wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any instructions had been sent out by Government, or the Board of Control, relative to the division of the plunder taken in Scinde; and if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman would object to the production of a copy of any minute of Council on the subject?

said, that the subject was at present under the consideration of the Treasury and the Board of Control.

wished to know whether any minute on the subject would be ready to be sent out by the India mail, which would leave on Monday?

hardly thought that it would be ready by that time.

said, he understood that the hon. Member the Under Secretary of the Colonies was prepared to give an answer to the question of which he had given notice respecting the state of education in Malta. He was anxious to be informed as to the measures taken by the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners with respect to the promotion of education in that Colony. The population of the Colony amounted to 118,000 persons, a number so very considerable, that it rendered the duty of promoting education amongst them more imperative on the Government. The revenue of the Colony amounted to 120,000l., or a little more than 1l. per head per annum; and, according to the general principles on which we acted with respect to those Colonies which had large populations, a sum proportionate to the population and the revenue ought to be expended in promoting education amongst the people. On looking at the Estimates, however, he found that only 4,000l. had been expended in promoting education amongst the native inhabitants of Malta. This sum, he thought, was not sufficient for that purpose. Great hopes had been excited in the Colony by the Report of the Commissioners, and it was understood that, as one result of that Report, the Government would adopt measures for the education of young men, so as to qualify them to undertake the duties of schoolmasters on their return to Malta. With that view two young men were sent from Malta to London for the purpose of education in one of the model schools here. Unfortunately one of these young men died here. The other remained until his education was completed; but on his return to Malta it was found that after the expenses incurred on his account, there was no employment for him as a teacher, and he was at length placed as a clerk in one of the Government departments. He should be glad to hear some explanation on this subject.

said, that it was not his intention on that occasion to enter into the general question as to the state of education in Malta; but he could state from his own knowledge that there was a strong disposition on the part of the Government here and at Malta to consult the wishes of the inhabitants in every measure adopted for their improvement, and many things had been already done in the Colony with that view. But it was heardly necessary for him to say that in a population like that of Malta, many local prejudices existed calculated to impede any general measures for their improvement, particularly with respect to education. An attempt had been made to found an University there; but he was sorry to say that it had not had that success on which its promoters had calculated. This had arisen partly from the fact that it had been planned on too great a scale, and partly from the circumstance that the gentleman who had been selected as the president of the College, and those who were intended to act with him, did not work well together. That gentleman was removed, and his place was supplied by a Roman Catholic from the College of Stonyhurst, whose high character and qualifications gave good ground for hoping that under his care education would be greatly promoted in the Colony. It was not correct, then, to say that the interests of the inhabitants as to education had been neglected — far from it. Fourteen primary schools had been already established, and the College had been re-organized on a different basis from its original foundation. The hon. and learned Member was not correct in saying that only a sum of 4,000l. had been voted for the promotion of education. The fact was, that the sum was much nearer to 5,000l.; and more would be provided (as we understood) if required; and it was expected that another report on the subject would soon be made by the Government of Malta.

said, before going into Committee of Supply, he wished to bring forward a Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the treatment he and others had received under the Income Tax Act. He did intend to state the case he was going into on the Report of the Vote of 15,000l. granted by the House to defray the expenses of sheriffs and of officers of the Court of Exchequer; but the Report was brought up at near two o'clock in the morning, and that he thought a sufficient apology for not availing himself of the opportunity. He wished to know something about that Court of Exchequer—whether persons against whom its process issued were allowed to be heard in their defence or not, for until lately he did not know that an Englishman could be drawn into a court, and his goods seized by its order, without having an opportunity of stating to the court in some way his reason why the seizure should not take place. He thought he was justified in putting this question to the First Lord of the Treasury; for it so happened that in the year 1844 three processes had been issued against himself and his brothers out of that Court of Exchequer for the recovery of Income Tax for profits on trade for the years 1839, 1840, and 1841, and for the years 1840, 1841, and 1842, when, so far from having realized a profit on the average of either the first three years or the second three years, they had incurred a heavy loss in both periods. They had submitted proofs of that to the Income Tax Commissioners at Rochdale, the truth of which was not denied; but they confirmed their assessments, and his goods were seized and sold by the sheriff—goods were taken and sold to an amount exceeding the demand, and no account had been rendered to him and his brothers. He and his brothers had, it would seem, therefore, been sued by the Income Tax officers in the Court of Exchequer, and a judgment had been obtained, and his goods taken, all without his having an opportunity of appearing before the Court to prove the injustice of the demand. He did not understand such law as that; and when the House was asked to vote a sum of money to sustain that Court or its officers, he thought it was a fitting opportunity to state to the House the complaint he had to make against the Court, its officers, and all those who were executing the extraordinary powers of the new and hateful law of taxation under which we were living. He (Mr. Fielden) knew that, in his own case, the conduct of those who were executing that act was most arbitrary and unjust; and, as he feared very cruel acts of injustice were perpetrated on others, perhaps less able to bear up against the grievance, and less able to make their wrongs known, he brought his case forward in order to call the attention of the House and the Ministers to the subject. He knew that injustice had been done in his own case, and he wished to have an opportunity of proving it somewhere before a Committee of that House. A notice of another process being issued against himself and brothers had been received by them, dated the 9th of July instant, and it ran thus;—

seconded the Motion, and hoped the Government would not object to the return. He was glad his hon. Friend had brought this case of injustice and oppression before the country; fortunately for him, he was in circumstances to enable him to do so; but he (Mr. Williams) ventured to say there were thousands who had precisely the same complaint to urge, but whose circumstances and credit did not enable hem to make public this system, not of oppression only, but of absolute fraud under the law. One of his own constitu- ents had made a statement to him of a similar kind. He and his partners carried on two branches of business, on one of which the profits were nil: on the other the profit was 1,000l.; on the whole business, the profit being neutralized by the loss, there could not be said to be any profit at all, and they returned nil; but notwithstanding they were surcharged in 1,000l. a year; nor were there any means of obtaining redress. Such a state of things ought not to be allowed to exist. It was not honest; the Act itself did not warrant it, but there was no remedy; the parties who levied the tax were far from the seat of power, and assumed that infallibility always claimed by public officers; and if an appeal was made to a higher power, the answer always was that whatever the subordinate officers did must be right; that they were infallible, and no inquiry ensued. The hon. Member for Oldham ought to have justice done him; that a Gentleman so respected should have his oath doubted for the purpose of taking money out of his pocket, was not to be endured.

said, that the hon. Member for Oldham was quite aware, having some time ago stated his intention of moving for these Papers, that with respect to a majority of them, there was no objection to producing them; but with respect to the correspondence with the Commissioners on the subject, those documents were not of an official character, and it was not in his power to consent to their production. He wished to offer a few observations on the statement which the hon. Member had made to the House; the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Coventry had both stated that there were thousands of similar cases of oppression under this Act, but that individuals were afraid to make complaints on the subject. He must be permitted to express serious doubts on this point; he did not find there was this great unwillingness to complain on the part of persons who felt aggrieved by any tax imposed by Parliament; and he could truly say with respect to such complaints from parties with regard to the Income Tax, the Government was entirely ignorant of them. A still stronger proof that these complaints were not so general, and that there was not this general feeling of hostility to the Income Tax, was found in this fact—the House was called on to renew the Act; and if there had been this universal sense of grievance on the subject, did the hon. Gentleman suppose that those who represented populous manufacturing districts would not have come forward and stated these complaints, or that there would have been that general feeling throughout the country in favour of the renewal of the tax which was displayed at the time? He thought the hon. Gentleman must feel in his own mind that no such universal sense of oppression could have existed, or it could not have produced so little effect on the country. So much with respect to the general question. He now came to the complaint of the hon. Member himself; and he assured the hon. Member nothing could give him more pain than that he should have been subjected to any inconvenience or injury; as far as it was in his power to be of any use to the hon. Gentleman by tendering him any advice as to the course he should adopt, he should have been happy to have given him any counsel by which he might have avoided the difficulty he was placed in. But the hon. Gentleman must be sensible that when the law imposed a tax on the country, and parties to obtain redress of a complaint did not adopt the course the law prescribed, they were themselves responsible for the inconvenience they experienced. The mode in which the Property Tax was directed to be levied was this—Commissioners were appointed, who made assessments according to their view of what parties ought to pay. On this being known, those parties were called on to pay, and if they thought themselves aggrieved, they had two modes of appeal — they might either appeal to the general commissioners of the district, whose decision upon hearing the appeal was final; or, if he preferred another course, he might appeal to the Special Commissioners appointed by the Government, whose decision on the appeal was equally final. Persons might go before the Commissioners of their own district, to whom the power of hearing appeals was given; or to the officers appointed by the Government. Having made that appeal, a party must, of course, abide by the decision, as in every other case of appeal, whether in judicial or other matters. The hon. Gentleman complained of the final decision of this court of appeal, under which a levy was made upon him, which he stated to be monstrous. Why, in any case, upon the decision of the proper tribunal being pronounced, the Court of Exchequer was bound to issue its process for the levy; no imputation could be made on the justice of that Court; it had but complied with the provision of the law, which directed the levy to be issued when the money was pronounced to be due to the Crown. He was quite ready to admit the hardship on the party of the circumstances attending a levy, of his goods being seized and sold by public auction. A statement of such a proceeding was very likely to excite popular feeling; but it should be remembered that the money had been declared due to the Crown, and if the Crown had not the power of enforcing payment of its claims by ordinary process of law, the House might as well save itself the trouble of imposing taxes at all. The taxation could never be levied if the Crown was not able to resort to the law. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that by the course which had been pursued it was intended to cast a reflection on him, because the doubt of his return on the part of the Commissioners necessarily implied that the statement of the hon. Member was deficient in truth. He did not think such a conclusion was just or fair. The question of what were the profits of trade was one always liable to doubt, and admitting of dispute. The Act laid down certain rules by which the amount of profits should be assessed; a person without any imputation on his truth or honour, might make a return under a false idea of what was correct, which might be disputed by the Commissioners. He was the last man in the world to cast an imputation on the veracity and honour of the hon. Gentleman, and he had no doubt the Commissioners felt the same. But as persons placed in a public situation, and bound by their duty to ascertain that the return made was made according to law, if they had erred, if the General Commissioners had erred, if the Special Commissioners had erred, it was a matter of extreme regret; but the Court of Appeal to which Parliament had trusted the authority, and to which the hon. Gentleman had chosen to apply, was not empowered to give any relief. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no means of communicating with those Commissioners; he had received no complaints from other parties; and as far as he was able to judge from extrinsic inquiries, in order to ascertain the mode of proceeding, he was ap- prehensive the hon. Member for Oldham had not complied with the necessary conditions. The Commissioners did not receive from him the answers and explanations required; they wanted further information, and the hon. Gentleman distinctly refused to give the information they wanted, but offered information of a totally different character. He was very much afraid that owing to that circumstance more than any other, if injustice had been done the hon. Gentleman, he must attribute it to himself. The hon. Gentleman had said, that on a former occasion he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated there was a mode by which redress might be obtained, and that he would apply to him to say what course he ought to adopt. To this he would reply, if the hon. Gentleman thought the general Commissioners prejudiced against him, he should have applied to the Special Commissioners, who were independent of the district, and could have no local bias whatever as to the merits of this particular case. He deeply regretted that the advice tendered to the hon. Gentleman two years ago was not adopted till this present year. As far as he had been able to obtain information, the main point of difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Commissioners arose upon the mode in which stock ought to be valued. The question was, whether cotton that had been purchased some years before at a higher price than it then bore in the market, and manufactured into articles, was to be taken at the loss caused by the difference between the price of that cotton when it was purchased and that which it bore in the market at the time the assessment was made. He was speaking more upon common report than any official information; but the case went before the proper tribunal; the hon. Gentleman declined to give the information wished for, and it came to a decision adverse to him. The question was this—supposing cotton to be purchased in 1838 at 7d. per lb. and made into goods in 1842, whether the difference between the prices at those two periods was to be taken as loss? From the jealousy on the part of the House of an interference on the part of the Government in private affairs, it made the Commissioners the Court of Appeal. The case in question was brought before that court. The persons who had a duty imposed on them for the public benefit called for further information, which was necessary to enable them to make up their minds on the subject; the hon. Gentleman refused to give it, and he did not know how those gentlemen were to act otherwise than by deciding against the party refusing to give that information. If anything had occurred painful to the hon. Gentleman's feelings, or anything which he thought not consistent with perfect equity, he, for one, could not see that any blame attached to the parties. The difficulty would not have arisen if he had shown a little less of that British virtue which led him to resist with more than ordinary firmness what he considered an improper intrusion on his private affairs. He understood the hon. Gentleman had at last appealed to the Special Commissioners, who were quite free from prejudice; and even should their decision be unfavourable to him, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to resist it.

, in explanation, said, if the right hon. Gentleman had spoken from information as to what had taken place, he must tell him it was incorrect. He had answered any question put to him, he had given all the information he could, he had offered his books for examination; but the first intimation he had of the decision was the levy made on his goods. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to meet the Commissioners face to face, or give him a Committee, if he did not make out a case for inquiry satisfactory to every reasonable man, he would give up the question.

hoped the discouragement the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to cast on the "British virtue" of offering a decided opposition to an arbitrary measure, would not prevent any person who felt injured by the Income Tax from stating his case, and offering it all the opposition in his power. He had always opposed the tax; he thought it a dangerous basis for a large amount of taxation—one founded on a most unjust principle, which could not be carried out into practice without causing complaints. The right hon. Gentleman said, there was not much public opposition to it when imposed; but he left out of consideration the fact that when it was proposed, it was accompanied by certain other offers. He knew the value of the admission; those offers were accepted by certain great interests; they took the Income Tax and accepted the repeal of duties on the importation of certain raw materials. A bargain was struck; large and important interests accepted the Income Tax; he did not; many others did not. The only point the right hon. Gentleman had made in reply to the hon. Member for Oldham was, that he ought to have appealed to the Special Commissioners; the hon. Member had so appealed, and he did not believe they would do anything but confirm the decision come to by the other Commissioners. They had ample power to act on any appeal brought before them; but this House could not call them to account. If it could, the facts the inquiry would elicit, would oblige them to give up the tax. The course the Commissioners had taken had inflicted great hardship on the hon. Gentleman, and at last it seemed that they altered the assessment from 24,000l. to 12,000l. without stating any reason for such a monstrous reduction. The hon. Gentleman refused to return any profit, and offered to produce the balance-sheet of the concern, by which the profits were divided between his partners and himself. They assessed him at 24,000l. a year, and then, at their own will and pleasure, reduced it to 12,000l. That he thought a case for inquiry. What ground had they for giving up 12,000l. a year? If the assessment of 24,000l. was right, they were bound to adhere to it. He admitted the right hon. Gentleman was always ready to give advice, but he could do nothing to give any relief. They were bound by the Act of Parliament, giving the most arbitrary powers of interfering with the profits of trade. The right hon. Gentleman said, the difference arose as to the mode in which the profits of trade should be computed. That difference would exist in every concern in the kingdom. In all cases it was difficult to say what should be carried to the account as profit. All the hon. Member said, was, that his loss should be deducted from the profit, and if they did not allow this, the Act was more iniquitous than he thought it was. They were bound to take the Act itself into consideration; it gave private individuals an arbitrary power, and it required many Amendments. The Boards of Commissioners ought to be constituted in a different manner; it never could be endured that individuals should sit in judgment on the pecuniary affairs of their neighbours. Let the power be given to some known and responsible authority. His hon. Friend did not care whether his affairs were made public or not; but others had not the same credit. His hon. Friend offered his books for inspection: why did not the Commissioners examine them? They refused to ascertain from his books what his profits were; they refused to take the balance-sheet which settled the amount of profits between the parties; it was an unquestionable document, and they were bound to receive it. If his hon. Friend was wrong, the public had a right to the tax on 12,000l. more. The hon. gentleman's case had been thought important enough to be introduced by a recent writer on political economy into his work, as an illustration of his argument on this system of taxation. It was a case of deep, individual, and public interest, and it had received no answer, except a general sermon on the necessity of obeying the law, and a sneer at what the right hon. Gentleman called British virtue.

said, he had not entered into the details of what passed before the Commissioners. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no more power to call for particular returns from the Commissioners than the hon. Gentleman himself.

said, the objection to giving publicity to private affairs did not apply in cases where the party himself stated that he did not care about it.

had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion to state that some mode of relief would be afforded the hon. Member. He did not complain of any breach of promise; but that was the impression left on his mind by that discussion. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) at the time the tax was proposed had foreseen this difficulty, and proposed a clause giving some department of the Government a jurisdiction in such cases. At present there were two courts of appeal—the local Board and the Board at Somerset House. His hon. Friend had appealed to the local Board; he might have been to blame in doing that, when it was composed of persons among whom he had taken a very decided part in politics. If they wished to diminish the unpopularity of the tax, they must take some means of meeting such cases. The measure was hurried through the House; the clause proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) was rejected, all Amendments were disregarded, and now it was highly necessary the Act should be reconsidered. They would have an opportunity of doing so during the recess, and he hoped the Government would avail themselves of it. They should appoint some permanent Board with power to do something to mitigate such evils as those stated in the case of which the hon. Member for Oldham had so properly and justly complained.

was glad the case had been brought forward; he was an advocate of direct taxation, but he wished it to be levied with as little trouble to the subject as possible. When the Bill was before the House he pointed out the anomaly of giving the power to levy a taxation of 4,000,000l. or 5,000,000l. to persons who were not responsible either to the House of Commons or to the Government, and whom they would have doing as they pleased. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government had no power; there was an evil done, and there was no remedy. He implored the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to correct the evil; in another Session there would be time to do it. He had formerly objected to the manner in which the Land Tax Commissioners were appointed; they were recommended by the county Members, and were appointed from political reasons. The constitution of the Income Tax Commissioners was also subject to great inconvenience; they elected the superior Commissioners; he asked the Government to take away this power, and make them responsible to the House. Under the representation that the Act must be passed as a whole, and that it was only for a short time, the Government rejected every Amendment, and did everything in their power to make the tax not only unpopular, but unjust. When the grossest cases of oppression occurred in the Tower Hamlets ward, and when they were complained of, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not help it. But it was the Government who made the law; the Government were the parties to blame for the evils, and they ought to correct them. In the case of the hon. Member for Oldham, the Commissioners appeared to have acted with the extreme of rigour, and in a manner which could only be explained by the existence of some political grudge against him. But he hoped this discussion would be the means of effecting some modification.

said, when the Income Tax was under consideration in 1842, of course the question arose who should be the parties entrusted with certain powers under the Act. The question appeared to resolve itself into one or other of two alternatives—either that the Government should have these powers, or that parties themselves interested in the just administration of the law should exercise them. As there was great jealousy of the Executive Government having a right to inquire into the affairs of individuals, which would give it a great influence, Parliament determined to act on the presumption that this power might be abused, and therefore thought it better to adhere to the principle of the former law, and gave the power of inspecting private affairs to private individuals. On the whole, Parliament affirmed that principle. Under what circumstances did the Government select the Land Tax Commissioners for the purpose of the Income Tax Act? Why, two years before, the Act appointing those Commissioners had been by the late Government renewed and altered. The present Government were asked to make a new selection of Commissioners for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, but they thought it much better to adhere to the Act as it stood, and so preclude the possibility of any suspicion as to their motives. He was ready to admit that it was objectionable that the private affairs of individuals should be made known to others who might be their rivals in trade; but in order to meet that objection, the Special Commissioners had been appointed, before whom persons could go who did not wish to go before the regular Commissioners. If the hon. Member had really reason to believe that the Commissioners were actuated by personal motives, he could have gone before the Special Commissioners, and so have avoided altogether the interference of his neighbours or of his political opponents. It would cause him very great regret to find that the hon. Member for Oldham had any just cause to complain of the operation of the Act; but at the same time be must observe that, considering the large amount that had been collected under the tax, the proportion of com- plaints had been much less than could have been expected.

complained of the manner in which the Land Tax Commissioners were nominated. As it was, if a borough Member wished to nominate one, he could not do so without the consent of the county Member, and with him he had no chance if he was of different politics. With respect to the case before the House, the reason why the firm returned "no profits," was, that their humanity would not allow them to stop their works, and the consequence was that there was a vast accumulation of stock. They had had no less than 600,000 pieces of cloth on hand which were unsaleable.

hoped the Government would take into consideration the cases of those persons having incomes under 150l, a year, who had been surcharged, but who had never had the excess returned to them.

said, he had no wish to divide the House, but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would grant him the correspondence between the Commissioners of the Court of Appeal and the Board of Stamps and Taxes.

said, that the correspondence was extra-official, and he could not produce it.

wished to call the attention of the Government to a subject of considerable importance. They were aware through the newspapers that accidents had occurred lately on two or three of the leading railroads. Of course, there were casualties of the kind which were altogether beyond human control; but it did appear, that in the case of the accident on the South Eastern Railway there had been a want of care. A respectable surgeon, who was a passenger, and who attended on some of the unfortunate sufferers, expressly impugned the care and discretion of those managing the railway, in putting an engine behind the train. There had also been an accident to the mail train of the Birmingham Railway, where there had not been a sacrifice of human life, but certainly a great deal of injury to the limbs of the passengers. He was not able to suggest a mode by which these things could be checked, but at the same he thought that some good might be done by calling the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the subject. The punishment of an engine-driver, or of a light-bearer, did not appear to him to be enough. The attention of those gentlemen who obtained profit from the railways should also be drawn to the subject. He had read a letter from a surgeon in one of the papers, which contained a statement perfectly horrifying. It was there stated, that when the South Eastern train arrived at the terminus, it was detained for some minutes by the check takers to take the tickets, although there were persons in the train who were suffering from the most grievous contusions. These accidents were now beginning to happen to all; and unless there was some interference, he feared that they would have to record some much more fearful contingencies.

said, whenever such accidents occurred, it was the practice of the Board of Trade to despatch an engineer officer to the spot to ascertain the cause of them. The companies were also bound to report them within a certain time after they occurred. He expected that in the course of the day the Board of Trade would receive the report of the engineer sent to inquire into the accident on the South Eastern line. He must at the same time observe, that although the Board of Trade generally found that any suggestions they made were attended to by the Companies, yet they had no power whatever to enforce compliance. It might, certainly, be hereafter necessary to impose some more efficient check on the railway companies for the prevention of accidents.

hoped some arrangement of the kind would be made. He was himself suffering severely from the effects of the great carelessness of those who conducted the railway on the occasion of one of the accidents that had been mentioned.

said, that the rarity of accidents on the Brussels and Antwerp Railway proved how useful was an efficient system of superintendence.

Sir, I am not sorry that the hon. Member has called the attention of the House to this subject, because as the law at present stands, there are no means of reaching those by whom these accidents are caused; and if the moral responsibility which now rests on those who have the management of railways is not sufficient, it will be necessary for Parliament to insist on some different system. It is continually urged that the accidents by rail- ways bear no proportion whatever to those which used to occur by stage coach. That is no answer—it is a mere sophistication. We have a right to be insured that those who derive the profits from these railways, shall take every possible precaution on behalf of the public. Every precaution that money can command ought to be taken; and there can be nothing worse than that the public mind should be disturbed by the constant fear of these accidents. It is unfortunate for the railways themselves that the growing public confidence in them should be destroyed. It does seem, that in these recent cases the accidents which have occurred, might have been prevented by due precaution. If by the employment of ill-qualified subordinate officers, these accidents are rendered more likely to happen, or more frequent, then it will be the duty of Parliament to step in and demand a reduction of the profits of those who are concerned in the railway, in order that due precautions may be taken to insure the public safety.

said: I wish to say a few words in reference to the subject of accidents on railways. As a matter of public duty, I think it right to say that this case of carelessness, if it be one, on the Dover Railway, is not the first instance of bad management on that particular line. I happened to come from Dover to London in November last; and, as I was in my own carriage at the end of the train, with my back turned to the engine, I had a complete view of what passed. During the greater part of the journey, and especially in passing through the tunnels, the train was not only drawn by an engine in front, but propelled by one at the back; and if any stoppage had occurred, the back engine must inevitably have gone through the train. The passengers, when they got out at the station, were totally unaware of this hindermost engine having been used. On inquiry I was informed that, from a desire of economy, a set of engines were employed by the Company which were not strong enough singly to do the work, and that two engines therefore were used, where one would otherwise have been sufficient.

wished to make a suggestion to the right hon. Baronet as to the arrangement of the business of the House for the next Session of Parliament. The Government had this year taken, of late, both Tuesday and Thursday for themselves; and the consequence was, that there were now so many Motions to be made that they could not get on with Supply. The great object of these arrangements should be, to ascertain with as much certainly as possible when particular business would come on; but the effect of the present system was to create great uncertainty, and yet not to advance the public business. What he would suggest was, that next Session, Tuesdays and Thursdays should be appropriated to Motions, and Monday and Friday to Supply and the Government business. He also proposed that on Wednesdays the House should always meet at twelve o'clock, and proceed with Orders of the Day, sitting till six o'clock, after which Members would be set at liberty for the evening. He proposed also that no Committees on Private Bills should sit on Wednesdays.

reminded the House that this Session had been a peculiar one, owing to the great press of private business. Government had introduced their financial measures at the earliest period; as well as all others, the Irish measures particularly, which were likely to meet with opposition. Therefore they had done their utmost to expedite the public business. On one measure alone—the Maynooth Bill—there had been eleven nights' debate before the second reading. With respect to next Session, he would be ready to support the hon. Member's proposition to meet early on Wednesday, and sit till six or half-past six o'clock. That would be much better than sitting for five continuous nights, the fatigue of which was too much for any strength. It was not possible for those who attended that House for fourteen hours a day duly to discharge their duty to the public, it was utterly impossible for those who had also official responsibilities. With respect to the Government having taken Thursday for their business, he doubted much whether they had gained anything by it; but in doing so, they had only followed the precedent of several Sessions both under the present and the late Government. That arrangement would not have been made if it had been seriously objected to, nor would it ever be pressed against the wish of the House. He hoped that for the rest of the Session they would be allowed to proceed with the public business, and that Members who had Motions would exercise that forbearance which would allow of the Session being brought as soon as possible to a close.

hoped that the sittings on Wednesdays would be really attended for the purpose of public business, and that the Members of the Government would attend. He begged, however, to say, that no imputation whatever rested on the Members of the Government as regarded the regularity of their attendance during the present Session. With respect to the appropriation of Thursdays, he would suggest that it should be a Government day after the 1st of July. In that case, Members would not put their Notices on the Paper after that day.

hoped the right hon. Baronet did not suppose that the Session of 1846 would be less distinguished by the pressure of railway business than that of 1845. He thought it deserved the serious attention of the right hon. Baronet, whether it were likely that they would be able to obtain in successive Sessions the attendance of Members on Railway Committees, and whether they would not be compelled to adopt some other system.

begged to remind the hon. Member what had been the result of the attempt to transfer the railway business to a Government tribunal. He was convinced that if that House parted with the power of adjudication, they would never be satisfied with the decisions of another tribunal, and that there would be still a struggle on the third reading. If it went forth to the public that the House of Lords had discharged their duty, while the House of Commons had shrunk from theirs, their position in the country would be altered, and they would feel compelled to step in at the third reading of Bills, in order that they might retain their position in the Constitution.

congratulated the House on the assent given by the right hon. Baronet to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose to meet early and rise early on Wednesdays. He could not omit the opportunity of paying his tribute to Her Majesty's Government for their regular attendance in that House. Not even the most assiduous Member of the House had surpassed them in the attention they had devoted to the public business.

could not refrain from expressing his opinion that the present system of conducting the railway business of that House was the most defective and mischievous that had ever been devised, from the expanse to which parties were put, and the uncertainty that attended the decisions of different Committees. It was a scandal to the Legislature of the country. The right hon. Baronet said that they had tried the experiment of a Government Board. But that Board had only a partial field of inquiry, it did not embrace the whole subject. He thought they would be ultimately compelled to transfer the decision on these Railway Bills to a wholly independent tribunal.

said, that this was a subject which would depend next Session on a great many points and difficulties which could not be considered now. He hoped hon. Members would now let the public business proceed.

complained that the Government had introduced eleven Bills within only a few weeks of the close of the Session, and when it was impossible that they could be duly considered.

said: My principal object in rising, is to call the attention of the House to a matter of great national importance, directly connected with the business upon which we are about to enter—I mean that of the Committee of Supply; it is the great imperfection of the present state of our national means of defence. I repeat, that this is a subject of the utmost importance. I think that any man who values peace, and who is sensible of the advantages which the country derives from it, must feel that this is a matter of first-rate importance; for peace between two countries can never be secure except when they stand upon a footing of equality with regard to their respective means of self-defence. Now, Sir, France, as I had occasion to state on a former occasion, has now a standing army of 340,000 men, fully equipped, including a large force of cavalry and artillery, and, in addition to that, 1,000,000 of the National Guard. I know that the National Guard of Paris amounts to 80,000 men, trained, disciplined, reviewed, clothed, equipped, and accustomed to duty, and perfectly competent, therefore, to take the internal duty of the country, and to set free the whole of the regular force. Now, Sir, if France were a country separated from our own by an impassable barrier—if she had no navy, or if the Channel could not be crossed, I should say this was a matter with which we had no concern. But that is not the case. In the first place, France has a fleet equal to ours. I do not speak of the number of vessels actually in existence, but of the fleet in commission and half-commission, in both which respects the fleet of France is equal to that of this country. But, again, the Channel is no longer a barrier. Steam navigation has rendered that which was before impassable by a military force nothing more than a river passable by a steam bridge. France has steamers capable of transporting 30,000 men, and she has harbours, inacessible to any attack, in which these steamers may collect, and around which, on the land side, large bodies of men are constantly quartered. These harbours are directly opposite to our coast, and within a few hours' voyage of the different landing-places on the coast of England. Well, then, I say, that is not a state of things under which you can remain secure of peace, unless you are in a state of preparation to meet any sudden attack. Sir, I shall be told, perhaps, that our relations with France are of the most amicable nature. I admit it, and I trust that they may so continue. But questions of the greatest importance may start up in any quarter of the globe, and we can never be sure from month to month, with respect to two countries which have such extensive and diversified interests to be considered, that questions of the utmost delicacy and difficulty will not unexpectedly arise. Therefore, I say, when those questions do arise, you cannot deal with them on a footing of equality, and in a manner consistent with the interest and dignity of the country, if you are not in such a state as to be at least inaccessible to any sudden or early attack. Now, I say we are not in such a state. On a former occasion I pointed out the deficient state for defence of our naval arsenals. The right hon. Baronet told me that measures were being taken to remedy that deficiency. I hope that the remedy will be effectual. I feel sure that a very small addition to the batteries and so forth will be sufficient; and if a Commission of scientific and able officers be appointed to take the matter into consideration, I have no doubt that in a short time all ground of complaint will be removed. I dwelt also on the necessity of having harbours of refuge. The right hon. Baronet stated that that subject was also under the consideration of the Government, and that a Vote would be proposed. The sum now assigned for this purpose is a very small one, but it is probably enough as a beginning. The amount pro- posed is upwards of 120,000l., the estimate being 3,500,000l. I am willing to think that the Government will take such measures as they deem necessary; still I must say that they do not go far enough. I will suppose that our dockyards are perfectly inaccessible. I will suppose that we have harbours fortified against attack as well as against the sea, in which our steam vessels—assuming that we have a sufficient number of them—might be kept ready to act against any sudden invasion. But you must recollect that Calais, St. Malo, Cherbourg, and Dunkirk, are within a few hours' passage of our coast; and that, supposing a rupture to occur between the two countries, which I hope will not be case, you would have very short notice of any meditated attack; you would have very little means of sending your steamers in sufficient numbers to prevent a landing; and, therefore, though not for the purpose of attacking your dockyards, still for that of invading your coast, you might have 20,000 or 30,000 men landed without any possibility of your preventing such an event. Well, then, what is the state of the internal garrison which you can rely upon, supposing such an unfortunate event to happen? Why, you have nothing but the regular force of this country, which amounts, probably, including that in the Channel Islands, to less than 50,000 men,—20,000 in Ireland, and the rest distributed over Great Britain; and this force must be brigaded, a staff must be appointed, and the cavalry and artillery must be all brought together before you could put into the field a force capable of opposing an enemy. I would ask the Government what time must necessarily elapse before that could be done? You would have to recruit your army, and to ballot for the militia; and I ask any man who understands these matters, in what condition you would be placed in case of a rupture with any Foreign Power? The time and expense required for recruiting and collecting the army, would be more than any man who has not turned his attention to these things could possibly imagine. Well, then, I say, you have an acknowledged, established, and constitutional mode of guarding against this state of things, which of late has been abandoned on account of the expense, but for the continued abandonment of which I hold that that reason does not any longer apply, while other reasons for resorting to it have greatly augmented within the last few years. I refer to the summoning of the regular militia. When I asked the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department the other day, whether it was intended to ballot for the militia, he told me that it was not; and it is on this account that I feel it my duty, before going into Committee of Supply at the end of this Session, and, before it is too late for the Government to take the matter into consideration, to urge upon the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government the great importance of organizing this portion of the military defence. There is no constitutional objection to it; and for a comparatively small sum, you get the power of adding to your home garrison in an infinitely greater degree than you could by laying out that sum of money in augmenting the regular regiments. I would wish the Government to consider the expediency of not allowing this autumn to pass over without ballotting for and enrolling the militia. I would urge them in the course of the next summer to give at least half, if not the whole, of the militia regiments their twenty-eight days' training. What is the expense? I look back to the estimates of former years, and I see that the expense of a ballot for the militia of Great Britain, which gave 50,000 men was, not more than about 40,000l. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: The local expenses?] The expense to the public was about 40,000l. The estimate for training the militia of Great Britain in 1821 was 90,000l.; that was the whole expense connected with 50,000 men. I do not mean to say that these are not considerable sums; and no doubt, if there were a deficiency in the revenue it would be a balance of considerations whether you would incur this expense, or take your chance of two or three years' continuance of peace; but then we have a war tax in time of peace; and, that being the case, for Heaven's sake let us have those ordinary precautions which will save us from the necessity of incurring the greater expenses of actual war. For a comparatively small amount you might have the means of assembling in arms within a fortnight 50,000 men as the organized British militia, and 70,000, if, in addition to that number, you organized the militia in Ireland. A training of twenty-eight days annually would place that force in a state of efficiency, sufficient, probably, for all the duties which they might suddenly be called upon to perform; and if you chose at the end of the third year to give them fourteen days more, you would have a force which would be amply sufficient for the national defence. And do not let hon. Gentlemen imagine that the existence of a force of that sort, or the knowledge on the part of Foreign Powers that through the existence of such a force you were in a condition to defend your shores against attack, would not be a most powerful means of preserving you from difficulties which might ultimately lead to war. I venture to state that no country in Europe is in such a state of defencelessness as England is at the present moment. I know Governments are very apt to think—and the present one is perhaps not less so than any former one—that the duty of Ministers of the Crown is first of all to obtain and to retain a majority in this House. That is quite true; for without a majority in this House they could not continue to be Ministers. But that is not enough. It is not enough to be able to struggle through the debate and to scramble through the attack; it is not enough to bring in good measures—and some of the measures of the Government this year I admit to have been good;—it is not enough to act on the best and soundest principles of domestic legislation, if you do not, in addition to that, place the country in as perfect a state of security as you possibly can; for if your shores are not sufficiently protected all your legislation may be in vain. Well, then, I say that this country is in the most defenceless state, considered with reference to the means of attack possessed by other Powers; on the one hand, the country is in the most defenceless condition in which she has ever yet been left: on the other hand, there never was a period at which your resources, population, and wealth were so great, and at which you had equal means, with less pressure on the industry and resources of the country, of placing yourself in a situation of comparative security. I contend, therefore, that it is the duty of the Government to look seriously at these matters. Sir, the old maxim, "Si vis pacem para bellum," is both true and false, It is a false maxim if it mean that you ought, in time of peace, to prepare a sufficient force for aggressive hostility. Such a course of proceeding is doubly mischievous. In the first place, it excites unnecessary jealousy on the part of foreign countries, and leads them to engage in preparations which may tend to render the preservation of peace uncertain. But, moreover, that Power which, in time of peace, arms itself with a view to aggressive movements, naturally acquires a disposition to make use of the means so attained; and thus what has been done begets a feeling which is inimical to peace. But if the maxim refers only to the preparation in peace of the means of defence in case of war, it is a most legitimate and sound maxim. It is by that means alone that any country can secure to itself the continuance of the blessings of peace. I hold that we have not at present that state of military preparation which would enable us to look with indifference upon any sudden contingencies. I hold that it is in the power of the Government to secure the necessary means of defence—at least to a very considerable degree—at a comparatively small expense, and without any infringement of those constitutional principles which I for one have not the least wish to disregard. Sir, it is upon these grounds that I have thought it my duty to call the attention of the Government to this subject. I would entreat them to consider whether it be consistent with that responsibility which weighs upon them, not merely to govern this country well, but to defend also that country which they so govern, to refrain from resorting to those constitutional methods of defence which may be so easily adopted, and which, in time of war, would add so greatly to our means of national defence.

said: Sir, I feel all the difficulty under which any person placed in my situation must labour in discussing publicly the question to which the noble Lord has felt it his duty to call our attention. I totally differ from the noble Lord as to the defenceless position of this country. I think I could prove that the noble Lord's impression on that subject is altogether erroneous; but I am quite sure that I should not be acting consistently with sound discretion, if I were to state the facts upon which my own opinion is founded. Nothing could be so unwise as to encourage parties—a small minority I trust—in other countries who may be bent on hostility to ours. I should be very sorry to furnish them with instruments to be used against their own Government, and thus to prevent that Government, though sincerely desirous of maintaining peace, from securing that object on account of the clamour of a certain portion of the community. I must say, generally, however, that the noble Lord has greatly underrated the power which this country would possess, in the event of hostilities, for the vindication of its honour. So far from concurring in the opinion of the noble Lord, I believe that in case there should be a necessity imposed on this country of resorting to hostilities, there never was a period when such a demonstration as would then be called forth has been made; the Sovereign, supported and encouraged by almost the unanimous voice of the people, being determined in a just cause to make efforts worthy of the ancient character of this country. I have a strong opinion, that upon that head, we have nothing to fear. I think it is hardly possible to estimate what will be seen to be the dormant energy of this country, if a just cause should call it forth. At the same time, I must say that I concur in some of the principles which have been expressed by the noble Lord. I think it would be most unwise in this country to trust altogether to present appearances; and I hold that it is most advisable that this country should be able to feel confident, that in the event of sudden hostilities, she would be strong enough, and has the means, to protect herself. I quite agree with the noble Lord, that on the sudden occurrence of hostilities, as, for example, in the year 1793, unless you are in a state of preparation, the cost of sudden exertion is immense; and that it is a most unwise economy which would leave you to make sudden, precipitate, and unlooked-for efforts, in order to secure your own safety. I think also, with the noble Lord, that this country ought to be in such a state, that any other Power may not, on that account, be encouraged to resort to hostilities for the purpose of obtaining advantages. I trusty, indeed, that we shall be able to preserve the friendly relations which exist between this country and France; this I hope will be the case, both for the sake of England and France, and for the sake of the civilized world. So far are this country and the House of Commons from grudging the prosperity of France, that I am sure I speak the general feeling when I say that we saw the returns respecting the commerce of France with great satisfaction. I wish that more intimate commercial relations may be established between the two countries; but I do trust also that whilst France is increasing in her commerce, she will see that she owes that increase of prosperity to the maintenance of peace, and that there will be among all rational people in that country a deliberate opinion that the honour and interests of France may be much better maintained by cultivating industry, and promoting commercial prosperity, than they could be by seeking that which is perfectly unnecessary for that most gallant country, whose reputation stands so high at every period of her history, namely, the maintenance of her glory by the increase of her territorial possessions. But, Sir, I must own that I am rather surprised at the noble Lord's excessive apprehensions on this subject; because the noble Lord was in office for a period of ten years, and I venture to say that this country is in a better state with respect to the means of repelling aggression than she was at that time. Did the noble Lord see France expend the sum of fifteen millions sterling upon the fortifications of Paris, and issue an order increasing the army suddenly to the extent of 100,000 men; and does the noble Lord think that this country now stands in the same position with respect to France as it did in 1841? There was no militia ballot at that period; there was not near the same amount of military force that there is at present; and I very much doubt whether there were as many sail of the line. The noble Lord has, I admit, suggested many points deserving of serious consideration. It is impossible not to see what a change has taken place with respect to navigation. I think that this country has a perfect right to consult its own security. If it were proposed to increase the military or naval force of the country for the purpose of aggression, we ought most seriously to consider the policy of such a course; but, as to taking measures for our own security in the event of public hostilities, the last consideration which should present itself to the mind of a Minister of the Crown is, "What will other Powers think?" I should certainly not hesitate to propose to Parliament, without reference to any other Powers, what I considered necessary even for contingencies. With reference to the dockyards, let me ask what was the state in which we found them? The noble Lord does not tell us that years passed without any measures of improvement being adopted. The improvements which are even now going forward make it desirable that we should not be hurried on to the adoption of measures, lest the money which we expend should be entirely thrown away. We have a perfect right, however, to take precautions for the defence of the naval arsenals and dockyards of this country. For the Navy and Ordnance we proposed this year an addition of 1,100,000l. in the Estimates. I am placed, with respect to this matter, between two fires. Every word that I say in one direction may induce other parties to exclaim, "See what the Minister said in the House of Commons; we must now have two or three millions more." I should be exceedingly sorry to see a race run between great Powers—not a race in commerce and civilization—but each increasing as far as possible its military and naval force. There must be a limit to that. It is a question of the nicest discretion, whether you shall propose large sums for the Army or the Navy, or whether the effect will be to add to your relative strength. I know not a nicer question with regard to economy and to every other public object, than the extent to which you will proceed. I hope, however, that this country will never depart from that policy which has secured its safety, namely, that of being strong as a naval Power, and at the same time not attempting to enter into competition with the great military Powers of Europe. Say what you will, this country would not be satisfied with the existence of a standing army of 100,000 or 200,000 men kept within our own land. I admit that the amount of military force is not sufficient now to enable you, consistently with due economy, to meet the demands which may arise; but with respect to our becoming a great military Power, and relying upon having a military force able at once to meet that of other countries, except for the purposes of our own defence, that is a competition into which I trust this country will never enter. I do hope that this country will always have such a degree of naval strength as will enable her to feel entire confidence, in the event of hostilities. Then, with regard to the subject of local militia, let me say that I apprehend we have a demand, in case of necessity, upon a body of disciplined men amounting to 50,000, in whom we might repose great confidence. I refer to the Chelsea pensioners. When I was Secretary of State twenty years since, I even then felt that the militia was in an unsatisfactory state, and that there ought to be some local force constituted in this country. The noble Lord is aware that under the Act there is no prohibition against proceeding to ballot for the militia. The Act suspends the obligation to ballot, which would otherwise be imposed on the Crown; but, in case of necessity, the Crown would still be able to resort to this force. I would observe, that there has been that change in the state of society within the last few years which would probably render the present militia laws not exactly so suitable as they were, and they might perhaps undergo useful alterations. It is not necessary, perhaps, that I should now enter into any further explanation on this subject which the noble Lord has introduced. I am bound to content myself with stating that his impression as to the defencelessness of this country is totally at variance with my own. I speak not of that which concerns the public spirit and the honour of Englishmen, for I am sure that the noble Lord will admit, that with whatever difficulties an appeal to the country might be attended, that appeal would be entirely successful. Whatever may be required for the public service will be asked for, without scruple, by Her Majesty's Government. I am sure the House will feel the necessity of placing this country at all times in such a state of security that it will not have to depend upon temporary and possibly delusive appearances of tranquillity; but there will be actual peace, without any anxiety as to the result of the immediate occurrence of hostilities. The noble Lord said that we have fortunately a large surplus. But who is to be thanked for that? We have a large surplus in consequence of that imposition of taxation which, besides giving us this surplus, enables us to take precautions for the security of the country, and to remit that part of our taxation which has appeared to us to press most upon the labour and industry of the community. Having a surplus, we feel that we cannot apply it better than by taking precautions against eventual and possible danger; and the increase of the Votes for the Navy and Ordnance, and the Vote proposed with respect to the harbours of refuge, show that, while we attend to the claims of the people to the remission of taxation, we have not neglected the precautions which we think necessary for the safety of the country. With respect to the harbours of refuge, this is the first year that any proposal has been made. The Vote is purposely small, and I hope we shall not be driven forward too fast. Nothing can be more important than that we should take the best opinions as to the proper mode of securing the object. I take it for granted that the House is satisfied of the necessity which exists for those harbours of refuge which repeated naval commissions have recommended. The subject has undergone such full investigation that there can be no necessity for any further inquiry. Dover, Portland, and Harwich are the sites which, as the result of repeated inquiries, are pointed out as the most appropriate for harbours of refuge. We have felt it our duty with respect to each of those places to take the opinions of the most eminent civil and military engineers as to the best mode of insuring to the country the greatest permanent advantage as the result of the money expended. With respect to all these places, and especially Dover, it is of the utmost importance that we should have the opportunity of profiting as far as possible by the opinions of those who are best qualified to give advice on the subject. These various matters are occupying the serious attention of the Government; and if my answer to the noble Lord be not entirely satisfactory, I entreat the House to bear in mind that I stand in a position in which I must appeal to their confidence; because I cannot state the particular facts upon which my own impression, as opposed to that of the noble Lord, is founded.

said, the right hon. Baronet seemed to imagine that he advocated a great increase of the regular army, and a rivalry with continental nations. He had distinctly disclaimed any such view; all that he had recommended was the training of the militia. In reference to steam navigation, what he had said was, that the progress which had been made had converted the ordinary means of transport into a steam bridge. He did not mean to impeach the energy of the country, should danger arise. What he meant was, that without previous organization, the bravest men would be of no avail against an armed force.

said, the noble Lord appeared to retain the impression that our means of defence were rather abated by the discoveries of steam navigation. He was not at all prepared to admit that. He thought that the demonstration which we could make of our steam navy was one which would surprise the world; and, as the noble Lord had spoken of steam bridges, he would remind him that there were two parties who could play at making them.

said, that they had at present at sea eight sail of the line; but they, in point of seamen, were two rates below their proper complement. It was only the other day that the gallant Admiral opposite found it necessary to increase the number of men in those ships, and he could not have adopted a wiser measure. The Secretary at War had stated the other night, that no difficulty was met in finding persons willing to enlist into the army; but he could assure the House that the greatest difficulty was found in inducing sailors to enter the Navy. The right hon. Baronet had also spoken of the state of their steam naval force. He could tell the right hon. Baronet, that in this respect, they were inferior to their neighbours on the Continent, who built their steam vessels for an increased number of men and weight of metal; while they (the British) consulted only the rate of speed in their naval architecture. He (Sir Charles Napier) was glad to hear that there were 50,000 efficient pensioners—men able to bear arms in the country. He was glad to hear this, because they, with a little training, and the 30,000 of a standing army in England and Ireland, constituted a sufficient defence against foreign invasion.

appealed to the right hon. Baronet as a man of peace, and not a man of war, to know what had been done with respect to the formation of harbours of refuge.

said, that a Committee had been appointed to investigate this subject, and their investigation would be continued during the recess. He thought the House and the country were much indebted to the hon. Member for Montrose for having called the attention of the Government to the subject.

had formed one of a deputation which waited on the right hon. Baronet urging the necessity of converting Douglas, in the Isle of Man, into a harbour of refuge; and to effect that object, the authorities of the island were ready to devote a portion of their revenues, if they were supported in that project by the Government. The celebrated Paul Jones had, almost within memory, burnt St. Mary's Isle, threatened Whitehaven, and scoured those seas with impunity, showing, in the event of war with America or France, the necessity of a well-protected seaboard. To the strictly defensive policy of constructing harbours of refuge, the Queen's Government should apply its early and best attention; and the claim of the Manxmen was full worthy of attention.

said, it might not be out of place for him here to remark upon the news that had that day reached the City of another disastrous fire in Quebec, by which 1,300 houses were burned to the ground, and several thousands of persons had been reduced to total destitution and to great suffering. He wished to ask whether Government contemplated to alleviate in any way the distress of these poor people?

said, the news had reached him only this morning, and he had heard it with the utmost regret, that another and an equally serious calamity had fallen on the city of Quebec. On the former occasion Government had done all in their power for the sufferers; and he was sure that now similar care and sympathy would be shown. The people of the country had shown great sympathy with the sufferers, and thinking as he did that Parliament should show its sympathy also, before the Supply was completely gone through, he promised to propose a Vote for the purpose.

wished to state some particulars relative to the late fire in Quebec, which had just reached him. The first fire took place on the 28th of May, and destroyed 1,600 houses; and, the second, on the 28th of June, and destroyed 1,300 houses. The extent of the calamity could be best ascertained by comparing the amount of loss with the numbers of the population. Quebec was a town containing 35,000 inhabitants, and the loss occasioned by the two fires amounted to 1,250,000l. From this it would appear that the calamity was greater in proportion than the great fire of London. He trusted that the liberality of this country would not be appealed to in vain for the relief of the sufferers.

said, that it was his intention to take the sense of the House upon this Vote. He was an advo- cate of the voluntary principle, and he therefore felt it his duty to oppose this grant of money for the support of religious ministers. The grant had been progressively increasing; it went on increasing from year to year, and was likely, if not opposed, to go on increasing; and he therefore felt it his duty, as an advocate of the voluntary system, to oppose it. There was a portion of this sum which was to be applied for the benefit of clergymen's widows, and to that part he had no objection; nor would he, in case the Vote were discontinued, object to an arrangement for the benefit of those ministers at present in the enjoyment of those allowances, taking care to prevent a perpetual recurrence of such a Vote as this, to which he was entirely opposed on principle. He would, therefore, move that the sum voted for this purpose be reduced to 366l.

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale. He was opposed to votes of public money for the support of religious ministers of any denomination.

said, that there was much difference of opinion as to the propriety of accepting grants of public money amongst the Dissenters. The Presbyterians in Ireland were generally in favour of such grants, and there was, therefore, no inconsistency in their accepting this Vote; but the Independents and Baptists were opposed to such grants.

thought that they ought not to divide on this Motion until they had a statement from the Government as to whether it was prepared to promise such an arrangement as would prevent the Vote of this sum after a given time.

could not obtain the support of the hon. Gentleman opposite by giving any assurance that the Vote would be discontinued after a particular period.

observed, that he understood that the New Zealand Company, confiding in the expressions made use of by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)—and he could assure the right hon. Baronet that he thought he spoke the sentiments of the various members of the Company, when he said that he believed those expressions had been sincere—the Company had, since the last discussion, addressed a letter to the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, making certain proposals to the noble Lord, with a view to the settlement of the differences existing, unhappily, between the Government and the Company. He understood also, that upon the receipt of that letter, the Under Secretary, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. G. W. Hope), expressed a wish to re-open the negotiations which had recently been carried on between the parties; that a deputation of the Company had waited upon him; that these negotiations were continued up to this moment; and that they now awaited for their final conclusion the approval of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial department, whose unavoidable temporary absence had prevented that from being given up to the present moment. The Company were satisfied to rest upon that state of things for the present, and hoped that the noble Lord would look with favour upon the propositions which had been submitted to him; but they wished to understand if, in the event of their hopes in this respect being disappointed, and of the attempt at adjustment, which they had sincerely made, being fruitless, they should have another opportunity of making those remarks upon the present state of New Zealand which they would have done on the present occasion, had these negotiations not now been pending. If the hopes of the Company were not realized, he trusted that the opportunity sought for would be given before the close of the present Session.

entertained a sincere wish to see all differences satisfactorily adjusted between the Company and the Colonial department, and to co-operate in every way in which he could for the well-being of the Colony of New Zealand. No one could regret more than he did the differences which had arisen between the Company and the Government. Communications had now passed between the Colonial Office and a deputation appointed to act on the part of the Company; and the members of that deputation were themselves, so far, the best judges of what had passed. He trusted that an amicable arrangement would ultimately be come to, and the probability was that such would be the case; but if it should not be so, he saw no difficulty in giving an assurance that, if the present opportunity of discussing the matter were foregone, another opportunity, as desired, would be given for the discussion.

said, that the absence of his noble Friend was not the only reason why the negotiation was not yet concluded. Another Gentleman had been called in to give his advice, and he was preparing his views, which would, when submitted, receive full consideration.

said, that when New Zealand was first colonized, the country had been led to expect that a new era in colonization had commenced. He believed that if a little care were taken, and proper preparation made, before colonization was attempted, they might have a self-sustaining system. A great deal had been said of the danger which existed to colonists so situated as were those of New Zealand; but if they formed a general government on the principle of the representative system, there would be no danger whatever. Let them have a Governor representing the Crown, an Executive Council appointed by the Crown, and a legislative body appointed by counties, and let the legislature of the Colony be formed on this basis. Let the administration be in the Governor, with the advice, though not necessarily with the consent of the Council. It was surprising, seeing that we had colonized the whole of North America, that we had not by this time acquired sufficient knowledge and experience to colonize so small a portion of the earth's surface without the terrible squabbles which had been carried on between the Government and the Company—squabbles, terrible from the consequences to which they had, in some measure, led. What he wished to press upon the Government was, that they should adopt a general system. If they sent out to New Zealand a body of men, who understood the business of political surveying, who would lay the country out into counties, and if they had a general law prepared that each county, as it attained its necessary share of population, should receive its law from the law and from nothing else; and that it should govern itself, not by giving to it municipal powers—a course against which he would warn the right hon. Baronet—a course which would split the country into sections—into a north and south island—which would make an Ireland and an England, a Rhode Island and a Connecticut, of it; but, if they kept the country one, with one central government, with a county administration, with no municipal, that is to say, with no legislative powers, then there would be a chance of governing the country well, and of rendering it prosperous. This single regulation also should be attended to, that metropolitan interference should only be resorted to to defend, when necessary, the Colony from hostile attacks. Let the colonists, so far as related to their local concerns, govern themselves, and let the Government of this country entrust the internal management of the Colony to their activity and exertions, to their daring and sagacity. The Government should not allow one hour to pass before they framed a uniform system of Government for the whole of the Colony.

said, that the manner in which the Colonies had been treated required that Parliament should pass an Act, declaring what rights they were to possess, and what government they were to enjoy, and they would then be prepared to carry out the suggestions of his hon. and learned Friend. The great defect of our present system was to be found in the Colonial Department itself; the evil existed at head quarters. People might plan what they liked for the good government of the Colonies elsewhere; but so long as the Colonial Department remained defective, nothing in the way of permanent good could be accomplished. There was no prospect of an improved system in regard to our Colonies until they introduced some change into the Colonial Department by legislative enactment. He entreated the right hon. Baronet, in reference to this unfortunate matter, to step boldly out, and take the course which he well knew to be the right one, and to bring forward proper measures by which to impart confidence to the colonists. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would do this, for nobody trusted the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. As to this Vote, he thought that they had already thrown away too much money for the support of Colonial misrule, and he felt it his duty to oppose it.

could not concur with his hon. Friend in his opposition to the Vote. He thought that it was but wise and prudent to fortify every settlement which was exposed to such an attack as Kororarika had sustained; and as to Captain Grey, the newly appointed Governor of New Zealand, it appeared to him that they should be liberal in their remuneration of a man who had the arduous duty to perform of correcting the calamitous mistakes into which the Colonial Office had been betrayed. No doubt some of the misfortunes of New Zealand were to be attributed to want of experience and incapacity on the part of Captain Fitzroy; but it was not at all on the vicarious back of Captain Fitzroy that the chastisement should exclusively fall. Who appointed Captain Fitzroy? By whom was he instructed? Of whom was Captain Fitzroy the undistorted image? It a different policy had been pursued towards New Zealand—if a different construction had been put upon the Treaty of Waitangi—if the construction adopted by the Committee, at the suggestion of Lord Francis Egerton, had been made the rule of the Government—if the contract had been fulfilled which was entered into by Lord John Russell—if Mr. Pennington's award had been carried into effect—if the Company, in consideration of their expenditure of 600,000l., had got a single acre of land—if the Company had been induced, or rather permitted, to apply their vast capital and immense resources to the colonization of New Zealand, it was manifest that all the evils now loudly complained of, and deeply deplored, would not have happened; it was clear that property and life would have been protected in New Zealand; it was manifest that the New Zealanders themselves would have been signally served; that the value of the property in their possession, and to which their title would have been confirmed, would have been augmented from twenty to a hundred fold; and that the New Zealander himself, civilized and humanized, would have largely participated in the many advantages which would have been generally diffused. He thought, that such was not an exaggerated view of what, in all likelihood, would have taken place in New Zealand had a different policy been pursued. It was urged that Lord Stanley had been influenced in what he did by motives of humanity towards the New Zealanders. That assertion he was not disposed to question, nor did he doubt but that Lord Stanley had given that interpretation to the Treaty of Waitangi which he considered most conducive to the interests of the New Zealanders. He thought, however, that the noble Lord had utterly mistaken the real interests of the native population, and that he had entailed great calamities, unwittingly, on the New Zealanders. If the Company had been the victims of his injustice, the New Zealanders had been the victims of his commiseration. Let them look at the results of the noble Lord's policy, and try that policy by its fruits. What had been the effects of the pseudo conciliation which had been adopted in reference to the New Zealanders? They were informed by the principal Protector of the aborigines, Mr. George Clarke he believed, that notwithstanding the interpretation given by Lord Stanley to the Treaty of Waitangi, and notwithstanding the strenuousness with which the rights of the New Zealanders had been protected, the Government, the conciliatory Government, were still the objects of abhorrence and scorn to the native population; and Captain Fitzroy himself, as was stated in Sir Everard Home's despatch, mentioned that the Colony was on the very verge of ruin, and that on the events of the next few months the tenure of the Colony by Great Britain might depend. Under these circumstances, it was manifest that some great change, some essential alteration, was necessary. The Government saw the malady; and for such a malady it was quite clear that petty medicaments, small doses, prescriptions at once empirical and homœopathic, combining strange experiments with erroneous practice, would not suffice. The Company asked the Government of this country to infuse the representative principle into the Government of New Zealand. It had been observed that a representative assembly was not fitted for New Zealand. That, perhaps, was quite true. Kororarika, though once a promising settlement, was now reduced to the state of Old Sarum, with but one house left in it, and he should certainly not propose that Kororarika should send a Member to the Colonial Parliament; but if three or four persons were delegated from Wellington and Auckland, and were to form component parts of the legislative Council, it was quite manifest that there would then be, in regard to New Zealand, something like that which was so important in our own constitutional system—a check upon the power, which was now next to unlimited, in the Colony. At present the Colony was under a legislative Council, and the legislative Council was under Lord Stanley. This was certainly an order of dependence in which it was highly desirable, if not indispensable, that an alteration should be made. It was not quite legitimate for the Government to say that the Company had asked them to establish in New Zealand a Colonial Parliament. That was not the case. The Company only wanted the Government to infuse some portion of the representative system into the Colonial Government. The decision of Lord Stanley was not irrevocable, and he might yet see good reason to change that decision, in compliance with the desires of the Company. With respect to the land question, the sources of mischief still continued. The Government still adhered to their interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, which they did in direct opposition to the Report of the Committee. He was very far from saying that the Report of a Committee was to be regarded as paramount in every case, although to Reports of Committees they occasionally attached very great importance. Lord Stanley had been condemned by a Report of a Committee of that House. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department relied for his acquittal upon the Report of that House. For three weeks the right hon. Gentleman was almost in a state of continuous ovation, on account of the Report of such a Committee. They were told to look at the manner in which that Committee had been constituted—happily constituted—that there were six Whigs and five Tories, all men of high intelligence and of remarkable impartiality. That was the course taken by the right hon. Baronet; but then the Government did not venture to take that course with New Zealand. When fault was imputed to the right hon. Gentleman, they were content with six Whigs and five Tories; but in the case of the noble Lord, two-thirds of their Committee were Tories and one-third Whigs; and upon that Committee they placed Members of the Government and embryo Ministers—Gentlemen who proved their capacity to serve the Government by their high qualifications, and the effective ser- vice they rendered on that Committee. But when it happened that the Report of that Committee was against Lord Stanley, it was unnoticed. The Prime Minister, in the course of his observations, never adverted to the Report of the Committee. He had marked with that attention which every word uttered by the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to, and he observed that he never referred to the Committee, to the proceedings of the Committee, or to the Report of the Committee. It would be a bold proposition for a Prime Minister to pay, that a Committee appointed by himself — let them mark that—a Committee appointed by the Government—a majority, a great majority, being the supporters of the Government — several of them Members of the Government—that the Report of such a Committee should be dismissed with utter disregard. What was the object of that inquiry? What the object of these observations? A great mistake had been committed. It had been suggested that that mistake should be repaired. It was to show the Government that if they would not go the entire length with the Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman perhaps might use his influence to induce Lord Stanley to retrace his course. He was the last man in that House to say that Lord Stanley should be treated with disrespect. His talents were great, and as a Parliamentary debater, he was far superior to almost any one he had ever heard; but if Lord Stanley were as calm and as unimpassioned as he was beyond doubt prompt, dexterous, and agile; and if his talents were not as peculiarly remarkable in every department in which he had been engaged, still he (Mr. Sheil) ventured to say that New Zealand ought not to be sacrificed to him, and that in choosing between the retention of a great patrician in the Cabinet, and the maintenance and happiness of a great British possession of the Crown, the latter ought to be preferred.

said, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil) was deprived of the opportunity on the last occasion that the subject of New Zealand was debated in that House, of delivering the speech he had just made, and which was intended, as he thought, for a Motion very different from that which was now submitted to the House, and of which he cordially approved. He knew how painful it was for hon. Mem- bers at the end of a Session to carry away undelivered speeches with them, and he should have sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman in his disappointment if he had not had the opportunity of making this speech. The second debate on the affairs of New Zealand lasted two nights; and, as the right hon. Gentleman had referred to what had then had fallen from him, he begged to observe that he thought it would have been more appropriate had the right hon. Gentleman made those observations on that occasion. He certainly should not now be provoked to a renewal of the discussion on New Zealand, because he did not consider that it would be for the public interest, or the interest of the Colony itself. In noticing the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, he would not even do what it was painful for him to refrain from doing, namely, enter into a defence of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department, and repel the imputations which he thought were unjustly cast upon him. He could not do that without affording an opportunity for a renewed discussion, which he deprecated only upon public grounds. He felt the less regret, however, in adopting this course, because he thought that on the last and preceding occasion he did everything in his power to show that there was not that diversity of sentiment between his noble Friend and himself that had been imputed, and upon those occasions he certainly did exert himself to vindicate his noble Friend from the accusation directed against him. The right hon. Gentleman said that his noble Friend must be held responsible for the appointment of Captain Fitzroy. He admitted that, speaking technically — he granted that his noble Friend was responsible for the appointment; but, at the same time, he thought that it would be most ungenerous if, for every act of Mr. Hobson or Captain Fitzroy, he said to the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, "You appointed these gentlemen, and in the eye of the Constitution, you are responsible, and I hold you culpable for every act they have done." That doctrine was constitutionally and technically true; but, morally speaking, his noble Friend could not be held responsible for all the acts which were performed. With regard to the question of the militia, his noble Friend informed Captain Fitzroy, some months ago, that he thought a militia should be organized; that there ought to be a local force established. But Captain Fitzroy differed from him, and did not act upon the instructions. It was quite true that his noble Friend was constitutionally responsible for the non-performance of this order; but he did not think that any gentleman out of the House would say that his noble Friend must be considered morally responsible for the decision come to by Captain Fitzroy. Captain Fitzroy, acting, no doubt, upon pure and honourable, though mistaken views, declined organizing the militia. The House might be assured, however, that his noble Friend had no wish to throw on Captain Fitzroy any responsibility that belonged to himself. As to the appointment of that gentleman, there never was an appointment made from purer or more disinterested motives. His noble Friend took Captain Fitzroy because he sincerely believed that he was a man better competent than almost any other for the discharge of the functions of Governor of New Zealand. With regard to the mode in which the Colony should be governed, he did not see much difference between the views of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and those which he entertained. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Don't let there be municipal government, but county government." For any territorial division of the country they must take, as the centre, the largest town of the district; then incorporate with that town as large a district as they possibly could, and give the natives resident within the district the right of representation, and all the advantages of British subjects. By circumscribing the district, they excluded the possibility of mere ignorant physical force overpowering the spirit, enterprise, and intelligence of the English colonists. If they provided that every one of the natives should be entitled to vote, it was possible that a combination might be formed, and mere numbers overcome the settlers; but if they took their districts, and pave the natives an equal franchise, that would be a sort of county institution. He would certainly give a liberal franchise, and he thought that the body to be entrusted with the taxation of the Colony should have as extensive powers of taxation for county purposes as were consistent with the proper exercise of the functions of the supreme authority. The constitution of this supreme authority was a most important ques- tion; but that in some way or other, the Legislative Council—the governing body—ought to represent the public opinion of the Colony, was a principle which he was ready to admit. How that could be best accomplished, it was impossible for him to lay down, at this moment, any precise rule. Having alluded to the appointment of Captain Grey, who, he stated, should be amply remunerated for any loss he might sustain, the right hon. Baronet concluded by observing, that it was neither for the advantage of the Colony, nor for the public interest, that this discussion should be further continued.

was glad to hear that the intercourse between the Colonial Office and the New Zealand Company had been revived. This was creditable to the Colonial Office, after so many sharp debates; and he trusted that the whole matter would soon be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

said, that nothing could be in a better tone than was the speech of the right hon. Baronet; and he should feel greatly disappointed if the communications now going on between the Colonial Office and the New Zealand Company were not attended with the most satisfactory results. As to the choice of a Governor for the Colony, they ought to recollect that for a new settlement they required as a Governor a man of great ability, and 1,200l. a year was not sufficient for a gentleman going out as Governor of New Zealand: a taxing officer in one of the Law Courts in Dublin, his right hon. Friend informed them, got as high a salary. While they were voting the Estimates for New Zealand, they ought to take as much as would pay the debt at once. Now, the present Estimates did not give a fair notion of what the Colony required. In some Papers from Captain Fitzroy, the expenditure of this year was estimated at from 36,000l. to 40,000l., and the only revenue to meet that, was 14,000l., leaving a deficit of 22,000l. But of the 14,000l., Captain Fitzroy calculated on receiving 8,000l. from property tax, and 2,000l. from land titles. The first return showed that the property tax would not produce 4,000l. instead of 8,000l., and as to the revenue from land titles, by allowing parties to purchase from the natives, it was swept away altogether. Thus, then, all they had was 8,000l. as a revenue, with an expenditure of 36,000l. or 40,000l. leaving a deficit of 32,000l. The present Estimate was only for 22,000l. and odd, and they had a debt of 15,000l., for which they had issued their debentures. He did not think that there could be a less deficiency than 40,000l. in amount. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to another point. Captain Fitzroy had made a reduction in every one's salary in the Colony. He had taken one-fourth of each person's salary. They had, for instance, sent out Mr. Chapman as a judge, with a salary of 800l. a year; by Captain Fitzroy's regulations that had been reduced below 600 a year. This he considered a very hard case. Why was a difference to be made between judges? What right had this gentleman to expect that the Governor would have swept the customs from 22,000l. down to 8,000l., and that he should be made to suffer for it? They ought to keep faith with the public servants; and in this instance they ought to take such an Estimate as would enable them, amongst other things, to pay this gentleman the salary they had contracted to give him.

observed, that there appeared to him to be very little difference between the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and the right hon. Baronet, as to that species of representative government which should be given to New Zealand. He hoped that the result of the proceedings that had been alluded to would be good government, under which the Colony would prosper.

said, he rejoiced heartily to hear once more that there was a prospect of agreement between the Company and the Colonial Office; but he warned the House not to expect any satisfactory settlement until some clear and intelligible principle had been laid down for dealing with the waste lands. All the great writers on international law were agreed on the subject. Their authority had been already appealed to in this controversy; but he would venture to trouble the House with the opinions of a great and good man, the late Dr. Arnold, who thus wrote in the Englishman's Register, in June 1831, long before the New Zealand question had arisen:—

"It is said the land belongs to everybody—nothing belongs to everybody; it either belongs to somebody or to nobody at all. The air belongs to nobody, the open sea belongs to nobody, and for this reason, because man has done nothing and can do nothing to make them better for his use than God made them from the beginning. They are not his property at all; but with the earth or land, and all things on it, is quite different. Men were to subdue the earth, that is, make it by their labour what it would not have been by itself; and with the labour so bestowed upon it, came the right of property in it. Thus every land which is inhabited all belongs to somebody. But so much does the right of property go along with labour, that enlightened nations have never scrupled to take possession of countries inhabited only by savages—countries which have been hunted over, but never subdued or cultivated."

How different is the case of New Zealand, where the natives derived no supplies of food from the slaves, but depended on cultivation for their support! but where yet, he heard it stated in evidence again and again, not one thousandth part of the land had ever been cultivated. Dr. Arnold goes on to say—

"It is true they have often gone further and settled themselves in countries which were cultivated, and then it becomes robbery; but when our fathers went to America, and took possession of the mere hunting grounds of the Indians of lands on which man had hitherto bestowed no labour, they only exercised a right which God has inseparably united with industry and knowledge."

These are clear intelligible principles, clarly laid down; but up to this time no intelligible principle had been avowed by the Government on this subject; and as the land question was at the bottom of all the difficulties and disturbances in New Zealand, he thought the House ought not to be satisfied till Ministers declared how the waste lands were to be dealt with, whether they formed part of the domain of the Crown or not. Unless Government made up their minds to grapple firmly with this question, all hopes of a satisfactory settlement would be illusory; and these civil speeches between the Company and the Ministers, preferable as they were to their previous unseemly squabbles, would only terminate once more as they had so often before, in renewed disputes and disappointments.

, leaving the general question as having been already sufficiently discussed, would confine himself to the amount of the present estimate. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, that the smallness of the Vote required some justification. The fact was, that among the many other difficulties in which the late Governor had left the Government (and he wished not to press unduly upon Captain Fitzroy), was that of great uncertainty as to the state of the finances of the Colony. He was not prepared to say that the calculations upon which this Vote was founded would prove to be correct; but in preparing the Estimates for Parliament the Colonial Office could only proceed upon such documents as had been furnished to them. And the only statement in reference to this, the financial question, which had been supplied to the Government by Captain Fitzroy, was that which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard himself.

had come down to the House expecting that this Vote was to be opposed. That, he believed, was the general understanding. But it appeared now that the Company having got their million of acres of land secured to them, as he supposed they had or would have under the renewed negotiation with the Colonial Office, they were for increasing instead of opposing the Estimates, knowing very well that the more money was expended in the Colony, the better it would be for themselves. He had no doubt if the Session lasted much longer, they would have a Supplemental Estimate brought in for New Zealand. For his part, he thought we were already taxed enough for this mismanaged Colony. Would the hon. Gentleman say whether this Vote included all that this country would be called upon to pay on account of the present year, or whether he intended to propose a Supplemental Estimate?

had already stated that the calculations upon which the present Estimate was framed, were made upon very imperfect information.

believed, if the colonists of New Zealand were allowed to govern themselves, there would be a revenue more than sufficient to meet all the expenses of the Colony, without calling for any aid from this country.

was somewhat surprised at the turn the discussion had taken. It appeared now that the attention of the House had been taken up by a mere squabble between the New Zealand Company and the Government, and now that that dispute was in a fair way for settlement, the more important question of whether the Colonial Department as now constituted was fit to be intrusted with the destinies of our vast Colonial Empire, was altogether lost sight of.

complained that the present Bishop of New Zealand had consecrated, for the exclusive burial of Protestants, a portion of the cemetery which had hitherto been used for the interment of the inhabitants of the Colony generally, without regard to religious distinctions. He had received communications stating that this act of the Bishop's had given great dissatisfaction, and that a petition would be forwarded to him for presentation to the House of Commons on the subject.

could not allow any aspersions to be cast on the character of the present Bishop of New Zealand, without standing up in his defence. He believed no man had ever exercised the functions of his office with greater zeal and devotion—no man had been more successful in the performance of his sacred duties—and there was no man whose character was, in every respect, more exemplary than that of the right rev. Prelate.

asked, was it intended that this country should be saddled with the ecclesiastical establishments of New Zealand?

was understood to say, that, in the present state of the Colony, it was necessary that the means of religious instruction for the inhabitants should be provided by this country.

wished to know whether the present Governor was to have any increase of salary, as compared with the former Governors.

said, the present Governor went out on a special mission, and he would, therefore, receive a special allowance. That special allowance would be 2,500l. a year, instead of 1,200l. a year, which was the salary of the late Governor.

observed, that from all he had heard, he believed the present Bishop of New Zealand to be a most estimable person, and in every way fitted for the duties of his sacred office; but he thought the charge for the ecclesiastical establishment of the Colony ought not to be placed upon this country. He hoped that means would be taken to provide for the payment of the clergy out of the revenue arising from the waste lands of the Colony.

agreed that it would be impossible for this country to maintain the ecclesiastical establishments of all the Colonies. He believed that by an appropriation of the waste lands means might be provided for the religious training and education of the people, and for all clerical purposes, and he considered that the colonists ought to be put in a position, as soon as possible, to provide a religious establishment for themselves by those means.

was an advocate for the voluntary principle in all cases. But he believed the New Zealand Company had already turned their attention to the subject, and had invested 7,000l. in the hands of trustees for church purposes in New Zealand. Under these circumstances he thought it was hard that the charge should be thrown on this country. He had no wish to asperse the character of the Bishop of New Zealand; but if the statements which had been made to him were true, Dr. Selwyn had, he thought, acted imprudently in consecrating, for the exclusive burial of members of the Established Church, that part of the cemetery which had been previously used in common by all sects. He might have selected another piece of ground for the purpose.

said, his hon. Friend was quite correct in supposing that the New Zealand Company had set apart a large sum for the purposes of religious instruction, and they had granted assistance in this respect without regard to any feelings of partiality for one religion more than another. They had been guided only by the proportionate numbers of each sect in the particular locality to which the grant was made, and they had given the largest division of the funds to the members of the Established Church, as being the largest body.

trusted that when this sum was expended this Commission would cease, and that Parliament would not be called upon to vote any more money for improving the estates of two noble Lords, under pretence of improving the river Shannon. He looked upon the whole proceeding as a gross job from beginning to end.

supposed that the two noble Lords to whom the hon. and gallant Officer referred were the Marquess of Lansdowne and Lord Monteagle.

could assure the hon. and gallant Officer that the money voted for improving the Shannon, had been applied in that which was an important public work, carried on under the most competent engineers, and would be completed in the shortest possible period of time. With regard to the expense of the Commission itself, one person only as a Member of that Commission received salary.

denied that the improvement of the Shannon was a job. He felt bound, in justice to a noble Lord who was absent, to say, that having ascertained some years ago, in Liverpool, that it would be an object of great importance to fourteen counties to improve the navigation of the Shannon, he (Viscount Sandon) urged the subject upon the attention of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (the present Lord Monteagle), who was at length by dint of persuasion induced to adopt means for carrying out the work. He for one believed the improvement would be found of more real value to Ireland, than all the railroads that had been projected.

objected to the Vote, upon the ground, that the money lately expended on this building had been laid out on embellishments in the worst possible taste. He thought that the church ought to be pulled down altogether, and another constructed in a different part of the parish. He must also say that much bad taste was displayed in the monuments in the neighbouring Abbey of Westminster, which, he said, were unlike anything in the heaven above, in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. He objected strongly, too, to the mythological devices introduced into a Christian church, and the showmanlike manner in which they were exhibited.

remarked, that architectural amateurs were quite insatiable in their demands for public money to be spent in carrying out their ideas. As to St. Margaret's Church, as the House of Commons occupied it in some sort, seats being allotted for the Speaker and Members, they ought to pay for its necessary reparations; and with respect to pulling down the church, it would cost from 40,000l. to 50,000l. were it to be removed, and another substituted in its place.

was in favour of the demolition of the church, as a Committee of the House had already suggested. As to Members going there, that was only a parliamentary fiction. He thought that even 50,000l. would not be too much to be expended in effecting the object in view.

thought the Vote should be postponed, and the church ultimately pulled down, as it would be in the way of the proposed Westminster improvements.

should regret to see 40,000l. expended in the way proposed. If they intended to spend money in architectural improvements, they ought to begin by pulling down the two towers of the Abbey, erected as they were in defiance of taste and architectural propriety.

agreed with the first observations of the noble Lord. He thought, however, that St. Margaret's burial-ground should be removed, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not overlook the matter.

had a curiosity—he would not in the presence of the noble Lord opposite characterize the word in any way—but he really had a curiosity to know whether the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had ever attended divine service at the church in question?

Yes, twice.

Yes, once.

could understand how the right hon. Gentleman had gone. The Speaker went there once a year, and the right hon. Gentleman had probably accompanied him on one of these occasions. But very few Members of the House had ever been within the walls of St. Margaret's church. They should then put out of the case the use made by the House of Commons of the church. He thought, moreover, that there should be full paro- chial accommodation for the inhabitants of the district. Now, was the Abbey turned to as much account as it might be in this way? There was a most noble building—he never could enter it without thinking of the uses to which it was once put, although he would refrain from any anticipations or speculations as to whether it might ever be put to these uses again. But did it not occur to them that, in a building of such vast size, within which he almost always found reigning a most solemn mysterious solitude, did it not occur to them that it might be turned to some useful purpose? How were matters managed at present? They took a small section, and crowded a congregation into it; a congregation only large by contrast with the place in which it was bestowed; while, by enlarging that portion of the edifice, they would be providing for parochial accommodation, and applying the church to its proper purposes as a place of worship. When he saw Mr. Barry's beautiful design from Westminster Bridge—and he never saw a more beautiful one—when that design was completed, would not St. Margaret's be an eyesore? Again, when they came down Parliament-street, would it not obstruct their view of the Abbey, and in coming from the Parks by the proposed new street, would it not be equally in the way? He was not disposed to have 40,000l. or 50,000l. voted for Westminster improvements were such obstructions to be allowed to continue. He did hope that the understanding formerly, as he understood, come to, that the church would be got rid of when the new Houses were built, would be really acted upon.

said, that the sum alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was not voted in supply from his pocket. The fund for metropolitan improvements came from the coal tax imposed on the port of London.

It comes from my pocket, nevertheless. I don't burn turf.

agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The objection taken to the church was not only that it intercepted the view, but the site itself was very objectionable. Suppose the expense of rebuilding the church not to exceed 40,000l., where was a new site to be found? He believed that it would require an expenditure of more than 60,000l. to provide the necessary accommodation. The parent church must be maintained, and he conceived that no more economical plan could be devised than the grant now proposed.

trusted the dean and chapter of Westminster would attend to the suggestions which had been thrown out, and he believed that some alteration was intended to be made.

was of opinion that St. Margaret's Church was a very fair specimen of undecorated Gothic architecture. The only part of the Abbey which was concealed by the Church was the ugly portion between the north entrance and Henry the Seventh's chapel, and St. Margaret's Church was far more sightly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon had asked how many Members of Parliament attended that church. In former years, he (Mr. Protheroe) frequently attended St. Margaret's Church, both in the morning and evening, and often saw a considerable number there. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention to the state of St. Margaret's churchyard. The effluvia arising from it was most disagreeable, and hon. Members, whose attendance in Parliament was compulsory, suffered more or less from the air sent into the House by Dr. Reid.

would not go into the discussion whether or not this church was a good specimen of Gothic architecture; for this was not a Committee of Taste but of Supply. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had over-estimated the difficulty of procuring a site. He had the honour of sitting on a Committee connected with this subject, and the result of their investigation was, that several sites could now be procured at a comparatively cheap rate, which in a few years might cost a large sum. He hoped, then, Government would lose no time in getting rid of the nuisance of the churchyard, which, in his belief, was injurious to the health of Members of that House, and he was sure was so to persons who resided in the neighbourhood. He did not think the Vote should be postponed; for they would probably have to pay next year a much larger sum if no provision was now made for the repair of the church.

felt somewhat alarmed at the tone of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment, who evidently intended that St. Margaret's Church should remain permanently. If they consented to vote hundreds of thousands every year for the New Palace at Westminster, and could not afford 20,000l. or 30,000l. for the removal of that church, it would be better to put a stop to the improvements altogether. He considered the church to be a complete disgrace to the neighbourhood.

said, the Archdeacon, at his visitation, had presented the church as not being in a fit state of repair.

hoped that amongst the illustrious rulers of this country to whom statues were to be erected, Cromwell would not be forgotten. He believed that, of the monarchs who ruled this country for 1,000 years, there was not one to be found more distinguished as a soldier and a statesman. Cromwell was as worthy of remembrance by the people of this country as Napoleon by the people of France. Less crime and less cruelty could be brought home to him than to any one who had attained such renown as a warrior and statesman.

could assure his hon. Friend who had pronounced so eloquent an eulogium on Cromwell, that it was currently reported that a statue to his hon. Friend's favourite ruler was not excluded from the list of those about to be erected.

I am very glad to hear it.

objected to this Vote. There was none to which the people of England more strongly objected. Bearing in mind the statements made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department at the beginning of the Session, he presumed the whole of the Vote was administered by the Foreign Office; but never was a time when Secret Service Money was less required, and he should therefore move that the Vote be reduced to 20,000l.

stated that, however strongly he was opposed to the National System of Education in Ireland—however he was of opinion that a most important principle had been conceded in it, in order to render it palatable and acceptable to the Roman Catholic party—and, although he should have felt it to be his duty to give it every opposition if now brought forward for the first time, and its principle made the subject of discussion, yet he was ready to admit, all things considered—considering that the system had been now for more than twelve years in operation, supported by three successive Administrations differing from each other in political sentiments, and that school-houses had been built and arrangements made upon the faith of its continuance, he (Mr. Hamilton) should not feel justified in endeavouring so suddenly, as on a Vote in Committee of Supply, to stop a grant for the support of schools in which so many hundred thousand children of the poor in Ireland were now in course of education. It was certainly his intention to have brought under the consideration of the House the present state of the Education Question in Ireland, with the view of vindicating the Protestants of Ireland, and especially the clergy of the Established Church, from the unjust imputations which had been cast upon them, and the odium to which they had been exposed in consequence of their continued and conscientious refusal to identify themselves with, or give their sanction to, that system—and of stating to the House the reasons and motives by which they were actuated. But, at so advanced a period of the Session—in the present position of public business—in the exhausted state of the House, and in the absence of so many of his hon. Friends—he felt it would be useless to attempt to do justice to the subject, and he would, therefore, refrain from raising any discussion respecting it. On the present occasion he would content himself with entering his protest against the principle which was involved in the Vote before the Committee, and expressing the deep regret he felt that Her Majesty's Government had not thought it proper to entertain favourably the strong appeal which had recently been made to them in reference to Scriptural Education in Ireland. That appeal had been made on behalf of the great body of the Protestant laity of Ireland—of 1,700 of the clergy of the Established Church—and was supported by the petitions of more than 63,000 persons which had been presented in that House. The object of the application was to induce Her Majesty's Government to take into their consideration the very painful position in which the Protestant clergy and people of Ireland were placed, who conscientiously object to the present national system—and it urged the claims of 1,820 Scriptural schools, attended by more than 103,000 children of different persuasions. He (Mr. Hamilton) regretted deeply that such an appeal should have been disregarded—had it been entertained, he did believe that the subject would have been approached with a great desire to promote an arrangement or accommodation; and he was sanguine enough to believe, that a satisfactory accommodation might have been arrived at. For the reasons he had stated, he would not trespass further upon the Committee; but would be satisfied with entering his earnest protest against the national system and its principle.

complained of the attacks that were made against the system, referring in particular to a speech of the Bishop of Cashel, in the other House of Parliament, wherein that right rev. Prelate stated that seventy-six out of 100 of the children educated in a particular locality could neither read nor write; the fact being, that those were children between the ages of five and ten, a fact which the right rev. Prelate omitted to state. His speech had been quoted and relied on at several public meetings, as containing substantial proofs and charges against the efficiency of the national system of education, but against which no tangible charge had yet been brought forward even by the right rev. Prelate.

wished to know from the right hon. Baronet opposite, whether it were intended, as intimated by him at the commencement of the Session, to establish model schools in Ireland, with a view to the introduction of a higher class of education; and also, whether it was intended to incorporate the National Board, so as to give it the power of taking land for the building of schools, particularly in those districts where, as the right hon. Baronet must be aware, there existed great difficulty in obtaining sites for that purpose, owing to the opposition of the proprietary to the national system of education, and in consequence of which, schools were sometimes established in places most inconvenient to the majority of the population. He also wished to know whether it was intended to better the style of existing school-houses, some of which were scarcely better than hovels.

had no hesitation in stating that the Board of National Education in Ireland did intend to found in certain districts such schools as he had described at an early part of the Session; and, in order to meet the difficulty referred to by the hon. Member respecting sites for school-houses, it was proposed to recommend to Her Majesty to grant a charter of incorporation to the National Board, whereby they would be enabled to take and appropriate land for that purpose. In reply to the hon. Member's last question, he could state that the attention of the Board had been directed to the state of existing school-houses. The point was one of much difficulty; but he had no doubt that they would be made more worthy of the object to which they were applied.

said, that it was not the speeches that were made in that House, but out of it, of which he had to complain. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished for a separate grant for a system of education in connexion with the Protestant Church: they demanded a grant for the Church Education Society; but, if that were conceded, an equivalent, and consequently a much larger grant, should, in justice, be given to a Roman Catholic board for the purpose of Roman Catholic education. Such a course would upset the present united and useful system, and lead to much sectarian bitterness.

denied that there existed on the part of those who sup- ported the Church Education Society any desire to establish separate boards, and maintained that the boasted success of the national system was merely fictitious, and that the only united system was that of the Church Society. He was prepared to prove, that while that system was both united and liberal, and interfered less with the religious tenets of the children than the national system, it conferred upon all alike, Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, a sound Christian education.

conceived that a distinct grant to the Church Education Society would have the effect he described. The very name of the society indicated a sectarian character. The Church Catechism was required to be taught in the schools of the Church Education Society. [Lord C. Hamilton: No, no.] Then he could neither understand the Society's name nor the speeches of its supporters. At a meeting last March, the Bishop of Down spoke of the system adopted by the National Board as "anti-Christian, because anti-Scriptural and anti-Church."

defended the application of the term "anti-Scriptural," and insisted that 815 of the national schools had been found to admit neither the Scriptures nor the Extracts.

said, that if the national system did not supply united education, it was because the clergy of the Established Church set their faces against it, and refused to attend at the schools. The rules allowed religious instruction to be given, and provided for it, though no child was to be required to attend if its parents objected. And hon. Members who voted for the Irish Colleges Bill could call this an anti-Scriptural system!

could justify what he had said, but had much more respect for the Committee than for the observations just made.

objecting to any grant to a professor of divinity, moved that the Vote be reduced to 7,228l.

wished to call the attention of the Government to a proposition he had before submitted to the House for the Establishment of a Gallery of National Antiquities. Such an establishment might either be connected with the British Museum, or a separate institution might be formed.

said, he was fully sensible of the importance of this subject; but there were at present such numerous demands upon the Government for new buildings and for the establishment of new institutions, that they found it absolutely necessary to put some limit upon their expenditure in this department. He thought if such a selection of antiquities as that referred to by the hon. Member for Waterford should be formed, it was most advisable that it should be united with the British Museum, rather than established as a separate institution. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman the propriety of postponing the consideration of this subject until the new buildings now in course of erection in connexion with the British Museum were completed.

said, he did not wish to propose any Motion on the subject. His object was to obtain from the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government an expression of sympathy in the views he entertained.

said, he considered it was far preferable to aid local institutions in preserving local antiquities, than to remove such antiquities from the vicinities with which their interest was immediately connected.

adverted to the collection of prints recently purchased for the British Museum, and lauded the care bestowed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in the acquisition of treasures of this kind, and the general liberality and discrimination exhibited by him in matters relating to the fine arts.

thought that this sum ought not to be taken in one vote, but that it should be divided into several votes. Upon one portion of the Vote he should take the sense of the Committee—namely, on that relating to the expenditure which had taken place in excursions made on board of Her Majesty's ships of war by certain bishops connected with our dependencies. He also objected to the charge of 25l. for conveying the Prince of Prussia from Greenwich to Ostend; as well as to that of 1,200l. for such of the Episcopal clergy in Scotland as were most in need of assistance. He thought that these clergymen ought to be maintained by their own congregations, in the same way as the members of the Free Church maintained their pastors. He should move that the Vote be for 47,899l. 10s. 1d.

presumed, that the bishops to whom the hon. Gentleman had alluded, had made these excursions in the performance of their duty; and an allowance ought to be made for their expenses, unless they went about for their own amusement. There was, however, one item which he thought objectionable—namely, 60l. for a passage from Gibraltar to Cadiz. Now, this must have been a shabby bishop, for he must have been living aboard ship all the time, instead of going ashore at Cadiz, where there were plenty of hotels. It was impossible that the expenses of the mere passage could have amounted to that sum. He should like to have some explanation of an item of 810l. for the travelling expenses of various Sovereigns and Royal personages, during their sojourn in England in the last year.

quite agreed in the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Coventry and the hon. and gallant Officer, that the Colonial bishops ought to pay for all excursions made for the purposes of recreation out of their own pockets; but the excursion in question did not come within that description. The journey to Lisbon of the Bishop of Gibraltar was rendered necessary, in order that a new church and a burying ground should be consecrated. The charges of entertaining passengers of the rank of bishops, who dined at the captain's table, were fixed at a fair and at the same time a moderate sum, so as to remunerate the officer; but not to enable him to gain anything. As to the question put by the gallant Officer respecting the travelling expenses of the Royal Personages who had visited this country in the course of last year, he must state that it was customary for a Sovereign to defray all charges of guests whilst in his or her dominions; and he was quite sure the gallant Officer would not wish to see the Queen of England placed in a different position in this respect to that of other crowned heads.

observed a sum charged for the entertainment of Queen Pomare and her Consort when she took shelter on board of the Cormorant, whilst stationed at Tahiti. He wished to know from whom it was that Queen Pomare sought the protection and shelter afforded by the Cormorant?

said, that Queen Pomare sought a refuge aboard of the Cormorant, when her island and capital were taken possession of by the French.

was glad to see the sum referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, on the Votes, as it showed that some sympathy existed in England towards the Queen of Tahiti.

rose to propose that the sum of 7,528l. should be granted to Her Majesty, for half a year's retired allowance of 300 Captains in Her Majesty's Navy (being the Supplemental Navy Estimate), at the rate of 5s. 6d. a day to each, beyond the amount of their existing hall-pay, 15,056l. The right hon. Gentleman said, he felt assured that the explanatory memorandum which had been furnished to them had satisfied the Committee that in the first place it was indispensable that the flag list of the navy should be composed of younger men; and, secondly, that if that were to be effected by means of a retirement, no scheme less extensive than that which he had to propose would be effectual; and he therefore did not deem it necessary to establish the importance of the subject by referring to former history. There were, doubtless, to be found on the present list of flag officers, men who, notwithstanding their advanced age, were yet quite capable of serving with efficiency. Such examples were, however, unfortunately of rare occurrence; and he thought it would be admitted on all hands that it had become necessary that younger men should be brought forward to succeed to the flag than could possibly be the case under the present system. The flag list at present consisted of a hundred and sixty-one officers; of those, forty-six had not served the time necessary to qualify them; of the remaining hundred and fifteen, eleven were between eighty and ninety years of age; fifty six were between seventy and eighty; forty-two were between sixty and seventy; and six only were between fifty-five and sixty. The youngest admiral was upwards of seventy years of age, the youngest vice-admiral was upwards of sixty, and the youngest rear-admiral upwards of fifty-five. Under the existing system that list of flag officers so composed could only be recruited from the first in seniority on the captain's list. On examining the ages of the first hundred on the captain's list, it appeared that thirty were upwards of seventy years of age; that forty-seven were between sixty and seventy; and only twenty-three under sixty, the youngest being fifty-five years of age. Of the second hundred, eleven were between seventy and eighty; forty-two were between sixty and seventy; and forty-seven were between fifty and sixty, of whom only seven were under fifty-five. Of the third hundred, seven only were under fifty, and none of them would have the slightest chance of the flag until the age of fifty-five. He might here observe that during the war, when the success which attended our arms was to be attributed no less to the energy, activity and enterprise of our officers, than to their skill and ingenuity, the average age at which officers were promoted to the flag was, in 1805, forty-two years, and in 1810, forty-five years. Lord Nelson was a rear-admiral at thirty-nine, and he closed his glorious career at forty-seven. His gallant Friend near him was also a rear-admiral at the age of thirty-nine. At the last brevet the average age was sixty-one, and the evil, instead of diminishing, was increasing, for if a brevet were to take place to-morrow, and included the first fifty officers on the list, the average age would be upwards of sixty-seven. The average age of the first hundred would be sixty-seven, of the second hundred, sixty-two; of the third hundred, fifty-eight; and it was not until they reached the fourth hundred that they would find an average age less than that which would entitle officers to admission to the retirement list. Of the first three hundred captains on the list, only seven were under fitly years of age. When these circumstances were considered, he trusted it would be admitted that the scheme which he proposed was not more extensive than was absolutely necessary. As respected the terms on which it was offered, he hoped that they might be regarded as affording a fair and liberal remuneration, and that they would not be looked upon as inconsistent with economy. Every officer accepting retirement would receive 5s. 6d. a day in addition to his present rate of half-pay, and to that to which he would become subsequently entitled had he remained on the present active list. The title of rear-admiral should be conferred on the first hundred in the list, and the remainder should be permitted to assume the same title at the period when they would have obtained the flag by seniority, had they continued on the active list. The widows of officers having the honorary rank of rear-admiral were to be entitled to the same pension as if they were the wives of effective flag-officers, and to the widows of the retired officers it was proposed to allow pensions of 110l. per annum. Those terms were offered absolutely to all captains of fifty-five years and upwards, not exceeding 300 in number; discretionary power, however, was vested in the Admiralty to extend it to officers between fifty and fifty-five years of age, who were suffering from bodily infirmity. No fresh appointments were to be made until the number should be reduced by death to 100, which number was to be permanently maintained by filling up every vacancy as it should occur. Should 300 officers retire, the effective list would be reduced to 414. To prevent that redundancy the list was to be further reduced, by continuing the system of one promotion for every three vacancies, till it should be reduced to 400, at which number it should be permanently maintained. It was also proposed to apply the same principle of one promotion for every three vacancies to the flag list, till it should be reduced from 161 to 150, at which it should be maintained by continuous promotions. It was not, however, intended that the limitation of the captains and flag lists should interfere with the immediate promotion of officers for gallant and deserving services; but in such cases (as also in the case of general promotion), the lists were again to be reduced to the limited number, by resorting to the restricted promotion. As the number of captains would thus be reduced from 714 to 400, it was only reasonable that a corresponding reduction should be made in the numbers of those in the receipt of the higher rates of half-pay. The 14s. 6d. list, therefore, would be reduced from 100 to 50, and the 12s. 6d. list from 150 to 100. That gave the same proportion in the receipt of the different rates of half-pay, whilst the prospects of each were much improved by a nearer approximation to the flag, and increased chances of employment on the reduction of the list; and he regarded it as being scarcely less important than the principal object of the plan, for it was impossible that officers could be qualified for high command without that experience which alone could be gained in active service; and at present the opportunities of employment were so few that since the peace not one-tenth of the number of officers on the list had ever been commissioned at the same time; and out of the seventy-one captains, only ninety-five had served the necessary time to qualify them for foreign employment as flag officers, of whom only six were under forty-five years of age—the average age of those who actually hoisted their flags during the war. This proposed plan of retirement, would give a greater share of employment to every officer remaining on the effective list, whilst it would give it to comparatively young men, which was undoubtedly a great advantage. He had thus attempted shortly to explain the details of his proposed plan of retirement, with the collateral changes on the effective list. He trusted that the terms proposed would prove sufficiently liberal to ensure the reception of the plan; and though, no doubt, there were many old officers on the list who, actuated by the honourable ambition of serving their country, would be unwilling to accept retirement upon any terms on which it could be offered, yet it could not fail to have occurred to them that when the Government had undertaken this extensive scheme, their chances of employment must, to say the least of it, be very much diminished. If the number required should not accept the offer made to them, it was obvious that any small retirement would be of no avail; for it would only impose a burthen upon the country, without any corresponding benefit, and it would become the duty of the Government to consider what other measures could be adopted to secure the efficiency of the flag list. Should the plan prove fully successful, the additional cost occasioned by the retirement of 300 captains would amount, in the first year, to 30,112l.; but that amount would annually diminish, till the retired list should be reduced by death to 100, when the permanent charge would amount to something more than 10,000l. Against that charge, however, must be placed several reductions of expenditure which the proposed plan would occasion in the active list. The first would be an annual saving of 7,000l., resulting from the limitation of the flag list to 150. A saving of 5,000l. would also result from the readjustment of the rates of half-pay, and a further saving of 5,000l. would also result, at the end of the 16th year, from the non-promotion of one in three on the 200 officers being removed from the retired list without being replaced. A further saving would also follow from the reduction of the list of flag officers to 150, and the general result of all would be (alter a few years) an excess of saving over the cost amounting to many thousands per annum. Feeling confident that the Vote would be agreed to, he would not trespass longer on the time of the House.

opposed the Vote. An actuary would tell the Government that this would really be equivalent to a vote of half a million; it would take that sum to buy such annuities; and already, during a thirty years' peace, the navy had cost on an average 3,500,000l. a year. The half-pay of our navy was rather more than the expenditure of the whole naval department of the United States. Had the Government ascertained that 300 captains of fifty years of age would accept the proposition? Only those who had no interest with the men in power would do so. And why not apply the principle to lieutenants and commanders? If this Vote were granted, there would be other claims, though he would do the officers of the army in that House the justice to say, that while those of the navy had been continually pestering the Government for money, the others had never uttered a word of discontent with their condition.

regretted that any comparison had been drawn between the officers of the two services, and language used tending only to excite animosity between them. The navy did not grudge the army anything it had. The proposed plan was well intended, and the Government were taking a step in the right direction. It would remedy some grievances, of which the hon. Member himself (Mr. Williams) complained. He thought the plan could not succeed, on account of the smallness of the additional pay. The plan being contingent on its acceptance by a sufficient number of officers, he presumed it was still open to revision. Was it intended that officers should forfeit their good service pensions, or give up their salaries as Queen's naval aides-de-camp?

, as a naval officer, returned his thanks to the Government for having at last given the navy such a large retiring allowance. It appeared from the very clear statement of the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty that it was utterly impossible for the service to go on in its present state. He did not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend, who had just addressed the Committee as to the disinclination of officers to accept the retiring pay. In point of numbers and amount of money, the plan was as much as the navy had at present a right to expect; but he thought there should be a juster division of the grant, in order to make it more acceptable to the old officers generally. If it were desired to remove the old admirals from the top of the list, they ought to be properly remunerated, or they would not give up their prospects of being appointed to the dockyards or other of our naval establishments. For the purpose of inducing them to accede to the plan, he would suggest that their pay should be 400l. a year instead of 364l. There was another thing he could not agree to—namely, that the limited list should be gradually reduced by recourse to the principle of promotion. If another promotion, such as that on the birth of the Prince of Wales, should take place, they would have to stop promotion for four years altogether. If the vacancies were regularly filled up, it would be quite sufficient to keep the lists healthy. He thought also when they gave this promotion it ought to include all promotions for meritorious services. When it was said that these were one in three, he should be glad to know in what year that was. With respect to special vacancies, the First Lord of the Admiralty could make them when he pleased. The Paper wound up with a menace which he was sorry to see in a public document. He believed it would be impossible for the Government to make a selection. He wished the Government would take the opinion of the officers as to the relative merits of his and their proposition, and adopt that which they thought most advisable. The hon. Member for Coventry said it would be time enough to do this when we went to war. He said that would be too late, for a sense of honour would then prevent many disabled officers from retirement. However, he thanked the Government for this boon to the service, and all he asked for more was, that they would give it in a manner that would be generally acceptable.

considered the sum now proposed sufficient, but regarded the plan as unsatisfactory and abortive. It was said that the admirals' list was very large; but it was smaller by twenty than in 1800.

said, it was clear, for the reasons stated by the gallant Commodore, that if the list was to be cleared in this manner, it must be done in time of peace. With respect to the sum, it was a difficult thing to settle, some thinking it too much and some too little; but they had endeavoured to fix it at the proper amount as far as they could ascertain it. It remained to be seen how far the proposal would be acceptable to the service. If any other arrangement should be thought better, it would be open to the Government to adopt it. He thought it, however, too much to say that if it were adopted they ought in such cases as that which had lately occurred at New Zealand to be debarred from making special promotions. With respect to the objections made to this great scheme, he did not think them sufficiently important to prevent it. He had laid before the House the general principles on which it was based, but if minor alterations would give more general satisfaction, no doubt they would be made accordingly. He thought the proposition was a very liberal one, and hoped that it would give satisfaction, or at least that it would show the Government were inclined to afford, in time of peace, an honourable pretext of retirement to disabled officers. With respect to the good service pension, it was of course intended, notwithstanding this proposition, that any officer who possessed it should retain it.

said, he had well considered the subject, and was of opinion that the retirement of 100 captains, while it would be attended with a loss of money, would be no remedy for the evil. If they did anything, he conceived it would be better to submit to an increased pecuniary loss, and provide an effectual remedy in the retirement of 300 captains. Notwithstanding what had been said about the principle of seniority, he did think that in certain cases the Crown should have the power of availing itself of the services of distinguished men having the confidence of the Crown, irrespective of that principle. As a general rule, he admitted that promotion ought to be by seniority; but if the country was willing to submit to a pecuniary sacrifice, he must put in a claim on the part of the Executive Government, to consider whether an occasional departure from that rule, in such cases as that of Lord Nelson, who died a vice-admiral, might not be admissible, in giving to captains the rank of rear-admiral, and to rear and vice-admirals, that of admiral, accompanying the selection with every precaution, and with every guarantee to the profession of its being made on the ground of merit, and merit only.

moved the Second Reading of the Waste Lands (Australia) Bill. He had some important Amendments to introduce.

objected to the Bill being pressed; he had understood it would not be pressed if objected to, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman it would be resolutely and vigorously opposed in every stage.

said not one, but every interest, was opposed to the Bill. He moved that it be read a second time that day six months.