said, that he was anxious to put two questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, of which he had given him notice some days ago. The first question related to a rumour which had been sanctioned by the authority of the Journal des Débats, the organ of the French Government. The rumour was to the effect that the Governments of France, England, and Spain had determined to interfere in the affairs of Portugal, and that they based their right of interference on a treaty which, as many of its provisions were not acted upon, must be considered defunct—the Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance. That statement had appeared in the Journal des Débats of the 26th of last month, which contained quotations from the Spanish papers in support of its authenticity. He had looked into some of the Spanish papers, and had not found any statements to that effect, but he had not been able to look into all of them. The Journal des Débats, however, of Friday last, had considerably modified its former report. Now, it was right that the noble Lord should set the public mind at rest upon so important a matter. The second question was this—what was the nature and what the extent of interference in the affairs of Portugal which Her Majesty's Envoy of the Court of Lisbon had been instructed to adopt under the recent circumstances of that country?

In answer to the first question put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I have to state, that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the present state of things in Portugal is not a state of things to which the Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance is applicable, for that treaty exclusively refers to a dispute as to the succession to the Throne, and there is now no question of disputed succession in Portugal. As to the second question, I am persuaded that the House will feel that it is not possible for me to answer the question of the hon. Gentlemen in the shape in which he has put it. All I can say is, that it is the anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to bring about a pacification—an accommodation between the contending parties, and that no effort on our part shall be wanting to heal the differences existing in that country.

wished to put a question to the Secretary to the Admiralty relative to the latest programme of works of the ships to be proceeded with at the different dockyards. He understood that all ships to be built in future were to have their lines previously approved of by the "Committee of Reference." He had heard, however, that on Saturday directions arrived at Portsmouth to proceed with the Royal Frederick, the Prince of Wales, the Sovereign, and several other ships, and that the building of certain steamers on Mr. Fincham's lines was stopped, whilst steamers on the Surveyor's lines were to be proceeded with.

said, that he had not the slightest objection to produce the programme.

rose to move, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months, and in doing so, said that it would no doubt be agreeable to the House to hear that it was not his intention to make two speeches on his present Motion, and on the clause of which he had given notice, to limit the operation of tie Bill for three years. He would not now enter into the general discussion, so much as confine his observations to the benefits of that clause. The present Bill was an experiment. Every word used, every argument advanced, showed that it was only an experiment. Its advocates showed their own want of confidence in it. They had no consistent definite set of principles upon which they could support what was really a penal Act against the industry of the country. He proposed to relieve them from their difficulties by limiting the operation of the Act to three years. He had named three years, because a shorter period might be affected by peculiar and temporary seasons of unusual prosperity or depression. Three years, too, was a good period, because in that time the steed would know its rider—the people would get acquainted with the tax which they were about to impose upon them. The people themselves would be glad of the limitation to three years, for they were not at all confident of the success of the measure, and wanted a given period to ascertain its effects. The House had showed the greatest vacillation upon the measure, and having thrown the Bill out two years ago, was it decent that the present Parliament, as one of its last Acts, should now enact for a permanency? If the measure were successful—and he was not so bigoted as to suppose that it could not be successful—who would not be willing to continue at at the expiration of the allotted time? If the measure were passed as a permanent one, he—if a Member of the new Parliament—would open the question every year; and if he were not a Member of the ensuing Parliament, no doubt other Members would be found to maintain a perpetual agitation in that House on the subject. Would it not be desirable to prevent such an agitation, as no doubt they would prevent it if the Bill were only enacted for three years? Besides, so important a measure ought not to pass without the support of a united Cabinet. The present Government was divided with regard it; and this fact was quite sufficient of itself to justify the House in refusing to enact a permanent Act so deeply affecting the welfare of the manufacturing interests of the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

supported the Bill. He had heard no new argument from the hon. Member who had last spoken, which was sufficient to induce him to oppose the measure, looking at it, as he did, as a measure calculated to be productive of very great advantage. It appeared to him, that the hon. Member who had just sat down knew little of the working of the factory system in the north of England; but he had resided in those districts, and he had witnessed the evils to which this Bill would be applied. If they considered the immense steam power which was capable of being applied to manufactures; and the great competition which existed amongst producers, they would see that over-production was often the result of that steam power and great competition; and the consequence of over-production was to deprive, to a certain extent, the labourers of employment. Such was the effect of overproduction on the amount of labour, that the hon. Members would find, by a calculation of the work performed in the factories from 1837 to 1847, that the adult labourers in those factories had not, on an average, worked ten hours a day. The effect of the factory labour, as at present carried out, was to deteriorate the race of persons so employed, and render them weak and diminutive. He would vote for the third reading of the Bill.

would trespass for a short period on the impatience which the House felt for a decision on a question which had been so fully discussed already. He was anxious not to give a silent vote on this question, when it came as it did before them for a final decision; and he would assure the House that it was no agreeable task to him to express an opinion at variance with the opinions conscientiously entertained by many of those with whom he had been in the habit of co-operating, and for whom he had an unfeigned respect, he might mention especially the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He had carefully considered the subject, which was one of very great importance; and the most careful consideration had not caused him to change the opinion which he had before expressed. He looked upon this measure as a perilous experiment, which was not calculated to produce the results which those who supported it anticipated; and he feared that it would also prove a disappointment to the working classes, for whose benefit the measure had been introduced. He was afraid, that so far from introducing harmony and good feeling into the relations of the labourers and the employers, it would be found productive of discord and controversy, and consequently would be productive of injury to the manufacturing interests. It had been proposed to try the operation of the measure for three years; but he (Mr. Labouchere) did not think it was of a nature to admit of being tried as an experiment—he thought it would, if carried into effect, work insidiously, and by the time the public mind was awakened to its results the mischief would be found to be irreparably done. If the House reflected on the manner in which the Bill would work, they would find that it was not at once the evil would affect the producer. Its first effect might be to raise the price of manufactured goods, and thus to give a certain stimulus to those employed, and cause additional capital to be employed in those branches until the void suddenly caused was filled up, which it assuredly would be, and then our manufacturers would have to contend with foreign manufacturers who had no such restrictions as to hours of labour. What was the object of the Bill? To render it impossible that our adult population in the factories should be employed more than ten hours a day. That was not on the face of the Bill, but it was quite evident that such would be the effect of the measure if carried; and he would do the justice to its supporters of saying, they did not deny that such would be the effect of the Bill. The subject had been frequently discussed during the debate, as to whether this Bill was a question of principle or degree. For his part, he could not regard it as a question of principle, for he had frequently sanctioned by his vote an interference with factory labour, when it could be done in a safe and liberal manner, and was calculated to confer benefit. The question now before them was of a different nature; there was no doubt that the manufacturers of America and Germany could employ their operatives for twelve hours a day; and the House was now to consider the effect of declaring that our manufacturing operatives were to work no more than ten hours—a rule which, if applied generally to our manufacturing industry, he thought could not fail to be prejudicial. An hon. Friend of his gave notice of a Motion some time ago, that he would move that Ireland be exempted from its operation in case the measure passed into a law. Having necessarily given a good deal of attention to the condition of the people of Ireland, he must say that he thought that there were peculiar arguments against the measure as applicable to that country. No one could look at the condition of the people of Ireland, without seeing that hours of labour pushed beyond a degree that was easily endurable, was not the worst evil that could befall a labouring population. His attention had been recently called to the condition of the handloom weavers in the province of Ulster; and this was the account which he had received from a clergyman, of the state of things in his own parish:—

"This parish is an agricultural parish, containing a population of 7,313 souls, five and a half miles long by about three broad, a great part of the land of which is of a boggy nature. Its population has been hitherto supported by weaving, carried on in their own houses. The weaver, at present, can only raise, by weaving a web of sixty yards, from 2s. 6d. to 4s. 6d., which employs him nearly a whole week in preparation, while, at present prices, such wages will not support the mere weaver without a family. Even with these wages, I can state it as a fact, having come under my own immediate observation, that weavers are sitting up three nights per week, in order, by any means, to provide food for their families. There is scarcely a family in the parish, in which there is not some one or more members of the family sitting up nightly. I have seen them, in returning to my own home, after visiting the sick, at two A.M., working as busily as in the day time."

Would hon. Gentlemen deny that it would be the greatest blessing to this part of the country, if a factory mill were established there, which would employ the poor people, even if they were obliged to work twelve hours a day? Parliament could regulate the hours of labour in factories; but if by its legislation it drove the poor people to work in places where its interference would not reach, and where the hours of labour could not be regulated, they would surely do no act of humanity by interfering. Any Gentlemen who had looked into the factory reports, would see that children who had been shut out of the factories, were sent to fustian-cutting or pinmaking, and other employments much more laborious than working in a factory; and there was great danger, lest by further interference Parliament might increase the evil which it had already occasioned. The question came to this: did hon. Gentlemen mean to enlarge the sphere of interference? He had never received a clear answer to that question. There was one other point on which he wished to say a few words, and that was the question of eleven hours as against ten. He was decidedly opposed to further interference, whether by restricting the time of working to eleven hours or ten; but he could not say that he was equally opposed to the two propositions. He happened to be absent from the House at the time when the question was put, or he certainly should have voted for eleven hours, instead of ten hours. He knew that some Gentlemen voted for ten hours instead of eleven hours, under the impression that the experiment would sooner fail; but he confessed he thought the course savoured more of passion than of reason. If the experiment must be made, as from the votes to which the House had come, he feared it must, he should wish it to be made in the mildest manner.

being largely engaged in the woollen manufacture, was in a condition to state what the probable effects of the measure would be. The number of persons engaged in factories was 650,000, and the wages which they earned amounted to 12,000,000l. annually; and if the House determined that the factory people should only work ten hours instead of twelve, 2,000,000l. would be abstracted every year from the pockets of the factory labourers. He particularly wished to impress on the House the dangerous character of the measure as affecting the small manufacturer. The only way in which the manufacturers could make up for the loss of manual labour, was by introducing improvements in machinery; and the small capitalist and manufacturer would not be able to afford such improvements.

was sorry that so much impatience was shown to decide a question of so much importance. The dinner hour was not quite come yet, and, therefore, he hoped that hon. Members would listen to a brief discussion of the question. If he considered that this measure would improve the condition of the labouring population, he should certainly vote for it; but he was satisfied that if carried out, it would injure the condition of the working classes. He would remind the country Gentlemen, that if labourers were thrown out of employment, the land must support them. Nothing was more delicate to be dealt with than money—money could move, but land could not. He should support the Amendment.

then moved the addition of a clause, providing that the Act should only be in force for three years; but at the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, withdrew the clause.

rose to move—

"For a Return of all monies paid by Great Britain on account of the interest of the Greek Loan up to the 1st day of January, 1847."

On a former occasion he had expressed his deep regret that he felt it necessary to make any allusion to the influence which France exerted over the affairs of Greece. So far from following the example of Lord Aberdeen and England, with respect to Greece, M. Guizot, on the 12th of January, 1846, said—

"There are treaties upon which, I will not say the interests, but the ideas of France and of England are not the same. Their policy differs. I do not wish to say that it is divided. In Greece, for example, at this moment, we have ideas different from those of the English Government. I regret it; but so it is. Well, we follow our ideas; we give to Greece our counsels; a support conformable to our ideas."

That was what was said last year; but in the course of the last week similar language was used in the report of a Committee to the Chamber of Deputies, on the subject of payment of the interest of the loan for Greece:—

"As to the attitude to be assumed by France, in presence of events which are being accomplished in Greece, it has appeared to your committee that it ought not, cannot, be for a moment doubtful. Whatever may be the eventualities which futurity reserves for the Greek nation, the French nation ought, without ceasing, to watch over the preservation of its rights and interests, to continue with firmness and perseverance the generous mission which it has undertaken. We confide willingly in the foresight, the energy, the devotedness of the King's Government to a cause which has never ceased to be French, and which possesses the rare privilege of being placed out of the sphere of and above all parties. We are convinced that everything has been done, in a proper time and place, which events suggested or prudence permitted; neither can we doubt the French Cabinet is ready to accomplish all the duties imposed on it by the late events. The only thing which your commission can and will do, is publicly to give a warm and complete approbation of the policy of France as practised in Greece. Your committee expresses its ardent and unanimous desire, that this policy may be continued in the same spirit, on the same principle, and with equal prudence and resolution. It is by preserving the honourable and disinterested character of our diplomatic action, by concentrating all our skill in the fairness and moderation of our proceedings, and in serving Greece for her own sake, without any regard to personal advantage, that we shall maintain our legitimate influence in that country. It is thus that France will assure the definitive triumph of that sacred cause on which it has lavished so freely its sympathies, its blood, and its treasure. The committee approves the Greek Loan Bill. It recommends the Government to show itself prudent and reserved, and expresses an opinion that it would not be consistent with the honour of France either to make a demand or to utter a menace, at a moment when a country, in accord with its Sovereign, seconded by a saga- cious and skilful Ministry, responds most worthily to the expectations of its real friends."

He had endeavoured to show on a former occasion with what justice such terms could be applied to a Ministry of which M. Coletti was the head, and of which M. Poniropoulos was the Finance Minister. We had the gratification of knowing that, since that time, in deference to the opinions expressed in the Greek Chambers, this unworthy Finance Minister had been obliged to resign his post, though we were told also that France gave its entire confidence to a Ministry so constituted as that of M. Coletti. He had only to add, with reference to this point, that it was generally understood in Athens that M. Piscatory, the French Minister, and the French Consul, had both thought proper to exercise an avowed influence, not only upon individual Members of the Greek Chambers, but upon the business about to be transacted there. He had no wish whatever to cast the slightest censure on the past diplomacy of this country, or to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to take the slightest step of hostility either against the kingdom of Greece or King Otho. He should leave the matter entirely to the noble Lord's discretion. He rejoiced to think that the wise and energetic policy of our Minister at Athens had received the support of the noble Lord. He did not ask for force or menace; but he did ask the House for an expression of opinion as firm and determined as that to which the French Chamber of Deputies had come, that England should support her Ministers in whatever part of the world they might be, when they conducted themselves with firmness and conscientiousness, and with a due regard to the liberties of the nation in the midst of which they exercised their functions. He asked the House to express an opinion in favour of the independence of that country whose freedom we inaugurated, and whose independence we guaranteed. Before he sat down, he must add, that M. Guizot, in speaking of the report which was the result of the commission to which he had already referred, expressed himself in these remarkable terms in the course of last week:—

"The sentiments and the intentions expressed in the report of your commission are those which the Government of the King has followed, and will continue to follow as the rule of its conduct."

From this declaration of M. Guizot, it was clear that France was determined to perse- vere in her injurious and meddling course of policy, against which he felt bound to protest. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a return in the terms stated above.

Sir, I beg to say, in the first place, that I have no objection to the production of the papers for which the noble Lord has moved; but I will appeal to his courtesy to withdraw his Motion at the present moment, as it might lead to an interference with other important business; but, in the course of the evening, the required papers may be ordered. Sir, with regard to the general view which the noble Lord has taken of the affairs of Greece, I concur with him almost entirely. The House will be aware that the independence of Greece was achieved by the interposition of England, of France, and of Russia; an interposition which was exercised after a struggle of five or six years between the Greek nation and the Turkish Government; an interposition, too, wrung, I may say, from the Government of the day by the feelings of the public, not of this country only, but of the people of almost every civilized nation in Europe. Sir, the object of that interposition was to place a nation—endeared to every land by ancient recollections—by the achievements of their forefathers, and by the position which in more modern times the country occupied—its object was to put that people in a condition of independence, and thereby of comfort, of happiness, of increasing prosperity, and advancing civilization. For that end it was thought by the Powers concerned, that the constitution of a monarchy was more favourable to the development of national industry and the advancement of national prosperity than that of a republic—a form of government which would have made the supreme power constantly an object of struggle and contest between rival political parties, supported as they would be by different foreign Powers. I am, however, obliged to confess that hitherto at least the benevolent intentions of the Three Powers which I have mentioned have not been realized—at all events to the extent desired. For it is true, and too true, that the internal condition of Greece is far from that which the well-wishers of the Greek nation could desire to see. It is, I am afraid, too true that the Government now existing in Greece is carried on a principle of peculation by those employed under the Crown, and of corruption practised towards and upon those who ought to be the protectors and the guardians of the public interests. It is too true that acts of the greatest atrocity are from time to time committed by persons in the employment of the Government; that torture—torture barbarous in its character, and applied in a manner which I really would not shock the feelings of the House by explaining—it is too true that such torture is from time to time inflicted upon the unoffending inhabitants, for the purpose of compelling disclosures either of the places of refuge of criminals, or of conscripts who have fled from their ranks; and I may, indeed, state, that in one instance torture was inflicted upon a person who, being an Ionian, was therefore, if not a British subject, at least under the protection of Britain. All this is unfortunately perfectly true. Besides, we have it upon the confession of the Minister responsible for the matter to which that confession related—I mean the late Minister of Finance—that the revenue is embezzled in its progress to the Exchequer; and that it is misapplied afterwards in its disbursement and appropriation for the public service. It was stated in open Parliament, by the Minister of Finance, that whereas a great part of the revenue of Greece is derived from contributions in kind—contributions of grain, for instance—that in one district, from which, on an average of years, 180,000 kilos of grain had been paid into the Treasury, that last year not more than 8,000 kilos were levied. It was confessed, in short, that the sources of the revenue were embezzled for the profit of the agents employed to collect it; but the excuse was, that those agents were forced, said the Minister of Finance, to promote the interests of Members of Parliament with constituencies whom they misrepresented. It was proved, also, that documents which had been laid before Parliament, as proofs of the amount of revenue received, had been falsified; and it was charged, and I believe admitted, that that falsification took place in order to conceal the actual amount of revenue received, because it was said that if the whole amount of revenue realized had been publicly acknowledged, it would have been found that a surplus of income over expenditure existed, in spite of all embezzlements, and that such surplus would have been claimed by the Three Powers who guaranteed the loan, and the money thus taken out of the country; whereas, by the falsification of vouchers, the sum in question was allowed to remain for the benefit of the Exchequer. Now, Sir, although the British Government, in connexion with the Governments of France and Russia, guranteed the independence of the Greek State, yet I do not hold that that guarantee gives to any of the guaranteeing parties any right to interfere in the internal administration of the State of Greece, beyond the right of requiring that the engagements by which Greece binds herself to pay the interest of the loan advanced to her shall be faithfully observed. However we may deplore the general maladministration of Greece, and however much we may lament that the Greek people, instead of enjoying that prosperity which we intended and wished to have been their lot when they were erected into an independent nation, have fallen into the condition in which they now exist—however much we may lament these untoward circumstances, still it is not for England nor the other two guaranteeing Powers to prescribe to the Greek Sovereign who shall be his Ministers, or to the Greek Ministers what shall be the measures of their administration. In 1832 a treaty was concluded by which the Three Powers undertook to guarantee the interest and a sinking fund on the loan of 60 millions of francs, to be raised for the service of the Greek State. Each of the three contracting Powers was to guarantee separately one-third of the 60 millions in question. The share, therefore, for which we are liable, including the interest and one per cent as a sinking fund, is for twenty millions of francs, raised, as I have said, for the service of the State of Greece. But, in order to provide against the charge of that interest and that sinking fund being unecessarily thrown upon the contracting Powers, care was taken, in wording the treaty, to stipulate that the first purpose to which the revenue should be applied, the first burden to be attended to in fact, should be the interest and sinking fund in question. These were to be paid up in the first instance; and the representatives of the Three Powers at Athens, it was further agreed, should be charged with the duty of watching over the due execution of this engagement. I lament to say, however, that this part of the agreement has been entirely overlooked or absolutely set at nought; and the returns moved for by the noble Lord will show that between the year 1843 and the present time, an amount little short of 200,000l. has been advanced by this country. Now, if the poverty of the Greek State had been such that it had really no means of paying the interest on its debt, or at all events without such a pressure as would have rendered all attempts at improvement impossible, then I have no doubt that with the same kind and generous feelings which led the people of this country to sanction the measures taken for the establishment, the maintenance, and the development of the Greek State, they would have been led to see without repining even so large an application of the public money, for a purpose in which indeed England had no direct interest, and from which she could expect no direct profit. But if, on the other hand, it should appear that these charges have been unnecessarily thrown upon us—if it should appear that this nation is to be called on to pay, as it has been only last year, 46,000l. for the mere purpose of enabling a Greek Administration to carry on a system of peculation and corruption; if it should appear that we have been thus saddled, unnecessarily saddled, with pecuniary burdens, not for any real interests of Greece, but for the mere object of keeping a certain set of men in power; then, Sir, I conceive that it does become the duty of those who may be charged with the interests of this country to make due application to the Greek Government to pay its own interest on its own loan. I am sure that the generous and kindly feelings which this House and this country must ever entertain towards a nation beginning its existence and struggling with many difficulties, would lead them to approve of the conduct of a Government in not pressing for immediate repayment of the whole arrears which I have mentioned; but still I think that Her Majesty's Government, in calling upon the Government of Greece to repay the last instalment of 23,000l. due in March last, and to make provision for the future payment of each instalment as each becomes due—I am sure, I say, that public opinion in this country will come to the decision that Her Majesty's Ministers in exercising this discretion cannot be charged with showing less indulgence than was fairly due to friendly feeling for a young and protected State. Sir, as I said before, in the justice of the other portions of the noble Lord's remarks I generally agree; but I am quite sure that he, and those who think with him, must feel they referred to matters which, however interesting they may be to every well-wisher of Greece, and every friend of European civilization, are still subjects with regard to which the British Government would not have sufficient ground to stand upon, were it to attempt to prescribe to the Sovereign of Greece who shall be his Ministers, and to dictate to the Minister what shall be his measures. With regard to that part of the speech of the noble Lord which treated of the contest of foreign influences—which has gone on too much in Greece—all I can say is this, that as far as the English Government is concerned we have no peculiar party, no peculiar preponderating influence in Greece. I cannot, indeed, understand the meaning of the terms English, French, and Russian parties in Greece. What possible object can either England, or France, or Russia, have to aim at in Greece? All I can say is, that I can and do assure the House that if a Minister of Greece—be his name what it may—were to send a blank piece of paper with his signature at the bottom of it, and say, "Write, write above my name any conditions you please, guaranteeing to England any advantages, either political, or naval, or military, or commercial, which you may wish—do this, and my signature is there to vouch for their performance and realization;" this would be our only answer—the only answer which a Minister for Foreign Affairs could make—"Take back your paper and put it into the fire. We want nothing of you, but that you should govern your country as we hoped to see it governed; and as we attempt to govern our own—make the Greek nation happy, prosperous, and contented. This is all we want—this, and that you will pay the interest on that portion of your debt which we have guaranteed, and for which we are liable." Such is our feeling upon the subject; and as our imaginations have never been able to picture to themselves any English interest to be served by having in Greece a set of men calling themselves the British party, I am equally at a loss to understand what is that great value which it seems is attached in France to the maintenance in Greece of an Administration said to represent French interests. I cannot see what French object is to be accomplished thereby. But if the French Government think it is for the advantage of France, and the French people think it is a triumph to them that a Greek Minister should be at the head of what they call a French party, then, all I can say is this, that so long as that Minister fulfils his duty, so long as he discharges those conditions to which I have alluded, there is not, I believe, any man in this country entertaining those feelings of jealousy towards France which would lead him to make any effort to disturb our neighbours, in the possession of that to which they seem to attach an interest, and from which it is impossible to conceive that anything prejudicial to us will arise. All we wish is, that peace should be well preserved; and considering the part which we took in the emancipation of Greece—considering the labour and efforts, both by negotiation and other means, which successive Administrations have exerted for the purpose of securing Grecian independence and Grecian prosperity—then I think that it is natural, and not only natural, but a duty, on the part of the Government of England, to employ any good offices which may be in its power, consistently with a due respect for the independence of Greece, to make use of, for the purpose of assisting her in the following out of the career which, as an independent State, she is destined to run. I say, then, as the organ of Her Majesty's Government on this occasion, and I can solemnly assure the House, that the only wish of the Government is, that Greece should be well governed. We may have our opinions as to the capacity of different statesmen in Greece so to govern their country; but be it governed ill, or be it governed well, however much we may lament the one or rejoice over the other, we have no intention to dictate. We trust that the representations which we have made will induce the Government of Greece to fulfil the obligations which it has contracted with England; and we trust also that the smaller matters in which persons under British protection may have reasons for complaint, will be duly and justly considered by the Greek Government. But though, as far as friendly advice may go, we shall be ready to give it, our interference must be limited to the accomplishment of the objects which I have stated; and we utterly disclaim having any views connected with Greece, for the accomplishment of which we should wish to create a British party, separated in its feelings from the party called Greek. And here let me do justice to those distinguished men in Greece who constitute what is called the "British party." I say that I am quite convinced that the only sense in which they can be called the "British party" is this—that they believe that the British Government wishes sincerely and honestly to promote the welfare of their country; and I am persuaded that there is not one amongst them who, if we were to ask for anything injurious to his country—inimical to her interests, or derogatory to her honour, who would not repudiate the title of "British party," and say and prove that he was Greek and Greek alone. I again say, that I shall be most ready to agree to the Motion of the noble Lord, and later in the evening to produce the papers for which he has moved.

agreed with the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) in the opinion that no amount of maladministration would justify this country in interfering in the internal concerns of another; and also that, where the right to interfere in the case of a given country existed, such right could not extend so as to violate the independence of the Sovereign in the choice of his Ministers. A particular wrong was to be redressed, or a particular right to be conceded; but the specific means of doing either must be left to the internal organs of the country. So again, in the present case, whatever the amount of peculation might be among the inferiors in the Greek Government, or of corruption among the superiors, or of torture in the administration of the law, or of tyranny in every department, the English Government had no more right to interfere because of these things, than they had to interfere in the government of Timbuctoo or Tonquin. The right of England to interfere with Greece was very different. There were three countries with respect to which England had an equitable right to interfere—Sardinia, in the case of the Vaudois, Russia in the case of Poland, Greece in respect to the loan. But these cases might be discussed without offence to those who were still the allies of England. He could not but regret that a tone so different from that which was adopted in that House had been adopted elsewhere. Though we might say that we did not desire to have a Russian, or a French, or an English party in Greece, he could not but feel that there was on one side of Europe a predominant Power, which now, for nearly a century and a half, had been looking wistfully on Greece—not Greece as it existed now in its freedom, but upon the whole Turkish empire. If there was a Power against which it was absolutely necessary at any time to guard, it was certainly not against France or England that Greece ought to be watchful; and he should have been much better pleased to find the power of England united with that of France, if it were necessary to have a distinct interest between the Three Powers. He should like to see the interests of Eng- land and France united as one in protecting Greece against what might be called something like an hereditary desire on the part of Russia to possess herself of all the region which was now comprehended under the term Greece, and to which Russia was united by the prevailing bond of religious union. But whatever might be the difference of opinion on the part of the two representative bodies alluded to, he was most anxious that nothing should be said or done in either Chamber, here or in France, which might provoke hostilities between the Powers concerned in the affairs of Greece. Nor did he dread it. And when he said that, he did not mean dreading it, as in fear of the result; but that he did not dread the occurrence of such an event if the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office would maintain the language of firmness which he had adopted in that House; and if he would be pleased to state that England required no interference whatever in the affairs of Greece, except such as might enable Greece to discharge her bonâ fide obligations to this country. Greece had a claim upon us, not from her own classical associations, not even for her gallant and glorious conduct during the war of independence, but he ventured to claim for her the support, sympathy, and applause of Europe, on account of the bloodless revolution which she effected in 1843. Before resuming his seat, he would advert in a few words to the manner in which England had already interfered, in the person of one of her most distinguished diplomatists—he meant Sir Edward Lyons, the representative of the Power of England at Athens. Already had he interfered, though not beyond the bounds of strict duty, but in a manner that justified all the applause which successive Administrations had felt it to be their duty and privilege to bestow upon that Minister. He wished, therefore, that the noble Lord, and Her Majesty's Minister at the Court of Athens, should be encouraged by the opinion of that House to pursue the same line of conduct which they had hitherto adopted. He believed that perseverance in that course would at last attain its object and reward, in the general improvement of Greece. Of this, also, he was sure, that this country would deprecate war, or the adoption of any measure which would lead to war. A great country like this, having no selfish object in view, would be sustained completely in the course which might be necessary for the vindication of its rights. If this course were persevered in, he believed the result would be that Greece would be made capable of discharging her debt. That debt he valued not for its pecuniary amount; but he did value its payment as an evidence to the world that Greece had at length become worthy of the care and cost of her adoption. Because Greece could not pay the debt whilst she was misgoverned, he should hail the payment of that debt as the most grateful testimony that could be formed of the good government of Greece.

was quite sure that the House and the country would be perfectly satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation of the views and conduct of Her Majesty's Government; but he could not altogether subscribe to the limitation which the noble Lord had put to the interest which the House ought to take in the affairs of Greece. He understood from the speech of the noble Lord, that not only had the most horrible tortures been inflicted in this constitutional country of Greece, but they had been inflicted upon a man who, though not exactly an English subject, was under the protection of England. And, therefore, he thought that it was not only the payment of the loan or the interest of the loan that Parliament ought to require, but that it ought also to express its hope that the statesmen of Greece would be able in a very short time to bring the government of that country into a state more in accordance with civilization than that which prevailed there now.

said, the debate would not be without its weight on the good government of Greece. He felt that the interest of England was intimately associated with the liberties of that country. It was his fortune, about a quarter of a century ago, to be one of those charged to communicate to the late Mr. Canning, then Prime Minister of England, the state of feeling that existed in the Peloponnesus; and he ventured to tell that great and illustrious statesman that the dream which he had indulged in when a boy might, perhaps, be realized by him as Prime Minister; and it was the good fortune of that great man to lay the foundation out of which he anticipated the realization of the independence of Greece. The hon. Member then adduced some particulars to show that in the face of all the misgovernment which had afflicted Greece, considerable progress had been made in the development of some of her resources. No reference was made to Greece when a Sovereign was chosen for Greece; there was no inquiry whether the individual who was imposed upon that country almost as an absolute despot, was qualified for that station; and in every respect that choice was unfortunate. At the very outset he made the greatest mistake—he had attempted to introduce a barbarian court and barbarian manners, and to disconnect himself from the people over whom he had been appointed to reign. Were not the Greeks worthy and desirous of good government? There never was a revolution more honourable to a nation than that of 1843; but what was the effect of it? The leader was driven into banishment, notwithstanding the services which he had rendered to his country, and although he had saved the life of King Otho. The modern Greeks had not lost all the great qualities of their ancestors. Through centuries they still inherited great intellectual qualities, great desire of improvement, great eloquence, great powers; and he would only ask the House to compare Greece and Spain at the present time. In Greece there had been and were fierce struggles, as fierce and exciting as those which had been carried on in Spain; but in Greece there had been no effusion of blood—and he would venture to say that there were no Greeks who did not desire a pacific and constitutional Government. It appeared to him that England did not discharge her duty if she did not exercise her influence to relieve Greece from the thraldom to which she was now subject. He did not mean by violence—it was not by violence that England exerted the most powerful or beneficent influence; but well he knew that the word of England was all-powerful, and if spoken by the noble Lord on this occasion would have the best effect; and Greeks would know that the happier and the better governed they were, the more satisfaction would be felt by the Parliament and people of England.

said, that he was sure that the statement of the noble Lord would give great satisfaction in Greece; and he agreed with the noble Lord in saying that he could not see any legitimate interest which France or England could have in obtaining an ascendancy in the councils of Greece—but he was afraid that the French were more imaginative. In the Chamber of Deputies there were early symptoms of a more lively imagination on that subject; and they found that corresponding effects showed themselves in Greece. However, the declaration of the noble Lord would have the desirable effect of convincing Europe that England had no desire except to secure the real stability of a Government in Greece, which should not be influenced by French interest or English interest, but should be devoted exclusively to Greek interests.

wished to know from the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he had any objection to state what remonstrance he had made against the acts of tyranny and oppression to which he had referred? Those acts were a disgrace to any civilized nation; and it was impossible for this country to look on at such a state of things without using the strongest possible protest against their continuance. He understood the noble Lord to say that he had not interfered as to the appointment of Ministers by Greece. The noble Lord's statement was a complete answer to the fears and alarms which existed in France on that subject; and he hoped it would have the salutary effect of strengthening that concert which ought to exist between France and England as to the affairs of Greece. He should conclude, then, by asking what measures the noble Lord had taken in order to represent to the Government of Greece the necessity of changing the conduct which they had pursued?

I have already stated that, with regard to the financial disorders in Greece, the application made by our Government to repay the last instalment of the loan is in fact a remonstrance against the disordered state of the finances; and indeed I may state, what perhaps the House will recollect, that last year a similar application was made by the noble Lord who preceded me in the office which I have now the honour to hold. With regard to acts of torture, it happened, as I stated, that an Ionian was subjected to treatment which did render it incumbent on our Government to make representations to the Greek Government; and that case naturally drew forth the opinion which the Government entertained as to the prevalence of that system in Greece. With regard to that state of things, for which, fortunately, we have no word in the English language—I mean the brigandage, or system of general robbery which has prevailed in Greece, cases have occurred in which British subjects were unfortunately the victims; and our representations on those cases have also afforded an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Greek Government to the lawlessness and violence which prevailed in different parts of Greece.

thought, that France and England being both sponsors for the nationality of Greece, might, without any compromise of opinion on litigated questions, unite, cordially unite, in one joint protest against the cruelties and acts of torture permitted, if not actually perpetrated, by the Government of Greece—else that debate would be without fruit or practical benefit to the cause of humanity and civilization. If those two great nations could at least co-operate in a cause dear to their interests, it would do more to appease dissension in Greece than any course which could be devised; it would demonstrate to the inhabitants of that distracted country a union of purpose, in what vitally concerned order and good government.

thought this estimate ought to be brought before the House in a different manner. The expense of the different buildings should be separated, and other means afforded of ascertaining what had been done. Looking at the waste of money in the buildings of the House of Commons, he thought there ought to be some means of checking this class of expenses. There ought to be an annual report, stating what had been done in each case.

said, that the very large sum of 43,000l. in this vote was proposed to be expended on royal palaces. Her Majesty never used one half of those palaces which it was proposed by this vote to keep in repair; and he really thought that in times like these, every expense not absolutely necessary for the comfort and convenience of the Sovereign ought to be dispensed with. Take, for example, Hampton Court Palace: it was filled with members of some of the richest families in the country; and there were some there who, neither through themselves, nor their connexions, had the slightest claim on the people of this country. When the vote last year for 20,000l. was taken in order to be laid out on Buckingham Palace, it was said that the Pavilion at Brighton was to be sold as a set-off. He found, however, that in this very estimate there was a charge for keeping in repair the Pavilion at Brighton and its outbuildings. He hoped that the whole of these charges would be thrown on the Woods and Forests for the future, so that the House might distinctly understand the amount of outlay required for the royal palaces. He would also recommend the Government to concentrate the public offices in the same buildings, and not allow a large portion of those now in use to be occupied by the private residences of the officers attached to them. The sums expended in rent for public bodies which should be provided with public offices was enormous. For example, a house was rented for the ecclesiastical commission at 511l. a year. Why should the public be taxed with that charge for the accommodation of a body with immense funds at their disposal, and why should they pay 3,450l. for the salaries of officers attached to it? The public had nothing to do with such charges, and ought not to pay them. Another heavy charge was for the temporary accommodation of the Railway Committees, which came to 2,100l. a year. He also objected to the public being obliged to pay for the maintenance of the cathedral of Glasgow and for St. Andrew's in Scotland, and hoped the Government would pay some attention to his remarks.

quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) that the House had a perfect right to know the appropriation of the several sums mentioned in respect to palaces; but the fact was, there was a difficulty in ascertaining the precise sum which was required for each palace. He also agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Williams), that it was a wasteful expenditure of public money that so much should be annually consumed in rents of houses fitted for the accommodation of public departments. He feared that that must continue to be so long as the business of the country was of the present vast amount, until there were more large public buildings to accommodate the claims made upon it. The Railway Board, for instance, was constituted last year; and the department of the Woods and Forests was called upon to furnish a place for the transaction of their business. They found it impossible, however, to find a suitable house in the neighbourhood at a rent short of 2,100l. For his own part, he would like to see some of our vacant spaces filled up with suitable buildings, so as to enable them to accommodate the public departments without depending on the present precarious and expensive mode. With respect to Brighton Palace, it had certainly been determined last year that it should be no longer an incumbrance to the nation, but that it should be sold and made to realize as much as possible. Difficulties had, however, arisen as to the title to the ground on which it stood; but he assured the House that very diligent inquiry was being made to bring the matter to a satisfactory termination. Then, with regard to Hampton Court, he felt sure that if the hon. Gentleman reflected on the amount of enjoyment derived from the works of art in that palace, and the really enjoyable gardens there, he would not grudge the sum required to keep that palace and those gardens in a sufficient state of repair.

wished to know if any steps had been taken to ascertain the truth of the statement made by the Knights of Windsor? Last year he had had occasion to call the attention of Government to their application. The Dean and Chapter had got possession of the funds of the Poor Knights, and would neither allow them their proper incomes nor keep their houses in repair. He knew it was very difficult to watch the Church, or to get back from them money of which they had once obtained possession, but he hoped Government would attend to this subject.

said, the question related to a very intricate subject of property, with which any one who valued his time or comfort would be rather cautious in interfering. All the papers relating to it had been referred to the law department of the Government, and the claim made by the knights depended on the existence of a document which had not yet been found.

observed, that last year he had made an appeal to the noble Lord on this subject, which like most of his appeals was of little use, or was at least but little attended to. They were laying out the public money very improperly. The House would remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook that the buildings should not cost more than 300,000l., but that afterwards they had been called upon to pay 750,000l., which the addition of 150,000l. would make nearly a million expended on this ungainly edifice. Such a production was no credit to the Government or to the country, and it would have been much better to have selected another site for a new building. He was satisfied this money would be wasted, and that the effect of the alterations would be to make the square of the palace so close as to render it more unhealthy than before. If there had not been plenty of room elsewhere for the residence of the Royal Family, he would not say anything on the subject; but he did not see why Her Majesty should not put herself to inconvenience as well as other people, when there were other places to go to. He hoped she would live long to occupy the new palace, but thought she might allow time to Government to erect a building which would do them and the country credit. However, he clearly saw there was no stopping this course, and all he hoped was that the noble Lord would take care not to let the House in for another 350,000l. He could not but mention it, to the honour of Mr. Blore, the architect, that he had saved 20,000l. in his estimate of the expenditure in the actual execution of the works.

said, he quite agreed in the observation of his hon. Friend, that it would have been much better to have spent so much money on another palace, and thought it well founded; but the question the Government had to consider last year was, whether it would be better to spend so much money on Buckingham Palace as would be necessary to make it convenient for Her Majesty's residence—concerning which papers were laid before the House, in order that they might judge for themselves—or whether they should begin a new palace. Undoubtedly it would have been the handsomer plan, as well as that most suited to Her Majesty's convenience, to have begun the new palace; but the question Her Majesty asked the Government was, would they advise the House to incur such a large expense as 800,000l. or 900,000l. for the purpose of building; and he thought it would have been hardly agreeable to the hon. Members for Montrose and Coventry if such a proposition had been made to them. The result of those deliberations among themselves and with the Members of the last Government was, that they had better not commence a building which would involve so large an expenditure. He did not think that the buildings now in progress would prove so un- healthy or such a deformity as the hon. Member seemed to suppose. The plans and elevations made by Mr. Blore were very handsome, and would make a great improvement in the view of the palace now presented to the public, as well as afford great convenience to Her Majesty and the Royal Family. He could not suppose that his hon. Friend would suggest that Her Majesty should not have any residence in London, or that the Royal children should not be located in the same place with herself. He could hardly propose, for instance, that the Queen should live in Buckingham Palace, while the Princes remained at Windsor. Under the circumstances, Government had taken the most economical plan in their power, though he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it would have been more desirable to have had a palace worthy of the Sovereign and the nation.

expressed his sense of the great credit which was due to Sir William Hooker for the care he had taken to augment the collection, and his efforts to popularize the gardens, and admit the public to a full participation in the pleasure to be derived from them. That eminent man understood the responsibilities of his situation, and discharged his duties in a manner that must command the approbation of Parliament and the public.

was happy to reflect that the collection at Kew excelled anything of a similar kind in any other part of the world. No little of its beauty, comprehensiveness, and utility, was owing to Sir W. Hooker.

agreed entirely in what had fallen from previous speakers, and thought it due at the same time to say that it was much to the credit of the late Mr. Aikin that he should have first opened these gardens to the public. The number of visitors, which in 1841 was 9,174, had gone on increasing to 11,000, 13,000, 15,000, 28,000, and last year there were no fewer than 46,500. He would recommend that the spot belonging to the King of Hanover, including the kitchen garden, should be added to the ground now open to the public, and would suggest to the noble Lord to set on foot a negotiation with that Sovereign to induce him to give up the garden.

observed, that the collection left by the late Mr. Clowes, with the collection formerly given by the liberality of the Duke of Bedford, made the botanical repositories at Kew more complete in the department of orchideous plants than any other in the world.

wished to ask if the noble Lord could tell him when he might expect the accounts called for by the House of the expense incurred for any buildings up to the present time; and also the estimate of the expenses that still remained. When such large sums were being voted year after year on account of temporary accommodations, it became a matter of great importance to know when they were likely to get into their new House, and if they were ever likely to get into it. When the accounts of which he spoke were prepared, it would be his duty to recommend the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into the reasons why so long a period had been spent in finishing a building which should have been finished, according to the pledge given, two or three years ago. As matters looked now, he apprehended it would not be finished till they had all gone from the scene.

could speak with greater confidence of the time when the accounts were to be produced than of the time at which they were likely to get into the new House. The accounts were very voluminous and searching, and required a little time in the preparation, but not so long a time as the hon. Member expected.

hoped that he should succeed in obtaining the sanction of the Government to the appointment of a Committee to investigate the Cause of the delay in the completion of the new Houses of Parliament. It appeared to him, that unless the House of Commons took some active steps in the matter, they would never be introduced into the House which was intended for their reception. They were put off from year to year by some fresh excuse. It was no exaggeration to say that, at that moment the architect was two years behind the time at which he promised to have the House finished. [Mr. HUME: Five years.] It was necessary for the House to interfere to compel the architect to get on with his work. The rapidity with which other great works were executed in London, put to shame the dilatory proceedings at the Houses of Parliament. There could be no doubt, that if the persons engaged in building the Houses had a personal interest in the expenditure of the money, the result would be very different. In consequence of the delay in the completion of the building, it had been necessary to expend 200,000l. in providing temporary accommodation in connexion with the present Houses of Parliament.

wished much to know by what mysterious influence the Lords had succeeded in getting into their apartment. The noble Lord said he could give that House no hopes, though they might get the accounts. He could not see that the preparations for the new House of Commons made any progress whatever from year to year; neither roof nor floor was there, or anything beyond the bare walls. He would ask if the Upper House was to be lodged in all its splendour, whilst the House of Commons was looking on? Very active influence, it was said, had been used on behalf of the Lords, which had succeeded in introducing them to their most splendid apartment—his hon. Friend said gorgeous, and everybody would admit that it was so. They could not learn on whom the matter depended, and he wished to know if there was any prospect of their being able to get in soon.

thought there was a very obvious reason why the other House should get into their own apartment first. His hon. Friend would recollect that when the fire occurred, the House of Lords gave up their own chamber, in order to occupy one that was very confined and uncomfortable, in which that House discharged their functions very inconveniently during the time they occupied it. Whatever splendour there might be about their present chamber, no one would deny that it was, at least, more comfortable than the last, and he therefore did not think it expedient to urge the Government to too great hurry.

remarked that, on inquiring as to the delay which had taken place with the new House, he was told that the architect was employed in executing some ten or twelve places in different parts of the country for noblemen and gentlemen. He thought it hardly fair that this great work should be suspended in order to enable their eminent architect to carry on his operations in various parts of the country at once. He agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir. R. Inglis) that, unless the House interfered, it was quite uncertain whether they would have to wait five or ten years longer.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend was mistaken in the observations he had made relative to the employment of the architect. He believed, if it was the wish of that House that extraordinary speed should be used in the construction of the new building, so that the House of Commons might be enabled soon to occupy their House, and if they were ready to grant the money for that purpose, the architect would not have the smallest objection to having the work finished in the shortest possible time within which it could be completed. He was very much of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Lords naturally wished to get into their House as soon as possible, on account of the great inconveniences to which they were subjected in their former place of meeting. He did not feel that there was such great inconvenience in the present House of Commons; on the contrary, he thought it very convenient; and though he had no doubt that the architect would proceed with the building, he did not see any reason for extraordinary hurry.

objected to the enormous and extravagant expense of 40,000l. which had been incurred for the interior fitting-up the gaudy room in which the Lords sat. Mr. Barry cared nothing for the public purse; his only object was to glorify himself. He had understood, also, that fees were demanded from the public for visiting the House. ["No, no!"] He believed it was so; and if the public were called upon to pay at such a rate for the building, they ought at least, to be admitted to see it without the slightest charge.

thought Mr. Barry did not deserve the treatment he had received from the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Williams). Mr. Barry had only carried out in the best manner the design approved by the parties in whose hands was placed the selection. He (Mr. Protheroe) thought it an unfortunate selection, and the style adopted the most inconvenient for the purpose, at the same time that it was the most expensive. He thought no one who looked at the range of magnificent fretwork which the exterior exhibited could doubt its expensive character; and for himself, notwithstanding its beauty, he should have preferred something more simple—something in the Italian style. He believed, however, that the present style was in accordance with the taste of the nation, and that no objection would be made to the expense. Mr. Barry had had no other object, he was quite sure, than that of carrying out the views of those who had adopted his designs.

said, Mr. Barry pledged himself to keep within the original estimate of 750,000l.; but the first plan had been departed from, and for this he blamed the different heads of the department of Woods and Forests, who had the controlling power; one of the Chief Commissioners signed some of the altered plans, under the belief that they were the original designs. None of these officers seemed to have been able to exercise any power over the architect; and the whole must be considered the exclusive work of Mr. Barry. It was not the expense he (Mr. Hume) lamented so much as the failure of the building to secure the objects for which it was intended. It would be a failure internally and externally. There was only one part of it where the sun could enter from June to December, the south-west, and there an immense tower was to be built, as if for the purpose of keeping the sun out; the House would never be either dry or comfortable. He wished to know in whose hands the warming and ventilation were placed. The Committee was called on to vote 42,000l. on account; he must ask if Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid had agreed as to the plans? The noble Lord only hoped they might agree; but were the public to be kept at bay in this manner? It appeared to him that Mr. Barry bad treated the heads of the Woods and Forests like a parcel of children; none of them had dared say nay to him. It was time to change this system; and he advised the noble Lord to take some steps to have the matter settled. He understood that Dr. Reid's plans had been altered; if that was the case, whose plan had been taken?

said, the original estimate of Mr. Barry was understood to refer only to the carcase of the building, not to the interior. He must also state that the department of Woods and Forests had never been invested by the House with any discretion or judgment as to the works; it had only the power of checking the accounts. With respect to the dispute be- tween Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid, shortly after he came into office he perceived that if left to themselves they were not likely to come to any satisfactory mode of proceeding; he had therefore desired Dr. Reid to make out his plans in detail; they had just been completed, and were now submitted to Mr. Barry, and he hoped he would be able to carry them into effect without further dispute. He thought it an unfortunate arrangement to have originally given a concurrent authority to two persons, and he had done his best to obviate the inconvenience of it.

thought the delay arose, in a great measure, from the highly ornamented style of the building; if consistently with its character this excess of ornament could be avoided in the rest of the fabric, a large part of the public would be better satisfied. He thought the style adopted, the Perpendicular Gothic, the worst that could have been fixed on. The Old English style would have been preferable; but if the former must be continued throughout the building, he hoped the architect, in finishing the House of Commons, would dispense with that enormous quantity of painting and gilding that disfigured the House of Lords.

must observe, that as the House of Lords was the place of meeting of the Three Estates of the Realm, it had been decorated with more splendour than it was intended to employ in the House of Commons; that would be fitted up in a much plainer style; he believed gilding would be abstained from altogether; and, in short, the decorations would be such as to suit better with their simpler and severer taste.

begged to call the attention of the House to a subject of the greatest importance, namely, the defenceless state of the south coast of England; in proof of which he need scarcely do more than refer the House to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty, by whom it was fully admitted. There were two points, however, to which he would beg the attention of the House: firstly, the immense amount of property and large numbers of inhabitants in towns and villages on the sea shore now exposed to danger from invasion by a foreign foe and from the inclemency of the weather; and, secondly, that Newhaven was the best and most available point at which protection could be given, and that too at a smaller cost than at any other point. In reference to the first statement, it appeared, contrasting the houses and inhabitants on the coast in 1841, when the last returns were made, with what they were in 1811, that in both respects the increase had been fourfold at least. Newhaven had many peculiar advantages, both as a harbour of refuge, and as a point at which a war steamer might be stationed. Great loss of time would also be saved to the mercantile navy, and great loss of property avoided, as there was no place on the coast at which to put in, either to escape danger from bad weather or an enemy. The roads might be deepened and kept clear at a very small expense, so as to admit large vessels. It was easy to be seen in working up the Channel, having near it, as a guide, a remarkable and well-known headland; and it was a place from whence there was an admirable look-out to seaward. It had been said, by the highest possible authority, that the greatest danger from an enemy might be apprehended from the peculiar fitness of this very coast for the landing of cavalry and artillery, the open country around supplying forage for the horses. Newhaven was, moreover, but thirty-six hours march from London; and therefore on that account ought to be placed in a state of defence. Being now but a journey of an hour and a half by rail from the metropolis, it was also an admirable depôt for coal for the war-steamers, the supply inland being so quick and certain. In reference to the cost, he stated that the debt on the harbour had been reduced from 13,800l. to 4,900l.; and that when they had discharged this private obligation they were willing to place the surplus at the disposal of Government. Several high authorities had recommended Newhaven as a harbour of refuge; and it was now better than ever in consequence of the improvements projected, and in course of execution by the railway company. He therefore did not think he was asking too much, if he asked the appropriation of a small sum to be applied to the deepening of the harbour, so as to admit war-steamers. The opinion of Captain Washington, Mr. Walker, Sir John Rennie, and the other gentlemen of great scientific attainments who had examined the harbour, had borne witness to its value as a harbour of refuge. The reports of the Commissioners who had been appoint- ed on two different occasions, unanimously agreed that the harbour of Newhaven was the most important on the south coast. The expense, according to the estimate of Mr. Walker, would not exceed 150,000l., to be extended over a period of three years. He did not call upon them at this moment to vote any large sum; but he considered that a grant of 40,000l. at present would recognise the principle, and at the same time go far towards the establishment of not only a harbour of safety, but a harbour of defence also at Newhaven. While pressing upon them the necessity and expediency of expending a sum for a purpose not hitherto authorized by Parliament, he could not lose sight of the more powerful argument, that the expense entailed upon us by a war would far exceed any sum which we could expend upon such a purpose. He would not propose a vote for the purpose in the regular way, but he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not lose sight of the suggestion; and that if he were not prepared at this moment to adopt the suggestion, he would at least give a promise to consider the matter next Session, and thus assert the principle of protecting the property along our coast, and defending our shores from foreign invasion.

was not disposed to withhold from the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Captain Fitzroy) the credit to which he was justly entitled for advocating so ably the claims of Newhaven harbour to a Government grant; but, although he had paid great attention to his speech, he had not heard a single word said about the desirability of voting a sum of public money to improve the harbour of Rye, in which he (Mr. Curteis) was interested. He did not wish to be understood as opposing any grant of the public money towards improving the harbour of Newhaven, but merely wished to direct the attention of the Government to the case of Rye harbour, which was well worthy of notice.

said, it was true that the Government had thought it their duty to improve the defences of the coast of this country; but it must be remembered that the Commissioners, in their report, spoke of Dover as being the most important to be attended to; and Seaforth came after that, and before Newhaven. It would be better to act upon that report, and take the harbours in some sort of order, than to adopt the suggestion of any hon. Member as to a particular harbour; for if they did not, they would have other hon. Members rising up, and each advocating the necessity of making a grant to any harbour with which he might happen to be connected.

begged to inquire whether, among the various and multitudinous subjects which claimed the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his attention had been directed to the harbour of Douglas?

replied, that many representations had been made to him as to the necessity of fortifying the harbours along the coast, in case of the possibility—he would not say the probability—of invasion by a foreign enemy; but that the impression was, that the south coast was the most important.

stated, that after the decided opinion which the House had expressed upon a previous night on this subject, it was not his intention to offer any further opposition. He would simply con tent himself by entering his protest against Government undertaking a portion only of a large plan at a time, when they could not command the necessary funds to meet the demands upon them, and when money was not to be had under rates of interest varying from five to ten per cent.

expressed the great pleasure which he felt that the House had agreed to those resolutions, and only regretted that the Government aid now proposed to be given was confined to three railways. He did not attribute the present depressed state of the money market to railways, but to the restrictions under which the commercial and financial world laboured, in consequence of the financial measures of the late Government. In his opinion, Government grants of this description were eminently calculated to promote the prosperity of the country; and he hoped the Government would watch the effects of the present grant, in order, at a future time, to follow it by others of a more general and comprehensive nature. If they were not prepared to adopt the measure which had lately been brought under their consideration, in all its integrity, he hoped they would propose an amelioration of it, which would have the effect of encouraging railways and public works. He also hoped, that if the financial measures of late years were found to be too stringent and embarrassing upon the commercial classes, that the Government would take measures to relax them.

hoped, that instead of following the advice of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, Her Majesty's Government would carefully avoid granting any money for such a purpose, when the best commercial bills could not be discounted for less than eight or ten per cent.

I rise to move, pursuant to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill to Amend the Administration of the Laws for the Relief of the Poor in England. I do not propose to effect by this Bill any alteration in the general provisions of the laws now in force relating to the relief of the poor; I intend to confine myself to proposing a change in the mode of administering that law, and to effect that which, I trust, will be a considerable improvement in the constititution of the body by which those laws have hitherto been administered, and to whom was confided the task of carrying them into effect. The House will remember that, in the year 1842, when the Poor Law Commission was about to expire, an Act was passed for the purpose of renewing it—that that Act continued the Commission for five years from 1842, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament. The Commission, therefore, if Parliament should not interfere, would expire in 1848. At the beginning of the present Session my noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury informed the House that the administration of the laws relating to the relief of the poor had occupied the very careful attention of Her Majesty's Government during the preceding recess; and he then stated what were the opinions which the Government had formed on this subject, and he shortly described the outline of the measure which he thought it would be the duty of the Government to introduce for the purpose of effecting the change which it appeared expedient to make in the course of the present Session of Parliament. My noble Friend stated that it was the intention of the Government, after a full consideration of the question, not to propose a continuation of the existing Poor Law Commission, but in the course of the present Session to propose a measure which should involve an extensive change; in the constitution of the body by which the Poor Laws were hereafter to be administered; and in accordance with that statement I now rise to move for leave to bring in a Bill, with a view to accomplish the object which my noble Friend stated to the House the Government then had in contemplation. We felt it to be our duty carefully to investigate the whole subject—to look back not only to the evidence obtained antecedently to the year 1834, but to the experience which we had been able since that time to acquire in the working of the law and the mode of its administration. The reasons for the establishment of some central authority which existed in 1834 still remain in full force. We feel now as the Government then did, that the influence of a general superintending authority cannot be safely dispensed with. Without some such authority we feel that the administration of the Poor Law cannot be efficiently carried out. I believe that no one would wish to see the old administration of the Poor Law restored. I do not believe that there exists in the mind of the public a desire that we should recur to the old system of local administration, unchecked and uncontrolled by any central authority. It is quite evident that no Act of Parliament would be sufficient to dispense altogether with such an authority. An Act of Parliament could contain fixed and permanent rules which should be applicable to every district throughout the country; but they must in that case be carried into effect in a uniform and unvarying manner. You may in an Act of Parliament lay down general principles, but you cannot take into account every varying circumstance which may from time to time arise in different districts, or even in the same district of the country. For this purpose, there must be some discretionary power created. We have felt that we ought to maintain the principle of the administration of the Poor Law established in the year 1834, which was that of combining local administration with a general superintending and central authority. But though that principle was recognised, the question for us to consider was in what manner the central authority invested with discretionary power, could most advantageously be composed. In the year 1834, when an extensive change was made in the law, it was thought that the persons who were to be invested with the discretionary powers to be exercised by a central authority ought not to form any part of the Executive Government; that they should remain free from that popular influence which must necessarily operate in a greater or less degree upon all public men—upon all who take part in carrying on the government of the country. It was at that time thought better, also, that no political changes should be allowed to affect those who were to be entrusted with these powers. Upon these grounds, the Poor Law Commission was separated from the Executive Government; and doubtless there was at the time much to be urged in favour of such an arrangement; but we must consider it now in the light of experience. Looking to the results of that arrangement, and appealing to that experience by which alone it can be tried, I think I may assert that it has not been as successful as was anticipated. The responsibility of the Poor Law Commissioners to Parliament was indirect and imperfect. The power they exercised was free from that check which is imposed upon those public functionaries who are obliged to listen in this House to charges made against them, either by Members of Parliament, or suggested by other parties; and, on the other hand, they were not enabled to explain their official conduct in this House—they were not enabled to answer their accusers face to face, and their vindication has been for this reason necessarily incomplete. They have laboured under a manifest disadvantage in this respect. When complaints as to any of the ordinary departments of the Government are made, the representative of that department is familiar with the details of the subject to which the complaint relates: he has followed them, step by step; he knows the correspondence relating to it, and remembers the reasons which led to the course that has been pursued; and, therefore, he is able to state fully the grounds of his vindication, and to offer, if not a satisfactory, at least a full and complete explanation of the conduct of the department which he represents. But, under the existing Poor Law Commission, what really happens? Complaints are made, and questions asked of the Home Secre- tary respecting some matter connected with the administration of the Poor Law. The Home Secretary is expected to give an answer; and his first answer almost necessarily is, that he is entirely ignorant of the matter, but that he will inquire into the facts of the case, and come down on a future day and give a reply: and, consequently, either by personal conversation, or written communication, he obtains an explanation from the Commissioners; but still without a knowledge of all the circumstances which led to the act in question; and in this state he is expected to give full information to the House on the subject. This, unquestionably, leads to great inconvenience; and the administration of the law has been, to a certain degree, prejudiced by it. The principle, therefore, of the Bill which I have to propose is in accordance with what fell from my noble Friend at the head of the Government at the beginning of the Session, namely, that there shall be a general superintending authority immediately responsible to Parliament. My general proposition is, that the existing powers shall be transferred to a new Board, which in its constitution will be similar to the Board of Control. The chief Member of the Board will be called the President, and he will be responsible for the ordinary administration of the law. But associated with the President of the Board there will be certain Members of the Cabinet, ex-officio members of the Board, namely, the President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, one of the Secretaries of State, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There will also be two Secretaries to the Board, and it is proposed that the President and one of the Secretaries shall be allowed to have seats in Parliament. I do not say that they both shall have seats in the House; but it is essential that the Board shall be directly represented in this House either by the President or Secretary. As I said before, the powers of the Poor Law Commissioners will be transferred to this new Board, which will become responsible for the administration of the law. Now, with respect to making general rules, the present practice is, that before a general rule of the Poor Law Commissioners takes effect, it is submitted to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for forty days; and if he, within that time, does not disallow it, it has the force of law, subject, however, to disallowance by the Queen in Council, and subject to be taken by certiorari before the Court of Queen's Bench. When the noble Lord at the head of the Government brought this subject forward at the commencement of the Session, he proposed that general rules should not take effect until sanctioned by the Queen in Council; but on further consideration, it was thought that making the general rules by Orders in Council was open to objection. It is proposed by this Bill that no general rule shall be made unless under the signature of three Members of the Board. The power will also exist that a general rule may be disallowed by an Order in Council; and it will also be subject to legal investigation when brought by certiorari before the Court of Queen's Bench. Other rules and orders must be signed by two Members of the Board, or by the President and Secretary. At present, the Poor Law Commissioners are required to prepare an annual report, to be laid before Parliament. The new Board will have to present a similar report each year; but it is not intended that it shall continue to be addressed, as at present, to the Secretary of State, but to the Crown, when directions will be given that it shall be laid before Parliament. It is intended that a certain number of inspectors shall be appointed to perform the duties of the assistant commissioners. I do not wish to enter into any details on this occasion; but I must advert to the possibility of a better arrangement than that by which the assistant commissioners are confined to a particular district, and have a great extent of unions under their care. It has been found by experience, and it was the opinion of the Committee which sat on the Andover inquiry, that the existing arrangement, which confines the number of assistant commissioners to nine, is defective. Originally, the Treasury had a power of sanctioning an increase of the number; but under the Act of 1842 that power was dispensed with, and the number is absolutely limited. This has been found to be a great impediment to the working of the law, and we propose to extend the limitation of inspectors from nine to twelve. With regard to the duration of this Bill, as it must be considered, in a certain degree, to be experimental, we propose that the new Board shall only last for five years, and it will therefore be necessary, at the expiration of that time, to bring the law under the consideration of Parliament. I have now stated the general outline of this Bill, and the reasons why we have proposed it; and I have endeavoured to avoid all topics that may lead to inconvenient discussion. The Bill will be now presented to the House; it will be printed, and I propose that the second reading shall take place this day fortnight, which will be the first open day, when there will be ample time for its discussion.

said, it was not then his intention fully to discuss this Bill, and, indeed, he was too much indebted to the present Government for carrying the Ten Hours Bill, to say much upon this measure at present; but the right hon. Gentleman must excuse him, if he asked two or three questions. In the first place, the House and the country would require a distinct pledge, that any of the present Poor Law Commissioners should not be appointed to the new Board; and if it were the intention of the Government to appoint them to that high office, or to any office whatever, some hon. Member would be found to make a distinctive Motion to the House to decide whether, after the exposure which took place before the Andover Committee, any one of those persons was capable of discharging the arduous duties of such an appointment. He would also like to know, whether the present unions were to remain of the size they now were? If the right hon. Gentleman so intended, he could not be aware of the fact, that many poor men had ten, and twenty, and thirty, and some nearly forty miles to travel, to ask relief from the poor-law guardians; and when the poor men complained of the hardship, what was the reply given by the Commissioners at Somerset House? Why, that they might go to the poor-law guardian of the parish in which they resided; but it might happen, and did happen, that many of the guardians, during the year for which they were appointed, never went near the board. In that case, there was no one to whom the poor men could apply, but to the relieving officer. They had, therefore, to apply to a man who was perfectly indifferent to the wants of the suffering poor, and who might happen to have been elected, not from his character, or from his competence to fill the office, but because he had offered to fill the office for a less sum of money than any one else in the parish. If he had any ill-feeling against the poor men, instead of pleading their cause before the board, he might never mention it; and there was consequently the hardship towards the poor men, in making them travel to the board the distance he had described. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter into his consideration, for if the right hon. Baronet allowed the law to remain as at present, there would be the same extent of opposition to the law, and nothing but an alteration would allay it. There was another question which he wished to ask. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend that the present district auditors should remain? The auditors were more cruel, more tyrannical, and more insulting to the poor-law guardians in the country, than were the Poor Law Commissioners themselves. He would ask the right hon. Baronet whether he would object before the second reading of this Bill, to lay on the Table of the House the correspondence between the different boards of guardians, and the Poor Law Commissioners, with respect to the auditors? for if he would consent to lay it on the Table, it would expose to the House such disgraceful conduct on the part of the auditors, that it would be impossible that they could remain. He would mention one circumstance which had come under his own observation respecting these persons. In the union in which he resided, the select vestry had given directions to the constable, in case he found at night a poor person starving or destitute, and without a lodging, that he should provide food and lodging. The district auditor, however, had issued an order to prevent the relieving officer or constable giving such relief to poor persons who were found starving in the night. He had obtained an order of that House to the Poor Law Commissioners, directing them to furnish this disallowing order. These Commissioners had made a return to the House, in which the auditor distinctly stated that he had never given such an order. He went down to the place he alluded to, a few days afterwards, and he questioned the constable and relieving officer on the subject, when they produced the book in which the disallowing order was entered by the auditor himself. This auditor then, had had the audacity to make a false return to the Poor Law Commissioners, and which they had furnished to the House. On the second reading of this Bill, he would produce the document in question. Again, he wished to know whether the law was to be enforced with all that hardship and cruelty which characterized it at present. If such were the intention of the Government, at once he would tell them, that if they persisted in such a course, they would have to contend with an agitation throughout the country, greater than that which had brought the Ten Hours Bill to a successful issue. He rejoiced to find that Her Majesty in Council was not to be called upon to sign the Orders in Council for enforcing the Poor Law. He had heard such an announcement from the noble Lord at the head of the Government with very great pain; and he now rejoiced to find that our gracious Sovereign and mother of the British people, was not to take a direct part in making harsh rules for enforcing this law. He wished also to know whether the poor, oppressed by the administration of this law, were to have the power of presenting addresses to the Crown on the subject. The men who administered this law had been placed above the law by Parliament, for their orders had the same power as Acts of Parliament. The poor ought to be governed by the law of the land, and no order of the Commissioners should have force which had not been previously sanctioned by the Legislature. He did not understand, as to whether or not the three Cabinet Ministers who were to draw up the general rules, were to have the same powers as the Poor Law Commissioners now had. [Sir G. GREY: The general rules, when sanctioned, would have the same power and effect as at present.] He proceeded to say, that the new Poor Law gave the Commissioners the power to make rules, having the effect of an Act of Parliament; but it was now proposed that this power should be transferred to three Cabinet Ministers. Could anything be more monstrous than that these Cabinet Ministers should have the power to make laws for the administration of the relief of the poor? If such a proposition was persisted in, the right hon. Baronet must not imagine that he would rest in a bed of roses. The strongest opposition throughout the country from all political parties, would be excited against such a proposal. Of all political parties in that House, or in the country, none were so unpopular as the Whigs. That three Whig Cabinet Ministers should be allowed to make laws for the poor, was one of the most preposterous notions ever proposed. If they endeavoured to do so, they would excite against them the whole of the working population of the country. He should not say more on that occasion beyond assuring the right hon. Gentleman that he would give him his most determined opposition in all the future stages of the Bill.

rose chiefly to thank the right hon. Baronet for having introduced this Bill. He believed after what had taken place within some months past, it had become imperatively necessary to renew the Poor Law Commission. When the new Poor Law was first enacted, it perhaps was advisable that the Commissioners should not have seats in Parliament; but since then great changes had taken place. That measure was now practically in operation throughout the country, and the difficulties of introducing it had therefore been surmounted. He had listened with great attention to his hon. Friend who had just sat down. He could not understand why they should get rid of district auditors, merely because one of that class would not allow the constable of a parish to give relief to any vagrant he chose to bestow it on. According to the law of England no parish constable had any such power. Generally speaking, he believed that the auditors had acted admirably, although they had not been very extensively tried. The hon. Gentleman would find that the select vestry of which he was a member, had no right to make such an order as that which he had mentioned. As regarded the proposed alterations, he was delighted that the onus of carrying out the law was not to be any longer thrown upon the magistracy of the country. The system had hitherto been objectionable in that point, for the differences between various districts were such, that although in some the law might be carried out to its strictest letter, it could not be in others. He was, therefore, glad that the right hon. Baronet had given a promise that the law was to be, as it were, flexible, and that the Poor Law Commissioners were to endeavour to suit the Administration of it to the requirements of the several localities. But with regard to the inspectors or assistant Poor Law Commissioners, he would earnestly recommend the right hon. Baronet not to put any number to which they were to be limited in the Bill. He thought it would be better to let the number be placed under the control of the Council. It would be utterly impossible to carry out the provisions of the Bill properly without a perfect supervision; and he would therefore suggest that the Council should have the appointment of such a number of inspectors as they should find necessary; and the number employed could be mentioned in the annual report which was to be submitted to Parliament. He thought that the provisions of the Act only required that the Government should carry them out fairly, and at the same time humanely, to make them everything that the country could desire.

thought that the principle that one of the new Board should have a seat in the House of Commons would be very agreeable to the country. It had frequently been the case during those discussions that of late years had taken place in the House, when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester used to be called upon to answer questions relative to the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, that one of those Commissioners generally sat in the gallery, and a constant communication and interchange of messages used to be kept up between the Ministerial bench and the gallery, to enable the right hon. Baronet to reply upon all the points that chanced to be raised. Now that they were going to make a change in the law, however, he thought it would be very hard to visit with punishment those Poor Law Commissioners. They were honourable men; who, whatever might be their faults, had done their best, and carried out the provisions of the Act according to the best of their judgment. He trusted that the Government would follow the course of a truly paternal one, and adopt a wise system of centralization. He was glad the number of inspectors was about to be increased; and he agreed with the hon. Member for Somersetshire in thinking that the number ought to be kept open. There was another important question regarding the poor, to which he trusted the right hon. Gentleman opposite would give his attention during the recess—it was in fact the great question of the day—the law of settlement.

was glad the right hon. Baronet had at length had the opportunity of introducing this Bill; but he was not satisfied that the Government had taken the best course. Hitherto they had had a Board of Poor Law Commissioners, which was virtually only one man. The business was in fact allowed to be conducted by one individual, and that individual without having any responsibility thrown upon him; and he was not sure that the new Cabinet Minister to be provided by this Bill would relieve them from that difficulty. He was inclined to think that Her Majesty's Ministers would do better to adopt a local inspection. The different boards had adopt- ed different systems, although the original intention of the new Poor Law had been to establish a general system of management. But with regard to the question of responsibility, he was disposed to think that there should be one responsible Member of the Board to answer for its acts—the Secretary at any rate. He would hold him responsible; and they might believe him that the more they brought responsibility to bear upon some quarter or another, the better. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had spoken of wisdom in legislating and of the adoption of "a wise system;" but hitherto they seemed to have been going on without wisdom of any kind. They might be right in changing the law; but he thought that the complaints hitherto made had arisen in consequence of the mismanagement of it; and in substituting another Board for the present, the right hon. Gentleman should not place the business in any of the same hands. He did not know any of the gentlemen who composed the present Board except one. He had at any rate nothing to say against them, except knowing the manner in which they had managed their business, and what the public thought of them; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not place any of them upon the new Board. If he did so, he would do at the very commencement of the new system more harm than could be easily undone again. He began to have great doubts indeed of all boards. He wanted to see more responsibility thrown upon some one; and for the important situation of Secretary he hoped the noble Lord would look out for some talented individual who would make an able Secretary—one who would suit the situation, not merely one whom the situation would suit.

must say that he did not agree with what had been said in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, because he was in hopes that if any change was to take place in the Poor Law Commission, that change would at least have included, as far as possible, all those general rules which long experience had proved to be good. He was quite certain that if there was any one thing with which the great body of the people of this country were particularly dissatisfied, it was the constitution of a Board possessing the enormous powers of the present Poor Law Commissioners. He felt great doubts as to the propriety of appointing a Board, the whole of the members of which were to be composed of the Members of the exist- ing Government, with the exception of one—whom they intended to call the President of the Board—because the inevitable consequence of such a step must be that every question which came on in that House, in which such Commissioners were concerned, would become a Government question; and therefore any man who had any grievance or complaint to prefer in the House against them, would have to contend against the whole weight of the Government. In fact, the Government would feel that they were vitally interested in the decision, and that a censure upon the Commissioners implied a censure upon the Government. He could not see how things could be otherwise under the proposed scheme. An hon. Member had said that there really were no Government questions. Now that might be a very convenient mode of doing things, and all questions might be considered open; but he apprehended that any question which involved the conduct of the President of the Board and the Cabinet Ministers in the Board, would undoubtedly be taken up by the existing Government, and dealt with as a question in which the whole of the Cabinet was concerned. He was sure that throughout the country the Bill would be looked upon as the old system proposed under a new face. He did not believe that the present Bill would afford one tittle more of security than the present system. The great fault of the present system was, not that the supervision was not sufficient, but that it was not central. The great thing wanted was responsibility. As the law at present stood, there was no responsibility anywhere. It was in consequence of that want of responsibility that the country was disgusted by the shameful proceedings which took place at Bridgewater, Andover, &c. Under the present system, the Commissioners and guardians of the poor were enabled to escape from condemnation by means of the facilities which it afforded for shifting the responsibility from each other's shoulders; and he was afraid that they were about to continue that system by this Bill. That system was a bad one. They could never get men to look fairly and dispassionately at measures which they themselves had framed. Now, with regard to the control of prisoners, they did not leave them to be governed by the Board of Commissioners. There were Acts of Parliament containing the general outline of discipline which it was in the power of the Chief Secretary of State to fill up with such details as he might deem proper. And why was not some such course proposed with reference to the poor? Another fault in his opinion besides that of non-responsibility in the proposed system was, that they did not propose to give a negative power to the Commissioners: though they proposed to give them the power of refusing relief, yet they did not, on the other hand, propose to enable them to order relief in cases which they might deem as demanding it. He therefore looked upon this Bill as a one-sided piece of legislation against the poor. The rules which the Commissioners had drawn up three or four years ago, he considered to be good, humane, and practicable; and he much regretted that it was not the intention of the Government to embody them in this Bill. He would, of course, reserve to himself the right of stating any further objections which he might have to the measure in its future stages. He had thrown out, temperately he hoped, those evils which he had seen in the workings of the present law. He was one of those who only wished for a good supervision of the poor; he cared not who it was that supervised the poor, so long as the rights of the poor and the ratepayer were equally protected.

thought the same rule should not be applied in exactly the same manner to different parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last must be aware how necessary it was, from the different circumstances of various parts of the country, that distinct regulations should be established for those different localities; and he did not see how that could be obtained except by vesting, in some superintending authority, a large discretion. He conceived that it would be inexpedient to propose any alteration, at the present moment, with respect to unions, until an alteration with respect to settlement was introduced; but he felt it would be inappropriate to enter further at that time into the subject. It could not be objected that this measure would have the effect of dividing the responsibility between different members of the Board, so that the responsibility would be evaded. The responsibility would rest on the head of the department; and so far from the responsibility being frustrated, as stated by the hon. Member for Montrose, it would be attained by the measure before the House.

said, the question the House had to decide was, whether the par- ticular control which the Government proposed was the best. He did not think it was. He concurred with the hon. Member for Montrose in his objections against boards. The experience of the working of a board with regard to this very law, had been extremely unfortunate. He saw no advantage or expediency in separating the consideration of this branch of home policy from the Home Office; and if another Home Secretary had been added, charged with the care and responsibility of the administration of the poor law, it would be more satisfactory, he thought, than having a separate board. It sometimes happened that different departments of the Government held different opinions on some subjects; and if the Home Secretary were of one opinion, and the President of the Board of another, what advantage would the public have from these two conflicting jurisdictions? It would have been better if there had been one Under Secretary and one superior Secretary, both in Parliament, and who would have acted together. He did not accuse the Government of a wish to create patronage by this measure, although the public might feel some jealousy on the subject. It would be seen that there was a new creation of officers, a new President and a new Vice-President; and if they sowed the germ of this new patronage, although they might not avail themselves of it, some succeeding Government would be sure to take advantage of the patronage placed in their hands. He repeated, there was a disadvantage in separating two branches of social policy which ought to be under one head, and in creating a separate board for the purpose. The House had tried a board separate from the Government already, and it had failed. It had been said there would be great difficulty in securing a seat for the hon. Gentleman who might be Secretary of the new Board. What would be the consequence? The President of the Board would have a seat in the House of Lords; and the Board might have no representative in that House, for the Secretary of State for Home Affairs would not be its representative. He submitted to the Government whether it was not worth their reconsideration whether they would not place this new power under the authorized acknowledged head of that office to which the Poor Law naturally belonged. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Pontefract, that the poor-law unions were now inconveniently large. Whatever might be done with the law of settlement, the first thing would be to reduce the present size of the unions.

The first point to be considered with regard to this Bill was, whether it was necessary to have a central board for the administration of the law relating to the poor of this country. Undoubtedly by far the most convenient course to the Government would be to have the law in all points, with reference to the poor, wholly administered by the local authorities, which would, of necessity, relieve the Government from all blame for any abuse that might occur in its administration. That would so far resemble the old state of the law; for whatever complaint of abuse, or of hardship suffered by any person under the old poor-law system, was made, no person ever thought of bringing any charge against the particular Government of the day for any such abuse or hardship. But, on considering this subject, I think most people will come to the opinion, that if at the time of the introduction of the New Poor Law, in 1834, the administration of that law was so difficult that it was impossible by any one plan to bring the whole country to adopt a uniform system; so at the present time, after thirteen or fourteen years' experience in the administration of that law, there still exists so great a diversity of circumstances to which that law is to be applied, that it would not be prudent, safe, or advisable, to attempt to bring every part of the country under one general set of rules. It is for that reason, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government have thought—and I doubt not the majority of the House will think—that it is necessary to have some central authority which can apply rules to particular places, relax them in particular instances, and, in short, make the rules act with that elastic power which should be found necessary in the administration of this particular law. My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) says, "There ought, to be responsibility; but responsibility is not to be found in this plan." So the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) says, "Above all, let us have responsibility;" and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has taken the same ground, and finds fault with our plan because it does not give responsibility. Now, upon that subject my opinion is, that the noble Lord the Member for Durham (Lord H. Vane) has taken by far a more correct view of the plan proposed by Her Majesty's Government. What we propose is, not the formation of a board for the purpose of giving an independent and separate opinion as to the law relating to the poor, but what we propose is, that there should be some one person appointed who should Lave the same authority with regard to the general administration of the Poor Law which the President of the Board of Control has with regard to the affairs of India, and which the President of the Board of Trade has with regard to trade. We have thought that some Member of the Government should be informed with respect to the main points concerning the administration of the Poor Law—whether to be called a Secretary of State or an Under Secretary is a point which the House may hereafter consider in Committee; but we are of opinion that some Member of the Government should, as the head of the Board to be appointed under this Bill, be made responsible—as he will be mainly and chiefly answerable, to Parliament for anything that takes place under the administration of the law relating to the poor. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) says, "Why not give this power to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or to the Under Secretary?" I entirely differ from that proposition. I have long considered this point, and having had much experience as to the duties appertaining to the Home Office, and having observed what has gone on in that office since I left it, my opinion is, that by far too many matters of detail are placed in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. What are the Secretaries of State? They are great officers, to whom great functions are confided, and great interests entrusted. The Home Secretary of State is a person who is responsible for the peace of the country, and for the due administration of the criminal law of the country, so far as the prerogative of the Crown is concerned, as advised by the Administration of the day. I think that a great officer of that kind ought to have his mind exclusively occupied with these great functions, and that it is a duty sufficiently onerous to engage his undivided attention. He ought to be ready, whenever any great danger threatens the peace of the country, to give his mind promptly to the consideration of the subject, and to be always ready to act as his responsibility for the internal security and peace of the country would require him to do. But if you impose upon him other duties; if you tell him that he must devote one portion of his time to the superintendence of the working of the Factory Bill, and another portion of his time to the regulation of the dietary of a workhouse; and if you require other portions of his time to be occupied by the details of other Bills which have been passed within the last few years, you must necessarily thereby diminish his power to give attention to those great objects which are, by virtue of his office, solely committed to his care. The duties which have sprung up from the alterations which the law has comparatively of recent date undergone, and which have devolved upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department, do not properly belong to that great officer. I think one advantage that will be gained by this Bill is, that instead of the Home Secretary being more involved by it in the administration of the Poor Law, he will be more separated from it. He will, of course, be officially acquainted with what is going on, but he will not be obliged to attend to the regulations or details of the measure. The great advantage, however, which I think will be derived from the present plan, is that which has been stated by my right hon. Friend, and which I adverted to at the commencement of the Session, namely, that you will have a person directly responsible in his place in Parliament for all that may be done under it. You will have a person charged with all the measures that may be introduced, and with all the rules which may be adopted under this new law; and, moreover, whenever any complaint shall be made or any investigation be instituted, either in this House or in the other House of Parliament, you will have a person ready to explain and defend the administration of the law, or who at least will be able to place it before either House in such a manner as shall admit of an accurate judgment to be formed of it, as to whether the party complained of has acted rightly or not. It has been objected to the appointment of this officer, that it will, in some degree, constitute the office a political one. I admit it. The administration of the law under this plan will necessarily assume a political character, so far as the appointment of the chief officers is concerned. That is undoubtedly a misfortune; but it is one which cannot be avoided, because, as the chief appointment will be held by a person having a scat in this House, there will necessarily he a political bearing upon all questions connected with his office. The hon. Member for Knares- borough has asked the Government whether they intend to exclude altogether those persons who hold office under the present law from holding any office under the new law? I beg leave not to give any pledge upon that subject. I think the Government ought to retain to themselves the power of choosing those persons whom they may consider to be best qualified to administer the law, and most likely to obtain the public confidence. It is a great responsibility that devolves on the Government to make that choice. I recollect when the Poor Law Amendment, Bill was first passed, that this very subject was made matter of serious deliberation in the Cabinet. I think the Government would be wrong to say that they would not appoint this or that person. They ought to reserve to themselves the right of exercising their own discretion in all cases of appointments to office under this law With regard to the other questions that have been referred to, such as the size of the unions, and so on, they can be bettor discussed in Committee, when the details are brought particularly before the House, on the responsibility of the Government, than at the present moment, when the Motion simply is for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, although he could not consider that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was perfect, yet he was willing to admit that it was a great improvement upon the present system. With reference to some observations made of the interference of this Bill with the parochial system, he thought that that interference had proceeded so far in consequence of the ministrations of the Church being set aside; and he was satisfied the poor would be better attended to by the Church than by any other system. He admitted that the present might be an improvement on the former system; but he felt the original vice was retained—that the poor were not dealt with by the three estates of the realm, but by a subordinate department.

wished to ask whether the President and Secretary of the new Board, both of whom were to be eligible for seats in that House, were to be removed from their situations when the Government went out of office? It appeared to him, that, if this were to be the case, it would, in a great degree, impair the independence of those officers, and would, at the same time, invest them with a political character, which, he thought, was most undesirable.

replied, that the only provision in the Bill on this subject was, that the officers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred should hold their offices during pleasure.

observed, that, as the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had distinctly declined to state whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint any of the present Poor Law Commissioners Members of the Board to be constituted under this Bill, he bogged to give notice, that on a future day he would move a distinct resolution that the present Poor Law Commissioners were ineligible to hold office under the new Board, and that he would ground that re solution on the report of the Andover Committee.