For what purpose was this done, except to excite irritation
and provoke suspicions, and this by one who
professed to have nothing more at heart than a cordial
understanding between the two countries? Nothing
was further from the intention of the speakers than to
disturb that good understanding; and with reference to
the programme of Lord Aberdeen, it contained a clear
announcement of the foreign policy of the government.
He retorted the charge of inconsistency and aberration
from principles upon the Protectionist party, and
defended, against the strictures of Mr. Disraeli, the
temperate progress meditated by the present government.
With respect to himself, he said there were two
questions respecting which he felt great interest—the
further education of the people, and the amendment of
the representation; but he should not push on any
measure which he thought out of time, or not likely to
meet with success. He thought measures of this kind
should be duly weighed; and if he could contribute to
the stability of a ministry formed of men honestly intent
upon the good of the country, and to bring forward wise
measures with due deliberation, he should glory in doing
so.—Mr. COBDEN contended that our great naval
preparations were the real cause of uneasiness at home,
while they endangered our understanding with France.
The government professed to trust the friendly
sentiments of France, while it went on increasing our
armaments, which were of no effect, since for every ship we
built the French built another, so that the relative forces
remained the same. If the government refused to adopt
the suggestion of diplomatic action to check the increase
of armaments in both countries, he should suspect them
of being actuated by sinister objects.—Sir J. GRAHAM
denied that, in the speech referred to by Mr. Disraeli,
he had called the Emperor of the French a despot or a
tyrant. He explained what he did say on that occasion,
observing that, although he was most desirous to
maintain friendly relations with France, and although not
one word had fallen from, him calculated to disturb those
relations, if it should be the opinion of the house that
neither there nor on the hustings, was he at liberty to
give expression to his conscientious feelings, he was not fit
to be a minister. After some observations by Mr. Gibson,
Mr. Baillie, and Lord D. Stuart, the discussion
terminated.

The house then went into a Committee of Supply.

Sir J. GRAHAM, in moving the Navy Estimates, said
they were not recommended on any ground of a hostile
character towards any foreign Power whatever, but for
reasons which had been sustained by the reports of two
committees. He stated that the net aggregate increase
amounted to £339,000 upon the three items of wages,
victuals, and stores, and he indicated the causes of this
increase. He gave explanations of various reductions,
savings, and improvements in the naval departments;
he developed the views of the government with relation
to matters connected with our steam and general navy;
and, tendering further elucidations when desired of the
different votes, concluded by moving a vote of 45,000
men for the service of the navy, including 12,500 marines.
This vote was agreed to, after discussion. Other votes
were likewise agreed to, and the chairman reported
progress.

On Monday, February 21, Mr. MOORE put a question
respecting the Intentions of Government towards the
Church in Ireland. After some preliminary observations
—in the course of which he referred to an alleged
secret assurance given to two Irish members, who had
taken office under the present administration, that it
would legislate in respect to the established church in
Ireland on the principle of religious equality,—he
inquired whether it was the intention of government to
do so; and whether it was their intention, at a fitting
time, to introduce such a measure.—Lord J. RUSSELL
replied, that the government had no intention of
introducing any measure respecting the established church
of Ireland other than a bill on the subject of ministers'
money; adding, that no secret assurance had been given
to the two gentlemen referred to, who had taken office
without relying on any special pledge.—Mr. O'FLAHERTY
said he did not yield to Mr. Moore in a sincere and
anxious desire to see a just measure of religious equality
established in Ireland; but he thought this not a convenient
time for bringing forward the question; on the
contrary, he believed the people of Ireland were of
opinion that no step could be more injudicious.—Mr.
LUCAS, after the explicit answer of Lord J. Russell,
called upon Mr. O'Flaherty, as one who had pledged
himself to oppose any government that would not give
an assurance that they would act on the principle of
religious equality in dealing with Irish politics, to
redeem his pledge.

Mr. HINDLEY asked whether the government intended
to proceed with the Prosecutions for Distributing
Placards Animadverting upon the Militia Bill?—Mr.
FITZROY (in the absence of Lord Palmerston) stated
that the prosecutions would not be proceeded with.
Mr. BRIGHT said that, when it was considered that
means of a most scandalous and improper character were
used to induce young men to join the army and the
militia, it was open to persons of a different opinion to
give opposite advice. The placard issued by the Peace
Society (one of which the hon. member held up to the
view of the house) gave a woodcut of the flogging of a
person in the militia service. It contained extracts from
the New Testament, from the military newspapers, and
from the Autobiography of a Working Man, by Mr.
Somerville, who himself underwent the punishment of
flogging in the army. He understood that one person
was in prison for exhibiting these placards. He was
glad the present government had quashed these
prosecutions, and he did not believe the public service would
suffer in consequence. Lord PALMERSTON said it was
true it was not the intention of the government to
proceed with these prosecutions, for this reason, that
whatever were the intentions of the parties who had distributed
these placards and the pictorial description by which
they were headed, their intentions had wholly failed.
The good sense and patriotic spirit and feeling of the
British people had induced them to treat these
incentives to abandon the cause of their country with the
contempt they deserved. The attempt to thwart the
enlistment for the militia having failed, it would have
the appearance of vindictiveness to proceed with the
prosecutions, and he had given directions that they
should be entirely stopped. He did not intend that
the parties should be called upon to enter into recognizances,
and any one who might be imprisoned—he was
not aware there were any such cases—would be released.
Lord PALMERSTON then read a letter he had received
from Mr. Somerville, subjoined to which was a copy of
a letter which Mr. Somerville had written to Mr. Hindley.
The letter to Mr. Hindley was as follows;—

"Sir,—Seeing in the newspapers that you are to put a
question to Lord Palmerston, on the subject of the anti-
militia placards, posted throughout the kingdom by the
Peace Society, I beg your attention to the following facts,
and I think you should in fairness read this letter in the
house:—The placard in question contains an engraving of
a man tied up to be flogged. It contains also a description
by me (in a book entitled the 'Autobiography of a Working
Man') of the punishment I received while a soldier in the
Scots Greys on the 29th of May, 1832. I have reason to
complain of that offensive placard, and complained of it to the
Peace Society as soon as I knew of its existence, and on the
following grounds:—1. Because my own opinion has been
decidedly in favour of the volunteering of recruits to the
militia, in preference to a compulsory ballot (or invasion of
the domestic circle by a conscription); and because, if the
battalions of the militia were not filled by volunteers, the
conscription must have been resorted to. 2. Because I do
not believe that militiamen were or are likely to be flogged,
unless they commit crimes which they may easily avoid.
3. Because my book was intended to be, what every page of
it proves, a warning to young men entering the army, and to
soldiers already there, not to connect themselves with politics
and regimental politicians as I unfortunately did; also to
dissuade civilians from connecting themselves with physical
force movements. 4. Because a quotation is prominently
made from my book in the Peace Society's placard without
their naming the book or explaining why I was flogged; but,
on the contrary, leading any one not acquainted with me to
infer that I was some malefactor, guilty, probably, of a vile
moral crime (which soldiers are usually guilty of before
receiving such a punishment). 5. Because my name was the
only one used in the placard as a soldier who had suffered
that punishment, which was to deter men from volunteering
into the Militia, 6. Because I was not asked if I would allow
my name to be used for such a purpose. And, lastly, if I had,
I should have emphatically said, 'No.'—I am, &c.

"Charles Hindley, Esq., M.P."   ALEXANDER SOMERVILLE.