inquired whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any alteration in the law with respect to the relief of the casual poor?

was glad that his hon. Friend had put the question. The subject was one which had frequently been brought under his notice by complaints from all parts of the country. Where a union workhouse was situated in one parish, and the relieving officer resided in another, all casual persons applying to that relieving officer for relief were thrown upon that particular union in which the officer resided. This appeared to be a great evil; but he was not prepared at the present moment to say what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were, because he had not brought the subject formally under their consideration. It was a question which involved the law of union rating and the law of settlement, and he hoped it would be in his power to separate the two questions, and to devise some remedy for the evil complained of. An opportunity for doing that would occur this Session, when the Act called Mr. Bodkin's Act would expire.

, who appeared to be suffering from indisposition, and was very imperfectly heard in the gallery, called the attention of the House to the grievances suffered by the inhabitants of the Isle of Man. The cardinal grievance of which the Manx people complained was the constitution of their legislative assembly, which was self-elected and irresponsible. Their system of laws mixed together the legislative and judicial functions. The men who made the laws also administered them; and the consequence was, a growing and necessary feeling of discontent amongst the population. The House of Keys was the court of appeal from the subordinate tribunals, and many members of the House of Keys practised as advocates in the court below. In the Deemster's courts there was no code of reference and no statute-books. The Deemster acted on the lex non scripta, or breast law, as it was styled in the island; and the inhabitants were of course painfully sensible that they were at the mercy of the judge's caprice. Furthermore, the Manx people—50,000 in number—having no municipal institutions and no representation, were denied the commonest rights of civilisation and citizenship, such as were conceded even to the savages of New Zealand. The influence of the Executive Council and the House of Keys necessarily curbed and controlled public opinion; and in this respect, as in all others, the operation of those irresponsible, self-elected bodies was highly injurious. The recent relaxation of the commercial code had been attended with the happiest results in the Isle of Man. In the case of every article on which the duty had been reduced, there had been an enormous increase of consumption. What he wished the Government to do was, to carry out that commercial policy, and also to reform the judicial and legislative institutions of the island. He did not wish that the immemorial institutions of the island should be wholly overthrown, for he was aware that there were some of them to which the Manx people were fondly attached; but he was conscious that they should be conformed to the spirit of the times, and the requirements of the age. Above all, he was desirous that the common rights of citizenship should not be denied to them, but that, on the contrary, the general benefits of the representative system should be ensured to them, and the power of nominating those who were to impose their taxes. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving an address to Her Majesty, praying that a Commission be issued to inquire into and report on the privations endured by the inhabitants of the Isle of Man.

was not prepared to deny that there were many matters connected with the present state of affairs in the Isle of Man which ought to be inquired into, and he was quite willing that inquiry should be instituted. That, he believed, was the main object of the Motion, and he had already done something to further it. He had instituted a correspondence with the Governor and other authorities of the island, and had stated his view, which was, that a complete remedy for the evils complained of was to be found, not in a separate legislature for a small island within a few hours' sail of the British coast, but, on the contrary, in the complete incorporation of the Isle of Man with the United Kingdom. Such of the inhabitants, however, as had memorialised that House, were in favour of separate legislative functions, which would, no doubt, produce great abuses. He thought it very reasonable, however, that there should be a representative body in the island, to regulate the repairs of highways and other local matters of that description. In conclusion, he begged to express a hope that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.

hoped that those hon. Gentleman who called themselves the real friends of the Isle of Man would take warning by the allusion in the earlier part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to its annexation to England. It might be annexed to Lan- cashire, or to the county of Dublin, or to Dumfries; and let hon. Gentlemen consider whether that intimation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might not, if realised, place the people of the island in a position infinitely worse than at present. They were now lightly taxed; they had the form at least of a representative government, the laws were those under which their forefathers lived for centuries, and they would feel the burden of taxation which would be put on them, even if their island were united to that region on which the income-tax had not been imposed. He asked whether, under those circumstances, they were likely to be as well off as they were at present?

thought he might fairly venture to entertain the hope that when the House had done him the honour of hearing the case which he should submit to its consideration, they would think him justified in claiming their attention for a short period, even at a time of so great general interest and excitement as the present. He did not think that any time could be more apposite; because at a moment when every nation was awakening from its long slumber, and asserting those principles of freedom which are so greatly advantageous when they do not overleap the bounds of moderation, he thought that the representatives of a country which had so long enjoyed the blessings of which other nations had been deprived, would not hesitate upon the present occasion to cast their protection around the weak, and to express their indignation at wanton cruelties and acts of hideous oppression practised on an unoffending people, whose interests we were solemnly bound to protect. He said it advisedly, "whose interests we were solemnly bound to protect;" and as some hon. Members might not have turned their attention to this subject, he would in a few words explain the position in which we stood towards that country. In 1827, a treaty was signed between England, France, and Russia, for the pacification, or rather for the liberation, of Greece; it was called the Treaty of London, and became the foundation of all our subsequent policy. This treaty, as the House might know, was followed by the battle of Navarino. In 1830, the crown of Greece was offered by the Three Powers, and under the assent of the Greek people, to Prince Leopold, who, in the first instance, accepted it, but, influenced by the crafty counsels of interested parties, subsequently rejected it on the plea that the Greeks had not been sufficiently consulted in their choice of a Sovereign. After many conferences and much hesitation, the Powers ultimately fixed on the present King, Prince Otho of Bavaria, then a boy of fifteen or sixteen, who was immediately accepted by the Greeks under certain conditions, which were ratified and confirmed by the King in his name. The most important of these conditions were, first, that the Greeks were to have a free constitution; and, secondly, that the Three Powers were to advance 2,400,000l., in equal proportions, to the infant State, the interest and principal of which to be paid out of its first revenues. It was almost unnecessary for him to inform the House, that, except at rare intervals, we had never been paid even the interest upon our portion—viz., 800,000l., for which we are now annually liable; but what was of far greater importance, the whole stipulations respecting the constitution were grossly violated. But in September, 1844, a great constitutional movement took place; the demand for free institutions was re-echoed from one end of the country to the other. The Throne was preserved, and the constitution was granted. Every one will remember how firm was the attitude—how gallant the bearing—how generous the conduct—how consumate the prudence of the Greek nation during these great events. Testimony was borne to the merits they had displayed in a despatch of Lord Aberdeen, to Sir Edmund Lyons, dated April 7, 1844:—

"Sir—Her Majesty's Government have learnt with the greatest satisfaction, by your despatches of the 30th ult, the termination of the labours of the constituent assembly, and the final and solemn acceptance by the King of the ratification of the constitution. They have viewed with no less satisfaction the admirable temper which appears to have generally prevailed in the constituent assembly, throughout the whole of their deliberations on the deeply interesting and important act on which they have been engaged. Such self-command in a popular assembly, convoked under very exciting and critical circumstances, is highly creditable to the Greek nation. Nor is the result of their labours, as a whole, less entitled to credit for the general soundness of the constitutional principles therein established."

Since 1844, I may say (the hon. Member continued) that every principle of free and constitutional government has been violated; that the word of promise broken in the hope has not even been kept to the ear. Even within a few months of these remarkable events, the laws were openly set at defiance by the very persons who enacted them. Corruption, brigandage, torture, and rapine have stalked through the country. The revenue is diminishing, and the expenditure increasing; and wherever there may be any slight development of the industry of the country, it is accomplished in spite of the Government. Sir, I make these assertions boldly; and in order to prove them, I will make use of no document which has not been fully authenticated. I will bring to certify the facts which I have stated the testimony of officers in the employment of the Government; and I think I shall be able to show such scenes of corruption and horror, that even the most apathetic on questions of foreign policy will feel that I am justified in submitting them to their consideration. And, first, I will refer to the financial state of the country, in which this House is more immediately interested, for I hold in my hand the account of 47,188l., issued out of the Consolidated Fund, for payment of the interest and sinking fund, which was guaranteed by this country. Of this sum, 23,000l. was last year repaid, not by the Greek Government, but by a gentleman well known and universally esteemed, I mean M. Eynard. There can be no testimony so important, so unquestionable as that of M. Eynard, who was the great friend of the late Administration, and received the personal acknowledgments of the King for his attachments to Greece. M. Eynard, in a letter addressed some time last year to the late President of the Council, points out to him the gross malversations of office practised in Greece. The late Minister of Finance came down and informed the House that the treasury department was in a complete state of disorganisation; that there were no accounts of revenue or expenditure, and that he could not furnish anything in the shape of a budget, on account of the dishonesty of the public functionaries; that millions were due to the State, and he did not know from whom. On February 18, 1846, the Exchequer of the country possessed considerable resources in the loan, and yet the condition of the people has never been ameliorated; they are in a wretched state. Imagine, Sir, that the Minister of Finance cannot obtain any knowledge of the state of the country—that he is entirely ignorant of its resources; you may therefore judge what must be the state of the revenue: in these few words I have proved to you in what ignorance he had been kept during the short period of his administration. And the same most honest Chancellor of the Exchequer said, only a few weeks since—

"I cannot conceal from you any longer the truth; the robbery of the public treasury has surpassed all measure, and is carried on with an insane imprudence; but is this the fault of the Minister? If each employé steals a small portion of the revenue, the diminution must naturally become considerable. Things have arrived at such a pitch that it is impossible for the Financial Minister to put an end to the abuses."

But this is not all. This illustrious financier stated to the Three Powers on one occasion that, owing to the enormous deficit, it was quite impossible for him to meet the interest of the loan for the current year. When attacked for this state of the revenue in the Chamber of Deputies, he excused himself by saying it was quite a mistake, there was a small surplus, but that he had thought it best to falsify the public accounts, in order to prevent the Three Powers demanding payment. But in case the statements of this Chancellor of the Exchequer should seem incredible to the House, they are authenticated by the following documents. The Governor of Acarnania writes to the President of the Council:—

"The Minister will permit me to remark that, having been informed of the wretched condition of the public revenue, and of the more strange and unaccountable conduct of the Minister of Finance, in matters of the greatest moment, it was his duty to have directed an examination into the conduct of the officer, and at least to have paid some attention to the strong expressions of public opinion, That opinion denounces the present Administration, and the facts support the accusation that they have allowed their employés to pillage the State, and have inflicted incalculable evil upon the country, notwithstanding the fertility of the season."

It will scarcely be credited that in reply to these and numerous similar remonstrances, M. Coletti, President of the Council, made the following statement:—

"Abuses had always existed, and the only difference between abuses past and present, was, that formerly they were the monopoly of a few privileged persons, but that now they afforded some hundreds the means of subsistence; that the mismanagement of the loan, and the extravagance of the Regency, was the cause of this financial embarrassment; if there existed great disorder in the administration, it had always been the same."

I will now pass from the financial part to the brigandage which prevails, and will, with the permission of the House, read a statement of the conduct of a man called Trino, who has for a long time been in the service of the Government. I can assure the House that, incredible as they may appear, I have taken the pains to fully authenticate all the statements, and can vouch for their accuracy. They occurred very recently:—

"On the 4th of November last, Trino was at a village called Rerasova, with a body of armed men, nearly 300 in number, at which place they took up their quarters; he summoned all the principal inhabitants, and those of the neighbouring villages, and, binding them with cords, as if they were robbers and assassins, he thrust them, by way of imprisoning them, into vile, filthy stables; this was on the plea that he wished to discover some brigands who were concealed. Trino then caught a wild cat, and put it into the trousers of the wife of one of the principal inhabitants. He himself beat the cat, that it might jump about, tearing the unhappy woman to pieces; and he only set her at liberty, when, from extreme torture, she made a false confession, stating everything that Trino prompted her to say. On the strength of this confession he took the men out of prison, first bound their hands and feet tightly, and then tied their hands down to their feet, thus making a sort of bow of their bodies, and he kept them in that position several hours. The next day Trino took two of the men to a lake in the neighbourhood; he caused two blocks to be lashed to the tops of two of the highest trees, and with a running cord hoisted them up and let them down several times into the water, and when they had quite lost their senses he had them dragged on shore. After some time he said, 'Poor fellows! I am afraid they are cold, we must warm them a little.' This he accomplished by flogging them most unmercifully, when they were afterwards taken back to prison. After these feats he stalked about the town, exclaiming 'You wanted a constitution, my fine fellows! You are nice fellows for a constitution. Well, now you have got it. I hope you will like it, for you have seen some of the blessings of it!' This illustrious officer on one occasion sent a present of two heads in a basket to the Monarch of Acarnania and Etolia."

A petition presented from Patras, authenticated by all the leading inhabitants, states—

"The members of the family Dimeoi arrested by the Mirarque (the Government officer) were subjected to the torture for three days, and all their effects sold. Demetri Nicalocopulo, accused of an insignificant robbery three years ago, was put to the torture, and expired soon after."

This unhappy man was denounced to the Mirarque as having stolen a cow three years since; the Mirarque ordered an ordeal by torture; the gendarmes bound him hand and foot, threw him down, and placed enormous stones on his breast and stomach, and then jumped upon them. In the last extremity, and in the hope of saving his life, he pleaded guilty, but it was too late; when the stones were removed he died; his young wife, who was on the eve of her confinement, was carried to the grave a few days afterwards. I translate parts of the petition from Messenia, but the tortures practised on the women will not bear description: in these cases the atrocity of the crime is the security of the criminal:—

"Sire, fifty citizens, dragged without excuse, from the bosom of their families, and thrown into a damp and loathsome dungeon, deploring their loss of liberty, that last worldly blessing, cast themselves on your mercy. Sire, the tortures we have undergone, are unheard of and horrible; some of us suspended by the feet, others with their legs and arms bound, are laid upon the ground and blocks of stone placed on their chests, their flesh torn and limbs mutilated. A robbery had been committed in our village in the month of October; on the 22nd of November, D. Saulis, lieutenant des garde frontières, at the head of a detachment of soldiers, and without any instructions from the magistrates, desired them to seize eighty of us, and throw us into the cellar of a house of a priest named Papajanopulos. Not obtaining any information, notwithstanding all the violence, some were released, and the others conducted to their respective houses, where the most horrible tortures were inflicted upon us during the nights of the 22nd and 23rd; then, not having succeeded in making us admit ourselves guilty we were taken to a lonely spot, named Divari, thrown down, bound, and gagged, with enormous stones heaped upon us; when we lay at the point of death, the stones were removed and we were set at liberty. These horrors, Sire, had a far different object to the discovery of a theft; for some time past the garde frontières have endeavoured to push us to acts of despair. But we, Sire, throw ourselves upon your Majesty's protection, imploring, in tears and affliction, the punishment of those persons who have so outraged humanity. We supplicate your Majesty to condescend to take efficacious measures to put a termination to those miseries which oppress your people, by excluding from the public service those persons, who, instead of executing the laws, only substitute fearful tortures; and all these crimes are committed in the name of your Majesty."

At Lamia, on the 26th November last, two gendarmes and three soldiers entered the village of Daitza, where they took and imprisoned the authorities, and then having entered the cottages belonging to two men, Agrosloti Galatopoulo and Christo Tagana, seized the women, whom they treated with a brutality too horrible to describe, and then pillaged the House. It will be observed that these are outrages committed by officers and men in authority, and the instances might be multiplied tenfold; but it is hopeless to attempt to convey any adequate notion of the general disorganisation of the country; and the House must imagine it, after being informed that the Government actually amnestises the brigands; and not this alone, but the captains of banditti are empowered to delegate their authority to those employed under their command. I add one of the certificates:—

"I, the undersigned, certify upon my conscience, that the bearer of this note served under my orders in all the acts of brigandage which I committed, and that he always distinguished himself by his zeal."

Sir, a friend of my own, M. Bondouri, one of a most illustrious family in Greece, was requested by the Government to give them up his house in Athens; he declined, on which the Government sent the gendarmes. To the gentleman's great astonishment, all his furniture was gone; he went to the window and found that it had been thrown into the middle of the street. I may mention the case of Don Pacitrio. This gentleman's house was broken into in the middle of the day, at Athens, and plundered; the thieves then deliberately broke all the furniture which they could not carry away. And who, it will be asked, was one of the leaders of this depredation? Why, the son of Tzavella, the present Minister of War. Sir, there are innumerable other instances which I might adduce; but I really think that the House will be tired of listening to such atrocities. One word regarding the violation of the constitution, of which the Government have been guilty. It may be known to many Members of this House, that, even under the dominion of the Turks, the Greek nation enjoyed all those admirable municipal institutions which had been transmitted to them from ancient times, and to the confirmation of those privileges the Three Powers, in 1828, attached the greatest importance. Now, under the present Government, these rights have either been entirely destroyed, or only used as instruments of excessive vexation and persecution. To show the good feeling which subsists among the Greek people, I will read one extract from the address of the Senate, recently presented to the King, and which was elicted by the unconstitutional conduct to which I have adverted:—

"Sire, a long experience has afforded us the most satisfactory conviction that the strict observance of the laws, and the energetic defence of the rights of the nation, have been, and always will be, your Majesty's anxiety; but the facts fully prove that this princely intention has been misunderstood, and that these same rights have not been respected during the elections, which have been followed by very pernicious results. The Senate prays that your Majesty's paternal wisdom and tendencies will afford them relief. The adjustment of our finances is a work on which the honour and the credit of the country depend; and to this subject the Senate will give all its attention. The Senate prays that efficacious means may be taken to limit the expenditure, and to regulate the collection of the revenue, which, for some time past, does not seem to have been capable of a satisfactory explanation."

The King made the following reply to this address, through his Minister, M. Tzavella, the new President of the Council:—

"His Majesty having understood that the address voted by the Senate interferes with those rights which exclusively belong to the other legislative body, has charged me to announce to you, that protecting the constitution, and jealous of the maintenance of the rights of the nation, and anxious to maintain the good intelligence between the two legislative bodies, he does not intend to receive such an address."

After this His Majesty was pleased to create nine new senators, which brought them to the highest possible amount contemplated by the constitution, namely, half the number of the deputies; but not satisfied with this, the Government compelled the deputies, who, by the by, I may incidentally mention, were all elected under violence, to pass a law extending the King's power to create senators in case his Majesty should desire to do so. I have omitted to mention that, in the discussion on this subject, which took place in the Senate, M. Condowriski said—

"Not to tell his Majesty that the Government is vile, that the constitution is in danger, that the finances are in disorder, that anarchy reigns in the country, would be to betray our oaths, and to expose ourselves to the just reprobation of the country."

To which the President replied—

"Do you think, Sir, that I do not know as well as you do to what a deplorable state the country is reduced? I told his Majesty all this; but he assured me that if you did not give up the Address, he would create new senators. I see that you will insist upon telling the King the truth; but the truth is bitter, and not to be told at all times."

Sir, the recent affair at Patras has excited a great deal of attention. I am not going to trouble the House with an account of the circumstances which took place; but I am quite certain that any one who fairly investigates them will admit that the captain of the Spitfire only discharged a great national duty in taking on board Merenditi and his followers. The course which he adopted was that proposed by all the other consuls, and received the unanimous approval of all the inhabitants of Patras. Sir, I think I have said sufficient to prove that the case of Greece requires much consideration; and I need not say that no party feeling, and no desire to promote our own influence, should have any weight with us. Lord Aberdeen well laid down, in 1844, the principles which should guide us, in his instructions to Sir Edmund Lyons, who has so nobly and ably followed them:—

"It will, of course, be of high importance that the three guaranteeing Powers, who have hitherto acted in such perfect unison in their proceedings with regard to Greece, should continue to preserve the same unanimity of counsel and action in the changed circumstances that have arisen. You will constantly exert yourself to maintain that union which has hitherto so happily prevailed between your colleagues and yourself; and you will especially impress upon them the necessity of persevering in the honourable and correct principle which ought to guide the Three Powers in their relations towards Greece, and by which Great Britain, at least, is fully resolved that her conduct shall be invariably governed; that is, to set aside all views of separate or individual interest, to discourage all party distinctions, and to look to the national welfare and prosperity of Greece alone, as the object of our united care."

And in November of 1844—

"In the whole of your proceedings at this important crisis, you will constantly bear in mind that the good of Greece alone is the principle which guides and animates Her Majesty's Government. We wish to see Greece independent, and under the auspices of a sound and well-regulated constitutional system of government, in which each power in the State shall have its due weight and influence, growing daily in strength, in credit, and in prosperity. The exercise of any extraneous and exclusive influence over her counsels can but retard that growth. Instead of leaning upon foreign support, we desire to see the Greeks rely on their own moral and physical resources for establishing their affairs on a footing most conformable to their wants and social position."

I may mention that, when some communications were recently made to the Bavarian Government on the state of Greece, the King was forced to admit that the counsels he gave were never attended to. I will not imagine that at this time, when the principles of constitutional government are so fully developed—I will not believe that, after those recent scenes which Europe has with amazement witnessed, Greece will remain the only country, which, participating in European civilisation, does not participate in those privileges which are now becoming common to all. I am not exaggerating when I say that Greece, with her two thousand years of claims upon free institutions, has the smallest amount of freedom granted to her. In all other countries, even in those which do not enjoy a liberal constitution, there is in general some check placed upon wanton tyranny, either through a powerful aristocracy, as in Russia, or by the means of enlightened state craft, as in Austria. In Greece, however, all tyranny is unbridled; there is not even an aristocracy to stand between the people and their tyrant; and so the constitution is taken advantage of to veil the blow which is struck at the happiness of the nation; and the ministers of evil and ignorance, who spread anarchy triumphant through the land, take advantage of the consequences of their guilt, and exclaim, "See the desolations of a people who wept for a constitution." I understand them well. They take example from the executioners of the daughter of Lejanos, and first violate the child in order to give them a right to destroy it. If anything can prove that Greece is not unworthy a free constitution, it is that the people mourn so deeply over its loss, and groan under the tyranny which oppresses them. It is precisely because, having suffered its loss, Greece has, ineffectually it is true, but so often asserted her rights, that she proves herself fit to obtain them. Let us suppose that a heartless despotism was accepted without a murmur—that the sense and spirit of the nation did not turn when it was trodden on—then it might have been said, "This people are undeserving of liberty; servitude is their natural condition;" indifference to persecution would have been made an arm to be turned against them. Surely, I think, that the House will now agree with me, that this condition of a country will justify the language used by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a recent and memorable despatch. It has been said, we dare not use such language to a greater Power. Sir, I am sure that there is no Power so great that we dare not use to her the language of fair expostulation. Why, the very persons who were loudest in this charge against the noble Lord, have recently blamed, in the strongest terms, the language employed in reference to the possible interference of Austria in Italy. As a general rule it is true that it is most unwise to interfere in the affairs of another country; but our relations with Greece are, as I have proved, peculiar ones, and we are morally bound to look after her welfare. It was, Sir, at the Treaty of London that England, France, and Russia, under a generous inspiration, united to relieve this oppressed country; and it is most important that the same Powers should maintain the same unity of noble purpose. I cannot for a moment doubt that France, under her present Go- vernment, composed of men who have proved themselves so eminent and so able, will assert in favour of Greece those principles which she has now maintained, and exercise that first great privilege of freedom, the power of communicating it to others; for I am pleading for a country from which we, in common with all Europe, to use the language of the late Lord Holland, derive all that softens and refines the heart, and all that gives life and animamation to our debates. It is the cause, not of Greece and her isles, or the waters which wash her shores; but the cause of constitutional liberty in all parts of the world. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for copies of certain despatches which have passed between Sir E. Lyons and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Sir, I am not aware that I have any objection to make to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, but of course he will specify the extracts of which he desires to have copies. I am sorry to say that I must bear my testimony to the accuracy of the description which the hon. Gentleman has given of the present state of Greece, whether that testimony be given with reference to the mode in which the financial affairs of the country are regulated, or whether it be offered with respect to the manner in which the constitution has been worked, or whether it be even with regard to the way in which the Executive Powers deal with the people of the country. At present there is no absolute necessity of speaking harshly in this House with regard to the administration of the affairs of other countries; but, as the hon. Gentleman has stated, this country stands with respect to Greece in a position totally different from that in which she stands towards other countries. We have not only rights, but obligations and duties, in respect to Greece, which do not apply to countries in regard to which our position is altogether indifferent. England was one of the Three Powers which by their interposition between Turkey and Greece finally accomplished the independence of the Greek nation, and the erection of Greece into a separate kingdom. England also was one of the Powers to whom was given the choice of choosing a sovereign to reign over Greece; and England was one of the Three Powers by whose representatives was drawn up the proclamation announcing to the Greeks the selection of their Sovereign, and giving a pledge that that Sovereign should give to the Greek nation a constitutional system of government. We, therefore, do stand in the position of parties who have undertaken certain obligations towards the people of Greece; and those obligations—as far as properly lies in our power—I am ready to say we are bound in honour to see carried out. There are questions connected with the present Motion which would make me averse to enter into any discussion of the matter, or go into the details which the hon. Gentleman has touched upon; I, therefore, shall only say that if he so shape his Motion as to specify some particular periods, and the copies and extracts which he chooses to produce, I can make no objection to it; or, perhaps, he might withdraw his present Motion, and then show me the Motion as he would wish it to stand. We may settle it together, and I shall be happy to give him any information which it would be useful for the House to have laid before it.

moved—

"That a Select Committee be appointed on the present state of the New Palace at Westminster, with a view to the reception and accommodation of this House therein, and the probable expense of its completion; and also to inquire into the present state of Westminster Bridge."

The additional expenses incurred in the erection of the New Houses of Parliament, and the delay that had taken place, had been greatly exaggerated in the House. When hon. Gentlemen complained that the buildings were now to cost l,400,000l., and that even after that there would be some yet undiscovered expenses which could not be calculated on until the bills should actually have come in, they should recollect that a large amount of expense had been incurred by the prosecution of works which formed no part of the original estimate. Such were, for instance, the river wall, the expenses of the architect and the surveyor, and others. He was surprised that such an outcry against the expenses incurred by works that gave so much employment should be raised by hon. Gentlemen who prided themselves upon being political economists, and who should remember that not only a vast number of workmen obtained employment, but that about 25 per cent of the outlay was returned to the Exchequer in the shape of duties. As to the blame that had been cast upon Mr. Barry, he had never been a blind idolizer of that eminent gentleman; but he had never for one moment doubted his skill and extraordinary talent as an architect. He only doubted whether there had been a sufficient check upon the alterations in the design, and upon the consequent expenditure. With regard to the names which he proposed to place upon the list of the Committee, he regretted to see that one-half had been objected to, and others substituted, and that those who had been struck out were precisely the persons who, from their present or previous connexion with the office of Woods and Forests, knew most about the business. As to the Amendment of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne), to substitute an address, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission, he had no objection to such an appointment; but he hoped the House would not agree to it unless it were satisfied that the buildings could not be proceeded with otherwise. He regretted that Her Majesty's Government were about to limit greatly the sums to be expended during the present year upon the new buildings; however, he thought it a very bad system of economy to spread over several years the expenses of erecting a building which might be completed in one.

, in opposing the Motion, remarked that it was not enough to say that Mr. Barry was one of the greatest artists that ever lived. What he wanted to know, and what the country desired to be assured of, was this—who was to be responsible for the expenditure? He referred to the report of the House of Lords in 1844, to show that the complaints he now made were not put forth for the first time. In truth, since 1836, there had been no control over Mr. Barry; and one reason why he should press the Amendment of which he had given notice was, that he never knew of a Committee being appointed, which did not add to the expense of the building. And now what was that building? An Italian composition, with a Gothic dress—a thing that was so frittered away in details, that in the course of a few years it would be nothing more than a metropolitan asylum for birds' nests and soot. There was then 90,000l. expended for warming the two houses, and there was another bill coming in, also for warming the houses. There was, he had been told, a plan for ventilating the houses, by which the smoke of all the chimneys was to be put through one great flue; and there was a quarrel about this and the ventilation going on, which promised to be as lasting as that between the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), and the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and likely to go through the Session, that is, unless the noble Lord could assure them that peace had been established, or that Dr. Reid had been discharged. But a Fine Arts Commission had been appointed in the year 1840; and now, there was one thing connected with this Fine Arts Commission, which he could never understand, although he thought the hon. Member for the University of Oxford was to blame for it, and that was the invention of the name of the New Palace at Westminster. Up to that time they had been quite contented with the name of a House of Commons. This might appear to be a slight thing; but there was a meaning in it, for, calling the House of Parliament the New Palace at Westminster, it would appear as if Her Majesty allowing them to be there, it would be highly indecorous for them to interfere with the expenses. Now, he could not understand why they should go back with the hon. Member for Oxford University to the time of Edward the Confessor, when the hon. Member and his fathers before him had always called the building "the House of Commons." Now, as to this Fine Arts Commission, a petition had been presented by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Monteagle) from the artists, declaring that the Commission knew nothing at all about art. And what had they done? They had established a Gothic hall, with a fresco gallery; and thus the Fine Arts Commission succeeded in making a most miserable exhibition. Now, when he made a remark upon an artist, the noble Lord would tell him that such a person was a good Christian, and a fine father of a family. Let them, he said, for instance look to "the Order of the Garter." It was nothing more than a gigantic exhibition of legs. And when a complaint was made on this subject to the House of Lords, all they knew about it was, that "the Marquess of Lansdowne said a few words which were inaudible." The House should recollect that the money expended in this way was not its own—that it was their duty to see how it was spent, as well as to prevent an improper expenditure. But they were told the House was nearly finished. They had enough of expe- rience of the past not to rely on such promises for the future. At that moment the New Houses of Parliament—he begged pardon, the New Palace at Westminster—was not half finished. He did not run a-muck against Mr. Barry, but he did run a-muck against the whole system—that system under which their money was spent in building that Gothic gewgaw the House of Lords, and which he defied any one to say was a chamber fitted for consultation. Already 1,016,000l. had been spent, and 567,767l. they were told were required to complete the edifice. The expenditure had already nearly doubled the amount of the original estimate. How long, therefore, would the House be content to listen to the excuses and eulogiums upon Mr. Barry and his works of the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests? He would take the liberty of stating a circumstance which ought to have considerable weight with the House of Commons Upon this subject. The Finance Committee of Sir Henry Parnell, which sat in 1828, speaking in their report of the Rideau Canal, the original estimate for which was 160,0002., whilst the expenditure incurred was no less than 520,000l., said—

"The Committee regret that so important a plan should hare been undertaken on an estimate which has proved so defective, and they cannot refrain from remarking how desirable it is that Parliament should never be called upon to vote money for any public undertaking, by any department, without the most perfect estimate that could possibly be procured."

Such was the advice of that Committee—advice which it would have been well had the House followed in the present instance. With reference to the appointment of a Committee, he had shown that the effect of every report of a Committee which had hitherto sat had been to augment the confusion and create additional expense. But there was the strongest authority for the appointment of a Commission. Sir Robert Peel was of that opinion in 1836. The right hon. Gentleman asked Lord Sudeley—

"Has it ever occurred to the Commissioners, whether it would be desirable to make some arrangement with respect to the execution and construction of these buildings?—Yes.

"Would it not be much better to appoint some person permanently to superintend it, rather than leave it to any particular department of the Government?—I should say so. The Commissioners have given this opinion in their report. I believe the expenses of public buildings have recently been much increased, in consequence of the inefficient control of the Executive over them."

Perhaps, however, the noble Lord would say there was no precedent for this. But, in 1824, a Royal Commission was appointed, to superintend the improvements of Windsor Castle. If the expenditure for the New Houses of Parliament continued at the present rate, the structure would cost millions before it was completed. And where was the money to come from? Would they take it out of the "balances in the Exchequer?" Or would they abdicate their functions, and refer their question to a Select Committee upstairs? If they meant really to prove themselves guardians of the public purse, their only course was to vote with him for an—

"Address praying Her Majesty to appoint Commissioners to superintend the expenditure of the amount voted by this House for the New Houses of Parliament, with a view to make such arrangements as shall complete the building at the earliest period."

seconded the Amendment.

assured his hon. Friend that he did not found his opposition to the Amendment upon any feeling of jealousy with regard to the Board of Woods and Forests as to the construction of the New Houses of Parliament. That department had faithfully endeavoured to discharge all the duties devolved upon it either by Parliament or by the Treasury; and it had not affected to do more. It seemed to be assumed sometimes that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were expected to fulfil all the duties of what our neighbours called "the Minister of Works;' and he should certainly feel that he required to enter into training for the qualifications necessary for such an office. Indeed, already, he had sometimes to give an opinion upon matters which required the education and acquirements of a land steward, of a practical farmer, of a builder, of an architect, of an inspector of mines, a valuer of timber, and of a practical engineer; and in addition to his own radical deficiencies in these respects, he felt that the department had not a sufficiently organised staff to discharge the duties required from a regularly constituted office of works. At the same time neither the department over which he had the honour to preside, nor the Government, were disposed to shrink from any responsibility which fairly devolved upon them; and when his hon. Friend asked who was responsible for the amount of expenditure annually-proposed to Parliament, he replied that nobody could be responsible but the Go- vernment as represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, of course, be responsible for the Estimates he annually laid upon the table; and the Board of Works were willing to take the responsibility of fully inspecting all the accounts, and of forming the best judgment they could upon the points referred to their decision with regard to deviations from the original plan. He certainly thought that no unnecessary expenditure ought to be incurred; but, at the same time, when the ancient house of Parliament had been destroyed by fire, and it had become necessary to erect a new abode for the Legislature, it was fitting to make that abode worthy of the high object to which it was to be dedicated, and to employ upon it the best talent that the country could supply. His hon. Friend had said, that when this subject was last discussed, he (Viscount Morpeth) had no defence but that of praise to the architect. Upon this he must observe, that when a building was attacked, the natural defence was to praise the architect in his professional capacity. To-night his hon. Friend had not attacked the character or the honour of the architect, but he had indulged himself by commenting upon the style and merits of the building. Tastes must differ, and therefore it was not for him to assume any greater justification for praising the building, than his hon. Friend had for condemning it. His hon. Friend said he could back his opinion by that of the most eminent architect of the age. Who that authority was he had not informed the House; but it happened that he had had a letter put into his hand from a gentleman of high standing north of the Tweed—Mr. Playfair, who had erected many public buildings in Edinburgh and the neighbourhood—on this very subject. This gentleman said—

"I have examined the Houses of Parliament inside and out; time and money could not have been better employed. I think Mr. Barry's genius is beyond the age he lives in; and depend upon it he will be immortal."

His hon. Friend had particularly signalled out for his criticism the appearance of the House of Lords, which he denominated a "gewgaw." A simpler and severer taste might be preferred by his hon. Friend; but Mr. Barry felt that as this was the place wherein the Sovereign met the assembled estates of the land, the representatives of foreign Powers, and the beautiful and the fair of our country, it should he worthy of the nation in point of splendour and decoration. A simpler style, with less profusion of decoration, would be followed in other parts of the House. With regard to the differences between Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid on the subject of ventilation, no one could be more sensible of their inconvenience than himself; but as it had been found impossible to bring them to a good understanding, and as it was his duty to prevent Parliament being trifled with, he had insisted upon Dr. Reid making specific drawings of the plans which he required to be carried into effect to complete his system of ventilation. These drawings had been furnished, and Mr. Barry, who professed his readiness to carry them into execution, was now engaged in making the necessary arrangements for giving effect to Dr. Reid's designs. He did not think it necessary to enter upon a discussion of the merits of the frescoes in the House of Lords or of the Fine Arts Commission; but he would say the character given to those frescoes was not shared in by the best judges of art. But it was said to be an anomaly to have decorations in fresco in a Gothic building. On this subject it would only be necessary to remind his hon. Friend that the most admired specimens of architectural decoration were the frescoes of the Campo Santo at Pisa, a Gothic building. [Mr. OSBORNE: The Campo Santo is not a Gothic building.] At all events, it was a building of the middle ages. He did not wish to express any premature censure or condemnation of his hon. Friend's scheme of a Royal Commission to watch over the expenditure and progress of the building; but on all occasions, when the present Parliament had discussed this subject, the general wish and expectation had been that a Committee would be best. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, felt it to be their duty not to accede to the proposal for a Commission in its present shape.

said, the question was, whether an efficient control should be established over the expenditure upon the New Houses, seeing that it had more than doubled the original estimate. No Committee, and certainly none constituted as proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis), could possibly effect that object; and the Government would screen themselves behind the decision of that Committee because it had been arranged with their concurrence. Objecting then to the Committee, he objected still more to its constitution. The noble Lord (Viscount Morpeth), the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Lincoln), and the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), ought certainly not to be upon it. They ought rather to be called as witnesses. Any Committee should be totally independent both of the past and of the present Governments; and the Under Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Tufnell) had already enough to do without being placed upon such an inquiry. Mr. Barry had shown vast genius and great talent; but he wanted to know who was responsible for the expense? He was surprised to hear the noble Lord say the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the responsible party, why was he not in the House at that moment? He did not believe that that functionary had any idea that he was responsible, and therefore it was that he (Sir B. Hall) should vote for a Commission which should be responsible for the expenditure and the completion of the building. The only point on which he was disposed to blame Mr. Barry was for not having in the first instance furnished a more detailed estimate. He was decidedly of opinion that considerations of economy would be best consulted by completing the building with the greatest despatch. He should vote against the Committee; and if the Committee were appointed, he should vote against many of the names on the Committee.

said, when this subject was last before the House, he had ventured to trouble them with several details of figures to prove that a very erroneous impression had been created with reference to the sum already expended, and the probable expenditure in future; and he thought it unnecessary, upon the present occasion, to trouble the House with a single observation upon that point, or to involve the discussion with the question of the responsibility of Mr. Barry. He must also deprecate the practice of that House resolving itself into a dilettanti society, with the view of discussing matters of taste, of considering how far those frescoes were in consonance with rules of art, and other details of that nature. If they did so he thought that in all probability they would arrive at no proper or satisfactory conclusion upon those points, neither indeed did he think that it formed one of the functions of that House. But there was one function which peculiarly belonged to that House, and that was to take care that the money which the House voted for any purpose whatever should be properly applied; and so far as the appointment of a Committee or a Commission involved that matter, he conceived it to be the bounden duty of the House to devote themselves to it. He should have been prepared to have given his vote for a Committee to investigate this subject, had he not been somewhat alarmed by the statement which fell from the noble Lord opposite in reference to the question of the hon. Member as to the disputes between Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid. He repeated what he had stated upon a former occasion, that his experience of Committees relative to the Houses of Parliament led him to the conclusion that the investigation of each Committee had added to the expense of that building. He had hoped that the Committee about to be appointed would have been precluded from entering into any considerations which could add to the expenditure; but the noble Lord stated that the question now pending between Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid was relative to the height of the central tower, and that that should be referred to the Committee. Now he (Lord Lincoln) was confident that if that course were pursued, the result would be as before—an addition to the estimate. For himself, as an individual Member of that House, he would infinitely prefer trusting the matter to the noble Lord, as one of the responsible advisers of the Crown, however incompetent he might be on scientific grounds to decide, than to a Committee of the House; and he thought it was the bounden duty of the noble Lord to take care that not one farthing of the public money was improperly expended on that building. He must recognise, however, a very great advantage in the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex, supposing that a competent authority could be found. He perfectly agreed with the noble Lord, that, irrespectively of individual competence, the duties of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had become so enormous, that it was quite impossible that they could devote sufficient attention to these matters. He believed it might be desirable, therefore, for some functionary to be appointed who should have the superintendence of the New Houses of Parliament, and of any public buildings of a large character which the State might undertake. What he should suggest, however, as the better course at present was this. He did not see to whom they should delegate that authority. He should not like to see such a Commission as that to which the hon. Member for Middlesex appeared to point, viz., an amateur Commission of noblemen and gentlemen. [Mr. OSBORNE: I don't mean that.] The hon. Gentleman certainly did not say that; but he pointed to a former Commission which was appointed in the case of Windsor Castle, which would lead to that supposition. He was himself a Member of such a Commission, superintending the improvements at Buckingham Palace; but he must say he did not think it a desirable precedent to follow. If, then, they were not prepared to decide who ought to be the superintending power, and if they were agreed that it was desirable to have as efficient a control as possible, would it not be infinitely better, upon the present occasion, to appoint the Committee proposed by the hon. Baronet, only confining their functions to an investigation of the best mode of controlling the expenditure? He thought such an investigation would be extremely useful, not only as applied to the present buildings, but to all other public buildings of any magnitude. If the hon. Baronet persevered with regard to the other matters for the Committee's consideration, he was not prepared to say that there might not be some such objections to its composition as were put forward by the hon. Member for Marylebone; for undoubtedly if the Committee were to investigate charges against men who held or had held official situations, it might be desirable to have those hon. Members as witnesses rather than as judges. If the operations of the Committee, however, were to be confined to what he had suggested, he thought that the present composition of the Committee was desirable, because the official knowledge possessed by those Gentlemen would then be extremely useful.

confessed he could not understand what the duties of the Committee were to be. It seemed the Committee was to inquire into the expenditure and condition of the New Palace at Westminster, and also to inquire into the present state of Westminster-bridge. It was not clear to him why Westminster-bridge and the New Houses of Parliament were to be placed in juxtaposition. The Committee might as well inquire into the navigation of the river Thames, or into the present state of Blackfriars-bridge, which, it appeared, required repairs. It was said that the Houses of Parliament would cost four millions of money; but he thought this was a very exaggerated estimate. If this Committee were to recommend the rebuilding of Westminster-bridge, at a cost, perhaps, of 1,000,000l., was it to be supposed that Parliament would support their recommendation?

said, he took only a financial view of the question, and he feared it would turn out a similar business to the Kaffir war.

considered the appointment of a Committee on this subject would lead to great inconvenience and expense. He was convinced that two millions would not finish the building; but, even supposing that estimate to be exaggerated, the works would cost double the sum originally contemplated. He submitted that it would be far better not to make any further alterations, but to appoint competent persons, whose duty it should be to see that the works were finished in the most expeditious and least expensive manner. He could not see what the Committee, if appointed, would have to do with Westminster-bridge. For his own part, he did not approve of the proposition to substitute a bridge in the Chinese style for the old bridge at Westminster, in order that it might correspond with the florid façade of the New Houses of Parliament. He was satisfied that the Committee, if granted, would only lead to mischief, so he would oppose its appointment.

I merely wish to say, with regard to the central tower, that Mr. Barry thinks, both with reference to appearance and economy, that that tower may be made lower than was calculated in his original design. At the same time I know that Dr. Reid has presented a petition to the House stating, that if the original design be departed from in that particular, it will interfere materially with the application of his invention.

never recollected an instance in which any advantage had arisen from discussing matters of taste in that House. He would ask his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford what it was he sought to obtain by this Committee. His Motion was for a "Select Committee on the present state of the New Palace at Westminster, with a view to the reception and accommodation of this House therein, and the probable expense of its completion; and also to inquire into the present state of Westminster-bridge." Now these objects, which were thus placed in juxtaposition, had really nothing in common. Why would not his hon. Friend at once candidly declare that his object was to have the present Westminister-bridge taken down, and a handsome structure erected in its place? In these days of economy and retrenchment it was not fair to hold this in the back ground, and then when the Committee had sat, to come down to the House with a report that it was necessary to form new approaches to the Palace of Westminster from the Surrey side of the river. If he desired to have a new bridge, he should at once state his intention. What object did he propose to obtain by the appointment of this Committee? A Committee of the House of Commons was the most incompetent body in the world to decide on any matter of taste, or to control the expenditure of money on objects of taste. With regard to these New Houses of Parliament, he would not enter into controversy as to the propriety or impropriety of the site chosen for the erection, but would content himself with reminding them that they had now advanced to a position from which they could not recede. They must advance. There was no important object to be gained by spreading this expenditure over an indefinite number of years. The comfort of the Members of the House should be more attended to than it had been. He would ask if the access to the present House of Commons was what it ought to be for the accommodation of persons having business there? The noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests had told them that he had already enough to do; but certainly it was the duty of some department of Government to appoint proper persons who should be employed in looking after the expenditure of the money appropriated to the building of the Palace of Westminster. He did not consider a Committee of the House of Commons a proper tribunal for this purpose, and he would much rather have an assurance from the noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would undertake to see to the matter themselves, or to employ proper persons to investigate and report on the subject.

said, the idea of appointing a Committee had been ridiculed by almost every speaker, and he had much rather the house should agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex, than to the appointment of any Committee.

had included Westminster-bridge amongst the objects to be inquired into by the Committee, because it formed one of the approaches to the New Houses, and had been affected by their erection. The hon. Member for Marylebone had said that there seemed a suspicion that this Committee had been arranged between the Government and the Member who moved for it. No Committee was ever appointed without a direct communication between the individual who moved for it and Her Majesty's Government; and he was, he apprehended, justified in the course he had taken by having received the direct sanction of Government, not only to the appointment of the Committee, but of every individual name included in the Motion. He would not go into the discussion of the great constitutional principle involved in the name, but he had authorities for it. When the two Houses of Parliament were consumed by fire, and when it was necessary to provide further accommodation, his late Majesty was advised, in the Speech from the Throne, to use the phrase—

"The ancient Palace of Westminster, which has long been appropriated to the use of the two Houses of Parliament."

And the following notice appeared in the Gazette:—

"The chambers in the Palace of Westminster which have been usually appropriated to the meeting of the Houses having been partially destroyed by fire, His Majesty," &c.

He had also the concurrent authority of a very distinguished constitutional Member of the House, who in one of the most recent returns to the House, had condescended to use the very phrase which his hon. Friend seemed to consider so unworthy of his adoption. He had the latest return on the subject of the New Houses of Parliament, and it was moved by the hon. Member for Montrose, who also condescended to use the very obnoxious term. It was—

"Return of the aggregate amount already paid, or agreed to be paid, to contractors and other persons, for the purchase of land and buildings for the erection of the 'Palace of Westminster.'"

These were his authorities for having introduced the phrase "the Palace of Westminster." He would not enter into the constitutional grounds; it was sufficient for him to use a phrase which had been adopted by the Crown. Having brought forward this Motion with the concurrence of the Government, but not certainly at their bidding—having proposed the names of the Committee with the sanction of the Gentlemen who were named—he should feel that he was not doing justice either to the Government whose concurrence he had received, or to the individual Members whose names he proposed to place on such Committee, if he had abandoned the proposition which he had so deliberately made. He must therefore insist on claiming a division.

observed, that reference had been made to the share which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in proposing the expenditure. He wished the House distinctly to understand how far he considered himself responsible, and that was to the extent of determining what sum of money in each year should be voted. How the expenditure should be carried on, and whether it should be carried on according to the recommendation of the Committee, it was not for him to say. He had not time to devote to the purpose; and he could not pretend to say whether the building was in conformity with the plan. With respect to Westminster-bridge, he had the honour as well as the Speaker to be one of the Commissioners for the management of Westminster-bridge; and it was, he was afraid, too true that Westminster-bridge was in a state which sooner or later would require considerable expenditure, whether it were determined to adapt it to the architecture of the House or not. The Commissioners had been obliged to stop up the navigation of two arches, and remove some of the superincumbent weight, to render it safe for the passage of carriages. That the danger was obviated by the precautions which they had taken, he believed. He believed the bridge at present to be in a state of perfect safety; but at the same time it was only in a temporary state, and it was impossible that the bridge could permanently be allowed to remain in the state in which it was, with two of the arches blocked up, and the navigation of the river materially impeded. He did not, however, think that it was necessary to mix it up with the present question as to the two Houses of Parliament. He trusted that the debate of that evening might lead to a practical result. He thought that the appointment of a Commission, in the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if it should be a dilettanti Commission, would only lead to expense, and to the appointment of that Commission he should be unwilling to accede. At the same time he was not prepared to say that it was not advisable to devise some means to control the expenditure. This, however, was out of the power of his hon. Friend and himself; and therefore if any body of persons could be constituted, with an adequate knowledge of the subject, who could effectually control the expenditure, he would not make the slightest objection. Probably then a Commission might be appointed with adequate powers to decide what would contribute to the economy and proper construction of the Houses of Parliament. They should not be allowed to recommend an increased expenditure. The amount of expenditure should be left to the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who should determine in each year. He was inclined to think that Government had better take on themselves the appointment of such Commission. They should be a purely controlling body, in conformity with the plan sanctioned by the Commission of both Houses. He believed the noble Lord would take on himself the responsibility of recommending the appointment of such a body; and if this proposal met with the concurrence of the House, the better course would be for the hon. Member for the University of Oxford to withdraw his Motion. He believed that the appointment of such a body by the Government would attain the object in view, viz., that the building should be carried on in the most economical manner.

said, that if he was at liberty to conclude that his noble Friend the First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests was prepared to concur in the adoption of the suggestion thus thrown out by his right hon. Colleague—if he would state that he was prepared to pledge himself that the Commission should issue—he (Sir R. Inglis) would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Motion.

had been anxious to accept the discharge of the duties which he understood appertained to the office he held. When he thought it the wish of the House that the Committee should be appointed, he was willing that the whole proceedings and transactions should be remitted to the investigation of such Committee; but if it was the general feeling of the House that some means of closer and better control should be applied, he should be quite willing if the hon. Members would withdraw their proposition, to consider what advice could be given to Her Majesty respecting the appointment of such a Com- mission, premising only that he thought the Members of it ought to be very few indeed.