, pursuant to notice, rose to submit the following Motion to the House:—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether any and what improvement can be adopted in the mode of conducting Private Business—Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Strutt, Lord Granville Somerset, Mr. Francis Baring, Sir William Heathcote, Mr. Hume, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Wrightson, Sir Robert Ferguson, Mr. William Miles, Mr. Loch, Sir John Yarde Buller, Sir George Clerk, and Mr. Ord."

In thus proposing to the House the appointment of a Select Committee to consider what improvements could be made in the mode of transacting Private Business, he begged to remind hon. Members that he was only following the example of former years. The House had, in two former Sessions, declared their opinion as to the expediency of appointing, for the purpose of considering the subject of Private Business, a Committee composed of those Members of that House who were accustomed to take the greatest interest in that portion of the business of the House of Commons. He was sure hon. Members would agree with him when he said that a more favourable opportunity than the present for effecting useful changes could hardly have occurred. Two months must now elapse before the private business of the Session could be said fairly to commence. As the House was now sitting, nothing could be more convenient than that they should take advantage of the time at their disposal for the purpose of carefully and deliberately considering the improvements which might be made in the mode of conducting the private business which came before that House. The importance of the private business before Parliament was at present so well understood, that it became perfectly unnecessary for him then to dilate upon it; year after year that business had been becoming of greater weight; and he must be permitted to say that the manner in which it was transacted had tended more to raise the House of Commons in the estimation of the country than any one circumstance he could mention. The reforms of a salutary nature which had from time to time been introduced in the mode of carrying on proceedings connected with the Private Bills were of a nature which greatly tended to divest them of any character of partiality, besides that it rendered the justice which those tribunals dispensed both cheap and accessible. He need scarcely remind hon. Members that from the labours of the Committees employed during the last Session of Parliament, most important improvements had resulted. These must be so fresh in the recollection of the House, that he felt he need not particularly advert to them; but, as a proof of the utility of the alterations which had been suggested, he might remind them of the appointment of a paid officer to inquire, before Bills came under the consideration of that House, whether or not the Standing Orders had been complied with. From that arrangement alone several hundred thousand pounds had been saved to the parties interested in those Bills, although the expenses attendant upon the appointment of that officer did not exceed 1,100l. or 1,200l. a year. While upon this part of the subject he could not refrain from observing, that the House and the country were much indebted to the hon. Member for Montrose for his very useful and successful exertions in promoting those objects during the last two Sessions of Parliament. That hon. Member, as they well knew, had devoted great care and attention to the subject. Looking, then, at all the circumstances of the case, he could not suppose that the House would have much difficulty in acceding to the proposition which it was his purpose then to submit for their consideration. It appeared to him at present wholly unnecessary to enter at any length into the reasons he might advance in support of his Motion. Its advantages seemed to him so obvious that it would be perfectly needless to insist upon them in detail; there was, however, one part of the subject so important that he could not avoid asking permission to say a few words on that point, namely, the great advantage that Parliament and all parties concerned derived from the attention paid to unopposed Bills; but it was still necessary that some improvement should be effected in the manner of dealing with opposed Bills. It was not to be expected that with the weight of business which the House had to get through, and with the amount of that business which they were obliged to delegate—it was not, he said, to be expected but that occasionally some subjects should escape their notice; and he could not but think that good results must ensue, if some mode were devised by which checks could be placed upon the manner in which opposed Bills were considered; whether, for example, some regulations might not be applied to opposed Bills of the same nature as those which are at present applicable to unopposed Bills. There was another point on which he wished to say a few words, and it was one, he thought, which could very advantageously be referred to the consideration of the Committee that he intended to call on the House to appoint. The matter to which he now alluded was the Amendments that came down to them from the House of Lords; and he did not speak here of anything affecting the privileges of the House of Commons as an independent branch of the Legislature, because those privileges, he felt quite assured, would be most vigilantly guarded by the right hon. Gentleman who at present filled the chair of that House; but it did happen in the case of Private Bills that Amendments were sometimes introduced in the House of Lords, which escaped notice in the House of Commons, without observation, and became incorporated in Bills. Now, it appeared to him that the Committee of which he was about to propose the appointment, might very advantageously consider whether the Chairman of Ways and Means ought not to be made responsible for the Amendments in Private Bills which came down from the House of Lords to the House of Commons. If the Committee took that view, or a different view of the subject, it would, of course, be still open to the House to reconsider the question, and to deal with it definitively, in such manner as seemed most expedient. No doubt the duties performed by the Chairman of Ways and Means were already sufficiently onerous and important, and they had of late been greatly increased. To impose upon that hon. Member this additional duty formed a point on which he should express no decided opinion; neither should he say whether or not that hon. Member ought to be relieved, wholly or in part, from other duties which he at present performed, or whether the share which he took in private business should be completely separated from the functions dis- charged by that Member of the House of Commons who filled the office of Chairman of Ways and Means. Upon these several points he should, as he said, express no opinion, but suggest that they be referred to the consideration of the proposed Committee. These few words conveyed all the remarks with which he meant to trouble the House. He should not take up the time of the House further than to say, it might be a matter for consideration with the Committee, how far they might avail themselves of the assistance of the officer whose duty it was to draw up the breviate; and he certainly thought, with regard to the first breviate, it might be dispensed with: the others might be given; but he did think that dispensing with the first breviate might be an advantage. He wished, before he sat down, to repeat, that on none of these points did he offer any decided opinion, either as to the appointment of another paid officer, or upon any other subject. He ventured to give no opinion, for this among other reasons, that the duties in which he had been during the last year engaged precluded his giving any attention to the private business of that House; he was, therefore, anxious rather to hear the sentiments of others, than to express any opinion of his own. The Members whose names he intended to submit to the House were Gentlemen of great experience in private business, having given much time and attention to that subject. For these several reasons, he hoped that his Motion, as it stood on the Paper, would be acceded to by the House.

, in seconding the Motion, said, it would be in the power of that House, if they followed up the suggestion then made, to reduce to one-fourth the expenses which the private business of Parliament occasioned to the public. The House would recollect that, by its resolutions of last Session, it declared that Committees on Private Bills should consist of five Members; that they should all be especially enjoined to attend the meetings of the Committees; and that those who had not been punctual in their attendances should not be permitted to vote. The effect of these regulations certainly had been to give the community at large more confidence than ever in the impartiality of that House, and its earnest wish to do equal justice to all the parties concerned. He hoped that the Committee to be appointed would take a careful review of all that had been already done, and that they would lay before the House such recommendations as would facilitate the transaction of business, and diminish the labour which devolved upon Members of that House.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to do away with the breviates. Members derived much information from those documents, and they appeared to him to be of great importance.

said, he had not been fortunate enough to hear the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's statement; but he imagined the effect of the proposition then before them would be to add another paid officer to those already engaged in the service of the House. He did not think that such a step ought to be taken just now, the more especially as it was probable that in the present depressed state of the country the private business would not be very onerous.

explained: He had given no decided opinion as to the appointment of any officer; on the contrary, he considered that to be a fitting subject for the consideration of the Committee. He had said nothing decidedly; but he wished to impress this on the House, that a saving to the country of 200,000l. a year had been effected by an expenditure of 1,200l. a year.

observed that, in his opinion, it was high time to resist an alteration of this kind; so far from increasing the number of paid officers, he thought that salaries ought to be diminished. Hon. Members might say that a paid officer was wanted here or there; but all this was mere words. There might be much said about economy; but he judged of sayings by their practical results. Of late years one lavish commission was appointed after another, and in the end no good was done, Unfortunately there was now very little in the Exchequer, and he feared that that little would soon be less. He would say cavendo tutus, it would be well to hold what they had, and not be too ready to part with that for the sake of an uncertain advantage. He should join his hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire in opposing this proposition, unless very fair and just grounds were laid before them for making the proposed change. He should be sorry to increase the labours of the hon. Gentleman who held the office of Chairman of Ways and Means; but he (Colonel Sibthorp), as a humble Member of that House, must pause before he could assent to any Motion for adding to the number of paid officers.

hoped that some means might be devised of saving the public money and the time of the House.

believed that the reduction of fees was the only thing done towards a diminution of expenditure; he believed that other changes had rather added to than diminished expenditure. Many towns were put to great expense by the Commission sent down by the Woods and Forests; and though, situated as he was, he did not wish to pronounce any opinion on the conduct of the Railway Commission, yet it added to expense.

observed, that hon. Members on the other side argued as if his right hon. Friend had contended for the appointment of another paid officer; on the contrary, it was distinctly stated that Government were not prepared to make any such proposition. His right hon. Friend merely wished for the appointment of a Committee, as on former occasions, and no opinion whatever had been given as to what the recommendations of that Committee ought to be. The hon. Member for Sunderland, he thought, could hardly have been present when his right hon. Friend had made his statement to the House, else he would not have said, as he had done, that with the exception of the alteration made in respect to the fees, all the other alterations had tended rather to an increase than a diminution of expenses. If the hon. Gentleman had attended to the speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere), he would have heard that in reference to a matter respecting which material complaints were made in former Sessions, a most marked improvement had been effected by the introduction of a system by which great accommodation was afforded to the public. He (Mr. Strutt) recollected that in the Session before last, as well as in many others, it was constantly a subject of complaint, that parties were put to enormous expenses by waiting to have their cases come forward before Committees on Private Bills. Every day large sums of money used to be expended in connexion with the examination of the Standing Orders. In one case the parties actually paid 500l. for expenses of witnesses. In the last Session an important improvement was made in reference to this matter; and it was reported by the Committee that the effect of that improvement was that at tie expense of a salary of only 1,200l. a year, an end had been put to expenses amounting to several thousands a year. That statement made by the Committee could not have been read by the hon. Gentleman, or he would not have said that no improvement had been effected by the change of system. He did not now intend to express any opinion on the suggestions of his right hon. Friend; but of this he felt quite assured, that the proposed Committee would not recommend any increased expenditure of the public money at the disposal of the House, unless they should see the certainty that such increased expenditure would tend greatly to the advantage of the country by diminishing the expenses of parties, and by rendering the conduct of the private business more economical, more speedy, and more satisfactory.

appeared at the bar with Her Majesty's Answer to the Address of the Commons. His Lordship said that he had to inform the House, that, in obedience to its commands, he had had the honour of waiting on Her Majesty with the Address, to which Her Majesty had been pleased to return the following most gracious Answer:—

"I hare received with satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.

"I rely with confidence on your co-operation with me in My endeavours to advance the social condition of My people, and promote the welfare of all classes of My Subjects."

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had replied last night to a question put by the hon. Member for Montrose, relative to such Excise regulations as had a vexatious character in respect to certain articles. He wished to know whether that reply was intended to apply also to the article of malt?

certainly understood the question of the hon. Member for Montrose to apply more particularly to Excise regulations on malt and spirits. With respect to malt, the attention of the Government and the Excise Board had been directed to the subject, and he hoped to be able to introduce a measure for the purpose of removing all those Excise restrictions which operated vexatiously towards the manufacturer, and were not necessary for the protection of the revenue.

inquired whether the appointment of Mr. Merivale as Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was a permanent one, and by what authority it had been made?

said, the appointment of Mr. Merivale was made by the Treasury with the view of affording assistance in carrying on the very important business of the Colonial Office.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer "whether it was intended to give the Bank of England authority (under the 5th section of the Bank Charter Act) to increase its issue on securities (beyond the prescribed basis of 14,000,000l.) in consequence of the void caused in the circulation by the recent failure of private banks (or joint-stock banks) of issue?"

replied, that no application had been made from the Bank of England for permission to extend its issues in that way, and therefore Government had not exercised its discretion on that point.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the time for the purchase of land and completion of the works by railway companies. He said: If the debate on the first night of the Session had taken that direction which I expected it would in all probability have taken, it would have been my duty then not only to have stated to the House the reasons which induced the Government to take the course they have done, but also to have stated the view which they have formed of the causes of the commercial pressure. Among those causes I certainly should have included the great absorption of capital by the demands of railway companies. In stating this, I do not mean to say that that has been the only, or, perhaps, the principal cause. I do not wish on the present occasion to ask any person to give up his opinion as to other causes to which he may attribute the pressure; but it always is a great mistake to attribute any great result to one single cause; and all I ask of hon. Gentlemen who may entertain opinions different from mine is, that for this night they should admit nothing more than that the absorption of capital by railway companies is one of those causes which have contributed to deprive the commercial world of the amount of accommodation which it previously enjoyed. It would have been more satisfactory to me if I had been enabled to state to the House the whole case at once; but, inasmuch as it is desirable that no time should be lost in introducing this Bill into Parliament, it is not a matter of choice, but of necessity, that I take this portion of the case independently and separately, The point to which I wish to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen is the inconvenience sustained by persons in commerce, by the abstraction of an amount of capital which, in my opinion, has been too rapidly converted from floating capital into fixed capital. I do not know that any Gentleman will deny that the floating capital of the country is employed mainly in carrying on the ordinary operations of agriculture and commerce. The surplus and available capital is employed in the further development of agriculture and commerce, in the erection of buildings required from one end of the country to the other, and in the construction of permanent works, including docks and railways, contributing ultimately to the wealth and improvement of the country. But if floating capital is too rapidly converted into fixed capital, pressure must arise on those who before enjoyed the advantage of the floating capital. I am so far from entertaining any feelings hostile to railways, that probably no one conceives a higher idea than myself of the advantage they will ultimately prove to the country; but, in saying that the floating capital which is constantly turned over from time to time is employed in reproduction, and that that which is sunk in the promotion of permanent works, docks, or railroads, however ultimately beneficial such application of money may prove, for some time only pays an annual interest, and does not immediately contribute to reproduction, and that, in the meantime, a great absorption of money for these purposes causes a pressure on the available capital of the country—I am stating nothing but what I believe common consent allows. I will illustrate the point by a familiar example: Suppose a large farmer, in conducting his farming operations, em- ploys 10,000l. on his farm, such sum being necessary for the payment of labour and for the purchase of the means of carrying on his farm, and, having a surplus of l,000l. beyond, employs that sum in draining or in some permanent improvement. So long as he employs in the latter way that which he has above what is necessary for carrying on the ordinary purposes of his farm, all prospers; but if he abstracts that which is necessary to carry on the ordinary concerns of the farm, then, however beneficial the drainage of his farm may ultimately be, no one can deny that during the process the ordinary operations of the farm will be crippled. It is the same case with the manufacturer. He may have a certain amount of capital necessary to carry on his trade, for the purchase of raw material, and for the payment of labour; but if he finds it necessary to introduce improved machinery, and if, for that purpose, he abstracts from the capital necessary to carry on the ordinary operations of his concern, then, however beneficial the improved machinery may be in the end, no one can deny that during the time of the temporary abstraction of capital great inconvenience may be experienced. Now, I apprehend that which is true of individuals is equally true of the whole community; and if the whole community chooses to convert floating capital into fixed capital with too great rapidity, it must follow that the capital available for general mercantile and manufacturing purposes will be diminished for a time; and during the period of this diminution persons who are engaged in mercantile and manufacturing pursuits must, so to speak, be pinched in the means for carrying on their operations. I apprehend that, for some time past, this process has been going on to a greater or less extent in this country. So long as the demand for capital for the construction of railways was not heavy, adequate means were available for carrying on the ordinary commercial operations of the country—a fair amount being vested annually in the construction of railways; but, after a time, the demand for capital for the purpose of forming railroads became too large, and the natural consequence was—as we have seen—that for the last year and a half there has been a considerable rise in the rate of interest. When parties were competing with each other—when railroad companies, on the one hand, were borrowing money to a large extent, and the commercial world, on the other hand, required more capital than they possessed, the effect of this competition was to raise the rate of interest, and the supply of capital was not equal to the demand. I do not know that I can state the effect of such a state of things better than in the words of a very able article which appeared in the Economist last Saturday. If the noble Lord the Member for Lynn think the statement not correct, he will probably be able to show the House in what respect it is inaccurate. I certainly cannot express my views better than in the language of this article, and I shall therefore take the liberty of reading it to the House. The writer states that a certain document might be obtained, which would show

—"that a large portion of the capital which was disposable for commercial purposes through bank credit at the former period, had in the mean time become absorbed in railways; that the country bankers, therefore, have not now the same enormous funds to dispose of; that the bill brokers are therefore without the same means to re-discount the bills of other country bankers, and are wholly unable to make advances on dock warrants or bills of lading; and that commerce is thus deprived of the means which were formerly at its disposal in consequence of the new distribution of the capital of the country."

Certainly, from all the sources of information which have been at my command, I believe that to be a faithful account of the process that has been going on; and I also believe it to have been one of the causes which produced the distress under which the commercial world has lately been suffering. I may say further, that this is not an opinion which I formed after the commercial pressure arose. It is known to many hon. Gentlemen—certainly to the Members of the late Government—that Mr. Porter, who was formerly engaged in the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, but whom the present Government have had great pleasure in placing in a higher position, represented to the Government at the end of 1845 that the demands of the railway companies were increasing so rapidly that he believed they would abstract so large a portion of the capital required for commercial purposes, that considerable commercial pressure and distress must before long be produced. That opinion was expressed a year and a half before the pressure occurred; and I think it affords sufficient proof that those who were most conversant with the facts, and had ample means for forming their opinion before the pressure took place, concur in the views which I have expressed. I believe I have given an accurate statement of the course of events; and I will now proceed to show, from such documents as I have in my possession, the extent to which the demand for capital for railway projects was carried. I will only premise that it is perfectly impossible to attain any very minute accuracy in the accounts of railway expenditure; for the accounts are so complicated, owing to the number of bills authorising the transfer of capital from one project to another, that it is impossible to make any accurate statement within 1,000,000l. or 2,000,000l. I believe, however, that the statements I am about to make are generally correct. It may be interesting to the House to know the amounts authorised by Parliament to be raised for the construction of railways, and the sums which have been actually expended. The first statement to which I shall call the attention of the House was drawn up by Mr. Porter, and gives an account of the sums to be raised, under the authority of Parliament, for the formation of railways. I believe that, previously to 1826, not more than a million and a half of money had been expended upon railways under the authority of Parliament. From 1826 to 1835 Parliament authorised the raising of about 19,000,000l. for the construction of railways; in 1836 and 1837, which were years of commercial prosperity, upwards of 36,000,000l. were authorised to be raised for the same purpose. The distress which occurred about that time seems to have had the effect of checking, to a considerable extent, the disposition to apply for Railroad Bills; and in the course of the next six years a comparatively small number of such Bills was passed. In 1844 and 1845 Parliament authorised the raising of 74,000,0002. for the construction of railways. The railway mania attained its height in 1845; and in 1846 no less than 800 plans for railways were submitted to the Railway Board, and in that year the amount of expenditure sanctioned by Bills which received the assent of Parliament was no less than 132,000,000l. The total expenditure authorised between 1826 and 1846, for the construction of railways, was 286,000,000l., by far the greater portion of which expenditure was sanctioned during the last three years. The amount authorised by Parliament to be expended upon railways in the Session of 1847 was upwards of 38,000,000l. The sums I have mentioned are those which Parliament authorised to be raised; and I do not mean to say that they represent the amount actually expended upon the construction of railways. The noble Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) stated very truly the other night, that the money expended in the purchase of land and in Parliamentary expenses could not be considered as abstracted from the available capital of the country. Mr. Porter estimates one-fifth of the whole amount for the purchase of land and for Parliamentary expenses; but after allowing for these, there remained at the end of 1846, a future outlay of 145,000,000?., and to this is to be added the expenditure sanctioned in 1847, which I before stated at 38,000,000l. I hold in my hand a statement, drawn up by the Railway Board, showing, as nearly as can be ascertained, the expenditure authorised by Railway Bills which have received the sanction of Parliament in each year since 1840. The amounts are as follows:—In 1840, 4,000,000l..; 1841, 3,500,000l.; 1842, 6,000,000l.; 1843, 4,500,000l.; 1844,18,000,000l.; 1845, 59,000,000l.; 1846, 124,500,000l.; 1847, 38,300,000l.;. These are the sums authorised to be expended upon the purchase of land, the construction of works, and in Parliamentary expenses in each year, in addition to the expenditure sanctioned in former years. The noble Member for Lynn (Lord Gr. Bentinck), in his speech the other night, stated the amount which had been expended upon railways; but the conclusion drawn by the noble Lord was calculated to lead the House into grave error as to the years in which that expenditure took place, because, by dividing the whole amount by the number of years in which it had been raised, it was made to appear that there had been no considerable increase of expenditure in recent years, but that it had been equally distributed over the whole period. That, however, is very far from having been the case. The noble Lord stated that the total amount of expenditure, divided by the number of years, had not exceeded 12,500,000l. a year; but that statement does not afford the slightest notion of the actual expenditure in each year. The House will see, from the statement I am about to make, and which has been drawn up with great care, that the expenditure has very considerably increased within the last two years; and that it has recently borne most heavily upon the resources of the country, and latterly with a gradually increasing pressure. The statement I am about to make is, to a certain degree, an estimate formed upon the average expenditure, so far as it can be ascertained; but I have every reason to believe that it is generally accurate. It appears from this statement, that the railway expenditure in 1841 was 1,470,000l.; in 1842, 2,980,000l.; in 1843, 4,435,000l.; in 1844, 6,105,000l.; in the first half-year of 1845, 3,510,000l.; in the second half-year of 1845, 10,625,000l.; in the first half-year of 1846, 9,815,000l.; in the second half-year of 1846, 26,670,000l.; and in the first half-year of 1847, 25,770,000l. Now I wish to show the House some grounds for thinking that this statement is pretty nearly accurate. The noble Member for Lynn stated the other night, that the amount expended upon railways between 1841 and 1846, including both those years, had been 50,000,000l. Now, the amount estimated by the Railway Board to have been expended in the same period is 65,000,000l.; including the purchase of land and Parliamentary expenses; and, deducting one-fifth of this amount for Parliamentary expenses and the purchase of land, the annual expenditure appears to be about 52,000,000l. This statement, therefore, very nearly corresponds with that of the noble Lord. With regard to the last eighteen months, the estimate of the Railway Board gives a little above 62,000,000l. as the amount expended from January, 1846, to the last autumn; and I find from the half-yearly statements made by the different railway companies that their expenditure appears to be a few hundred thousand pounds above 62,000,000l. I think I have shown, then, that, on these two points, the calculation made by the Railway Board is by no means excessive; and, from this circumstance, I conceive it may be inferred that the statement is generally accurate. I have shown that of late years the expenditure upon railways has gone on increasing in a most extraordinary manner; and that, whereas for a considerable time the demands of railway companies were not excessive, from the midsummer of 1846 those demands did become excessive, and increased in a most extraordinary degree, and that from that time to this they have been pressing in a most unexampled manner upon the available capital of the country. With regard to the last half-year of 1847, the case is somewhat different, because I believe it has not been quite so easy to borrow money or to extract the calls from the pockets of the shareholders. But an estimate of the expenditure, which has gradually increased from 1841 to 1846, has been made up to the year 1850; and it appears, that if the expenditure had gone on in the same ratio, it would have amounted, upon Acts already passed, to 64,000,000l. this year, of which 38,000,000l. would have been in the last half of the year; in l848 to70,000,000l. in l849 to47,000,000l.; and in l850to 10,000,000l. By that time, judging from the speed at which railway works have hitherto been constructed, the whole of the works already in progress would have been completed. It must be remembered, that this drain of capital was contemporaneous with a scarcity of corn. I do not wish now to enter into this part of the question, because I shall have to do so on an early occasion; but I may observe that the demand for the available capital of the country has rapidly increased, within the last two or three years, to an extent out of all proportion to what it had been in former years; and that, even supposing no other causes than those I have mentioned had been in operation, they are amply sufficient to account for a very considerable pressure upon the commercial world. That pressure has been strongly represented to me from many parts of the kingdom, and especially from the manufacturing districts, as most prejudicial to their interests; and I think the House will agree with me that, if it is possible to diminish that pressure by retarding the completion of railway works, or spreading their construction over a longer period of time, we shall confer great benefit upon the country. Some of the representations which have been made to me indicated a much stronger course than I have thought it advisable to pursue. No sooner had I come to town, than letters were addressed to my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) and myself, urging the adoption of some measure for putting an instant stop to railway works altogether. They recommended that an Order in Council should be issued; that Parliament should be called together; indeed, there was scarcely any measure, however strong, which we were not recommended to take. I need hardly say that we did not think it advisable to adopt any of these courses; and, on the best consideration we could give to the subject, we were of opinion that we ought not to recommend any compulsory measures. The Bill, therefore, which I am now about to propose, is not of a compulsory nature. When we came to consider the number of contracts existing, the number of labourers employed by the contractors, the engagements which have been entered into with manufacturers of various kinds, and the number of persons whose employment depends in one way or other on the progress of railway works, we arrived at the conclusion that it would be exceedingly injudicious to propose any compulsory measures. The object, therefore, of the Bill which I am about to propose to the House is to give to the railway companies an extension of time for the purchase of land and the completion of their works. Railway Acts generally require that the land shall be purchased within a certain time, and the companies are therefore compelled to raise a considerable portion of their capital as fast as they can. I think it would be exceedingly wise to release them from that obligation. But there is another class of railroads with regard to which I think we may take stronger measures. I propose, with reference to those railways which are in course of construction, to do no more than to relieve the companies from the obligation of buying the land, or completing the Works, within the time prescribed. I propose to give the landowners a claim to compensation for any additional injury they may sustain in consequence of the delay in the purchase of their land. The postponement of purchase is to be a voluntary act off the part of the companies, and we shall provide that the landlords shall not be injured by such postponement. [Lord Gr. BENTINCK: In what way are the damages to be assessed?] In precisely the same Way in which damages are now assessed in any case of damage sustained by parties entitled to compensation. But with regard to those railways where the Works have not been commenced, stronger measures may be taken, though still to be of the nature of voluntary proceedings. I propose to extend in their case the period for the purchase of land and the completion of the works; but I propose also that the directors shall not be authorised to commence the construction of works without the consent of a certain proportion of the shareholders. They are the persons by whom the calls are to be paid, and I think it very desirable to give them a more effective control over the directors. I propose, therefore, to enact that the directors of any company whose works have not been commenced on the day when this Bill is introduced, shall not be empowered to pro- ceed with the construction of the works without the previous consent of a certain proportion of the shareholders. These are the only provisions in the Bill I propose to introduce. I may as well, however, here state the object which I have in view in the Motion of which I have given notice, for a Committee on Railway Bills of this Session. I propose that a Committee should be appointed with regard to those Railway Bills which were suspended last Session, and those which may be introduced in this Session; my object is, that all such Bills should be referred either to a Committee of this House or to the Railway Board—I myself think it should be a Committee of this House—to consider which of those Bills should be allowed to go on. It is obvious that there may be many of those Bills which propose only deviations or the construction of small extensions, greatly for the convenience of the public, but not calling for a great amount of capital, and involving no material additional drain upon the resources of the country, and it may be extremely desirable that these should be passed into laws; but I must say I think the House will exercise a sound discretion in determining that no Bills should be passed this Session involving a very large outlay of capital. I think we have perhaps all of us to take some blame to ourselves for the amount of Bills that have been passed; I have never said a single syllable throwing the whole blame, or more than their due share, upon the railroad companies or the railroad directors; we are all to blame; we have been "art and part" in the matter. But hon. Gentlemen will remember that in earlier years it was no easy matter to persuade the House to adopt any course of this kind. It was proposed to the House in 1846 by the then Government to subject Railway Bills to some such inquiry or investigation as I am proposing, and a Committee was appointed to consider the mode in which the House should deal with them. I had not the honour of being a member of that Committee; but to the best of my belief no feasible plan was even suggested then; and the Government found it so difficult—or perhaps utterly impossible—that they were obliged to give up the design they entertained of checking the disposition to pass more Bills. I confess that at that time I did not myself see my way, and could not say how it was to be done; and I found that other Gentlemen experienced the same difficulty; but I believe now that men's opinions are entirely changed. I believe that, so far from having to fear opposition from railway directors in the course I have to propose, I shall receive from many of them, at least, a cordial co-operation. I have communicated with several chairmen of railway boards, and I have found them most anxious to co-operate in checking the demand for the construction of new works; and I hope to receive a pretty general support from the directors of railway companies. I have been applied to to introduce some Bill for facilitating the dissolution of companies; but upon further inquiry I have found only one company pressing an application of that kind; and I have felt that when an Act has been passed, and the railroad company entered into engagements, you have no right to release them from that liability, at least without the consent of the parties concerned. That may be a very fair subject for the consideration of a Committee, but it is not one with which I am prepared to deal by Bill. [Mr. DIVETT: What extension of time do you propose?] That will perhaps be more properly discussed in the Committee; my own disposition is to give two or three years beyond the time limited in the Acts, either for the purchase of land or the completion of works. I propose, whatever may be the time within which a company is bound to purchase land or complete the works, to extend that time for two or three years. I cannot say I have myself a very strong opinion which period it should be; but as I have said, it can be discussed in Committee. In like manner, as to the proportion of shareholders whose consent should be obtained—whether it should be two-thirds or three-fourths, it is difficult to say why it should be one rather than the other; but that also may be left to the Committee. I now beg leave to move for leave to bring in a Bill for carrying into effect the two propositions I have stated—namely, that there should be an extension of time granted to all those railway companies whose works have been already begun, and a prohibition for a limited period in the case of companies whose works have not been commenced, unless they obtain the consent of a certain number of shareholders.

did not rise to oppose the Motion; but the right hon. Gentleman had talked of allowing compensation for land that had been seized—for a seizure it was, an unjustifiable inroad upon private property, an attack upon the poor man's cottage, and the little man's land. Talk of compensation!—why not take back the money, and give back the land? This railway system should not be called English law; it was more like Algerine law, or Russian power exercised in this dominion. God forbid that he should set himself against any improvements! he was not chargeable, in any act of his life, with opposing anything that would contribute to the benefit of the country: but had railways done so? Why, it was stated that our unprecedented commercial distress originated in a great measure with these projects: was that beneficial to the country? How many unfortunate beings, who used to obtain their livelihood by industry, had they thrown adrift or sent into the workhouse? The Chancellor of the Exchequer should bring in a Bill to extend the time for the payment of his salary, or give the money to the poor men who would now be suddenly thrown out of employ. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and said, "We have all been to blame:" what right had the right hon. Gentleman to charge him with doing what he had never done, and trusted in God he never should do? He denied that he ever sanctioned the system. But, as to this plan of restricting the companies, the effect would be that a man would be carried half way to his destination, and then set down with no further railroad and no carriages. At all events, the land that had been taken ought to be paid for at once, or within a limited time, or else given up. It ought to be remembered that it was taken from the proprietor contrary to his wishes.

did not rise to offer the least opposition to the Bill, nor to complain that the measure, as far as it was proposed to go, was not the most suitable under present circumstances. On the contrary, he thought that had the right hon. Gentleman gone further, he would have found great difficulty, and he had exactly met one part of the evil by proposing to give companies the power of spreading their expenditure over a larger portion of time. Neither did he rise to find fault with the past proceedings of the present Government, or of that which preceded it; but he did not wish to be included in the list of those who, foreseeing, as all the House did, the enormous evils likely to flow, not from the system—for it was excellent, and the country had derived the greatest possible benefits from it—but from the abuse of the system, omitted to suggest any practicable remedy for a part of the mischief. He was the more inclined to make that statement, because he did expect from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer some observations upon other parts of the existing system beyond those with which he proposed to deal by his Bill. One of the most serious evils under which we now suffered was the power given to these enormous corporations to borrow money under their Acts. He did propose to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir E. Peel), when he was in office, that if the speculation and competition could not be arrested, at all events it might be considered whether Parliament, in giving these companies the power to raise capital for their undertakings, should not have limited the power, and not given the right introduced of late into all Bills of this description for forming canals, turnpike-roads, docks, and so on, to borrow to the extent of one-third of the capital subscribed. That might be a very good thing carried to some extent; with the enormous mass of floating capital in this country, and the temptation to send it abroad, it might be politic, to a reasonable extent, to enable the possessors of it to invest it upon the security of works of this description; but what might be expedient to a certain extent was quite otherwise when carried to the enormous extent to which it was proposed to raise capital for railroads. When Parliament had a host of demands for powers to raise, not 10,000l., 20,000l., or 30,000l., but hundreds of thousands, it was time for those authorities that had charge of the financial affairs of the country to consider whether it was not politic to check the practice. He proposed to the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), as one of the limitations that might have been most justly applied to the then mania, that a limit should be put upon the power of borrowing money under these Railway Acts. Enormous as the speculation had been, it had been only one cause of our difficulties. It was a symptom of the abuse of credit, very much like what we saw before in the case of the South American mines and the North American speculations—a symptom of which, under any circumstances, we must look for the repetition; at least, he had heard no remedy proposed that was very likely to put a stop to it. But see the difficulties to which individual traders were exposed by the competition they were obliged to encounter with the bonds and debentures of these railroad companies. The competition was not so great when capital was being raised for the railroad, though a man who subscribed towards such an undertaking went to the extent of his means, or his expected means. When these great corporations had the power of borrowing, they went into the money market with bonds, and debentures, and mortgages of all descriptions, and with a better security—a more convertible security, at all events—than the trader had it in his power to offer for the money which was essential for conducting his business. That was one of the greatest evils under which the country now suffered. That was an enormous injury to the trader who was obliged to discount his bills, and which bills were founded upon some actual transaction in which the productive industry of the country was immediately and directly concerned. He had always thought that a limitation of that power on the part of the railway companies was a check which it was competent for the Government to apply to undue speculation; and he had always regretted that such a practical remedy had not been adopted. There was another point to which he was anxious to call the attention of his right hon. Friend, because he considered it was one with which it was competent for the Government to deal. Parliament had given the railway companies power to realise 10 per cent upon their capital. He did not consider this too much. Where men embarked their money in such great undertakings, they were entitled to reap a just profit, and he did not think 10 per cent more than was reasonable and fair. But there were transactions connected with these railways in which not only 10 per cent profit was made, but even so much as 100 per cent, and this with the sanction of Parliament. He did not so much complain of the 100 per cent profit as he did of the encouragement which was given by the Government to these proceedings, by which temptations were held out to poor people to risk their little property in transactions with the nature of which they were very little acquainted. He was chairman of a Committee that made a report to the House recommending that some principle should be laid down upon which capital, by way of loans, should be raised for these great undertakings. That report was submitted to his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Clerk), who was Vice-President of the Board of Trade in the late Government; but it was taken no notice of. When his own friends came into office, he sent the report to them, and pointed out the abuse, and urged upon them the necessity of immediate interference. But neither Government took the least notice of it, and now there were great difficulties. The measure now proposed by his right hon. Friend seemed to be the only one which it was competent for him to call upon the House to adopt. It was impossible they could pass any compulsory measure affecting undertakings in which a number of persons had invested two-thirds of their capital. It would be too much to say to them—"You must stop where you are." After having granted them these extensive powers, by which they were induced to invest their capital, that would be a most unjust and violent act. He quite agreed with his right hon. Friend, that the only course they could adopt was to allow the expenditure of the money which the companies were empowered to raise to be extended over a larger portion of time. But he did hope that they would have some inquiry instituted, or some proposition made by Government, with a view to a limitation of the powers to be given to joint-stock companies to raise capital by borrowing money in the market. The community were now suffering under the greatest possible difficulty from their inability to raise money, and were calling on the Legislature to afford them some protection against the competition to which they were exposed by the powers given to these great companies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson) sometimes found fault with him because he wished (as the right hon. Gentleman alleged) to interfere with the transactions of these companies, who, the right hon. Gentleman contended, had a full and unrestricted right to manage their own concerns. To this he had always replied—that if persons would come and ask of the Legislature for extraordinary powers to be exercised by them as an incorporated body, it was not only within the competence of that Legislature, but it was its especial duty, to limit the powers so asked for in such a way and to such a degree as that they should not interfere with or injure the common transactions of the people. It was upon that ground that he asked the House to interpose its authority. He did not call for any interference with the right hon. Gentleman in carrying on his own affairs; but when that right hon. Gentleman came to the House and asked for a monopoly, and when that monopoly gave to the right hon. Gentleman powers that would come into injurious competition with the merchants and tradesmen of the country, it was then fit that the House should protect, as far as it could, the exercise of individual industry against such monopolising powers. After a great deal of difficulty a measure was passed in the last Parliament (but almost too late to be of any real benefit), by which an end was put to the practice which these companies had adopted of paying interest upon "calls." He certainly had endeavoured to accomplish much more; but it was almost impossible for any individual, without the assistance of Government to carry any measure against the strong party who were for unlimited power in managing these vast speculations, and therefore he was obliged to be content with what he did obtain. He hoped the country would take a lesson for the future from the past, and regulate this power of borrowing money with reference to the means which the country possessed of furnishing the capital sought to be raised.

I can bear testimony to the truth of the gallant Colonel's assertion, that he has on all occasions given the moat strenuous opposition to railways, and all connected with them; but I cannot bear testimony to the same course having been pursued by the hon. Member for Coventry. That right hon. Gentleman has complained of the great number of Railway Bills that were passed during the last Session of Parliament, and has reminded us of the warnings which he gave as to the ruinous consequences that would follow the enactment of those Bills, and that he predicted they would involve the country (but which I totally deny) in that distress under which it is at this moment labouring. Now, I cannot forget that I had the honour of opposing the right hon. Gentleman in a project which he had for the formation of a railway connecting the town of Coventry with a little town called Southend. There was already a railway communication between these two places, and the proposed new line would only save three minutes in the transit; but the right hon. Gentleman was a most strenuous advocate for the formation of this new railway, and implored the House to pass the Bill. If any hon. Gentleman, therefore, is implicated in passing these measures more than another, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman as being that man. We have always heard that example is better than precept. The right hon. Gentleman set the example, and his late hon. Colleague followed it, for he supported the Bill. The people of Coventry were not enamoured with the new line, and were not quite convinced that their other hon. Member was right in not following the course of his right hon. Colleague, as the result of the late election has proved. As to the powers given to these companies, I am not prepared to say whether they are too extensive or not. All those companies with which I am connected have confined themselves very much within the powers that have been given to them with regard to borrowing money. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that the only parties whose interests were to be regarded were those who borrowed money, and he did not take into consideration the interests of those who lent it. Why should not the poor man who by industry had accumulated a few hundred pounds be at liberty to invest it at a high profit when the opportunity was afforded him? The right hon. Gentleman would have him, as now, lend his money at a low rate of interest to the tradesman, the tradesman to the banker, and the banker to the merchant; or he would have him deposit it with the bill broker, in order that he may sustain large mercantile houses, such as those that have broken down during the recent distressing panic. But what can be better than furnishing the people of this country with the means of a fair and legitimate investment of their money? Rely upon it, if you do not furnish it here, they will find it elsewhere. This is not the only country in which capital can be invested in railways. If men, having money, do not find opportunities for profitably investing it in this country, they will seek those opportunities abroad. When money is making only two and a half per cent in this country, is it not natural to find it embarked in foreign railways? You cannot prevent it. Men having capital will carry it to the best market; and when interest is low in the employment of capital in one direction, it will necessarily flow into other channels; and a great blessing it is that it has flown in the direction it has. Though I was one of those who felt largely the inconvenience arising from the number of lines Which were sanctioned by the House, yet, seeing the prospect of these undertakings, I believe there was no other course that the House could at that time take, though I admit it has in some slight degree been the cause of the distress, by the power it has given of the increased consumption of the poor which has since ensued. But is it not enough to account for the distress that exists in this country to refer it to the large importations of food that have taken place, without endeavouring to ascribe it to the railways? The railways hare not taken the gold out of the country. Every article they consume is the produce of British labour, and of British growth. Do we not increase your imports? and are we not enabling the poor man to lire in greater affluence, and consume more largely the produce of this country? That is all the inconvenience we occasion you; and are these things evils, and to be deplored? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the railways have absorbed the money which Would otherwise be employed in the ordinary channels of trade; but is that money unprofitably employed? Are not the railways giving employment to large numbers of men? Do they not increase the consumption of farming produce? Is there not a great additional expenditure on horses; and are not the poor-rates considerably reduced? Depend upon it, my countrymen are too far-sighted not to know whether it is to their own interest that they should promote the formation of railways. Yet, the manufacturers are urging us not to make calls, and are advising men of property not to invest their money in railways. It would be well if these gentlemen would take advice themselves, and not give accommodation bills to foreign merchants, or carry on a forced trade by fictitious credit, thereby deranging the exchanges and interfering with the due course of commerce by the facilities which those bills afford. Had they limited their acceptances, stopped the importation of sugar and other foreign produce, and thereby kept the gold at home, they would have done some good, and have greatly mitigated the panic that has occurred. But what is their counsel to us? That we are not to expend money on labour; for it is upon labour that we do expand it. The right hon. Gentleman talks of railways paying dividends by money raised on bonds. Where does this occur? I know not. It may have occurred in his own country—in Scotland; but, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, has any railway stopped payment? Has any railway applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking for money? I believe not. I know of none. But I do know that when railway stock has been at a premium, Exchequer-bills have been at a large discount. I know that when you could not sell Exchequer-bills, you could sell railway stock; and I beg to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the public are much wiser than he gives them credit for. I do think that all this abuse of, and all this ill-feeling against railway undertakings, arises from very mistaken views of the matter. On the very first opportunity I had of expressing my opinion on the subject, I said that we could not construct railways, and at the same time import corn to a large extent. As soon as you import corn the gold leaves the country, and this necessarily contracts the circulation, so that your railway undertakings cannot proceed. For this reason I have not entered upon any new works for the last six months; but I have continued carrying on the old works, because, finding that I could procure labour at a cheaper rate than I could some little time ago, I determined to press on the works at greater speed than before. But if legislation is to interfere with the transactions of men engaged in the trading and commercial speculations of this country, then, I say, you must begin with the foreign merchant. You must tell him not to accept bills be yond a certain amount. You must tell the merchants of Liverpool that they shall not import cotton beyond a certain amount, nor accept bills beyond a limited sum. We all recollect how, in the year 1836, the Liverpool merchants went about everywhere endeavouring to raise the means to take up their acceptances. But you tell us that our case is peculiarly one for the consideration of the Legislature, because we come to Parliament asking for powers to enable us to make our railways. But it is you who force us to do so. We could make railways without your consent. We only want the land; but you say to us, "You shall not take a rood, of land without our consent, on which we can legally exact tolls." And yet you allow others to do so. Many railways are constructed in the north of England upon what is called the way-leave principle, and these require no aid from Parliament. But why this prejudice against railways? We have the same interest and as strong a desire to promote the public welfare as any other class or interest in the country; and we are quite as much prepared to make any sacrifice that may be required of us for the benefit of the country. 1 cannot object to the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to introduce. For myself I do not want it, at the same time it may appease the angry feeling which now exists with respect to these undertakings. But I believe the best policy for this House to pursue is not to pass such Bills as the Coventry and Southend Bill, for a more absurd and ridiculous scheme was never proposed; and yet the right hon. Gentleman secured for it a majority, showing, at least, the powerful influence he possesses, and how high he stands in the estimation of the House. I won't go into the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer read from the Economist newspaper. It was obvious from the beginning that the right hon. Gentleman was repeating the arguments of that publication; but it at length became so palpable, that he was obliged to read from the paper itself. The arguments appeared to me to be very fallacious; but it is of no use now to enter upon that question. I should like to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the real situation of the Bank on the Saturday previous to the day when the right hon. Gentleman and the First Lord of the Treasury issued their joint letter. I should be glad to be informed what was the actual amount of the Bank reserve on that day. When some of my friends from the North waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he told them that good bills could be discounted, and that no person of good credit was refused accommodation. It so happened that I was in London on the Saturday before the letter was addressed by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman to the Bank, and I had the honour of waiting upon the right hon. Gentleman, and told him that I had in my pocket some good things—some Exchequer-bills—but that they were of no use; for, though they were at a very low discount, yet I could not obtain any money on them. I told him that his own paper was undiscountable; and I believe that some of my undertakings must have stopped payment if the Government had not taken the course they did; for, although I had a large amount of Exchequer-bills, I could not get them discounted. I trust, when we come to discuss the Bank Charter Act, such changes will be made in it as will prevent the recurrence of such a crisis. The House will not do its duty to the public, nor meet the just expectations of the commercial world, if they do not make such provisions as shall in future render it impossible for any man to be destitute of the means of carrying on his undertakings while he has in his possession a large amount of Exchequer-bills. With respect to the selection of the Railway Bills to be carried on, I think you will experience some difficulty in determining that point; nor am I sure that legislation is always the best way of solving these difficulties. The commercial interest has suffered by the Acts of the Legislature; for instance, the measures adopted with respect to sugar have been the means of bringing ruin upon some of the first commercial houses in the country. In conclusion, I have only to repeat what I have already stated, that I will not oppose the introduction of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, because I believe it will appease the public mind, though it will be inoperative as far as the companies with which I am connected are concerned.

, in moving the appointment of a Committee on Railway Bills of this Session, stated that the Railway Bills suspended last Session would be included in the reference to the Committee.

rose to submit the Motion of which he had given notice, and the object of which was to give to Orders of the Day precedence over Motions until the Christmas holidays. He was unwilling to make his Motion without assuring those hon. Members who had given notice of Motions, that he had not the slightest intention of treating them with disrespect. It was also necessary he should state, that he brought forward the proposition without any previous communication with the Government. It was, however, his firm opinion that the Motion, if adopted by the House, would tend much to promote the general convenience of the House. It would, doubtless, be a deviation from the general practice, but one that was very desirable. No notice had been given by any independent Member of the House which might not be postponed to the usual Session next year without the slightest inconvenience to the public service. He would not except from that opinion even the bill of indictment preferred against the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, for certain high crimes and misdemeanors; for, indeed, it seemed not unreasonable to suppose that, to use a phrase often heard in the county courts, the noble Lord's trial might be respected will the next session without any material injustice to the public. Considering the state of Ireland, and the position of commercial affairs generally throughout the empire, Ministers had acted properly in causing Parliament to assemble; but, when they were convened at an unusual period to consider a particular subject, it was desirable that their time should not be wasted by the obtrusion of other questions of a dissimilar nature upon their attention. When the usual Session commenced, hon. Members would have an opportunity to propounding their crotchets to the House—perhaps he should have some of his won to bring forward; but it was desirable tat, at present, the House should apply itself exclusively to the consideration of the business for which it had been specially assembled. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that Orders of the Day should have precedence of Motions on Tuesday and Thursdays.

said, it appeared to his that the Motion was very important one, and one of the a most singular nature; and, under those circumstances, it was hardly possible the hon. Baronet could object to postpone it till next week. The proposition was one which ought not to be confirmed expect in a full House, which their places on account of the important business which was to be brought forward by the Government. For his own part, he was prepared to meet the Motion with a direct negative. It was hardly possible to conceive a more extraordinary proposition than one which, at the commencement of the Session, would throw the whole business of Parliament into the hands of the Government. In that House Ministers were known only as Members of Parliament, and all Members had an equal right to submit to the House any propositions they might think fir to bring forward. It appeared to him, that in a constitutional point to view the hon. Baronet's Motion ought not to be entertained at all; but, at all events, it ought not to be pressed to a decision without due notice having been given. Such a move if made at the end of the Session might operate beneficially because it would be idle for Members to bring forward propositions at a period when it was impossible they could lead to any practical result; but it was monstrous to propose to suspend the power of independent Members to take the initiative in legislation at the very commencement of the Session. To show how the hon. Baronet's Motion would operate, he begged to refer to his own case. He had given notice of a Motion relative to the office of President of the Poor Law Commission, which would admit of no postponement. The other night he asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether an appointment had been made, to the office; and the answer he received was in the negative. Now, the Act under which the appointment should be made, had been passed five moths; and as the office had not been filled up during that time, he felt that he was justified in assuming it to be unnecessary, and, therefore, he meant to propose an Amendment to the Act, which would have the effect to dispensing altogether with the President of the Commission, and supplying his place by the Lord Privy Seal; that noble Lord having at present nothing to do. He was now spending his time in Italy, and interfering, as some thought, mischievously, in certain matters. He wished to find employment for the noble Lord at home, and he thought that, with the assistance of the two secretaries, his Lordship would do the work of the Commission very well, and the country would save 2,000l. a year by the arrangement. Now, if the hon. Baronet's Motion should pass, he should be unable to bring forward that proposition, which certainly was of some importance to the public. He had referred to his own case only for the purpose of showing how the hon. Baronet's proposition would operate; but he objected to it upon constitutional grounds, and would meet it with a direct negative.

expressed the pleasure with which he had listened to the observations of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House. It was surprising that the hon. Baronet should have submitted to the House a proposition which, if adopted, would have the effect of preventing the Members of the Commons from "offering that advice and assistance" to the Throne to obtain which, Her Majesty had told them, was her object in assembling Parliament at the present time. A more unconstitutional proposition than one which would leave Ministers at liberty to introduce only what measures they might please to bring forward, and tie up the hands of every other Member of the House, was never broached in parliament. It was his opinion that the business of the House was much better conducted twenty years ago than it was at present. None of the restrictions now imposed upon the free action of Members existed then, and the discussions which took place upon petitions were Very advantageous to the public, because the topics were such as were suited to the occasion, and they frequently influenced the course of the Government. When the hon. Baronet gave notice of his Motion he thought that he had been in communication with the Government, who had given him to understand that they were desirous to get through with certain business, and no other; but that did not appear to be the case. Being of opinion that the proposition was an improper one to be made at any time, but more particularly at the commencement of a new Parliament, he hoped the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Motion, and not give the House the trouble of dividing upon it.

was surprised at the disapprobation with which the Motion was received, because, when he suggested it on a former evening, it appeared to meet with unanimous assent. If it was the determination of Members to look upon this as the commencement of an ordinary Session, and prevent Ministers from passing their measures until after Christmas, be it so. ["No, no!"] The hon. Baronet's Motion had been made without any concert with the Government, and solely with a view to the public interests; but, as a proposition of that nature could not be carried into effect without something like general assent, he would recommend the hon. Baronet to withdraw it, although he feared the result would be that Parliament would continue to sit from November to Christmas without doing anything.

said, that the House seldom violated any of its rules without having cause to repent it. Perhaps, as a compromise, the House might be induced to assent to the hon. Baronet's Motion, if it should be made applicable to only one of the two days to which it now referred.

said, that a Motion of this nature could not be adopted without the general concurrence of the House. If the House should be of opinion that it would tend to promote the public convenience to make the proposed alteration, it was quite competent to them to do so; but, as he had before said, it would not be desirable to adopt it without a general expression of opinion in its favour. Perhaps, after what had passed, the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Motion without attempting to divide the House upon the question. However, as the question had been raised, he would take the liberty of suggesting to hon. Members who wished to bring forward Motions, that unless they were of a very pressing nature, they should withhold them on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and allow the Orders of the Day to have precedence. It would be of great public convenience to finish the business for the consideration of which Parliament was specially assembled at this time before Christimas; and he believed that hon. Members themselves would not like the House to be adjourned on the 24th of December to meet again in a week.

agreed in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Salford and the noble Lord, that it would be undesirable to carry the Motion without the general concurrence of the House; but he was certainly very much surprised at the strong opposition which was offered to his proposition; for nineteen out of every twenty Members with whom he had conversed in private had expressed their approval of it. He concurred with the noble Lord in hoping that hon. Members would not retard the progress of business by the interposition of useless Motions.

rose for the purpose of putting the question, of which he had given notice, namely, whether, after the publicity of Major Carpenter's declaration of his belief of the ex-Rajah of Sattara's undoubted innocence of the charges brought against him, any measures had been adopted by the Board of Control to allow the ex-Rajah to prove his innocence, which he was able and ready to do, if an opportunity was afforded him, as stated in the papers before Parliament? The hon. Member said, that it was due to the honour and character of the country that justice should be done to the unfortunate Prince, who was the subject of his question. A document had been written by an officer of the East India Company, which went altogether to exculpate the Rajah from the charges which had been made against him, and under the colour of which he had been deprived of his throne; and yet that document was not alluded to by the hon. Baronent opposite (Sir J. Hogg), when in his official condition with the East India Company he had signed a paper agreeing in the treatment which the Rajah had received. The officer who wrote that document (Major Carpenter) was appointed by the Company to inquire into the subject, and yet the hon. Baronet appeared to be ignorant of its existence.

Major Carpenter had been directed to inquire, but not to deliver any opinion on the subject.

considered that no justification of the Government for not publishing a document which went altogether to exculpate the deposed Prince who had been the subject of Major Carpenter's inquiry. Was that a justification of their having asked the Rajah to declare himself guilty? What was the answer made to that request? He said he would rather die than do so—that there were two things which nothing could induce him to do, namely, to abjure his religion, or injure the East India Company. Major Carpenter had the care of the Rajah confided to him, and in the fourth paragraph of his letter of the 25th of May, 1846, to the Secretary of the Governor General, he said—

"When the Rajah was confided to my charge early in 1840, I considered it necessary for the effectual discharge of my duty to make myself acquainted with his history. ^*** I therefore carefully studied the whole of the voluminous documents connected with his case, and the result was a belief in his innocence; and this belief has since been confirmed beyond a doubt by subsequent disclosures."

Now, if these disclosures had created in the mind of Major Carpenter an impression that the Rajah was innocent, he thought this was a question which was well worthy of the consideration of the House, and was a fit subject for the exercise of their sense of justice and humanity. He believed that the Rajah had been unfairly deposed, though at first he entertained an opinion unfavourable to his case; but now, believing him to be an injured and innocent man, he had taken up his case, and had carried it on for five or six years; nor would anything induce him to give it up till justice had been done to the Rajah. If the last House of Commons did not do the Rajah justice, it was because they were ignorant of the real facts of the case. In a letter written by the Rajah, and forwarded to the Governor General of India, in December, 1844, that unfortunate Prince, who had been twenty years the friend and ally of this country, stated that he had been condemned without a hearing, and offered to prove his innocence if a fair trial were granted him; yet up to this hour he had never received any answer to that application. He, therefore, asked the House to give the Rajah an opportunity of proving his innocence, and then he should be satisfied. He would ask the Government—if there was any Member of the Government present—and haying given notice to the Secretary of the Board of Control, he had hoped that some Member of the Government would be in attendance—what course they intended to take in this matter. He begged leave now to move for—

"Copies of all documents referred to by Major Carpenter, in his letter of the 25th day of May, 1846, to the Secretary of the Governor General, by which disclosures respecting the proceedings at Sattara had been made that confirmed beyond a doubt Major Carpenter's belief of the innocence of the ex-Rajah of Sattara, now an exile and a prisoner at Benares, and under the surveillance of Major Carpenter, by order of the East India Company; and of a letter from his Highness the deposed Rajah of Sattara to the right hon. Sir H. Hardinge, Governor General of India, dated Benares, December 12, 1844; together with all minutes and correspondence connected therewith."

He should conclude by asking the Government whether, after the publicity of Major Carpenter's declaration of his belief of the ex-Rajah of Sattara's undoubted innocence of the charges brought against him, any measures had been adopted by the Board of Control to allow the ex-Rajah to prove his innocence, which he was able and ready to do if an opportunity was afforded him, as stated in the papers before Parliament.

would add his tribute of admiration of the character of the ex-Rajah, and would express his belief of his innocence, and bear testimony to the manly spirit which he had manifested in his misfortunes.

regretted the absence of the President of the Board of Control, who was far more competent than he could pretend to be, to reply to the statement made by the hon. Member for Montrose. He had not the honour to be in the House in the last Session of Parliament, and his recent appointment to the India Board had not allowed him to make himself acquainted with the details of the case. He gave the hon. Gentleman the fullest credit for the motives which had induced him to press this Motion; but he trusted that the House would not consider that he treated it with any disrespect if he confined himself to the notice which had been given, and declined to follow the hon. Member through the details into which he had entered. He would only enter his protest against any admission of the innocence of the Rajah, or of any important inference being deducible from the facts which had been stated. Major Carpenter was the agent of the Governor General in India, and the Rajah was placed under his charge. Major Carpenter had not had access to any of the original documents; and his opinion was founded simply, as he stated himself in his despatch, on the documents which had been published for the use of the Members of the House of Commons. He, therefore, could not see that Major Carpenter had any peculiar means of information; and this was the ground by which Sir J. Hobhouse was actuated in forming his opinion. The despatch of Major Carpenter had been in Sir J. Hob-house's possession from the 12th of August, 1846, and that despatch did not alter the opinion which the President of the Board of Control had formed upon the case, nor did its subsequent publication. There appeared to be no reason why the giving publicity to that despatch should effect any change in the opinion of the Government. The answer, therefore, which he had to give to the question put by the hon. Gentleman, was, that no step had been taken by the Government in consequence of the publicity of that despatch. There would be objection, however, to the production of the papers referred to by Major Carpenter, though he understood that they were all contained in a return already on the table of the House. With respect to the letter written by the Rajah to the Governor General, he could only say that he was not aware of its having been previously published. No copy had been officially transmitted to this country, and, therefore, at present the Government had no power to comply with this part of the hon. Member's Motion. The President of the India Board wrote a despatch on the 7th of October last, requesting that a copy of that letter might be forwarded to this country, and when it arrived it should be produced. Before he sat down he would merely refer to one point, which was not within his own personal cognizance, but on which he was desirous of removing some misunderstanding which had existed. The hon. Member seemed to be under the impression that Sir J. Hobhouse had stated the letter of Major Carpenter contained nothing favourable to the case of the Rajah; but what Sir J. Hobhouse said, was that the Governor General's despatch was unfavourable, not that of Major Carpenter.

said, that for the last seven years he had made the case of the Rajah of Sattara his peculiar study; and, simply because he had done so, and had devoted a very large portion of that time to the examination of the papers connected with it, he might, without presumption, say that he believed himself to be more intimately acquainted with the contents of all the documents produced in that House or elsewhere than perhaps any other living individual. For these reasons, and also from his having visited India, and been permitted, through the kindness of the Government there, to confer with the Rajah, as well as from his having been somewhat connected with the production of the papers before the House, he might, perhaps, be permitted to address to the House a few words on this subject. But he had another reason for asking their indulgence; and that was, that there was nothing which he, from his heart, more firmly believed than that the Rajah was innocent. He would state his conviction, that there was not a title of direct evidence against that Prince. He was ready to admit that the opinion of Major Carpenter was but the opinion of an individual, and of no value except from the character of the individual who gave it; but he thought the House should know what was the real value of that opinion. Major Carpenter had been in the service of the East India Company for twenty-eight years, fourteen of which had been passed in political employment; and not only was he the officer in charge of the deposed princes at Benares, but he was especially appointed to inform himself of the manner in which those princes were engaged. Now, when the Rajah was first removed to Benares, in 1840, he bore the character of an intriguing prince. It was at that time universally believed that a feeling of hostility and combination against British rule existed in various parts of India, especially in the Dec-can, in which Sattara was situated, and the Rajah was considered to have been the principal conspirator. That opinion was entertained by Major Carpenter, and, believing that in a large and populous city like Benares the Rajah might have found a field for intrigue with almost every native court in the country, he said that he considered it necessary to the proper discharge of his duties to become fully acquainted with the Rajah's character. At that time he entertained no doubt of the Rajah's guilt. But Major Carpenter had been most intimate with the Rajah, and almost tenant of the same room with him for six years; and what was the opinion he now entertained? He said he never met with a man so transparent and so honest to a fault to his own injury, as the Rajah of Sattara. Again, he must remind the House that when the Governor General of India, in his reply to Major Carpenter's letter, told him he had overstepped his duty in giving an opinion on the Rajah's conduct, there was not one syllable in that despatch that intimated in the slightest degree a difference of opinion on the part of the Governor General from Major Carpenter as to the innocence of the Rajah. The Governor General did not impugn that opinion; but said, as far as he recollected, "Whatever the real facts of the case may be touching the real guilt or innocence of the Rajah, you went beyond your duty in giving an opinion on the subject." But if Major Carpenter did commit an error upon the occasion, it was an error that would be forgiven by that House, and by every right-minded man. With those feelings, he should consider it his duty to render his best service to the hon. Member for Montrose, who had so long, so energetically, and so perseveringly supported the Rajah's cause in that House; and without any desire of embarrassing the Government, still less of injuring their reputation, and thereby damaging their influence—for with no such feeling had he crossed the threshold of that House—he should pursue that course from a sense of duty to his constituents, and to the country, and from the firm conviction he had long entertained on this subject. Whenever the House should grant an inquiry into this case, he would undertake to demonstrate by no hearsay evidence—by no testimony that would admit of suspicion—that the Rajah was an innocent man. They wanted no commission in India, no hon. Member to pin his faith to native testimony, no entering into conflicting evidence; but he was prepared to prove that every document produced to condemn the Rajah was a forgery and a fabrication; that every witness against him was a perjured man; and he would tell the House how much was given for what those witnesses did or said, by whom they were hired, who instigated the hirers, who put the secret springs in motion, and would bring home to every man, European or native, the charge he now brought against all concerned in that iniquitous proceeding in India—that it was a conspiracy to depose the Rajah—and why? A despatch that was sent out to India, in September, 1835, declaring the unanimous opinion of the Court of Directors on the Rajah's claim to the sovereignty of certain territories, was concealed from him, and had been so concealed from that time to the present; and it was because he wished to despatch certain agents to this country to appeal to the Court of Directors upon that question of his sovereign rights—and because the Government of Bombay knew that if those agents did come over and make inquiry as to the feeling of the Directors, they would be told that the despatch he had referred to had been sent out to settle that question—that to prevent those agents coming over the conspiracy was set on foot that had ended in the deposition of the Rajah. It was upon these grounds that he gave his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.

said, that, with reference to the broad and sweeping charge of conspiracy made by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, implicating as it did every authority in India, every individual, European or native, who, in the discharge of his duty, had found the Rajah guilty, he would beg the House to bear in mind that Sir Robert Grant, then Governor of Bombay, and all the members of his council, unanimously but reluctantly came to the conclusion of the Rajah's guilt. Two successive Governors of Bombay, and all their members of council, came to the same conclusion. The Governor General at that time, Lord Auckland, as distinguished a man as ever ruled over India, and all the members of his council, came to the same conclusion. The hon. Gentleman had told them that he was well acquainted with all the despatches, and was convinced of the Rajah's innocence. He had no reason to doubt the hon. Gentleman's sincerity of purpose, or the honesty of his conviction; but why should not those who had had better opportunities than the hon. Gentleman of becoming acquainted with this case—men of as high honour, and as intelligent, and acting under an imperious sense of public duty—have the credit of being equally honest in their conviction that the Rajah was guilty? Putting authority against authority, they had the Governors of Bombay and their council from that time to the present, Lord Auckland and the members of his council, the Court of Directors, and three successive Presidents of the Board of Control, who had come to that conclusion; and the matter had been again and again discussed in that House during the last seven years, but that House had refused to disturb that decision. What he complained of in the hon. Member for Montrose, was the colour he had given to the papers before the House; and when he told them how those papers came to be laid on the table, those who were not cognisant of the facts would admit that he had a right to complain. The hon. Member for Montrose had given the House to understand that the Governor General of India had referred to a public officer to give his opinion on a particular question; that that officer gave his opinion, and because it was adverse to the opinions entertained by the Government he was rebuked. Then the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, had stated in the Court of Proprietors of the East India Company, that Major Carpenter, the agent of the Governor General, had gone to the Rajah, and made certain proposals to him on behalf of the Government, and had said to him, "You had better admit your guilt, for then they will allow your son to be adopted;" and that we offered him a number of temptations. Every individual connected with the Government of India was of course astonished when the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, before the Court of Proprietors, made that statement. No one had ever even heard of such a communication; and all felt directly satisfied that it was impossible any such proposals ever could have been made. [Mr. THOMPSON: I stated only that there were rumours of such proposals.] He did not mean to say that the hon. Member had made the statement on his own personal knowledge; but, having heard of the assertion, he made the most of it; and what was his inference?

"Look," said the hon. Member, "how conscience-stricken is the Government of India! They endeavour to extricate themselves from the scrape by declaring the Rajah guilty; they then authorise their own agent to make certain propositions to the Prince, which they agree to carry into execution, if he will only consent to put them right with the world by admitting these charges to be just, and that he is guilty!"

He scouted at once the supposition that there could be any foundation for the story. The Court of Directors took immediate steps to inquire into the matter. They sent despatches to Lord Hardinge, desiring him to call on Major Carpenter to know from that officer if the allegation was true—to obtain information as to whether he had any authority from the Governor General to make the asserted communica- tion, or whether in coming forward with such proposals, he had acted without the concurrence of his superiors. As it bad been represented by the hon. Member for Montrose, it would appear as if Major Carpenter had been applied to concerning his opinion of the guilt or innocence of the Rajah whom he had in charge; in reality no such call was ever made upon him, nor were his sentiments on the subject ever attempted to be elicited. When the Governor General, at the request of the Court of Directors, applied to him, all that was asked was, "Did you, Major Carpenter, make such a communication? And if you did, explain your conduct, and show that you, as a public servant, did not act in direct dereliction of your duty." And in point of fact, Major Carpenter was the only man in India who could not give an opinion in the question. The Government of India had declared the Rajah of Sattara guilty of certain offences, and had directed that he should be held in confinement at Benares. This particular officer was appointed to take charge of the deposed Prince; and, while retaining him in safe custody, to see that his imprisonment, if it might be so called, was made as little irksome as possible, consistently with that object. Major Carpenter occupied the position of a gaoler; and for him to ask for evidence, or to express doubt of the facts on which his charge had been convicted by the highest tribunal of India, would have been, indeed, very extraordinary conduct. What would have been thought of Sir Hudson Lowe, if, when keeping Napoleon safe at St. Helena, he had read a lecture to the Government of that day upon the impropriety or injustice of having such a distinguished personage under lock and key? And if Sir Hudson Lowe, had so absurdly stepped beyond the limits of his duty, would any Member of the then House of Commons have been entitled to adduce that opinion as a sound one in favour of the character of the Emperor? When felons were committed to Newgate, the gaoler was not justified in remonstrating with the judge, or, whatever might be his own conviction, in pointing out that the jury had made a mistake, and that the verdict ought to be quashed. Major Carpenter had no new evidence which could have enabled him to come to any more correct conclusion than that already recorded against the Rajah. Major Carpenter knew nothing but that with which any Member of the House might make himself acquainted on a perusal of the blue books. Major Carpenter was not even made aware of the peculiar circumstances which had led to the deposal and afterwards to the confinement at Benares of the Rajah. The Government never even deemed it necessary to make him acquainted with the private history of the affair; and, but for certain documents laid on a Motion before that House, he would have known only what was known to every official in India. The hon. Member for Montrose had assumed conversations to have taken place between the Major and the Rajah; he had distinctly declared that the Rajah had received from that officer certain offers, the nature of which had been detailed to the House; and the hon. Member told this story, though while speaking he held in his hand a paper in which the charge had been denied by Major Carpenter in toto. The reply of Major Carpenter to inquiries was, that the "alleged conversations so minutely recorded were so directly at variance with the numerous consultations he had held with the Rajah regarding the general state of affairs, that he must at once pronounce the greater part of them to be purely imaginary;" he in addition, declared that "the propositions" (on which the hon. Member had laid so much force) "were never at any period, either directly or indirectly, made by me to the ex-Rajah of Sattara, either on my own responsibility, or by the authority of the Governor General." Now, this was a pretty broad disclaimer, sufficiently emphatic to rebut all the charges created by the hon. Member. Major Carpenter, as a man of honour and integrity, was to be believed; and after his sweeping denial nothing more could be said of his having made the offers of the description alluded to. Major Carpenter could only give his opinion by violating his duty; and Lord Hardinge spoke unreservedly of the impropriety of an officer in such a position interfering at all. The denial which he tendered to the Governor General was duly acknowledged, and the remarks which accompanied the letter were important:—

"You have (said the Secretary) in the opinion of his Lordship, by your own showing, very much mistaken your duty to the Government in the position which you occupied, by the course of conduct you describe yourself to have pursued with regard to the ex-Rajah of Sattara since he has been placed under your charge at Benares. His Lordship is also of opinion that your assertion of the ex-Rajah's innocence of the charge of which he was convicted, and of his ability to prove that innocence, is as unbecoming as it was un- called for. The Government for the time being and the Court of Directors having convinced themselves of the ex-Rajah's guilt, decided on deposing him from his throne, and sentenced him to confinement at Benares. At Benares you were charged with the prisoner's custody; with the charges decided against him, and his previous conduct, you had no concern; and, considering your official position, it was to be expected that while treating the Prince with all consideration and kindness, you would scrupulously avoid any discussion of the accusations on which the final decision of the Government had been passed, and even discard all allusion to them by the ex-Rajah in your presence."

[Cheers.] He did not understand those derisive cries of "Hear, hear!" Surely no fault could be found with the Governor General for telling an officer, the most confidential that could be appointed, and holding a station, in a minor degree analogous to that of an ambassador in Europe, that he is not to go to the person at whose court he is resident, and to persuade that person that the Government he represented had acted unjustly? No one could question the propriety of the rebuke given to Major Carpenter; and though he imputed no improper motives, he must candidly confess he thought that in exercising his judgment in the matter, and giving his opinion, that officer had grossly violated his duty. Major Carpenter, on receiving the reprimand, acknowledged his fault, and offered an apology. He admitted that in ordinary circumstances an officer having charge of a dethroned prince had no concern whatever with the previous conduct of the prisoner, or with the justice of the sentence from which he was suffering. He endeavoured to show that this case was a peculiar one, and that in acting as he did he had not exceeded his duty. Well, what made this an extraordinary case? There might have been some justification for his proceedings if he had been in possession of particular information, throwing new light on the case, and of which the tribunal by which the Rajah had been condemned had been left in ignorance; but there was nothing to show that this was the case, although, by implication, the hon. Member for Montrose had given the House to understand that Major Carpenter was better able to judge than any other individual in India of the entire innocence of the unfortunate Rajah. Putting aside, however, all discussion of his guilt, hon. Gentlemen must consider the circumstances in which the Government was placed with regard to the Rajah. He had very little reason to complain of the conduct of the Government towards him. The revenue of his territory had only been about 10 lacs, or 100,000l. He was taken by the Government from a dungeon—["No, no!"]—or at any rate out of captivity, in which, had they not come to his aid, he would probably have for ever remained; and, out of motives of compassion, he was so far befriended as to be placed upon the throne of Sattara. When the Government became apprehensive that by his conduct he would raise a flame of revolt throughout the whole continent of India, he was deposed and consigned to a sort of demi-confinement, and his income then was made 10,000l. a year, the tenth part of his former revenue. There was no penury or misery in the case; and whatever Major Carpenter might have said, the opinion proceeded only from an individual, and that individual, it had been made apparent, had not acted in a manner to impress his superiors with a conviction of the soundness of his judgment.

could now picture to himself what must be the condition of the people of India, governed by a Company, one of the members of which did not hesitate to give utterance to principles of morality such as they had just heard. He rose, however, not to comment upon the policy which it was declared ought to guide officials in their intercourse with the natives of India, but merely to do justice to the reputation of a meritorious officer. The motives and conduct of that officer had not been stated fairly. Major Carpenter, it was true, as the hon. Baronet said, had denied the accuracy of the conversation reported to have passed between himself and the Rajah at Benares; but the House had not been favoured with the Major's explanations as to those portions of the colloquy which were correct, and those which were purely imaginery. In all essential points, the allegation of proposals having been made by Major Carpenter to the deposed Prince to confess himself guilty, as a condition of perfect freedom, remained still uncontradicted. The declaration of the Rajah was, that offers were made to him to relinquish all further claim to the Sattara throne, as he had spent ten years in unavailing efforts—to withdraw his Agent from London—and cease to use any exertion to influence the Government in his favour. There was no proof before the House that such proposals had not been made; and that they had not been made by Major Carpenter. With respect to Major Carpenter, that gentleman had been likened to a gaoler and ambassador, as it suited the turn of the argument: that the position of Major Carpenter was, in some respects, similar to that of an ambassador, he would not deny; but he had yet to learn that the duties of an ambassador, even at the court of an independent prince, obliged a man of honour to conduct himself upon the principles indicated by the hon. Baronet, or to execute orders blindly, concealing from the knowledge of a friendly prince matters that tended to his advantage, although possibly prejudicial to the policy of those whose colleague or inferior he might be. In this instance there were peculiar obligations upon Major Carpenter; for while he represented the rights and interests of the British Crown, he had also been appointed with large discretionary powers as a confidential counsellor of the immured Prince; and was consequently more than ordinarily bound to act according to those principles of truth and justice which the hon. Baronet appeared to repudiate. He denied that Major Carpenter was bound blindly to obey the orders of his masters, when he had become convinced of their injustice and illegality; on the contrary, he was bound to disobey them. He contended that the Major had exercised his large discretionary powers wisely in taking this course; and he expressed his conviction, which he trusted the House would share with him, that there had been the blackest guilt on the part of those who had oppressed the Rajah—that the Rajah was innocent—that the case was no longer one of charge against that Prince, but against Ministers at home and their delegates abroad—and that it called for inquiry, for impeachment, and for punishment.

believed, that the hon. Baronet could not lay his hand upon his heart, and pledge his honour that he believed the Rajah guilty. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the Rajah having a gaoler. Had he had a trial? If he had a gaoler, had he had a jury? It was notorious that the Rajah had been treated as a guilty man, and most grievously punished; but had never undergone the ordeal afforded in this country to a man accused of a capital crime. He had not had a trial; he had not been heard in his defence; he had not seen the evidence upon which he had been convicted. But it was waste of time to say more now. Another Motion of a similar character must shortly be brought forward, and then the justice of the House would be tested. He contended that Major Carpenter had violated no confidence, and broken no obligation imposed upon him by his situation. He had been asked to report by the Secret Department, and he had made his report secretly. It had been only by a fortunate accident that the communication had been brought forward. He was sorry to see the hon. ex-Poor Law Commissioner (Mr. Lewis) in the situation he occupied that night; for he should have hoped that the maiden speech of the hon. Gentleman would have been directed to a different object than that of withholding justice from a persecuted man. However, it was fortunate that no board of guardians had jurisdiction in the matter to act under the hon. ex-Commissioner's instructions; for if so, the Rajah might esteem himself fortunate if he obtained an allowance of 31b. of gruel and 16oz. of bread. He trusted that ultimately the House would decide that the Rajah was an injured man, and entitled to justice at their hands.