that the hon. Member for Londonderry | jury to assess their value, when that was had not made out such a case as could necessary for the defence of the country. induce him to vote against the proposition It was necessary that the act should be of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. general in its terms, for if the lands were As far as he was able to judge from his to be scheduled, the Crown might hereown experience, from the returns before after be unable to obtain sites, the posthe House, aud from the history of past session of which might be essential to the transactions, he was of opinion that the public service. Care had been taken to additional fourpence would not increase frame the clauses, so as to give every perillicit distillation. Nay, more, he would son having any, an ample opportunity of say, that if he were desirous of trying ex- asserting his rights, and when the bill periments with respect to the reduction of should be in committee, he was prepared duties, Irish spirits was not the article he to move a clause which would limit the would select for that purpose. Taking lands to be taken to within 700 yards of the financial condition of the country into the dockyards. consideration, he would rather risk eighty or a hundred thousand pounds on the reduction of some other tax than the duty on Irish spirits.

Sir R. Ferguson would not give the House the trouble of dividing.

Amendment negatived.

The report read a second time, agreed to, and a bill founded on the resolutions ordered to be brought in.

ADMIRALTY LANDS.] Mr. S. Herbert moved that the House resolve itself into committee on the Admiralty Lands Bill.

On the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,

Captain Pechell wished to know whether the lands in question were to be exempted from the land-tax.

Sir C. Napier wished to ascertain what lands were to be taken in. If the Secretary of the Admiralty would give him information on this point, he would be happy to give his assent to the bill.

Mr. Gill was afraid, if the lands were scheduled, the value of the property must be diminished, inasmuch as the proprietor's right of control over it was infringed. He was glad to find it was not proposed to take any lands at a greater distance than 700 yards from the dock-yards.

Mr. S. Herbert said, the House was generally inclined to place a certain confidence in the various departments of Government, and he hoped they would extend so much to the Admiralty Board, as to believe that the powers confided to them by this bill would not be misused.

Mr. Barnard said, this was an unconstitutional bill. Its object was to empower the Government to take possession of certain lands near her Majesty's dockyards for the public service; but the particular lands were not defined, and persons possessing property near the sites were Mr. B. Wood said, the effect of the bill anxious and alarmed. He proposed that would be to schedule all land within half all the lands intended to be taken by the a mile of every dock-yard for an unlimited bill should be scheduled or otherwise de- period of time, interfering with the proscribed, and that no lands not so sche-prietor's right of disposing of it, and keepduled or described should come in any way under the operation of the bill.

ing the property around in a state of dilapidation and uncertainty. A man, for Mr. Hume thought the measure was a instance, might erect an expensive builddeparture from principle, and an unjusti-ing on his ground, without any chance of fiable violation of private rights. He moved that the House resolve itself into a committee in three months.

Mr. S. Herbert was surprised that any one should describe the bill as an unconstitutional measure. Bills of a similar character, relative to the Ordnance and Customs' departments, were in existence, and the only difference between them was that the present bill was not nearly so stringent in its provisions as the others. The object of the bill was to enable the Crown to acquire lands, appealing to a

being repaid for the outlay, if Government thought proper to take the land.

Sir J. Graham was not surprised, that the House should regard with jealousy the powers proposed to be given by this bill. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, the hon. Member for Plymouth had given an opinion diametrically opposed to his theory. If this bill passed, it would still not be competent for the Government to make a bargain for the purchase of a piece of land without the consent of the House,

as the price must be voted in committee of supply. The amount of the purchase money would be settled by a jury, in case of difference arising; and there was no room to apprehend that the rights of individuals would not be well protected by a jury. Any attempt to specify by schedule the particular properties required, would be a great disadvantage to the public, by raising the price; it might also lead to much litigation.

Trelawny, J. S.
Wallace, R.
Wawn, J. T.
Williams, W.
Wood,
B.

Wood, G. W.

Mr. Blewitt did not think the right hon. Baronet had answered the case which had been made out against the bill. should the question The House divided on that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question-Ayes 59; Noes 28: Majority 31.

O'Brien, A. S.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Plumptre, J. P.

Pringie, A.

Rashleigh, W.
Sibthorp, Col.

progress.

move,

Sir R. Peel said, the object of the measure was to give power to the Admiralty to purchase land that might be necessary for the public service without being subII.jected to exorbitant exaction. The suggestion, however, that the places should be specified was, he thought, a fair one, and at a future stage of the bill the names of the great public establishments which it was proposed to invest with this power might be inserted. It would, however, be an inconvenient and clumsy proceeding to have a separate act every time the Admiralty might require to purchase a few square yards of land, and it would be better to have a general act for the purpose.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Stuart, H.
Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Trench, Sir F. W.
Wilshere, W.
Wood, Col.
Young, J.

TELLERS.

Fremantle, Sir T.
Corry, J.

List of the NOES.

Barron, Sir H. W.
Blewitt, R. J.

Hastie, A.
Henley, J. W.
Holland, R.
Mitcalfe, H.

Napier, Sir C.

Bowring, Dr.

Brotherton, J.

Morris, D.

Clements, Visct.]

Collett, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Duncan, G.

Ferguson, Sir R, A.

Duncombe, T.

O'Connell, M. J.
Pechell, Capt.
Plumridge, Capt.
Power, J.
Ross, D. R.

The Bill went through committee.

The House resumed. Bill to be reported.

INDUSTRIOUS CLASSES. LOAN FUNDS.] Lord Ashley then rose and entreated five minutes attention whilst he moved for leave to bring in a bill to establish, regulate, and protect societies for the improvement of the industrious classes, by extending the allotment or field garden system, and the more general establishment of loan funds in England and Wales. The noble Lord said that the first object of his measure would be to extend the allotment system. At present landlords found it too troublesome and expensive to attend to the letting of small portions of land, and the consequence was, that a system of field gardens, calculated to prove so beneficial to the health and morals of the poor, was but rarely found to be in practice in any crowded vicinage. Now, waste and common lands applicable to this useful purpose were to be found in abundance near many large towns, and

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Tuesday, July 25, 1843.

MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.-1 Court of Exchequer;

Fines and Penalties (Ireland); Public Works (Ireland). 2. Woollen, etc., Manufactures; Bridges (Ireland). 3. and passed:-Schoolmasters Widows' Fund Validity (Scotland).

Private. Reported.-Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation; Edinburgh Water. 3. and passed: Ferries. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Marquess of Downshire, from a Protestant Association in Dublin, for Inquiry into the conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commission.-By Farl Stanhope, from the Bakers of Ireland, for Redress of their Grievances.-By Lord Campbell, from "Birmingham, against the Charitable Pawn Offices Bill.- From Cot Fishermen of the Rivers Suir, Nare, and Barrow, for Relief. From Merchant Seamen of Newburgh, for Amending the Act relating to the Merchant Seamen's Fund.

Gilbert's (or Miller's) Estate; Tay

what he should propose would be that a board should be established in London, the members of which, in their collective capacity, should have the power to purchase, hire, and let lands to the poor, without, however, exercising any other powers appertaining to landlords, or in any way interfering with the operation of local boards. The second object of his bill would be to promote the more general establishment and to regulate the management of loan fund societies in England and Wales. The loan fund system in England had not up to the present time answered all that might have been expected from it; whilst in Ireland it was admirably conducted and in every way successful. The object of h's bill, therefore, would be to assimilate the manage- LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.] Lord Portment of these societies in this country as man, in moving the reading of the Order far as possible to the management of the of the Day for the second reading of the societies in Ireland. It was curious, and Landlords and Tenants Bill, in order that he should be glad if the House would it might be discharged, said he did so bemark the difference between the conduct cause many Members of the House were of these societies in the two countries at not then prepared to enter into a discussion the present time. By the return of 1843, of the principle; and as he had not init appeared that the number of loan socie- tended to pass the bill this year, his object ties in England was sixty-eight, whilst in would be gained if the bill were attenIreland they numbered 300. The amount tively considered in the recess, being as of money circulated by them in England insured that their Lordships would concur 1842 was 104,3787., whilst in Ireland it in any law which was safe for the landlord was 1,691,8717. The number of loans and good for the tenant. issued in 1842 in England was 20,766; in Ireland, 488,702. The gross profit in England was 6,450l.; in Ireland it was 59,9437. In England the net profit was 4561. whilst after deducting the interest on capital, the expenses of management, and the bad debts, it amounted in Ireland to no less than 18,9671., every farthing of which sum was applicable to purposes of charity. The noble Lord quoted several testimonies to the advantage of the system in Ireland in the promotion of industry and discouraging of vice, and he thought there could be little doubt but that the House would accede to a proposition so calculated to add to the prosperity of the population in our own part of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in his bill.

Motion agreed to. Bill brought in and read a first time.

House adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock.

Lord Redesdale said, that the bill was unnecessary, and would be unwise: this was the opinion of most noble Lords, with whom he had conversed, and he stated it to prevent any erroneous impression going observations in withdrawing the bill, that abroad, in consequence of the noble Lord's their Lordships were friendly to the principle.

Order discharged.

FINE ARTS HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.] Lord Brougham wished to notice something which had occurred in the Houses of Parliament building committee that morn ing with reference to the commission, of which his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was a member. The commis sion had issued an advertisement, addressed to all the artists of this country, inviting them to send in drawings or models of an ornamental nature for the two Houses of Parliament. He looked upon this, not so much as a matter of delay, because their Lordships could sit in the new Houses be fore they were adorned, and they might be adorned during the long recess, but he was afraid it would be a source of great

expense. He was far from saying what | Some of the most aggravated crimes were the wisdom and generosity of Parliament not to be found in the treaty with France, might do, but it was only charity to give and the omission extended to what he had those persons who were likely to send in always considered one of the gravest ofmodels or drawings timely notice that they fences-the crime of arson. That was would do so at their own risk. The artists wholly omitted; and on stating his obmust be told they would be wrong if they jection in committee he had been told that thought thereby that they were certain of the only ground why the same extension public orders to execute the work, or if they was not given in one treaty as in the other took for granted, that they would obtain was, that it would have overturned the remuneration for their labour. draft of a proposal of old date, which was suggested at the peace of Amiens, and which did not go to the extent of the American treaty. When, however, they were acting after forty years delay, he could not think this a sufficient reason, and he must conclude that some objections had been stated in the course of the negotiations which had not been stated to the House, which prevented the French embracing the full extent given to the American treaty. He could see no reason for this difference, and the extension was more necessary in the case of France than of the United States. He begged therefore to move

The Marquess of Lansdowne, as the only one of their Lordships' House who had lately attended the Fine Arts' Commission, said that great care had been taken, in all the notices with regard to the works alluded to, to guard the artists against supposing that they would receive any remuneration besides that specifically stated in the notice. No expense would be incurred, except for the prizes, for the cartoons. With regard to them, persons had to go out of their usual habits of study, which they could not be expected to do without a remuneration in the shape of prizes. With respect to other departments of the art, they would only have to execute works in accordance with their usual studies: the object was only to give specimens of the public proficiency of each artist. He should be as jealous as his noble Friend, if any great expense were to be incurred; but a committee of the other House had advised that advantage should be taken of the decoration of the new Houses to give encouragement to art.

APPREHENSION OF OFFENDERS (FRANCE.)] The Marquess of Lansdowne called the attention of the House to the subject of two bills which had recently passed the House, for giving effect to the treaties with France and the United States of America, for facilitating the apprehension of criminal offenders, upon which he had intended to have made a few observations on the third reading, but had been prevented in consequence of the bill having been read a third time during his absence. The general policy of those bills it was impossible for him or for the Parliament to doubt, and the only opposition he entertained to the treaties was, that one, without sufficient reason, did not go to the same extent as the other. The treaty with America enumerated a much larger body of offences, and went much further than the treaty which had been concluded with France. The reason for not extending the French treaty as far as the American was wholly insufficient.

"An humble address to her Majesty for copies of correspondence between the Governments of Great Britain and France for the last ten years relating to the apprehension of criminal offenders in each country respectively."

The Earl of Aberdeen said the noble Marquess would agree with him that there was a sufficient reason for not agreeing to his motion when he told him that no such correspondence existed; there was not, indeed, even an official communication on the subject. He quite agreed with his noble Friend, that the principle of these treaties being the same, it was desirable to give to them the greatest possible extent that could be given for the benefit of both countries. The French government had been anxious to renew the proposal of the treaty of Amiens; they had proposed it in 1815, and many times afterwards; but the proposal was always declined by this country; there were, however, no negotiations on the subject. He had thought, as a commencement of a new system, it was not desirable to extend the description of crimes. The convention was made only temporarily for a year, and six months' notice was to be given should there be a wish to determine it. Although the French government was desirous, in the first instance, to include a larger number of crimes, in his opinion it had been desirable to confine the catalogue of crimes; yet, if the present treaty should not be found at

tended with inconvenience, it would not be that attention in the proper quarter should difficult to give it, on renewal, a more ex-be given to the subject.

tended operation.

Lord Campbell trusted, that by some futare negotiation on the subject, the present state of the relations, in this respect, might be considerably improved; and he particularly directed attention to the case of fraudulent bankruptcy, which ought to be provided against in any treaty, in order that parties who had cheated their creditors might he given up to punishment. Motion withdrawn.

Petition laid on the Table.

Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Tuesday, July 25, 1843.

MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.-Committed.-Stock in Trade;
Slave Trade Treaties; Militia Ballot Suspension; Bills
of Exchange.

Reported.-Controverted Elections.
Private.-20. Duchall's Estate.
Reported.-North Esk Reservoir.

3o and passed :-Spalding and Deeping Roads.

By Mr. Hume, from Forfar, against the Prisons (Scotland) Bill; also from Aberdeen, for Inquiry into the case of Robert Peddie.-By Dr. Bowring, from Dublin, for Inquiry into the case of the Raja of Sattara.-By Mr. O, Gore, from Sligo, in favour of the Irish Arms Bill.-From Brandon, in favour of the County Courts Bill.-From Hampstead, in favour of a Ten Hours Bill.-From Holytown, and Coat Bridge, for Repealing the Export Duty on Coal.

CUSTOMS.] Mr. Christopher begged to ask whether it were the intention of the Government by this bill, that the agricultural produce of the state of Maine in the United States was in future to be admitted into this country at a colonial duty, that produce now paying the duty chargeable on foreign produce?

SEA FISHERIES-IRELAND.] The Earl PETITIONS PRESENTED. of Glengall, on presenting a petition from certain deep-sea fishermen of Waterford, said, in consequence of the decline of the fisheries, from want of due encouragement, the number of fishermen had decreased between 1830 and 1836 from 64,700 to 54,000. In this interval the loan system had been abandoned, and the public money formerly granted for the encouragement of the fisheries had been reduced to 617. per annum. On the other hand, 14,000l. were annually expended upon the Scotch fisheries without diminution. He wished the fishery board in Ireland to be reconstructed: there were already 8,000l. in hand applicable to the purpose, and if 10,000l. or 15,000l. additional were devoted to the same purpose, much would be done and profitable employment would be found for many thousand persons. It might be expedient even to recur to the loan system, and to do something to restore and repair the small piers and harbours by which the boats were protected.

Lord Monteagle observed, that the loan system for encouraging the fisheries in Ireland had been continued, until it was found to produce no benefit to the people of that country. The act which regulated the fisheries in Ireland were all but inoperative, in consequence of the difficulty of enforcing its provisions. It entirely depended upon penalties; but means had been devised to evade those penaltics. There had, for a long time, existed great doubts among the people of Ireland as to the rights of persons to fish. The act to which he had referred was intended to define those rights; and he thought it would be a wise proceeding on the part of the Government, if they were to send round inspectors to ascertain and to explain to the people what those rights strictly were.

The Duke of Wellington begged to say,

Mr. Gladstone said, the intention of the bill was neither more nor less than to give legal effect in this country to the 3d article of the treaty of Washington. But as certain results must follow from that article in respect of the admission of this produce, both into the colony of New Brunswick and this country, he should abstain from entering into any further explanation.

PREROGATIVE AND ADMIRALTY COURT (IRELAND).] Sir H. W. Barron asked whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose to the Primate of Ireland to vest the appointment of Judge of the Prerogative Court in Dublin in her Majesty, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has proposed to do in England, and to consolidate the courts of Prerogative and Admiralty under one judge. He put this question at the present time on the ground of an existing vacancy.

Sir R. Peel: The appointment of this office was absolutely vested in the Lord Primate. An act of Parliament had been recently passed with reference to that office, which continued the appointment