration of births, deaths and marriages might pass this Session. They further prayed that the Ecclesiastical Courts might be abolished. The petition was signed by 32,000 individuals, Dissenters and other inhabitants of Manchester. It was his duty to state to the House what their views and feelings were. He must say, that he did not cordially assent to some portions of the petition; but the portion to which he cordially gave his

843
support was that which prayed for the redress of the grievances of the Dissenters during the present Session of Parliament. He most cordially gave his support to that part of it which prayed for the civil registration of births, marriages, and deaths, and also to that portion which prayed for the abolition of one of the greatest nuisances—he meant the present system of the Ecclesiastical Courts. With respect to the Regium Donum, he could not enter into the question. He was only speaking the sentiments of the petitioners, who objected to the grant.
Mr. Arthur Trevorhad been solicited to protest against the sentiments contained in the petition just read by the hon. Member, which could be considered as like travelling at the rate of twenty miles an hour. The hon. Member was proceeding when
The Speakerinquired if the object of the hon. Member was to object to the petition being laid on the Table? [Mr. Trevor: "No!"] If that were not the case, he begged to ask the hon. Member whether he thought right, where there were so many subjects referred to in the petition, to consume the public time with discussions on the petition, when ample opportunity would be afforded for that purpose when the subjects referred to in the petition were brought in a distinct form under the consideration of the House? Unless it was the intention of the hon. Member to oppose the petition being laid on the Table, it was better to allow the business to proceed.
Mr. A. Trevorsaid, that he was induced to offer the few remarks he had made in consequence of the language contained in the petition, and he was disposed to oppose its being laid on the Table; but as the sense of the House appeared to be against him, he would not trouble them with any further observations.

HULL AND SELBY RAILWAY.
Mr. Bethell Mr. Bethell moved the third reading of the Hull and Selby Railway Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the Bill; and moved that it be read a third lime on this day six months. It was one of the speculations of the day, the shareholders being chiefly resident. These railway gentlemen drove their lines through a man's grounds and gardens without even asking his consent, so that the old saying every man's Louse is his castle, was no longer true, for though the King could not enter it, these railway, speculators could, and pull it down about his ears.
Mr. A. Trevorseconded the amendment. According to all the information which he had been able to obtain, the case of the gentleman alluded to by his hon. and gallant Friend, appeared to be one of peculiar hardship. He admitted, that private interests must yield to the general interest of the community at large, but the former ought not to be unnecessarily injured. The line which the gentleman in question wished the company to adopt, instead of that which they had determined on, would not occasion more than a minute and-a-half's delay. If ever there was a case in which the House was called upon to protect the rights of an individual, the present was such a case. Whatever might be the fate of the amendment, he should have great pleasure in standing by his hon. and gallant Friend. It was not the first time he had had that high honour.
Mr. Hutt: The Committee had reported, and he thought justly, in favour of the Bill. There was no line more advantageous, and the chief opposition came from a gentleman whose house was not approached by the railway nearer than three quarters of a mile.
Colonel Thompsonhoped the House would not allow an individual to defeat a measure of public utility, which the Committee approved of.
The House divided on the original question.
Ayes 128; Noes 9—Majority 119.
Mr. Lawson Mr. Lawson moved the introduction of a clause to prevent Sunday travelling on this railroad.
Mr. Warburtondid not understand the hon. Member as bringing forward an objection to Sunday travelling in general; and, undoubtedly, the mode of locomotion upon railways was the least objectionable of all, as employing the fewest number of men, and the least amount of labour. He should oppose the bringing up of this clause.
Mr. Humecould not conceive what necessity there was for this clause. The proprietors of the railroad had full power to prevent Sunday travelling upon it if they pleased.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, the hon. Member should bring forward a general proposition, if any, upon the subject, and not introduce it in reference to a particular railway.
Sir Robert Inglisthought the hon. Member had better not press the motion,

845
though, if he did so, he should consider it his duty to support him.
Mr. O'Connellwas surprised that hon. Members should object to Sunday travelling on the railway, seeing that it would be attended with this one great advantage —that it would enable persons to select among a greater number of churches.
Mr. Trevorsaid, there might be a great deal of wit in the hon. and Learned Member's observation, but there was no argument. It was very desirable that the same sort of exemption should be extended to all railways.
Mr. Pottersaid, he hoped the House would not sanction this attempt to prevent Sunday travelling.
Colonel Sibthorpwould not vote for the hon. Member's motion. The projectors of this Bill made loud protestations about the wonderful liberality of their intentions and their desire to afford opportunities of cheap travelling to the poor, yet by this clause they sought to hinder the lower classes from availing themselves of this cheap travelling on the very day most open to them. The projectors themselves, he would dare to say, would have no scruple about travelling on Sundays in their carriages and on horseback. The short of the matter was, that their professed liberality was ail a pretence; they cared for nobody but themselves, and he would pronounce of this, as of most other such speculations, that it was a mere selfish project.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, he stood in a rather peculiar situation on the subject of the Bill. The religious classes in Hull knew there were special reasons why, if any invasion were attempted of their freedom or privileges, he must of necessity be the first to join them, and the last to quit. But he must say to them distinctly, he could not support them in their unreasonableness. He did not see that any such invasion was attempted here. There was no endeavour, that he was aware of, to force any of his worthy friends, the Methodists of Hull, to travel on this railway on Sundays against their consent; and if a clause to that effect should ever be proposed, they might depend upon its meeting his most strenuous opposition. From what he had just heard he gathered that he was right in his persuasion, that the proprietors of the railway had power to make any regulations for the travelling on it they pleased. Now, if this House was
846
applied to by certain individuals, requesting us to shut their mouths in the dog-days, lest flies should enter in, should we not reply to them, "Shut them yourselves." Allusion had been made to something he had said in the Committee, and therefore he was under the necessity of repeating it here, leaving it to obtain such credence as the belief of his capability for giving evidence might procure, that in 1808 he was going as Governor to Sierra Leone, and Mr. Wilberforce, as would readily be believed, gave him advice on many subjects, which no man could do better than to follow; and, among other things, said to him, "That, for his part, he did not believe the Sabbath to be of Divine obligation upon Christians, but he thought it an excellent political institution, and hoped the Government in Sierra Leone would do everything in its power to uphold it."
The House divided on the question, that the clause be brought up.
Ayes 14; Noes 101—Majority 87.
Bill passed.

LORD BRUDENELL.
Sir William Molesworthsaid, he wished to aska question of the noble Lord the Secretary at War. Having read the decision of a court-martial, in which it was stated that there had been introduced into the 15th regiment of Hussars "a practice which (the court-martial said) cannot be considered otherwise than revolting to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman, and as being certain to create disunion and to be most injurious to his Majesty's service;" having read, likewise, in a general order from the Horse Guards, that "his Majesty has been pleased to approve and confirm the finding of the court;" and likewise that "his Majesty has been pleased to order that Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell shall be removed from the command of the 15th Hussars;" he wished to ask the Secretary at War whether, without this decision being previously cancelled, without its being solemnly proclaimed to the army as being most unjust and false, it can possibly be true that the noble Lord in question is appointed to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons? If it be true that such is the case, he wished to know likewise whether the Secretary at War had approved of and sanctioned this appointment?
Viscount Howick, in answer to the

847
question put by the hon. Baronet, could only say, that it certainly was true that the noble Lord referred to had been appointed to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons. Having stated this fact, which the hon. Baronet was equally aware of before from having seen it gazetted, in answer to the second part of the hon. Baronet's question—namely, whether that appointment had taken place with his (Lord Howick's) sanction, he could only say that the hon. Baronet, by the fact of asking such a question, had shown himself to be quite unacquainted with the practice adhered to in making these appointments. The duty of a Secretary at War, as many hon. Members from experience knew, and particularly the gallant officer opposite, was confined to watching over the arrangement of the finances appropriated to the army. He had no concern or right whatever to interfere in any respect in army promotions, appointments, or in anything connected with the discipline or internal management of the army; for all that related to such matters, the Commander-in-chief, and he only, was responsible. According to the usual practice, the Secretary at War was never made aware of any intended promotion or appointment until the Horse Guards minute had actually been approved by his Majesty, and sent by the Commander-in-chief to the War-office. The Secretary at War had no more to do with military appointments than the hon. Baronet had. This was the usual course; but in the present instance he could not say that the usual practice had altogether been adhered to, for in point of fact he had been aware, before the appointment in question was submitted to the Crown, that such an appointment was intended. When he was apprised by the Commander-in-chief of the contemplated appointment, his answer was, "It is for your Lordship to determine upon it: I have no means of judging whether the appointment is right or wrong; your Lordship is the responsible party, and it, therefore, rests altogether with your judgment. If you think proper to make the appointment, I have no possible grounds upon which to object." He (Lord Howick) had said, that he had no grounds upon which to object, because he had found in the records of the War-office, that a few months before the court-martial took place which led to the removal of the noble Lord from the 15th Hussars, a correspondence had taken place between his
848
right hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, then Secretary at War, and the Commander-in-chief, the result of which had been the full acquiescence of that noble Lord in the rule very properly laid down for his adoption by the right hon. Gentleman—that no officer "should be removed from full to half-pay but who was not considered by the Commander-in-chief fit— from his character and conduct—to be called again into active service, if the Commander-in-chief should think proper." This being the principle fully admitted by Lord Hill in November, 1833, and the noble Lord now in question not having been put by him on the half-pay list in March, 1834, it was manifest that the noble and gallant officer must at that time have been considered by the Commander-in-chief as eligible in every respect to be called into active employment when the occasion should be considered by him to arrive. He (Lord Howick) had therefore considered that he had no right whatever to object to the appointment, and that it might be very possible, for all he was entitled to know to the contrary, that among all the candidates for employment, the noble Lord had made the most fitting selection. Upon this point there were no documents within the reach of the Secretary at War which might enable him to form an opinion. He would repeat, the appointment had certainly taken place, and with his knowledge, and without any objection on his part; but at the same time without his sanction—in this sense, that, as he had before said, as Secretary at War, he had not been called upon to give or withhold his consent.
Mr. Humesaid, that the noble Lord having very honestly and candidly stated that he was not responsible for these matters, he should beg leave to ask the noble Lord, in the name of the Commons of England, who was. It was fit that somebody should be responsible to the country for the management and control of the army, and moreover, that the country should know who that responsible person was. The government, responsible to the country for the general conduct of its affairs, intrusted to a noble Lord the management and superintendence of the internal affairs of the army. He (Mr. Hume) wished it to be understood, whether that noble Lord was independent of all responsibility, and whether his acts, as Commander-in-chief, were to be subject to no control from any quarter whatsoever?

849
Was the Secretary at War, in point of fact, as he (Mr. Hume) had really stated the case to be, merely a clerk to the Commander-in-chief? It was necessary that the country should be put in possession of the real nature of the case, and that it should be understood whether the party exercising the entire control and management of the army was or was not subject to the same responsibility which attached to Ministers themselves.
Lord John Russellwould offer a few observations upon what had been asked, without, however, going much into the question, upon which he rather agreed with the hon. Member, in reference to the powers of the Secretary at War as regarded the Commander-in-chief. But so far as regarded appointments and promotions in the army, the discretion was placed, and he must say by no means improperly placed, in the Commander-in-chief. If the Commander-in-chief, being the person of the highest station in the army, and necessarily acquainted with the merits of the different officers serving in it, did his duty, he was responsible for the appointments and promotions made by him, his Majesty's Ministers, the First Lord of the Treasury, being responsible for advising his Majesty to adopt the recommendations of the Commander-in-chief in such cases. If, on the contrary, his Majesty's Ministers were of opinion that the discretion so lodged in the Commander-in-chief was wrongly exercised, that it was not exercised in such a manner as to benefit the army and do credit to the service, he should say the responsibility, in such a case, fell upon the Ministers, for not advising his Majesty to remove the Commander-in-chief. So that, in his (Lord John Russell's) view of the matter, while Lord Hill continued Commander-in-chief, he was, no doubt, responsible for the due execution of his duties, and for taking care that all the appointments and promotions made by him, should be founded upon his unbiassed judgment of the merits of the respective officers, and their position in the service. For the general discretion, and confidence placed by Government in the person holding the office of Commander-in-chief, he (Lord John Russell) was ready to take his share of responsibility, for he thought that if a Ministry were of opinion that the person holding so important an office was not properly and conscientiously performing his duties, it would be they, and not the Commander-in-chief, who
850
would be responsible, for their clear duty would be to advise his Majesty to make another choice.
Mr. Humewished to know whether he were right in understanding the noble Lord to have said, that the Commander-in-chief was responsible for the promotions he made, and the Ministers of the Crown were responsible for the acts of the Commander-in-chief. Then, if so, he wished to ask the noble Lord to inform him whether the act of promoting Lord Brudenell received the Ministers' sanction and approbation.
Lord John Russellthought he had explained the position of Ministers and the position of the Commander-in-chief. His explanation was, that the Commander-in-chief was responsible for the particular acts which he advised, and the Ministers were responsible for advising the Crown to place confidence in him. With respect to the particular act of the appointment of Lord Brudenell, he would apply to that what he had stated as to the appointments of the Commander-in-chief generally. He thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient if on each occasion of the appointment to a lieutenant-colonelcy, or other commission in a regiment, it became the practice that those who held civil situations in his Majesty's service, should intrude their opinions on the Commander-in-chief in respect to the military services of the officer. As to the case of Lord Brudenell, he, like his noble Friend (Lord Howick) was informed by Lord Hill that such an appointment was in contemplation before Lord Hill had decided on making it; but certainly he did not think proper, any more than his noble Friend, to inform Lord Hill that he had formed an opinion as to whether Lord Brudenell should or should not be placed in the situation of lieutenant-colonel of a regiment; but he did make some observations that were similar to those made by his noble Friend. He said, he thought that it was a question for the discretion of the Commander-in-chief. He had understood, from what he recollected of the circumstances, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, who was Secretary at War, asked at the time of Lord Brudenell's removal from the command of the 15th Hussars, whether he was to understand that the Commander-in-chief would not think fit to appoint Lord Brudenell to such a situation as he now held; and he believed Lord Hill stated to his right hon. Friend, that he did consider Lord Brude-

851
nell as a person, whom, at some future time, he should think it a benefit to the military service to employ again under his Majesty's command. Lord Hill having given that opinion in 1834, he considered it was a question for Lord Hill's discretion and judgment whether the removal of Lord Brudenell from active service should be followed by a continuance of that punishment—for it must be considered as a punishment—for a greater or a less period of time. He did not venture to say, that he thought it was fit at this time, or not fit, to remove him; but this much he did say, that he had full confidence that Lord Hill would form an unbiassed judgment on the subject, according to his conscientious sense of duty. Therefore he came back to what he had stated in the beginning, viz., that Lord Hill was responsible for this act, and the Ministers were responsible for confiding in him as a person fit to be trusted in the office of Commander-in-chief.
Sir Henry Hardingeentirely concurred in opinion with the Noble Lord who last spoke, and also with the Noble Lord who was Secretary at War, as regarded their responsibility, for the appointment under consideration. There was certainly a general responsibility, and the special responsibility rested with the Commander-in-chief. He agreed with the Noble Lord that if the Commander-in-chief conducted the affairs of the army in such a way as not to secure the confidence of the Government, it was a fit subject for the consideration of the Government whether they should not advise his Majesty to remove him from his office. He admitted the principle, and thought that was the mode in which the affairs of the army ought to be carried on. But he had heard that night, as on former occasions, that Lord Hill did so conduct himself as to merit the confidence of the Government. Under these circumstances in his opinion the act of Lord Hill was an act which was approved by the Government, inasmuch as the Government did not interfere in the individual appointments of the Commander-in-chief, unless those appointments were such as they disapproved of; in which case they were bound to remonstrate, and, if necessary, apply the remedy of removing the Commander-in-chief from his office. As to this particular case the hon. Member for Cornwall stated that Lord Brudenell was removed from the command of the 15th Hussars in consequence of the sentence
852
of the court martial, and he had quoted the substance of it, from which it appeared that the charge against Lord Brudenell was, that he was in the habit of taking down the private Communications of officers in the orderly-room without their knowledge.
The Speakersuggested to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the propriety of not entering into particulars.
Sir Henry Hardingewas not going to enter into the particulars. He was only about to state, that the noble Lord, when he was removed from the command of the 15th Hussars, in consequence of the verdict, did petition the King praying that he would allow him to be tried by a general court martial, and declaring that he never had—
Mr. Humerose to order. In his opinion, they ought either to enter into the subject fully and fairly, or not go into it at all. The right hon. Gentleman had introduced details into the debate which were not noticed in asking the question. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it right to enter into a general discussion of the subject now:—in his opinion, the details ought to be reserved for the period when the question came regularly before the House. He protested against the right hon. Gentleman being permitted to go into particulars, unless the other side were allowed the privilege of reply.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, he did not wish to go into particulars; but the hon. Member for Cornwall stated a fact, and he thought it but fair that he should be allowed to rebut that fact. Lord Brudenell, so far from assenting to the justice of the sentence upon him, petitioned the King praying his Majesty to order that he should be tried by a general court-martial. The King, however, did not acquiesce in his request; thinking, probably, that it would be injurious to the service to do so. But it was intimated to Lord Brudenell, that the case being one of discipline only, he might expect to be reinstated in his original position after a time. The Secretary at War of that day asked the Commander-in-chief if he considered the conduct of Lord Brudenell such that he should be permanently placed on the half-pay list, or temporarily as a punishment merely? the answer was, that he was placed on half-pay for the purpose of being restored to the service on a future occasion. It followed that the sentence of

853
the court, in the estimation of the Commander-in-chief was not such as to call for the permanent removal of Lord Brudenell from the active service of the King. He had taken steps to ascertain what were the impressions entertained on the subject by persons at head-quarters; and he could state them to have been, that there was no intention to fix Lord Brudenell permanently on the half-pay list, but on the contrary to restore him, after a time, to active service. He begged to add, that he never saw an appointment with more satisfaction than he did that by which the noble Lord was placed on full pay. It was an appointment by which the gallant Officer was restored with honour to the service; and he was satisfied that in his future career he would do that appointment credit.
Captain Curteis Captain Curteis, as a Member of the court martial referred to, begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether he meant to impugn the justice of the verdict of that court?
Sir Henry Hardingehad never advocated the system of canvassing the sentences of courts martial in that House, and he had not done so on the present occasion. That being the case, he begged to say, in Parliamentary phrase, that the Gallant Officer ought not to ask him a question of that kind.
Mr. Curteisdisapproved, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, of the interference of that House with the discipline of the army. He was glad the question had afforded the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of making a satisfactory reply.
Lord G. Lennoxsaid, he had the honour of commanding in the army for twenty-four years, and there was no one transaction in his military life which gave him more satisfaction than he derived from seeing the name of Lord Brudenell restored to the array. He should not feel that he had acted with justice towards Lord Brudenell if he did not make that declaration boldly in the face of military men.
Sir William Molesworthgave notice that soon after Easter, he should move a humble Address to his Majesty on the subject of this appointment. In the course of this evening he should move for Copies of the Correspondence referred to by the gallant Officer opposite.
Sir H. Hardingeasked what the hon. Gentleman meant by correspondence?
Sir William Molesworth: The Petition and the Answer.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, he knew of no correspondence but the Petition of Lord Brudenell, and the answer received to it. As to those documents, he had no doubt the hon. Member would be as much gratified as he was on seeing them, if the hon. Member had the feelings of a Gentleman, which no doubt he had.
Lord Howicksuggested, that the hon. Gentleman should not move this evening for a Copy of the Petition, as he (Lord Howick) should not feel justified in concurring in the motion, or, indeed, in any motion for the production of any Papers on the subject, till he had been afforded an opportunity of communicating with Lord Hill.
Subject dropped.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS—CRACOW.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartsaid, seeing the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary in his place, he wished to put to him one or two questions of great importance with respect to our national honour, and of vital importance to the commercial interests of this country. In the course of the recent discussion which took place, relative to the late unfortunate events at Cracow, the noble Lord stated, that communications had been made on that subject with the Ministers abroad. The first question which he wished to ask the noble Lord was, whether amongst the parties he had communicated with were included the authorities of Cracow itself; and whether any answer to his communications had been received? The second question he had to ask the noble Lord was, whether he had received any official notice of events which it was said had occurred affecting the victims of Cracow since the occupation of that place? Was the noble Lord aware that the Polish Refugees, having been induced to pass out of the district in which they were, instead of being forwarded to the place of their destination, had been delivered up by the three powers into the hands of Russia, and had been marched, in all probability, to Siberia or to Tobolsk? His next question had reference to our commercial interests. He begged to ask the noble Lord if he had information of an attempt on the part of Russia to close the mouths of the Danube by certain quarantine regulations. He begged also to express a hope that the noble Lord would inform the House whether it was the intention of the Government to interfere to prevent this further

855
violation of the treaties of Vienna and Adrianople, by both of which it was declared that all the navigable rivers traversing the European states should be free and open in their course to the whole of Europe.
Viscount Palmerston Viscount Palmerston, with reference to the first question, had to say, that he had received answers from most of those Ministers to whom he had written for information respecting the affairs of Cracow; but he had not had any communication with the authorities of Cracow themselves on the subject. It was the intention of the Government, when first they heard of the state of Cracow, and of the disposition to expel certain refugees from that country, to send the British Consul at Warsaw to Cracow, to obtain full information; but before the Government could give effect to their intention, they heard of the actual occupation of the town by the three protecting powers, and it did not appear to them that that was a fitting occasion for the Consul at Warsaw to present himself in the town of Cracow. It occurred to the Government that he not having any official character at that place, his presence there might rather be construed into a tacit acknowledgment of the measure which was carried into effect, or it might put him in a situation unfitting for a British officer. With regard to the second question, he had heard from two quarters that some of the refugees had been sent back to the kingdom of Poland, instead of being transferred to France or the other parts of Europe, as was originally agreed. An account to that effect had reached the British Minister at St. Petersburg, and he had asked for information on the subject from the Russian Government, by whom he was informed that they had received no notice of such an arrangement, and they did not believe that such an event had taken place; but they assured him that at all events what had been done was not with a view to subject the persons to banishment or punishment. Count Nesselrode gave it as his opinion that if there had been any such occurrence, it must have been because a certain number of individuals preferred the change, from a wish to return to Poland. He promised to make inquiries, and communicate the result to Lord Durham. With regard to the third question, he had to state, that he had not received any information with respect to that quarantine which it was said in the public papers had been imposed
856
by the Russian Government in the mouths of the Danube. By the treaty of Adrianople, the Russian Government had a right to establish a bonâ fide quarantine at the mouths of that river. All the three branches of the river either fell into the territory ceded by the treaty of Adrianople to Russia, or one bank of them was bounded by the territory of Russia. But though Russia had a right to establish a bonâ fide quarantine, yet he thought it was indisputable that as the treaty of Vienna expressly declared that all the navigable rivers throughout Europe should be free and open to the navigation of Europe, Russia was not entitled to establish any quarantine on the Danube, which, under the pretence of preserving health, was really and truly intended to embarrass commerce. Having no official information on the subject, he could not give any other answer.
Mr. P. M. Stewartsaid, he should feel it his duty on Friday, the 15th of April, to call the attention of the House to what he advisedly and deliberately designated the aggression of Russia.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH PORTUGAL.
Mr. Robinsonbegged to ask the noble Lord whether he could give the House any information as to the state of the negotiations between the Queen of Portugal and his Majesty's Government affecting the commercial relations of the two countries? Another question he desired to ask the noble Lord was, whether his Majesty's Government had consented to annul the treaty which existed with the State of Frankfort, by which that State was excluded from joining, without the consent of this country, the German Confederation? If the consent of this country had been given, he should be obliged by the noble Lord stating on what grounds.
Viscount Palmerston Viscount Palmerston, was not able to report to the House that the negotiation carrying on for a new commercial treaty with Portugal had been brought to a satisfactory termination; it was proceeding, however, and he should hope that it would be attended by a satisfactory result. But at the same time be would remark, that the House must have seen by the public channels, that undoubtedly there were symptoms on the part of the Portuguese Government, of opinions on the subject of trade and commerce being entertained which were not very favourable to the conclusion of a treaty on terms of recipro-

857
cal advantage to the two countries. The hon. Gentleman must know that a tariff had been lately proposed to the Portuguese Chamber, which would be inconsistent with anything like an endeavour to establish on a liberal and advantageous footing the commerce between this country and that. He hoped, however, that the Government of Portugal would be found too enlightened to give their support to such injurious propositions. But should they be carried into effect, it would then be for the Government of this country and for Parliament to consider what steps it was necessary for this country to take, so that we might shape our course according to theirs. With regard to Frankfort, it was true that four years ago this country concluded a convention with that state, by one article of which it was precluded from making any alteration in its then existing tariff without the consent of England. It having been represented to his Majesty's Government that it was indispensable to the well-being and prosperity of Frankfort, and through that country to the well-being and prosperity of the British interests, that Frankfort should be allowed to associate itself in the German union—on that representation being made as to the state of Frankfort a subsequent convention was entered into releasing Frankfort from that which was a bar to her joining the German union, and since then the junction of Frankfort with that union had been formed. The convention to which he adverted would be speedily laid upon the Table of the House, and hon. Gentlemen would then have an opportunity of judging as to its propriety.

CANTON.
Lord Sandonwould avail himself of that opportunity to ask the noble Lord whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to fill up the vacancy at Canton occasioned by the death of Lord Napier?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that question involved some very important considerations connected with the commerce of this country—considerations, the very importance of which, he could assure his noble Friend, was one reason why the Government had paused for so long a time with regard to any measures which it might be deemed advisable to take. By the instructions sent out to the superintendents when Lord Napier first went out there, it was ordered that every vacancy as it occurred, was to be filled up on the spot, subject to
858
the approbation of the Government at home. Pursuant to that arrangement there were now three superintendents; they were Sir G. Robinson, who had been in the service of the East-India Company, he was the senior superintendent; Captain Elliot was the second; and Mr. Johnson was the third.

SPANISH LOAN.
Mr. Arthur Trevorwished to ask the noble Lord whether there was any truth in the general rumour, that a negotiation was going forward for a loan for the service of the Queen of Spain, and that this country was to guarantee its repayment?
Viscount Palmerstonhad no objection to give the hon. Gentleman the information he requested, but thought he should be almost entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman in return a counter question of just the same nature. In reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, he begged to say, that no loan had been negociated by the Queen of Spain which the Government of this country was to guarantee. He now begged to ask the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman on that side of the House, whether, "as he had seen it reported," a loan had been negociated for Don Carlos; and if so, upon what guarantee?
Subject dropped.

PARLIAMENTARY SURVEY OF CHURCH LANDS.
Mr. Thomas Duncombe Mr. Thomas Duncombe moved for the Survey of Church Lands, at present in the Library of Lambeth Palace. The document in question was one of very great importance in all inquiries on the subject to which it referred: it was deposited in Lambeth Palace about the time of the Restoration, by order of the House of Commons. He considered it was a public document belonging to the country; and that that House having originally ordered its removal to the place where it now was, had a right to demand it back again.
The Solicitor Generaladmitted the importance of the document in question, but expressed some doubt as to the right of that House to call for it. It was of very great importance in a legal point of view, in suits for tithes, moduses, &c.; but not many years ago, the Court of Chancery had decided, that extracts from it were to be received as evidence, so as to render its production in Court not necessary; and he understood, that there was every facility given on payment of a small fee, for the inspection of it, and if required for taking extracts from it.
Sir Robert Inglisopposed the motion; he denied the right of that House to demand the production of the document: in one point of view, they would be committing a great injustice in so doing; for the person in whose custody it now was received certain fees for its inspection. He had a vested interest in those fees, and that House had no just right to deprive him of it.
The Speakersaid, that, as Chairman of the Record Commission, he could assure the hon. Member for Finsbury, that they would use their influence to procure the production of the document referred to.
Mr. Thomas Duncombesaid, his only object was to get at the document; and, on that assurance, he would withdraw his motion.—Motion withdrawn.

COURT OF SESSIONS.
The Lord Advocatesaid, in bringing before the House a Bill for making certain alterations in the duties of the Lords Ordinary, &c., he wished to call attention in the first place to the savings that had been made in the Court of Session and Court of Admiralty, and Court of Exchequer in Scotland. In the Court of Session and Admiralty, the savings which had actually accrued amounted already to 17,375 l. 8s. 4½d. per annum; the prospective savings to 11,566 l. 6s. 2d. The actual savings in the Court of Exchequer amounted to 14,996 l. 13 s. 4d.; the prospective to 7,215 l. 11 s. 4d.; amounting altogether to 51,153 l. 19 s. 2½d. The returns from the Commissary clerk were not so clearly made, but the savings by the abolition of that Court would exceed 2,000 l. These returns, as soon as a further return was obtained from the Commissary Court, he should move should be printed after the recess; but savings to the public would take place which could not appear on any return, for from twenty judges being reduced to thirteen, and six principal clerks to four, a very considerable saving would take place in the amount of retiring allowances. The office of Keeper of the Privy Seal, which had undergone no change, and who, besides drawing a salary of 3,000 l. receives a large amount of fees, would be reduced to 1,200 l., no part of which would he payable from the Exchequer, but entirely from the fees, and the balance would be payable to the Treasury. A very large saving would also arise in the event of the office of Lord Register, Keeper of the Sasines and of the Signet, becoming vacant. In the department of stamps and taxes, the savings would be upwards of
860
12,000 l. The abolition of the Boards of Customs and Excise, and other retrenchments in those departments in Scotland had been very considerable. In these circumstances, it was natural that the suitors should look for some diminution in the fees which they paid, which would render the expense of litigation less, and throw open the Courts of Justice to persons of ordinary means, without exposing them to ruin, for justice could not be said to be free if parties were obliged, besides paying counsel and attornies, which must always be a heavy expense, to pay large court fees on every step of the proceedings. The great object of this Bill was to follow out the recommendations of the first and second Reports of the Law Commissioners. The first provision of the Act was, that the junior Lord Ordinary should act as one of the permanent Ordinaries, as one of the other four, and that actions of reduction should not be confined to him, but might be brought before any of the other Lords Ordinary. The junior Lord Ordinary has hitherto been overloaded with business; and, although the great zeal and ability of the present Judge has enabled him to get through his duties with great satisfaction to the country; yet, under the former arrangement, it was not possible for Judges of great zeal, industry, and knowledge, to overtake the cases brought before them. His Majesty's Government have found it necessary this year to prolong the Session, so far as regarded the Lords Ordinary, by one fortnight. This was the first time, that the Act of the 1st of his present Majesty, sec. 10, had been carried into effect. It had heretofore remained a dead letter." I have been told, that this Order in Council has given dissatisfaction to some individuals; but, I trust, that the advantages it will be of to the administration of justice, and the satisfaction it has given to the country, as a proof that Government is resolved to remove all unnecessary delays, are more than sufficient to justify the adoption of that measure. The other clauses of the Bill relate to arrangements, the great object of which are to improve the administration of justice and diminish the amount of fees which are exacted from the suitors. I have, in all the salaries proposed, adopted the recommendations made by the Commissioners on Scotch Law, with the exception of one, where the proposed salary was 600 l. a-year, and it appeared to me that 400 l. would be sufficient; but if it shall appear to the House, that the salary proposed by

861
the Commissioners ought not to be reduced, I shall most readily acquiesce. In general, the salaries of the establishment proposed by the Law Commissioners are very moderate—in the opinion of many persons much too low. The saving in fees to litigants will amount to upwards of 19,000 l. per annum. They will be great gainers by this change, and I think they ought to be so. It appears to me, that nothing can be more unjust than that the proceedings before courts of law, which must necessarily be heavy and vexatious to those engaged in them, should be severely taxed to pay fees to officers of Court. By trying a question, and having it ascertained what the law is, the parties often do what is serviceable to many hundreds, who hold their property afterwards in greater security, or are enabled to avoid questions previously unsettled; but the delay with which the discussion is attended is often most vexatious, and the expense frequently exceeds the value of the subject in dispute. I am persuaded, that an enlightened Government could render no greater service to the country than by improving the Courts of Justice, and removing, as far as can be, every source of delay and expense. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, for leave to bring in the Bill.
Leave given, Bill read a first time.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Bankruptcy, (Ireland)
Petitions presented. By the Duke of LEINSTER, from Antrim, in favour of Mr. Buckingham's Claim.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from Glasgow, for a repeal of that portion of the Abolition of Slavery Bill relating to Apprentices.— By several NOBLE LORDS from various places for Alteration of Ecclesiastical Courts Consolidating Bill.—By Lord HATHERTON, from Plymouth, for an alteration in the Corn Laws—By Lord TEMPLEMORE, from Sutton in Wexford, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from Dublin, against the Corporations' Reform (Ireland) Bill; and from Bristol, against the Suppression of the Bishopric of Bristol.

LETTER STEALING, (SCOTLAND).
The Duke of Richmondstated, that he trusted that this Bill would be altered. He believed that the object of this Bill was to prevent Magistrates in Scotland taking bail in cases of letter-stealing, which they were now able to do. This he thought was going against the principle of a measure that was passed last year, by which the powers of taking bail were enlarged. He did not see why there should be any alteration in the great object in view—namely, that no person should be sent to gaol if he could get sufficient security that he would appear and take his trial in due course of law. This principle had been established in England, and, he believed, also in Scotland, by the recent Act; but by this Bill the power of taking bail was taken from the Magistrates of

835
Scotland, and the Court of Justiciary alone could do so in cases of letter-stealing. He knew that the prisons in Scotland were in a much worse condition than in England. If then they wished to prevent men being committed to a gaol in England, still much more should they endeavour to do so in Scotland, for offences in which bail could instantly be taken. He did not wish to throw out the Bill, but he was anxious to call the attention of the Government to the subject, and would suggest that the measure should be postponed till after the holidays.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the Bill did not prevent bail being taken, but pointed out the mode in which it should be taken for offences of this nature in Scotland. He understood that bail could not be taken by Magistrates in cases of this kind.
The Earl of Haddingtonrecommended that the measure should be postponed until after the holidays.
The Duke of Richmondremarked, that by this Bill bail could only be taken before the Justiciary Court, which was most expensive, and would prevent those who lived at a distance from Edinburgh from obtaining bail at all.
The Earl of Roseberyadmitted, that the Committee up stairs were of opinion that it was very desirable to allow bail to be taken in as many cases as possible. He, therefore, thought that it would be better to postpone the Bill, that they might see whether it could not be improved in this respect. If the object of the measure was to render the taking of bail more effective than at present, he believed that there would be no objection to it on the part of his noble Friend. If, however, it was to narrow the power of admitting persons to bail charged with these offences, it would require very serious consideration.
Measure postponed.

INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND AMERICA.
The Duke of Leinster The Duke of Leinster moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the existing facilities for intercourse between the United Kingdom and our American colonies, and to consider what improvement can be made therein.
The Marquess of Lansdownedid not rise to oppose the motion of his noble Friend, out he wished to observe, that he agreed in thinking it desirable that a Committee should be appointed in that House to inquire into this subject, which, indeed, was one of national importance.
836
In giving his concurrence, however, to the motion, he did so in the full confidence that the meaning and object of the noble Duke was, to inquire into the means of facilitating the communication between the United Kingdom and the British colonies in North America, and not to direct attention to, or recommend one particular port through which the communication should be carried on. He thought that a great portion of this question was connected with a subject with which it was the duty of the Government intimately to inform themselves, and to gain that information from engineer officers who were not likely to be tainted or influenced by personal interests or considerations. He knew, that in consequence of the possibility of such an inquiry his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty had taken steps to obtain the best information on the subject. He had directed inquiry to be made as to the best ports in Ireland for carrying on communication with America. There could be no doubt that this part of the subject had better be left in the hands of the Admiralty, by whom it would be adequately performed, than be assigned to persons who had private interests to consult. It was not only a fit subject in a commercial point of view for the serious attention of the House, but also in a military sense, and he had no doubt but that the inquiry of the Committee would lead to important and beneficial results. He would, however, suggest to his noble Friend to render the subject of his motion clear and explicit by making a slight alteration in the words of it, to the following effect:—"That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the means of facilitating the existing intercourse between the United Kingdom and our American colonies."
Motion as amended, agreed to.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS.
The Duke of Newcastlerose to move for certain Returns relative to Roman Catholic Establishments in this country. He was most unwilling to trouble their Lordships, but he felt it to be a duty incumbent on him to do so on that occasion. The object he had in view was to call upon the House to do all in their power to protect the Protestant religion in this country against any open or insidious attacks that might be made on it. He believed that the Returns he in-

837
tended to move for, would, if accurately furnished, do much to inform their Lordships as to the dangerous increase that had lately taken place in the number of Roman Catholics. He felt that the religion of the country was endangered by this, and therefore he contended that they were called upon to do all in their power to rescue it from the situation in which it was placed. His attention had been recently called to this subject in consequence of some observations which he had seen in a newspaper, and certainly they were well worthy of the consideration of the House. He would beg leave to read to their Lordships an extract he had found in the Newcastle journal.
"Respecting Great Britain, we have information of its progress of a painful character. About forty years since, there were but thirty chapels in Great Britain; in the year 1835 there were 510. In that year eleven new ones have been built. In Dover, and also in Kidderminster, a Protestant chapel has been converted into a Papal chapel. They will—with praiseworthy zeal if it were in a right cause,— build a chapel where they have not a dozen members; and this chapel is sometimes filled, by the zeal of those members, from the neighbourhood. There are said to be now 700 ecclesiastics in this island, and they have resorted in several places to preaching in the open air. Popish colleges and seminaries are multiplying, and these are modern institutions. There are now eight Popish colleges and fifty-two seminaries; and in many of them great decorum and application to their object is manifested; Monasteries and nunneries are also beginning. With these efforts are connected several tract societies; they have been very active in distributing tracts in favour of Popery at the doors of meetings and churches; and the Scotch church, near Covent-Garden, at the evening service in the church. They have formed schools adapted to attract the children of the poor, giving public breakfasts and clothing the children, and thus getting the parents to attend mass. The chief body of the reporters for the public journals are said to be Irish papists. While a few of the higher classes, many of the lower, it is believed, have been entrapped into this snare of the enemy. In Scotland there once were but very few Roman Catholic families, there are now, in Glasgow, 30,000 Roman Catholics; and it is believed that there has been an increase of Popery in the eastern as well as the western coast. I am credibly informed that since the year 1815, large sums have been remitted from the Continent to this country and Ireland, for the purpose of promoting Popery; my informant puts the sum at 400,000 l. and slated the name of the person to whom the distribution of it is assigned."
838
The passage he had read purported to be taken from a book recently published on the progress of Popery, and written by the rev. Edward Bickersteth. He had said enough he was sure to convince their Lordships of the danger which threatened the country, and he would conclude by moving for Returns of all Roman Catholich chapels, with the dates of their erection; also Returns of all monastic establishments, distinguishing whether for monks or nuns, together with the number in each; also for a return of all Roman Catholic colleges and seminaries in England and Wales, distinguishing those which belonged to the Jesuits; and also of the number of Roman Catholics in Great Britain in the year 1799, and their progressive increase down to the present time. If this latter Return could not be made, he would propose that a Retina should be made of the number in 1828, and each year to 1835.
Viscount Melbournehad no objection to some of the returns moved for by the noble Duke, as he did not see that any harm could arise from them; but he wished to state, with respect to several points of the motion, that they could not he complied with, as the information called for could not be obtained, Government having no power to enforce the communication of it. They could make the return as to the number of licensed places of Roman Catholic worship, as they could of all other dissenting places of worship, and also the dates when they were certified, in order to be licensed. These returns could, without difficulty, be obtained from the clerks of the peace in the several counties. The second motion, with respect to the monastic establishments, and the number of residents in each, the noble Duke knew that there was a provision in the Roman Catholic Relief Bill requiring a register of all males in the monastic establishments, and if, after that period, any members were admitted, there were severe penalties for not complying with the Act, and the parties in such establishments would be liable to punishment as guilty of misdemeanour. Nunneries were excepted from the Act, therefore it was competent for persons to establish them; but they could not obtain any information respecting them from which anything like just conclusions should be drawn. As to Roman Catholic colleges and seminaries, he would only observe that, as it was competent for any persons to establish such places for the education of persons

839
in the Roman Catholic religion, he did not see how they could prevent it, nor could they obtain any returns respecting their institutions any more than regarding those of other Dissenters, or belonging to the members of the Establishment. With respect to information regarding the number of Roman Catholics in England since 1799 he would only add, that there were no means for ascertaining it. There was a recent return in Ireland distinguishing the number of Catholics from Protestants, but no returns of the kind had been made in this country. He believed, by the Act for the relief of the Roman Catholics, Jesuits, and members of other monastic orders were allowed to live in this country, provided they sent in their names to the Secretary of State. So far, therefore, information might be furnished, but with respect to many of the returns it was utterly impossible to make them.
The Duke of Newcastlethought that they might obtain the information he called for, by requiring the parish clergy to make returns. The truth was, that Roman Catholic chapels were raising in all directions, and Popery was spreading, and yet it was regarded with apathy. He had received a letter on this subject from a gentleman who did not sign his name to it, in which it was stated, that a very large Roman Catholic establishment had been erected at St. Leonard's near Hastings, and which looked more like a fortress than anything else. It was notorious, that there was a large Jesuit monastic establishment at Stoneyhurst, and he had seen the bull by which it was established, and it was described to be of the Jesuits' order. He believed that, by the Relief Act, members of the Jesuits' society might come to England on obtaining a licence from the Secretary of State; but he should like to know in how many instances this had been complied with. He trusted that their Lordships would go along with him in desiring to abolish such places as he had alluded to, which were called seminaries, but which (as we understood the Noble Duke to say) he could not help regarding as a pestilence. He trusted that their Lordships would support him in pressing for the returns he had moved for.
Lord Hollandobserved, that with respect to many of these clauses, Parliament had no power to obtain information. They had no right to inquire as to what religion a man professed. To adopt the means proposed by the Noble Duke to carry on the
840
inquiry, would be in effect doing nothing more nor less than giving to the Protestant clergy of Great Britain the Popish power of confession as to the tenets of a man's religion. Supposing the noble Duke's suggestion was adopted, he should like to know by what means a clergyman of a parish would learn the religion of every person in his parish. He held that the first doctrine of the Protestant religion was, that no man had a right to say or to judge what were the religious opinions of another.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that there was no doubt that what had fallen from his noble Friend as to the difficulties the parochial clergy would experience in making their returns, was to a great degree, true; but this did not apply to the religious seminaries. He thought that the noble Duke was entitled to the information if it could be furnished to him; he would, therefore, recommend him to add to his motion the words, "as far as they can be obtained."
The Marquess of Clanricardethought that, though the returns as a mere matter of curiosity might be sufficiently interesting, yet no Parliamentary grounds had been laid before their Lordships to induce them to consent to their being made but. Was it the noble Lord's intention to move the repeal of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, or to ground any such proceeding upon these returns, if they were made? He had no objection to the returns being granted, as far as it was possible they could be made, but he repeated, no Parliamentary grounds had been laid for the motion.
Lord Wharncliffethought it was impossible to comply with some part of the motion of the noble Duke.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, on behalf of the parochial clergy of the country, protested against their Lordships imposing so arduous a duty on them as was proposed by the noble Duke. What was to prevent any of their Lordships, if this motion were complied with, from calling upon the parochial clergy of the country to furnish a return of the number of Baptists, Methodists, or of any other sect, if such a return he might find necessary either to gratify his curiosity, or appease his apprehension? Any noble Lord in that House who might have a desire to put down those "pestilences," as the noble Duke was pleased to term those bodies of conscientious men who had formed themselves into societies through the country, might, upon that pretence, call for returns, to which it would be quite

841
impossible for their Lordships to consent. No matter, however, what the nature of the motion might be, he protested against any Peer of that House applying such a term to any society of conscientious Christians, of whatever denomination. So far as any information could be obtained; he had no objection to its being given; but he once more protested against imposing the duty on the parochial clergy.
The Marquess of Clanricardebegged to remind the Noble Duke (Newcastle) that the Jesuits, as an order, were as fully suppressed by the Pope as the noble Duke himself could desire.
The Duke of Newcastlehoped their Lordships would not let it go forth to the country that they had refused any information in their power on this important subject. He should advertise in the public papers for any information that could be forwarded to him on this subject.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that the provisions of the Relief Bill, relating to monasteries and societies of Jesuits had been evaded.
The motion amended was agreed to.