presented a petition from Clotworthy Dobbin Devitt, late of the General Post-office, Dublin, stating that he had held a confidential situation in the General Post-office of Ireland for about seventeen years, during which time his conduct, in the faithful discharge of his duty, met with the united approbation of the Postmaster-General, the Earls O'Neill and Rosse, under whom he served; that about November, 1829, the petitioner, in the exercise of his official duties, discovered a system of fraud and peculation carrying on in some of the branches of the Post-office departments, whereby the revenue thereof was purloined; that on such discovery petitioner instantly reported the matter to the Chief Clerk in his department, and also the Earl of Rosse, the then acting Postmaster General, who immediately caused an investigation into the charges brought by petitioner, when it appeared that persons holding some of the highest offices of trust under the Postmasters-General were deeply implicated, and that the public had lost upwards of 5,000l.; that on the Report of the Earl of Rosse to the Lords of the Treasury, the Law Officers of the Crown were directed to prosecute some of the persons so charged, one of whom (George Wilkinson) was convicted, and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, which he underwent in the gaol of Newgate in Dublin; whilst another (Thomas Harrison fled from public justice, and is, it is supposed, in America; that the testimony given by petitioner on that occasion, and the faithful manner in which he discharged his duty to the public, drew forth from both the eminent Judges who presided (Justices Jebb and Johnson), their joint and unqualified approbation, and the Lords of the Tresury were pleased to issue a minute for his continuation in office, and to which minute he also refers; but that, notwithstanding the public services which petitioner had rendered, and the Treasury Minute, under which he was continued in his situation, without even the shadow of reproach against petitioner, yet on the consolidation of the Irish Post-office with that of England, under the Duke of Richmond (who never visited the Irish department) when the New Secretary, Mr. Godby, arrived from Scotland in Ireland, he informed petitioner (on the 28th of February, 1831) that his future services would be dispensed with, and this without any previous notice, any written dismissal, any authority produced, or any cause whatever assigned; and subsequently, a person from Scotland was placed in the office from which the petitioner had been so unceremoniously and unjustly ejected, and thrown upon the world entirely destitute, with a wife and a numerous family of young children, after having devoted the best part of his life, with zeal and fidelity, to the public service, with the most unremitting attention to the arduous duties of a public office (giving up all other professions), and having been the means of detecting gross fraud and embezzlement of the public money. Petitioner was thus shamefully deprived of his situation in the land of his birth to make room for a stranger. That the Duke of Richmond stated personally to petitioner, after various efforts to gain redress, that his business would be settled; and subsequently by letter, that he would himself speak to the Lords of the Treasury to recommend their early consideration of his case, yet five years have elapsed without any relief or redress; that petitioner submitted a petition in 1832, which procured no practical effect; and his application to the Treasury, made in 1835, when at length by a minute of the Board the balance of salary due to petitioner, 53l. 6s. 10d., was ordered to be paid; but which had not been paid. He, therefore, was thus reluctantly driven, a second time, to lay his grievances before Parliament, and to entreat the House to order the production of all documents necessary to a fair exculpation of his character and the investigation of his case, and to institute such inquiry into the allegations of this petition and the circumstances of his case as would afford him such ample re- lief and redress as the public interests; and benevolence and justice demand.' He thought the case imperatively demanded interference. The hon. Member quoted Lord Rosse's testimonial sent to the petitioner; stating "though the inquiry into this may be retarded, as it has been, it will ultimately and necessarily, unless justice be done to both, come forward; and perhaps it may lead not only to redress in your case, but better and honester principles prevailing in public offices in future in this country, where it is the practice, under notions of subordination, to muzzle all the inferior men in office, lest they should disclose the malversations of those above them, and prevent the public from being plundered with impunity. One of my reasons for remaining in this country is to attend to your cases next Session." What could be more honourable or just? He would move that the petition should be brought up and read, and on Friday next he should move for the papers necessary to substantiate the statements in the petition, and for the appointment of a Select Committee there on.

.—I do not know what can be meant by the words "relief and redress" in this case, but the asking for a grant of money. I apprehend that there is no rule connected with the practice of this House which is more clearly defined, than that which simply declares that no petition shall be received which contains an application for money, without the sanction of the Crown having been first obtained. This is a question to which, in the discharge of my duty, I think it very necessary to call the attention of the House, because a practice has lately grown up in the instances of a variety of petitions which have been presented, of carefully keeping out of view the term "money," and then proposing to refer these petitions to the consideration of the House. These petitions have been renewed under these circumstances, and the consent or recommendation of the Crown has been evaded and dispensed with; not only by thus reviving the petitions, but by the division of Committees. I say this the rather, because I have had my attention called to the subject. I have looked back to several of these petitions, and I apprehend there has been an irregularity in our proceedings which renders it the more necessary we should revive that practice.

agreed in what had fallen from the Chair, but he thought it would be drawing the rule too strictly to apply it in the present instance, when the prayer of the petition was for an investigation to clear the petitioner's character.

.—I do not mean to enter into the general merits of the case to which this petition refers; but I would throw out a suggestion for the consideration of the House, which it appears to me may obviate any difficulty which may exist. Perhaps it will be more convenient, if the petition be received, that some memorandum should be put on record, that it is received only in so far as it does not relate to an application for public money.

said, that with respect to this petition, he thought that every subject of the realm, who felt that he had been aggrieved by any branch or department of his Majesty's Government, had a legitimate claim to appeal to that House, even though the wrong he had suffered might be of a pecuniary nature; but he had no right, with a view to redress of those wrongs, to come before the House for pecuniary redress without the consent of the Crown. As the hon. Gentleman who had presented the petition had stated that it was his intention to bring the allegations contained in it before the House, he thought the petition should be received. Unless the House was prepared to act on the suggestion of the Chair in petitions of this description, it would be establishing the most inconvenient of all precedents, as it would open the door to all manner of private applications for money, which it behoved the House to watch with great caution, and tend to great annoyance. He had no objection, as he said before, to the receipt of the petition, but when the subject was again brought before the House, he should be ready to deliver his sentiments on it.

was desirous of knowing from the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Howick) whether the Agricultural Committee intended to report this Session? He had heard, with no little regret and astonishment, that the Committee had determined to make no Report. He was confident that if such were the case, the agriculturists throughout the kingdom would feel great dissatisfaction on learning, that after sitting and hearing evidence for five months, the Committee were not prepared to satisfy the nation on a subject of such importance. He wished to know whether any motion was intended in order to bring on a general discussion, or whether any other means would be taken to inform the public why the Committee had made no Report?

Perhaps I ought to leave it to the Chairman of the Committee to give a reply, but as the noble Lord has addressed himself to me, I may be permitted to observe, that it was no less a matter of surprise to me than to others when I learned, that the Committee on the State of Agriculture has come to no report, The motion for reporting the evidence only was made by the right hon. Member for Cumberland, and it was seconded by the noble Member for Buckinghamshire; but the Members of Government upon the Committee were perfectly ready to discuss the propositions contained in the Report which had been drawn up by the Chairman, the hon. Member for Hampshire. In deference, however, to those who were immediately connected with the agricultural interest, they agreed that no opinion upon the evidence should be expressed. I did venture to express my surprise, that in a Committee of twenty-five Members, eighteen of whom were county Representatives, no one connected with the agricultural interest brought forward a proposition even for discussion. If, therefore, the noble Lord (Lord Darlington) has been disappointed, from the same disappointment the Members of Government are not exempted.

objected to a discussion being raised upon the mere asking of a question, and then proceeded to observe, that he had made a proposal—

interrupted the right hon. Baronet, to say, that if any one were allowed to go into the general merits of the question, similar indulgence could not be refused to him.

however irregular it might be to enter into the general merits of the question, it would be doubly irregular to deny him an opportunity of answering a statement directed against the course of conduct which he thought it proper to pursue during the proceedings before a Select Committee of that House. He had merely a short statement of facts to make.

presumed, that if there were to be a full and regular renewal of the debate, every Member would be entitled to a hearing. If the right hon. Baronet and his Friends at the other side of the House were allowed to state their views, it was to be hoped that those who entertained different opinions would be allowed to state, explain, and defend theirs.

was ready to conclude with a motion, if a technical difficulty were thrown in his way; but he claimed a right, after what had been said, to give an explanation of his conduct in the Committee of Inquiry into the state of the agricultural interest—an inquiry, the magnitude and importance of which he presumed that no one would be disposed to question. He begged, in the first instance, to observe, that the motion for the appointment of that Committee was made by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State. Now, he desired to ask, had Government undertaken the management of the inquiry? On the contrary, they seemed to have avoided any connexion with it beyond nominating a certain portion of the ministers to be members of that Committee. It must be full in the recollection of the House, that when a similar inquiry was instituted during the administration of Lord Grey, a Cabinet Minister presided; but it was well known that the Committee of this Session had not in its chair any Member of the present Government. The chair was filled certainly by an hon. Gentleman who was usually one of the supporters of Ministers, but he held no situation in the Government. It had been said by the noble Lord opposite, that Ministers were at least very constant in their attendance as Members of the Committee, and were remarkable for strict punctuality. Of the attendance at that Committee, as at all others, doubtless a note was taken, and the minutes of the proceedings would show what the attendance had been, and from this, of course, the share that Ministers had taken in the proceedings would be apparent. From the minutes of proceedings of the Committee, it would also appear that Government had acquiesced in no Report being made. He should content himself with these remarks, and proceed to say the few words that were necessary to a vindication of his own conduct, after the severe strictures which the House had just heard. It was said, that he had acquiesced in there being no Report; what were the facts? At the close of the inquiry he came down and found that no plan was prepared; that Government were going about fishing for a Report; that they had gone to sea without a compass, ready to catch at anything that might turn up; that was the literal state of the case, and could it cause surprise, the Government having declined to take that lead in their proceedings which their situation required, that when they were unprepared with any plan, he should have taken the course which he had adopted? Surely the imperfect and undecided state of their views on the question was not to be made matter of censure as respected him. He would move, that the Orders of the Day be read.

It is quite true that I seconded the motion of my right hon. Friend, that no Report be made, and I will fairly state why. The Report laid before us for adoption was of such a nature, that if it had gone before the country as the Report of the Committee, it would have done more injury to the farmer, than anything else that can well be imagined. I therefore thought it my duty—and if there be any blame in doing so, I am willing to bear it—to second the rejection of that Report. When the evidence goes forth it will show, among other things, who attended; and I would much rather stand alone in my opinions than be fettered by such as were offered in the Report.

Having had the honour to be Chairman of the Committee I may be allowed to say, that I endeavoured to conduct the inquiry as impartially as I could. My object was, that no class of persons connected with agriculture should have it in their power to say that their case had not been considered. It is true, that, after the Report I had drawn up had been read, it was moved that the evidence should be laid before the House without any observations; and it is true also that the Secretary of State for the Home Department supported that motion. He did so very much in deference to the opinion of the noble Member for Buckinghamshire, and my noble Friend expressly said, that until he heard the noble Marquess he was not prepared to agree to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. [Lord John Russell had said, that he deferred to the authority of the noble Member for Buckinghamshire.] The noble Lord reminds me that the expression he used upon the occasion was, that he deferred to the authority of the noble Member for Buckinghamshire. My Report certainly did not meet the views of the Committee, and all I can say of it is, that it was formed on an honest conviction that it was supported by the evidence, and if the Committee had allowed it, I could have shewn that every paragraph had been established. As to the interests of the farmer, I can assure the House that no one has a greater interest in maintaining them than I have: the great evil has been, that the farmers never have been told what is the true state of the case. They have had too great a dependence upon Corn Laws. Therefore I said, that they ought, in the first instance, to look to their landlords, and that when they had fairly and properly reduced their rents, the farmers must rely on the other sources possessed in common by all agriculturists, by which many are now enjoying a state of comparative prosperity. I am aware that unless the Report obtained the sanction of the great majority of the Committee, it would not have had due weight with the country, and for this reason I do not say that we could have come to any other conclusion than not to give any opinion. At the same lime I am bound to add, that if after such a protracted inquiry, and such a mass of evidence, the Committee was unable to agree upon any distinct measure of relief, it is a very convincing proof that it is not in the power of the Legislature to do anything.

Although the Committee consisted of country gentlemen, in the proportion of, I believe, three to one, and although the Committee was appointed at their earnest instance, I am delighted to find, that the investigation has ended as I foretold. I will only make this observation to the noble Marquess. He hopes that the evidence will go forth and show how far his case has been made out; but the portion of the evidence I have seen, destroys his case entirely. I have not seen the latter part of it, but what I have seen establishes, that the labouring man—in whose behalf the country gentlemen were so loud, who never thought of themselves in the preservation of the Corn Laws, but only of the agricultural servants—for the last six months prior to the sitting of the Committee was in a better condition than for many years past. This is a great ground of satisfaction to me, although the noble Marquess may say it makes out his case for a reduction of taxes paid by the farmer. He can make out no case for the reduction of a single tax, excepting the tax upon one horse kept by the farmer, and not employed in the work of his farm. Everything shows, that the landed interest does not pay one quarter of the taxes paid by other classes. I, too, wish the evidence to go forth to the country, for if I can read it aright, it will establish the case I have always maintained.

said, that the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Cumberland, had made his speech in the present discussion rather a vehicle for an attack upon the Government than any vindication of the proceedings of the Committee; that appeared to him to afford cause for regret. He expressed his regret that the motion for no Report to be made had been adopted, although he admitted that he did not agree in all parts of the Report drawn up by the Chairman. He feared that the country would be disappointed at the separation of the Committee without the expression of any opinion.

thought the country had a right to look to the Legislature and to the Government for a Report. No such motion as that of the right hon. Baronet would have been made had it been thought likely that the Committee would have come to a satisfactory conclusion.

I rise in consequence of the remark of the hon. Member for Middlesex, who talks of the improved condition of labourers employed in agriculture. I wish to be informed whether any of the labourers were examined, and if they were, from what counties they were selected?

I am sorry that I was not in the House when this discussion commenced, but I feel bound to afford such explanation as I can give, relative to the statement of the right hon. Baronet opposite. I do not at all wonder at that statement, although I consider it extremely partial, and likely to lead to erroneous conclusions; and it renders it necessary for me to call the attention of the House to the facts, as they relate to the Agricultural Committee. The noble Member for Buckinghamshire had stated that it was his intention to move for an inquiry into agricultural distress, and the Government was of opinion that, with the many complaints on that subject from the owners, and more particularly from the occupiers of land, it was fit to appoint a Committee. At the same time, in proposing such a Committee, I did not state that there was any great or prominent measure of relief which could, in my opinion be the result of its labours. With respect, however, to certain burdens on the agricultural interest—with respect to county-rates and poor-rates, I thought that such a Committee might be able to ascertain whether measures to be adopted by Parliament might or might not be practically beneficial, and lead to some improvement. In naming the Committee, I placed upon it a great majority of Members for agricultural counties, and I believe it was objected at the time, that out of 30 Members, 23 or 24 represented, almost exclusively, the agricultural interest. The Committee was appointed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire was made chairman of it. The investigation was prosecuted with great diligence, and when we first came to the question, what should be the matter of inquiry? I think every Member of the Committee will support me in the statement, that I said it would be unwise to put fetters upon it; that no fetters ought to be put upon the inquiry beyond such as were necessary to prevent the evidence extending to subjects quite foreign and unconnected. The consequence was, that the Committee entered into an investigation more extended than that of the Committee of 1833. At the conclusion of their labours, and when a sufficient number of the Committee was in attendance, my hon. Friend, the Chairman, produced his draft of a report. It was communicated to me, as well as to others; but it so happened that I believe I was one of the last to receive it. The Committee was summoned to consider it: no less than twenty-five Members attended, and eighteen of those were Members for counties. And with regard to Members for counties, it is to be observed that of those whom I had named as representing counties connected with manufactures, the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire declined to attend; so that the county Members were chiefly Members for agricultural counties, and represented agricultural interests. I came to the Committee under the expectation that the draft of the report was to be considered point by point, and prepared to give my opinion upon every sentence. It was to me matter of great astonishment to find the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, the chairman of the Committee of 1833, propose immediately that the whole Report should be suppressed, that not a word of it should be taken into consideration; but a resolution be passed, declaring that the Committee would only report the evidence. I thought the course extraordinary, but my surprise was lessened, and my opinion a good deal changed, when I heard the noble Marquess, the Member for Buckinghamshire, second the motion. Certainly I had expected, that if the report of my hon. Friend the chairman were not adopted (and I was not disposed to press upon the Committee all the statements it contained), it would be considered fairly, and that Members would state their individual opinions. It did not contain any proposal for the immediate relief of agricultural distress; but I little thought that a motion would be made for its total suppression— suppression too, by those who had been calling upon the House for months, and not only for months but for years, to take into consideration the distress of the agricultural interest. The right hon. Baronet and the noble Marquess had no proposal to make, they had no definite remedy to offer, but merely moved the suppression of the report. I said on the occasion that if I, as a Member of the Government and of the Committee, agreed most reluctantly to that course, it was not that I was not prepared to enter fully into the statements contained in the draft of the report or in any substitute that might be offered; and I added that my wish was that the Committee should give an opinion, in the first place, with respect to the working of the new Poor-law now in operation; next, upon a remedy applicable to tithes affecting agricultural interest; and thirdly, upon the question of the currency, a subject that had occupied much of the attention of the Committee. I declared myself ready to enter into these topics, to debate these points, and to endeavour to cause my opinions to prevail; but if they did not prevail, I was ready that the Committee should agree to a report containing the opinions of the majority. [Sir J. Graham: You proposed nothing]. I said, that these were fit subjects for a report, and I added that my opinions were very much those embodied in his draft by the Chairman. I must also mention, that I gave it to the Committee as my opinion, that a further ground for hesitation and reluctance in agreeing to the resolution of the right hon. Baronet was, that great disappointment would prevail in the country, and that the farmers who had applied to Parliament for some inquiry and for some remedy, if they would have been disappointed at the refusal of investigation, would be still more disappointed at the separation of the Committee without making any report. I have said thus much to show that Government at least is not responsible for the Committee having come to no result. My noble Friend near me (Lord Howick) has observed, that the Committee, by adopting no report, did negative many a statement both with regard to agricultural distress and the remedies applicable to it. I certainly concurred very much in that opinion. For instance, with respect to the currency, it has been said in the present and in former Sessions, that the great remedy for agricultural as well as for all other distress, is the repeal of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Baronet, effecting a change in the circulating medium. That subject was fully investigated by the Committee, and by not coming to any resolution it has confirmed the opinion entertained by the right hon. Baronet and myself, and repeatedly stated in resolutions of this House. It shows that those who have endeavoured to raise the country on that subject are not prepared in a Committee of twenty-five members, eighteen of whom represent agricultural counties, to back their own opinions. I repeat, then, that for the non-adoption of any report Ministers are not responsible; we were quite ready; I came down to the Committee fully prepared to have some three or four days' debate on the report, and those who are responsible are the Members who have over and over again asserted that the agricultural interest is in distress, and that relief could be given by Parliament. The result of the whole is that—admitting, as I must do, that distress has prevailed for some years among the occupiers of the land, a distress which I have always lamented, and which, I hope, is now diminishing—it is not to be relieved by a change in the currency; that it is not to be relieved by a repeal of the malt tax; that it is not to be relieved by any specific measure that Parliament can apply to the evil. I have not been forward in calling myself the advocate of the agricultural interest—I have not been forward in summoning meetings of farmers to demand inquiry by Government or by Parliament—I have not been forward in asserting that justice was denied to the agricultural interest; but I will tell the House what, as a humble Member of the Administration, I have done. I have been forward in co-operating with a former Government, as a Member of that Government, in passing a Bill which I thought would prevent abuses in the administration the Poor-laws, which would prevent large sums of money being laid out improvidently, and which would tend to restore to the labouring classes of England that character of independence which they formerly enjoyed. I have likewise endeavoured to my utmost, and I hope not unsuccessfully, to pass through Parliament some measure which might relieve the agricultural interest from the levy of tithes in kind, one of the most oppressive burdens that could be inflicted. I have also assisted my right hon. Friend near me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing some alleviation, by some aid from the public, with respect to county-rates. These things I have done because I thought they were practical measures, tending, as they advanced and promoted the interests of agriculture, to advance and promote the interest of the community. I never have, and I never will profess myself to be the sole and exclusive advocate of any one interest, agricultural, commercial, or manufacturing. I consider it the duty of a Member of Parliament, as well as of a Member of the Government, to attend to the interests of all impartially. I never will endeavour to raise a cry upon these subjects, or to promote an imputation on the character of Parliament, or on the character of either of the two great parties who occupy these benches. I think that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel), in his conduct, with respect to the currency, and with respect to the Malt-tax, took a wide and enlarged view of the interests of the country; and I am not disposed to let any party feeling interfere with the discharge of what I consider my duty; but having attended to these three great questions—poor-rates, tithes, and currency—I hope we shall stand as fairly before the country as those who, indulging in perpetual and empty Reclamations on agricultural distress, have endeavoured to increase discontent, without having any measure to propose by which distress could be relieved, or discontent removed.

contended that although the Committee had thought proper not to make a report, that was not a sufficient ground for asserting that no sufficient case of distress had been made out on the part of the agriculturists. There was scarcely a tax raised in the country which did not bear directly or indirectly upon the farmer; and if any proof of the existence of extreme distress were wanting, he would refer to the state of the rents throughout the farming districts, which had fallen, in many cases, from 1l. to half-a-crown, and even in some cases the farmers refused to take the land rent-free. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had said that no person was prepared to offer any remedy for the existing distress; for his own part he thought that the existence of the evil being proved, as it now indisputably was, it became the duty of those intrusted with the government of the country to devise the remedy. It could not surely be expected that the farmers throughout the country should have to wade through the mass of evidence contained in this report, in order to digest the subject, and take upon themselves to originate some measure before any relief was to be extended to them.

thought it necessary, as he had been a member of this Committee, to trespass upon the House with a few words on the present occasion. When the Committee was originally appointed, it would be recollected, perhaps, that he had reluctantly given the proposition his assent; and the reason upon which he assented to it at all was, that being perfectly aware that distress did prevail to a very great extent in many of the agricultural districts, he knew with what feelings of bitterness and alleged hardship men who were deeply concerned in these interests, deeply and personally affected by that distress, might view an unconditional refusal on the part of the Government and of the House to inquire into their condition. But well he recollected also that whilst he gave this as his reason for acquiescing in the appointment of this Committee, he at the same time predicted that nothing but disappointment would be the result. He foretold this upon many considerations. In the first place, he recollected the Committee upon this very subject in 1833, which reported its opinion to the House that the agriculturists should seek relief from their own exertions rather than from any extraneous or collateral sources. In that report he had acquiesced, and he remained still unaltered in his opinion, that, let the newly-appointed Committee make whatever report they might, it would come in the end to the same result—and it would be a delusion for them to tell the country, or to hold out a hope, that Parliament had the relief of the agriculturists at all within their power. He certainly could not deny, that the present system of tithes was a very serious burthen upon the land; and, so far as it went, a fundamental cause of the distress which at present prevailed. But this subject was one which could only be dealt with by the House itself; nor did he expect that the House would, on that question, suffer itself to be guided by the opinion of a Select Committee. Then there was the currency. The inquiry before the Committee was certainly a general one; and, therefore, it would have been unwise to have thrown the slightest impediment in the way of their examinations even upon this point. He had interposed, therefore, no impediment in the way of the particular question mooted in the inquiry, fixed as his own opinions were and arc that—(without discussing the expediency of the new system of currency which some years ago was adopted)—great distress must inevitably prevail throughout the country, if any attempt were to be made for returning from the present convertible currency, to the inconvertible paper currency which formerly existed. He thought it would be impossible, now, to return to the old system without materially endangering the stability of the property and interests, not of one, but of every class of persons in this kingdom, and giving rise to doubt and anxiety in the public mind of the most painful character. A metallic standard and a convertible currency had existed during a period of fourteen years; and all the transactions during that period having been engaged in under that currency,—and upon the faith pledged, time after time, by this House that the currency and standard should not be again departed from—it would be, in his opinion, useless and hazardous, in the extreme, to hold out any prospect of a re-opening of the question. It was now agreed upon, on all hands, that Parliament never adopted a measure more likely to secure to industry its reward, and to preserve a fair equality in the prices of labour and of necessaries, than that for a just and unfluctuating currency. The result of the inquiries in the Committee went to prove the beneficial operation of that measure; the condition of the working classes was found to have been gradually improving under the present system of currency, and it was shewn that any alteration in that system could now only act injuriously upon those who depended upon the price of their daily labour for their support. With respect to the course adopted by the Committee in declining to frame a report, he must say that, for his part, he was not surprised at it: and whatever disappointment might have been felt by some parties at the absence of such a report, that disappointment had been small compared to that which would have been experienced, had the Committee merely reported opinions upon which they had all agreed. That any discussion had taken place upon the subject at all, he looked upon as no mean compliment to his noble Friend (Lord Chandos), who, by merely giving a vague notice of an intention to move for an inquiry upon the subject, caused his Majesty's Government to anticipate him by a passage in the King's Speech at the beginning of the ensuing Session, recommending such an inquiry to be made. His noble Friend's influence with the Government must undoubtedly have been very great, when, by a casual intimation of this kind he caused the subject to be taken up in his Majesty's Speech, and subsequently put in course of inquiry by the noble Leader of his Majesty's Government in that House. To show still further the deference which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) paid to the influence of his noble Friend, when the noble Lord came down to the Committee to state his reasons why he thought no Report should be made, the noble Lord said he came to that conclusion in deference to the opinion of his noble Friend. Really, his noble Friend (Lord Chandos) must wield a potent influence in the State, when he had caused the Government to institute this inquiry, in the first place, merely by having entered a notice on the subject,—and then to make no Report, in deference to him. It had been alleged that he could be but little affected by the state of the agricultural interest. But he could say, that he had a much deeper personal interest in agriculture than in any other interest or branch of industry in the State. He felt the most strongly-rooted attachment to agriculture, and he believed that these were the strongest reasons to justify a feeling of preference;—At the same time, he was so perfectly satisfied that the hopes of the agricultural interest must rest eventually upon their own exertions, that he could not bring himself to encourage the delusive expectations, on their part, that the Legislature, either by an alteration of taxation or any other change in the financial system of the country whatever, could permanently or substantially place them in an improved condition. He should rather tell the agriculturists to look at the farmers of Scotland, and endeavour to work out some plan of amelioration, and consequently of relief for themselves, which, however inadequate, perhaps, to meet the temporary pressure, would eventually be found much more beneficial than any which Parliament could afford. To say the truth, he must own that he did not anticipate that any immediate or striking amelioration could at present be afforded, either by the exertions of Parliament, or of individuals. Such important changes, and such stupendous improvements had been made, of late years, in the mechanical arts, and in the application of them to the wants of society, that every interest in the kingdom must be expected to be affected by them to a considerable extent; and above all others have they wrought mighty changes in the relative situation of the farmer. It must not be concealed from them that steam-navigation was making a great revolution in this country, bringing as it did the produce of distant lands into competition with old and exhausted soils, and that this was the great reason why the stiff and clay lands of this country were subject to the disadvantages under which they at present laboured, and to which they must continue to be exposed till a check was interposed to the progress of human improvement. This, he would repeat, was the principal and strongest reason why the occupiers of stiff and clayey soils could not enter into a successful competition with the farmers of other lands which were more favoured by circumstances. Taking these circumstances into consideration, he acquiesced in the resolution of the Committee not to submit any Report to the House. But, if he might be allowed to say so, his recollection was not exactly the same as the noble Lord's with respect to the course of conduct which the noble Lord had pursued in reference to the proposed Report. He was bound to say, however, in the outset, that in his opinion both the House and the Committee were under great obligations to the Chairman of the Committee for the industry, the ability, and the great impartiality which he had shown throughout the inquiry. But as it seemed that they were at liberty to divulge the secrets of the prison-house, he would venture to state what, as far as his recollection guided him, the noble Lord did when that Report was submitted to the Committee. The noble Lord went through that Report, reading it, like a magician, backwards, and as he went on he struck all the brains out of it. The noble Lord stated, when he objected to parts of the Report, that he would give most satisfactory reasons why they should not be retained. There was this objection to any observation on the subject of the currency, that a distinct Resolution had been passed by the House,—that any alteration in our monetary system, which would have the effect of lowering the standard of value, was highly inexpedient and dangerous to the best interests of the country. Now, when a Select Committee was appointed to consider the subject of the currency—a question of immense importance, and immediately interesting every member of the community,—I cheerfully resigned any advantage I might have derived from the Resolution, and relied on the intrinsic force of truth, and on the weight of the evidence collected in the course of the inquiry. Then we came to the question of the malt-tax and to the question of an increased duty on foreign corn. The noble Lord said, that these were questions for his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of too much importance to be reported on by a Select Committee, and he wished the paragraphs in which those questions were referred to, to be omitted. The noble Lord acted in the same manner with respect to one or two other points, and when he came himself to look at the Report, he found that the noble Lord had, with his sickle, so carefully cut down and gathered up every important Resolution of the Committee, that hardly anything was left to Report upon; and he had nothing to do but to assent to the proposition that the Committee should not present any Report. On the whole, he thought that there would be less disappointment felt from giving the evidence unaccompanied by any Report, than would be the case if the Committee presented a mere mutilated document relating to matters of comparatively little importance. The noble Lord did, indeed, propose a panegyric upon the reduction which had been effected in the county-rates, a reduction amounting altogether to 70,000l., and which was attained by the partial transfer of expenses of criminal prosecutions to the Government. He believed that the farmers were quite aware of the fact, and that in consequence their rates had been reduced a farthing in the pound; the noble Lord's proposed Resolution was at any rate a proof that he thought either that we were not informed of the fact, or were not sufficiently alive to its importance. The noble Lord also recommended that the Report should specify the Tithe Bill as a measure of great importance, and likely to afford great relief to the agricultural interest; but he suggested to the noble Lord that the Tithe Bill had not yet passed into a law—that it was then before the House of Lords; and that although he sincerely hoped it would receive their assent and concurrence, he deemed it to be rather premature to dwell upon a measure as being a great boon to the agricultural interest which had not yet become law. The noble Lord then adverted to the progress which had been made under the new poor law in diminishing the burdens upon agriculture, but he did not think that it was exactly the province of the Committee to enter upon the consideration of the Poor-law; for very little evidence had been taken upon the subject, and although that question would doubtless have formed a useful head of inquiry, yet, as the Committee did not enter upon it—the consequence would be,—if it had ventured to say too much, and to predict great benefits, from the measure, that that Report, although future events might confirm the conjecture on which it had proceeded, would not be founded on any evidence that had been received. There was, however, a paragraph in the Report relating to stiff lands which had been left undrained, and recommending the Scotch method, of an application of the plough and draining the subsoil. We all felt, on reading the Report, that if we omitted every thing relating to the corn-laws, every thing about the malt-tax, and the corresponding duty on foreign corn, the plough, in a Report thus presented, would stand in rather too bold a relief. Then other Gentlemen said, they had heard of harrows, and other mechanical improvements, which they thought deserved mention. He was at first, certainly, disposed in favour of presenting a Report; but when he considered all the circumstances to which he had referred, and the expectations which had been formed, he most willingly acquiesced in the propriety of making no Report at all; and he was very sure that the disappointment which would be felt would not be so great as if the Committee had presented a Report in which all the remedies that had been proposed for the relief of agriculture should have been discussed. He had attempted to state, and he hoped he had succeeded in stating correctly the proceedings before the Committee; and he must say, that if the noble Lord was the original author of the proposal for a Committee, and therefore responsible for what the Committee had done— ["No! No!"] Why, surely the noble Lord, in advising the King to recommend that Committee in his speech from the Throne, was more responsible for the appointment of such a Committee than a county Member who had given a vague notice that such an inquiry would probably be instituted the next session; and therefore, he said again if the noble Lord without a division agreed to let the Committee report the evidence only to the House, it was rather too late for him to endeavour to throw the responsibility of the Committee having agreed to no Report, upon the shoulders of others.

said, that, as he had understood the matter the discussion in the Committee was, not as to whether the Report prepared by the Chairman should be received, but whether there should be any Report at all. He was of opinion that the landowners would find their interests not improved by the constant agitation of this question, as it would necessarily deter persons from vesting their capitals in land.

said, that at the time the Committee was moved he predicted that no benefit would result from its inquiries. The very circumstance that the Committee had not been able to frame a Report showed that there was no clearly defined views on the part of the agriculturists themselves as to the remedial measures which would afford them relief.

was surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, take credit to himself for the assistance rendered by him to the Government in passing the Poor-law Bill. He was in office from 1817 to 1830, and never brought forward any measure for the amendment of the Poor-laws.

I did not at all detract from the merit due to the present Government for the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Bill; nor do I wish to take any credit to myself except for not having made it a party question.

said, the right hon. Baronet had rendered the Government no assistance in carrying that measure. All he wished to observe upon it was, that, when it was said that the present Government had done nothing for the agricultural interests it should be remembered that the credit of passing the Poor-law Bill was entirely theirs. He wished also to make one remark upon an observation that fell from the noble Lord, the Member for Buckinghamshire. The noble Lord said, the evidence taken before the Committee would support his case, now what the noble Lord's case was, he (Mr. Hawes) did not exactly know, but why was it not brought forward in the Committee, if the evidence would support it? He was glad this debate had been originated. It would now go forth to the country, that after the parade about agricultural distress, and the remedies that were to be provided for it, the Committee were not able to agree upon any one mode by which relief could be afforded.

rose, according to the notice which he had given, to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the building Committee for the New Houses of Parliament had conducted their proceedings, and acquitted themselves of their task. It was with some reluctance that he felt bound to stand up and arraign the conduct of that Committee, which had most negligently, and for want of due consideration, led the House and the Government into a very disagreeable predicament, there being no hope whatever, that the projected new buildings would be ready for two or three years to come, unless some different arrangement were immediately adopted. The Committee, in his opinion, had erred in many particulars, a few of which he would mention to the House. They had erred, in the first place, in not fixing the amount of expense at which the new building should be erected. He had stood alone in the Committee upon this point; he was opposed by them all, and when he found his right-hand friend, the hon. Member for Bridport, against him also, he thought it was useless to persevere. He disapproved, also, of the restriction as to the style of architecture to be adopted. He thought it quite possible that an architect might draw a very pretty picture to gratify the eyes, without attending to the more essential particulars of good accommodation and convenience in the interior arrangements. His ignorance of the different points and characteristics in the various descriptions of architecture had at the time prevented him from giving that opposition to that proposition which the information he had since obtained on the subject would induce him to do. Another error of judgment which the Committee fell into was, to name the Commissioners on whom the task of selection was to devolve before the plans were delivered in. He had no wish to make personal allusions to any gentleman whose name was in any way connected with the projected plans, though the hon. Member for Tewkesbury had taken so erroneous a view of something which had fallen from him on a former occasion, as to suppose that he had intended to make a personal attack upon the successful competitor for the new buildings. He could assure the hon. Member that nothing was ever further from his intention or his thought. He was of opinion still, however, that if the recommendation which he had given the Committee, last year, had been attended to, and that no plan had been adopted until publicly exhibited, the Government would have escaped the unpleasant predicament into which they had now fallen. The next error on the part of the Committee was, that they gave too short a time for the preparation of the plans for competition. He had been informed by several respectable artists, that three or four months was too short a time to do justice to such a work. A twelvemonth would not have been too much. He believed that the consequence of this regulation was, that several first-rate architects had abstained from preparing plans under the conviction that the time allowed was too limited to prepare them with the attention the subjects required. Well, of those who did send in designs, Mr. Barry was awarded the prize. As to the grounds on which the Commissioners made the selection, he was prepared to maintain that their judgment was erroneous. No doubt Mr. Barry's plan was a fine picture, well calculated to deceive one young and inexperienced in architecture, but it ought not to have imposed upon such old, tried, and practised artists as the Commissioners. No one, he thought, would dispute the position, that the two great requisites in any new plan were, suf- ficient internal accommodation and good ventilation. What then was the plan recommended by the Commissioners? Was it in any way conformable to the instructions given for selecting no plan which did not afford sufficient accommodation? The Commissioners, in answer to a question put by the Committee, stated, that they considered the exterior of the plan remarkable for its beauty. That no one questioned. But when they were asked—are not there other plans superior in internal arrangement? they admitted there were. Another question was then very naturally put, which was this—if there be other plans affording better internal accommodation, may it not be so arranged, that a design should be chosen combining the beauty of Mr. Barry's plan with the greater convenience and accommodation supplied by the other? The answer was, that they had no objection to such an arrangement. The result, however, was, that Mr. Barry's plan was adopted. The Report of the Committee was laid on the table of the House without any opposition from him; but he thought the hon. Members of the Committee would do him the justice to bear in mind, that on that occasion his opposition to the plan was understood by them only to be postponed. When the Commissioners came before the Committee he asked them this question, "Have you ascertained that, in the interior arrangements of Mr. Barry's plan, the instructions of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, under which, and which alone, the architects were required to give in their plans, have been complied with?" The answer was, "They have, and the internal accommodations do correspond with the instructions." He had then no opportunity of ascertaining whether such was the case or not; but since the last plan had been produced, there could not be a doubt but that the instructions published in the Gazette had been departed from, as well as the Report of the Committee and their resolutions, all of which were to have been considered by the architects as the means by which their proceedings were to be guided. It was a duty which they owed to those architects who had taken so much trouble and given so much of their time to prepare their plans, which, if carried into operation, would afford sufficient internal accommodation as well as reflect credit on the age in which we lived, to ascertain whether justice had been done to them, and whether a fair and liberal interpretation had been put upon the instructions given for the plans of the new Houses of Parliament. The hon. Member here read the advertisement which had been published in the Gazette for supplying plans of the new Houses of Parliament, and then continued. Either Mr. Barry's plan was or was not a fit one. If it were not fit, it ought not to be carried into effect. If its chief merit consisted in being a pretty picture, and that that was all required by Parliament, if they took the trouble of advertising, he had little doubt but that they would be supplied with prettier pictures. But if Mr. Barry's plan was not a proper one to be adopted, and not in accordance with the rule which was laid down for every man submitting plans, namely, that they should be practical, and that the expenses should be confined within fair and reasonable limits, in that case he thought that the other architects who acted in accordance with the rule had a right to complain of the selection of a plan that had deviated from it. He did not wish it to be supposed that he was in the first instance anxious to have the expenses of building the new Houses limited to a very small sum. He did not so much care whether the expense was fixed at half a million or a million, as that something like an accurate account of them should be given; but it must, he thought, be admitted, that there was a point with respect to the expense of building the new Houses, beyond which no man on the Committee was prepared to go. If, for instance, it had been stated to the Committee, that the erection of the new Houses would cost one million or even two millions, could any doubt that they would not have been prepared to go that length? The claim of those artists, therefore, who gave in plans which they adapted to the amount which Parliament was understood to be willing to expend, ought not to be so set aside as to give an advantage to one who had kept no such limit in view. He should point out some of the differences between the instructions given for the new buildings and Mr. Barry's plan. To begin with the House of Lords. It was required that there should be a space below the bar of 480 superficial feet. In the plan there were but 220. So that in this respect there was a deficiency of 260 feet. For the body of the House the instructions were, that 864 feet should be the extent of space allotted to it. There were but 627 feet. There were apartments for private' interviews required by the in- structions, which, with some other apartments, were altogether omitted in Mr. Barry's plan. There was also a deficiency in the strangers' gallery. Now with respect to that House, it was required, that the body of it should contain 460 Members. By the plan it would, he believed, contain only 326. The instructions required that there should be two division-lobbies immediately adjoining the House, one of 1,800 feet, and the other 1,100, making together 2,900 feet; and would the House believe it, by Mr. Barry's plan the space allowed for the two was 1,028, being a deficiency of 1,872 feet. There was but one room for the clerk of Engrossments, instead of two, which the instructions required. There was a waiting-room altogether omitted, besides many other deficiencies. He had a right, then, to find fault with the Commissioners for stating, that the plan accorded with the instructions, when he had proved that it did not. Now, with respect to the expense of carrying Mr. Barry's plan into execution, he confessed he always felt strong doubts of the accuracy of the estimates of the expenses of such buildings since the period that his consent had been gained to voting a sum of 300,000l. for building Buckingham Palace, where the actual expenditure was found ultimately to amount to 780,000l. or 800,000l. His views were certainly not altered by the manner in which the Commissioners had proceeded in estimating the probable cost of erecting these new Houses of Parliament. He conceived, that on this head he had a fair complaint to make against the Commissioners. When a question was put to them as to the expense of carrying Mr. Barry's plan into effect, they said they had no reason to believe that it would exceed 500,000l., and they added to this belief, if he recollected rightly, the authority of the architect himself for the statement that it would not cost more. With that testimony he believed the Committee was satisfied. [No, no.] At all events, he did not think that a matter of such importance should be decided on such vague evidence, and he suggested that the Commissioners should be asked to go a little more into details, to justify the estimate which they had furnished. He was bound to say, that not only was no objection offered to his proposition, but that every facility was afforded to him in his endeavours to have it carried into effect. Now, what would the House say, if, in the space of four or five weeks, the opinion of the Commissioners was so changed, that their estimate of 500,000l. was raised to 724,000l.? Believing, as he did (for he had the authority of eminent artists for the statement) that the lowest estimate on which the plan could be carried into effect was 1,300,000l., and that if all those ornaments which had caught the eyes of the Commissioners were supplied, it would amount to 1,800,000l., what confidence, he asked, could be placed in the judgment of those when the cost of those buildings would be treble or rather quadruple the amount at which they originally computed it? Besides, the plan which had been selected by the Commissioners was no more like that now produced than an oblong square was like a triangle. Here the hon. Member pointed out on the plan, a copy of which was in the hands of most of the Members, the alterations which had been made, and contended, that as several most material changes had been made since the selection of Mr. Barry's plan, that gentleman had been favourably, whilst the other artists had been unfairly, dealt with by the Commissioners. It now became an important question—and he wished the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer it—what plan was to be carried into effect, the first which was submitted, or that now adopted? And he was desirous of being further informed, whether the plan last chosen was to be looked upon as a final one. The Government ought, in his opinion, to annul their former proceedings in reference to this subject. They ought to recollect the recommendation of the Report of the Commissioners to confine the cost of these buildings to 724,000l.; that the plan now adopted differed from that to which the prize was accorded, in almost every particular; in its exterior, in its internal arrangements, and in its situation. Would the country believe, that, by this plan of Mr. Barry's, three arches of the bridge, all but twelve feet, would be blocked up, and that in fact the building was to rise out of the water like the buildings of Amsterdam, and that those who were obliged to pay for its erection would have the satisfaction of being enabled to see it only from the opposite side of the water. Therefore, on the part of the public, and in behalf of the architects who had submitted plans which would have reflected credit on themselves as well as on the Government that should adopt them, he asked the House to give them an opportunity of again submitting those plans to consideration. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "that a humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that in order to obtain plans for the new Houses of Parliament, in accordance with the instructions already issued by the Commissioners, his Majesty may be pleased to direct a further competition in designs, without limiting the designs to any particular style of architecture, and confining them to a certain fixed sum; and which designs may be publicly exhibited previous to the appointment of a Committee by his Majesty to examine and report thereon."

seconded the motion, on the grounds that the place selected was not a proper one, and that the design which had been adopted was not the best that could be chosen.

defended the Commissioners from the charges brought against them in the petition of the competing architects. He, for one, knew nothing of Mr. Barry up to the time he was called upon to consider the plan he sent in, and, therefore, could not with justice be accused of any partiality in his favour. The petitioners had made it a ground of complaint that they had been put to very considerable expense and labour in getting up their designs. He not only admitted that such was the fact, but, going a step farther, he was prepared to say, that the designs in question reflected on their authors the greatest credit. In the drawings sent in there was marked evidence of a great improvement in the science of Gothic architecture. Although it might be considered improper to particularize, he could not avoid remarking, that there had come from the north of the Tweed one set of drawings which, in point of beauty and knowledge of the art, never had been and never could be surpassed. But was it to be understood from this complaint of the petitioners that all the competing architects expected to have succeeded? Ninety-seven entered into the lists. Surely all did not expect to have succeeded. It was a matter of chance throughout, and the disappointed parties had no more right to complain of the expense and labour they had been put to in the preparation of their designs, than would have the unsuccessful ticket - holders in a lottery a right to seek back the sums they had paid for their admission into it. It was then complained that four only of the five Commissioners appointed had acted. There might have been something in this ground of objection if any division of opinion had occurred between those who did act, but as their decision was an unanimous one, he thought it wholly unworthy of observation. The petitioners stated that, although the expense of the buildings to be erected was not limited in the specification, they nevertheless had been induced to regard it as a most important consideration, and to frame their designs accordingly. The Commissioners having, however, come to their decision on grounds wholly independent of expense (alleging that this was a consideration of no public importance), the architects considered their merits unfairly prejudiced by the comparison of their plans with one in the preparation of which expense was not made a question. Now it was altogether a misstatement to assert that the Commissioners had regarded the consideration of expense as one of no public importance. On the contrary, it had formed one of the main elements of their decision, and it was because Mr. Barry's plan appeared to them to excel in the combination of good design and moderate estimate, that the preference had been accorded to it. The hon. Member for Middlesex seemed of opinion, that a much larger sum than 720,000l. would be eventually required to carry Mr. Barry's plan into effect. If that were proved likely to be the case, Mr. Barry's plan would certainly not be acted upon. Mr. Barry was now on his trial with regard to the expense of his design, and if the estimates exceeded 720,000l., his plan would not be adopted. The awarding of the first prize had been objected to by the petitioners, on the ground that the plan of most merit in regard to elevation had not been the selected one. That, however, was not the question. The prize was awarded to the best "design," and the interpretation of that word was not restricted to mere elevations, but was made to include the main and general plan of the building. It was asserted, that the specifications were not in conformity "with the resolutions of the Committee of the House. That was a misstatement. They were in strict accordance with the resolutions of the Committee of 1835. Mr. Barry was accused in the petition of having planned his lobbies on too small a scale; but the fact was, the lobbies in his plan exceeded, in point of size, those required by the specification by 1,848 feet. The mistake occurred in consequence of the petitioners altogether mistaking the situation of Mr. Barry's lobbies, and representing in their stead two narrow slips, intended for quite another purpose. The hon. Member for Middlesex seemed of opinion, that the Commissioners, in neglecting to compare accurately the area of each room in each of the proposed plans with that described in the specification, had failed in discharging their duty to the public, and prejudiced the interests of the competing candidates. Why two years would have been scarcely sufficient for the adequate performance of such a task, and in the end no advantage would have been derived from the investigation. In his humble judgment, it was upon the accuracy of the general plan, and not of the minute details, that the Commissioners were bound to make their decision. The hon. Member for Lambeth had objected to Mr. Barry's plan, as not being of the most approved Gothic order. He (Mr. Tracy) admitted, that it was of a more simple character than most Gothic buildings, but thought that that very circumstance was a recommendation in its favour. The estimate of the expense of the original plan could not be very far wrong, for it was 500,000l.; and the estimate of the expense of the improved plan, in which the building was lengthened a hundred feet, was 700,000l. The various competitors had for months been employed in endeavouring to discover defects in Mr. Barry's design. Perhaps they might in some trifling respects have succeeded. But he was sure, that if their designs had been scrutinised with as microscopic an eye, not an individual would have been considered entitled to the prize. He confessed, therefore, that he wished they had looked a little more into their own deficiencies, instead of so severely scrutinising the deficiencies of others. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman observed, that the Commissioners had endeavoured to the best of their ability to discharge the duty intrusted to them, and had submitted to his Majesty, which, in their deliberately-formed opinion, was that which was freest from objection. That plan had been sanctioned by the approbation of the King, and of the Houses of Lords and Commons. It had also met with the general approval of the public; and he contended, therefore, that it was the plan which above all others ought to be adopted.

, although he did not profess himself to be a competent judge on the subject, acknowledged that Mr. Barry's plan appeared to him to be one of great architectural beauty; but he did not think that the manner in which that gentleman had been released from attention to the specification was at all calculated to produce a building fraught with all the conveniences which were so necessary to the two Houses of Parliament. Nothing ever pleased him more than the views which he had seen of the elevation of the two Houses of Parliament according to Mr. Barry's plan; but convenience seemed to him not to have been taken into consideration, either by Mr. Barry or by the Commissioners. When he saw that a plan which was originally pronounced to be excellent, was altered so extensively, because it was not considered fit for the purpose for which it was intended, he could not but think that if the other architects had been allowed a similar privilege, plans might have been furnished infinitely better calculated to produce a building answering the two necessary conditions—first, that it should be well fitted for the purpose for which it was intended; secondly, that in point of architectural beauty it should do credit to the country. The country and posterity were entitled to expect that the greatest care ought to be taken to insure the fulfilment of those two conditions. It appeared to him to be exceedingly unjust, that a design in which the specification was not attended to should be allowed to enter at all into competition with designs in which the specification was attended to. It had been said, that the plan had been greatly improved. He was glad to hear it. Perhaps if time were allowed, it might be still more improved. If the hon. Member for Middlesex should press his motion to a division, he would certainly vote with him; for the purpose of endeavouring to give the country the benefit of every precaution that the important object in view should be accomplished in the best possible manner.

wished to make a few remarks on two or three of the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Middlesex. All the main points of the speech of that hon. Member had been most satisfactorily answered by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. One of the last complaints of the architects who had petitioned the House on the subject was, that the Commissioners had come to a decision on their own judgment, and had not appealed to the opinions of professional men. Now what would have been the case if the Commissioners had appealed to the opinions of professional men? In the first place, that it was a self-acknowledgment of their own incompetence to the task; and in the second place, that it was opening the door to undue bias. If the Commissioners had been judiciously selected (and that they were so he believed no one would deny), the proper course for them to pursue was to decide upon their own judgment. They had so decided; and their judgment had been confirmed not only by his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament, but by the unbiassed opinion of the great mass of the public. Among the other allegations on the subject, Parliament and all the parties concerned were accused of precipitancy. Now with reference to a national undertaking of so much importance, it was exceedingly desirable that they should not only not be justly subject to such an imputation, but that the matter should be put beyond all suspicion, and that the public should be perfectly satisfied that nothing had been done without proper care and deliberation. He would state, therefore, the exact course which had been pursued. On the 2nd of March, 1835, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed for the purpose of considering the best mode of rebuilding the two Houses of Parliament. That Committee was formed as fairly and impartially as it was possible to form any committee. To show how deliberately that Committee proceeded, it would be enough to state, that it finally adopted a course entirely different from that which it originally determined upon. Its original determination was, that a gentleman whose eminence in his profession was acknowledged by every one, should be appointed the architect, to whom the rebuilding of the two Houses should be at once committed. Nevertheless, so fair, so open to conviction, so inclined to consult the public opinion, was the Committee, that after long consideration it reversed its original decision, and determined that there should be a public competition. On the 3rd of June, 1835, that Committee made its report; and about the same period a Committee of the House of Lords made a report to that House. Both Committees recommended that a Royal Commission should issue, and that the Commissioners should be empowered to offer premiums for the best plans with reference to the object in view. Addresses to the Crown from both Houses were presented in consequence; and on the 14th of July, 1835, a Commission was appointed; on the character of the members of which for talent and learning it was unnecessary for him to dilate. In the selection of that Committee he did believe that the most judicious course had been pursued; and if of that he wanted a proof, it might be found in the public approbation. On the 21st of July the Commission issued a notice to the architects of the empire, accompanied with instructions and a lithographic plan. Four other notices were subsequently issued in reply to queries from several architects who wished to know if they perfectly understood the original instructions of the Committee. What was considered sufficient time having been allowed for preparation, the Commissioners carefully examined ninety-seven plans, accompanied by illustrative designs, and ultimately made a report to his Majesty. In that report the Commissioners recommended the adoption of Mr. Barry's plan. That recommendation, however, was never held to be final. It was referred to the consideration of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed on the 9th of February, in the present year. It was true that when that Committee assembled, it did not consider itself called upon to discuss the question as a matter of taste. It was allowed on all hands that the Commission having been appointed to determine which was the best plan offered, it was the duty of the Committee to consider how far, with reference to expense and other practical matters, the adoption of the Report of the Commission ought to be recommended to Parliament. That Committee was appointed from all sides of the House. After sifting the Report of the Commission, as far as it was qualified to do so, the Committee made a short report, recommending (so cautious was it not to do any thing precipitately) that during the Easter holidays a rough estimate should be formed by Mr. Barry of the expense that would attend carrying his plan into execution. Assisted by one of the architects attached to the office of Woods and Forests, Mr. Barry did accordingly frame such an estimate. When the Committee re-assembled, what did it do? On the first day, after examining the estimate of Mr. Barry and hearing the estimate of Mr. Chawner and Mr. Hunt, it came to the conclusion that the estimate was not sufficient. There was no precipitation in that. With great respect for the hon. Member for Middlesex, he (Sir J. Hobhouse) did consider that the resolution on which the Report of the Committee was founded was unanimously agreed to. The Report was drawn up with the greatest care, stating "that it did not appear to the Committee that it would be safe or expedient to engage in a work of such magnitude and importance until a due and accurate estimate, founded on detailed specifications and working drawings, should have been made, and carefully examined and approved by competent authority." It was evident, from that passage that one of the great objects of the Committee was to guard against precipitation. The Committee never thought it possible that it could be so accused. The Members of the Committee never erected themselves into judges of architectural merit. They were not so presumptuous. They knew what would have been said if they had done so. To show what had been said of them, without their having so assumed, he would read half a page of the catalogue of the architectural designs, sold at the door of the National Gallery.

"The author of these designs has discovered, too late, that he has committed a great error in acting upon the principle by which he has been governed in preparing his plans.

"It was his opinion that the Tudor style of architecture admitted of great distinction and variety in its application. A course of study, during nearly forty years, had convinced him that it enabled the professor to give different characters to buildings intended for different purposes; that all buildings for civil uses might be distinguished from ecclesiastical buildings, by appropriate characteristics, but he has since been taught, by authority proceeding from superhuman intervention, that the Tudor style is homogeneous; that is, that all buildings of the kinds above alluded to ought to assume one and the same uniform character, and to abound in buttresses, church windows, and other distinctive marks of ecclesiastical buildings. To authority such as this, the architect has only to bow in obedience.

"The author of these designs has been further miserably mistaken as to the means of preserving the associations which hallow the ancient site; thinking, as he did, that visible objects were necessary to excite such pleasurable sensations. In this view of the subject, he considered that the east end of St. Stephen's Chapel (a conspicuous object to all who approach London over Westminster Bridge) should still preserve its ascendancy; and the west end of the Chapel and south window of Westminster Hall regain the conspicuous part they formerly held in the view from Old Palace Yard. The Commissioners have determined otherwise, and, by their decree, have resolved that the charm of association may be better effected by demolition on one part, and, on the other, by immuring the Chapel in the walls of the intended buildings.

"Neither did the author contemplate the absolute necessity that exists for the introduction of a tower, to atone for the want of that which should have been reared above the meeting of the nave and transept of the Abbey; for although its introduction, as a portion (and a large portion) of Parliamentary buildings, appeared to be in no degree required as an object of utility, or as adding to the consistency of the character of the designs, it might possibly be necessary in some point of view unknown to all but the Commissioners. Facility of approach to the higher parts might have appeared to be another objection to the introduction of such an inaccessible building. The greater probability, however, is (for, on this occasion, we have only surmises to guide us), that the Commissioners meant that the exclusion of the south window in the Hall, and the west end of the Chapel, should be attributed by after-ages to a phenomenon of rare occurrence, and that the tower should be thought to have removed itself from its original position over the Abbey, in order to perpetuate that act of exclusion so propitious to the cause of old associations. It will be recollected that the Chapel of our Lady of Loretto, after traversing the Mediterranean Sea, quietly placed itself in its present locality; although the Tower of Pisa, in attempting the same feat, could only detach one foot, which left it standing, obliquely as it does, as a warning against future attempts of this kind. The incredulous of the present day may protest against the supposition that miracles still exist. Oh! blind to passing events! have they not heard of heaven-born amateurs of architecture, inspired with a knowledge that architects expect in vain to obtain by long practice and experience,—such as enables them to decide in all cases, however difficult, without the necessity of recourse to extraneous aid? The author was himself formerly a sceptic, but he became a convert by the accidental perusal of a scene in one of the novels of Smollett, where the denouncer of Count Fathom, as the Pretender, proves his case by irrefragable argument; "for," says the accuser, "if he be not the Pretender, who the d—I can he be?" In applying this irresistible piece of logic to the Commissioners, the author triumphantly puts the same question—if they did not obtain their knowledge from heaven, where the d—I could they get it?

It was proverbially said, "do not put your hand into a wasp's nest." And this he must say, that if Mr. Barry should succeed, as he, (Sir J. Hobhouse) trusted he would, in securing the admiration of his country and of future ages—if he should succeed in producing the most magnificent building of modern times—he would have paid a penalty, and the Commissioners would have paid a penalty, too great to be counterbalanced by the personal gratification; for never since the principle of competition was first established had such unfair, such unjust, such violent, such incessant attacks been made as had been made by the unsuccessful competitors in the present case against Mr. Barry, and against the Commission. The hon. Member for Middlesex seemed to be of opinion that the Commissioners had selected the plan, not which was the most pregnant of conveniences, but which was the most replete with architectural beauty. Now, let the House look at the very first question put to the Commissioners by the Select Committee, viz. "Has the result of the opinion of the Commissioners as to the preference of one particular plan, proceeded from their conviction of the superior merit of the internal arrangements, and of the beauty of the external architecture?" What was the answer? "Unquestionably" Again—"Combining the two?"—"Combining the two." Similar questions were put, and similar answers given, over and over again. The hon. Member for Middlesex made another charge against the Committee still more extraordinary. He alleged that the present was not the plan originally selected; and that if the other architects had had the same opportunity of emendation as Mr. Barry, they might have produced plans still better than his. What was the fact? That the Committee had repeatedly asked the Commissioners, if Mr. Barry's plan was such as to admit of emendation in the interior arrangements. One of the questions put to Mr. Tracy by the Committee was, "You think that Mr. Barry's plan is capable of being made, with the improvements you have suggested, and the additional improvements that it may still receive, as good, as to interior arrangements, exclusively, as any plan which has been submitted to you?" The answer was, "Certainly; I have no hesitation in saying so." "Would it be possible to select the most convenient of the plans and apply the interior to Mr. Barry's elevation?"—"Impossible. Independent of which Mr. Barry can make all the alterations requisite, and render his plan more perfect, I should say, than any other." It would have been absurd, indeed, if the Commissioners had selected a plan incapable of improvement, or, having selected a plan that was capable of improvement, had determined that it should not be improved. For his part he trusted that while the building was going on it would still receive all the improvements of which it might be thought susceptible. He trusted that the architect would never be prohibited from adding or taking away any part which might be considered justly liable to objection. In the first paragraph of their Report, the Committee, to prevent any deception on the point of alteration, had broadly stated it, viz. "Your Committee consider themselves to be warranted in recommending for the adoption of the House the plan marked No. 64, which is the plan to which the first premium was awarded by the Commissioners appointed to consider the plans for building the new Houses of Parliament; subsequently to that award some alterations in the plan have been made, at the suggestions of the Commissioners and of the architect himself, which, in the opinion of your Committee, are calculated materially to improve the plan." It was clear from that passage that it was not intended to take the public by surprise, or to deal unfairly by the other architects. Did the hon. Member for Middlesex seriously suppose that if the greatest architect who ever lived had been revived, and had produced a plan obtaining the preference, it would not hare been as much objected to by his rivals as Mr. Barry's plan had been? Had the plan of the great man who wrote the passage which he (Sir John Hob-house) had quoted from the catalogue been adopted, would it have escaped censure? Had the plan of Mr. Wilkins been adopted, would not allusions have been made to the building which that gentleman was erecting at Charingcross, on which, however, he (Sir John Hobhouse) gave no opinion, and would not his plan have been severely criticised? Let who would be the judges, let what plan so ever be selected, did the hon. Member for Middlesex suppose that it was possible to secure general contentment? If they were to wait until they obtained a plan to which no exceptions were taken by professional rivals, they would wait for a time that would never arrive. He (Sir J. Hobhouse) was certainly not qualified to speak upon the subject, but undoubtedly he had the good fortune to concur with the Commissioners; and, moving as he did in a good deal of society, he had never but once heard a second opinion upon it. He must, therefore, give the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex his most decided opposition; and he trusted that the House would not, by acceding to that motion, nullify the proceedings of the Commission, the Committees, and the two Houses of Parliament, and treat Mr. Barry in a manner the most unjustifiable.

thought, notwithstanding the many statements into which the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hobhouse) had entered, that no satisfactory answer had as yet been given to the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex. Mr. Barry had not fulfilled many of the conditions imposed by the Commissioners upon the competitors furnishing designs for the new Houses of Parliament. The Lords' Commissioners, for instance, gave instructions that a certain number of rooms, of a certain size, should be incorporated in that part of the edifice which was to be devoted to their use, for the convenience of the Masters in Chancery, counsel attending the House, agents, solicitors, witnesses, &c.; but in Mr. Barry's plan not one of these rooms was provided. When injustice, therefore, was spoken of, it must be taken as applying to those competitors who had complied with all the instructions given by the Commissioners; but whose plans, from not having been taken properly into consideration, had been superseded by one which, possessing some external beauties, had captivated the eyes of those whose duty it was to judge of the merits of all; but which in fact, hardly complied at all with the instructions which had been given. After dwelling at some length upon this point, the hon. Gentleman proceeded to read extracts from the evidence given by Sir Robert Smirke, to show that the data on which Mr. Barry had calculated the cost of the building, were of a most fallacious description. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman stated, that he had been requested to state, that the Committee of Architects knew nothing whatever of the pamphlet from which the right hon. Baronet had quoted extracts.

had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesex, and he confessed it had not left upon his mind the same impression that it appeared to have done upon that of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Notwithstanding the liberal and extended view which the hon. Member for Middlesex had taken of the subject, he certainly had failed to convince him (Sir Robert Peel) that the House ought now to set aside all that had been done with respect to these plans, and to commence the whole matter anew. In the course of his speech, indeed, the hon. Member himself stated that which would alone be a conclusive reason against his proposition, for the hon. Member declared that he still contemplated a change of the site of the Houses of Parliament. If that were so, surely it would be absurd to appoint a new commission, and to have a preparation of new plans, on the assumption that the site of the building was not to be changed. Then there was another point; supposing the hon. Member's motion to be acceded to, and a fresh inquiry to be instituted, he did not know where the House would now find Commissioners to undertake the task of deciding upon the merits of the plans submitted to their consideration. There certainly was one point upon which he (Sir Robert Peel) had firmly made up his mind—never again to act as a Commissioner upon any subject of this kind, where a preference was to be given to the skill of one man as compared with that of others who had entered into competition upon the same work. Because, if Gentlemen who acted as Commissioners gratuitously, and at the expense of a great deal of personal convenience, were afterwards to be assailed in a manner that the Commissioners in this instance had been, and, moreover, were to see the whole of their labours quashed in a way so unceremonious as that proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex, he knew not where for the future any gentleman would be found hardy enough to undertake the office. But putting aside the Commissionership, the next thing that he should deprecate if it were a thing personal to himself, would be to be the successful competitor. Nay, he would rather be a Commissioner than the successful competitor, to be hunted and pursued with every species of invective in the way that Mr. Barry had been. If the consequence of successful competition were to be exposed to such a series of attacks as those which had been directed against that gentleman, he (Sir Robert Peel) would infinitely rather remain in privacy and oblivion. He thought at first that the Crown should be left at liberty to choose its own architect in the same way as every private gentleman was at liberty to select whom he pleased when he wanted plans for the erection of a house of his own. He thought that if the most eminent architect of the day were directed to undertake the task, there would be a much greater likelihood of obtaining a plan which would secure accommodation, and do credit to the architectural taste of the country, than if an open competition of all artists were in- vited. This was his original opinion, and he confessed that the circumstances which had since transpired had not much tended to induce him to alter it. Acting upon the opinion which he originally entertained, the Crown did in the first place invite one of the most eminent architects to prepare plans for the new houses, and that distinguished gentleman in consequence devoted several months to the task; and at last he produced a plan which was not adopted, because from what afterwards took place, it was never examined. The reason why he objected to open competition in the first instance, was, because he thought it would discourage the most eminent architects from entering the field, and giving the country the advantage of their designs. After alluding to the point of expense, and defending the estimates made by Mr. Barry, the right hon. Baronet proceeded to observe, that the alterations subsequently made in the plan selected, by no means indicated any original inferiority as some hon. Gentlemen would wish the House to infer. The question to be considered was, comparing Mr. Barry's original plan with the other plans submitted to the consideration of the Commissioners, whether Mr. Barry was fairly entitled to preference? If the Commissioners thought that, combining exterior, beauty with internal accommodation, it was upon the whole the best, and that it afforded the vastest elements for obtaining a building convenient for the Parliament, and creditable to the national taste, then he thought they were justified in giving preference to that plan. Having given it that preference were they to exclude it from all improvement? Could anything be more absurd than to say, that a plan adopted as the best of all that were offered to the consideration of the Commissioners was to be debarred from alteration? Whoever built a house and adhered so rigidly to the original plan? It would be matter for subsequent consideration whether, if they adopted the interior arrangements of the plan of another architect, it would not be consonant to the liberality of Parliament to assign him a reward. The question now before the House was not whether they should finally resolve to adopt Mr. Barry's plan, but simply whether they should declare the whole proceedings that had yet been taken null, Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen might think that they were acting under an implied engagement with Mr. Barry. To put an end to any doubt on this point, he would read a communication addressed to that gentleman by the Committee, explicitly stating their views of the matter. The letter intimated, that the Committee were not satisfied on the head of expense, and before any part of the building could be commenced, or any vole proposed to Parliament, the most minute and correct estimate possible must be furnished, on the understanding, at the same time, that this estimate would not, in the slightest degree, bind the Committee to the ultimate adoption of the plan. The Committee wished to know what Mr. Barry would consider an adequate remuneration for preparing the necessary specifications, but stated, at the same time, that this must be kept perfectly distinct from the consideration whether the plans were to be ultimately adopted or not, and what should be the rate of remuneration to be allowed. No engagement could have been entered into with Mr. Barry; there was only a prima facie presumption that his plan was entitled to the preference. If the estimate drawn up on more accurate consideration, should be found greatly to exceed the original amount, it would be perfectly open for them to consider whether they would adopt it. The question was, whether they would extinguish all former proceedings in this matter, and invite a new competition, or allow Mr. Barry to proceed with his detailed estimate. If they should consent to annul all former proceedings, his belief was, that they would strike a fatal blow at the principle of competition. They would postpone the execution of a great national work for an indefinite period, and they would teach the most eminent of living architects to me the day when in compliance with their invitation, they sent in plans which had the misfortune to be entitled to the preference.

, though generally favourable to the principle of competition, was decidedly opposed to the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex. It would, in his opinion, be most unjust, for the sake of gratifying the spleen of some few disappointed people, to reverse the whole of the proceedings which had taken place.

, in reply, contended, that the arguments advanced by him in support of his motion had been left wholly unanswered, and were, in fact, in his opinion, totally unanswerable. However, as the general opinion of the House appeared to be against him, he should not press his motion to a division.

said, that he had been for a long time endeavouring to procure a most important return which he thought ought to have been produced before this Bill was read a second time. The return which he required would show how many days the different Commissioners had sat, and how many hours per diem. He wished to know if that return was likely to be laid on the table of the House, and when.

could assure the hon. Member, that no delay had been suffered to take place in preparing the return; and the only reason why it had not already been laid on the table was, that the hon. Member had encumbered it with so many details as to make it very difficult to be furnished.

rose to speak to the question before the House, namely, the second reading of a Bill for placing the Post-office under efficient control. He would begin by adverting to the first Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, which recommended an important mercantile regulation, namely, the transmission of prices current at a small rate of postage. This, he hoped, would be effected; the question, however, chiefly before the House was, as to the adoption of a Board of Commissioners in preference to the administration of the Post-office under a Postmaster-general. It had been contended elsewhere, that this plan had been agreed to be adopted without due consideration. He considered it his duty to remind the House that Commissioners had sat on this question at different periods and all of them arrived at the same conclusion. There were Commissions in 1787, 1797, 1809, 1829, and 1835, all of which recommended that the office of Postmaster-general should be placed under commission. As the conduct of the Sub-commissioners, Captain Clements and Mr. Gardiner, had been animadverted upon elsewhere, he was bound to say, that he believed they had fulfilled their duty with great zeal and integrity. There were many points to which he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first was, the reduction of postage on letters. Lord Spencer and Lord Ashburton had both expressed their opinion in favour of such, a reduction. And the latter noble Lord had declared, that a better application of 500,000l. of revenue could not be made than a reduction of postage to that amount. It would greatly benefit the country without the revenue ultimately sustaining any loss. The correspondence in the country would be so much promoted that an equal amount of revenue would be created. In the city of London the utmost possible use had been derived from the establishment of the two-penny and three-penny postage system. It was not, however, generally known that this description of post, in point of fact, was available for the carriage of parcels as well as letters. It would be of great benefit if this system were established throughout the whole country, the parcels being limited to a weight of four ounces. He would strongly press this point upon the attention of the Government. There was another description of postage which required consideration, that of ship-letters. At present all letters going by private ships were charged double postage for being carried across the sea. He begged the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this point. Again, it was often the practice to charge a penny postage in addition to the general postage charged on a letter; but this had been declared by the Courts to be contrary to law. He wished to draw attention to this fact; that in London letters by the General Post-office arrived at one hour of the day only, and at one hour of the day only were general letters sent away from that establishment. The general letters arrived and were distributed about eight or nine o'clock in the morning; and let the letters be put into the General Post-office here, at whatever hour in the day they might, it was not until eight o'clock in the evening that they were sent away, to the very great inconvenience of the country. It was a proceeding altogether unjustifiable, and one which was not known to be pursued in any other part of the kingdom. It ought not and could not be permitted to continue. There were six general deliveries every day from the post-office at Liverpool besides the penny-post letters. In that large community, perhaps second only to London, there was no difficulty whatever in delivering the general letters with those of the penny-post. The same thing was done at Manchester. But in London the post-office had been allowed to be conducted for half a century without any sort of alteration or improvement whatever. He could find out no reason why the mails should not be sent out of London at eight or nine o'clock in the morning, but that it suited the convenience of those connected with the establishment that they should remain till eight o'clock in the evening—that was for twelve or fifteen hours after being-put into the post. Perhaps it was not known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the clerks in the General Post-office were employed only for a few hours in the day. The great proportion of them began duty about a quarter to six in the morning, and continued until nine, and from nine till five in the evening they were their own masters, most of them, indeed, being employed as merchants' clerks, attorneys' clerks, and such like. In short, instead of being public servants, they were servants to any who chose to employ them. This accounted at once for the detention of the mails. This was the best information he had been able to obtain upon the subject, though, as he had on former occasions stated, it was almost impossible, by any means he had been able to devise, to get an accurate and complete return of what went on in the establishment at St. Martin's-le-grand. Another subject of complaint was, the circuitous routes which letters often went. This was most unjustifiable. Some letters were sent to places eighty or ninety miles off, and were charged accordingly, although their places of destination were not distant more than six or seven miles. Nay, he knew of instances where letters were sent eighty miles, although the distance of their destination was only four miles from the post-office. Yet the postage for the whole distance was charged. The parties, therefore, not only suffered by the delay, but were additionally taxed in the bargain. This it seemed depended solely upon the fiat of the Postmaster-general, or of his secretary. In a petition from Great Yarmouth it was stated, that they not only had letters sent round in all directions, but that the Postmaster-General had positively refused to redress the grievance. He had told them, "I will tax you 9d. instead of 4d.," thus making himself equal to King, Lords, and Commons. And why? For no other reason than that he was Postmaster-General, and willed it to be so. It was with him, "sic volo, sic jubeo"—" I am Postmaster-General, and I have a right to do it." He would recommend the Great Yarmouth petition most strongly to the attention of his Majesty's Government. He begged to say, that, in the observations he felt it his duty to make, he had no intention whatever to reflect upon any person. It was the system which he complained of, and wished to see reformed. He would avail himself of this opportunity of saying, that of Lord Litchfield, the present Postmaster-General, he had seen nothing but what was exceedingly creditable to the noble Lord. He denied, however, that that noble Lord had an accurate knowledge of his office. The noble Lord knew, no doubt, as much as any of his predecessors, but in the short space of time he had held his appointment it was impossible he could have acquired the necessary information. He (Mr. Wallace) was most ready, however, to admit that the noble Lord was an active, zealous, and intelligent public officer, anxious to perform his duties, and if he did not do so to the extent which he (Mr. Wallace) conceived he ought to do, the fault did not rest with him. He would now call the attention of the House to another part of the system. When he, on a former occasion, expressed a wish that letters should be delivered on a Sunday, he was accused of a wish to desecrate the Sabbath. Now what was the fact? Clerks were employed at the Post-office every Sunday to sort out the letters; but the mail-coaches were allowed to go out of town empty. What he contended for was, that the letters so sorted and ready should be put into the mails, and not be allowed to remain in the Post-office for forty-eight hours. The mail-coaches were not only prevented taking letters, but also newspapers; the consequence was, that expresses were employed to carry the papers to Barnet and other places about ten or fifteen miles out of town, and then put into the mail-coaches. Letters, as it was well known, were also often forwarded in this way. Who would advocate such a system as this? But would the House believe, that the Post-office positively employed another description of persons to do the duty at Barnet, Hounslow, and other towns, on the Sunday, which this system necessarily created. So that instead of lessening the labour on a Sunday they increased it; besides putting the editors of papers to a great expense for running expresses which they must and would do. Foreign mails, it should also be borne in mind, were allowed to go on a Sunday. The editors of papers had frequently applied to be allowed to put papers into the mails, instead of being forced to hire expresses to carry them to the adjacent towns, but permission had always been refused to them. There was another circumstance connected with this subject, to which he requested the particular attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it not only referred to a matter of great public convenience, but one which in some degree was connected with his own office. He alluded to the system of registering letters, so that they should be secured going to their place of destination when they contained money. That system was established in Ireland by Sir Edward Lees, and worked well for three years, not costing the Post-office more than 80l. a year. It was put an end to by the Duke of Richmond when he consolidated the Irish with the English establishment. The effect was, that 20,000l. a year in banknotes used to pass safely to their destination, which did not now pass safely through the Post-office. Temptations were afforded to persons connected with the Post-office to break open the seals, extract the contents, and destroy the letters. Immense money was thus lost, and the plunder never discovered. It was, in fact, an encouragement to Post-office thieving. The system of negotiation ought to be established throughout the three kingdoms. There was no reason why it should not, except that it would occasion a little additional trouble. With regard to the number of hours the Post-office in London was kept open, the time was curtailed most extraordinarily. No letter could be put into the General Post-office after seven o'clock in the evening, nor before eight in the morning. Even the very receiving-boxes were shut. A person might go to the General Post-office, and find many ladies and gentlemen, tradesmen, and working-men, coming with their letters, after the prescribed hour of seven, when, too late for that night's mail, they had not the consolation of even being allowed to drop their letters into the box, but must repeat their visit in the morning. What reason could there be for this? No reason, but a vulgar prejudice at the Post-office, which made them think that a General-post letter was a better thing than a Two-penny-post letter; whereas, common sense saw no difference between them. They were both letters, and nothing more. But the Two-penny-post box was open at all hours of the day and night (Sundays included) as all the post boxes ought to be. If those letters were safe, so would General post letters be safe too. If the mails were sent at all hours of the day, it would be a great convenience to the public. This could, he was sure, be done, while at the same time the rate of postage ought to be reduced. It would be proper not to charge more than 3d. upon any letter sent a distance of fifty miles; for 100 miles 4d.; 200 miles 6d.; and the highest rate of postage ought not to be more than 8d. or 9d. at most. He could not understand why letters ought not to be sent by the stage as well as the mail coaches, for, according to a return he had, it appeared that no stage coach travelled as slow as the mails. He had to call the attention of the House to the packet service. According to the recommendation of the Commissioners, two Bills were to be brought in; that expectation, he believed, would not be found to be correct, for this reason, that it was known that a second Bill was not necessary, the Treasury having sufficient power to act upon the suggestions of the Commissioners. The report of the Commissioners proved, that there had been a loss, not as he had stated upon a former occasion, of 800,000l., but not less than from 1,200,000l. to 1,300,000l. For such a loss as this surely some one ought to be responsible. There had been, instead of a profit, a large annual loss both at Holyhead and Liverpool. At Holyhead station there had been a degree of fraud, carelessness, and plunder, which was disgraceful to any country. In a petition which he had seen that day, but which was not yet presented, it was alleged that an agent in Liverpool had, in the name of the Post-office, run in debt 6,000l. more than he had assets to pay. He did not think that anything could be more objectionable than the system of intimidation that prevailed at the Post-office. It had prevailed to such an extent that the captains of packets and those who supplied the stores were afraid to make any complaint. Now, with regard to responsibility, he had to remark that the Under Secretary for the Post-office denied that he was responsible, while the very acts of that Secretary went to show his responsibility. A system of mulcting the inferior and hard-working officers of the Post-office was one not creditable to the establishment, nor useful to the public. Taking that department altogether he was obliged to say of it, that it was a general system of jobbing from first to last. There were, for instance, the packets. From 800,000l. to 1,000,000l. had been expended upon twenty-four packets employed by the Post-office, and if they were to be sold to-morrow he was sure they would not bring more than 150,000l. The hon. Member proceeded to say, he was glad to find, that they were now to have letters sent to France at a given price, provided they did not exceed a certain weight. That was a just principle, and one which was sure to be approved. He had now done what he proposed; he had brought these several points under the consideration of the House. In conclusion, he would move the adoption of the following resolutions, with the exception of the three last, which he did not intend to press on the House:—

1. "That the present numerous complicated laws respecting communications by post be repealed, and replaced by clear comprehensive statutes.

2. "That a reduction be made on the present rates charged on letters sent by the General Post, whether domestic, colonial, foreign, or private ship letters.

3. "That the rates of postage by the General Post be chargeable only according to the computed distance by the nearest carriage- road between one post-town and another.

4. "That letters from the colonies and dependencies of Great Britain and Ireland may be received free by Members of Parliament, the same as if coming from subjects of the King in these countries.

5. "That postage be chargeable to Members of Parliament, by weight, on whatever may exceed the allowance of one ounce each on the aggregate of fifteen letters, presently allowed to be franked, namely, fifteen letters free, if not exceeding fifteen ounces on the whole.

6. "That the terms penny and two-penny posts shall cease to be used.

7. "That the term parcel post be substituted for those of penny and two-penny.

8. "That parcel posts shall be considered elsewhere, as they are in London, as short distance local posts; and that postage shall not be superadded, in future, on general post letters or newspapers, although forwarded through the parcel or penny post.

9. "That parcel posts, similar in all respects to the present two-penny and threepenny London posts, which cover letters and parcels not exceeding four ounces in weight, and which have so long been working beneficially for fifteen miles in and around London, be generally established all over the kingdom.

10. "That parcel post mail bags may be sent by stage coaches wherever this can be done better and cheaper than by horses, mail carts, or mail coaches.

11. "That mail bags may be sent from the General-Post-office in London, as they are in every other town whatever, at any suitable hour of the day.

12. "That all mail bags arriving early in the morning in London, be sent forwards towards their destination by ten o'clock at latest the same day.

13. "That stage coaches, having a guard, may be employed to carry mail bags containing general-post letters, whenever the public Service will benefit thereby.

14. "That the powers, duties, salaries, and emoluments of post-office surveyors and deputy post-masters, be denned and regulated, and published at every post-office.

15. "That post-offices in towns be established in convenient central situations.

16. "That maps of the roads of post communication be published by authority, and for sale; and time-bills connected with each locality be exhibited in every post-office, in some conspicuous place.

17. "That a sum amounting to 800,000l., as some calculate, or to nearly double that amount, according to the computation of others, has been lost to the nation, in consequence of recklessly creating and obstinately persisting in the maintenance of a fleet of post-office steam-packets.

18. "That those to whom these losses are attributable are unworthy of public confidence.

19. "That the Crown lawyers do prosecute defaulters or delinquents connected with any frauds or other unwarrantable losses sustained by the public in the steam-packet branch of the post-office service; and also, any other defaulters or delinquents in any other branch of the post-office department, where losses have been unduly sustained, since the consolidation of the Irish and Scotch post offices with that of England."

suggested to the hon. Member to withdraw his Resolutions, on the ground that they would prove a serious obstruction to the measures in contemplation for the removal of many of the evils of which he complained.

said, he should be sorry to persist in any course that would have the effect of obstructing measures so valuable as those to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. Therefore, he at, once consented to withdraw his Resolutions.

thanked the hon. Gentleman for the course he had taken, and informed him that his Resolutions would have been a great impediment in the way of the proposed Bills. The House would not expect him, at that late hour of the night, to follow the hon. Gentleman through the whole of the details of his speech; at the same time he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not attribute his not referring to those details to any want of respect for himself, and still less to any indifference towards the important questions brought under the consideration of the House. He agreed entirely with the hon. Gentleman as to the firs proposition laid down by him. He admitted that the present constitution of the Post-office of the country was indefensible. It appeared to him that a great office of administration like this, or a great revenue department, was not properly constituted in being placed in the hands of one officer, who retired from the office whenever a political change in the Government took place. Such an arrangement must have a tendency more or less to throw the administration of the establishment into the hands of subordinate persons. Within a short period not less than five noblemen, had held the office of Postmaster-general. The result of a system of that description must be an administration of a nature that ought not to exist in a great revenue department. He was gratified in hearing the hon. Gentleman render justice to the great merits of the noble Lord who at present held the office of Postmaster-general (Lord Litchfield.) But he would go back to the administration of the Duke of Richmond, and rest his disapproval of the present administration of the Post-office on the result of the exertions of that noble Duke. He was convinced that in the perfect knowledge he displayed of the principles on which the Post-office department ought to be administered, in the indefatigable industry he exhibited, in the pains he took to do all himself that he could do, in the general ability that he showed, he had never been equalled; yet it was impossible to say, that even the administration of the Duke of Richmond was a species of administration that they would wish to continue of a great revenue department. It was evident, however, that if any one could have succeeded in it the Duke of Richmond could. These were the general views he entertained of the subject, and he thought they were sufficiently forcible to induce the House to read the Bill which he had submitted to them a second time. All concurred in this, that the period had arrived when they must not only contemplate an alteration, but endeavour to effect a real improvement. Such was the object of the Bill he now proposed. There were matters of detail, of course, to be embraced in the after discussions of the Bill, but they were matters rather for a Committee than for the House, while the Bill was in its present stage. He asked them now to read the Bill a second time—to approve the general principle —that a mere political officer, acting at the head of this department, was as improper, as such an officer would be at the head of the Customs, the Excise, or the Stamp Department. As to the patronage, he would not make the officers entirely independent of the treasury. The right hon. Gentleman defended to a certain extent the packet system, as at present established. He would say, however, that the department of St. Martin's-le-Grand ought not to be intrusted with the management of the steam packets: the Admiralty was the proper power for governing them. He did not mean to recommend that the Admiralty should determine at what hour the packets should sail; that was an arrangement which should remain with the Post-office; but all relating to the administration of the general affairs of the packets would be more safely left to the Admiralty, than to the Post-office. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the French convention. He thought it a subject for much satisfaction, that that convention had been agreed to, for it put an end to a very rude and inconvenient system. He believed, that the two countries, in making this arrangement, which had been done with perfect cordiality on both sides, and in a very liberal feeling on the part of the French Government, which was certainly reciprocated by ours, had commenced a good system of communication, which would not be bounded merely by the limits of France, but would extend itself over the whole continent of Europe. Belgium, Holland, and no doubt the other powers would in time show themselves willing to adopt the same principle. But an observation had been made on the irregularity with which this treaty had been carried into effect. He did not mean to make any complaint in the slightest degree with reference to the manner in which the convention had been acted on by the French Government; but for that irregularity, such as it was, this country was in no way accountable. It was referable entirely to the French authorities, who had their own agent here to make arrangements to carry the treaty into effect. An ordonnance, it appeared, was issued before the arrangements were complete, for the convention to be carried into effect. The French authorities were aware that it was necessary to come to Parliament on the subject—that Parliament should sanction one of the Bills they knew was necessary; but they issued the ordonnance it appeared while their own negotiator, their own agent, was on his return to Paris, and he did not know of the issue of the ordonnance till he arrived at Paris. In the course of this day, however, the direction had been given, to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted, and he trusted that no further inconvenience would be experienced. He hoped the House would pass this Bill, and he had no doubt that those points which had been thrown out, would not escape the attention of the House.

inquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what he thought of the propriety of transmitting prices current, free of postage?

said, he felt the importance of the suggestion, but he feared that great inconvenience would arise from sanctioning the free postage of every publication that assumed to be a price current.

suggested the propriety of having two mails every day, between London and Liverpool, and London and Manchester. He thought that the foreign letters, which were received at an early hour of the day in London, ought not to be detained the whole day in the Post-office in London, but that they ought to be forwarded immediately to their different places of destination, in order that the interests of commerce might not suffer by their detention. He also suggested the propriety of allowing foreign prices current, to be sent free by the post.

said, it was under consideration to abate the inconvenience usually felt from the detention of foreign letters in London, during the whole day; it was not, however, without difficulty that such an arrangement could be made. When the Bill came into Committee, he would explain why it was, that the Commissioners were strongly of opinion, that a person at the head of the Post-office department, should have a seat in the House. He anticipated considerable public advantage from the transfer of steam packets from the Post-office to the Admiralty. He was of opinion, that much benefit would result to the public, when the steam-packets were provided for out of the navy estimates, from the strict scrutiny to which those annual votes were subjected in this House.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke had stated, that on the present occasion he should not enter upon the reasons why he supported this Bill, but should defer them until it went into Committee, he should also be content to let the subject pass at present, after merely entering his protest against what he must consider the very unconstitutional principle involved in the Bill.

expressed his determination to oppose this Bill in every future stage, as he looked upon it as highly unconstitutional, and as he had no confidence whatever in the present advisers of the Crown. He was sorry that he had not a fuller attendance on his side of the house, for if he had, he would have opposed the second reading of it to-night.

approved of the Bill. He believed there were in existence a vast variety of abuses in the management of the Post-office Department, which, when the proposed commission was appointed, would be speedily got rid of.