asked if the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests had any statement to make with reference to the subject of a certain private communication which he (Lord Duncan) had, as Chairman of the Committee on the department, made to the noble Lord this Session; also whether the noble Lord had anything to state with respect to the depredations which it had been discovered had been, during some years, committed upon the wood in the New Forest?

replied, that from the information which be had received he had reason to believe that a system of fraud and depredation bad prevailed for a long time past with respect to the New Forest. As soon as the revelations in reference to them were brought under his attention by the praiseworthy investigation of his noble Friend, he engaged the services of two gentlemen who were specially recommended to him for the purpose, and he had every reason to believe that they would prosecute their inquiries with effect. Two persons had been already apprehended, and committed to take their trial in consequence of these depredations.

said: Sir, I should have hoped there would be no objection to grant the Motion of which I have given notice, which is that—

"An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to direct the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine forthwith to transmit to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies Copies of the omitted Correspondence between the Provincial Secretary of Canada and the Secretary to the Montreal Board of Trade, and will direct that the same be laid before this House."

But the Government have expressed themselves dissatisfied with the terms of my Motion. I apprehend that Her Majesty's Ministers, and especially the Colonial Office, are somewhat sensitive upon any expression which might intimate a suspicion that any correspondence, or any despatch, had been purposely omitted by the Colonial Office. On a former occasion, when I observed upon the omission in this correspondence, of the letter of the Provincial Secretary of Canada to the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies informed the House that no copy of any such letter had been received at the Colonial Office. Well, Sir, I take for granted that the statement of the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. But, Sir, I want to know how it is that a part of the correspondence of the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine should have been omitted? Having thought fit to lay before the House copies of the correspondence between the Governor General of Canada and the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of the navigation laws, such portion of the community as feel interested in the preservation of the navigation laws feel deeply hurt that Her Majesty's Ministers should have selected those correspondences from Canada which tell in favour of the repeal of the navigation laws, and kept back correspondence from the sister colony of New Brunswick which is of a totally different character. The general complaint is, that Her Majesty's Government think that they are entitled, in laying correspondence before this and the other House of Parliament, to select such despatches only as tell for the policy of which they are themselves the advocates. It is because the noble Lord (Earl Grey) at the head of the Colonial Office, has avowed that it is his practice, and that he deems it his right, to lay before us only such of the correspondence as tells for his argument, that the public at large have become deeply sensitive on this subject. Such has been the course in this case. It is important that this House and the country should know the exact state of feeling in the colonies upon these subjects; and it is right also that the country should know the exact state of this matter between the Canadian colonists and the people of this country as regards the repeal of the navigation laws. When the Council of the Board of Trade at Montreal humbly reprimand the Governor General of Canada on this question, and insist upon his making known to the Queen and Parliament of Great Britain, that unless the measures of the Government should succeed in making the channel of commerce of the St. Lawrence as cheap as the channel of commerce of New York, the painful consequence—to use their own term—the painful consequence of the policy of this country in withdrawing from its colonies that protection to which they were entitled, will be most seriously to endanger the relation between them and the mother country. It is right that Parliament should at least have laid before them the whole of the communication with the Board of Trade of Montreal on tills subject; and I must say, to me it does seem most surprising, that the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, whose habits of business are so well known and so well appreciated, should have omitted to send to the Colonial Office a copy of this despatch. I wish to know whether he has received instructions to send home only such despatches as tell for the policy of the Government, or whether it is in consequence of his own notions only that he has omitted this despatch; or whether (as I am inclined to believe is the fact) the despatch was transmitted, and lost on its way to this country? Sir, the Government may feel that, if my Motion were agreed to in its present shape, the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine might, in his own defence, make some statement which would not be palatable to the Government. But their sensitiveness upon this point is the very reason why I ought to press the Motion in the terms in which I have framed it. Sir, in making this Motion I cannot help entering into some few observations upon the character of this correspondence. Sir, the colonies tell the House, in terms that cannot be very well misunderstood, that unless the effect of the repeal of the navigation laws should be to put the cost of transit by the St. Lawrence upon an equal footing with the cost of transit by way of New York, the result must necessarily be to dissolve the ties which connect the colonies with the mother country. Now, Sir, upon receiving memorials to that effect, what sort of answer ought to have been made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies? Why, it seems to me that he would have done his duty by showing he could possibly so reduce the cost of transit between Montreal and Great Britain as to put it upon an equal footing with the cost of transit between New York and this country. But, Sir, what is the answer that Earl Grey makes? Earl Grey states, that he has presented these memorials and these petitions to Her Majesty, and that they have been very graciously received; and on the 7th of July, within four days, as far as my recollection serves me, of the time when it became notorious to this House that Her Majesty's Ministers did not intend to proceed with their measure for the repeal of the navigation laws—within four days of the time that Her Majesty's Ministers formally announced that they had shelved the repeal of the navigation laws. Earl Grey writes to Lord Kincardine to say that—

"Her Majesty's Ministers hasten to assure Earl Kincardine that Her Majesty's servants are fully sensible of the extreme importance to Canada, of the measure which is now under the consideration of the Legislature, and that they entertain a confident opinion of its being passed into a law."

On the 7th of July last, Earl Grey states, that the Government seriously believe and entertain a confident opinion and hope that this measure would pass this Session. Well, then. Sir, what is the effect? Why, that Earl Grey counsels the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine to excite the colonies to the belief that this measure for the repeal of the navigation laws will be of the utmost importance to the colonies; he leads them to hope, of course, that all their sanguine predictions will be fulfilled; and, of course, when they learn, within ten days afterwards. Her Majesty's Ministers have abandoned the measure, disappointment, dissatisfaction, and discontent must prevail throughout the colonies. But, Sir, I maintain that it was the duty of Earl Grey, instead of encouraging the colonies to entertain this vain and futile hope, that any competition could put a colony that was so disadvantageously situated by climate and position, as compared with New York, upon an equal footing with New York, it was the duty of Earl Grey to show that no repeal of the navigation laws could possibly give to the Canadians the advantages which were set forth. Sir, the foundation of the real complaint and grievance is, that there are great fluctuations, which they ascribe to the navigation laws, in the freights that are charged upon flour; that they are made inordinately high; that for four years they average 5s. 1d., while from New York they average only 2s. 1d.; that they have fluctuated to the extent of as much as 4s. in the year—all of which is ascribed to the navigation laws. Then, Sir, I maintain that Earl Grey should have observed in answer to these discontented colonists, that, in supposing that the average freights to New York were 2s. 1d., they were grossly deceived, for he might have stated to them with great truth that which he might have ascertained from the secretary of the Steam Packet Company, that the average freight during the last four years from New York has not been 2s. 1d., but 3s. 1½d.; while I find that the fluctuation in the amount of freight in Canada, as compared with New York, is from 3s. 6d. to 7s. 6d., which is the gravamen of the complaint of these petitioners. They complain that the fluctuations in freight between New York and England on flour is from 2s. 9d. to 8s. 6d.; so that while the fluctuation as complained of by the Canadian agriculturist is 4d., the fluctuation in freight in one year, between New York and this country, on flour, amounted to no less than 5s. 9d. So that how can it be believed that the repeal of the navigation laws is to secure the Canadians from fluctuations in freight? But, Sir, Earl Grey, instead of exciting the Canadian colonists to entertain hopes which he must have well known must be speedily disappointed if the navigation laws were to be repealed—Earl Grey, instead of leading them to suppose that the repeal of these laws would put them upon an equal footing with the merchants and farmers of the State of New York, should have reminded them that no repeal of those laws could possibly put Montreal upon an equal footing with New York—that no measures of legislation could put one country upon an equal footing with another with regard to which it has pleased Providence that the navigation should be closed by frost during five months out of the twelve—that no competition could possibly put Montreal upon an equal footing with New York, when Quebec, which is 175 miles lower down the stream than Montreal, requires a voyage of ten days, one, and fifteen days the other, more than is required with regard to the former, when it requires twenty days to pass from New York to Portsmouth, and thirty days, I understand, as an average, for the passage back from Portsmouth to New York; while the average voyage from Quebec to London is forty-five days, and the average voyage from London to Quebec fifty-five days. But, Sir, there are other difficulties. It has pleased Providence that the navigation of the St. Lawrence should be interrupted and made dangerous not only by shoals and rapids, but by fogs and snow storms. The result of this is that not only are from twenty to thirty days only required on an average as the voyage between New York and London, but the charge of insurance is in proportion to the risks; and while the insurance to New York averages from 40s. to 60s. per cent, the insurance from Montreal, even in the most favourable seasons, is never less than 4l. per cent; thus the insurance rises as the season of autumn approaches: at portions of the year it rises from 6l. to 9l per cent; in the month of September no insurance is given, except upon the most extortionate terms. But there are also other expenses that no legislation can remove; and they are these—that the tide rising and falling to a distance of forty-five miles beyond Quebec, renders it necessary for ships going to Montreal against the stream to go to the expense of employing steam tugs. I have a statement of the cost of pilotage. To pilot a ship of 150 tons will cost 12l, whilst to pilot the same ship up the St. Lawrence to Montreal and back again will cost 37l. The cost of a steam tug from Quebec to Montreal is, for a ship of 400 tons, 70l, and to bring her back, 45l. Well, with these different charges and insurances it would make a sum total, which you cannot remedy by Act of Parliament, equal to 10d. per barrel upon flour. Then setting that length of voyage—setting aside the difference between the position at St. Lawrence and Montreal, and the fact that only two voyages can be made in the year, instead of three which can be made from every other place, how is it possible that by any legislation with the system of repeal of the navigation laws—let it be as successful as is desired by the most sanguine of those who hope that the iron hand of competition will bring down everything to the lowest point—how is it possible that you can place the cost of freight to Montreal upon an equal footing with that of New York? And yet you have the Secretary of State and the Governor General of Canada encouraging the colonies to believe that these ends are to be attained by the repeal of the navigation laws—encouraging them only to be disappointed. If you should succeed in carrying your repeal of the navigation laws, after a short interval they will come to you and say that your promised boon, which was to put the produce of Western Canada upon an equal footing with the produce of the United States, has proved entirely worthless; and, then. Sir, they will say, as they tell you in those communications, that the commercial union between the Canadas and the United States must be drawn closer, and that the next result will be, that they will east off their connexion with the mother country. But, Sir, let me ask leave to warn these colonies, that if any people are to suffer by a repeal of the navigation laws, none that I know will suffer more than these very colonies. I hold in my hand a statement of the number of persons engaged in the timber trade of Quebec. There are forty-five firms possessing 1,504 ships. This statement shows that twenty-one of these firms are bankrupt, and nineteen others are about to stop payment. Why, Sir, one of the most successful trades in Northern Canada has been shipbuilding. Foreigners, under the new system, will at once avail themselves of that wealthy branch of Canadian trade. Well, Sir, but what do the Canadians say? They tell you that as long as the fostering policy of this country was maintained towards the colony of Canada, they had no reason to complain of the navigation laws; for that fostering policy, which admitted the flour of Canada upon favoured terms into this country, more than fully compensated for any disadvantages she might be supposed to be under from the monopoly, if it be monopoly, arising from the navigation laws. But, Sir, the object of my Motion is to secure that no Governor General—if it be the object of the Governor General, which I cannot help doubting—that no Governor General, and no Minister connected with the Colonial or any other office trader the Crown, shall presume to present to this House partial extracts of any correspondence, or shall presume to lay before this House information connected with his department intended for the purpose, and calculated not to tell the whole truth, and not cast light upon the subject in question which it may be in the power of his department to throw upon it. And my object is to learn how it comes about that the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine is treading the steps so condemned by the public at large, namely, that adopted by the Colonial Office, of laying before Parliament only so much information as favours its own particular views of the subject. The noble Lord concluded by proposing his Motion.

said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it necessary or convenient, at this time, to enter into a discussion whether the repeal of the navigation laws would or would not be useful to Canada, or whether it would answer the objects which the Montreal Board of Trade have in view. I think that such a discussion will far better take place when any measure with regard to the navigation laws is proposed. The only question, as I understand the noble Lord on this occasion, is for an address for what has been omitted in the correspondence now before the House. The objection to the noble Lord's Motion is simply this, that his Motion appears to convey an incorrect notion of the facts of the case. Any person reading this address for what had not been laid before the House, would suppose that Lord Elgin had been to blame in not sending the correspondence which had taken place between the Provincial Secretary of Canada and the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade; and that he ought to be reprimanded for that neglect, and ordered to send the correspondence forthwith. Now, the fact is, that on the 31st of May, Lord Elgin writes a despatch to my noble Friend Lord Grey, in which he informs him that a correspondence has taken place, and that there are memorials to both Houses of Parliament, which he sends for the consideration of my noble Friend. This correspondence consists, besides the memorial, of a letter of the President of the Montreal Board of Trade, in answer to the Provincial Secretary. In answer, the Provincial Secretary reproves the President of the Montreal Board of Trade for the particular expression in the original letter, in which he said that unless the navigation of the St. Lawrence was to be made free to the United States, the inevitable result would be the dissolving of the ties which connect the latter with the mother country. Now, it appears that after this reply was written, there was another answer from the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade, defending the expression which had been originally used. Lord Elgin wrote on the 31st. Whether it was that he had not received that reply at the same time when the despatch was sent, or whether he considered it to be of no great importance, I am sure I know not; but I know I consider that the matter is of very little importance. He would not oppose the Motion if the terms were so altered as not to imply any blame upon Lord Elgin.

In asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I may perhaps be allowed to correct a mistake into which the noble Lord has fallen. There is one despatch from Lord Elgin, dated the 15th of June. The omission of which I complain is in a paper dated the 8th of June, and was published in the newspapers on the 13th of June, and it arrived simultaneously with that dated the 15th of June. So far as to the noble Lord's dates. The noble Lord is also under a mistake in stating that the communication from the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade was written by that person ex mere motu, and contained merely the expression of his own opinion. Such is not the case. The Secretary wrote by direction of the Montreal Board of Trade, which is quite a different thing, and that board ordered this communication to the Earl of Elgin after eleven days' consideration.

said, he should not object to the Motion being withdrawn except that they would have another Motion made on the Amendment that the House go into a Committee of Supply. He must, therefore, request that the Motion be negatived.

said, the Legislature had already voted no less a sum than 945,000l., not including the grant of the present year. The whole sum, as regarded money paid or agreed to be paid, up to the 31st of March, 1848, on these houses, amounted to 1,021,010l. The whole sum which had actually been granted by the Legislature was 945,000l., leaving a balance agreed to be paid of 76,010. The question he wished to put to the Committee was whether the sum which they were now called upon to vote was sufficient to defray the expenses, including this balance. From what had been done, and from what was to be done, and judging from the amount expended, he was of opinion that those new Houses of Parliament would cost the country at least 2,000,000l.

said, it was true that 945,000l. had been already voted. Besides this 50,000l. more had been issued this year on the understanding that votes would be taken in account. Very nearly the sum of 1,000,000l. had been already expended on the undertaking. It was also true that 1,021,010l. had been paid or agreed to be paid. If the Committee agreed to the sum now asked for, it would make in the whole 120,000l. during the present year, of which sum there would be spent 50,000l. between the present time and the 31st of March, 1849. 20,000l. had been contracted for, 50,000l. had been spent, and 50,000l. more, as he had already said, remained to be laid out on the building.

thought the course pursued by the Government was unwise, injudicious, and calculated to increase the expenditure. He would wish to know something about the rate of remuneration to be paid to the architect.

begged to call attention to the Victoria Tower. It would not be safe to carry up that tower more than thirty feet a year. But, in reference to the New Houses, the Select Committee had required two impossible things to be done. In the first case they required that all the apartments should be fire-proof, and that they must be insulated. In the next place, they were to be ventilated; but this they could not be if they were insulated. It was, however, important that they should refuse to advance a farthing until a board had been appointed who should be responsible for the expenditure.

objected, and the Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 14: Majority 57.

wished to call the attention of the House to this vote, to which he strongly objected, as he considered that if there was any department which required special control, it was the department of public works in Ireland,

could assure the hon. Gentleman that as strict a control was exercised over the expenditure of the Lord Lieutenant as over that of any public department of this country. He noticed an item in this vote of 900l. for a Roman Catholic chapel, proposed to be built for the Royal Hibernian Military School; and he feared that if this design were carried out, it would lead to much dissension.

objected to the item of 2,685l. for the repair and maintenance of Maynooth College, on the ground that the repairs of that college had been provided for by the grant of 30,000l. from the Consolidated Fund given by the Maynooth Act. He moved that the sum of 2,685l. be struck out of the estimate.

did not know that there was much use in Junior Lords of the Treasury. The Committee recommended that they should be reduced to three. But he rose to make an inquiry respecting the Assistant Secretary; it was understood that 2,500l had been given to Sir C. Trevelyan for his exertions during the Irish famine, in addition to his salary. Out of what fund was this grant taken? No public money ought to be given to a public officer without the sanction of the House being asked.

could assure the hon. Member that the Lords of the Treasury were of the very greatest use in conducting the business of the Treasury. However, the noble Lord the Member for Calne (the Earl of Shelburne) having resigned, it had been determined, in compliance with the recommendation of the Committee, not to fill up the vacancy. With regard to Sir C. Trevelyan, the case was an exceptional one; but his services on the extraordinary emergency alluded to were so very great that it had been thought right to make a Treasury minute awarding him 2,500l The item would he found in the account of "civil contingencies" laid before the House.

, while readily acknowledging the great services rendered by this Gentleman, could not forget that the Order of the Bath had been conferred upon him—a reward bestowed as for services which could not be paid for by a pecuniary grant. The vote of 2,500l was surely conceived in rather bad taste; and a preux chevalier, like Sir C. Trevelyan, hearing his blushing honours, might well be supposed to recoil from receiving an extra year's salary.

considered that the Government had no right to reward any public servant, however great and meritorious his services might be, without coming to the House of Commons and stating his services, and letting the reward come from the House and not from the Minister himself. It was a dangerous principle.

asked from what fund the money was paid? Was it from the fund voted for the relief of Irish distress? If it was, it might be a necessary salary for distributing that relief. He also wished to have an explanation with regard to the sum of 8,650l, which was distributed among the officers and crews employed in the service of Ireland during the period of distress.

had stated before that the former sum was paid out of the civil contingencies, and that the other was contained in the estimates then before the House.

condemned the conduct of the Government in this matter. It was their duty to have submitted a vote to the House; not to have taken on themselves to reward a public servant. If there was one rule connected with the public service which more than another ought to be scrupulously observed, it was this, that the salary of a public officer, more especially if he were of high rank, ought to cover all the services which he might be called upon to render. Any departure from that rule must be dangerous. The particular payment to Sir C. Trevelyan was not even mentioned in the estimates before the Committee. All that the estimates stated was, that 4,045l. were required on account of services performed in connexion with the distress in Scotland and Ireland. Who could suppose that a single charge to the amount of 2,500l. was included in what appeared to be an aggregate of small items? If it had not been for the hon. Member for Middlesex, the House would have known nothing of the matter.

said, that the subject had been referred to in the report of the Committee which sat on the civil contingencies; and therefore the House was not indebted exclusively to the hon. Member for Middlesex for the notice of it. The Government thought that the services of Sir C. Trevelyan were deserving of reward; and the question was, whether they should bestow the reward during the recess, or wait until Parliament met, and then propose it. They decided on the former course.

begged to say, that he had laboured with Sir C. Trevelyan for many years, and was deeply impressed with the value of his services; and he had no doubt that, whether he had applied his talents to the ordinary business of the Treasury or to the extraordinary business of the famine of Ireland, he had done so in a manner to entitle him to the cordial approbation both of Government and of Parliament; and if he (Mr. Goulburn) said anything as to the mode in which the remuneration had been granted to him, it was not for the purpose of disparaging Sir C. Trevelyan's services or doing him dishonour, but from a feeling that the honour due to him had not been properly paid. According to all precedent the House of Commons ought to have fixed the amount of Sir C. Trevelyan's remuneration; and the House had just reason to complain that they had not been asked to do so. With respect to the other question, of the abolition of one Lord of the Treasury, he begged to say, that he entertained an opinion entirely at variance with that expressed by the Committee.

said, that however Sir C. Trevelyan might have employed his intelligence, the Ministers of the Crown were responsible for his acts. The Public Works Act was adopted after several meetings of the Cabinet with Lord Besborough; and whatever errors might have been committed, the Government were to blame for them. Sir C. Trevelyan stated in his evidence that he worked three hours before breakfast; that he then went to the Treasury, where he worked all day; and that the pressure upon him was such, that be wondered that he had been able to get through it alive. If the Government had done wrong in including the vote in the civil contingencies, he hoped that their error would not he visited upon one of the most intelligent and laborious officers that he had ever known.

said, he must really recall the attention of the House to the question before it, with which he would not consent to mix up the policy of the Government in Ireland. The question was, whether a certain sum of money should have been given to this officer, from any fund whatever, without the consent of Parliament? He thought that the whole transaction was illegal.