the observations of the right hon. Baronet that it is the duty of the House of Commons the Member for Carlisle. It was only not only to do it, but to do it without disyesterday that we had a picture drawn, cussion. I told the First Minister, before not of the power only, but of the policy the division, not to plume himself on the of Russia, which rivalled the spirit and vote, which I knew must be in his favour. pencil of a Dante. The House was terri- I told him he was but at the beginning fied at a description, which following up of prolonged and protracted discussions, the views of the noble Lord, proved that which would end probably in consequences this kingdom was in danger from the different from what he anticipates. I say aggressive policy, increasing power, and now it would be most indecent and imposystematic aggrandisement of Russia. It litic to hurry on a vote of this description. was received with cheers-it was received I am against further discussion at this with enthusiasm by those peculiar benches moment. You have come to a conclusion which particularly represent the war feel- upon the Resolution which I myself proing of the country; and no sooner is the posed. I knew when I introduced it that majority obtained-a majority, allow me there was not sufficient time to give it as to say, which has expressed no confidence much discussion as it required; but we in the Government-than the noble Lord, did everything we could to facilitate that when his attention is called to his remark- discussion. But as to approaching a subable statement by a Member of this House ject so important as that which the noble who is not apt to make mistakes, rises Lord proposes to settle, I am sure it is and, in fact, recants his views-withdraws the feeling of the House that no further from our discussion that powerful picture debate shall at present take place. They which influenced the debate, and which is had now to come to a decision of ten thouat this moment influencing the people of sand times more importance than anything England. It is a second edition of the that had been decided by the vote which had Sebastopol speech. It is the very same just been given. They had a question to circumstance. There is no difference, ex- decide not between parties in that House, cept that in the case of the Sebastopol but one which affected the whole of Europe. speech the noble Lord recanted it the He for one was not prepared precipitately, same night on which it was delivered. and without discussion, to come to a deci. And yet I am told this is a Government sion upon a subject of the most vital imwhose language is not ambiguous! I con- portance that has ever been submitted to gratulate the triumphant majority who Parliament since he had the honour of a represent a policy so lucid and politic, and seat in the House. He appealed to the which must end in consequences so succes- Government and to the House not to allow ful and triumphant for the country. And their own convenience, or a desire to go now the noble Lord tries to do something for a few days' holidays into the country, still more remarkable than the recantation to interfere with the due discussion of of his own speech. Last Monday night the First Minister declined the necessity of expressing any opinion on the subject. What do the Government want to do now? They want to pass without discussion a vote of this House-an unanimous vote of this House-that we are determined to support Her Majesty in carrying on the

war.

this question, when the civilized nations of Europe were looking for the grounds upon which they were entering on this new war. They could not arrive at that decision until they knew what were or what were not the opinions of the Government. The question was now raised for the first time, and he hoped the House would insist upon debating it before they pretended to arrive at a decision upon it.

Who is the leader of this House? Is the First Minister the leader of this House? Or is the noble Lord the leader MR. SIDNEY HERBERT thought the of this House? When on a point no less House had been perfectly right in deciding important than a Resolution of the House of at once upon the Resolution, which was Commons to support Her Majesty in carry-one of great importance to be settled, and ing on the war, the Ministry hold two opinions on the subject? One night they tell us it is not necessary, or not expedient; and then suddenly finding out that three or four Members are of a different opinion, these profound statesmen immediately feel

declaring the opinion of the House as to whose hands the Government should be intrusted. But now that it had decided a great question as between parties, it was called upon to decide upon a question affecting the country-to dispose of, with

THE "MEDWAY" TRANSPORT—

QUESTION.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH wished to ask the Secretary of War whether he had received any information in detail with respect to the manner in which sixtyfive horses were lost on board the Medway, and several so much injured that they were obliged to be sent on shore when the ship arrived at Gibraltar? He was induced to

out discussing, two Motions on which the meaning of words required to be minutely weighed. He was not now prepared to come to a decision upon those Resolutions which related to a subject the most important which had occurred since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. It would be indecent and destructive to their character to allow such questions to be treated as mere postscripts to a party debate. The noble Lord (Lord John Rus-put that question because he had seen a sell) had complained of having been misrepresented by his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), and surely the accuracy of that complaint was a matter of importance. Now that the country was called upon to enter upon a new Russian war, when the prospect of other interference was held out, he (Mr. Herbert) called upon the House to vindicate its privileges, and not to allow the convenience of a few days' holidays to interfere with their duties at this important moment. He for one would not consent to dispose of the matter until he knew the opinions of the Government upon this new Russian war.

MR. ROEBUCK thought the House must be conscious that they had acted injudiciously in consenting to adjourn for the holidays, and he appealed to the House to get itself out of the difficulty. Could the Speaker inform them whether it would not be competent to adjourn for a shorter period than ten days?

MR. SPEAKER said, that it was not competent for the House to rescind a Resolution which it had come to the same night.

MR. BARROW thought a fair opportunity ought to be afforded for discussing the Amendment, although he had already made up his mind on it.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that at this hour, and in the present state of the House, he could not resist the proposal to adjourn the debate.

Debate adjourned till Monday 4th June. The House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock till Monday 4th June.

gentleman who had been on board the Medway before she sailed, and who, on his return to town expressed his anticipation of some disaster, from the manner in which the horses were packed on deck, unless the vessel should have fair weather the whole way to Balaklava. So far from that, however, she encountered a severe gale in the Bay of Biscay, and hence the great loss of animals. The plan of placing the horses on deck was one which should never be adopted, except in cases of necessity-never, certainly, on account of mere economy. In the present case, the horses were placed under a shed on deck, and were so closely packed that the man whose duty it was to arrange the slings was obliged to lie down at full length on the backs of the animals. He understood that the shed gave way bodily during the gale, which happened to be a very severe one; the deck was entirely crowded with horses, dead, dying, or fighting; and if any accident had occurred to the machinery, the vessel would probably have been lost. The matter was a very serious one, and he hoped it would receive the attention of the noble Lord.

LORD PANMURE said, he had received information with reference to the accident that had taken place on board the Medway, and was able to state that the origin of that accident was a very violent gale-it could hardly be called a gale, it was rather a hurricane-which came on unexpectedly. He did not think he could do better than read a portion of a letter which he had received from the admiral at Gibraltar on the subject; but, before doing so, he wished to observe that in sending out horses to the seat of war at this time of the year, that they were not only justified in availing themselves of every possible means of sending horses to the seat of war, but, at this period of the year, there was every reason to expect that the weather would be such as to justify them in putting them upon the deck

of a steamer, though not perhaps of a precise terms of the Order in Council sailing vessel, under proper protection. dated the 15th of April, 1854, waiving With reference to the Medway, the the right of seizing enemies' property in letter from the Admiral, dated Gibral-neutral vessels, unless it was contraband tar, May 22, gave the following state- of war. Although he anticipated that

EARL GRANVILLE did not quite understand why the noble Earl had departed in the present instance from the usual courtesy in giving notice beforehand of his intention to bring an important question under the notice of the House. He was happy, however, to inform their Lordships that there was no foundation in anything said by Captain Watson, or by any officer under his command, to warrant the interpretation given of it by the Russian Government. No such question was asked and no such answer was given as those stated in the Russian circular.

come from the office of M. de Nesselrode, I tholic charitable institutions were formed had given an inaccurate representation of and conducted in secret. The Relief Act the proposition he had submitted to their passed in 1829, but it still remained Lordships, and he (the Earl of Albemarle) doubtful whether charities already existthought it was desirable that on a subject ing, or charities which might afterwards of so much importance a clear understand- be founded, would be valid or not. At the ing should be established. instance of Lord Brougham, an Act-the 2 & 3 Will. IV.—was passed, making it lawful to create charities for Roman Catholics; but the question was raised soon after, whether that Act was or was not retrospective in its operation. Lord Brougham thought it was; and Lord Cottenham, upon the question being raised before him in the Court of Chancery, acted upon that view, without, however, expressing any opinion of his own. The question was afterwards raised in Ireland, and great doubt existed as to whether the Act was retrospective. He must own that he thought it was doubtful whether it was retrospective, and whether it did apply to charities not registered according to the provisions of the Mortmain Act. When the Charitable Trusts Act passed two years ago, there was a special provision to the effect that it should not apply to Roman Catholic charities for the space of two years. It now became necessary to legislate on the subject; and what he proposed was simply to put the Roman Catholic charities upon a footing as nearly as possible analogous to that of those Dissenting charities which stood in the same situation with regard to the law about ten years ago. What Parliament enacted in 1844 was, that Dissenting charities, which were then illegal, should be held as valid as if they had been founded subsequent to the removal of the disabilities. That was substantially what the present Bill proposed. It enacted that all Roman Catholic charities which would be valid if they had been created since the Act of 1832 should be now valid, although they were invalid at the time of their foundation.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY said, he might as well state to their Lordships the exact circumstances as they occurred. The first lieutenant of the Impérieuse was sent into Port Baltic to see what ships were loaded and what were unloaded, in order that those only which were loaded at the time might be permitted to leave with their cargoes, and that no additional goods might be taken on board. He went over the harbour with the Governor, and found two vessels loaded. He never inquired to whom the property belonged, but merely said that those vessels, being loaded, might go out; adding that such vessels as might be loaded after the date of his visit would not be allowed to leave the port. The Governor asked him if some small Russian fishing vessels which were in the harbour might go out. His answer was, "We have never interfered with these small fishing vessels, which may go out as before. He (the Earl of Harrowby) was able to assure their Lordships that no such question was addressed to Captain Watson or his first lieutenant as that put into the mouth of the Russian Governor by Count Nesselrode, and there was no foundation whatever for the statements of the Russian Government.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL. THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of the Bill, stated the circumstances under which it was introduced. Before the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act the foundation of charities belonging to that body was illegal, and the consequence was that Roman Ca

LORD CAMPBELL was afraid that the words, "or other charitable purposes,' introduced into one of the clauses of the Bill, were too extensive, and might give a legal sanction to institutions of an objectionable nature.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that as the Bill applied only to such charities as might be legally created under the Act of 1832, there was no ground for the apprehensions of his noble and learned Friend.

THE EARL OF DERBY desired to know whether the Bill would not set aside the