might be, to the entry of Irish and Scotch | propose a Bill on the subject of national judgments in the existing registry would education in Scotland? fully answer the object of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd).

MR. BLAND apprehended that, as the Scotch law was a fusion of law and equity, the Scotch decreets would enable Scotch creditors to obtain execution for equitable as well as legal demands, and if so they would have an advantage over English and Scotch judgments, because under the latter merely legal and not equitable demands could be recovered. He should like to hear the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) express his opinion upon this point, as he had adverted to it on a previous occasion.

MR. MALINS said he had considered the point, and was now of opinion that a judgment obtained in Scotland against the estate of a debtor in England or Ireland ought to be enforced against that estate, provided the judgment were obtained by a process analogous to that resorted to in England and Ireland. He could not perceive the force of the objection of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, because, even under the existing law, searches had to be made in the English registry office for the purpose of ascertaining whether a judgment had been obtained against a man in Ireland or Scotland.

Clause agreed to; Clauses 5 and agreed to.

Clause 7.

6

MR. BLAND moved that the Chairman report progress.

COLONEL FRENCH hoped that before the Bill again came before them the Government would reconsider the course they were taking. He thought the Irish Members, 105 in number, who, with one solitary exception, were all opposed to the Bill, had grave cause to complain of the Government for forcing this measure upon them.

Motion agreed to.

THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that he very much wished in this first Session of Parliament to have recommenced his attempts to introduce a system of education into Scotland, and nothing but the want of time had prevented him from making that attempt; but he considered that it would not be desirable to add to the other difficulties of that question the great difficulty of the want of time. Next Session, however, he hoped to be able to bring in a comprehensive measure on the subject.

THE EXPEDITION TO CHINA.

QUESTION.

MAJOR STUART WORTLEY asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Her Majesty's Government had considered the expediency of keeping the troops in China as much on board ship as possible until the close of the unhealthy season renders field operations practicable; and whether, when the troops are encamped, they are to be supplied with the Indian tents?

SIR CHARLES WOOD said, that the Government had taken measures to keep as many of the troops on board ship as possible until the end of the hot season. Supplies of tents would be sent from India to China when they were to be encamped..

TROOP SHIPS-QUESTION.

MAJOR STUART WORTLEY asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government would have any objection to appoint a board, consisting of two military, two naval, and one medical officer, to examine and report upon all ships appointed to sail with troops, in order to obviate the sending of troops in vessels unfit for that service.

SIR CHARLES WOOD said, that what the hon. and gallant Member suggested had substantially been carried out by the Admiralty. He had before him a Report upon the last two ships sent to China, signed by two naval officers, an assistantbefore Six o'clock. quartermaster general, and a deputy inspector general of hospitals.

House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday, 24th June.

The House adjourned at three minutes

-mmmmm

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Thursday, May 21, 1857.

EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND QUESTION.
VISCOUNT MELGUND asked the Lord
Advocate whether it was his intention to

RULES OF THE IRISH COURTS.

QUESTION.

MR. BEAMISH inquired of the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has made rules and orders under the 30th Section of Leases

separate set of Commissioners. All that he asked the House to do, was simply that which the Government had attempted unsuccessfully to do in the last Session of Parliament. He thought he had been en

ferred to were obsolete and levied unfairly. He believed the hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade had stated some intention of bringing forward a general measure during the present Session, but thought it might be fairly inferred that there was considerable doubt of such a measure passing during the present Session. He had been requested by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to bring forward a Bill for the purpose of repealing those dues at once; and he had given notice for the first day of the Session of the measure which he now proposed to the House. Redress had been promised for years, but all general measures had failed. He, therefore, felt himself entitled to claim the support of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will now resolve itself into a Committee to consider of a Bill to repeal certain Duties on Ships entering the Port of Dublin, and other imposts affecting its trade and commerce."

longing to other ports. It was, in fact, the only harbour of refuge on the east coast of Ireland. In the reign of George III. an Act of Parliament had been obtained to build a small pier at a place called Dunleary, chiefly for the accommo-abled to prove that the duties he had redation of the Dublin merchants. For that purpose certain dues were imposed upon the trade of Dublin. Several years after that, a Bill had been passed for making a great harbour of refuge, intended for the relief of vessels from all parts of the world. By some inadvertence, the duties intended to apply to this small pier were realized for the making of the great harbour. Forty years had now elapsed, but no steps had been taken to make that harbour. The consequence was that the trade of Dublin continued to be burdened with these imposts, which were of a most absurd, ridiculous, and unfair character. As an illustration of the unjust character of the tolls levied, he would state that a vessel passing the harbour of Kingstown to go to Dublin, paid 4d. per ton, while a vessel which took refuge, and was saved, but did not go to Dublin, paid nothing. The dues, too, in many cases were enormous in amount. Thus, a cargo of tea imported to Dublin paid 2s. on every chest entered in the warehouse, while a cargo of tea in the same vessel, and under similar circumstances, but bound to another port, paid nothing. The consequence of the inequalities was, that the people of Dublin paid to provide a refuge for vessels from all parts of the world. The Committee upon local dues had recommended the abolition of those imposts, and the collector in Dublin had stated that the port of Drogheda derived more benefit from the harbour of Kingstown than Dublin did. Another of the duties imposed on the trade of Dublin was 2s. on every entry at the Board of Customs, for the purpose of building the Corn Exchange; also 6d. for the purpose of keeping up the Royal Exchange. The Exchange was no longer used for commercial purposes, but had been transferred to the municipal corporation. The dues received by the Government from the trade of Dublin, on account of Kingstown Harbour, amounted to some £3,000 a year, but in addition to that, they paid the Ballast Board of Dublin £2,500 a year, as compensation for differential dues which it might levy on foreign ships. When these duties were first imposed, Kingstown belonged to the port of Dublin, but it was now entirely distinct from it, and had a

MR. LOWE said, under ordinary circumstances he should not have objected to the introduction of such a measure; but the circumstances of this case were so peculiar, that the Government felt it their duty not to allow the measure to move a single step in that House. He would briefly state to the House their reasons for that determination. The dues referred to amounted to about £3,000 a year, and they formed part of the Consolidated Fund. They were given to the Consolidated Fund as interest upon certain sums advanced by the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of making Kingstown Harbour. The Government of this country had spent £314,000 in those works, which undoubtedly were intended-whether they had succeeded in doing so or not was entirely beside the question-to improve the Harbour of Dublin. They had also, beside the other sum, paid off the debts upon the Corn Exchange, Dublin, out of the Consolidated Fund. For that, the Government had got those dues and some other small payments, which paid but a small rate of interest annually for those enormous advances. The proposition of the hon. Member for Dublin, who might be said to represent the debtors, was to cancel the debt altogether, and leave the Government without

Its

any equivalent or compensation whatever. | operated most injuriously upon the trade That was a proposition so extraordinary, of Dublin, and in order to prove that such that he was bound to resist it in limine, and not allow it to go a single step. There was another thing still to be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman had stated that not only did the Government receive £3,000 from the tolls levied in Dublin, but that the Government paid £2,500 to the Dublin Ballast Board as compensation for differential dues which it might levy on foreign ships. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman, therefore, was, that although Dublin received £2,500, and paid £3,000 to Government, the House was to cancel the £3,000 which they paid, and leave untouched the £2,500 which they received. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he (Mr. Lowe) proposed to do the same thing in his Bill. He had done so, but it was as part of a system, and that which might be just if universally applied, would be the height of injustice in a particular case. The principle affirmed by that measure was that all dues on shipping, not applied to shipping purposes, should be abolished, and in following out that principle, the Government had been willing to forego those dues. By his Bill both payments would have been abolished. The hon. Member had opposed that Bill, but now he came forward to ask the House to confis. cate the revenues of the Government in a particular case. He submitted to the House that, until they could deal with the matter as a whole on some definite principie, they ought not to deal with it at all; much less should they sanction the principle of defrauding the Imperial Government by giving hon. Gentlemen leave to introduce Bills in that House to cancel just debts.

was the case, he should enter into a few details connected with the subject. Any foreign vessel might go into the harbour of refuge in Kingston and pay no toll, whereas if she proceeded to Dublin she was liable to a charge of 4d. per ton; and he should like to know how it could be said that it would be just to continue that charge, because a large sum of money had been spent upon the harbour. The next duty was one of 2s. upon entries inward in the Custom House, and with the permission of the House he would call their attention to a few instances, in order to show the practical working of the tax. aggregate amount was £21 13s. upon the cargo of a vessel which arrived in Dublin from Oporto on the 31st of May, 1848; while in the case of the ship Creole, which entered that port from Cadiz in 1838, it amounted to £31 1s. 6d. A charge of £31 10s. was levied upon the cargo of the ship Douglas, which had reached Dublin on the 17th of February, 1845; while upon that of the Old England, which was chartered by a Dublin merchant, and which arrived in that city in 1848, laden with tea from China, a duty of £131 12s. was imposed. How was it possible, he would ask, that, under these circumstances, the trade of the port could increase? The consequence of the imposition of the duty, indeed, had been that the trading community of Dublin found it to their interest to have their goods brought from foreign countries to Liverpool and thence to tranship them to Ireland. They took that course because, although when Kingstown MR. GROGAN said, he had listened to Harbour had originally been constructed, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the duty had been made payable on all with considerable surprise. The right hon. goods imported into Dublin, yet, owing to Gentleman contended that, because the the influence exercised by important comGovernment had advanced a certain sum mercial interests in England, the charge of money for the construction of a har- upon the cross-channel trade had been bour or refuge at Kingstown, they were subsequently abolished. Great injury to justified in continuing to levy upon the the port of Dublin had been the result, city of Dublin a duty amounting to £3,000 and he should, therefore, appeal from the per annum. The right hon. Gentleman, right hon. Gentleman, who appeared to however, had expressed himself as having have been actuated by spleen in consebeen perfectly willing to abandon that quence of the two Members for Dublin charge in his measure of last year, and having voted against his Bill of last year, it seemed to him (Mr. Grogan) that the to the noble Lord at the head of the Goright hon. Gentleman was scarcely war- vernment, and beg of him to take the matranted in refusing to remedy a manifest ter into his consideration, and to accede to injustice, because the House had thought the proposition of his hon. Friend near proper to pronounce that measure an act him, which, while it aimed at the aboliof confiscation. The duty was one which tion of certain duties, differed from the