opinion that the greatest protection which could be given to them was, to provide a ready means by which the innocent clergy might be protected from the disgrace which the bad conduct of a few was now capable of reflecting upon the whole body, owing to the almost impracticability of bringing punishment home to the evil-doers. As the law now existed, many disgraceful and dishonourable crimes, on the part of a few unworthy clergymen, were allowed to escape unpunished. He hoped an effectual remedy would be provided for this evil. But the Court of Arches was not the tribunal best adapted to afford that remedy; for every one knew that from its peculiar machinery, and its own way of managing its affairs, great facilities for escape were afforded to the vicious, provided they did not mind the expense. Bill read 2a. NAVAL PRISONS BILL. The EARL of AUCKLAND moved the Second Reading of the Naval Prisons Bill. In the course of the noble Earl's explanation of the nature of the Bill (in which he was almost inaudible), he was understood to say, that with reference to a subject mentioned by a noble Friend opposite (Lord Colchester) a few nights ago, namely, the enabling naval courts-martial in certain cases to pass a sentence short of death, that if the noble Baron would bring in a Bill for that purpose, it should receive his most favourable consideration. LORD COLCHESTER did not oppose the second reading of the Bill, and would reserve some objections he had to the details until it was in Committee. He offered his thanks to the noble Earl for the kind manner in which he had received his proposition, the object of which was thisthat whereas, by certain articles, naval courts-martial were restricted from passing sentence short of death, he wished that they should have the power, as in the Army, of pronouncing a sentence of death, or of such other punishment short of death, as the offence should to the court appear to deserve. He wished to see the same rule prevail in the Navy as in the Army. After a few observations from Lord SALTOUN, Bill read 2a. House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, May 20, 1847. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS. -1° Newfoundland Govern ment. 20 Herring Fishery (Scotland); Copyhold Commission; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Loan Societies. 3o and passed:-Transference of Lands (Scotland); Heritable Securities for Debt (Scotland); Burgage Tenure (Scotland); Crown Charters (Scotland). PETITIONS PRESENTED. From William Summers, Pencil Manufacturer, of No. 8, Calthorpe Place, Gray's Inn Road, London, for the Adoption of Voting by Ballot.By Mr. S. Herbert, from Edward Dyke Poore, of Figheldean (Wilts), for Alteration of the Law respecting Church Leases. From Ratepayers of the Parish of Kensington, for Inquiry relative to the Notting Hill District Church. -By Mr. Farnham, from Woodville, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.-By Mr. B. Cabbell and other bon. Members, from several places, in favour of the Agricultural Tenant-Right Bill.-From Inhabitants of Leeds, for Inquiry respecting the Anatomy Act.-By Mr. G. Hope, from Southampton, for Alteration of the Bankruptcy Act.-By Captain Berkeley, from Gloucester, for the Better Regulation of Charitable Trusts.-By several hon. Members, from a great many places, for Regulating the Qualification of Chemists and Druggists.-By Mr. R. Yorke, from Solicitors of Her Majesty's High Court of Chancery, residing in the City of York, for Inquiry.— From Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew, for Alteration of the Law for the Prosecution and Maintenance of Criminals; and the Law relative to Parish Roads. By Mr. Ferrand, from John Dawson, of Moreton Banks, Bingley (Yorkshire), for Inquiry into the Case of Mary Dawson.-By Mr. Trelawny, from Tavistock, for Comprehensive Measures of Relief.-By Viscount Adare, from Protestant Dissenters, of Dinas Colliery (Glamorganshire), against, and from Aberdare and Ashby-de-laZouch, in favour of, the proposed Plan of Education; and from a great many Roman Catholics, for Alteration of the same. By several hon. Members, from numerous places, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.-By Mr. Dennistoun, from several places, in favour of the Heritable Securities for Debt (Scotland); Transference of Land (Scotland); Burgage Tenure (Scotland); Service of Heirs (Scotland); and Crown Charters (Scotland) Bills. By Viscount Adare, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in the Neighbourhood of Cardiff, for Alteration of the Highways Bill.-By Mr. Dennistoun, from Members of the Glasgow Emancipation Society, respecting Coloured Passengers on Mail Packets.-By Mr. T. Duncombe, from John M'Donald, late Boatswain of H. M. Revenue Cruiser "Albatross," Liverpool, for Redress.-By many hon. Members, from a great number of places, in favour of the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill.-By Mr. T. Duncombe, from a great many Colliers, for the Better Regulation of Mines and Collieries.-By Mr. E. Stanley, from Workington, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws.-By Mr. Henley, from Henley upon Thames and Watlington, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act.-By Sir R. Ferguson, from Guardians of the Poor of the Londonderry Union, against the Poor Removal (England and Scotland) Bill. - By Lord R. Grosvenor, from Protestant Dissenters, Enfield Highway, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse. By Mr. Tower, from Guardians of the Poor of the Eton Union, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement. -By Mr. R. Yorke, from the York United Gas Light Company, against the Towns Improvement Clauses Bill. -By Mr. Aldam, from Leeds, and Lord R. Grosvenor, from Members of the Society for the Promotion of Permanent and Universal Peace, for referring National Disputes to Arbitration. BRITISH AND COLONIAL SPIRITSCUSTOMS. Customs Acts read. MR. MOFFATT rose to move, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Customs Acts, for the purpose of assimilating the warehousing privileges on colonial and British spirits. He considered Irish and Scotch distillers would be prepared to give up the differential duty which was now maintained in their favour? He certainly should have thought that, in the present state of the revenue, hon. Gentlemen would have abstained from making propositions which it was admitted would materially affect the public income; and although the hon. Member for Dartmouth had stated that, if his proposal were adopted, the revenue would not eventually suffer, there could be no doubt that, in the first instance at least, it would lead to a considerable diminution of receipts. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been in communication with the Excise authorities on this subject, and they entertained no doubt that a large decrease of revenue would be the result of carrying out the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. He was, therefore, not prepared to assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Dartmouth; and he did not think the distillers had shown any ground on which they could claim to be placed in a more favourable position than that in which they at present stood. that the British distillers ought to possess | whether, if the proposal of the hon. Memthe same privileges which were extended ber for Dartmouth were acceded to, the to the producers of colonial spirits; that they should be only required, when spirits were taken out of bond, to pay duty on the quantity actually taken out. The West India Board, in their last report, had strongly recommended the adoption of such a regulation; and he thought the subject was one which deserved the serious consideration of that House and of the Government. The only objections he could anticipate to his proposition were, that it would afford facilities for fraud, and reduce the revenue. With reference to defrauding the revenue, he begged to remind the House, that while there were 178 distillers in Scotland, there had been only 67 informations lodged within the last few years; while in Ireland, where there were 97 distillers, no informations had been lodged. Let them contrast this state of things with England, where there were few distillers and many informations. This regulation only affected the manufacturers of spirits, and therefore he was entitled to either one protection or the other; and he believed that distillers generally, if they were left untrammelled, would rather distil from wet corn than from sugar. On the other hand, they would be glad if they had the opportunity to distil from barley; and, consequently, if that were allowed, there would be a much larger quantity exported. It was generally believed, that there were about 6,000,000 gallons of spirits consumed in the United Kingdom, and as the whole amount of the spirits distilled was 9,000,000 gallons, there were 3,000,000 to be accounted for; and it was known that upwards of 2,000,000 were taken by the English and Scotch distillers, in order to keep them out of the export market, so that, allowing only 3d. a gallon for the loss, the English people were taxed to the extent of 100,000l. per annum. He was, therefore, anxious, he must confess, to ascertain what reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to allege for any opposition to the measure. Whatever the articles were-rum, brandy, or gin-the same evil was liable to occur to the consumer of spirits; and he should therefore conclude by asking leave to bring in the Bill. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER observed, that the hon. Gentleman had not shown any ground on which the distillers could claim the advantage he wished to extend to them. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would like to know MR. HUME considered it was only right and just that all traders in spirits should be put upon the same footing. He could not understand why they should allow rum coming from Jamaica to be bonded, while rum distilled in Scotland or Ireland was not allowed to be bonded. He could not conceive why this anomalous regulation was permitted to exist, even although some advantage in differential duties had been given to the Scotch and Irish distilleries in consequence of their being deprived of the privilege of bonding. He believed, that if the spirits of Scotland and Ireland were allowed to be bonded in this country, instead of there being only five or six dealers in those spirits, there would be 200 or 300. MR. BARKLY supported the Motion. He thought the experience of fifty years. proved that the revenue would not lose from the extension of the system of warehousing in bond; and he believed, that a very considerable amount of capital would be let loose by the adoption of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Dartmouth. The whole distilling trade of England was at present engrossed by some eight firms; and the effect of this monopoly was, that they were enabled to regulate the retail prices. The Scotch and Irish seven or Powell, Col. distillers were practically excluded from | Patten, J. W. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Somerset, Lord G. Strutt, rt. hon. E. Troubridge, Sir E. T. TELLERS. Berkeley, hon. C. BOND. MR. MOFFATT observed, that the statement of the Chancellor of the Ex- EXCISE RECTIFICATION OF SPIRITS IN chequer was not satisfactory to him; and he did not think it would be satisfactory to the country; and he therefore felt it his duty to press his Motion to a division. The House divided:-Ayes 51; Noes 56 Majority 5. Baillie, Col. Baillie, W. Baine, W. Barkly, H. List of the AYES. Bentinck, Lord G. Houldsworth, T. TELLERS. Hodgson, R. Hume, J. Hope, Sir J. Moffatt, M. List of Hallyburton, Ld. J. F.G. Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Barrington, Visct. Bowles, Adm. Bramston, T. W. Davies, D. A. S. the NOES. Goring, C. Excise Acts read, MR. MOFFATT then moved, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the said Acts, for the purpose of considering the propriety of permitting British spirits to be rectified in bond for exportation, and to permit rectified spirits and compounds to be warehoused for exportation. He was ready to provide by Bill certain restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the objection to the proposition of the hon. Member was, that in the opinion of those officers of Excise the most competent to form a judgment, its adoption would render it impossible to As the law at preprotect the revenue. sent stood, all spirits going from the distillers to the rectifiers were charged the duty, and the revenue could not lose; but if the spirits were to go from the distillers to the rectifiers, and the duty was not to be charged except on that quantity which left the rectifier's premises, the Excise would have no check on the amount of spirits on which duty should be charged, as there was no mode by which the strength of rectified and compounded spirits could be properly tested. MR. HUME supported the Motion. He contended that rectified spirits might be tested by the Excise; and by opposing the Motion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was actually stopping an important branch of trade in this country, and throwing it into the hands of the Dutch. MR. FORBES said, that if the proposition of the hon. Member did cause a little trouble to the Excise, he did not see why the House on that account should not do justice to a large class of Her Majesty's Macaulay, rt. hon. T.B. subjects. The hon. Member for Montrose Loch, J. Mitcalfe, H. Denison, J. E. Dodd, G. Duncombe, hon. A. Dundas, Sir D. Escott, B. Morris, D. Forster, M. Mundy, E. M. Gardner, J. D. Gaskell, J. M. Gladstone, Capt. Monahan, J. H. O'Brien, A. S. Pakington, Sir J. said, that in consequence of the regulations of the Excise, this branch of trade was being driven into the hands of the Dutch. He understood that the advocates of free trade desired to place the British and foreign manufacturer on the same ground; but he trusted that they would | Romilly, J. MR. BARKLY supported the Motion, and thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not acting judiciously in setting up the Excise as a barrier against all improvement. The House divided:-Ayes 56; Noes 63: Majority 7. List of the AYES. Hastie, A. Lockhart, W. M'Carthy, A. M'Taggart, Sir J. TELLERS. Moffatt, G. List of the NOES. Grey, right hon Sir G. Baring, right hon. F. T. Grosvenor, Lord R. Barrington, Visct. Bellew, R. M. Berkeley, hon. C. Borthwick, P. Denison, J. E. Duncombe, hon. A. Dundas, Sir D. Hawes, B. Hodgson, F. Russell, Lord J. Smith, right hon. R V. Stanton, W. H. Troubridge, Sir E. T. Wood, right hon. Sir C. TELLERS. Tufnell, T. MR. JOHN DILLON'S CLAIM. MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, in moving for copies of papers respecting Mr. John Dillon's claim for prize money out of the proceeds of the smuggler brig Peru, reminded the House that Mr. Dillon, in the execution of his duty as officer of the coast-guard service in Ireland, attacked this brig, which was endeavouring to land her cargo, and forced her out to sea; she was afterwards obliged to put into Kinsale harbour, but, as he alleged, in consequence of his attack, and there she was seized, and condemned and sold. He was at first told, that the reason why he was denied any share in the proceeds was, that there was a charge of cowardice against him; but Lord Althorp referred that question to Sir E. Codrington, who entirely acquitted Mr. Dillon of the charge. It was then stated, that he did not make his claim in time; but the fact was, that he had gone abroad on service before the brig was finally condemned. The hon. Member added, that his object was, not to press the claim hostilely, but to induce the Treasury to reconsider it. He moved for copies of statements of George F. Young, George Pryme, and Feargus O'Connor, Esqs., etc. MR. J. PARKER could not undertake to furnish copies of all these papers, because some of them were not to be found in the shape asked for, and some were mixed up with other transactions. Some of the originals had been returned to Mr. Dillon, and it would hardly be regular to produce a copy of a copy. No communication from Sir E. Codrington was to be found, though it was clear from a memorandum of Lord Althorp's, that the charge Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. of want of professional vigour was referred Hogg, Sir J. W. Mangles, R. D. Marjoribanks, S. Mitcalfe, H. Graham, right hon.Sir J. Richards, R. to Sir E. Codrington, and that he acquitted. Mr. Dillon. But the real question was, whether his conduct had sufficient to do with the capture to entitle him to a share of the prize; that had been very fully considered by the proper authorities, and the decision was against him. Any hon. Member might look into the papers at the Treasury; and there would be no objection to produce copies of all really official documents remaining in the office. He (Mr. Parker) believed that there had been a proper disposition to do justice to Mr. Dillon. had a few days ago received accounts that matters were as bad there as at the places to which his Motion applied. These courts were allowed to do as they pleased, and were under no control. If ever any system called for inquiry this did. MR. WAKLEY said, Mr. Dillon wanted money, not papers. But the fact was, that a private individual had no chance of MR. WARD would have no sort of obsuccess against officials, for successive Go-jection to giving all the papers which his vernments always made it a Cabinet ques- hon. and gallant Friend asked for, and tion, and were determined to defeat the also those which the hon. Member for claim. Men in office always "followed Montrose wished to append to his Motion. the bell-wether." Why had the charge He had seen cases which showed that they of cowardice been brought forward, if it were as capable of making out a long bill were not intended to rely upon it? Would against the captors at St. Helena as they the Government consent to refer the case were anywhere else. If any better system to a Select Committee? If not, they of organizing those courts could be devised, could not be confident in the justice of his hon. and gallant Friend would have their opposition to the claim. rendered a great service. Motion agreed to. The The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER observed, that the present Motion was for the production of papers. Treasury had no objection to produce such as they had; but the House ought to see those papers before the subject was brought on for discussion in any other shape. MR. F. T. BARING had looked into the case with the greatest anxiety to do Mr. Dillon justice; and the Government had not been at all biased against him by the adverse decision previously given. Motion withdrawn. VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE AND ST. HELENA. CAPTAIN PECHELL moved for "returns of all fees payable in the several Vice-Admiralty Courts at the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena," &c. He hoped the Government would agree with him that the scandalous abuses in those courts should be put down. By a return already before the House, out of 113 vessels there were 74 from which the captors did not get a sixpence, the whole value being swallowed up in the expenses of these Vice-Admiralty Courts. In the case of the Diana, the expenses were no less than 2731. It too frequently happened that the officers of the Admiralty Courts made a complete harvest out of every slave vessel that was captured, by a system of fees and extortions directed against the captors. As the Attorney General at the Cape of Good Hope had said, there was a general scramble to see what could be got out of the proceeds. MR. HUME seconded the Motion, and recommended his hon. and gallant Friend to add the Australian colonies, because he POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL. Order of the Day for the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Poor Law Administration Bill. MR. ESCOTT wished to take that opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was a question relating to a matter of great importance, on which he had already asked for information from the right hon. Gentleman. He wished now to know whether, since he had put his former question, the right hon. He |