said, before moving the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply, he would fulfil the promise which he had given to the noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) with respect to the Wellington military memorial, on the subject of which he had given notice of a Motion. Since he last addressed the House, he had communicated with the illustrious Duke relative to the Statue which had been erected over the arch in the Green Park; and the substance of his reply was, that his Grace considered the question not individually, but entirely on public grounds—that many persons considered, and that the Committee entertained a similar opinion, that its removal from the arch might be construed as a mark of the disapprobation of the Crown towards the individual in whose honour it had been erected—that, for his own part, he had received too many proofs of the regard and approbation of the Crown to entertain any such notion—but that in his opinion such an idea might be formed by the public; and, therefore, upon public grounds he deprecated the removal of the Statue. This statement had been communicated to Her Majesty; and in obedience to Her Majesty's commands he had now to state that the Government did not intend to persist in the removal of the Statue.

, while on his legs, would take the opportunity of alluding to another subject which stood amongst the Motions on reading the Order of the Day. It was one of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Greenock, who proposed "to call the attention of the House to the recent interference of the Government exercised chiefly through the medium of the Secretary at War, with the constitutional privileges of the Parliamentary electors of Greenock." He begged to tell the hon. Member for Greenock that the Government had no intention of interfering with the Parliamentary electors of Greenock, nor did they intend to interfere or give a preference to either one candidate or the other.

would not press his Motion.

said, that as his name had been very prominently included in the notice of Motion given by the hon. Member, he begged to say that he had in no way interfered with the discretion of the hon. Member for Greenock, and that he had not attempted to sway him in either proceeding with or withdrawing the notice. He should for his own part be quite ready to answer for himself, whenever or where-ever any demand for explanation should be made upon him upon the subject.

would detain the House a few moments on this point. He wished to remove a misapprehension that had prevailed with regard to the publication of his letter to Lord Melgund. He was sorry to find that the noble Lord had been accused of a breach of confidence in publishing that letter, which was written for the purpose of being communicated to any parties in the burgh who might contradict his assertion, that persons connected with the Government had interfered to prevent him from coming forward as a candidate. He had been assured, in a communication which he had received from Lord Melgund this morning, that the letter had not been marked "private;" and although, therefore, he must consider that no one was authorized to read a letter of this nature at a public meeting without having received express authority to do so, still he could not, under the circumstances, do more than regret that his authority had not been demanded before the letter, which was written in his private capacity, was thus publicly used.

wished to explain some remarks he had made the other night. He had stated that 600 slaves had perished out of a cargo of 707, and that only 107 had reached their destination. He had asserted that it was considered a safe and good speculation, if out of a cargo of 700 slaves 100 were safely landed; and the noble Lord in replying to him had said that "600 per cent" was not a proper expression, because 600 men could not die out of 100. He (Mr. Borthwick) maintained that the expression was a correct one, as expressing the comparative mortality which took place under the present system. Formerly the great complaint was, that ten per cent of the slaves shipped used to be lost before the vessel arrived at her destination; but it appeared that now only about 16 per cent were ever landed alive.

said, he should ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, as he did not see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, whether during the recess the Government would take into their consideration the necessity of appointing a Committee or other tribunal to which the Miscellaneous Estimates would be submitted previously to the House being called upon to vote them in Committee of Supply. A constant increase was going on in these estimates, which required some efficient check. It was growing by degrees, not so much through the fault of the Government as of the House itself, in assenting to the increase, and not taking measures to prevent it. The Miscellaneous Estimates had certainly been rendered more intelligible of late years than they used to be, but they were still by no means so clear as they should be. He was anxious that Government should direct its attention to the subject during the recess.

admitted there was great room for inquiry, and early in the next Session he hoped that a Select Committee would lay down some principles on which in future it would be safe to proceed.

objected, and hoped never to see Portpatrick or Donaghadee in the votes agreed to.

insisted that it was in the votes now contrary to a distinct pledge; and he appealed to the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford whether such a pledge had not been given.

agreed that such was the case; three years ago it had been decided that no more money should be spent on Portpatrick.

said, that the reason for the vote was, that some money was required to complete works on which a great deal had been formerly laid out. It was necessary to keep up some communication, and the harbour would be filled up if something were not done.

would move the postponement of a vote brought forward in defiance of the House.

maintained, that it was a job for the benefit of a Whig Peer. The harbour never could be made available, and he would take the sense of the Committee on the vote.

required the hon. Member to name the Whig Peer.

was just as ignorant of the name of the Peer as the hon. Member for Knaresborough. All he knew was, that a Conservative Peer, Lord Londonderry, accompanied by a deputation of Irish and Scotch gentlemen, had called upon Government for God's sake not to give up the port.

said: I may take this opportunity of alluding to a leading article in the Morning Chronicle of this day. I am perfectly aware that, if necessary, I might bring it before the House as a breach of privilege, but I am not so tender skinned as to wish to make any such attempt. I must admit, generally speaking, that the Morning Chronicle is a respectably conducted newspaper; and I regret to see either that or any other newspaper endeavour to intimidate a Member of this House by abuse poured down upon him. Abuse has been poured down upon me because I ventured to give opinions, which are sincere, however unpalatable they may have been to the House or to the editor of the Morning Chronicle. I believe that that paper is an organ of Her Majesty's Government; but, however that may be, I conceive it to be my duty to refer to the leading article in it, simply for the purpose of exculpating myself. Let it be remembered that this is not the first time I have given it as my opinion that the monies would not be repaid. It will, per- > haps, be in the memory of many hon. Gentlemen, that at the time the votes were under consideration, I cautioned the House, and told it that I did not think it possible to repay the monies. I was not one of the Members who begged and entreated you to give money to any amount: far be it from me to do anything of the kind. I do not regard legislation here as if Ireland were a separate and distinct nation—such is not my opinion, political or social; and I trust that the feeling in favour of distinct legislation between the one country and the other is rapidly dying away. But there is only one course by which such a happy result can be attained, namely, by regarding every act of the House as an act which will injure the whole empire, if it injure any portion of the empire. The article in this paper is, I regret, in much the same style as the very flippant remarks of an hon. Gentleman opposite, who is desirous of selling, not only the whole property of Ireland, but the gentry of Ireland along with it. I utterly disregard such exceedingly jocose remarks. No doubt the editor of this paper may think it a very good joke, and may consider it possible to intimidate Members of this House from expressing their sentiments; but I utterly disregard such attempts. Many of my countrymen say that I stand alone in this House. I trust I do stand alone in the view I take of this question. God forbid that I should exaggerate the state of things in Ireland, and particularly in the county that I have the honour to represent! I trust that I may he under a delusion on this subject. I trust that it may be in the power of the country to pay this money, but I fear it is not so; and I sincerely believe that one-half of the money that has been spent in Ireland within the last twelve months might have been productive of greater benefit to the Irish poor, if properly expended, than has been effected by the entire. If these sentiments are not palatable, I am sorry for it, but they are my sincere conviction. I have no object in view in giving expression to my opinions. I am not an agitator. I never attend public meetings. I state my real sentiments, whatever they may be, as plainly as I can in this House; but beyond these walls I have not been in the habit of saying or of doing anything which in the most remote manner could prejudice the peace of the country or any of her interests. I trust, Sir, that I shall not have occasion to allude again to such attacks as that which I have just mentioned. I do not wish to call further attention to it; and I conclude by observing that I am sure when the writer of it considers the subject better, he will see that he has done me an injustice.

appeared at the bar, and reported that a deputation from the House of Lords had communicated to them two Resolutions, recommended for adoption by a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, and agreed to afterwards by that House. They were as follow:—

"1st, That the Lords are willing to receive from the Commons, in one Message, all Commons' Bills when first brought up to this House; all Lords' Bills returned from the House of Commons without any amendment made thereto; and all Commons' Bills returned therefrom with the Lords' Amendments thereto agreed to, without any Amendment—a List of such Bills, with a statement of the assent of the Commons thereto, being brought by the Messengers from the House of Commons, and delivered together with the Bills so brought up.

"2nd. That whereas, by custom, heretofore, all Messages from the House of Commons to the House of Lords have been attended by eight Members of the House of Commons, and whereas the attendance of so many may occasionally be inconvenient to the Members of the said House, the Lords desire to communicate to the Commons their willingness to receive such Messages when brought up by live Members only, to which they desire the concurrence of the Commons.''

said, that seeing the hon. Member for Wycombe in his place, be wished to ask him a question arising out of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman a few nights ago, in which he was stated to have traduced a Portuguese nobleman.

called the hon. Gentleman to order, and said that he could not allude to a former debate of this Session.

said, he knew what the hon. Gentleman alluded to, and he believed he could answer the question without having it put formally to him.

said, if the hon. Gentleman wished to explain anything in his former speech having reference to an individual he could do so, but not by way of answer to a question from another hon. Member.

said, that in the course of his speech in reference to Portugal, some evenings ago, he alluded to the Conde de Tojal, in terms at which a relative of that individual in this country, M. Olivera—a gentleman very much respected by all who knew him—felt much hurt. He had spoken of the Conde de Tojal as having been a defaulter in this country at a former period. It appeared, according to a letter which he had since seen, that the Conde de Tojal had been at one time engaged in the wine trade in this country, and that he had the misfortune, by the conduct of a partner, to become bankrupt. Some of his debts were of long standing; but having lately come into the possession of some property, with that feeling of honour which should belong to a Finance Minister, be paid off all his liabilities, and had now the good fortune to be the Minister of Finance, in the Portuguese Government.

said, that so many Members on both sides of the House took an interest in this Bill, that its passing was certain, and likely to attract little attention in the Committee; yet he desired to direct the attention of the Committee to one point of importance. Upon referring to the Papers on which this Bill was founded, it would be seen, that in one respect, it had not been drawn in conformity with them. In order to make the Bill in strict conformity with the agreement between the Government and the Company, and with its correspondence, which was on the Table of the House, it would be necessary—as would be seen on referring to the Papers in question—to strike out the words in Clause 1,0, 16, and 18, which implied that interest after the year 1850 was to be paid to the Government on the advances made by it to the Company. He would read the following passage from the correspondence, which would be found in page 102 of the Papers on the Table:—

"On these grounds, Lord Grey proposes, that in the event of the Company's continuing its operations, at the end of three years it shall be held to be indebted to Her Majesty's Government in the sum of 236,000l., or of any less sum to which the actual advances may amount. That this debt shall not bear interest, but that its speedy and punctual payment, according to the means of the Company, shall be secured, by appropriating to the payment of the principal, until the whole shall be discharged, one-fourth of the clear annual profits of the Company."

There were, also, other passages in the agreement and correspondence of the same nature, which he would read if it was desired. Therefore, he should move that the words in the Bill which were inconsistent with the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Company, be struck out of Clauses 15, 16, and 18. The real object of the Government was, having adjusted the dispute between the Company and the Government, to encourage the Company to continue its colonising character and action. This was the end aimed at. For this purpose, if the aid now given to the Company, coupled with the returning prosperity of the colony, should lead to a continuance of its exertions to found new communities in New Zealand, then the loss of interest upon the capital advanced, would be amply repaid. The prosperity of the colony would reduce the Parliamentary vote, and the increased trade between this country and the colony would more than compensate for this surrender of the interest.

did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill, although it was rather opposed to the principles laid down by the Government in the early part of the Session. Her Majesty's Government had laid it down as a principle that the Government ought not to be money lenders, and yet now they came forward to prop up a number of destitute shareholders, after having given so many refusals in similar circumstances. They were going to lend a great commercial speculation, the New Zealand Company, 136,000l., in order to get them out of their difficulties. But the advantage they possessed over other speculations was, that the supporters of the Company were, in sporting language, "very strong coveys" in that House. There were eighteen Gentlemen in that House who supported the measure; and, no doubt, if the Company succeeded, they would go on very well; but if the speculation failed, then the Government would purchase back the lands of the Company for a sum of 250,000l. [Mr. HAWES: That was the amount of the security.] He was not disposed to treat lightly the claims of their colonies; but, in the present instance, the Government had gone beyond their usual limits, and had committed a greater breach of the strict rules of political economy than had ever been proposed in that House. Feeling, however, that the colony of New Zealand was of great importance to the mother country and that there was at all events this difference between it and other colonies, that the capital sent there could never be alienated, but must remain in the colony, and that there was little doubt of its always belonging to Great Britain, he was not disposed to offer the measure any decided opposition. Still he could not allow it to pass without pointing out how completely it was in contravention of all the principles and doctrines laid down by the Government in the early part of the Session—that, in the existing difficulties in the money market, it was inexpedient to advance any money to stimulate trade or industry in any part of the Queen's dominions.

remarked that no reference had been made to the previous proceedings of the New Zealand Company by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes). The silence on both sides of the House might be considered a kind of condonation of that body, and it was not, therefore, necessary to advert to the original constitution and proceedings of the Company. Passing over those topics, though he retained his own opinions on the subject, and deprecated the course of Her Majesty's Ministers in adopting the agency of the Company for governing, in any degree, or in any portion, the territory of New Zealand, he was unwilling the debate should close without some reference to the conduct of the chiefs and natives of New Zealand in the course of the contest recently terminated. In no Country nominally Christian, could their conduct have been exceeded in all the attributes of real greatness. When the troops of the Queen took possession of their country, under circumstances which were certainly misunderstood by the natives as a body, the objection of that distinguished chief, Heki, was, that a more absolute dominion had been assumed by the Crown than it had been the intention of the chiefs to concede. Under such circumstances they were in a manner compelled to go to war; but how did they conduct the war when it had commenced? Why, with a degree of forbearance which no age of chivalry in Europe had ever exceeded. Not only were two of our officers who had been taken prisoners sent back with their arms restored, when it was impossible for them to have resisted effectually, but women were returned without either injury or insult. Knowing these facts, he could not omit the opportunity thus afforded of bearing his testimony to the conduct of the chiefs. With respect to the Bill itself, he should offer no opposition to it. He agreed with what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the merits of Captain Grey, the present Governor of New Zealand; but he could not help feeling that, in those praises, there had been a kind of under current of censure quite undeserved upon his predecessor, Captain Fitzroy, whom he considered equally well entitled with Captain Grey to the approbation of the House and the country.

wished to put a question with reference to the 19th and 20th Clauses of the Bill. After the year 1850, if the affairs of the Company did not prosper, they were to abandon their scheme into the hands of the Government, the repayment for the land being at 5s. an acre; but the Government were to undertake all the liabilities of the Company. He wished to know whether those liabilities were to be confined to money liabilities, or if they included all engagements the Company had entered into with private and public parties, including, of course, the disputes as to land claims?

replied, that one of the merits of the Bill was, that every case of dispute was practically settled. The past liabilities of the Company were estimated; they would be found in the accounts laid before the House; and part of the money to be advanced by the Government would be applied to meet those liabilities.

said, the reply of the hon. Gentleman was satisfactory so far as it went. But he understood the Company were now engaged in disputed claims which were not settled up to this moment; and he wished to know whether there were not disputed claims which might increase the liabilities of the Government in the event of the Company abaning their operations?

referred the hon. Gentleman for a more specific answer to the following passage from Mr. Stephen's letter to Mr. Trevelyan, dated "Downing-street, May 6, 1847," written upon the supposition of the present arrangement being effected:—

"The present liabilities of the company will then be entirely discharged, with the exception of a very small balance which may, on a settlement of some disputed account, be found due to the Nelson settlers over and above the 25,000l. hereby proposed to be provided for that purpose. The only other liabilities to which the company can then be subject will be such as may be contracted during the next three years with the assent of the Government itself, through its Commissioner; and it is hardly conceivable, according to the company's scheme of colonisation, that such liabilities should be incurred without a fund sufficient to meet them being in the hands of the company. The assets of the company, besides its land, will consist of such dead stock as it may then possess in the colony; and though the amount of such stock will be considerable, it will be a set-off against the still more considerable amount of its liabilities."

believed the present prosperity of the colony of New Zealand to be mainly owing to the energy and discretion of the present Governor; but he must ask upon what principle this money was proposed to be advanced. Was it as a mode of compensation for past injuries, or for promotion of colonisation? He approved of the principle of appointing a Government Commissioner; but objected to his appointment being made subject to the approval of the Company. He doubted whether it were usual; and he feared it would frustrate all the objects it was intended to accomplish.

thought his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) appeared to have misunderstood the liabilities to which the Government subjected itself by the present Bill: the Government did not subject itself generally to the liabilities of the Company, but only to certain specific liabilities. And it stood to reason, if the Government were to carry on the colonisation during a period of three years, and at the end of that time the Company did not go on, that the Government, which had been a party to the engagements, should be held responsible for the expenditure. With regard to compensation to the Company, his right hon. Friend said the Government might have settled that question at once, and have put an end to the Company. The question of compensation, however, was a very difficult one; and it would be much more desirable than adopting any course of that sort, that the Company, by going on, should be able to compensate itself. In addition to that, the Government showed it would be highly inexpedient to put an end to the Company; and he must say he fully agreed with the Board of the Colonial Department as to the general inefficacy of colonial agency executed under the Government. He believed that all really effective colonisation had been car- ried out under private associations sanctioned by the Government; and if the country were again to realize such results as had already marked the advance of colonisation, it must be by giving the greatest encouragement to the exertions of voluntary associations. The New Zealand Company had undoubtedly done much for colonisation, and its ill success was mainly to be attributed to unfortunate disputes with the Government. He was happy to think that the House was disposed to forget all former disputes—that they were to look to colonisation as an object of great national concern—and that they were prepared to discuss the measure before the House simply with a view to its bearing upon the future interests of the colony of New Zealand.

thought the Bill before the House was one which should attract the attention of the whole country. Scarcely any colony had so largely excited the expectations of the public as New Zealand, and upon no occasion hardly had so many gentlemen associated with the view of carrying out emigration; it was therefore with great regret he found, after the immense expenditure of upwards of 600,000l., all owing to the misconduct of the Colonial Minister, who was unfit for his situation, the House was now called upon to make a loan of 136,000l., in addition to the 100,000l. last year. He thought the Bill before the House was calculated to lessen the evils at present existing; and he was strongly of opinion that if we gave to our colonies a system of self-government, and took care that the affairs of the colonies should be ordered by themselves, there would be a chance of a better state of things resulting. Private individual enterprise in these matters was much better than Government intermeddling. He perceived the Bill stated that money was to be advanced for the purpose of facilitating emigration; but there was nothing in it which bound the Company to do anything towards that end. He should like to know what security the country had that the Company would do its duty. He repeated that the present state of the colony was owing to the misconduct of the Colonial Office; and he only regretted that there were no means of visiting those who had done the evil with the punishment they deserved.

felt himself bound, in the discharge of his public duty, to oppose the Bill, on account of the mismanagement of the colony by different Governments from its commencement down to the present time. He hoped, with the aid of the public money about to be given, that the Company would pursue a straightforward and honest course for the advancement of the colony.

thought it was most desirable they should discuss this Bill on its own merits, without reference to antecedent disputes. The hon. Member for Montrose, who certainly did not always measure his words, had stated that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, at the time these transactions took place, was quite incompetent to fill the high office he held. That expression bore on a noble Lord with whom he had long been associated in office; it was now his painful position not to be associated with the noble Lord; but it was impossible to hear such expressions used with respect to his past conduct without referring to it, and saying that he himself (Sir J. Graham), and the noble Lord's Colleagues were as responsible for it as the noble Lord. It would be base in the extreme in them, if they did not at once say they shared that responsibility to the fullest extent. With regard to the Bill itself, he agreed very much with the Judge Advocate, and the hon. Member for Montrose, in approving of it; and he differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, and those who advocated the extinguishing of the New Zealand Company. He approved of the arrangement which the Bill was to authorize, and by which, in consideration of the assistance to be rendered to the Company, an officer, appointed by the Government, was to be vested with a complete control over the whole of their transactions. If, at the end of three years, notwithstanding the aid to be afforded to them, the Company should prove unable to retrieve its affairs, it would then cease, and the colony become a Crown colony. With regard to the amount to be advanced to the Company, he understood that 136,000l., which, with 100,000l. given before, would make 236,000l., was the whole amount for which the State would be liable; and that in 1850 no more advances would be required, except 5s. per acre for upwards of 1,000,000 of acres, or 268,000l., which would only become payable as the land was sold. To that he had no objection. He considered that, on the whole, the arrangement made by the Government was a judicious one; and he hoped that the effect of it would be that the prosperity of this enterprising Company would be restored; for he agreed with the Judge Advocate, that should it succeed, it would not be the first example of colonisation being effectually carried out by a company, because almost all the successful attempts of this country at colonisation had been made by companies, and not by Government.

wished to express his thanks to the Government for the arrangements they had made. They had forborne to enter into past transactions, but had only sought to do that which they believed would be for the benefit of the empire.

doubted much whether the money it was proposed to advance to the Company would be enough to save it; and he would be glad to know from those who were connected with the Company, whether there was any reason to believe that that sum would be sufficient.

approved of the conduct of the Government with regard to the arrangement with the Company. As to the amount of money to be advanced, he would have been more satisfied if the amount had been a little larger; but the Government had offered as much as they felt it to be consistent with their duty to offer; and the Company, after carefully weighing the whole case, and making the fullest calculations, bad come to the conclusion, that although the amount was as little as possible, yet it was sufficient to afford a reasonable ground for expecting that at the end of the three years the Company would be able to go on.

said, that although hon. Gentlemen opposite might be very well satisfied with the arrangement that had been made with the New Zealand Company; yet it was of importance that the constituencies out of doors should know what that House was really going to do. First, he wanted to know to whom was it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his official friends called on them to vote the money? At the beginning of the Session—it was not long since, the echo was still in our ears—when a demand was made in the House for a grant of money for a great public object, it was possible, it seemed, for right hon. Gentlemen to get up and denounce it as one which would not produce any great public good, or contribute to the general welfare of the country, but as a mere scheme for the benefit of "destitute shareholders." Now, what he wanted to know was, whether "destitute shareholders" had any interest in the grant now proposed? He thought that was a fair inquiry. Because it was well known at the end of a Session a great deal of business was got through, under the magical influence of twilight, which did not attract public attention; and very often principles which were made the subject of debates—of adjourned debates—and which were declared to be of such importance that the existence of a Government was staked upon their rejection, at the commencement of a Session, were, at its close, without being discussed, made the foundation of Bills which were passed with the concurrence of the very Government who, when they were first advanced in another shape, threatened, if they were not withdrawn, to resign their power. Now, here was an instance in which it appeared the country was to be made liable for advances to the extent of 236,000l., and for a sum of 286,000l. more for land payments: and what he wanted to know was, to whom that money was to be paid? Here was a joint-stock company in distress. He did not mean to undervalue their original objects or exertions; but other "destitute shareholders" had also embarked in undertakings which were conducive to the general good. Here was a Company, however, which had wasted 600,000l. To be sure they said it was not their own fault, but the result of circumstances; but that was the story of every insolvent. By bad management their capital disappeared, and then they began to circulate rumours, rather than make direct accusations, against the Ministers of the country, and especially against one. Their immense book of 1,078 pages was circulated freely among Members (and if their printing bill only was examined, he thought it very likely it would help to account for how the 600,000l. had gone), and statements were made, both in public and private, as to the conduct of the Government of the country, and especially of the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being. Yet, when the question came fairly to be inquired into, notwithstanding all their blustering, they retired ignominiously from the field. They talked much of New Zealand, and of their misfortunes, and of the capital that had so unaccountably disappeared; but not one of those subsequent accusations against Lord Stanley was uttered in that House until after—for the misfortune of the country—that noble Lord was called to the other House. Then it was, that, in his absence, those "destitute shareholders" came forward to impugn the policy of that eminent Minister. And now, they did not wish to indulge in personal allusions! Why? It was, because they had obtained grants of public money. The hon. Member for Montrose had called them an ill-used Company, and another hon. Member who spoke earlier in the debate alluded to them as an "unfortunate" Company. He did not think it was so eminently unfortunate; it did not want representatives in that House; and certainly it had a fair share in the formation of the Government. But if it were expedient and politic—and he denied neither the expediency nor the policy—that the New Zealand Company, for great national objects, should be assisted by the State, he wanted to know, and might fairly inquire, what argument the chairman of those destitute shareholders could bring forward in asking for the grant, which would not apply equally in favour of those extensive public works to which, at an early period of the Session, his noble Friend (Lord G. Bentinck) had called on them to contribute some portion of the public money? Let it be admitted that both were destitute—perhaps the Irish railway shareholders were not so destitute as the New Zealand Company, and perhaps they had not spent the whole of their capital quite so wastefully: he might again ask another question—why, if they, the destitute shareholders of the New Zealand Company, were to obtain this grant of public money, did they procure it at 3½ per cent; when the destitute shareholders of Ireland, our brethren, our friends and neighbours, so near, were, by an arrangement of the Government, sanctioned a few nights ago, to pay 5 per cent? Why, the hon. Member for Montrose, who was such an excellent judge of securities, and his aide-de-camp sitting near him, had just told the House that it was the worst security in the world, and that, left alone, it would never go down in the market. It was only, however, to pay 3½ per cent. Yet the very same Government permitting this, ten days ago, brought forward a measure equally in violation of that great principle on which alone they declared this country ought to be conducted, and by this the Irish shareholders would have to pay five instead of 3½ per cent. He had heard much of insults to Ireland; but the greatest insult to Ireland ever offered was the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting up in that House and practically telling them that the security of Ireland was thus far inferior to the security of New Zealand. He (Mr. Disraeli) hoped that this would be everywhere stated. He trusted that the national party of Ireland, that the Irish party, that all classes of all orders of men, and that all classes of all shades of opinion, would distinctly understand that the present Government had really declared that the security of Ireland was inferior to the security of New Zealand. Let that question be put broadly at the hustings, and let it in all places be asked at the general election, "Will you vote for the man or will you support the Government that declares this?" This, indeed, was an insult to Ireland infinitely more flagrant than all he had ever heard; and he had heard much that was offensive on both sides of the House. And he hoped that the people of England would remember also at the proper time what they had been told barely a fortnight ago by one of the most eminent Members of that House—one with whom on many occasions he (Mr. Disraeli) differed, but whom he had always been ready to acknowledge as an able and real statesman—he meant the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the question at issue, in such a grant of public money, was not merely the condition of Irish railways, or assistance to a New Zealand Joint Stock Company; greater principles were involved—the principle on which this country ought to be governed was involved in the vote the House was about to give. This was what the right hon. Gentleman repeated with such eloquence on a former night, and this was what he supported with such sincerity that evening. He (Mr. Disraeli) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman; he felt that on this, as on every other occasion, when a similar proposition was made, the decision to which they had to come was, whether they should govern England like pedants, or administer the resources of the empire like statesmen. When a great and comprehensive measure was introduced, it was met by musty maxims of a so-called political economy; but when no party or momentary purpose was to be served, and the vaunted theory came to be applied, in detail, on every single occasion, they violated the principles which they maintained abstractedly to be so important, and which the right hon. Gentleman recently assured them should be of paramount consideration. "Perish the world sooner than compromise a principle," had always been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester, and recently recommended to them; yet to-night he did for the New Zealand Company what some short time since he had refused to do for Ireland; and the Government, with a glaring inconsistency with nothing but the fag-end of the Session and the conviction that public attention, jaded with all the disasters of the last six months, was no longer fixed on them, and no longer played the critic of all their political pranks, would have permitted, came forward a second time to violate every one of those declarations which, at the commencement of the Session, they insisted to be of paramount importance. He was glad that they had acted with so much wisdom; but, while they were thus registering their own condemnation, they were, in fact, giving another proof of the soundness of the policy which they (the Protectionists) had consistently supported.

, in moving that the Speaker leave the Chair, in order that the House might resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill, said that he wished to make a short statement to the House on the nature of the measure. The Bill embraced two distinct objects, one of which was the abolition of the Court of Review and the jurisdiction dependent upon it, and the other was the transfer of certain authority now vested in the Bankruptcy Commissioners in London, to the Insolvent Commissioners in London, and to the Judges of the county courts. A further object of the Bill was to save the country between 16,000l. and 17,000l. a year, by certain alterations to be made in the practice of the Insolvent Debtors' Courts, which would dispense with the necessity of the Commissioners travelling circuits in the country. while the business which was formerly done there would be transacted by the judges of the local courts. He believed that the first part of the Bill, when properly understood, would be as acceptable to the House as the latter part of it seemed to be, if he might judge from the cheers with which the announcement of the pecuniary saving to the country was received. Before, however, he touched upon the Bill itself, he must refer to a statement made by the hon. Member for Montrose the other night, that a Committee of the law Lords had expressed their opinion that any alteration in the law of bankruptcy and insolvency should be suspended until a general measure could be introduced on the subject. If, however, the hon. Member for Montrose would refer to the paper which he had alluded to, he would find that although the Committee were of that opinion, they were also of opinion that certain measures should be carried into effect at once; and the Bill before the House had for its object the accomplishment of those measures, and had received the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and Lord Lyndhurst. He would proceed, therefore, now to explain the different objects of this Bill; and he confessed he did not understand the grounds which had been urged for the further postponement of the measure, so far as it related to the three or four clauses abolishing the jurisdiction of the Court of Review. It had been urged that the Bill had been brought forward for the purpose of increasing the patronage of the Lord Chancellor—a charge which had been made by persons who wished to stop the further progress of this measure, because they knew that as long as the Court of Review stood, they had a chance of being promoted to higher offices than those which they now filled. Those who stated that the Lord Chancellor's object was to exercise his own patronage, ought to recollect what his Lordship had already done in the course of the present Session. A vacancy occurred among the Masters in Chancery—an office in the Lord Chancellor's gift; but as his Lordship thought the appointment unnecessary, the office was immediately abolished. By abolishing the Affidavit Office, also, he had relieved the country from considerable expense, and had given up much more patronage. It would be found, also, that the very first clause of the present Bill took from him the patronage which he undoubtedly possessed of appointing four Judges of the Court of Review; and subsequent clauses in the Bill took from him the power of appointing two Commissioners of Bankrupts, and from the Home Secretary the appointment of one Commissioner of Insolvent Debtors. So far, therefore, was this Bill from being intended to confer on the Lord Chancellor any patronage whatever, that it took from him patronage which he might have exercised without objection. Some years ago the whole law of bankruptcy was put upon what was considered a proper footing. Jurisdiction in bankruptcy was taken away from the Court of Chancery, and an appeal in bankruptcy matters was given to the Court of Review; but it was soon found out that the court was nearly useless, and that the machinery was very expensive. Four judges of the court were at first appointed, but the numbers being reduced by deaths and the acceptance of other appointments, Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce was made Chief Judge of the Court of Review, receiving, however, no increase of his salary as Vice Chancellor. In that state of things the Court of Review had continued for a considerable period; and, in everything but in name, the business of the Court of Review was transacted by the Court of Chancery, through the instrumentality of one of the Vice Chancellors. The Lord Chancellor, therefore, thought that it would be better to abolish the Court of Review, which now existed simply in name, and to transfer its jurisdiction to a Vice Chancellor whom he should appoint for that purpose, but not to alter the law of bankruptcy, nor the mode of administering it, because the Bill provided that the business of the court should be carried on by the party acting as Vice Chancellor, which now was administered by him as Judge of the Court of Review. It had been hinted to him that there was an object in this Bill of giving some patronage to some parties who were not named in it. He believed he might say that, so far was this from being the case, that it was directly the reverse. Mr. Ayrton had been appointed a Bankruptcy Commissioner, partly because the Lord Chancellor believed him to be the fittest person whom he could select for that office, and partly because he thought that a second registrar of the court was not necessary, and that if the office were abolished, the holder must receive compensation. Mr. Ayrton was, therefore, appointed a Commissioner in Bankruptcy, and the vacancy in the office of registrar would not be filled up. As to the other portion of the Bill, he thought that there could be no question. He believed it to be generally admitted that the new system of giving a mixed insolvency jurisdiction to the Bankruptcy Commissioners, in addition to their own especial duties, had interfered with the efficiency of the Bankruptcy Court; and if that could be put an end to, and the authority transferred to another jurisdiction, that that course would be advantageous. The chief, as well as the second Bankruptcy Commissioner, had kept accounts of their circuits, from which it appeared that the first named gentleman had visited six towns in his list without finding a single insolvent. Mr. Commissioner Phillips had also set apart one week for Liverpool. He went down there, and found that he could dispose of his business in two hours. Now this was certainly a department of judicial business which could be safely transferred to the local tribunals. He had mentioned the principal points of the Bill, and he hoped that the House would have no objection to proceed to consider the clauses in Committee.

would very gladly have consented to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, and then have discussed the clauses of the Bill in Committee, without offering any observations to the House now, had it not been for the speech just made by the Attorney General; and perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House that he should take that opportunity of stating his views of the measure. He would begin with what was the most agreeable part—that of stating his entire concurrence in a very large proportion of the Bill. To the latter portion of the measure he had no objection. He thought the abolition of the Circuit Insolvent Debtors' Court a great improvement, and he thought the transfer of their jurisdiction to the county courts would be found to be attended with great advantage. Neither did he think there could be any suspicion that the Bill was one intended to give patronage to the Lord Chancellor. But, while the larger part of the Bill had his approval, the first three clauses must be objected to by every one who wished to separate the jurisdiction in bankruptcy from the Great Seal. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, the measure had received in its favour the concurrent opinion of the Lord Chancellor, and the ex-Chancellors in the other House; but he did not know that this was a question which ought to be decided by Lord Chancellors. He did not know that Lord Lyndhurst had taken any part in the discussion; and no doubt there were Members in the House who would be able to state what the views of Lord Brougham were upon that subject. But he repeated that this question was not to be decided by Lord Chancellors, or by ex-Chancellors. It was a question that the trading community had the deepest possible interest in, and on which they were able to form a competent opinion; and he must say that the present Government had an immense advantage in its composition in this respect, possessing, as it did, Members representing the great trading communities of the country. He saw opposite to him the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), who, himself connected with trade and commerce, represented a great metropolitan constituency, and had directed much of his attention to the subject. He must say, then, that on a question of this kind the Government had not acted with the prudence which he would have expected, to rely for advice on the Lord Chancellor, and not avail themselves of the experience of those metropolitan Members of their own body who were so intimately connected with the interests of trade and commerce. The House would recollect that this subject was sent to a Commission—a mixed Commission—composed partly of lawyers and partly of gentlemen connected with trade. That Commission unanimously recommended two things: in the first place, that bankruptcy proceedings should be severed from the Great Seal; and, in the second, that separate tribunals should be established—that the Court of Review should be maintained, to which all such questions should be exclusively referred—and, taking a view of the subject very different from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), they urged, as a reason for the maintenance of the Court of Review, that it was politic to afford to the Commissioners of Bankruptcy the stimulus of some preferment. In this report the Commissioners unanimously concurred: the report was received, and, upon that report, an Act was passed which formed the law as it now existed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the whole aspect of the law would be remodelled in the next Session of Parliament; and he had also informed them that the present was a mere nominal change. He suspected, however, that there was more than the change of a name in this proposition. Why, if it was only the change of a name, could they not let matters stand as they were till next Session? The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no desire to create new patronage by the Bill; but was it equally certain that there was not, under this transfer, a desire to maintain useless offices connected with the Great Seal? It would go far to uphold an office of very doubtful policy—that of Secretary of Bankrupts; but, at all events, it appeared to him clear that if the change was merely a nominal one, it ought to be reserved till the next Session of Parliament. Was there, he would ask, any reason why creditors in this country should desire to go to the Court of Chancery for the despatch of business? Was there likely to be great expedition in that court with reference to bankrupt affairs? There was every reason why they should be jealous in the extreme of any measure which gave increased jurisdiction to that court. He did not wish to speak offensively of that tribunal; but it was matter of notoriety that great abuses still existed in connexion with the Great Seal; that the fees were felt to an undue extent by the suitors in that court; and that the hungriest and poorest suitor in it contributed to those fees. He, therefore, looked to this whole question with the greatest jealousy, and must repeat that he did not see any necessity at the close of the Session to retransfer the business connected with bankruptcy to the Court of Chancery. He had stated that he could not support the first three clauses, and also expressed his regret that the advice of the hon. Member for Lambeth had not been taken respecting the measure, which was in many respects a most excellent measure. He hoped that the Government would not press those clauses to which he objected upon the House; for if they went into Committee, and he should stand alone, he would most assuredly give those clauses his most determined opposition.

did not understand that there was any opposition to going into Committee. If he understood aright the clauses to which the right hon. Member had referred, they did not transfer to the Great Seal the business of the Court of Review, but merely gave the discharge of the duties to the Vice-Chancellor.

contended that they were not in a situation, at the close of the Session, to give that degree of attention to this Bill which it deserved. He had heard, with great pleasure and profit, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), who had called their attention to some of the more prominent defects of the measure; but the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was not his intention to oppose their going into Committee. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, to listen to what he had to advance on the subject, with the view of inducing Government not to proceed with the mea- sure, and he thought he would be able to furnish him with reasons why the Bill should not be carried a stage further. The objections to the Bill were of a grave and important character; and even those parts of it that seemed to be beneficial, deserved at the hands of the Government very careful attention. The first clause went to abolish the Court of Review. This court, which was established not many years since, was now said to be existing nominally only. It was said that it was merely a nominal tribunal; but he denied that altogether. He denied the wisdom of the arrangement; as a measure preliminary to the abolition of the Court of Review, there might be circumstances in its favour; but, as a means of adjudicating bankruptcy cases, he denied its wisdom altogether. It was alleged, as a reason for transferring the jurisdiction to one of the Judges of the Court of Chancery, that that Judge had not enough to do in his own court; he denied this, and he complained of the manner in which the business of bankruptcy was managed with reference to the public. [The hon. and learned Member detailed the manner in which causes were set down for hearing in the Court of Chancery, a suitor being invited to make his choice of the Vice Chancellor's Court in which his cause should be heard; and, having done so, when the time came for the hearing, without any notice or warning to the suitor, it was transferred by the Lord Chancellor to some other court.] He appealed to the candour of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), and of his hon. and learned Friend, and asked them to postpone the Committee on this Bill. There was nothing before the House to justify the abolition of the Court of Review, and the transferring its business to the Court of Chancery; there was not only no reason for abolishing that court, but the proper and judicious view of the question was the other way. If there was a good tribunal, it ought to be dealt with in a way to make it an efficient one, instead of which this Bill dealt with it in a way to bring it into contempt. No one could accuse the Vice Chancellor in question of incapacity; there were in the legal profession motives of preference for particular courts; but the Vice Chancellor in question, though he had less business than the other Chancery Judges, was a person of unquestioned talent and learning. If it was intended to put a slight upon the Lord Chancellor who created this tribunal, this Bill would do it. So much with respect to the first three clauses of the Bill. The general scope of the other part was to transfer the jurisdiction over insolvents to judges of recent creation in the local courts just established; and he believed that this might prove a beneficial measure; but the degree of experience as to the working of these courts had not been, in his opinion, sufficient to warrant the change at present. He did not say that it might not be beneficial to transfer to the local judges the jurisdiction in insolvency, but not in so hasty a manner; it was the very way to bring those newly-established courts into contempt. He thought that a much more extensive jurisdiction might be given hereafter to these local courts; but he would invest them with a definite jurisdiction at once, on definite grounds, and not shuffle them about, year after year, so as to deprive them of all title to respect. Why not give them something in bankruptcy, and something in charity cases? Had the Government considered this? If they had, the House should hear the reasons why they withheld this jurisdiction from the local courts, or whether they intended to give it hereafter. Why did they proceed piecemeal—one day giving insolvency, another day bankruptcy, another day charities? If enough had been seen of the working of the local courts to justify the giving them the jurisdiction transferred to them by this Bill, why not give them more? No reason had been assigned why the one was given, and the other withheld. He said that none should be given until they had seen more of the working of these courts. When Mr. Serjeant Spankie was taunted with the expense of courts of justice, he said, with great naiveté, that cheap law was a good thing, provided it were worth the little that was paid for it. Now, no one knew the expense of these local courts, and yet they were going to transfer this additional jurisdiction to them by a measure which should be of a more comprehensive and statesmanlike character than this. A petition was presented by the merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London, who were of opinion that the transfer of the jurisdiction from the Court of Bankruptcy to the High Court of Chancery should be at all events postponed, because they considered bankruptcy cases should be the business of a distinct court, and not that of a court which was a mere set-off of the Court of Chancery; also, because, they thought any sudden transfer of jurisdiction would be injurious; and, lastly, because the transference of the jurisdiction would not effect any saving of expense. By the transfer also of the jurisdiction the funds of the court would have to defray an annuity of 1,000l. or more to the two Registrars of the Court of Review, whose tenure of office had been very brief. He would ask his hon. and learned Friend to consider these reasons, and not urge forward a measure of this kind at this period of the Session. Much injury had been done to the courts of law by the sudden changes that had been made in their jurisdiction.

moved its omission. With respect to the 2nd and 3rd Clauses, he thought there was considerable force in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Newark, that the working of the local court system had not yet been developed. He thought that these clauses should also be withdrawn.

thought the right hon. Baronet had misapprehended the bearing of the clauses in question. As to the objections which had been urged by the hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. Stuart), they were not so much directed against the three clauses, as they were to the arrangement made by Lord Lyndhurst, by which the Court of Review was virtually extinguished. The object of the clauses was to give the authority of Parliament to the arrangement which already existed, by which the business which used to be transacted in the Court of Review was transferred to the Court of the Vice-Chancellor, who disposed of it according to the rules upon which the Court of Review was to be conducted. The difficulty which he felt was in defending the clauses; for he did not consider them to be of any great importance. The transfer had already taken place by Lord Lyndhurst's fiat; and although the clauses were withdrawn, the business would continue to go on as at present.

had waited patiently in the expectation of some arguments being produced in favour of the introduction of the three clauses, but he had waited in vain; so far, indeed, from hearing reasons tending to make out a case in support of the clauses, the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had assigned the best possible reasons for omitting them. He had stated that no complaint had been urged against the working of the law as it at present stood—then why alter it? But if there were no petitions in favour of an alteration, one petition of very great weight had been presented against it. The state of business in one of the Vice Chancellor's courts had been urged as an argument in favour of the change; but if there were so little doing in that court—there was not much doing in any of them—would it not be wise to consider, in the event of a vacancy occurring, how far it was advisable to fill it up? He did not think that the matter involved was so unimportant as the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) seemed to suppose. It was really wasting the time of the House to discuss clauses which were deemed to be of so little importance by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), and when the whole subject must next year undergo a full discussion.

thought the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stuart) had mistaken the nature of the clause. By the Act as it at present existed, four Judges were authorized to be appointed; but it was found there was not employment enough for one; and, as far as the shuffling of jurisdiction was concerned, that shuffle had taken place long ago, by the late Lord Chancellor appointing one of the Vice Chancellors to the office of Judge. Now, this was very wrong; because such an arrangement ought to have a legal sanction, which this Bill proposed to give. Therefore, instead of the Government being called upon to adduce reasons in support of the Bill, he thought rather that the opponents of the measure ought to adduce reasons against it; because this Bill was intended to prevent any Government from exercising patronage in filling up the offices of the four Judges which the Bill allowed. The present state of things was felt to be satisfactory; and all that the present measure proposed to take was to legalize it.

The observations of the right hon. the Secretary of State seem to me to be fatal to these clauses. The right hon. the Secretary says that we ought not to appoint a Judge of Appeal, because there will not be business enough to occupy his time. Why that, at least, shows that you have not the materials for a permanent settlement. This is the case of the Government: here is a provisional arrangement which works extremely well; and, therefore, it ought to be altered, although, at the same time, we admit that if a settlement be made, there are not materials enough for the appointment of a per- manent Judge. It must, therefore, be a provisional arrangement. [Sir G. GREY: But the business is daily diminishing.] Yes; but that is an additional argument in favour of provisional arrangement, because it appeared that the business would gradually grow finer and smaller, till some better arrangement still could be made for next Session. I agree with the right hon. Secretary of State that these clauses are of no importance, But then I ask you how, at the end of the Session, when you have already given up Bills of so much importance as the Health of Towns Bill and others, you should occupy the few valuable remaining hours of the present Session with the consideration of clauses which you admit to be of no importance? I take the admission, so far as this argument is concerned; but, in point of fact, the real question is this, shall we bring the administration of the Court of Bankruptcy under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery? That the measure is of no importance, so far as the business of the Court is concerned, only shows that there can be no necessity for having recourse to a measure which is very unpopular among the mercantile part of the community; and, therefore, if the matter goes to a division, I must support the Motion of the right hon. Member for Dorchester.

thought the operation of these three clauses would be very beneficial. He was not much struck with the objection made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that by this measure the business of the Court of Bankruptcy would be brought into the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery; because if hon. Gentlemen would consider for a moment what that meant, they would find that it did not mean that the principles and provisions and regulations of the Court of Chancery should be applied to the Court of Bankruptcy, but it only meant that the rules and principles of the Court of Bankruptcy should be administered by a Judge who was in the Court of Chancery. Surely that was not an important question. But then there was another question, referring to the subdivision of the Courts of Justice. That was a great benefit to lawyers; but it was a great evil to the public. Every time a new court was created, there was much time and money spent in settling the jurisdiction of these courts in each particular case; and, on the other hand, one of the advantages of suppressing a new court would be that it would get rid of a number of useless of- ficers, for every new court must have a separate staff. For instance, he thought the Secretary of Bankrupts might be dispensed with, if the jurisdiction were transferred to the Court of Chancery, He hoped, therefore, the House would pass these three clauses, which pledged them to nothing, and leave it open to the House to make some new arrangement at the opening of the next Session.

thought that the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) was not consistent in confining his opposition merely to the first clause of the Bill. He trusted the Government would at once consent to withdraw it, as it was clear it could not be carried during the present Session.

observed, that persons conversant with the subject attached great importance to many of the clauses of the Bill after the first four. There might be a matter of doubt as to the first four clauses; but there was none with respect to the remainder of the Bill.

said, that the best course to pursue, if they wished to get rid of the opposition, was to strike out the first three clauses of the Bill.

would not at that stage strike out the first clause, as it had been adopted by the Committee.

observed, that there had been a reconstruction of the Court of Chancery, and now Ministers admitted that it was a failure, and more especially that part relating to the Court of Review. They admitted they were going to make another experiment; all that was asked was, that the country should have five or six months for the consideration of it before it was made. The object of all should be, that the jurisdiction in bankruptcy should be as complete as possible. He certainly should again divide on the clause.

felt, after the division, that it was only his duty to urge the Government not to persist with the Bill during the present Session. In the division which had just taken place, 44 were for the clause, and 37 against it; and out of those 44 Members, not less than 20 were Members of the Government. Therefore, the fact was, that the clause was defeated by the independent Members of the House. The provisions of the measure were not known throughout the country, and there were some very unpleasant reports in circulation about it. It had been described to him as a job. This Bill had not been asked for by the public, and it had been concocted merely for the benefit of one or two parties. He had no facts to justify him in saying this, as they were only rumours. It was impossible to discuss the provisions of such a measure at that period of the Session. No one pretended to assert that this was a comprehensive measure; if, therefore, it was postponed, a much more satisfactory measure might be introduced next year.

thought that it was hardly fair to describe the Bill as a job, when at the same time the hon. Member stated that he did not know of a single fact in support of his statement. If the hon. Member had listened to the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he would hardly have designated it as he had done. The Bill had been on the Table of the House for twenty days.

considered it to be a most improper course on the part of the Government to endeavour to force this Bill through the House after what had occurred. This was not a party question; but it was the duty of all to make a measure of this kind as perfect as possible.

was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend did not divide on the principle of the Bill, as he seemed to entertain such strong objections against it.