had stated two or three days ago that there was a great desire in the Channel Islands that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the criminal law in those islands should be empowered to extend their inquiries to the civil and municipal law. He wished to ask the right hon. Home Secretary whether the Government were prepared so to extend the power of the Commissioners?

said, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had given him notice of his intention to put this question, he had considered the subject, and had communicated with the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the criminal law in the Channel Islands. The Commissioners were of opinion that an inquiry should be made into the state of the civil and municipal, as well as of the criminal law; but they considered that such inquiries ought not to be concurrent, or at least to be mixed up together. They had already made considerable progress in their inquiries with regard to the criminal law; and they entertained a decided opinion, that to mix up the two inquiries would be prejudicial to both. He (Sir G. Grey), therefore, thought that it would be better to defer extending the powers of the Commisioners until the result of their present inquiries was ascertained.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Home Secretary on a subject of considerable importance. It might be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen, that in 1843 and 1844 Bills were introduced into that House with reference to ecclesiastical courts, and that those Bills contained clauses for the abolition of all peculiars. Those measures, after much discussion, were eventually lost. He (Mr. Newdegate) understood, during the last spring, that an Order in Council appeared in, the Gazette, abolishing the peculiars in six dioceses in England. He was greatly surprised at the announcement, and he wrote to the Bishop of London, in whose diocese a peculiar which had long belonged to his family was situated, to inquire whether those peculiars were to be abolished. The right rev. Prelate favoured him with an answer, stating that the Act for establishing the Ecclesiastical Commission contained a clause under which the Commissioners were empowered to recommend to Her Majesty in Council measures for regulating the internal affairs of the different dioceses, and for abolishing peculiars; that the Commissioners had recommended the abolition of certain peculiars in the diocese to which he (Mr. Newdegate) had referred; and that the Order in Council had consequently been issued. Now this was a very hard case upon those to whom the peculiars belonged. Under the operations of this law, he would be dispossessed of property which had been in his family since the reign of Edward III., and upon which he had expended some thousands of pounds in order to render it worthy of the sacred purposes to which it was devoted. He was confident that if an examination had been made into the conduct of that peculiar by his father, by himself, and by their predecessors, no just reason could be shown for the treatment to which it seemed they were to be subjected. The possessors of these peculiars were, it appeared, to be relieved from the ownership of the property, and from the responsibility of managing it; and by the Order in Council issued by Her Majesty, at the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the parish to which he had referred, which contained more than 1,600 inhabitants, would be left with the miserable provision of something like 25l. a year for spiritual purposes. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Home Secretary upon what grounds the Ecclesiastical Commissioners recommended that Her Majesty should, by Order in Council, enact that all parishes, places, churches, chapels, the whole clergy, and others, Her Majesty's subjects, situate within, in possession of, subject to, or connected with, any peculiar or exempt jurisdiction, extending over any parish or place within the diocese of Canterbury, London, Winchester, Chichester, Lincoln, and Rochester, should, after the 1st of January, 1846, be respectively under, or subject to, the respective bishops and archdeacons of the above-named diocese, whereby all such peculiar or exempt jurisdictions have been abolished? Also whether previous to the above recommendation the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had examined into the particular circumstances of each parish, place, church, chapel, and of each clergyman, or other person, Her Majesty's subject, as affected by the above Order in Council? Also whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners engaged, at the time of making the above recommendation, to take, or have since taken, or are about to take, any measures for supplying the deficiency of spiritual superintendence and service to which the inhabitants of the above parishes and places, and the congregations of the above churches and chapels, may be exposed in consequence of the removal of the personal liability to provide spiritual superintendence and service, from which the late holders of the above peculiar or exempt jurisdictions have been relieved by the operation of the same order, which has deprived them of their property, rights, and interest in the above peculiar or exempt jurisdictions? Also why Her Majesty's late Government, after having twice introduced Bills into this House for the abolition of the above peculiar or exempt jurisdictions, ultimately advised Her Majesty to deal with the property, rights, and interests of those who were possessed of, or were connected with them, by Order in Council?

said, the hon. Gentleman had given him notice of these questions, and he was, therefore, enabled to state the law under which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had acted, and the effect of the scheme they had prepared, which had received the approval of Her Majesty in Council. By the 6th and 7th Victoria, c. 77, see. 10, power was given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to prepare schemes for placing peculiars under the jurisdiction of the bishops of the dioceses in which they were respectively situated. Those schemes, however, had no effect in law until they were sanctioned by the Queen in Council. The 20th section of the Act to which he had referred contained a proviso that no Order in Council for sanctioning any such scheme should, until the expiration of a year after its issue, affect the jurisdiction of any Ecclesiastical Court. The powers thus conferred upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been exercised with regard to many dioceses; but he thought the hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the effect of those powers. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the effect of the Orders in Council to which he had alluded, was co-extensive with the effect that would have been produced had the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill been passed. That Bill would have abolished peculiars altogether, including the rights of the patrons and officers. The effect of the Orders in Council was merely to place the incumbents under the spiritual superintendence of the bishops of the dioceses in which their cures were situated, and did not at all affect the rights of the patrons, or of any persons holding office under the peculiars. He might add that all the Orders in Council which had been issued under this Act had been laid before Parliament. The last question of the hon. Gentleman was, why the Government, after having twice introduced Bills for the abolition of peculiar jurisdictions, had advised Her Majesty to interfere with the property and rights of those who were possessed of those peculiars, by Order in Council? He (Sir G. Grey) could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government had no control over the matter. The law placed the power in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and these matters did not come at all under the cognizance of the Government.

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department whether the information was correct, that three Gentlemen had been appointed as Commissioners to inquire into the charges preferred as to the mismanagement of the prison at Milbank; and if it were true that the Commission for that purpose did not include the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe)? In asking this question, he wished to observe that, if the right hon. Gentleman had excluded the name of that hon. Gentleman from the Commission, the inquiry would not be satisfactory to the public. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the appointment of such a Commission; for however respectable might be the names of those nominated, they would not be able to satisfy the public if the hon. Member for Finsbury were excluded.

replied, that it was quite true that a Commission had been prepared, and that it was confined to the names of three Gentlemen who had undertaken to perform the duties entrusted to them. The inquiry was to be directed into the conduct of the governor, and of other persons connected with the prison. His object was to select Gentlemen who would come to the inquiry with unprejudiced minds. It certainly never occurred to him to include in that Commission the name of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombe), for that hon. Gentleman had come forward to make charges against the persons connected with the prison, and to prefer statements, to the truth of which he had pledged himself. He did not think it would be right to ask the hon. Member to be one of the Commissioners; and if he had asked, he was sure the hon. Gentleman, under such circumstances, would have declined serving. The fullest opportunity would be given to the hon. Gentleman, who was the aecuser in this case, of substantiating his charges; but the three Gentlemen who were appointed were to act as a jury; they were to be the judges. It was in no invidious sense, then, he excluded the hon. Gentleman, who had pledged himself to the truth of the statements he had made; but it would not do to have a judge pledged to decide that to be true which he had preferred as an accuser. The names of those who had been selected as Commissioners were the Earl of Chichester, Lord Seymour, and Mr. Bickham Escott.

asked whether the Home Secretary would, together with the names of the Commissioners, furnish a copy of the instructions given to them. He concurred with the hon. Member for Coventry that it would be next to impossible that the Commission would give satisfaction to the public unless his hon. Colleague was one of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman said that these Commissioners were to act as judges; but he did not understand that persons so appointed were deemed to be judges, their duty being to report to that House for its information. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had broached a new doctrine. He placed great confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, having taken a phrenological survey of his head. Generally speaking, when Gentlemen were appointed to important offices he made such survey, and he did not know that he had ever been more satisfied than with the right hon. Gentleman's head. His impression was, that the right hon. Gentleman had a very benevolent disposition, and he should be disappointed if the right hon. Gentleman did not prove that he had a strong love of justice. The right hon. Gentleman said that his (Mr. Wakley's) hon. Colleague (Mr. T. Duncombe) appeared as an accuser. Now, he thought that that was a dangerous doctrine. He took it that an hon. Gentleman presenting a petition relative to abuses in a public institution could not be considered as an accuser; and he hoped such a doctrine would not be repeated. It was his hon. Colleague's bounden duty to present the petition, it being respectfully worded. He had been the first to notice the abuses in the Andover Union, and yet he was placed on the Committee of Inquiry. So it was with the hon. Member for Weymouth, who had brought forward the cases of Mr. Parker and of Mr. Day. It looked like casting an imputation (though he was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean it) on an individual to exclude him from an official investigation because he had presented a petition connected with it. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the constitution of the Commission, and not object to placing his hon. Colleague on it.

said, that when the Commission received Her Majesty's sanction, he should not object to lay the instructions on the Table. He did not think that the analogy attempted to be drawn between a Commission of this kind and a Parliamentary Committee was good. When a Member brought forward a petition containing charges against a public department, it was customary to place such Member on the Committee of Inquiry, and there were also Members nominated who were supposed to take a different view of the case in favour of the public department. The Government, in selecting the Members of the Commission, had chosen men whose ability, and character, and impartiality, were likely to carry weight. When he called them judges, he did not mean that they were to decide on the case, but that they must be judges to a certain extent of the effect of the evidence and of the manner in which the witnesses gave their testimony.

felt personally indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for not asking him to perform the duty of one of the Commissioners, because, if he had done so, he should have accepted it, as he should have felt bound to continue this inquiry in the most stringent manner. This was a task which he preferred not having imposed upon him; but now, as to the right hon. Gentleman reconsidering the matter, he said, that after what had oc- curred, nothing would induce him to form one of the members of the Commission. As to the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, that a Member of Parliament presenting a petition to the House, was to be considered as the accuser of a great establishment, he begged to protest against it, and to repudiate it. What had he done that he should be called an accuser? He was no more an accuser than the right hon. Gentleman himself; no more than the House itself was an accuser. In presenting a petition, he had stated that the allegations contained in it were true; because, before presenting it, he had taken pains to ascertain their truth. He did not think it right to present a petition containing such allegations unless he were convinced of its truth; and he now said that he believed its allegations to be true, and the counter statement of the governor and the other prison authorities to be false. And having presented a petition containing such allegations, it was said that he was now to appear before the Commissioners as a public prosecutor. That was a new office for a Member of Parliament. Why, he had stipulated that Mr. Barker was to appear in that capacity; but this he said that if it appeared to him that truth could not be otherwise ascertained, if it could be reached but in his presence, then in that case he would go before the Commissioners. Still he thought it was not the situation in which a Member of Parliament ought to be placed, who only did his duty in presenting a petition confided to his care.

explained that he had not used the word "accuser" in any invidious sense, or as meaning to convey that the hon. Gentleman had done anything more than what was his duty to do as a Member of Parliament. He used the word as signifying that the hon. Member had, independent of the petition of Mr. Barker, stated that he himself was prepared to substantiate charges against the officers of the prison.

had some days ago presented a petition from the Colony of Van Diemen's Land in favour of having a representative government, and he had also moved for a return of similar claims made by other Colonies. Ten Colonies had sent applications for representative governments; and he was strongly impressed with the belief that it was not only the intention of the Government, but that it was also the interests of the nation at large, that these applications should be conceded as soon as possible. The noble Lord at the head of the Government stated a few nights ago in a speech in that House that it was his opinion that every Colony should embrace within it as speedily as possible the public and social institutions of this country. He therefore concluded from the noble Lord's statement that all that was necessary was to point out that these privileges could be granted with safety. In Van Diemen's Land there were 35,000 free colonists without representation. The petition stated that under this mismanagement the expenditure had increased from 53,000l. in 1827 to 166,000l. in 1843, and that in the last three years it had exceeded the revenue by 111,000l.; that the Governor, with some members of the Legislative Council, had on every occasion overruled the other civil officers, and having on one day trebled a portion of the taxes, several of the civil officers, after, in vain, endeavouring to prevent this, felt it their duty to resign—six of them in one day. Her Majesty's Government ought to state to this Colony fairly what course they meant to adopt. It had now fallen to so low an ebb that emigration thither from this country had entirely ceased; and yet one of our great wants was, that of an outlet for our surplus population. Our Colonies were important, our exports to them were immense, their population had reached 4,674,000, namely, in North America 1,621,000, in the West Indies 901,000, and the other Colonies 2,152,000. The total number of our Colonies was forty-two, and twenty-five had Houses of Assembly, with a proper representation, the population of some of these latter being but 7,000, and even less. There was Anguilla, for instance, with a population of but 2,934, and yet it had its Assembly. One thing might be done instantly; every order issued by the Colonial Department affecting the Colonies might be published in the London Gazette on the day it was sent out. At present, proprietors and others interested in the Colonies had to wait for news from those Colonies to learn the nature of such orders. If before next Session measures were not adopted by Government for the general regulation of the Colonies, and for giving what the noble Lord said they ought to have—the power of managing their own affairs, he would move for an inquiry into the abuses in our colonial system. He had intended now to move that representative governments should be given to all our Colonies unless some special reason should appear for excluding any of them; but at this period of the Session he should be satisfied if he could draw from the Government what their intention was.

hoped he should not be expected to follow the hon. Gentleman in the wide and discursive view he had taken of our colonial policy, in calling attention to a petition from Van Diemen's Land, asking for a representative government there. He quite agreed that a representative form of government was the best, and that wherever there were good elements for establishing it, it was not only the bounden duty of the country, but its interest, to establish that form of government. But the case of Van Diemen's Land was peculiar; at present the free scarcely exceeded the convict population; and therefore it did not appear at this moment a case in which we had to consider the form of government best for a free population. But the subject was occupying the attention of the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary, and of the Government generally; and in the course of the recess the whole matter of the petition would come before him. With regard to the finances and the removal of certain Members from the Legislative Council, it was sufficient to say that a new Governor had been appointed, and his attention had been directed to the removal of those parties, with a view to bring about their restoration. He could assure the hon. Member, that he hoped and trusted that the measures taken by the Government to diminish the convict population in that Colony, might enable Her Majesty's Government, in a short time, to consider a better form of government for this part of our possessions. The sending of a large number of convicts to one place, had been a signal failure; and the first thing must be to remove at least a part of the difficulty arising from the preponderance of a convict population.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to opinions of mine given very lately. I have no hesitation in tolling him, that I think, generally speaking, the representative constitution ought to be introduced further into our Colonies. But when he rather implies that there should be some general measure, or general law, which should introduce representative as- semblies into our Colonies, I cannot agree with him, that there can be any one general measure which should apply to Colonies so differently situated as are those of this country. Some of them are inhabited by free Englishmen, who have long occupied them, and have been there perhaps from the first; there are others which we have obtained from foreign Powers, and in which part of the inhabitants are still Spanish, or of some other nations; others are almost of the nature of garrisons, where the greater part of the inhabitants reside only for a time; it is impossible to frame a general measure, and treat all these Colonies alike. I beg to say one word with regard to the Colony from which this petition comes—Van Diemen's Land, with regard to which my hon. Friend says, truly, that the plan of sending great numbers of convicts there, year by year, has failed. It has been said, that it is owing to a policy adopted when I succeeded the Secretary of State for that department; my policy was to leave off the then system of transportation to New South Wales. But I intended to go further, and to adopt in great part, though not altogether, the policy recommended in the works of the Archbishop of Dublin. My opinion is, that transportation ought to be very much diminished; I therefore intended to introduce Bills to take it away, in cases of larceny, and only leave it in some very grave cases, and where the punishment of death was commuted. If that had been done, the number sent to Van Diemen's Land in a year, instead of being 4,000, would have been but 500 or 600.

rose to submit the following Motion, of which he had given notice:—

"That with the view of lessening the temptation to drunkenness and immorality, and of promoting thereby the welfare of the working classes especially, and also of society generally, it is the duty of a Christian Legislature to open the British Museum, the National Gallery, and all similar public places calculated to afford innocent and instructive recreation, for the reception of visitors on Sundays and on holidays, at such hours after morning service as ginshops and public houses are open."

He hoped that they might yet be able to remove certain prejudices from the minds of many well-meaning persons on this subject; and that by opening such places as the British Museum to the people on Sundays, a great benefit would be conferred on the community. For many years there had been discussions in that House on the question, whether public houses should be allowed to open at all on Sundays; and in that subject he, along with his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal, had taken great interest. They eventually succeeded in obtaining a kind of compromise, which was, that all public houses should be shut till after one o'clock. He maintained, however, that all attempts by legislation to make people moral or religious, were futile. An Act of Parliament could not make a man more moral or more religious than he was before; and therefore, it was high time that other modes of improvement were attempted. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had stated in his letter to the citizens of London, that his greatest difficulty would be how to deal with crime; now, one great source of crime was drunkenness; and he therefore wished to ask the noble Lord, if it was not a question well becoming the attention of the Cabinet, whether there did not exist means by which drunkenness, with all the evil consequences that flowed from it, might be prevented, or at least lessened, to a great extent? It was clearly the duty of Government to examine into this point; and he had no hesitation in saying that, together with education, free admission on Sundays into public places of recreation and instruction, such as the British Museum and the National Gallery, would tend greatly to promote that end. When a man visited the British Museum, such an impression might be made upon him by a single observation on what came under his notice, as might go to alter his whole future life. Who could tell how far the influence of what a man saw and felt then, might prevent him from going to the public house; and he had no doubt whatever, that admission to such a place to see the extraordinary works both of nature and art there exhibited, would lead many a man away from all thoughts of the public house. A great lesson was taught every man who passed through the British Museum; and he asked those who had conscientious scruples on this question, just to consider what benefit might not be derived from 20,000 or 30,000 people going through the British Museum or the National Gallery in one day. He was disposed to pay respect to the religious scruples of others; but what was the object of all religion, if it was not to make men better citizens, and prepare them for another world? Now, he maintained, that to open up to great bodies of men objects of contemplation similar to those placed in our public institutions, especially when by doing so they were kept away from the public house, was one of the best means which a Government could adopt for making men better, and elevating them in the scale of being. The most gratifying results had hitherto attended the opening of public exhibitions in the metropolis during the week, admission having been given to as many as 1,250,000 in the year; and the effect had been that in the large provincial towns, such as Manchester, museums and other public exhibitions were being established for the benefit of the working classes. A great improvement could not fail to have taken place in the metropolis in what were called the rude and uncouth manners of a large portion of the population, from the freedom of admission given to our public institutions. He should like to see the East India Company collecting for the instruction of the public specimens of every thing—be they bird, or beast, or fish, or vegetable—that India possessed, which we did not. The diminished cost of admission to the Tower had led to the best results; and if it were reduced from 6d. to 3d., the numbers admitted would be double what they were at present. It was his intention to see what the Master General would do with that view. It was remarkable how well the public behaved at places of public amusement to which they were admitted freely. He was authorized to state, that at Hampton-court Gardens since the public had been admitted at nine o'clock in the morning, nothing whatever had been injured, and a case of intoxication had never been seen in the gardens. In 1845 the number admitted to the East India Company's Museum was 20,610, being an increase of 3,000 over the preceding year, and double the number of 1841; to the Botanical Gardens, Dublin, 25,247, being a considerable increase since 1842; to the Royal Botanical Society's Museum, 55,638, being an increase of 9,000 since 1842; to the Royal Zoological Society of Ireland, 132,482, an increase of 35,000 since 1842; to the Royal Institution of Liverpool, 21,399; to the Polytechnic Exhibitions of the Liverpool Mechanics' Institution, 67,952; to the Tower in 1841, there were 107,368 persons admitted; to the British Museum, in 1844, the number was 575,758. He hoped the House would take this subject into consideration, as he was convinced it would prove one of the best means of humanizing the people.

I am quite ready to concur with the hon. Gentleman in wishing the advancement of the object the hon. Gentleman has at heart; and I will, moreover, say that I believe no man in this House or in this country has done more than he has to promote that object. He has very properly laid great stress on the number of persons who attend the British Museum, and who attend other public places for the purpose of instruction and amusement, and very gratifying it is to me to see the large numbers of persons going in vans to Hampton Court on a Sunday, and who have an opportunity there of admiring the architecture and the pictures, and after a day of social recreation return to their homes, no doubt much better as regards morality than they went. But I must say that the hon. Gentleman has shown that no very great restraints are placed upon the admission of the people to these places of public resort at present, when he says that 32,000 persons were admitted to the British Museum in one day, and more than half a million in a year. That shows there are no very great restrictions on the admission to public places; but I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's object on this occasion is not so much the general object, but that he wishes us to take the course of allowing admission on Sundays to the British Museum and the National Gallery. Now I think that on that subject it is better not to lay down a positive rule; that it is much better to lay down no rule on that subject; but with respect to public gardens, where there are porters at the doors to take care who is admitted, I think they may be opened as the hon. Gentleman desires. If, however, we go to the other extreme, there immediately we come upon what is to be avoided; but at the same time, when he speaks of the argument of diverting people from scenes of drunkenness by throwing open these places of innocent recreation to them, I must say, that listening to the plays of Shakspeare is one mode of diverting people from such scenes, as well as going to the British Museum; and, according to that argument, therefore, the theatres may be places of diversion that ought to be opened on a Sunday. With respect therefore to these places, such as the British Museum and the National Gal- lery, I think it is for the directors to say whether these places should be opened on particular days or not; but if those who have the keeping of these places are to be deprived of a day of rest by attending on the visitors for several hours in going through the collection on a Sunday, that is not, I must say, a fit appropriation of the Sunday for them. The hon. Gentleman says, we might have particular persons employed for the purpose of showing these places on a Sunday; but I think it would not do to have such persons employed. I think that those persons who have the keeping over the objects of exhibition during the week, would not like, on the Monday when they returned, to find that these things had received injury in the course of being shown on the Sunday. It is better, therefore, that the trustees of the British Museum should be left to settle this question for themselves. It certainly may be right to open these institutions, and that those who are entitled to a day of rest on the Sunday should be enabled to go there if it will be a means of keeping them with their families. My hon. Friend says, that it causes man and wife to be brought together; and that they may go together to the British Museum; but a man and his wife may equally well take a walk to Regent's Park. [Mr. HUME: Suppose a rainy day.] I do not think their affections would be disturbed because the British Museum was not opened on a Sunday. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will leave all these points to the persons who have the management of these institutions, who will decide whether they will allow all classes of persons to go as much as possible to these institutions. I am sure I quite concur with my hon. Friend as to the worthiness of the persons who go to these places. I have heard from the commissioners of police, when I have been in communication with them, that the more free and open these places are made to persons, the less danger there is of those brutal injuries to objects of art, which used to take place when admissions to such places were scarcely obtainable.

tendered his thanks to the hon. Member for Montrose, and hoped he would bring forward this Motion every Session until his object was accomplished. That the noble Lord wished that object to be effected was evident, for he had not given a direct negative to the proposition of opening these places on a Sunday, but only said, leave it to the directors. But it must be remembered that the directors did not vote the money for these institutions: that was done by the House of Commons, and the House of Commons had therefore the right to point out to those parties how the money should be applied; and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would point out to his brother trustees the propriety of acceding to this proposition. The noble Lord was a trustee, he believed, of the British Museum, and there he hoped the noble Lord would use his influence. He looked upon the contemplated change as likely to produce the best results as preventing drunkenness. If the House were fully aware of the evils that followed from drunkenness in this metropolis, there was nothing they would not do to save the people from so demoralizing a practice, What harm could arise from furnishing to the labouring classes, who had no opportunity during the week-day of taking it, the means of innocent recreation on a Sunday? But the noble Lord objected that to throw open these places to the public on a Sunday, would be laying an additional tax on the persons who were employed in keeping them. He admitted that; but was there any difficulty in putting other persons in the room of the week-day attendants? He said there was none. But then it was still said the persons so placed there would lose the Sunday. They might, however, set persons of the Jewish persuasion there, who would not object to working on that day. He would be bound there would be candidates enough. They would gain instruction and amusement also by being there. He did hope that the suggestions of his hon. Friend would be carried into effect, if not wholly, at least partially. He believed that it rested with the noble Lord whether or not anything should be done; and he was quite sure that if the noble Lord made the suggestion to his brother trustees it would be carried into effect.

thought that the proposed change, instead of interfering with due attention on the part of the people to religious duties, would very much promote the feelings that led to practising those duties; and he hoped the noble Lord would exert his influence to get it carried into effect.

hoped the House would not agree to the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume); nor did he think the speech of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) fairly bore the interpretation put upon it by hon. Gentlemen who had spoken after him, namely, that the noble Lord was in favour of the Resolution. He approved as much as any man of affording to the humbler classes the opportunity of all lawful recreation; but when the hon. Member for Montrose challenged any Member of the House to give a reason why the public institutions should not be open on Sunday, he answered by saying, that "you must not do evil that good might come of it." In his opinion, to open these places of public amusement, would be a desecration of the Sabbath; and he trusted and believed that that was the opinion of the great majority of the people in that country. It was not for him to condemn others, or other countries, that acted on a different principle; but he was persuaded that such was the English feeling; and he hoped that it would long continue so. It was, in short, the characteristic difference between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic community. When the hon. Member for Montrose stated that upwards of a million of persons annually visited those institutions, he rejoiced to hear it, for he was free to admit their humanizing and improving influence. But the statement itself implied that there was no necessity to violate the Sabbath, in order to render the advantages of such institutions available to the poorer classes; and when the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Williams) argued that as some places of the kind were now open on the Sunday, why not open the British Museum?—the next step in that argument would be—if the British Museum was opened, why then not open the theatres, and all other places of public amusement? How strong too was the admission made by the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury—if it was meant seriously—that Jews might be employed as the officers of these public institutions on a Sunday—was it not that it would be unfitting, unchristian, to deprive the existing officers of the rest to which they were entitled on the Sabbath day? To that it would really come. He protested against the House voting, in the words of the Motion of the hon. Member,—that "it is the duty of a Christian Legislature" to countenance that which he contended would be a desecration of the Sabbath day.

supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. There was this distinction between the opening of theatres on Sundays and the opening of the British Museum: the first were private property, and the other was property belonging to the public. When he saw the order and decorum which prevailed at Hampton-court on Sundays, he had no reason to anticipate any bad consequences from opening the British Museum on that day; and he hoped that no feeling of prejudice would prevent its being carried into effect.

said, that if he agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down in thinking the abstinence from occupation and amusement on the Sabbath a prejudice, he would have no hesitation in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. But the hon. Member and he entirely differed in opinion on that point. He admitted that drunkenness was a great source of crime and unhappiness among the lower orders; but, at the same time, his own observation of and intercourse with that class of society, led him to believe that the desecration of the Sabbath was also a source of bitter repentance, sorrow, and misfortune, as well as the crime of drunkenness. He, therefore, had come to the conclusion, that it was neither a politic nor a wise course of proceeding to attempt to expel one vice—drunkenness—by giving encouragement to another—the desecration of the Sabbath. He wished to make one observation about extending to the lower orders those recreations which he agreed in thinking could be properly made use of to humanize them, and which, on what were called the lawful days of the week, he would be disposed to encourage. The Victoria Park, in the vicinity of the metropolis, had recently been opened, and was in progress of completion; and it had been contemplated by Her Majesty's late Government to propose the erection of a building in that park as a repository for objects of curiosity and interest to the public; and there would be no difficulty in collecting such objects. There were always a number of ships in the docks which had brought articles of rarity from different countries; and he was sure the masters of such ships would be glad to deposit them in a place where they would be generally accessible. And as the docks were in the neighbourhood of the park, and as there was a large class of persons in that quarter who had no opportunity of visiting any similar place, he hoped the noble Lord would see the propriety of following up the views of his predecessors, and proposing the erection of a building for the accommodation of such objects as the public took an interest in.

warmly supported the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. If such a building were erected, he was sure the objects would rapidly accumulate.

was sorry to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite associate the rational and intellectual enjoyment of the people with the desecration of the Sabbath. It was no such thing. He would rather call it the consecration of the Sabbath, and would be disposed to give it every encouragement.

said, that after what had passed, he would not press his Motion. He hoped that what had been stated by the noble Lord was in some degree shared by his Colleagues, and that before next year the matter would be quietly settled.

proposed that a sum of 133,000l. should be voted to defray the expenses incurred for the relief of distress arising out of the failure of the potato crop in Ireland.

understood it had been stated that a further sum would not be required from the Consolidated Fund, but that whatever money would be required afterwards should be repaid. Now, he objected to the principle of taxing the people of this country to relieve the distress in Ireland. If there were no other means for relieving that distress besides taxing the public, he could not conscientiously oppose the tax. But he considered this sum of money, not so much a grant to the Irish people as to the Irish landlords; and he said, if they had the same system of poor laws there as existed in this country, they would not be called on to make this grant. It was, he repeated, a most unjust principle to tax the people of this country for this purpose, when the distress might be as well removed by compelling the possessors of the land to maintain their own poor, as they did in England. Why should this difference exist? He was surprised that Irish Members did not repudiate such a system. The land of Ireland, if properly cultivated, by giving employment to the poor, could produce twice as much as it did at present. Did they mean to go on with this tax whenever this distress occurred? He had been informed by an Irish gentleman, that the people in the south of Ireland had refused to work on account of this relief. Parliament ought to be informed that this money would be required. He had been informed, in reply to a question, by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no more money would be given for this purpose, and he thought the House should be informed of the intention to grant this sum, which was a departure from the usual course.

stated, that before any buildings were commenced, the plans and estimate would be laid before the House. The report of Mr. Blore stated at length the inconveniences to which Her Majesty was subjected from the want of proper accommodation at Buckingham Palace. That palace was originally built for George IV., and was therefore planned as for a Sovereign who had no family. It was finished for William IV.; but that Sovereign did not in effect reside there; and when Her Majesty came to reside there on her accession, no additional provision was made, such as would now fit it for the occupation of the Royal Family. The domestic offices, in particular, were on a scale totally inadequate to the wants of the establishment: they were, in fact, as inconvenient as they possibly could be. During Her Majesty's occupation of the palace various minor alterations were made, which came within the ordinary departmental expenditure; but the domestic offices were still wholly inadequate, and there was a general want of accommodation throughout the palace. It was only under these circumstances that Her Majesty had been induced to allow Her Ministers to propose that the necessary additions should be made. The inconveniences occasioned by the want of accommodation were stated at length in Mr. Blore's report, which had already been made public. He would, therefore, only refer generally to a few of them. In the first place, so limited was the room, that the space immediately under Her Majesty's own apartments was necessarily appropriated to the workshops of upholsterers and cabinet-makers, who carried on their business there, accompanied by an inconvenient noise, and with much risk to health and even personal danger from the inflame mable nature of some of the materials employed by them. In the next place, there was no accommodation for Her Majesty's family. Even at present there was not enough room, but the difficulty would be still further increased when the younger members of the Royal Family grew up; and it would be necessary that those who were charged with their education should be resident close to them, and when they would require a greater number of servants. A further inconvenience was occasioned by the Lord Chamberlain's apartments not being within the palace; and there was also a total want of due accommodation for foreign Sovereigns who might come to visit Her Majesty. These were a few of the leading grounds on which the increased accommodation was sought for—the details would be found in Mr. Blore's report. With regard to the mode in which it was proposed to carry out the object, he might generally state that the plan was to complete the quadrangle by erecting a range of buildings in front of the present palace. The cost was estimated at 150,000l., but it was proposed to take 20,000l. only this year. In part to meet the expenditure, it was proposed to dispose of the Pavilion at Brighton.

felt sure there was not one of Her Majesty's subjects who would grudge any sum wanted to maintain Her Majesty in comfort and dignity. Another sentiment he believed equally universally prevailed, that the present palace was unfitting, as regarded both comfort and dignity. It was precisely on these grounds that he thought the course now proposed by Government of enlarging the present building was injudicious, and would lead only to disappointment. Ministers had no doubt been actuated by a wish to combine economy with a due regard to the dignity of the Crown; but he ventured to say that the only result would be, that a building would be erected inconsistent with the comfort of the Sovereign, and which would give displeasure to the public. This subject ought to be viewed not only in connexion with the comfort and dignity of the Sovereign, but with the interests of the metropolis. The present palace and grounds caused great inconvenience to the inhabitants of the district now called Belgravia, as was well known to those who, like himself, resided there.

thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated good grounds for his proposal, more especially as it was proposed to sell the Pavilion at Brighton. Whether a purchaser could be found was another question, unless, indeed, it could be sent off, just as it was, to Hong-Kong. He feared all the money that might be expended upon Buckingham Palace would fail in making it a decent and proper residence for the Sovereign of this country; and he believed some hon. Members of that House would live to hear a Government come down and make a formal statement to that effect. He wished that they had a Government architect and engineer, to whom the sole control of planning and erecting public edifices might be committed under the superintendence of a Government board.

hoped that when any arrangement was made for the disposal of the site of the Marine Palace at Brighton, it would be remembered that, in order to suit the convenience of George IV., when Prince of Wales, the people of Brighton had given up the principal road into that town, and that measures would be taken to restore to the town what had then been relinquished.

complained that a proposition of this nature, involving the outlay of 150,000l., should be brought forward at that late period of the Session. Even if they agreed to expend this large amount on the improvement of Buckingham Palace, the question occurred—was not the palace in an unhealthy situation? Of that fact, he believed there could be no doubt. The ground on which the palace was built, was below the level of the Thames at high water; and the lower apartments, he was informed, had frequently been flooded. There were also upholsterers' and other workshops in the palace, and the effluvium from the glue and other articles used in those places could not promote the health or comfort of the inhabitants. Within his recollection vast sums of money had been expended on altering and improving the palace, and yet the House was now asked to sanction a vote of 150,000l. for further improvements. He considered that if the House consented to this vote, it would lose character in the opinion of the country; and certainly such a vote ought not to be sanctioned until proper plans and estimates were laid before them. He considered that a commodious, and comfortable, and becoming residence ought to be provided for the Sovereign of this country; and if Buckingham Palace did not furnish adequate accommodation, they had plenty of sites on which to build another. He suggested that this vote should be postponed until next Session, in order that the House might be furnished with plans and estimates for the proposed alterations; for surely the postponement of the matter for six months could not occasion any inconvenience. The hon. Member moved, as an Amendment, that the vote be reduced to 5,000l., the sum necessary to repair the damage done to the palace by the recent storm.

thought it was only necessary to prove, as the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already (in his opinion) proved, that Her Majesty was not properly accommodated at present, to show that the vote was not premature. And if those facts were satisfactorily established, he was sure that the hon. Member for Montrose would not be disposed to object to its being passed at once. He could assure the House and the hon. Gentleman, that the whole subject had occupied the attention, and had been for a long time the subject of the most careful consideration of the late Government. Some of the objections made by the hon. Gentleman had been considered by them; and they had submitted those objections, together with the plan of Mr. Blore, to three gentlemen, Mr. Barry, Sir R. Smith, and Sir James Clark, who had reported favourably on them, and had considered that no inconvenience or danger to the health of the inmates would arise from completing the quadrangle. From the care which had been bestowed upon the subject, he thought he could assure the hon. Gentleman that most ample security would be given that the building would be in good taste, and the plans such as promised adequate accommodation. With respect to the time and the necessity for an immediate grant, he should observe that it would be of the utmost importance to have the foundations for the new building laid down as soon as possible. It was not an affair of three or four months, as the hon. Gentleman had described it, but one involving an entire year's delay. And so great was the necessity for additional room in the palace, that before the birth of the last princess, about a year ago, it was almost impossible that the royal family could be accommodated, not merely with convenience or comfort, but absolutely with decency. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion. The unsuitableness of the present building was obvious, and if the hon. Gentleman, or any hon. Gentleman, would take the trouble of examining it, he would be at once convinced that the internal accommodation was far inferior to the expectations excited by the external appearance, and that the large quantity of brick and stone consumed in its erection, afforded as little interior accommodation as possible. As regarded the sum proposed to be expended upon its improvement, he expected a very large sum from the sale of the palace at Brighton, which would be directly applicable; but independently of that he would recommend to the notice of the hon. Member for Montrose the saving that would be effected annually by the disposal of that building—a saving which he thought would more than cover the interest of the sum for which the public was likely to be called on. But another matter was also deserving of notice. This was the first sum that Parliament had been called upon to vote for the personal accommodation of Her Majesty since her accession to the Throne. It was impossible to overrate the moderation exhibited by Her Majesty in all matters in which the public were to be called upon for money. In no one instance, during the time he had been in office, had he to request Her Majesty to withdraw a demand for expenses; but in some instances, he had, on the contrary, to suggest to Her Majesty certain expenses which he thought absolutely necessary for the support of the personal dignity of the Sovereign; and it was invariably a matter of pain to her when any demand was made which involved an expenditure, the weight of which fell upon her subjects. When the Pavilion at Brighton was found totally insufficient for the accommodation of the Royal Family, Her Majesty, instead of asking for a grant, preferred taking, at her own expense, a residence more suitable. The hon. Member for Montrose had suggested the building of a new palace, instead of repairing and extending the present one, but he seemed to have overlooked the difficulty of finding a suitable site. He trusted the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

said, that he could readily suggest a site for a new palace. Let them take Kensington Palace down, and build a new and suitable one upon its site, and there was no individual who would grudge the money for such a purpose less than he. But he objected to expending money upon a useless edifice. Let them build a new palace in Kensington-gardens, and convert the present Buckingham Palace into a great museum for the public, and preserve the gardens for the public. If that were done, he would pledge himself to take out of the British Museum that which lay there at present buried and unknown, sufficient to supply the new museum.

had seen many strange proceedings in that House, but never any stranger than the proceeding of that day. He had as great respect for Her Majesty, and as much desire that she should be properly accommodated, as any Member in the House; but he could not forget that many years had not elapsed since George III., with his very large family, not merely a family of infants, but of grown-up men and women, had found sufficient accommodation before the erection of even the present building. Since the death of that Monarch, no less than 2,000,000l. had, as the hon. Member for Montrose had informed them, been expended on the erection of palaces. The English were said to be the richest nation in the world, and their wealth was quoted as a reason for giving further accommodation to their Sovereign. But if they were the richest nation in the world, let them recollect, in ordering their expenditure, that there were two millions and a half of their Irish fellow subjects in a state of starvation such as was unknown in any other part of the world. As to the royal palaces, there were eight supported by the public. He could not forget one which, for the use of the King of the Belgians, was kept up at the public expense; and there were two in Scotland, making eleven royal palaces in all. He mentioned those matters with a feeling of the deepest respect for his Sovereign. He maintained that those who objected to those unnecessary expenses were the real friends of the monarchy, and that those who encouraged them were its enemies. The pressure upon the taxation of the country was already such as the people could not bear, and he warned the House against laying fresh burdens upon it.

was glad to find that the hon. Member for Coventry was the only one who opposed the present vote on the ground of unnecessary and excessive expenditure. The other hon. Gentleman seemed to oppose it only on the ground that it was to be directed to improvement of the old instead of the construction of a new palace. But he thought few would be found to agree with the views of the hon. Member for Coventry. Of the eight palaces mentioned by that hon. Gentleman only two, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, were occupied by Her Majesty. And when Her Majesty had thought it necessary to seek another and more convenient marine residence than that at Brighton, the whole expense of taking and purchasing Osborne-house and grounds in the Isle of Wight had been defrayed from the privy purse instead of any call having been made upon the public. In fact, Her Majesty could hardly be less provided for. But with regard to the suggestion of building a new palace at Kensington, that would involve the commencement of an expenditure too considerable to be incurred. Her Majesty would be quite satisfied with an expenditure which would at least allow her sufficient accommodation. He trusted that early next year the plans would be laid before the House, and that they would find they would have something handsomer to look at, and more respectable and suitable for a royal palace, than the nation possessed at present.

wished it to be distinctly understood that he objected to the vote for the reasons he had already given. It had been brought forward at the end of the Session, and the House was asked to agree to it without plans, without estimates, and without reports. All he asked for was that the vote should be suspended until Parliament should meet again; and in the interim all the requisite information could be prepared. At present he was convinced that if 150,000l. should prove to be the whole of the expenditure, the palace would never be worthy of the Sovereign. He should therefore divide the House.

said, it was obvious to the House that the present inadequate provision for the domestic accommodation of the Sovereign was admitted by all parties. The only question, therefore, that really remained for their decision was, whether that requisite accommodation was to be supplied by the alteration of the old palace, or the construction of a new one. The question was merely one of how the required accommodation could be best supplied.

moved—

"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the Laws regulating the Duty on Rye, Peas, and Beans."

That law was the Corn Law, and the purpose of his Motion was to propose an Amendment in that Act, a slight one in character, and not raising, he trusted, any question of principle, such as that of freedom or protection, which had lately excited such strong differences of opinion. It was simply to correct an error or remove an inconsistency which had come to light since the passing of the Act, the continuance of which was an advantage to no interest, was an inconvenience to some, and of which the removal would only give effect to the intention of the Act. He had already stated at length, upon asking the consideration of the House to the petition which had been printed, the particulars of this error, and he would not then detain the House by repeating what he had stated on that occasion. He would simply add that the intention of the Act with respect to the duties on all foreign corn imported was contained in the 4th section of the Act; it was there stated with great distinctness that the price on all grain of this country should be collected, made up, and the averages struck and published as they had heretofore been, and that the duties upon all the different grains imported should be regulated by those prices as they had heretofore been. But though this was directed to be done by the 4th section of this Act, it was not done with respect to rye, peas, and beans—an arbitrary duty, namely, the duty on a given amount of barley, being declared to be the duty attaching to those different grains. The purpose he had in view was simply to give effect to the intention of the Act, and thereby to meet the wishes of the trade, and better promote the interests of the agriculturists. Since he had brought the matter forward before, the Lord Mayor had thought it right in his official capacity, and as a great merchant himself, to ascertain if what he had stated to be an error in the Act was so regarded by the persons engaged in the trade; and no less than ninety of the most respectable firms engaged in the corn trade had signed a memorial to the Lord Mayor, stating that they viewed it as an error, and that they should be greatly relieved by its being amended. He believed he had also ascertained what it was that had been intended by the framers of the Act by making the duty on barley regulate the duty on beans, which was, that observing in the old Act that the scale for barley had been nearly the same as the scale for beans, they had wished to make it the same under the new Act, but had expressed what they meant imperfectly, making the duty on barley, without reference to the price of beans, determine the duty on that grain. There could, however, be no object in this, and it operated now in a manner wholly opposed to the purpose of the scale, for a high duty attached to high price, and a low duty to a low price; and though that was capricious and inconsistent, it did not really assure the grower a higher protection, while it increased instead of diminishing the impediments to trade. He believed the noble Lord the Member for Lynn would not deny that it was a blunder, and he trusted that the noble Lord would not, merely to get a slight triumph at this late season of the year, oppose an alteration that would suit the convenience of all, and really injure none. What the noble Lord had done against the Bill had been done openly, and for the purpose he avowed; he trusted, therefore, that he would not be a party to anything paltry now, and merely for mischief sake resist what would not be an injury to those he represented. Hoping that the House would allow him, at least, to bring in the Bill, he would move the Resolution of which he had given notice.

admitted that this had been a blunder committed by the Members of Her Majesty's late Administration. It certainly appeared extraordinary that a set of Gentlemen who thought themselves the only practical men in the country, the only men capable of administering the affairs of the country, should have had a measure of this kind for five months under their notice, and not discover the blunder they had committed. But since the agriculturists had had the good fortune to obtain something more of protection upon peas and beans, through a blunder of the late Government, than they would have received through the good intentions of that Government, he was not disposed, without another fight, to give up any protection, small as it might be, that they might now possess. It was perfectly true that by the Act which had passed the Legislature, after five months of deliberation, rye, peas, and beans were to pay a duty which was not to be regulated by the price of the said rye, peas, and beans, but by the price of barley, so that now barley was cheap and peas and beans dear, they had to pay a high duty regulated by the low price of barley. Therefore, if barley were high, and peas and beans low, peas and beans would pay a low duty, regulated by the high price of barley. Ridiculous as this was he cared not, so long as he could retain somewhat, although not much, of protection for the agricultural interest. The duty was now 4s. upon peas. Her Majesty's late Government had intended it to be 2s. The foreign importer had at least gained some advantage, for low as the duty was now, and higher than was intended by the late Government, it was not equal to that which was imposed by the Act of 1842, for that duty would have been 7s. 6d. So that the protection to the British farmer was already reduced nearly 50 per cent. He thought that the consumers had no right to complain; and if he looked to the prices of peas and beans, he found that the ad valorem duty, even with the mistake of the late Government, did not amount upon those articles to more than 10 per cent on the one, and 12 per cent on the other. That he did not think was a very high ad valorem duty to pay on the foreign produce; and he was sure his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not so overburdened with riches as to afford to spare any revenue that could be levied upen the produce of foreign countries. The difference upon the thousand quarters of peas and beans introduced every week at the rate of 2s. a quarter, would make a difference of some 30,000l. of revenue; and the country could not well afford to part even with that. He trusted Her Majesty's present Government would not consent to the introduction of a Bill to amend the blunders of their predecessors. But if they did, then he must promise them his opposition, for he should contest the proposition, as he had done the former Bill, in every stage; and he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton would hardly, at the present period of the Session, press a measure likely to be productive of such arduous work for the end of August.

did not know that it rested with him to admit that there had been a blunder; but he could only say that it did seem strange that the duty on peas and beans should be regulated by the price of barley. At the same time he thought his hon. Friend would admit that at this period of the Session it was not worth while to enter upon a contest by the introduction of a Bill threatened with such opposition.

said, that if the noble Lord had the drawing of a Bill of such a complicated commercial character, he would then have practical experience of the difficulty of preventing an occasional mistake or inconsistency creeping in.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman would only say that the practical operation of the measure had not carried the intention of the fourth section into effect, no party in the House would take advantage of a more error, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee.

was opposed to any alteration of the law at the present period of the Session.

recommended the hon. Member for Wolverhampton not to divide.

certainly saw no impropriety in dividing upon the question; and if he now withdrew his Motion, it was only because he observed that there were only thirty-seven Members in the House. Motion withdrawn.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the government of the New Zealand Islands. The object of the measure, he said, was to establish a municipal and representative government in the Colony, thus carrying into effect the views of both the late and the present Government.

did not intend to offer any objection to leave being given to bring in the Bill, but must state, that unless some great emergency required it, he could not do otherwise than condemn the introduction of a constitutional measure of such importance at so late a period of the Session.

observed, that the present Bill was founded on one that had been bequeathed by the late Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge seemed to think that there was no necessity for such a Bill as the present; but the right hon. Baronet lately at the head of the Government, was not when in office of that opinion; for he had stated most distinctly that he and his Colleagues would feel it to be their duty either to bring in some such measure as this before the Session closed, or else to introduce an enabling Bill. The plan of government for New Zealand which was proposed by the present Bill, was the one which appeared to Her Majesty's Ministers the most likely to be acceptable to that House, and beneficial to the Colony. The Bill proposed to establish the general outline of a constitution, leaving the details to be filled up by Orders in Council, which would be adopted after consultation with the best authorities on the subject.