I shall at once take the opportunity of asking the question, with reference to which I have given notice, of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in regard to the commercial relations between this country and Prussia. About the 4th of June last there appeared in the Globe newspaper a paragraph to this effect—that a Berlin journal stated that the Prussian Cabinet had received a despatch from the English Cabinet, announcing that if the States of the Zollverein persisted in introducing a system of differential duties with respect to England, that the English Government would have recourse to reprisals. I have since ascertained that that paper was the Prussian States Gazette; and this paragraph having therefore a great semblance of truth, and being of an official character, I take leave to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, having now discovered that Prussia is not shaken, he has had recourse to a threat of retaliatory measures upon Prussia, if Prussia persists in her course of protecting duties, and of taking care of the industry of her own people, to the prejudice of the industry of this country?

I do not remember to have seen the paragraph to which my noble Friend adverts; but I can say that that paragraph was entirely incorrect. The state of the case is this:—It is well known that Great Britain and Prussia entered into a convention in the year 1841, modifying to a certain extent the navigation practice of this country. By that treaty certain ports between the Elbe and the Meuse, which were considered to be the natural outlets of certain inland German States, were to be deemed and considered, with regard to our Navigation Laws, as the ports of those States, though they were not, in point of fact, within their territory; and vessels coming from those ports were to be admitted on the same conditions as if the ports from which they came were within the territory of those States. That privilege was granted to the Prussian and Zollverein navigation and commerce, in return for certain privileges which British vessels enjoyed in Prussian ports—not a privilege then for the first time granted, but a privilege which they had enjoyed by the more liberal nature of the navigation system of Prussia. That treaty might be put an end to at the conclusion of the present year, by a notice given before the 1st of July. The Prussian Government has given that notice—they have given notice previous to a particular day, that the treaty shall be at an end with the present year, intimating at the same time, on the part of Prussia and the Zollverein—of which Prussia is the diplomatic organ—that Prussia and the Zollverein were dissatisfied with that treaty, because it does not, according to their view, rest upon the real principle of reciprocity—that our navigation laws do not accord to the vessels and commerce of Prussia and the Zollverein all the advantages which, according to the present state of things, our vessels and commerce enjoy in the States and ports of the Zollverein; and it was intimated that if Great Britain should continue to persist in her comparatively restrictive navigation system, that the States of the Zollverein would think it their interest to establish a differential duty of 20 per cent upon the manufactures and produce and commodities of Great Britain. That is the state of the case. The communication did not begin with a threat of retaliation on the part of Great Britain to compel Prussia to do anything she was not disposed to do; but, on the contrary, there was a communication from Prussia and the Zollverein that if Great Britain did not relax her navigation system, the States of the Zollverein would impose differential duties on the commerce of Great Britain. To that communication an answer was returned, stating that the Treaty of 1841 has been of very little advantage to Great Britain; that a small amount of British tonnage—less than five hundred tons in the whole of the ports—had availed itself of the advantages of the Prussian navigation system; and therefore it really was a matter of comparative indifference to us whether that Treaty of 1841 should continue to be allowed to expire. The communications on the subject can hardly be said to be concluded; I don't know whether the Prussian Government mean to reply to our despatch or not; but I have no objection to lay before the House the Prussian notice with respect to the cessation of the treaty, and the reply of the British Government.

I beg leave to ask the noble Lord, whether Her Majesty's Government has received an intimation from any of the States of the North of Germany that they have it in contemplation to impose differential duties on British vessels importing into Germany the productions of countries other than the possessions of Her Majesty, unless Great Britain will so far abolish her Navigation Laws as to allow German vessels to import productions from all parts of the world into the United Kingdom; and in the next place, whether the Foreign Secretary is aware of any negotiations going on for the purpose of inducing the Hanse Towns to unite with the States of the Zollverein in an arrangement to impose differential duties on the ships of all nations which do not accord to German States the same privileges of navigation which the German States extend to them?

With respect to the first question which has been put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I have only to make the same reply as I have given to my noble Friend opposite. With regard to the second question, it is certainly true that the Prussian Government, as the organ of the Zollverein, has been in communication with the several States of the Hanse Towns, as we understand. We have had no official communication on the subject from the Zollverein or from Prussia; but we have good reason to believe that a person has been sent from Berlin to Hamburg and Bremen, and the other States, to induce the Hanse Towns to become members of the Zollverein; but I believe no disposition has been shown on the part of Hamburg or Lubec to accept the invitation. Bremen is, I believe, more inclined to become a member of it. Bremen is rising rapidly in commercial importance, Bremen looks to great advantages from railway communication in the interior of Germany, and has much more disposition than Hamburg to adopt the corporate system of German commerce; but at the same time I am not aware that any intention is entertained, or has been expressed by Bremen, to accede to the invitation.

The noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown said the other evening that, if there had been 500 quarters of corn imported in foreign vessels by virtue of the suspension of the Navigation Laws, he should equally feel it his duty to propose the continuance of the suspension of the Navigation Laws until the 1st of March; and I think I may therefore fairly say, that in this proposal for the suspension there lurks a real intention to repeal the Navigation Laws altogether; and that this is nothing but a flimsy pretext by which it is purposed to undermine the principle upon which we continue those laws for the protection of British shipping. On these grounds I feel it to be my duty to oppose the present measure for the suspension of these laws. The noble Lord did lay on the Table of the House a return purporting to be a return of the number of ships with cargoes of grain that have been imported into this country by virtue of the suspension of the Navigation Laws; and I presumed, as that return emanated from the Government, it was the intention of the noble Lord, in presenting that return to the House, to make out a case for himself for the repeal of these laws. I gave my reasons to the House for supposing that that return was incorrect, as regards Ireland at least; and I asked for a further explanation of this return. That explanation has not yet been given us, except as far as London is concerned; and at that port we are told that 136 foreign ships of 8,700 tons have arrived by virtue of the suspension of the Navigation Laws. Now, it does happen that in September last we had 17 ships of war keeping watch in the Tagus to maintain the Queen of Portugal on the Throne—17 ships of war lying there to aid her despotic Government to trample down and crush the liberties of the people of Portugal. If the Trafalgar, the Albion, the Queen, and theSt. Vincent, had been spared from this ignoble duty, they might have imported all that these 136 ships—which form so conspicuous a portion of the 201 foreign ships that have come into England under this suspension, which figure in this return—have imported. Why, out of these 136 ships said to have come into the port of London laden with grain, no less than 76 arc nothing but river craft. Nothing but the lighters and barges of the kingdom of Hanover; and a sort of Humber keels which navigate the Elbe and the Weser, averaging from 25 to 70 tons, but only one of the whole lot reaching 70 tons. So that, as regards the port of London, the importation of vessels of this description is scarcely worth consideration; and the loss of which would have been entirely compensated for if Her Majesty's Government had spared, while it had 17 ships lying in the Tagus in September last, only four of the largest to bring grain from New York. But I will admit that in the winter time, there having come a sudden demand for ships, that the suspension of the Navigation Laws may have been of some service; for we all know perfectly well that so great was the demand for ships in the United States, that freights rose to 17s. 6d. per quarter for grain, and 12s. 6d. per barrel for flour. There was plenty of grain at the seaboard, but no vessels to bring it. The ships then were tied by their charters and old contracts, and were not at liberty to fetch corn; but how do matters stand now? I have a shipping return here from New Orleans, dated the 20th of May, which mentions that within a few days the arrival of ships in the port of New Orleans was 108, and that no less than forty ships were lying there at that date waiting for freights. Another return of that date shows that there were 37,000 tons of shipping at New York waiting for cargoes, in consequence of there not being barges sufficient to bring down corn from the interior, and that numberless British ships were leaving New York to seek for timber cargoes in our North American provinces. At the time that statement came from New York, 60 ships, all of large capacity, had left Liverpool for New York and New Orleans in search of grain, but which had not arrived in the United States. So that instead of the freight market being starved for want of ships, it is now glutted, and the freights have fallen from 12s. 6d. to 2s. per barrel for flour. How stands the matter as regards the Baltic? I have a statement in my hand from Mr. Court, secretary to the Underwriters' Association at Liverpool; and he informs me that on the 12th of May last the first ship arrived at Cronstadt from this country, and the total number there waiting for cargoes on the 11th of June was 926. He also informs me that the loss of British shipowners who have sent vessels to St. Petersburg and Riga is expected to be very great, as the supply of ships at those ports is enormous, and out of all proportion to the supply of grain to be obtained. We have no returns as yet of the ships which came from the Mediterranean by virtue of the suspension of the Navigation Laws; but I think it appears from the return lately laid on the Table, that not above one or two have come from the Mediterranean, and that though freights were high at Christmas they will be low in Sep- tember, as they are now daily falling at Alexandria, Constantinople, and Odessa. Therefore the necessity, so far as the feeding of the people wont, for further suspending the Navigation Laws had now entirely passed away. I showed on a former occasion that only three foreign ships had come to Liverpool from New York and New Orleans under virtue of the suspension of the Navigation Laws; and that, together with the fact that the present suspension continues until the 1st of September, shows no very great necessity for its extension to the 1st of March. With respect to those vessels which came from the north of Europe—the seventy-six vessels from the Elbe and the Meuse—they cannot leave those parts after November, when the rivers are usually frozen up. Therefore these small craft, which tell so well in the returns of the noble Lord, will be useless, and the further suspension of the Navigation Laws from November to March altogether inoperative. The further suspension will, therefore, only come into operation with respect to that part of the British trade which is already glutted with shipping. So that in point of fact the question now is, not whether we are to suspend the Navigation Laws to supply a great deficiency of shipping, but whether we are to suspend them as a step to their permanent repeal. If the noble Lord had really desired to assist the importation of grain into this country, he would have done one of two things. He would cither have applied those ships of war lying idle in the Tagus to fetch corn from America, or he would have spared those five war steamers cruising off the shores of Portugal, and sent them to Gibraltar to tow through the Gut the 600 or 700 grain-laden vessels which lay there wind-bound, and unable to beat through the Channel. The result of not having done so was this—that when the ships arrived here their cargoes were so heated that they stunk so that they might have been smelt half a mile off. Now, if the great care of the Government for the Queen and King Consort of Portugal had not prevented them from sparing those five ships cruising off the shores of Portugal—if they had followed the more provident Government of Franco, and helped the trade and commerce of this country in the hour of need—the noble Lord would have done far more than he could do by the suspension of the Navigation Laws, and done it not to the injury, but to the advantage of the British commercial interests. As the question of the repeal of the Navigation Laws is virtually now to be discussed, and not, in fact, its suspension merely, I should like to ask the noble Lord how the Navy is to be manned in future when those laws are repealed? If they are to be repealed so far as to permit the ships and seamen of foreign countries to compete with the ships and seamen of England, he must he prepared to do away with all those regulations which, to a certain extent, cramp and cripple the power of the English shipowner to meet that competition. The Navigation Laws were intended not so much for the advantage of the commercial marine of England, as for the defence of our shores and colonial dominions in time of war. We insist that every British ship shall carry an apprentice and four men for every 100 tons; and why is it that the ships of the United States beat us in competition? Not because, as it has been scandalously and libellously alleged, our captains, our mates, and our officers are not in all things equal and superior to those of all other countries; but because instead of five men they only carry three. That makes it impossible for the British shipowner to compete with the ships of the United States. I have before mo a valuable return moved for by the hon. and gallant General the Member for Liverpool, which shows that there came into this country in 1846, 330 ships of the United States, measuring 435,399 tons, and manned by 13,912 seamen. This is a trifle over three men to each 100 tons. But how are British ships manned? We have more than a million tons of shipping manned by 54,000 men, being considerably over five men to each 100 tons. Need it, then, be asked, how is it that British ships cannot compote with those of America? But, Sir, let me ask, if we repeal the Navigation Laws and permit English ships to be manned by three men to every 100 tons, to what extent shall we not diminish the number of the seamen manning our commercial marine, which arc our only great security; and if a sudden war should break out, how are we to man the navies of England? In 1813–14 our Navy was manned by 114,000 seamen; at this time we have but 30,000. Where, then, are we to look for security to that Navy unless we do provide that there shall be a surplus; that the commercial marine of England shall be manned by a surplusage of crow from which we may draw our resources in time of war? You will observe that there is forty per cent more men on board the British commercial marine than in that of the United States. We have upwards of 200,000 men in our commercial marine, and we have 80,000 men less in our men-of-war than would be required in time of war; and where are those 80,000 men to be drawn from if you take 120,000 from your 200,000? That is the great question we have now to consider; and this consideration ought not to be lightly lost sight of in the discussion of this question. In France—I know not what the laws of France may be, but I observe in this same return that the ships of Franco are not manned as are the Americans by three men for 100 tons—nor as those of Great Britain by eleven men for 200 tons; but they have eight men for every 160 tons. In the year 1846, France had 4,765 ships, of 262,938 tons, manned by 21,754 seamen, which gives fully that proportion. The British shipowner is therefore entitled to some protection from the State; he is entitled to something of a monopoly of the carrying trade. It may be said that when the corn laws were repealed, it followed as a matter of course that the Navigation Laws must follow. I confess I feared that would be the natural result; and when I saw the representatives of the shipping interests hurrying on to deprive the agriculturist of his protection, I thought their protection would be the first to follow. It might be that some would think the advocates of protection to agriculture ought to retaliate upon them for their desertion; but I thought then and still think that the shipping interest have superior claims to protection—if they have no claims on us on their own account. And if we regard the supremacy of the British Queen on every sea in the world, we must take care to do nothing which may impair the British commercial marine, which is the strength and stay of this country. But I have one word to say to those scandalous charges, entirely unfounded in truth, which have been urged against the officers of the British commercial marine. We have been told that they lose the trade from not being so capable of managing their ships as the seamen of foreign countries. I suppose next to our own in skilfulness those of the United States are the most skilful seamen. I have a comparative list of disasters at sea which befell the grain-laden ships of the United States, and those of Great Britain, and which left the United States on their way to Great Britain between the 10th of September and the 1st of May. I acknow- ledge the ships of the United States are more in number than those of Great Britain; but this comparative statement will show, notwithstanding, the result I wish to arrive at. There were 294 British ships, and 450 American ones; of these there foundered at sea three British and twenty-one American. This was in the winter season; and the next item will show the superiority of the English to make a good voyage. There were three British ships put back to port, and seventeen American. Now, in order to provide the people of this country with corn, the Government have suspended the Navigation Laws to encourage foreign ships to import the grain, instead of ships of our own country. Now, we will see how the matter stands with regard to their ability to bring corn to England. There were of British ships that crossed the Atlantic and failed to bring their cargoes safe but six, while twenty-seven Americans had to throw their cargoes overboard; and there were four British vessels stranded, and twelve Americans. I want to know, after that statement, on what grounds any practical man would give credence to the evidence laid before the Committee now sitting on the Navigation Laws? That statement proves, I think, that the hand of the British pilot has not lost its cunning, and that the hearts of British seamen have not lost their courage and energy. Having made this defence for our commercial marine, against those who have so unjustly attempted to run it down; having thus exposed the falsity of the grounds on which some parties attempt to injure the high character of the seamen and officers of the commercial marine of England, I shall move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.

I do not propose to consider, and I hope the House will not consider, this as a question with regard to the maintenance or repeal of the Navigation Laws. Whatever may be the merits of those laws—whether it be right to maintain them entire, or to make certain changes in them, or whether it be right to repeal them altogether—is not the question which is brought before the House on the present occasion. All I have to say, therefore, on that part of the speech of the noble Lord, which occupied a considerable part of what he addressed to the House, is this—I beg to remind the House that when the Committee on the Navigation Laws was appointed, I said that it was a question of the most serious importance to this country; and if, in consequence of the report of that Committee, and of the evidence that was laid before them, it appeared that any alteration ought to be made in the Navigation Laws, that this House would be bound to consider the burdens on the British shipowners, and to take into consideration any disadvantages they might have to contend with, and at the same time to consider any restrictions that might be imposed on foreign shipping. That remark is the answer to what the noble Lord has now said on that point; but I would remind you that the question now before the House is this—whether the present Navigation Laws should be suspended? I think you may suspend laws of this nature without affecting at all the principles on which those laws arc founded. For instance, with respect to the corn laws, they have boon, within the last fifty years, frequently suspended, sometimes, for six months, sometimes for a year, sometimes for two years; and yet a great majority of both Houses of Parliament at the same time maintained the policy of those laws, and declared that on principle they ought not to be altered. So it may be with regard to the Navigation Laws; and I own I am much surprised that the noble Lord should take this course as to the Navigation Laws at the present moment, having consented to the suspension of the corn laws. Although the noble Lord consented to the suspension of the corn laws, he would, I think, he perfectly justified in coining before the next Parliament, and saying, "We have not given up the principle of protection; the Parliament was in error that resolved on giving up that principle." He might require either a sliding scale or a fixed duty on corn, and might say that principle was founded on a better policy than was the repeal of this law. He would be perfectly justified in making such a proposition; and it would, I think, be a curious answer to such a proposal to say, "You have consented to suspend the corn laws in the course of the last year." In the same way as regards the Navigation Laws, it cannot be urged hereafter, as an argument against them, that there was a certain period at which it was proposed to suspend those laws. But the noble Lord, having consented to the proposal for the suspension of the corn laws, says the Navigation Laws ought not to be suspended, What, I ask, was the ground for suspending the corn laws? What but the expectation that there may be a great want of corn and provisions in the country? Therefore the policy of the Government is, that foreign corn should be admitted free of duty into this country; and if it be right that corn should be admitted free, is it not equally right that the vessels in which that corn is to be introduced, should also be admitted on the same terms? If you admit the corn until next March, why not say, whatever be the vessel in which that corn comes, we will ask no question as to the origin of those vessels, or the country in which they were built; but as they bring corn and provisions, which we want, on that ground we will admit them? It appears to mo that the two questions stand on a perfectly similar ground; and it is inconsistent on the part of the noble Lord—having with the whole House agreed to suspend the corn laws—that he should now oppose the suspension of those other laws, and seek to impose restrictions on the admission of grain. The noble Lord has said, and said truly, I was prepared to argue that if only 500 quarters came in under the suspension of the Navigation Laws, I should still be prepared to contend that those Navigation Laws should be further suspended. I said so because I think the situation of the country is such that you should impose no restrictions whatever, and that the best course is to make the admission of corn as free as possible, so that the benefit of that admission, be it great or be it small, may be enjoyed by the country. The right principle is assured by removing any restrictions that might prevent the introduction of corn, and that is an argument perfectly good whatever may be the amount of the corn admitted. The noble Lord has referred to the quantity of corn admitted according to this return. I believe with regard to most of the ports in the United Kingdom, from which returns were received, the returns are correct. You will find with regard to London and Liverpool, that the returns are correctly made. With regard to some of the ports, I believe the Custom house made an error, with regard to corn which might have come in if the Navigation Laws had not been suspended; therefore there may be some slight error in the general return; but as to the total amount I believe they represent with tolerable correctness what has been introduced. The amount introduced has been brought in by 538 ships, with a tonnage of 63,555. The noble Lord says it would have been far better to have sent four line-of-battle ships to intro- duce corn from foreign countries. I answered that question at the commencement of the Session; and I then satisfied an hon. Gentleman who made a Motion on that subject, that in the first place the amount of the tonnage of the line-of-battle ships we should have at our command would be small; in the second place, that it would have taken some time to have fitted out those vessels for the conveyance of corn; that some of the present fittings must be taken away, and that they must be fitted for the reception of cargoes of grain; and that the taking them away from the military service in which they are engaged—supposing any question arose like that respecting Tahiti, which arose a few years ago—would be of great disadvantage to this country, which might find itself crippled by the application, in the manner proposed, of those ships which were necessary for the service of the country for other purposes. And I next urged—which was in my mind the strongest argument of all—that if the State interfered in subjects of this nature, the more it proclaimed it was about to furnish that which commerce usually furnishes, the more it would disturb, disarrange, and discourage the natural trade and enterprise of the country. Now, let us consider what amount of tonnage would be afforded by the Queen, the Trafalgar, the Albion, and the other vessel which has been mentioned. I will take in the first instance the amount of tonnage of two of these vessels. The amount of tonnage of the Queen is about 3,104 tons, of the Albion is 3,110. Now, suppose you had two other other ships of nearly an equal amount, that would make 12,000 tons that would be applied for this purpose. Now, 63,555 tons is the amount of tonnage which foreign ships have introduced into this country, and which they could not have introduced except for the suspension of the Navigation Laws. And they have done that, leaving to you the employment of those ships of war in any way you may think proper. The noble Lord has introduced a subject which has nothing to do with the question before the House, as to the policy pursued in reference to Portugal; but I would remind him that if those ships were not on the coast of Portugal, they would be in the Mediterranean, or in the Channel, forming part of the force on which in case of necessity the country would rely. Four times as much as those vessels could have done has been done without suffering any of that anxiety which would be experienced if they were engaged in the manner to which the noble Lord has referred, and without any further expense except the natural profit that was made by the merchant. I entirely disapprove of that plan of taking four line-of-battle ships and using them for the purpose of bringing in a certain amount of foreign corn to this country; but, beyond this, let the House consider for a moment, apart from this question of the Navigation Laws, what have been the immense operations that have been carried on in the trade of this country for the purpose of supplying the people of the United Kingdom with food. We had an almost unexampled high price for corn; but, at the same time, the efforts that have been made by the trade of the country have been enormous. Some time ago, the importation was at the rate of 9,000,000 quarters a year: within the last month I think it was at the rate of 12,000,000 quarters in the year, and in some particular weeks it has exceeded that amount; but altogether, I believe, when the accounts are made out it will appear that there has been a greater importation than ever was previously known, and I would say, not less than six millions of the people may have been fed during the course of the year by importations from foreign countries. Compare that with any effort that could be made by line-of-battle ships, and it was owing solely to the enterprise of the merchants and importers. Compare that with any efforts the Government could make, end then you may estimate the effect of throwing open your ports, and allowing a free intercourse with foreign countries. But now, Sir, the noble Lord seems to think that this must be a question of the repeal of the Navigation Laws, because the necessity, he says, has passed away, and there are no extraordinary circumstances to call for it. [Lord GEORGE BENTINCK: I said it will have passed away.] Let me therefore ask the attention of the House to the extraordinary circumstances that have occurred within the last few months. There has been in Prance a very great failure of the crops. The estimate of France was at one time that they should want eighteen days' consumption; another estimate was that they should want twenty-five days' consumption; and the estimates went so high as to say that forty days' consumption of food would be required by France—and the harvests were deficient, it was thought, to that extent. There was also a deficiency in Germany to a great extent, so much so that corn on the Rhine has risen at times to 90s. a quarter, and the peace of the country has been disturbed both in Prussia and other places owing to the extraordinary high price of provisions. There has been a call for the importation of corn into this country from all parts of Europe and America from which a supply could be had, and there has been a very extraordinary supply from America. There has been, as I have said, a considerable importation to this country; but, on the other hand, France has required a great part of the importation from the Black Sea, and the corn which, if there had been a good harvest in France, would have been brought here, has been taken to Franco for consumption in that country. In the month of January we thought the case so urgent that we proposed the suspension of the corn duties and the navigation laws, and such suspension was at once agreed to. The average price for the six weeks preceding that time was 63s. 10d. a quarter. In the week preceding that in which the proposition was made, I think the price of wheat was 70s. 3d. the quarter; and in those circumstances the House agreed unanimously to the suspension of those laws. Since that time there has been a most extraordinary rise in the price of corn; and I believe that corn in the months of March and May rose to 100s. and 108s., and I think on one day to 115s. a quarter. The price has again fallen; but the average of the last six weeks, by the London Gazette, was 94s. 10d. per quarter; and yet I am now told it is unreasonable to ask the House to agree to a further suspension of the Navigation Laws. Then the noble Lord says that on the 1st of September the necessity will have passed away; but who can assure the country of that? [Lord G. BENTINCK: I said the necessity for the ships.] The necessity for the ships will have passed away! Why, my whole argument is, that if there be any necessity for the corn, there will be a necessity for the ships. My argument is, that if a ship arrives at Liverpool from Havre, and brings a quantity of corn which had been landed there from America and reshipped to Liverpool, you are not to say, "This is American corn, and because it was landed at Havre, and then brought here we will not take that corn—you must take it back again." My argument is, that if there be a necessity for the admission of the corn, you ought to admit it in whatever ships it may come. And now, I ask, what are the prospects for the next year? However strong may be our expectations at the present moment, who can say that we shall have a bountiful harvest, or that the harvests of the Continent of Europe shall he plentiful? Or who can say that the great abundance with which America was blessed in the last year, will be repeated in the present? Who can say we shall not have in the ensuing autumn a difficulty, not only in procuring a supply of corn in England and in Europe, but also a difficulty in obtaining that large supply which during the present year we have procured from America? Let us not forget with regard to this subject, that with the price of corn so high, and taking into consideration the depreciation of the currency during one part of the past year—let us not forget that which is a most remarkable fact in the present aspect of affairs, namely, that there was also a most extraordinary consumption. I believe that the great number of railway works have in many instances alleviated the calamity under which we are suffering, by causing a considerable demand for labour. When you look to the amount of calls for railways from the month of January to the present, that amount being 21,000,000l., of which it was calculated that 18,000,000l. were required for the United Kingdom, it is impossible not to see that the expenditure of any large part of that sum must have led to very considerable consumption—a consumption that would not have taken place if there had not been such an extraordinary expenditure. That consumption, again, leads to an increased price, and of course leaves a less amount of the whole food to be divided amongst the people of the country. While the construction of railways has been in one sense exceedingly beneficial, there are other senses in which it aggravates the difficulty, and at all events in this sense, that there is a much greater consumption than ever previously took place, notwithstanding the high price of provisions; and that extraordinary consumption must tend to make the quantity of food in the country less for a part of the people than it otherwise would be. Taking all those questions into consideration, the general result is, that it ought to be the policy of Parliament to open the doors as widely as possible for the admission of food, and to take away every restriction that would prevent a single quarter of corn from coming into this country. If you mean at all to keep up the manufactures of the country, and to make a provision for the labouring poor—looking also to the state of the revenue—the course to pursue is to adopt a policy on this occasion that is favourable to the free and indiscriminate admission of corn. Coming to that conclusion, I cannot agree to the plan of the noble Lord; and again I say I will not on this occasion discuss the weighty question of the Navigation Laws, which most probably will he brought under the consideration of Parliament when the evidence taken before the Committee has been considered. For my part, I promise to-day to give the most serious attention to that evidence when it is produced. There is no question which has a more serious aspect, as relates to the state of our commercial marine; as relates also to our naval power, and likewise to the general principles of freedom of intercourse. There is no question which has so many and various aspects that deserve to be considered, as that of the Navigation Laws; and I should be unwilling to discuss that question at the close of the Session, with a Committee sitting that have as yet made no report on the subject. The noble Lord is not justified in supposing that any determination has been come to by mo on that subject. I assure the noble Lord I shall be ready to consider the determination which ought to be taken with reference to the general principle and effect of these laws, also with reference to the altered state of the world, and lastly and most deeply with reference to the naval force and supremacy of this country.

was surprised that the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) should have described this measure as a flimsy attempt to undermine the Navigation Laws. He thought the noble Lord must be influenced in his present opposition by other objects than those he avowed; he could not help thinking it had some election purpose. All the arguments on which the noble Lord supported the suspension of the Corn Laws, applied to the suspension of the Navigation Laws. In that suspension of the Navigation Laws which had already been agreed to, the interest of the consumer had been consulted with advantage, and no injury whatever had been done to the shipowner. The public had now had an opportunity of contrasting in the strongest manner the effects of the old system, and the results of the policy already partially adopted; and he had no doubt whatever that the opinions of those who had hitherto deprecated any permanent change, would be considerably modified by the evidence which had been recently laid before the Navigation Committee. It was, however, now premature to discuss the general question; but, whether the Bill before them were accepted or not, he warned the House that, ere a long-period had elapsed, they would he called on to consider if the best interests of the nation and of all parties would not be consulted by a total abandonment of some portions of the Navigation Laws?

had listened with great satisfaction to the declaration of the noble Lord, that, though dooming this to be a necessary measure, he and his Colleagues would reserve their opinions upon the general question of a repeal of the Navigation Laws. He quite concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that this was not the fitting occasion to enter on a comprehensive discussion of those laws; and he also thought that this was not the House of Commons by whom the decisive opinion ought to be pronounced. It appeared to him that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had completely misrepresented the arguments urged by his noble Friend (Lord G. Bentinck). The noble Lord seemed to think, because his noble Friend had consented to the suspension of the Corn Law, that, therefore, as a logical necessity, he had agreed to the suspension of the Navigation Laws for a still further period. Even admitting that the suspension of the laws referring both to ships and corn had once been politic, yet now, finding that freight had very considerably declined, so as not to exceed the ordinary average of freight all over the world—finding at the same time that though ships were plentiful, corn was scarce—they might, without the slightest inconsistency, consent to measures to supply the country with corn, and nevertheless oppose the abrogation of laws upon the continuation of which they believed the prosperity of their commercial marine must always depend. To suspend them from September for six months longer, would derange trade, while it would confer no benefit on the shipowner; because the ports of the north would be then closed from natural causes, and at other parts of the world corn freights at that period would not be obtainable. His noble Friend had charged the Government with having neglected to apply all the means at their disposal to the assistance of trade in supplying the people with food. His noble Friend, however, had not, as had been represented, censured the Government for not using the ships of war in the conveyance of corn. All he said was, that there were five war steamers cruising off the coast of Portugal to no purpose whatever, which might have been made eminently useful in tugging into port the 600 or 800 wind-bound corn-laden vessels on the coast of Africa and in the Gut of Gibraltar. All these vessels had been detained by adverse winds; and in consequence of their late arrival in this country much suffering had been caused, and the cargoes of many of them had been spoiled and rendered worthless. There could be no doubt whatever of the services which had been done by the activity of merchants; and it was satisfactory to find, as stated by the noble Lord, that the energy with which the ordinary trade had been carried on, had provided 6,000,000 of the population with food; but still the argument of his noble Friend was true as regarded those particular vessels, and demonstrated the further benefits which the country would have derived at such a time by such an employment of the war steamers off Portugal. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had declared, that, whether the benefits from the suspension of the Navigation Laws proved to be great or small, he should yet consider it to be his duty to recommend such a Bill. Now, the House would recollect that at this moment a vigorous assault was being carried on against those laws; and they could not but apprehend danger to the permanent continuation of the system, if now, without sufficient reason being shown, they consented to the temporary suspension; and if it could be shown that but slight advantages were to be gained from the suspension of the law, they would be perfectly justified on general grounds in resisting such a measure. He, however, did not wish to avail himself to the utmost of that argument. They were fully sensible of the imperative necessity imposed upon them of, in the first instance, providing food for the people; and from no consideration of their own interests would the shipowners ever think of opposing any obstacle in the, way of the furtherance of such an object. But the absolute necessity must be proved. The danger of giving way in a question of the kind was, that those who were adverse to the law would make use of the concession as an argument in favour of its total repeal. He would not support a total repeal of the law; he saw no necessity for such a hazardous experiment, when, as in this case, it was in their power, by an Order in Council, or by a vote of that House, to remove restrictions which sometimes, in periods of extreme distress, might he objectionable, hut which generally were found to operate without injury to any class. Discussion, however, on that question must be reserved. The noble Lord had pledged himself, on the part of the Government, not to anticipate the evidence which was now being taken before the Committee; and he (Mr. Liddell) would therefore concede this point. He implored the noble Lord to give his dispassionate attention to the consideration of the Navigation Laws, with which, as he had admitted, were connected great national interests. He entreated the noble Lord to keep himself free from the bias of preconceived feelings in favour of free trade, and from all representations as to a fanciful analogy between laws giving protection to agriculture and laws affording security to British shipping; and if his powerful and comprehensive mind was fairly directed to the subject, he (Mr. Liddell) was satisfied that, with the firmness which he had so often exhibited, the noble Lord would resist the repeal of those laws, if the measure could only be urged on him on the ground that the concessions to the principles of free trade rendered a further step in that direction indispensable.

merely rose to say, that the hon. Gentleman had understood him quite correctly. He did not intend, in proposing a suspension of the law, to prejudge or pledge himself to the question.

believed that this Bill was called for by the peculiar circumstances in which the country had been placed. He did not fear that any injury whatever would be done to the shipowner, or that the pre-eminence of our commercial navy would, be at all diminished; and though corn might be scarce and ships plenty, the suspension of the Navigation Laws (as we understood the hon. Gentleman to say) would keep down freights, and so prevent the food of the people reaching an exorbitant price.

could not imitate preceding speakers in promising not to enter upon the general question, because he feared that, like those Gentlemen, he would not be able to keep the promise. As to this Bill, however, he should have been willing to support it, even had the suspension been proposed to be continued to a more distant period than March, 1848. He was one of those who for some time had taken the gloomiest view of our prospects of procuring food to meet the wants of our population, and especially the wants of the people of Ireland during the next year; and even though he considered it probable that there were more ships in proportion than the corn to be imported, he thought it would still be very dangerous to interpose between the consumer and producer, even in the smallest degree, any accession of prices. So far from thinking any argument which could now be brought forward ought to prevent them in September continuing the suspension, he was of opinion that the discussion on the subject could not come on at a more unfortunate time for those opposed to the repeal, than when the people, suffering perhaps from high prices, would be disposed to attribute all their sufferings to the operation of the Navigation Laws. They ought not to be discussed when they could not be considered fairly and impartially, and when the people would look upon them with suspicion; and for these reasons it was desirable that the suspension should not be continued for any shorter period than that ending in March next. But he wished likewise to call the attention of the Government to a subject which, though not directly connected with this question, had a somewhat close relation to it—he meant the subject of agricultural statistics. As an individual Member of Parliament, it was not for him to say what Bills the Government ought to favour or oppose; but he must say that, considering the state of the corn market during the last year, and the uncertainty that prevailed from the ignorance which existed as to the real extent of the crops, it must be matter of regret that means were not taken to ascertain from the home grower the amount of our supply; not that such returns were likely to be very accurate, but they would have afforded at least some data by which a knowledge might be obtained of what the probable supply of grain was. He therefore regretted that the Government had not allowed the Agricultural Statistics Bill to pass during the present Session, in order that for this year they might have obtained information which must have proved exceedingly valuable. Having the experience of last year before them, and having the prospect of a continuance of the same sufferings, he regretted that the Government should have prevented the passing of that Bill, which, if ever it could be useful, must have been especially so during the present year.

said, the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had referred to the great extent of shipping now available. Every one knew that there might be a temporary glut of shipping at a particular port; but the question was, whether ships could be chartered to load corn at foreign ports at lower rates than existed at the time the suspension of the Navigation Laws first took place. He maintained, that taking a practical view of the question, there was no better ground for resisting the suspension now proposed, than there was six months ago. Indeed, he was persuaded that the necessity for further suspending the Navigation Laws was greater now than it was then. The proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn that ships of war should be employed in the importation of grain, was one of the most singular proposals he had ever heard made in that House.

must candidly acknowledge, with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that to send men-of-war to import corn would not be advisable nor politic; and he believed that our mercantile marine would be quite sufficient for that purpose. He did not intend to oppose the suspension now called for; but he should have been glad to have heard from the noble Lord that the countenance of this measure was not meant as a stepping-stone to the permanent repeal of the Navigation Laws, which he considered had been the means of greatly promoting the safety and prosperity of the country. He could have wished also that the noble Lord had attended rather to the evidence taken before the Committee on this subject, than to the report which they had made. It appeared to him that a majority of the Committee had been guided more by their preconceived notions of free trade, than by the evidence either for or against the continuance of the Navigation Laws; and from their views he entirely dissented. When he considered that the naval superiority of this country was maintained by those who had been trained in our commercial marine, he must raise a warning voice against any measure that might tend to injure that body; and he therefore hoped that the present suspension of the Navigation Laws would not be made a stepping-stone to the total repeal of these laws, which had a most intimate connexion with the well-being of the country.

was surprised to find that so much had been said about the proposition of his noble Friend the Member for Lynn with respect to men-of-war being employed in the importation of grain. That proposition was not made as the best that in ordinary circumstances could be adopted; but it proceeded on the assumption always alleged by the Government that the calamity was great—that the danger of a limited supply of food was imminent—that, in short, the calamity was so awful, that all the common means of obtaining food were insufficient; and that, therefore, the most extraordinary ought to be resorted to. Admitting the interference with trade that the employment of men-of-war would cause—admitting, indeed, every possible objection, still, he maintained that there was a justification of that proposal to be found in every speech that had been made. The principal proposal of his noble Friend, however, namely, that steamers should be employed, had not been answered by any one. The noble Lord at the head of the Government ended his speech by saying, that so great was the danger, so appalling the results that would follow from the famine, that though the benefit to be gained from the present suspension might be small, still they ought to do what they could to keep the ports of the country open to the importation of food, however little that importation might be; but why did the noble Lord not meet the great difficulty that lay in the way of importation? What was it that placed the greatest restriction on the importation of corn? It was the contrary winds and adverse tides; and those could only be successfully met by the employment of steamers to bring into our harbours the ships which, as in the case of those that so long lay in the Straits of Gibraltar and other places, were unable to reach our shores. Such was the proposal of his noble Friend; and, undoubtedly, it was one of the best means of importing grain into the country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke had admitted that no more ships had come under the suspension of the Navigation Laws into English ports than would have come in had they not been suspended; but he said again, that great benefit had accrued to the country from the suspension of those laws in the facilities given to the importation of corn, and its consequent greater cheapness. If so, then it came simply to this, that the price of corn had been reduced, but that the quantity of grain had not been materially increased. Such, at least, was the conclusion which the statement of the hon. Gentleman had produced in his mind. The hon. Member for Stoke said he could not conceive any ground for the opposition of the noble Lord to the suspension, unless it was that he wished to do so for an electioneering purpose. Why, if the sentiments of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this and other subjects were as popular with constituencies as they represented them, what possible advantage could it be to his noble Friend, just when they were going to their constituents, to oppose a measure which, on the first blush of it, had so much the appearance of being a humane and merciful measure; and which measure was said by the hon. Gentleman to be in accordance with those principles that were believed to be so triumphant throughout the country? With respect to the general question—after the declaration of the noble Lord at the head of the Government—he thought they might place the most implicit reliance on the fairness and impartiality with which Government would come to a decision on the subject next year; but he would suggest to the noble Lord, whether, when they enforced the suspension of the Navigation Laws, the shipping interest had not some reasons to complain of the heavy duties they had to pay—for example, on policies of insurance? Those duties were most obnoxious in practice, and objectionable in principle; they were duties that ought never to have been imposed; and the present was a fair and legitimate opportunity of at least suspending them. He trusted that Her Majesty's Ministers would introduce a clause into the Bill in Committee for suspending these objectionable duties, and thus give a pledge to the shipping interest that they were fairly inclined to take every step that could tend, not only to secure the naval supremacy of England, but increase the efficiency of our mercantile marine. He could only say, that he placed the greatest confidence in the impartiality of Her Majesty's Government, and that, in those circumstances, he could have no objection to the proposal now before the House.

considered that the House was much indebted to the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) for the way in which he had introduced his views on this subject. One of the objects of the present discussion was to obtain the assurance that the present suspension of the Navigation Laws would not be used as a reason for their total repeal. This object had been attained; for the noble Lord had stated that he would make no use of the suspension to promote a total repeal. They had, however, received no answer to the statement that there was no necessity for further suspension, seeing there were more ships than there was corn to be brought into the country. Still, he did not think it would be wise to obstruct the Government in this matter, as there might be a feeling in the country that suspension would be of service; and he did not think that the prospects of the country were sufficiently developed to enable them to run any risk in the matter.

hoped that an opposition would not rise in the country in favour of the shipowners during the elections like that which had been raised in 1841 in favour of the farmers; for, if it were so, the shipowners would not unnaturally conclude that their fate would be the same.

said, after the declaration of the noble Lord, upon which he placed the utmost reliance, that he would give his unbiassed and impartial judgment to the evidence taken before the Navigation Laws Committee, he should not put the House to the trouble of dividing.

said, so long as he had had any hope that Her Majesty's Government would take up the general question of rating, he had abstained from offering any formal opposition to these Suspension Bills; but, as he had been unable to extort from the present or the late Government any such promise, and as he felt that this suspension of the law pressed hard upon a great body of Her Majesty's subjects, he considered it his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject. It could not be denied that, by the existing law, titheowners were in a very different condition from that they would be in, if stock in trade were not exempted, or if the pledge, given when tithes were commuted, had been observed; and if all that property which was actually rated to the poor, had continued to be rated in the same proportion. Without raising the question, whether other property, that is to say, stock in trade, ought, as was held in a celebrated case, to be included in a rate, it was sufficient for him to enunciate the fact, that these suspensions of the law which yearly exempted stock in trade from being rated gradually, changed the law without any discussion of the principle in that House; and that such a course was most unconstitutional in the abstract, and most injurious in practice to the parties affected. In the present very thin state of the House, he would not enter into de-tails to show the hardship of the exemption. Whatever might have been the objection formerly to rating stock in trade, from the difficulty of assessing it, that objection could not apply after the income tax. The titheholders, or rather those holding rent-charges, suffered much hardship since the Tithe Commutation Act; in some cases paying on an assessment of 180l. where formerly they would have paid on an assessment of 80l., though by the very words of the Act the existing liabilities and proportions were to be continued. If it were the intention of Parliament to exempt this property, let it be done by a general measure, which might be discussed. The hardship of the present state of things was this: a farmer was assessed to the poor rate in respect to a sum assumed to bear some proportion to his rent; the titheholder, in respect to the gross and ascertained amount of his rent charge; the farmer's sum did not represent, perhaps, a third of his receipts, whereas the exact sum paid as tithe-rent charge was known and assessed accordingly; while, on the other hand, a large amount of rateable property, namely, stock in trade, escaped altogether in fact; and, by these Suspension Bills, escaped by law from year to year. If stock in trade were rated, the titheholder would have less reason to complain. He appealed to the right hon. Baronet and to the House not to countenance this continued suspension of the law, unless Her Majesty's Government were prepared, as he trusted they were, to pledge themselves that, early in the next Session of Parliament, they would take the whole subject into consideration; otherwise he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House.

did not deny that there was considerable inconvenience connected with these Suspension Bills; but he must remind his hon. Friend that, in 1840, the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that these rates were bad, because stock in trade was not included. The effect of this decision was, that it became impossible to make a rate in any parish in England that could be legally levied. The attention of the Government of that day had consequently been called to the subject, and a Bill was brought in by the then Attorney General, which exempted stock in trade from rating, on the ground of the difficulty of assessing the different classes of property comprehended under that term, and because, although, according to the strict letter of the law, stock in trade was liable to be rated, it had been practically exempted, and the object of the Bill was to make the law conform to the practice. That Bill passed that House, and went up to the other House; but, in consequence of the lateness of the Session, it was withdrawn, and a Suspension Bill was thus forced upon the Government, which had not had time since to consider the whole question. The subject required careful consideration; and if he gave a pledge to the hon. Baronet, he might not be able to redeem it: but he could assure him that the subject should receive the consideration of the Government, and he should be glad if he were able to frame a measure that would be practicable, and, at the same time, satisfactory to the House. If the hon. Baronet divided the House in its present state, the effect would be to reject the Bill, and render it impossible to make a rate that could be levied.

understood the wish of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford to be, that the Government should give some pledge that this subject should be taken into consideration in the course of the next Session of Parliament. The right hon. Baronet had evaded that point, and did not seem prepared to give such a pledge. It was not his (Sir J. Trollope's) desire, as a member of the landed interest, to press the Government to take the burden off their shoulders, and place it on those of others; but he did anxiously wish that the Government would put the agricultural interest upon an equal footing with all other interests in respect to rating.

agreed that it was inconvenient to suspend a law annually; but in mercy to the ratepayers it was necessary to do so; for in 999 parishes out of 1,000 the present law regulating the mode of rating was impracticable. It had been found impossible to separate that portion of a farmer's stock which was liable to be rated from that which was exempted from rating, and that was the reason why this system of rating had fallen into disuse. He was certain, that unless the law were suspended, the result would be, that in every parish in England litigation would be carried on to so great an extent that the proportion of the expenses which the litigants would have to bear, would be greater than an extra rate they now had to pay by reason of this portion of agricultural property being exempted from the rate. The clergy were, of course, more immediately concerned in this matter; but they might depend upon it they would lose a great deal more than they would gain if they persisted in bringing this description of property into the rating.

said, that, on examining the tables of assessment in that district of Middlesex in which he acted as commissioner, he found a great inequality to prevail in the mode of assessing property. Agricultural property was often rated at four-fifths of the full value, while other property was only rated at two-thirds. He trusted, that this discussion would not be without its fruit, and that some more equitable principle of assessment would be adopted.

wished to draw the attention of the Government to the present mode of rating railways to the poor. Railway companies were rated upon the amount of their profits, while farmers were only rated upon the amount of their rent. This imposed a much heavier charge upon the railway proprietors than upon other descriptions of property. He hoped the Government next Session would bring forward some measure to put all parties on a fairer footing. He considered the present system of rating to the poor very defective, and in many instances very oppressive and unjust. He would exonerate all cottages and houses below a certain amount of rent from the payment of rates altogether. It would be honourable to Parliament and beneficial to the country to establish such a law. He had long entertained the opinion, that the proper way of maintaining the poor was by grants from the general taxation of the country. He was, however, so fully aware of the many objections that might be urged against such a system, that he had never felt it his duty to suggest it to the Legislature.

wished the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of York could get the farmers rated upon their profits, instead of their rental; if that were the system, he believed that the contributions of the farmers to the rates would not be so great as they now were.

said, that in the then state of the House he would not divide it on the Bill, inasmuch as the Motion would be lost, without his object being gained; but he trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department could not pledge himself to bring in a measure, the Government would at least take the subject into their consideration during the recess, and that if they were not prepared with a measure by the next Session of Parliament, they would intrust it to a Committee.

regretted that a measure of so much importance should have been discussed in so thin a House. Only one Minister was present on the benches opposite. That was one of the disadvantages of working double tides. He could not understand upon what principle other descriptions of property, as well as land, should not be rated to the poor. He lamented the scanty attendance of Members, and thought the Government were not justified in calling the House together at that hour, unless they were prepared to keep a sufficient number of Members in the House to ensure the Bill a full and fair discussion. He moved, therefore, that the Speaker count the House.

had a question to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary-at-War upon a subject which he approached with very great regret, because he was obliged thereby to bring the name of a gallant and highly-esteemed officer under the notice of the House. He begged to trespass upon the attention of the House and the right hon. Gentleman, whilst he read a paragraph from a Dublin newspaper, Saunders' News Letter, of the 26th of June, relating to an occurrence which had taken place at Ballinasloe, on the 22nd June. The paragraph was as follows:—

said, that it was an extremely painful position in which he found himself placed, in being obliged to explain to the House the circumstances of this melancholy case. His hon. and gallant Friend had done no more than justice to the gallant officer, when he stated that Colonel Halifax bore the highest military character. He was a man in every respect fit to be entrusted with a military command. The circumstances of the case were, that on the evening of the 18th of June, a private of the 7th Hussars was guilty of the gross crime of firing at the troop sergeant-major. Fortunately the attempt to murder the sergeant-major did not succeed, but the ball which had been discharged at him was picked up and found to have been flattened against the wall behind where he had been standing when fired at. This passed at 10 o'clock on the night of the 18th of June. It would be within the knowledge of every Gentleman connected with the military profession, that the detection of the man who fired the shot was inevitable, as soon as the ammunition served out to him, and in his charge, came to be examined. That was done on the following morning; but between the period when the shot had been fired, and the time of the examination, the man Smith succeeded in procuring a hall to supply the place of the one which had been fired. He (Mr. F. Maule) should say, that he believed it was a ball cartridge which he had fired at the sergeant-major, and not a blank cartridge, and he said so because the man (Smith) in his defence had stated that it was only a blank cartridge, and not a hall which he had discharged. In the morning of the 19th, it was reported to the officer of the company to which the unfortunate man (Radcliff) belonged, that he was the party who had furnished Smith with the ball, for the purpose of enabling him to make the statement, that he had fired only a blank cartridge, and thereby defeat the ends of justice, and probably cast a suspicion of the commission of the crime upon an innocent person. The fact of this unfortunate man having supplied the ball to Smith having been communicated to the commanding officer of his company, and by him to the commanding officer of the regiment, and the fact having been proved, it was undeniable that the man Radcliff was guilty of a most atrocious crime. Colonel Halifax was jealous of the honour of his regiment, and anxious that it should continue to uphold the high character which the 75th had hitherto borne both in the presence of the enemy of the country and in the time of peace. Viewing with detestation, as a man of high honour should view such an atrocious crime, he published the memorandum upon the subject which the hon. and gallant Member had just read to the House. If the gallant officer had taken time to reflect, he might have seen that he was branding the man by ordering his hair to be cut off, and he might not have issued the order; but under all the circumstances, he might have considered himself justified in branding such a man. In reference to the unfortunate event which had taken place subsequently—he meant the suicide of the unfortunate man—he must inform the House that from an investigation which he himself had instituted into the matter, he could not bring himself to agree with the verdict of the coroner's jury. He did not think that it was "the extreme severity of the order from Colonel Halifax" that had induced the unfortunate man to commit suicide. It appeared that upon a former occasion the unhappy man, having been confined for having been found drunk, had attempted to commit suicide whilst in confinement. On another occasion, fearing the result of his bad conduct, he had threatened to put an end to himself. These things being taken into consideration, showed what were the tendencies of the man's feelings and disposition. He did not, therefore, think that it was the severity of the colonel's order that had led to the commission of the act; and he trusted that the House would not ascribe to Colonel Halifax anything prejudicial to that officer's high honour and his sense of justice and good feeling.

wished to ask the Attorney General whether the property of Tawell, who was executed for murder, and respecting which an official inquiry had lately taken place, would, instead of escheating to the Crown be restored to his widow?

was obliged to his hon. Friend for giving him an opportunity of explaining to the House how much the public had been misled by the reports which had appeared in the newspapers on the subject of the late inquiry into the property of Tawell. The House was aware that the usual practice had been to grant on the part of the Crown the property of persons whose property had fallen to the Crown in consequence of their conviction for felony, to those parties who would otherwise have been their natural heirs. In the particular case before them, a petition had been presented, as usual, by Mrs. Tawell, praying for inquiry, in order that the property might become vested in the Crown in favour of herself and her children. He had accordingly signed the fiat; and he was astonished to see the charges made subsequently in the newspapers, after the fiat had been issued at Mrs. Tawell's own request.

inquired of the Under Secretary for the Colonies what measures had been adopted for the establishment of a settlement in the Island of Labuan, on the coast of Borneo, ceded to the British Crown in December last?

begged to say that Her Majesty's Government fully appreciated the importance of a settlement in the island of Labuan; but there was no desire on their part, or that of the Colonial Office, to multiply their colonial establishments, and therefore some time had been taken to communicate with parties most likely to give information to the Colonial Office. The subject was receiving the best attention of the Colonial department.

requested to know whether the noble Lord would grant the return of which he had given notice, to ask, namely—

"That there be laid before this House so much of the correspondence or reports of the inspectors under the Act 10 Vic. c. 7 (with the name, rank, and residence of the parties referred to) as sustains the statements made by the Commissioners of Relief in their Third Report condemnatory of the conduct of Committees, or of individuals, in carrying out the provisions of the said Act."

He hoped the noble Lord would allow it to be granted as an unopposed return.

, considering the evil which had resulted from the publication of former reports of inspectors and other officers to the Commissioners of the Treasury, was not inclined to indulge the hon. Gentleman by saying that they (the Government) should give the reports of the inspectors with regard to the names, ranks, and residences of the different parties, being landowners in Ireland, whose conduct had been impugned. What he had done was this, he had brought the report of the Commissioners under the special attention of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and the Lord Lieutenant was about to cause an inquiry to be forthwith made into the particular cases, after which he would institute, if he thought fit, such farther and more extensive inquiries as he should deem necessary.

felt exceedingly dissatisfied with the answer which the noble Lord had given to his question. He thought, in fact, it rather made matters worse than they had been before. His answer appeared to be, that he would not agree to institute an inquiry into the conduct of all the gentry and landowners of Ireland, whose conduct had been openly impugned. Now he (Sir D. J. Norreys) distinctly repudiated the charges that had been made against the gentry. If there had been individuals in Ireland who had misconducted themselves in the carrying out of the laws for giving relief to the destitute, he called upon the noble Lord to hold them up to scorn; but he also called upon the noble Lord to show whether they (the Irish gentry) were all guilty. He should separate the innocent from the guilty, and not allow all to suffer alike under the imputations which had been cast upon some. If the House really wished to put an end to the gross conduct that had been complained of, the only right mode of doing so was to let the whole circumstances of the case be known, and to let the individuals be held up to execration. Let the finger of scorn be pointed at them. But at present no Irish gentleman could hold up his head and think himself free from all the imputations that were cast upon the conduct of the Irish landlords generally.

I must say that the hon. Gentleman is rather hard to satisfy with respect to this matter. I informed him the other day, reading for him from the report of the Commissioners, that out of nearly 1,700 committees that had sat, only a few had been misconducted, and that they formed only exceptions to the general rule of conduct. Yet the hon. Gentleman will have it that this is a general charge. I think it is anything but a general charge to say, that out of near 1,700 cases, some instances of abuse had occurred, and that these were exceptions to the general rule. But when the hon. Gentleman asks whether I will produce all these excepted cases, and institute inquiry into them, I think it would lead to a general inquiry. The hon. Baronet certainly has a different notion of justice with respect to this matter from what I should entertain. The hon. Baronet says that these instances of abuse should be held up to public scorn and odium. Now there are a great number of officers employed by the Commissioners. Some of them may have perfectly well-founded grounds for their statements, while there may be others who may have become wicked by reason of the opposition which they received in particular instances. But, in following the hon. Baronet's proposition, we should lay on the Table of the House, at the end of the Session, returns holding up all the persons alluded to by those officers to public odium. Now, on former occasions, the parties complained of asked, very properly, for inquiry into their conduct; but here we should have individuals held up to public scorn and odium, and yet possessing no means of having their characters vindicated. And yet that is what the hon. Baronet calls justice. I believe it to be perfectly clear from the report that the general conduct has been praiseworthy, though some instances of abuse may have occurred. The more prudent course then, I consider, is to leave the conduct of the parties generally as it is, and when particular charges are made against magistrates, to have an inquiry instituted into their conduct.

said the charges contained in the report were of a very grave, and he would say of a very atrocious, description. He did not think they were confined to the gentry or to the magistrates of Ireland alone, because the relief committees did not consist altogether of these classes. He believed a great number of the charges were intended to apply to the priests and to the lower classes; and he quite agreed with the noble Lord, that an inquiry of such an extensive nature as the hon. Baronet required, was not at this period of the Session practicable. He had not the slightest doubt but that great intimidation had been practised; but he felt that an inquiry into all the charges that could he brought forward would take an entire year to get through; and he had no doubt, if instituted, that it would result in a blue book being laid on the Table that would, rival any blue book that had ever been produced. He agreed, however, with the noble Lord, that as far as the magistrates were concerned, an opportunity for investigating the charges brought against them ought to be afforded; and if they were not then able to vindicate themselves to the satisfaction of the House and of Her Majesty's Ministers from the charge of swindling; for such he considered the accusation against them—of paying their own rents out of the relief given to their tenants—amounted to; they ought to be at once struck off the roll. The magistracy of Ireland was certainly in a very critical state at present. From his own experience he could say, that he believed there were many men sitting on the bench in that country who were not qualified to act as magistrates in any one particular. He thought the noble Lord ought in justice to this country as well as to Ireland, to institute a strict inquiry into the conduct of the magistrates; but with reference to the report generally, he felt, as the noble Lord had stated, that the abuses alluded to were only put forward as exceptional cases.

said, as chairman of a relief committee, he felt bound to state that, having read the report carefully, he believed it to be upon the whole a very fair report. His only astonishment was, that the abuses were not infinitely greater than were set forth; and if hon. Gentlemen would only take the trouble to read the extracts from the inspectors' reports, they would, he was convinced, concur with him in that opinion. It might be recollected that in February last he cautioned the Government that there were certain districts in Ireland in which they would find it difficult to get even clerks to perform the duties imposed on the relief committees. He would now ask whether his words were or were not prophetic? [The noble Lord read some extracts from the reports of the inspectors showing the difficulty of finding efficient persons in some districts to act on relief committees, and then continued.] This fact was distinctly put forward in the report of the Commissioners themselves. They stated—

"In enlarging on these unpleasant facts, we would beg that it may be understood that they are clearly exceptions, although sufficient in number to be deserving of notice, and to show in parts of the country a great want of the principles necessary for minute self-government."

Ever since he had the honour of a seat in that House, he had constantly endeavoured to impress on every Government the necessity of framing machinery for minute government in Ireland; and when no steps had been taken to supply the deficiency which existed in that respect, he thought it was not fair to pronounce the sweeping condemnation which he had heard with indignation fall from the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government a few minutes ago against the gentry of Ireland. The noble Lord had stated, that if an inquiry were instituted, they would have to inquire into the conduct of all the landlords and gentry and people of Ireland. He did not believe such to be the case. He believed the whole fault rested with the noble Lord himself. The noble Lord found fault with him the other night for having used the word "scramble" in reference to what had taken place in Ireland; but if the noble Lord would look through the report, and then look into Johnson's Dictionary, and could there find another word more applicable, he (Lord Clements) would be happy to use it. Again, he should say that the noble Lord was to blame for what had occurred in passing such a measure for the relief of destitution, without including any definition in the Bill as to who were to be considered destitute, and who were not to be so considered. When the noble Lord gave no power to those who were to carry the law into operation to punish persons improperly applying for relief, it was not fair for him to stand up now and pass a sweeping censure on the gentry and people of Ireland generally.

had again to repeat his belief that no sweeping censure was intended to be conveyed in the report, and was certainly not made by him. On the contrary, he stated distinctly that the cases of abuses were clearly exceptions to the general conduct. If the noble Lord would look into Johnson's Dictionary, he would find that exceptions did not mean general or universal conduct.

said, it was very true that the abuses alluded to were exceptions to the general conduct; but what Irish Gentlemen complained of was, that because they were not distinctly stated, the charges fell generally. Much praise had been given to the Commissioners; but for his part he thought they had failed in their duty, and that they were bound to have reported the names of the parties by whom the abuses had been committed. They had a right in know in this country whether the relief given had been honestly expended or not; and yet they were now told, that in some cases relief was given out of the public funds by proprietors to their own tenants who were not entitled to relief. The stain now rested on the entire landlords and magistracy of Ireland; and he thought the hon. Baronet was therefore quite right in asking that the names and residences of the offending parties should be made known. He could not agree with the noble Lord near him (Lord Clements) that Government ought to have adopted a definition for the term "destitution." Any attempt of the kind would have the effect of producing great oppression and suffering in particular cases; and he thought it was therefore much better to leave the local managers a discretion to decide whether each case coming before them was one of destitution or not.

explained. What he meant was, that persons having five or six acres of land, and a cow or cows, or a horse or horses, could not be entitled to relief according to his understanding of the term "destitution;" and yet the Commissioners had expressed a different opinion, and had declared that persons with six acres and with cows and horses might be considered destitute.

had a question to ask of the noble Lord with reference to the recent proceedings at Hong-Kong. He did not wish to reflect on the conduct pursued there; but what he wanted to know was, whether the recent hostile proceedings taken by the Governor of Hong-Kong had been adopted on his own responsibility, or on the authority of instructions sent out to him from this country.

My answer to the noble Lord is, that the Governor of Hong-Kong reported certain insults and injuries which were inflicted on British subjects in China; and the answer of the Government to him was, for him to demand of the Chinese Government redress for such insults. After he had sent those reports, other cases of a similar character arose, of which the accounts did not reach this country until a very short time ago. The Governor, taking into consideration that he was desired to demand redress in certain cases, and those other cases occurring afterwards, thought it right to consult with the general officers commanding and the conclusion to which they arrived was that the only mode of obtaining redress was by getting the commanders of the naval and military forces to interfere. A most able sally was made—certainly in a naval and military point of view, one most ably designed and ably carried into effect. That is the only answer I can now give to the noble Lord; but when the papers are produced, the particulars will show why the Governor of Hong-Kong thought it necessary to enforce redress, and why he felt that redress could not be obtained in any other manner.

wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests a question connected with a subject which created much public interest—he meant the practice of burying the dead in the midst of crowded cities and towns, and in spaces that were necessarily restricted. Seeing that the subject had been deferred from year to year by successive Governments pledged to legislate on the subject, he wished to know what was the great difficulty, the great impediment which had forced different Administrations that had applied themselves to the subject with vigour and with zeal, not only to disappoint public expectations, but to violate the pledges they had given. These influences were unseen by the public, but they were not unfelt by the Government. He alluded not only to the present Government, but to other Governments. The right hon. Baronet who was in office before the present Administration, pledged himself at once, on his accession to power, to legislate on the subject. The pledge ended in an inquiry being instituted, and evidence of a nature which he would not now characterize, being collected. That was completed in the second year. In the third year, the hope and expectation of the right hon. Baronet was more faintly expressed; and in the fourth year, he frankly admitted that he was incapable of meeting the difficulties which presented themselves before him, and said that he should leave the subject to be dealt with by the public. The noble Lord, not having the experience of the right hon. Baronet as to these difficulties, also commenced his official career by promising to legislate on the subject. No one who knew the noble Lord's character could doubt his sincerity in giving that pledge; but he had been unable during the present Session to introduce any measure to meet the evil. It was clear there was a mystery hanging over the matter; and the common belief was, that the difficulty lay in the quarter where, on a subject of so much importance to the moral and physical improvement of the people, it was least to be expected—namely, in the clergy. He disregarded that rumour, more especially as he knew that twenty-five years ago, when the present Bishop of London was but a poor rector in the metropolis, he was among the first and loudest in complaining of the evil. If a traveller stated that he found in some savage nation a practice prevailing of burying the dead in localities often not larger than the courtyard of a private residence, to the number of many thousands annually, without the surface of the soil being raised an inch in the course of the year, they would be ready to start with horror, and to believe that no outrage so flagrant, so inhuman, and so scandalous as such a system appeared of necessity to imply, on the bodies of the dead, could possibly be committed. And yet this was what took place, down to the present time, in the very centre of the metropolis of what they regarded as the most Christian nation in the world. He was sure the noble Lord would not lose sight of the question. The question he wished to ask of him was, what was really the great difficulty in his way in legislating on the subject? and if the noble Lord once answered that question, he could assure him that the public would give him ample assistance in having it overcome.

said, before the noble Lord answered the question, he thought it right to state that a most numerously and respectably signed requisition had been presented to him in York the other day, asking him to convene a meeting on the subject of interment in towns. The subject was one which, he could assure the noble Lord, excited the greatest interest in that city.

I can only state, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that as soon as I succeed in passing the Bill for improving the health of towns in respect to sewerage and drainage, I shall feel myself bound to mature, and introduce to the House, and I hope to carry, a Bill to prevent burials in towns. But I must say that I should despair of carrying such a measure, if the House will not now address itself to the subject before it.

regretted that the noble Lord had given so brief a reply to a question so pertinent to the subject before the House—the health of towns. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know where the obstacle existed in legislating on this matter. Most probably the hon. Gentleman was himself well acquainted with the nature of that obstacle already; but he was desirous of having a statement from the noble Lord respecting it. Everybody knew that it was a money matter—that in this country they were in the habit of trading in the disposal of the dead. It was simply a question of pounds, shillings, and pence; and it was well known that the clergy were hostile to any interference with the existing system. Whenever a proposal was made for bringing in a Bill to establish a new cemetery in the vicinity of the metropolis, the vested interests were in commotion to oppose it. He should be glad to know whether any official communication had taken place with the Bishop of the diocese on the subject? The matter was one on which the public felt very strongly. That burials in towns wore injurious to the public health, no man of common sense could deny. When the noble Lord legislated on the subject, he trusted he would make such an arrangement as would prevent trading in the burials of the dead from continuing.

said, he should very humbly protest against the manner in which his question had been met by the noble Lord. If he had interposed in any uufriendly manner against the Government, he could scarcely have been open to so severe a rebuke. The noble Lord said, he should despair of carrying this or any other Bill, if Gentlemen got up and would not allow Government to proceed with the business. When he gave notice of his intention to ask the question, the day before, the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government was good enough to ask him, not in the most courteous tone, what this question had to do with the Bill before the House? [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: I did not ask that.] He thought the two questions most intimately connected, more especially as, when the hon. Member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon) brought in a Bill on the subject, he was told, he believed, that if he would withdraw it, the matter would be included in the Health of Towns Bill this Session. He thought the Government were bound, for the sake of their own characters, to come forward and explain why it was that they had not fulfilled their pledges on this subject. This subject was one of the most important branches of sanitary reform; for what was the use of draining and ventilation, so long-as these plague-spots were permitted to poison the densest parts of the population? Being of so much importance as to require a Bill by itself, he could not believe he had asked an irrelevant question; but he must say the answer had been given in a manner he did not expect.

assured his hon. Friend that he had not the slightest intention of speaking with anything like disrespect, cither towards himself personally, or of the question he had put. He had only alluded in general terms to the fact of three hours having been occupied in discussion before the Order of the Day had been read. He believed the Bishop of London was most anxious that some measure should be adopted of the nature referred to by his hon. Friend; but the question was undoubtedly one affecting vested interests which must receive the consideration of the House; and it was also connected with old associations and feelings, which, though not of parallel importance with the object in view, deserved to be met and treated with delicacy. The only reason, however, why a Bill had not been introduced this Session, was the conviction that it was not possible, considering the amount of other business, to proceed with it; but Her Majesty's Government would introduce a measure in the course of next Session.

could not agree to the Amendment. In corporate towns there were now existing regularly constituted bodies elected by their fellow-townsmen; and it was the opinion of the Government that to these bodies the powers under the measure might be safely entrusted. As those bodies had already been selected by the various towns to manage their ordinary corporate affairs, he thought they might safely be entrusted with the care of the sewerage, drainage, and lighting of the towns. It might be said that the inhabitants of the towns to which the clause was to be applied, might ask for the extension of the Bill to them if it were desirable; but he would say he doubted the expediency of in all cases leaving it to individuals to apply for the operation of the Bill, when that operation would involve the necessity of expenditure from their own pockets; and as the general health of the country would be very much affected by the operation of this Bill, he could not, in the cases alluded to, leave it to the application of individuals whether the Bill was or was not to be brought into operation.

expressed his surprise at the exclusion of London; and, if nobody else did it, he should move that the clause should be struck out of the Bill.

thought that if the clause were excluded, it would be impossible to carry the Bill this Session.

considered this clause to he one of the worst features of the Bill. It excluded London, although every one knew that that place above all others in Her Majesty's dominions required sanitary measures. He should like to see some of the metropolitan Members get up and say why London should be excluded. Why could not they abolish the commissioners of sewers of London, and constitute them commissioners of health, as they proposed to do with the commissioners of sewers in York? He was convinced that the powers which were proposed to be given to the Chief Commissioner of Health were quite unconstitutional.

had no objection to have London included in the Bill; but it should be done in a proper manner. He would undertake to say that York had not a single sewer; and it was fearful to contemplate the expense which the right hon. Member for Sunderland and his fellow-citizens would have to pay if this Bill were passed! Notwithstanding the extraordinary zeal with which the right hon. Gentleman had attacked the metropolis, he would pledge his word that there were in Surrey as many miles of drainage as the right hon. Gentleman had miles of railway. As he had before said, he had no objection to see London brought under the operation of such a measure as this; but such a measure could not be passed this Session.

was anxious to be informed on three points: first, why London, which was originally intended to be included, had been exempted from the operation of the Bill; secondly, why Middlesex and Surrey, which were also originally included, had likewise been subsequently omitted; and thirdly, why, it having been in the first instance contemplated that no district within four miles of London should be included in the operation of the Bill, the area had since been extended to ten miles?

said, he would endeavour briefly, and he hoped successfully, to answer the three questions of the hon. Member. He was first asked why Middlesex and Surrey were not now included in the clause? In the first instance it was intended to make the clause as compendious as possible; but for that purpose it was obvious it would be necessary to include Kent and Essex, and as many districts of these counties as were involved. He was then asked why he had extended the district from four miles to ten miles round St. Paul's Church. When the limit of four miles was inserted in the Bill, it had been determined that neither London nor the metropolis should be included in the Bill; but from information communicated to him, it appeared that the area for drainage and water could not be limited within four miles, for a large supply of water was obtained from the neighbourhood of Brentford, and another from Ravensbourne, in Kent. It therefore appeared manifest that the area for a supply of water would not be sufficient if it were not extended to ten miles. Then he was asked why London had been excluded at all? In the original proposition which he made when he introduced the Bill, the metropolis was included. When he made that propo- sition, he was told he was aiming at too much, and that it would be very difficult to carry out the measure if he then included the metropolis in the Bill. The feeling seemed very general that he had introduced too much into the Bill; and when he returned to London after the Easter recess, he found, from the state of public business which inevitably must come before Parliament, that there would be very little prospect of carrying any Bill into effect for the sanitary improvement of the country if he did not strike London out. A deputation from those persons who had originally taken up the subject—and in alluding to them he did not wish to hide or screen himself from any responsibility for what had taken place—but a deputation from the Committee which had devoted so much zeal and attention to the promotion of the sanitary state of the country, had called upon him, and had told him that he was running the chance of doing nothing during the present Session by undertaking too much at the commencement. He had therefore been induced not to include the metropolis within the Bill. This was the simple reason for adopting the course which he had pursued, while he had at the same time as strong a conviction as was entertained by any man who heard him that the metropolis required sanitary regulations as much as other places. He also entertained as strong an intention as he had ever experienced, to introduce a sanitary Act for the metropolis early next Session. He had therefore not persisted in the Bill as it was originally introduced, in the hope that by striking out the metropolis he might be able to do something this Session for sanitary improvements, and thus secure the object by legislative means of introducing the system into the country.

could not help expressing his disappointment at what had fallen from the noble Lord. He believed the Bill was necessary, and he should not oppose it if London were included within its operation. If one place more than another required a law like this, it was London. The noble Lord therefore, instead of beginning in the way which he proposed, should have brought in a Bill for London alone, which step would probably have been successful, and was certainly more likely to please the country. He could assure the noble Lord that he would have found no difficulty with regard to London, if he had excluded all the other towns. His hon. Friend (Alderman Humphery), representing one corporation, and the hon. Gen- tleman (Mr. Hudson), representing another, and as he thought the smaller corporation of the two, had differed on this point. [Much Laughter.] In London there were already a large number of persons employed in sewerage, and therefore it would have been comparatively easy to carry out a general plan there. In the town which he represented, there were five separate boards to look after matters of this kind. There should be some law of consolidation, and some general principle should be adopted which should be brought into one Bill. There could be no greater difficulty in applying the principle to the whole of England, including the district round St. Paul's, than by confining it to a limited extent. If the noble Lord would state the difficulties in his way, he (Mr. Roebuck) would attentively listen to them; but he could not conceive what they were. There was as much difficulty in properly legislating for ten persons as for a thousand. He hoped the noble Lord would not be daunted by either London or York, however ably they might be represented. The hon. Member (Mr. Hudson) was fond of referring to practical effects, and as to his mode of dealing with the material effects of the world; but he did not think that the hon. Member was likely to be very successful in his legislation on a subject of this kind, however great his success might be between rival railways. He did not think that the hon. Member would be considered a sufficient authority for their legislating as to the cleanliness of mankind. He was sure if the noble Lord even now included London within the operation of his Bill, he would meet with very partial opposition in the House of Commons.

felt that the reason why the noble Lord considered London as an oasis to be excepted from the operation of this Bill, was the consideration of who were the present representatives. The noble Lord said that he had been requested not to include London within the Bill; but he had not stated by whom. According to the reports of the Commissioners on Sanitary Inquiry, there were many parts of the metropolis from which fever was never absent; and according to the annual reports of deaths of the Registrar General, from 20,000 to 30,000 persons died annually on that account.

wished merely to make a remark upon the state of the question upon which the Committee wore about to divide. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had treated the matter as if it were proposed altogether to exclude the metropolis from any sanitary measure. The fact was this: the Government proposed to pass a Bill this year with respect to certain parts of the country, and, that Bill having been passed into an Act, to introduce a measure next Session with respect to the metropolis. Hon. Members opposite proposed in the first place that the metropolis should he brought into this Bill? But how brought into this Bill? By merely leaving the Bill as it was, without inserting other clauses? If so, the Bill would be found inoperative and inefficient for the purpose. But then it was proposed that other clauses should be introduced to meet the case. That could not be done without raising up new opposition and new obstruction. New opposition must of course give rise to delay, and by delay this measure would be defeated, and with it sanitary reform for the metropolis. No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had expressed such extreme zeal and anxiety for sanitary reform, would exceedingly lament such a result; but it was the clear consequence that must follow from their own conduct. They would no doubt extremely regret this; and he therefore hoped they would be defeated, by which means the city of London would be all the sooner included in a measure of sanitary reform.

believed that the opposition that had been got up was to be found in the city of London alone. The noble Lord had said that delay would be caused by introducing London into the measure; but when the Bill was brought in last-March all the necessary machinery had been prepared; the arrangements, with respect to the inclusion of the metropolis, had been made, the calculations had been formed, and the Government had been prepared to legislate on the subject. Something since then must have arisen in the City. Medically, he would strongly advise the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hudson) to moderate his excitement; for if he did not, the coroner of London would, perhaps, have to perform the duties of his office upon the Lord Mayor of York.

complained that neither the noble Lord nor any metropolitan Member had pointed out in what respect the corporation of London differed from any other in the kingdom. Fever and mortality were as rife there as anywhere. He wished, moreover, to know what right the Government had to exempt the manufac- turers of London from those stringent regulations to which it was proposed to subject manufacturers in the provinces. Such a proceeding would not be fair nor just.

thought that a measure which had excited so much opposition ought not to be pressed through on the eve of a dissolution; in a new Parliament he should be happy to give his support to a well-digested measure of sanitary reform.

said, that the object was to authorize an advance by way of loan, out of the Consolidated Fund, to the New Zealand Company, of a sum of 136,000l. The right hon. Gentleman moved—

"That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland be authorized to advance the sum of 136,000l., out of the Consolidated Fund of the said United Kingdom, by way of loan, to the New Zealand Company.

said, he should decidedly object to the vote until they first heard what chance there was of getting the money back. He did not know why the hon. Members for Coventry and for Montrose, who professed to be such warm advocates for economy, should absent themselves when a vote of that magnitude was proposed; and, with all respect for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he respected still more because he happened to be a relative of his own, he did not think it right for him to bring forward a vote for so large an amount at nearly one o'clock in the morning.

said, if his hon. and gallant Friend and relative would take the trouble to read over the correspondence on this subject that was lying on the Table, he would find the necessity for this loan and the prospects of its repayment set forth more fully and satisfactorily than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could attempt to explain them.