begged to repeat the questions which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the other day:—First, whether the Board of Trade would prepare the new Spanish Tariff, and lay it before the House in the same shape as the tariff of last year; and, secondly, he wished to know whether the articles now prohibited by the Spanish tariff were prohibited in the former tariff?

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was probably aware that the papers to which he alluded had been laid on the table of the House, not by the Board of Trade, but the Foreign Office. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished, he would undertake that this tariff should be prepared in the same shape as the tariff of 1841; but as the tariff contained 265 articles, some of them very minute, the preparation in that shape would, he was afraid, take some considerable time; but if the principal articles alone were considered necessary, it could be completed in a very short period. With regard to the second question, he believed the only alteration made was, that by the new tariff many prohibitions had been taken off, and that no new prohibitions had been created.

said, he might, perhaps, be allowed to ask if there were any person now in Spain authorised to make remonstrances on the part of this country in case new prohibitions were laid on?

said, the question was one rather for his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department than for him to answer, but he should imagine that the British Consul General would put any necessary question of the description alluded to by the hon. Gentleman to the Spanish Government.

Sir, in consequence of a resolution passed last Session, I now have the honour of presenting myself to the House to ask their leave to bring in a Bill to give the electors of Great Britain and Ireland the protection of the ballot, in aid of their solemn and bounden duty to return fit and proper Members to serve in Parliament. I hope I may not be told. Sir, that the House was surprised or entrapped into passing such a resolution; the charge would be unjust! My notice stood for full three months on the votes and proceedings, the journals of this House, before I could obtain a hearing; and when delays took place over which I had no control, I addressed a letter to the editor of the Times, expressing my determination to bring on the question even if I took a Government night. Well then, hon. Members had their usual notices, and the Motion, deferred by no fault of mine, was heard on the 8th of August in a much larger House than usually meets for the transaction of business, however important, at the close of the Session—a House consisting of 171 Members, exclusive of the Speaker; and if there were Members absent, more intent upon discharging their guns at grouse than their duty to their constituents, I do not think that a resolution passed by hon. Members who prefer duty to pleasure should be disparaged on that account. As well might you disparage the acts of a quorum of a Committee, because the bulk of its members were pleased to go to the Derby or the Oaks. Sir, the important question is now before us in this position. By a solemn decision of this House you have conceded the principle, "That it is expedient in the elections of Members to serve in Parliament that the votes of the electors should be taken by way of ballot." I cannot then understand how hon. Members can now consistently with propriety refuse me permission to bring in this Bill, if they desire to uphold the dignity of the people's House, and to maintain respect for its decisions. Now, Sir, willingly would I save the time of the House, and say, I refer you to the debate of last Session, you have heard our case, and the miserable failure of anything like reply to it. You have conceded the principle—give me leave to carry that principle into detail; but to such a course I dare not confine myself, for I am told that I am to be stopped in limine—that the resolution of the House is to be sot aside, and leave refused to bring in this Bill. Well, then, hon. Members will of course do as they usually do under such circumstances; they will raise the spectres of their destroyed arguments, and parade them as existing and substantial reasons for rejecting the measure. How was my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, during the corn-law debates, compelled to kill his dead over and over again, and then to do battle with their ghosts. Well, Sir, take up Hansard, and the same future presents itself in the debates on the ballot, with this addition, that I defy the most sceptical to read those debates without the truth flashing on their minds that the arguments against the measure are mere colourable apologies on which to found a negative vote; and when we compare the vast phalanx of talent arrayed against the measure, the ability, the ingenuity, the skill in debate, of its opponents, with the feeble arguments they use, the unpleasant impression is left on our minds that hon. Members are deeply hostile to the measure, but for other causes than those which they publicly assign. Well, then. Sir, under the circumstances, I must endeavour to prepare for the threatened attack, and fortify, as I best may, the position we have already won. In exercising my discretion in doing this, I shall endeavour to merit indulgence by condensing the subject as far as I can; referring to past evidence and past arguments in favour of the ballot, merely to assert their inviolability. Sir, there is one particular argument upon which the opponents of the ballot always found their case: it has been used by the right hon. Baronets the Members for Tam-worth and Ripon, and, lastly, by the noble Lord the Member for London, who rejoiced in it last Session, and placed it in the front of his battle. Sir, the whole of the noble Lord's case depended on the assumption "that secret voting is hostile to the spirit of the institutions and constitution of this country." Now, Sir, I cannot admit this dictum—unless it be likewise conceded that intimidation is a recognised principle in our electoral system. In sad earnest, Sir, in this country, open voting and intimidation are inseparable. If open voting then be a glorious institution, intimidation must be viewed as a valuable privilege, and I invite hon. Members frankly to confess as much—it would save trouble. But, Sir, when hon. Members take for their theme the necessity of open voting to enable the people freely to discuss men and measures, to weigh the merits of those who seek their suffrages—the opinions of electors being influenced by the opinions of the non-electors who stand as it were sentry over the polling booths to watch the result, I say. Sir, that when hon. Members expatiate on such topics, carefully keeping out of sight the counterbalancing and neutralising effects of intimidation, bribery, and corruption, that it is founding argument not only on fallacy but on fiction—that it is a hollow dream, a vision of Utopia. It may apply to a fancied state of things, but to nothing real, nothing at present existing in England. While hon. Members indulge in this romantic vein, stern reality stares them in the face, and points to that vast body of unimpeachable evidence, a slight summary of which I gave to the House last Session, and which should be to Members in this debate their vade mecum, and which proves beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt, that inseparable from open voting are intimidation, compulsion and corruption, and that in our electoral system as at present formed, intimidation, compulsion, and corruption form the rule, and not the exception. Then, where is your argument? You cannot do away with the labours of the Committee which sat in '35; you cannot get rid of the appendix to it, furnished by the reports of the Election Committees sitting from that day to this; you cannot shake off the viva voce testimony given by hon. Members on the floor of this House during the debates on this subject. As an instance, turn to the debate in '42, and let me remind you of Mr. Ward's recital of estates changing hands several times, and the tenantry changing politics with their owners—owners! I use the word advisedly—for what are tenants so degraded but political slaves? Not less worthy of attention, though more feebly urged perhaps, was the attempt I made to lay bare the recognised proceedings of agents at elections—in the use of what they familiarly and technically call the screw. I produced canvassing books used by agents employed in various counties and boroughs, with their pencilled marginal notes, the deduction from which was inevitable, namely, that the art and mystery of a thorough electioneering agent is to institute an inquiry into the private lives and circumstances of the electors (an inquisition of years standing), and having discovered their liabilities and obligations, use their misfortunes as screws, wherewithal to twist from them a dishonest and unwilling vote; and thus I showed that at every election tens of thousands are intimidated, and driven to the poll under the screw of landlords, bankers, solicitors, creditors, and customers; while tens of thousands steer a medium course (not always with impunity) by refusing to vote or neglecting to register. I hope the House will not forget that last Session my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham completely corroborated me on this point, distinctly telling you that in his important borough there were upwards of 1,000 electors deterred from going to poll from dread of the consequences of giving publicity to their conscientious votes. Yet, with the collective evidence of years staring you in the face—evidence you cannot repudiate—evidence you cannot gainsay—evidence which, if it proved anything, proves the deplorably vitiated state of the electoral system; yet, in spite of these facts, hon. Members are pleased to assume that we are in a primitive state of political innocence—that landlords carry out the noble principles of Sir Roger de Coverley, and disdain to control their dependants—that their tenants are so many portraits of Farmer Ashfield—and that tradesmen are all representatives of Job Thornbury. In this poetical vein are hon. Members compelled to indulge, or their argument is worth nothing. I hope, however, that I may not be misunderstood nor misquoted. I grant that amongst the aristocracy and landocracy, men may be found with the fine qualities of the old Tory described by Addison and Steele. I admit that there are those among the agricultural classes who might well realise the portrait of Morton's independent farmer. I grant you that in the trading class there is many a specimen of the sturdy virtue of Colman's brazier. But this I assert, that the overweening lust for political sway on the part of the upper classes, has levelled and rendered nugatory the power of resistance on the part of the middling and lower classes, is a palsy on their independence, and has reduced them to the condition of political serfdom; and this in our vitiated electoral system is the rule and not the exception. Well, then, when the electors are not free agents, what becomes of the hollow theory of freedom of discussion and public opinion, and open voting as a test of both? This argument of hon. Gentlemen is a strong one for universal suffrage; because, if you attach so much importance to the opinions of the masses, why not entrust them with the franchise? But as against protected voting, the argument is not only worth nothing, but actually is an argument for the ballot—because, to give the elector fair play in our vitiated system, to secure to him that high privilege which now in bitter mockery you tell him is his right, you must protect him from, and place him beyond, the power of intimidation; then and then only will free discussion and the merits of men and measures take effect upon the mind of the electors and govern their votes. If the counties are in a miserable plight, in how much better a condition are the boroughs? You have the Reform Bill, it is true: it got rid of Old Sarum, Grampound, &c., &c.; and, lately, Sudbury was so openly profligate that you disfranchised it; but you still have left to console you as pretty a sprinkling of implicit boroughs as would delight the heart of Sir Pertinax Macsycophant himself, and there is a sufficient remnant of the old borough mongering system left to enable some to boast, with that celebrated Scotchman, that they have at their command "three implicit boroughs which return their three implicit broomsticks." When I last had the honour of addressing you on this subject, I pointed out that there were 98 Members sent to Parliament by this kind of broomstick return—that is, by the direct influence of the aristocracy over 43,199 borough electors. Now of what use would it be to tell that body of electors to consult the opinion of any but that monied oligarchy which first purchases or intimidates the voter, and then stands by the open polling booth to see the vote given? Really, Sir, when hon. Gentlemen talk of protected voting doing away with the effect of public opinion, it seems to me to be a delusion so monstrous, that, like the delirium of poor old Falstaff, it is a "mere babbling of green fields." I have thus endeavoured to meet the principal argument brandished in our faces on all occasions; but there is a sequel to it, on which I would say a few words. It is pretended, "that if you give the electors power to conceal their votes, that it will be useless; that the electors are utterly unable to keep their own counsel, and that their votes would be known." This seems to me to be preposterous, and at variance with common sense. When ruin stares a man in the face if he talk, it appears to me to be a simple but satisfactory reason why he should hold his tongue. But it is said that the British elector must talk; that it is not in his nature to keep a secret—that in his great frankness or in his cups, he would betray his votes. In short, that the British Lion must roar, although in so doing he should prove himself an ass. Now when you attribute this extreme garrulity, and this highly communicative disposition to your fellow-countrymen, I think you do them injustice. You forget that hundreds of thousands of Odd Fellows, Foresters, and Masons, keep inviolable the secrets of their charitable orders. I find, too, that you hon. Gentlemen who belong to clubs do not betray your votes by ballot, nor publish your blackballing exploits. You know very well the force of the old axiom, "garrula lingua nocet;" why deny equal sagacity to the Parliamentary elector? Will you pardon me if I put a familiar case to you for the sake of drawing from it an inference? Would any hon. Gentleman who is a member of the Carlton club, after using the esteemed ballot box and blackballing some individual—let me say some military gentleman of Celtic origin and sanguine temperament—would he be likely to descend into the street and tell the said gentleman the favour he had just bestowed upon him? Sir, I think not. Heaven forbid that I should insinuate even for an instant that any hon. Gentleman could be acquainted with the ignoble sensation of fear! Far from it; but, Sir, discretion, which is said to be the better part of valour, would prevent the disclosure. But the poor elector docs know the sensation of fear, for that which in your own case you call discretion, in his case you brand as ignoble, un-English, unmanly fear—and call it what you please, fear he must—he fears for the loss of his worldly gear, he fears for his farm, for his custom; he dreads the horrors of starvation hanging over his wife and family—and you pretend to think that this man cannot keep a secret while you can. Depend on it, Sir, that when secrecy is the price of safety, the secret will be kept with even more than clublike or masonic fidelity. But we impose no secrecy on voters: there is nothing in the Bill I propose, to prevent a voter from placarding his vote on his hat, or posting it on the walls—the power of secrecy is given to those who may need it in the discharge of a sacred and important right. That it will so protect them I confidently believe, in all fair-sized constituencies, and that the undue influence of persons high in station, rich in estate, will be set aside, while their due influence will be diminished not one jot. Sir, the observations I have had the honour to make, have been addressed hitherto to those who are utterly averse to the adoption of the ballot under any circumstances as a political reform. I now crave permission to address one word to those hon. Members who favour the ballot, but doubt its efficacy unless coupled with an extension of the suffrage. Now, I am willing to extend the suffrage, while I have not the least doubt of the efficacy of the ballot at the present moment with the electoral body as at present constituted. Reasoning of this sort must be generally conjectural; but of this one great fact there can be little doubt, namely, that the ballot cannot make matters worse; and this I am prepared to assert, that you can give me no proof of the failure of the ballot in any country in which it has been adopted, while I can furnish you with striking instances of its triumphant success. I have heard it asserted that the ballot was a failure in America—an assertion utterly groundless. At the present moment it is acting so gloriously for the protection of the dearest rights of mankind, that in the slave States, the traffickers in human flesh and blood seek to abolish it, because under its benign influence they dread the abolition of slavery. Sir, in a petition now on the table, signed by 7,128 inhabitants of the city of Bristol, they point to this startling fact, I beg to quote their argument:—

"That among the instances of the beneficial effects of secrecy of voting, one of the most striking is afforded by the electoral history of the United States of North America. That in these States the independent condition of the electors renders them generally indifferent to the concealment of their votes. That they are nevertheless so well aware of the protective power of the ballot that they have almost universally adopted it, and maintained it; and that it has been (as your petitioners are informed) proposed in the slaveholding States to abrogate it, with the avowed purpose of deterring the abolitionists from the honest exercise of their elective franchise."

Sir, can a higher eulogium be passed on the ballot than this? Thus the ballot in America is the sacred shield held up against the spirit of godless intimidation, for the protection of those who desire to carry out the best dictates of humanity, the most glorious attributes of Christianity—and thus in America intimidation desires to abrogate the right of voting by ballot; and thus in England intimidation refuses to concede that right. So much for secret voting in America. But, Sir, if I had a doubt that the ballot would work well with the present state of the franchise in England, that doubt would be dispelled by a comparison with our electoral system and that of Belgium. The House will remember that in 1830, the Belgian constitution was framed, the qualification for voting-ranged differently at different places, from 20 florins to 100 florins, and the suffrage was then confined to 40,000 electors. In 1848 the Belgians improved their electoral system. One universal qualification of 20 florins was substituted, paid in direct taxation, or 1l. 15s. 3d., English currency. A consequent increase of the electoral body from 40,000 to 80,000 took place with vote by ballot. Such is now the electoral system of Belgium; the fears of those who foretold that the change would have too democratic a tendency, were falsified. Men of property, probity, talent, and respectability, have been elected; and there can scarcely be pointed out a member in either Chamber who can fairly be termed a demagogue. In short, Sir, the Parliament of Belgium seems occupied in conjunction with her constitutional monarch, in devising schemes for the welfare and happiness of that eminently prosperous country. Now, Sir, the fact in point which tells so forcibly for this branch of my argument is, that although the population of Belgium is more extensive in proportion to the electors than in England, yet the ballot acts in the most perfect manner; and thus I answer with a practical illustration the mere conjecture that in England the ballot would not succeed without an extension of the suffrage. I have here, Sir, an admirable pamphlet written by a conservative, and addressed to the conservatives of England. With the indulgence of the House, I would crave permission to quote a few sentences on the subject of the ballot in Belgium: the writer, Mr. Barnes, thus prefaces the subject of the ballot:—

"The main obstacle in Parliamentary Reform is a feeling of conservatism inherent in a prudent and cautious people, who, admiring the institutions along with which they have waxed in prosperity, are willing to bear long with the evils that may be seen to accompany these institutions, rather than to rush into the uncertain sea of extensive change. When this conservative feeling leads to the preservation and furtherance of the principles on which the national institutions are founded, then it claims for itself the appellation of a provident and sure philosophy. When it overlooks these organic principles, and clings pertinaciously to mere outward forms, it degenerates into ignorant and imperilling bigotry."

The writer then declares that the great recommendation to ballot in Belgium is the English character with which it is invested, and thus proceeds to tell us some of the evils which in Belgium vanish under its influence, as thus:—

"Before the ballot vanish corruption and bribery, the great or rich man's power to punish or reward an elector for his vote. Treatings, ill-disguised bribery under the garb of hospitality, expenses allowed to voters, the electors' fear of voting at all, and the intimidation of electors while proceeding to the poll, and all occasions of riot and disorder during the electoral operations. Intrigues of agents, the indirect bribery of candidates, induced to spend large sums of money with particular tradespeople; to promise employment to hungry multitudes, &c.; the impudent negotiations for, and sales of seats; the so frequent coming forward of candidates wholly unknown to the electors, except by the report of their long purses; the forced election of some landlord of the neighbourhood, of his witless scion or slavish nominee; and the expensive and vexatious Committees sitting on contested elections."

Sir, the writer then refers to the late Committee sitting on the Dublin petition, in which at least fifty or sixty witnesses were examined; books and papers brought over which weighed upwards of two tons, and the expenses of which falling on my unlucky and persecuted Friend, the Member for Dublin, exceeded 10,000l. Now, Sir, however denuded this question may be of novelty, I think there is something new in quoting a pamphlet, written by a conservative, in favour of the ballot. But this is not the only novelty I can boast of, for since I had the honour of addressing you on this subject, a remarkably contested election has taken place between two Tory gentlemen of Hampshire—Tories of the genus protective—the one a landlord of tenants, the other a tenant of landlords; the tenant was defeated, and he thereupon loudly declared that he was beaten unfairly, and that if he had had the ballot he should have been at the head of the poll. Sir, I have pointed to Belgium as affording an example we well might imitate. I was much struck the other day in reading a speech made by an illustrious scion of the House of Saxe Cobourg, as reported in the Times—a speech attributed to his Royal Highness Prince Albert during his late visit to Lincolnshire. His Royal Highness gave great praise to the relationship existing between landlord and tenant in that part of the country which he visited, and which he said did not depend merely on a written agreement but on mutual trust and confidence; and His Royal Highness expressed a hope that in time their example would be followed throughout the kingdom. Now, Sir, I look upon the ballot as a measure whereby trust and confidence between landlord and tenant may be cemented and improved. Confide in the people, and they will put their trust in you. Sir, I believe that protected voting will have a tendency to improve the relationship between the various orders of society. It will render the rich man more attentive to the wants of the poor. It will diminish absenteeism. It will extend the use of the suffrage, now unconstitutionally cramped and curtailed by the penalties attached to open voting. I ask leave to bring in this Bill, because I believe that it will cause the privileged classes to seek to gain that political distinction by merit which they are now enabled to win by gold, or constrain by force; and because it is calculated to uproot a system of terrorism—a foul blot on the otherwise fair escutcheon of this great and free country.

seconded the Motion. He could assure the House that the trading classes were suffering persecution under the existing electoral system, and that they were compelled very often either to violate their consciences or to incur serious loss. He knew from observation and experience what these classes had to endure in the city of Westminster and in Marylebone, and in the whole of the metropolitan boroughs. He had himself held very strong opinions upon political questions from his youth upwards, and he always thought that every man of full age, whether lodger or householder, had a right to possess the franchise, and to think and act for himself. For having advocated these views in early life he had incurred serious loss; but he had persevered nevertheless, because he was unwilling that the sufferings he endured should be perpetuated to the class to which he belonged. He would state two or three cases of intimidation which had come under his own observation, and he would commence with one in which he had been personally acted upon. During one of the elections in Marylebone, where his house of business was situated, he was called upon by one of his oldest customers—who was connected with several families of high distinction, whose custom was exceedingly valuable—to ask whether it was his intention to vote for so and so? He replied not, for that he had promised the other candidate, an hon. Friend of his own. The party said, "We beg that you will not only vote, but exert your influence for the opposite candidate." He (Mr. Williams) replied that he could not conscientiously comply with the request, and that whatever was the consequence, he was determined to adhere to his original resolution. "Then," said the party, "send in your account—we shall never darken your doors again." He abided by his decision, but that loss had been a serious one to him, and at a time, too, when he could very ill afford it. Another instance of intimidation had occurred in the case of a friend of his in Regent-street—a very honourable man, whose trade was confined to the higher classes of society. He was called upon by an honourable lady in her carriage, who said, "I want your vote for such and such a party." He replied, "I promised it to another." "Oh!" said she, "what has your promise to do with it? you ought to oblige your customers." "Well," rejoined he, "I would be glad to oblige you if I could, but I am promised to the other party." "Then," said she, "if you do not vote for us, I will go to the Duchess of so and so, and Lady so and so, and the hon. Mrs. so and so, and we will, all of us, withdraw our custom." "I am very sorry for that," observed the tradesman. "Order my carriage to drive to Lady so and so's directly," said she. "Order your carriage yourself, ma'am," said he, "you have your footman at the door." He had that day presented a petition in favour of the ballot from Mr. Fowler, of the borough of Cardigan, in which he said that the consequence of his refusing to vote with his landlord, who was a clergyman, the Rev. Hector Morgan, was the receipt of a letter from his son, Thomas Morgan, a solicitor, in which he gave the petitioner notice to quit, observing—" When a tenant votes against his landlord, the good-fellowship which ought to exist between them ceases; and it is my father's wish, as well as my own, that in future no one should hold under us who will not support our Parliamentary interest." He (Mr. Williams) should have thought that a solicitor would have known better than to commit himself by such a letter. He had received several letters respecting the Cardigan election, which showed the extent to which intimidation was carried, and the necessity there was for some protection. He had himself seen the tenant farmers watched at the booth, and when asked whom they were going to vote for, they said, "Mr. so and so, I suppose." Would any Gentleman say that that was a state of things that ought to be upheld in a free country? And if tradesmen could be victimised as he had described by their system of open voting, what, he would ask, was to become of the working classes—the very sinews of the laud, as they were called? They were less able to bear up against intimidation, and, from their limited means of support, were more likely to be influenced by corruption. Many an independent fellow lost his situation for obeying the dictates of his conscience; and he would say also that he had known many an honest fellow to have swallowed the bitter pill of voting against it, rather than subject his wife and family to starvation. This picture, he was sorry to say, was the rule and not the exception in their boasted land of the free; and the only deathblow to such demoralisation he believed to be in the ballot. The ballot, at least, could not make things worse than they were; but, in his opinion, it would afford protection to the working classes in the free exercise of the elective franchise, would alter the present degrading position of the tradesman and tenant farmer, would bring many more thousand votes to the poll, and would cause those votes to be given according to the conscientious opinion of the voter, and free from the trammels of intimidation.

said, that though he, at least, of all others, had suffered most from that species of intimidation and unconstitutional interference to which the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion had referred, so long a time had intervened, he returned to the fact without one particle of personal animosity towards the parties who had so far forgotten what was duo to themselves, to their station, and to the fair exercise of the franchise. He had in his hand extracts from numerous letters of tenant farmers, declaring that they would have recorded their votes in his favour at his last election hut for the intimidation and coercion which had been resorted to against them. One tenant farmer, in the Forest of Dean, in his letter, said he would rather he without his vote than be allowed to exercise it as at present. Another wrote, saying, "If we vote for the man we approve of, we have our bread taken from us by the lord of the manor." The reason Mr. Neels, one of these tenants, had been dismissed was, that he had not obeyed the order of his landlord; and the cause assigned for his dismissal, that the farm was worth 60l. a year more, was false. Mr. Neels stated in a letter to him (Mr. G. Berkeley) that he had been on the farm for thirty years himself and his father—and that he had not voted at the last election. The hon. Member then read other notes, one from a tenant farmer, stating that though he had been forced to leave his (Mr. G. Berkeley's) troop of yeomanry cavalry, and also vote against him, he had sent secretly his subscription towards the expenses of his election. Another—to prove the intimidation that prevailed—from an innkeeper, at Coleford, stating that his premises had been entirely destroyed by the hired bludgeon men of those who opposed him (Mr. Berkeley), and that the magistrates would allow him no compensation from the hundred. Others, showing that treating existed to a very great extent, dinner for eighty having been ordered at three houses in the town of Wickwar; and a fourth from a tenant voter, offering assistance in private, and requesting to be communicated with under a feigned name, lest through the postmaster, who was opposed to his (Mr. G. Berkeley's) interest, it might reach the Lord Lieutenant's ears. The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex had alluded last Session to the present Ministry as being far from like the happy family, or not so thoroughly easy as the birds and beasts who were caged about the streets in that name—he could not avoid using the simile again. The family coop might extend from the chair to the bar of the House, but the parties within it were by no means at rest in their gregarious position. Look at the means resorted to by the Government to prop up a popular appearance. His right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester was an instance of it. A Member for one of the largest towns; they had selected him to grace the Treasury benches; but he (Mr. Berkeley) might liken the noble Lord at the head of the Government to Potiphar's wife; and his right hon. Friend to a political Joseph, who found himself at last forced to fly to save his political virtue. If an appeal were made to the county constituencies, it would be found that they had been so coerced at the last election, and so neglected by Her Majesty's advisers, when they sought redress, that they no longer looked to the Government as a liberal Ministry, anxious to protect the tenant farmer in his right of voting. It had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, that "the Whigs would shipwreck the State." They had already stranded that part of the vessel included in the colonies; and in his (Mr. Berkeley's) opinion, the rest of the ship was far from in a flourishing condition. He considered that shortening the duration of Parliament without the ballot would only throw greater power into the hands of landed proprietors and of the rich than they possessed at present. The question of the ballot had been placed fairly and ably before the House, and he was curious to see the effect the Treasury bench would have upon hon. Members who had voted formerly in favour of this question. A list of the division of the 21st June, 1842, showed among the supporters of the ballot the hon. Members for South Staffordshire, the Secretary to the Ordnance; for Louth County, a Lord of Treasury; for Gloucester, a Lord of the Admiralty; for Chatham, late Secretary Board of Control; for Greenwich, a Lord of the Admiralty; for North Northumberland, Home Secretary; for Evesham, in the Household; for Perth City, the Secretary at War; for Sheffield, Secretary of Treasury; for Dungarvon, the Master of Mint; for Drogheda, Chief Secretary (Ireland); for Devonport, Secretary of Treasury; for Edinburgh City, a Lord of the Treasury. He only hoped these hon. Gentlemen—or such of them as were still in the House—would he found, for the sake of consistency, of the same opinion on the present occasion. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, he understood, looked on this as an open question; but it was well known what the place-bound followers of a Ministry will do, upon a silent indication from their chief; and he looked to the result of the division that night with some amusement and curiosity. He (Mr. G. Berkeley) believed that among the votes against the Motion would be found almost all the hon. Members who had refused aid to the colonies; who had nothing to say on the subject of the salvation of Ireland; who had assisted to pass that most doubtful measure, the repeal of the navigation laws. He prayed the House, however, to make the experiment of the ballot as the only remedy against intimidation, as the only visible means offered of meeting the monstrous abuses at present staining the annals of the franchise, and as a means to save the country from a loose representation, a lax Government, and an unrelenting House of Lords.

said, he never rose to address the House under more painful feelings. He should be extremely sorry to make that House an arena for family quarrels; but a sense of what was due to one who was absent, and not there to defend himself, alone induced him to trespass very briefly on its attention; and when he should have concluded, he was sure the House would see how wholly at variance with the facts of the case were the statements which had been made. Allusion had been made to a tenant of the Earl of Fitzhardinge, who had been dismissed by his Lordship, not on account of any political opinion, but because, first, he refused to live in Lord Fitzhardinge's house, and had been told he should leave the farm unless he did so; and, secondly, because he had been convicted before a magistrate of lopping timber. Another accusation against Lord Fitzhardinge was, that he had coerced his tenantry with a view to their not remaining in the troop of yeomanry. He bad a letter in his pocket from the lieutenant of that troop, who was a political opponent of Lord Fitzhardinge, and to which, as contradicting his hon. Relative in the most decided manner, he had hoped he would have been spared the pain of referring. That gentleman, whose name was Ady, waited on the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and asked his advice as to what they should do, being anxious to relieve the minds of the tenants on the subject; and the Lord Lieutenant said he should be extremely sorry that a single man should quit the corps of yeomanry which the Duke of Beaufort had taken great pains to get up, because he had a quarrel with his brother. It had also been stated that Lord Fitzhardinge would turn from his estate any man who should vote for the ballot. Now, in the first speech that Lord Fitzhardinge made, after the passing of the Reform Bill, at a public dinner, he said that the greatest pleasure he ever derived from the votes of his brother was from that which he gave in favour of the ballot. He regretted extremely that he should be dragged forward to speak in defence of Lord Fitzhardinge, and had only to hope that the House would excuse him for having done so.

scarcely expected the House would have been disposed to dismiss so summarily and almost with contempt a question which had already been sanctioned by a deliberate resolution of the House. He should support the Motion, but not without regret. He regretted that a proposition of this kind for an organic change should be brought forward separately, believing, as he did, that the mode of making the representation of the people a reality instead of a name must be by a judicious combination of measures, and that to carry the ballot while there were so many constituencies with so few voters, would only be to change retail for wholesale corruption. They were clearly told by the authors of the Reform Bill that no constituency was to contain less than 300 voters. Looking to the disparity that existed between the class that now enjoyed political distinction and the class that had none, called the slave class, he was decidedly of opinion that the ballot to be useful should be connected with a large extension of the suffrage. His second reluctance to the ballot by itself was, that it was unfit for the country at present. It was said that the ballot would be a shelter for falsehood. Such ought not to be the case, and the fault rested with those who made secrecy a censure. He regarded the Bill now sought to be introduced as not only affecting the order of the democracy, but also affecting the character and social relation of the aristocracy. Corruption implied two parties; hut the guilt was not equally divided between them. To him, the corrupter and intimidator was the greater criminal of the two. Was it right that a man of family, of wealth, of station, with the honourable desire of devoting himself to the service of his country, when he looked to a seat in that House, and through it to lofty political power—was it right or fitting that such a man's first step should be upon a dirty path? Was it right or becoming, in a country like this, that corruption and intimidation should be the very first step of the man, who did not indeed "wade through slaughter to a throne," but through corruption to legislation, and who worked and won his way to a position whence he might bestow blessings on his country, but which he owed to the purchase of individual corruption and family calamities and disasters. The reports of the Committees of last Session had sufficiently shown the general system. The sums notoriously paid for seats in that House were matter of demonstration. In the great majority of cases the candidate himself knew little of the matter; but though unconscious as to the particular corruption, he could not be unconscious of the general management which took place, and of the manner in which the funds lodged at the bankers' in such cases were to be disposed of. Of this he must be aware; and he ought to make himself aware of the machinery by which this was brought to bear on the conduct of the electors. Could hon. Members realise to themselves that which went to serve the purpose of a very laudable ambition, they would shrink with some degree of hesitation. He, himself, knew a young man connected with a Member of that House, of promising talent, of pure principle, of a station which rendered it becoming that he should aspire to a scat in the Legislature, who was induced to stand one contested election; and the scenes he there witnessed of corruption, of the beating down of conscientious feeling in men's minds, and of the tampering with their principles, were such, that he could not overcome the moral disgust they occasioned, and he determined to abandon all prospect of public life as long as his existence continued. There might be an unusual tenderness of conscience in that case, but some analogous impression must be produced on all. A constant machinery was kept up in towns and counties, by the attorneys and agents and voters of the middle class, for corrupting the minds of their poorer fellow-countrymen, whose moral degradation was worked out, not only at election times, but from month to month, and from year to year. The operation was a continuous one. Many a man had been led to take his first step in guilt by having his conscientiousness broken down in being persuaded into the acceptance of a bribe. Many a family, supported by honest industry, had been led to rue the day when the tempter came to their door. It was recorded in the life of the poet Crabbe, that his father, an honest and industrious man in Suffolk, never recovered in his moral and domestic habits the effect of a warmly-contested election in that county, which led him into intemperance and debauchery, and destroyed his family peace. What was done in that case occurred in thousands and tens of thousands all over the country. However pure the aspirant to Parliamentary honours might be, he was part and parcel of a confederacy of demoralisation. There was a mission of corruption at work in the country, carrying disasters and disagreement into families, breaking down the integrity of the poorer classes—a mission more successful than many missions of a better character. While this went on, they would vainly endeavour to teach morals to the people: it would be Viopeless to think that any good would arise from ragged schools, Sunday schools, national schools, or church schools, whilst they were practically taught that bribery, corruption, and debauchery were no vices, or had a counteracting power which made them virtues. Let not the blame be laid on human nature—let not voters be called corrupt, and an apology thus set up for those higher and wealthier classes who ought to be their leaders in better and more honourable paths. He did not believe this was the case. He had had opportunities of watching the progress of corruption—of seeing the arts by which in a constituency of between 1,000 and 2,000—at first pure, or nearly so—votes were afterwards notoriously bought and sold. The people were not corrupt if they were not led into temptation. He knew that by his own experience. The borough he had the honour to represent was a place with only an industrial aristocracy; it had 60,000 inhabitants; the franchise had been conferred upon it by the Reform Bill; and from that day to this he believed no instance had been known—certainly, none had ever been proved—of a bribe being offered and accepted. In his own case he had never spent one shilling, had never asked for a vote, and was not known to an individual in the place by personal acquaintance before he received their requisition. This was the manner in which their returns had always been made; it was the manner in which other boroughs would make theirs, if the higher classes, would let them alone, or would but appeal to opinion rather than to sordid motives, to fear or apprehension, and thus call the best instead of the worst portion of their natures into active exorcise and predominance. Were the gentlemen of England content with this?—were they satisfied that the lower and poorer classes should regard them as tempters and corrupt persons, and should doubt their honesty and honest patriotism, as needs they must when it came before them in such questionable shape? Was this an honourable position for those who, with their Norman blood, had been called the aristocracy of the world? Was it one to which they could reconcile their minds, and bring their consciences into a state of complacency? He hoped this was not the case, but that they had still some sense of what was due to right and justice. The example of America, which had been appealed to, was often questioned, and it was said the voting there was very much devoid of secrecy. That was the very state it was desirable to produce. Let us have the ballot here, and in a quarter of a century there would be no care whatever about secrecy. The prejudice in the minds of the propertied class would wear out that votes belonged to them, or were subjects of legitimate purchase; this exercise of power would become untenable; the fallacy would gradually wear out; and the rich would become conscious that they had no more to do with any man's choice of a candidate than they had with his choice of a wife or a servant. The Americans themselves were the best judges whether the ballot had answered its purpose. If it had not, why was it that not a single State had exchanged it for open voting? On the other hand, it had gradually extended from one State to another; and within a few years the important States of Connecticut and Louisiana had adopted it. Without the ballot, whatever that House might represent, it would not represent the people. One great benefit of such a mode of voting would be that the candidate would feel the struggle to be, not one of influence or party, but of opinion, and would therefore apply himself to act upon opinion. Instead of going about with a train of those who had influence over the parties visited, he would endeavour to reach the principles of the voters, to act upon their minds, to give them knowledge if they were in ignorance, to dissipate their prejudices, and raise the fabric of his own political reputation on the firm basis of their intelligent support. In this way elections would become a school of moral and mental influence, instead of being a continuous source of corruption and depravity. For the sake of the consistency of the House, which had already passed that resolution—for the sake of the many thousands who could not freely exercise their rights of citizenship—for the sake of the parties who intimidated and domineered over them—and for the sake of generating a better feeling amongst these classes, he should give his hearty support to the Motion.

said, that there was, in his opinion, nothing contemptuous in the mode in which the House had listened to that debate. It had been said that the elector may be injured, but may the Member of Parliament not suffer, too, by the votes which he may give in the House? He knew not upon what principle it could be contended that the electors should vote privately while the Member was required to vote publicly. He would rest his opposition to the Motion, on the ground that the exercise of the franchise was a public duty, and ought to be performed in the face of day.

in reply, said, he could assure the House that he would not detain them a minute. He would say nothing in answer to the arguments which had been adduced against his Motion; he would content himself with leaving it to hon. Members to say how far it was respectful in the Government to let the question go to a vote with one Member of the Government speaking upon it.

then rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better government of certain portions of our colonial possessions. The subject, he said, to which he was about to draw the attention of the House was not an attractive one, or one from which it was likely they would derive any amusement. He was about to ask the House to legislate with respect to large interests, but he was not about to deal with those interests in a manner which could excite personal animosity. He was not about to attack individuals or make charges; all that he had in view was the welfare of a portion of his fellow-countrymen. He had been told, however, that the measure he was about to propose to the House was not likely to meet with such a degree of attention that the Government would permit him to bring it forward in the shape of a Bill. He disclaimed any intention of taking the House by surprise, having already, as briefly as he could to the House, and in a printed form, stated his opinions on the matter, and the principles which he desired to have embodied in an Act of Parliament. England had been a colonising nation since 1606; but during all that time she had acted without rule or principle. We had, in reality, become the greatest colonising power the earth had ever seen. He said this of ourselves and of those who had succeeded us; he said this, bearing in mind those ancient colonisers, the Greeks, and the more modern colonisers, the Spaniards, who had preceded us in the great business of colonisation. But looking at both those great people, he still said that the English were the greatest colonising nation on the face of the globe. But they had acquired that great distinction, not by any rule or principle—not by any government assistance—not by any aid—but by their own inherent strength. The people had done it all, irrespective of government assistance. Now, he knew that this admission would be used as an argument against himself; but he was about to bring into competition with ourselves another people who, like us, were a colonising nation; and when he said that England was the greatest coloniser the world ever saw, he was also prepared to say that the American people had succeeded to us. Two systems or modes had been adopted with respect to colonisation. First, they had the system of England, if it could be called a system. He proposed to compare those two modes of proceeding; and he should then ask the House to permit him to embody in a Bill the mode which, after some consideration of it, he considered most conducive to the end in view—namely, the welfare of our colonies. He was told, however, that that consent would not be given. He was told that our system was so good—that the noble Earl at the head of colonial affairs was so well contented with his position, and with the effects he had produced upon the whole of our colonies—that he was so well contented with the friendliness, comfort, and quiet which all our colonies exhibited—that he was so delighted with his past system, and the results of his present experience, that he would not allow any one to interfere, oven by experiment in the shape of a Bill, with the extraordinary Government of which he was now the undisputed head. He (Mr. Roebuck) dared not ask why our American colonies were in their present state; he dared not look to Now Zealand or South Africa; in fact, he dared not look to any portion of Our colonial dominions if he desired to see peace and contentment as a result of our present colonial system. But there were other considerations which he might lay before the House to induce them to pause at the present time, and to consider the great dangers which we at this moment ran in at least one part of our colonial possessions. He thought he should be able to show to the House that if something were not done (and he would point out what he thought that something should be), and that very quickly, we should at least lose the mastery over that portion of our colonial dominions—that we should see that proud and encroaching Republic, whose territory extended from the Isthmus of Panama to the North Pole, possessed not only of a vast dominion, but assuming supremacy as a maritime power over every portion of the world. This was no idle fear, no slight concern; for we might find ourselves shorn of our dominion, shattered in strength, and degraded in the eyes of the world. And why would this occur? Because, regardless of danger when danger was near, we gave up the consideration of those interests to those who were not capable of understanding or meeting the danger; because we put faith in a Government which did not know how to act. He accepted the proposition that our colonial empire was a benefit to—indeed a source of strength to this country. But he must be allowed to state what he meant by our colonial empire. He did not mean the possession of barren wastes—he did not mean an extent of empire upon which the sun never set, but communities which were willingly and lovingly our subjects, considering themselves as being honoured by connexion with us—communities willing to render us homage and a willing and unforced obedience; he meant an empire of thriving communities planted by Englishmen, and possessing their name, language, literature, feelings, and religion. Enforced allegiance, on the other hand, made colonial dominion a curse rather than a blessing, a curse as well to the governed as to the governing. Hon. Friends of his were constantly submitting measures of economy to that House, and pointing to the expense of our Army, Navy, and Ordnance. Could not, it was asked, that expense be diminished? "No," said the Government, "it is impossible. Consider the colonial dominion of England, extending to every quarter of the globe. How can it be maintained without Army and Navy?" He would tell the House how our colonial dominion could be maintained. By a good and beneficent dominion, by making the people willing subjects of the Crown. How were the colonies governed at the present moment? Perhaps the best phase of our Government was its neglect of them. But sometimes we governed in a mischievous spirit of meddling, which the colonists would not tolerate, and then we found ourselves disgraced and defeated, or in a state almost as disgraceful as defeat. Such was the history of our colonial dominion from its commencement, in 1606, down to the granting of the charter to Vancouver's Island. Our mode of colonisation could only be judged of by its results; and testing it by them, he would doubtless be met by the statement which he had already made that England was the largest coloniser the world ever saw; but he would show that this circumstance arose, not so much from England herself as from the other States which she had founded. But taking the colonial dominion of England herself, what were the principles under which that dominion had been exercised, and what the effects that it had produced? First, we laid the foundation of thirteen colonies in North America, the only one of which that received any assistance from the Government being Georgia. These colonies began by chartered companies, and the great lesson taught us by experience was, that in every case where it had been tried, a chartered company had failed in its office. If they looked to the history of Virginia, Massachusetts, Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Georgia, in every instance it would be found that wherever there bad been a chartered company, receiving a power from this country, that company had to be displaced and utterly divested of all its powers and capacities before the colony could by any means be made to succeed. This was a truth so firmly established by history, that none would venture to gainsay it; and yet, in spite of that lesson, the only mode which the Government at present had of improving their system, was by appeal to a chartered company. If the potato rot visited Ireland, and the people were plunged in terrible distress in consequence, up got some philanthropic individual and said, "Let us colonise." Every man had his own nostrum; but he would warn them, that every attempt of that sort must necessarily fail. Any attempt at relieving England by colonisation, he believed, would utterly fail. Many Gentlemen did not seem to know that colonisation or emigration was of itself a misery. An old fable or superstition existed in the middle ages, that if you dug up a mandrake from the earth, it emitted a sound of grief at being severed from its native soil; and he was speaking what he knew to be true, when he said that for a man to tear himself from his native land was, and must ever he, a direful misfortune; and it was no business of a Government to take a man and remove him from his own country. Let a man voluntarily, and of his own forethought, when he found his native land could not afford him the means of maintaining himself and his family in comfort, be allowed to transplant himself elsewhere and seek better fortune; and by prudence, forethought, and care, a Government might lay broad foundations for great nations yet to come. That would be to act wisely, prudentially, and statesmanlike; but there was no wisdom or humanity in pretending to relieve the distresses of our own country by shipping off hundreds and thousands of our countrymen to distant lands, and getting rid of them in that manner. Shipload after shipload of miserable wretches had been dragged away and cast on a desolate shore to shift for themselves how they best could. "Out of sight out of mind." Whether their future fortunes might be good or bad it mattered not—we had got rid of them, they were out of sight, and that was all that was desired. That was neither a wise nor a statesmanlike course. He would take a case to illustrate the working of our present colonial system. Some twenty-four years ago, in the reign of George IV., an Act of Parliament was passed, conferring 1,000,000 of acres of land in Australia on a company called the Australian Agricultural Company. He would suppose, that as many as were present in that House, with their friends, and a large body of retainers, under the pressure of adverse circumstances, wished to try their fortunes in another clime, and that with this view they chose to transport themselves to some portion of this million of acres. After a prosperous voyage they landed in Australia, at some admirable harbour. They found themselves under a fine climate, and asked themselves what they were to do. Now there was no provision made for these people, no predeterminate survey directing them to go to a specific place; there was no established law—they could not say at any moment there what the law was; there were no magistrates to administer justice to them—no government to control them—no predeterminate rule for them to guide and conduct themselves by hereafter. He would ask was this a correct representation of the facts? And if it was, was it not a most extraordinary and a most lamentable fact, that throughout that vast empire there was no rule or system by which any band of emigrants could know the circumstances under which they would be placed in the land of their adoption? If they went to Canada, Nova Scotia, or some other of the North American colonies, they might find some surveys, and law, and government; but the moment they went to a new and wild part of the world, no provision was made for anything like a new settlement; and the consequence was, that the contrast was exhibited, which he would show them when he compared what we were doing with what was going on within only a few miles of our own dominions. He was not now speaking of the colonies we had already peopled; but he wished that not only should colonics like Nova Scotia be inhabited, but also colonies on the opposite shore. He wished to see the shores of the Pacific also inhabited, and the island of Vancouver, which we had foolishly allowed to pass out of our hands for nothing. Look at the Americans in Oregon. Had they done nothing to show their emigrants what law they should live under, what they had to give for their land, where it was situated, or that they would still retain the character of American citizens, and also that if they were industrious, active, and (as they always were) shrewd and careful, at no distant period the settlers in Oregon would form two new and sovereign States, to be received into the United States' confederation? While such would 'be the consequence of the enterprise and sagacity of our neighbours, we would see Vancouver's Island a mere idle and uninhabited waste in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company. He was not now making any invidious or vituperative charges against the Colonial Office, but he sought to fix on our colonial system, if system it could be called, the character of being one of the most idle and ill-contrived systems that ever disgraced a nation. In 1783, by the Treaty of Paris, we acknowledged the independence of the Thirteen States of the American Union. At that time the territories of the United States stretched to this extent—drawing a line commencing with the Atlantic Ocean, at the point where their territory was separated from Nova Scotia, it ran westward until it touched the St. Lawrence, and thence by the great lakes till it reached Lake Superior, which formed the north-western corner of the United States. The boundary line ran down the Mississippi, the waters of that river, by the treaty of Paris, being made the common highway of both nations for ever. The boundary line then went down to Florida, which was the southernmost point of the United States dominions. Then it came directly across to the Atlantic, forming the southern boundary; and then it ran back to the point at which he had started, at Nova Scotia. These constituted the limits of the territory of the then United States; but what had taken place since that period? Why, they had run their line still westward from Lake Superior till they reached the Pacific, and along the Pacific they stretched to Old California, and thence across to the Atlantic Ocean: more than quadrupling the size of the former United States. In the meantime we had gained nothing in dominion. Then the United States had three millions of population, while we in Canada, with a much larger territory, had not more than 200,000. The United States had since increased their population by colonisation to something like 25,000,000, exclusive of the Indian population, while ours had not reached 2,000,000. And how was this? He might be told that America had only to people conterminous territory, and that its colonisation was as easy as peopling Yorkshire from Lincolnshire in this country; and therefore the comparison with the efforts of this country, thousands of miles off, was altogether unfair and unreasonable. But, he would ask, who were the people who composed the settlers of the United States colonies? Who, for instance, was it that colonised Ohio from Louisiana? Why, our own people—the Irish and the Scotch, who, as he would show them in two minutes, were still going away from us now. They had not stopped on English soil, and why was that? Because of the system which he was now attacking. They passed away onwards from our dominions, and placed themselves under the dominion of the United States. Only the other day he received an important letter—important, not from the number of persons of whom it spoke, but from other obvious circumstances—from a portion of his constituents in Sheffield, who were about leaving this country, but not to go to Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or South Africa, but to Texas; and the purport of the letter was, that the parties wished him to communicate in their behalf with Mr. Bancroft, the American Minister in this country, and get him to use his influence with the President of his own Government, in order to procure them the grant of 4,000 acres of land; and he (Mr. Roebuck) now held in his hand a copy of the rules and regulations and Schedule of the American Free Emigration Society, showing the advantage of emigration under the auspices of the United States. If they were to go to our colonies, they would go to a state of degradation and uncertainty; there was no rule to guide and govern them; they would lose their former standing and position. He was not speaking fantastically, for anybody could examine the matter for himself by a careful consideration. He would find that a man wishing to emigrate with his wife and family of boys and girls encountered a real difficulty and uncertainty as to where he was actually going, and what were the laws. If there was a predetermined rule extending over the colonies, persons would feel and learn that no such uncertainty existed; but there was no law but the mere will or whim of the Colonial Office, and even that, somehow or other, was never put upon paper, so that people might know what they really had to expect and to trust to; for if even the rule was rather a bad one, there might still be some good in it, if it were only fixed and determinate. But there was no such rule. Now, he thought it right to tell the House, that he thought any attempt to provide for all the colonies by a single Act would be impracticable. There were places under the dominion of the Colonial Office, such as Malta and the Ionian Islands, that did not deserve the name of colonies. A colony, in the sense in which he used the term, was a settlement planted by Englishmen, who went there with the intention of making it their home for ever, of propagating and continuing their race there, and going on from generation to generation, until they hereafter made themselves a great and commanding people. The West Indian colonies having so large a black population, so different in its nature from the white race, must have special legislation for so exceedingly special a set of circumstances, and therefore he proposed to exclude all colonies in that category from the present Bill. It would not be wise or discreet to lump all the colonies together, and provide only one mode of government for such widely different communities. Still his Bill should have reference to the North American colonics. South Africa, Australia, and he would also include New Zealand. There should be one system of law for settling colonics, another system for them when they were settled, and, lastly, a third system for colonies in confederation or union. Formerly the advantage derived from colonies came in the shape of tribute; but the ancient system, under the navigation laws of Charles IL, was now at an end, and the old shibboleth of "ships, colonies, and commerce," was now blown to the winds. We could now only hope to derive benefit from our colonies by making them thriving communities, having habits, wants, and manners like our own, and, therefore, creating an increased demand for our products; our advantage from those vast possessions could only be obtained from increased reciprocal trade, untrammelled, unchecked, unconfined—from free trade in every sense of the word. What, then, was our wisest policy? To make the number of our colonial subjects as large as we could; to place them on a fertile soil; so as to enable them to make us the largest return for what we can offer them. Therefore, all our legislation and laws ought to be framed so as to facilitate, encourage, aid, and direct their settlement. The United States of America had an enormous territory of wild land under a genial climate, far more so than that of our North American possessions. But there were territories of enormous extent belonging to us in North America, under a really happy climate, yet waste, and without a single inhabitant. There being, then, no fear of our wanting land under a happy climate, let him not be told that the United States had a much better climate. Upper Canada was not only far more fertile, but far more healthy, than corresponding parts of the United States. He had been talking only that day with an American, who told him what his countrymen would do with such a splendid possession as Upper Canada, by intersecting it with railways and canals, if it only belonged to them. In the year 1787 an Act of the first Government of the United States was passed for a vast extent of territory—the north-west territory of North America—which now formed five independent States incorporated within the Union. The Act provided for the gradual formation of that land into settled communities, until they should grow into States fit to become sovereign and independent members of the great confederation of the United States. And why should not England have adopted a similar com-se? The whole thing was like a well-made watch—it went from that moment, and never ceased to go. There it was still continuing; and what had been the result? Five magnificent sovereign States had been carved out of that wild territory since 1787; and while they saw all that going on, what had they done in Upper and Lower Canada, with a territory quite as large and fertile, and with a finer climate?—for if during some periods it was more rigorous, it also was more healthy. While the United States had made those five great States of their portion of territory—one only of which, namely, Ohio, had 1,500,000 inhabitants—the British Government had scarcely done more than the progressive increase of mankind would provide them with in the way of population. There was wretchedness and misery, and, now, nearly a rebellion, in that unhappy country, which was not blessed hut cursed by their rule. When they put boundaries to Upper and Lower Canada, which they have not now, and when settlements were formed with a certain number of inhabitants, the people should possess certain privileges—representation and self-government; and what portion of their North American colonies would object to that? While he wanted to form settlements, he wanted, also, to preserve a metropolitan government, and they could only do it by a governor appointed by the Crown. He would give them a law which would lay down the rule by which they should choose their representatives; but then it was said the Government did not object to it, but the colonies would object to his principle. The principle he wished to establish was, a free trade between the colonies and the mother country—a reciprocal free trade—a free trade in reality, and not a name. In fact, self-government and free trade were the two principles on which his law of settlement would be based. He proposed that every portion of their colonial empire—at least, every portion of the territory of which he had spoken—should be subject to this law; and when any person wished to acquire land, instead of throwing away vast and most valuable property—instead of doing it in that form—he desired, by the Act of Parliament he wished to lay before the House, to lay it down as a rule that no land should he in any way parted with from the Crown unless it lay within the survey boundaries of some distinct territory. According to the system adopted by the United States, first of all a certain amount of wild land was a territory; when it was found that there was a certain amount of population within that territory, it then became a State; when it had reached a certain number of population, it then formed its own constitution, and was received by Act of the united States into the confederation, and became one of the stars of their constellation. He proposed that they should do a similar thing; that their wild land should be a settlement before it became a province; that while it was a settlement it should be legislated for by the Act of Parliament he was about to propose. It should have a constitution fitted for its new condition, and when there was a certain number of inhabitants, to be determined by a census taken in five years—say 10,000 persons—by that very fact it should cease to be a settlement, and become a province, which by the same Act of Parliament would receive its definite constitution. Let them look, in the next place, to New Zealand, and see what the noble Earl, who would not let them bring in an Act of Parliament, was doing with New Zealand. New Zealand was a great way off; for its management they trusted to the head of the Colonial Office, who proposed a Bill for New Zealand, and that Bill passed. He believed that when it passed, not twenty Members read it; but it was passed, and sent out; but the Governor said he did not like it, and this very Colonial Secretary, who would not allow the slightest intervention with his preconceived opinions and mode of government, found out all of a sudden that he was wrong; and he came to Parliament to cancel this very Bill, and to overturn the constitution he had himself made; merely because the Governor told him a certain thing connected with it, he came to Parliament and said he made a mistake. That did not come up to his (Mr. Roebuck's) notion as to what should be the conduct of a statesman. He (Mr. Roebuck) had sat on a Committee with the noble Earl, when he had heard disputes about the country, and quarrels about the land; and could any man say that if a settled and preconceived rule was adopted respecting New Zealand, it would be in the condition it is at present? The very case of New Zealand alone was enough to damn the Colonial Office. It was a fine country, and when a body of Englishmen proposed to colonise it, they said they were ready to bring out 10,000 men, and place them under well-conceived and set rules. What was the answer? Certainly his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State was not then in the Colonial Office, and he did not direct these remarks to him; it was the fault of the system. The answer was, "Do not always din New Zealand in our ears—we will not have it." But Englishmen were not to be put aside. They proceeded to New Zealand. Before their departure they drew up a paper to abide by a certain law, and they left this country throwing off, as it were, all obedience to England. When they landed in New Zealand it was not under the control of the Colonial Office; and at that moment New Zealand was not supposed to belong to England. In fact, after that England sent a consul to New Zealand, and treated with the aborigines as with independent States and people. He was now quoting a celebrated treaty—the treaty of Waitangi. The people who proceeded to Now Zealand were an energetic race, well to do in the world. They were careful men, blessed with something of the world's goods. They were men who wanted to better their condition, and who had the courage to try. Instead of being-aided by any preconcerted law, they had every difficulty increased, every hope thwarted, every sanguine expectation damped; and at the present moment New Zealand is not the settlement it should be. He would go on with the history of New Zealand. Those people, as he had stated, went out there, and at last a governor was sent out. There was no rule, no law, but they sent out a governor—and that was not all. The island of Now Zealand (or rather the three islands composing it) stretches in a slanting direction down from the north-west to the south-east. At one end, towards the north, there was a missionary station, where there was a small population of whites gathered together in consequence of some missionary labours. The large body of settlers—the 10,000 men—rich, when compared with the others, in the world's good, went to Cook's Straits, and made a new settlement about 300 miles distant from the other place. Where did the Colonial Office place the Governor? Was it amongst the multitude of the people? Not at all; he was sent up to the north amongst the idle and small body. That was another proof of this admirable system. No rule was made as regarded property at all; but the property was acquired by persons who were called the New Zealand Company, who bought it, they said, from the aborigines: but down comes the Governor and says, "No; we don't like the bargain; you cannot have the land, for there is no rule laid down yet respecting land." The result was a quarrel, which stopped all chance of improvement in that island for years, and cost this country much money, and that was because there was no rule—a law which ought to be brought in and suggested by the Government. It should not be left to him to propose such a law, for if the Government were to do their duty they would say, "we will do it for them." However, they would not do it, but left it to be done by others. The Governor went to New Zealand, and quarrelled with the company; and the natives, being a shrewd race, finding there was no rule, and the bargain they had made was not the best, expected to get something by quarrelling about the bargain. The Governor supported them, and what was the consequence?—war, confusion, bloodshed—many valuable lives were lost, and all in consequence of the imprudence of the Colonial Office. He had found fault most lustily with the course that was then taken, and he found no person more energetic in support of every hard word lie could use than the noble Earl now at the head of the Colonial Office. But by the unhappy change that converted the noble Earl from an Opposition Member into a Member of the Government, that perspicacity that could discover faults—he (Mr. Roebuck) would not say where faults were not—seemed to have left him. The noble Earl certainly did not previously want zeal to discover such faults, and when he found them, he gave them the epithets they deserved. But what was the state of Now Zealand now? He did not know, and, what was more, he would be bound the noble Earl himself did not know. Now, he would go to Canada, and there, also, there was no rule. He recollected that some years ago, standing near the place he then stood, he told the House what would be the result of their determination to do away with the constitutional law of Canada. Everything turned out as he had prophesied; and why? Because they always legislated for the existing time, and the were always driven to legislate in the midst of pressing difficulties. They never laid down a rule by which those difficulties might be avoided. What did the Americans now say about Upper and Lower Canada? They said the moment they were annexed (that was the phrase) the two colonies would be separated into two States—the French people under their own law, and the Upper Canadians under theirs. If they did not adopt some rule in Canada, they would have a different result from that which they had in New Zealand. New Zealand is a small place; it is an island in the wide ocean; there is no great republic near it. The total amount of harm they could do them was to inhibit and put a stop to anything like a thriving and happy system in the colony; but what would happen in Canada? He felt confident that they would go on from day to day putting off the mischief, until at length that great evil would occur, that they would demand to be an independent people, and throw themselves upon the united States for support. That support would be given to them; and if they resisted, there would be a war with the most disastrous consequences, for it would be a war in which victory would be impossible. Let them even conquer the people, and they would not gain their end. Canada, if she once rebelled, must be independent; and when she became independent, she must be one of the United States. He was anxious to prevent that, and wished to come to the consideration of the question calmly and gravely. He saw the danger—he fancied also that he saw the way to escape it. His only hope was by the adoption of that predetermined rule of which he spoke, and by making the colony what it ought to be—a band of confederate States, looking to England over the water for support, and not burdened with a mischievous Colonial Office. They were now to deal not with this day's difficulty, hut with the difficulty of all coming time. America, if they did not interfere, would pass that great highway—the St. Lawrence—and would extend her dominions to the Pole. Looking to that event, could they prevent it? They could—but not by half measures, not by a meddling Colonial Office—it could only be done by a bold hand, by far-sighted policy, courage, and ability. Lot the noble Earl try his hand again at constitution making, and they would review his proceedings with all possible favour, and with the desire to make them effective. If that was not done, then let them listen to the plan he (Mr. Roebuck) proposed. He proposed to make at once the North American provinces into a confederate union. By that course they might hope to extend our colonies as they ought to be, and to increase them in that vast territory just as the Americans had increased theirs within the last year in the Oregon territory—the very land which was given up under Lord Ashburton's treaty. [Lord J. RUSSELL observed, that it was given up subsequently to Lord Ashburton's mission.] That did not displace his argument. This country had a settlement northwest of the Columbian river: it was theirs—it no longer belongs to the sovereignty of England, but is now a territory of the United States of America with regular boundaries, set out in the land survey, and sending Members to Congress as representing the territory of Oregon; and in a few years it would have the requisite number of inhabitants, and then would be formed into two independent States. Why should they not do the same thing in Canada? Why should they not have settlements there such as he wanted, and which would be equivalent to the American territory? They would have very quickly that settlement made into a province, and entering into their great federal union. What reason was there that it should not be done? What mischief could possibly be expected to accrue from it? He might be told he was preparing the way for the independence of Canada. The time was coming when she would be so, and he was preparing the way that she should not be separated from them by war, but by amicable settlement. His plan would be to regulate the boundaries of Upper and Lower Canada, which at present are but imperfectly known. He would have the boundary accurately defined, and he would then have a governor-general of the federal union—that governor going out from England. He would have each separate State sending its members to represent that State, and forming the legislative assembly. He would have the people of the separate provinces represented as they are in the House of Representatives in the United States, and let that body be considered the united legislature of those provinces. By these means he hoped to make our colonies our glory and our safety, instead of what they had always hitherto been, our humiliation, shame, and difficulty.

seconded the Motion.

said, his hon. and learned Friend, with his characteristic ability and straightforwardness, had explained to the House his views of colonial policy, and had given him (Mr. Hawes) and the public the advantage of more carefully and deliberately considering those views in the work which he had published on the subject, and which had been for some time before the public. The House, therefore, did not approach this subject as upon ordinary occasions; because, upon a matter of this great importance, had his hon. and learned Friend proposed to introduce a Bill without so full an exposition of his views as he had given in his speech and the work he had referred to, he should scarcely have been justified in saying that his hon. and learned Friend ought not to have the opportunity of bringing in the Bill, and giving the House the benefit of its perusal. But they were already in possession of the principles and details of his hon. and learned Friend's measure; and it would be inexcusable in him if he were not to say at once, that there were strong, and, he thought, decided, reasons against proceeding with it. He concurred with his hon. and learned Friend, that the highest and noblest function which a statesman could exercise, was to govern wisely and well the vast colonial empire we now possessed; but he did not take the same view as his hon. and learned Friend of the condition of our colonial possessions, nor did he think they could justly be considered a source of humiliation and disgrace, or that the status of a colonist Was one of degradation and inferiority. On the contrary, many of the colonies had risen, and, he trusted, would continue to rise, under wise and liberal government, into a condition of prosperity that would hand down with honour our name and language to future ages; and many now emigrated to our colonies, who, by birth and education, and the services they rendered. Commanded the respect of all who were interested in our colonial empire. His hon. and learned Friend alluded to our colonies in North America, South Africa, Now Zealand, and Australia; and he (Mr. Hawes) was glad to find that on many great principles of colonial government, much controverted of late, he and his hon. and learned Friend entirely agreed. His hon. and learned Friend did not propose to alter the colonial administration of the empire, though he proposed, undoubtedly, hereafter to limit its functions by the introduction of a more perfect system of self government. His hon. and learned Friend also proposed to maintain the general legislative power of the Crown over the colonial legislatures. His hon. and learned Friend also distinctly proposed, in opposition to some views which he had heard recently propounded, to maintain, and oven to multiply, our colonial possessions. To that his hon. and learned Friend added an important proposition not however new—that wherever a large colony existed, it should be divided into provinces, and governed by a federal legislature. His hon. and learned Friend also proposed to maintain a civil list, to include a permanent provision for the governors and judges of our colonies; and in these general views of colonial government his hon. and learned Friend's propositions were in harmony with what already existed, and only with one single exception did his hon. and learned Friend propose to introduce a new rule and new principle, to which he proposed to call the attention of the House. He entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that the object of all Colonial Ministers ought to be to facilitate the formation of new settlements, so far as legislation could do so; and that when a colony was in a condition to receive it, there should be introduced the largest measure of self-government. For this purpose his hon. and learned Friend proposed to introduce a Bill which should enable any persons on application to the Secretary of State, and who was imperatively to be called upon to act upon that application, to form a settlement in any spot which they should select.

explained that a discretion was to be left to the Secretary of State to determine whether or not a colony should be formed; but when he had determined that a colony should be formed, and the boundaries were defined, then the rest of the circumstances, to which his hon. Friend alluded, might come into action.

But if the settlers were left to select the spot, and the Secretary of State was left to decide whether there should be a settlement or not, might not the same difficulty and the same alleged obstruction to colonisation arise which now existed. Then the land was to be surveyed—a work of time and great expense; and before that could be done, he believed that in many cases the combination of settlers supposed, would be at an end. And how were the expenses of the survey and of the immediate government of the settlement to be met? His hon. Friend had given no explanation on this head, and it appeared to be overlooked. These were practical objections. But when he considered that the plan was to be applied to our North American colonies at once, he said it was involved in almost insuperable difficulty. In Prince Edward's Island there were but a few thousand acres of land to be disposed of. In Nova Scotia there was none. In New Brunswick the whole of the land was entrusted to the local legislature; and it would be a breach of faith for that House, without the consent of that legislature, to interfere with that arrangement. In Canada, also, the land, by the consent of the British Legislature and the Crown, was entirely under the control of the Canadian legislature. His hon. and learned Friend contended that the American States had increased in population in a more rapid proportion than Canada; and at the head of his book was a map distinguishing the different portions of North America belonging to the United States and to England; and he stated, that on the former there was a population of 25,000,000, whilst on the latter, of nearly as large extent, there were but 2,000,000. But his hon. and learned Friend ran up the boundaries of Canada to the North Polo, where human life could not exist: the comparative extent, merely of the two countries, furnished no just grounds of comparison of the population in each. His on, and learned Friend, however, was wrong in supposing that the population of Canada had gone on slowly as compared with that of America. In 1796, the population of the United States, as stated by his hon. and learned Friend himself, was 3,000,000: at the same time, the population of our own provinces, again on his hon. and learned Friend's own showing, was 200,000. The present population of the United States was about 23,000,000, being an increase of only eightfold; whilst that of Canada was 2,000,000, or an increase of tenfold. He would say, also, that, regarding Canada by any of those tests by which they could measure the prosperity of a colony, there was an increase of wealth and of population which ought rather to elicit approbation, than that strong and indiscriminate condemnation of the English Government in Canada which he so frequently heard. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to think his system would work well in Canada. He said at once and distinctly that there was no authority for that opinion. He had no reason to believe that any such system would give any such satisfaction as his hon. and learned Friend supposed. Let them remember that it would involve the repeal of the Act of Union. It involved also a direct breach of faith with the Canadian legislature, for the whole territorial possessions there of the Crown had been transferred to the Canadian Assembly, and yet his hon. and learned Friend proposed to give liberty to persons to form settlements, and ultimately provinces, within the territory of Canada.

explained that he proposed that the boundaries of Upper and Lower Canada should be accurately defined, and that settlements might be made beyond them.

But at present Canada claimed the whole of this vast territory. And what district lay beyond? The Hudson's Bay Company's territory, or Rupert's Land. Did his hon. Friend propose to colonise this dreary territory? Why, the southernmost point of that great tract of land, the Red River settlement, had a mean temperature no higher than that of Iceland. Was it likely that any persons would go to those barren tracts, where, for half a year, their labour would be arrested by the rigour of the climate, and all occupation at an end, when they had far more tempting lands to go to? Again, as to the Hudson's Bay territory, there existed a charter of government; but he found no provision made by his hon. and learned Friend for the adjustment of the claims which must arise were his plan adopted. Then, as regarded New Zealand, his hon. and learned Friend had entirely left out of consideration the title of the natives, though the power of forming settlements there could only be obtained by a full acknowledgment of native rights. Those rights had of late been recognised with judgment and discretion; and there was reason to hope that the difficulties of the land question, so for the sake of brevity to describe it, were now nearly brought to a close. The necessity for preliminary negotiation with the natives, who possessed a right to land in any portion of our colonial territorities, was however left out of view in the scheme proposed by his hon. and learned Friend. He would now turn to the Cape. Here they had again a large and powerful native race to deal with; and if the plan proposed were at once to he adopted at Natal, for example, they would most assuredly bring that colony into collision with the powerful tribes around it. Indeed, he should be glad to know how the scheme for forming colonies into provinces under a federal union could be at all carried out at the Cape, without the full and free consent of the colonists and their legislature. Then with regard to New South Wales; here there was an independent and elected legislature, and which was, therefore, to be taken as representing the wants and wishes of the colonists. But were they to deal with the lands of that colony without any previous consultation with them? Why, first it would involve the repeal of the Waste Lands Act, as, in the case of Canada, it would involve the repeal of the Canadian Union Act. He must say, that, looking at the whole plan of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be one offering no advantage over the system now in operation. Suppose, for example, that it was resolved under this scheme to form a settlement, and that a point was chosen on the north or western part of New South Wales, on the east and west of South Australia, how long would it be before that settlement was made? Two or three years at the least must elapse before the preliminaries could be settled. The devise of site, the survey, the divisions and subdivisions, and maps, would all have to be completed, before the actual work of colonisation was begun, even if that time were sufficient. Now, in the case of Otago, in New Zealand, where a settlement had been projected under the present system, and where the Government had done all they could to advance the object, the settlement had been at once effected, and it was fast becoming a most successful colony. He believed that in our colonies, where the representative system had been introduced, there was as much self-government as was consistent with their being subordinate to any superior authority; but he could not understand the grounds upon which his hon. Friend assumed that the mere subdivision of a colony into provinces, and creating a federal union, would in any way alter the condition of the colonists, add to their prosperity, or insure more contentment or satisfaction than the existing system of government by their own legislatures. A sound system of local self-government was the admitted foundation of colonial progress and prosperity. And in New Zealand, to which reference had been made, it was undoubtedly the intention of Government to carry into effect a system of local self-government. With regard to Australia it was his intention before the holidays to give notice of a Bill for the bettor government of those colonies. The plan proposed was ready to be laid on the table of the House. The intention was to unite all these different colonies, leaving them separate for the purposes of their own local government, and to unite them by means of a general assembly or federal legislature, for the purpose of legislation upon all questions effecting their general interests. He had carefully considered the plan of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the book he had put forth, and which he now held in his hand, and he must tell him that his objections to his Bill were wholly of a practical character, and such as could not be overcome by any alteration of the details of the Bill. The objection was to the principle of the Bill, and strengthened by its impracticability. Supposing the scheme to be realised, it would be in the power of individuals to extend and multiply settlements at their own will. But he was disposed to think that England had colonies and possessions enough, and that it would be wise to people, and improve, and concentrate capital in those we possessed, rather than unnecessarily to multiply them; especially on the principles laid down by his hon. and learned Friend. And as no provision was made for the expense of the first formation of settlements in this plan, it would be necessary to draw upon imperial resources. Unless, indeed, in the early stage of colonial settlements, considerable assistance was rendered, they rarely succeeded. In the case of South Australia, this country had advanced 250,000l. for its assistance. Since that time the colony had progressively increased in prosperity and wealth. It was an ill-founded though popular assertion that our colonies had not progressed in freedom, intelligence, and prosperity. The income of New Zealand would soon rise to a point that would bear its whole expenditure. South Australia now wanted nothing from us, and neither did Port Phillip, which in one respect was formed very much on the American principle. It was part of New South Wales, and indeed still was so, though a separation from the older colony was decided upon by the colonists themselves, when its trade, population, and prospective resources gave it a claim to a separate government. Like an American State, it arose from an increasing population gradually settling within the district. Its claim to a separate government was entertained and conceded as willingly in the colony as at home. The Bill to which he had referred, would confer a constitution upon it. Our system, therefore, was expansive—and our policy was to confer upon English colonists English laws, privileges, and freedom. It had slumbered, hut was now awakened. Indeed, the most remarkable advance had been made in the general prosperity of all our colonies during the last ten or twenty years. As intelligence increased, he anticipated still greater prosperity; and it was an undoubted fact that it was chiefly owing to those great and liberal measures, such as the abolition of slavery, and the establishment of free trade, carried out by this country, that we had been brought into collision with any of the colonics. He believed, however, that by the increase of intelligence, and the gradual extension of local self-government, our colonies would be found increasing more than ever in all that constituted the wealth and prosperity of States. He would conclude by stating that he should give a simple negative to the introduction of the Bill, while he concurred in all that had been said by his hon. and learned Friend as to the propriety and necessity of this country ruling her colonial empire in a wise and generous spirit. Nothing could confer greater honour on this country than to see its institutions, its language, and its customs prevailing among her numerous colonics; and he had the most thorough conviction, that by a wise and judicious policy our colonies would long continue to be at once a source of honour, and in no small degree a source of strength, to the British empire.

said, that a more complete, though at the same time, no doubt, a more unintentional misrepresentation he had never heard than that which his hon. Friend who had just sat down had given of the measure of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. His hon. Friend's reasons for objecting to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman were three. First, that it could not be adopted without an interference with the independence of the Canadian legislature; but, surely, until the Bill was on the table of the House, it was not right to object to what would form a mere matter of detail. The second objection of his hon. Friend was, that there remained native races in New Zealand, who had rights which the provisions of the hon. and learned Member's Bill would come in contact with. But this, too, was an objection with regard to details, more fitted for consideration in Committee on the Bill, than on a Motion for asking leave to introduce it. The third, and he believed the real, objection of his hon. Friend to the measure was, that the Colonial Office had prepared a Bill of their own, which they intended to lay on the table of the House. He would not stop to inquire whether this Bill had been thought of before the hon. and learned Member's book made its appearance, or before the hon. and learned Gentleman gave notice of his present Motion. The only important bearing which distinguished the two measures appeared, however, to be this, that the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman went to devise a grand and comprehensive plan for all the colonies, while the Bill of the Colonial Office was confined to the Australian colonies. His hon. Friend had certainly used the term Australian and not Australasian colonies; and it was therefore doubtful whether the Bill was intended to include all the British colonies in the southern ocean or not. The great source of the evils of colonial government appeared to be in the mismanagement of the land fund; and if the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted, such aberrations of Colonial-Office morality would be in future guarded against, and a serious opposition to the measure in certain quarters might well be looked for. During the three years that had elapsed since the accession of the present Government, neither Earl Grey nor his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, had taken one step to carry into effect their much vaunted Amendments; and yet they now complained of the hon. and learned Member for even asking to have his Bill printed, as a species of interference with their privileges. After having neglected all the opportunities which offered for improvement, and after having driven the colonies in the east and in the west and in the south into discontent, and even into open rebellion, the Colonial Office now objected when the hon. and learned Member came forward and asked the House merely to give him an opportunity of laying on the table a Bill which he believed would provide a remedy for the evils that all admitted to exist. As soon as the measure was brought forward, the Colonial Office came before them to say that they thought it insufficient, impolitic, or all events uncalled for; and they expected that the House—which had such reason, he would not say to doubt them, but to find them guilty of all the mischief against which the Motion was levelled—should, on their bare assurance, shut their eyes on all the acts of which the Colonial Office had been guilty, and wait until, in the fulness of time, the very men whose misconduct had led to all their embarrasments should find a way out of them. The House was in possession of the two cases, and should decide between them. For his own part, he would reserve the consideration of any objections that might lie against the details until they got into Committee, and against the principle of the Bill until the second reading. He felt that, under all the circumstances, he should be wanting in his duty to the colonies as well as to his constituents, if he did not give his hearty vote to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.

was delighted that the old pernicious system of protection was to be abandoned in regard to the West India islands, believing, as he did, that they would be more prosperous without than with that fallacious prop to industry. He did not agree with the plan of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, as far as it would apply to Canada. He considered that it would be most unwise and unjust to interfere with the power of self-government which had been given to that and the lower provinces of British America; in all which, for some time at least, their prosperity had been as great as the circumstances of civil liberty, religious freedom, and fair natural advantages would probably admit of, while they continued to be cramped by navigation laws, commercial restrictions, and the fallacy of protective duties. In his opinion, if anything had tended to prevent the progress of New Brunswick, it had been the protection to the timber trade, which had drawn the minds of the people from the cultivation of the soil. Nova Scotia, with a much worse climate, and far inferior natural ad-vantages than New Brunswick, was in a much more satisfactory state. Our North American colonies now possessed all the advantage of responsible government, together with perfect free trade with the united kingdom, and with all countries where the navigation laws were repealed. He believed they would then be in a far better position than they could possibly be under any other system. With regard to Canada and its annexation to the United States, he did not believe that any desire for such annexation existed in that great colony. The Canadians must know very well that if they were annexed to the United States, all their customs revenues, which now were devoted to the purpose of the province, would go to Washington, and they would sink from their present position of an independent country—for they were independent in everything but their allegiance to the British Crown—into a mere State, subject to the central American power. He thought the late disturbances in Montreal were fairly traceable to the old question of party in Canada; but he did not apprehend any very serious breaches of the peace to continue, nor any very disastrous results. He believed the party connected with those riots consisted of a very small minority in the colony, and that when those riots had passed away, matters would settle down tranquilly. Since the year 1830, so far as the North American colonies were concerned, the inhabitants had very little ground of complaint, except at two periods—the periods when Lord Stanley acted as Colonial Secretary, and who, with the best intentions, did some very foolish things. He was of opinion that any Government that undertook any great scheme of emigration would inflict injury on the colonies, by casting on their shores too many to be suddenly provided for, and imprepared for the difficulties incident to new countries; and he considered that schemes of the kind should be left to private enterprise. The most that Government ought to do would be to afford emigrants cheap and ready facility in procuring land, and preventing fraudulent conduct on the part of emigration agents at British and Irish seaports, and the crowding of emigrant ships with passengers; who being generally all fed in the dirty holds of crazy vessels, become the victims of typhus, or carried their calamity, together with their poverty, among our colonists.

said, that when the state of the colonies under the government of Lord Stanley was compared with their state under that of Earl Grey, the former noble Lord would have no reason to fear the comparison; but he wished to allude to the able speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who certainly had not attended to his own advice of proceeding by degrees. A commercial revolution having been effected, the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed a political revolution; he wished our colonial government to be modelled in imitation of the United States, wanting, however, their federal qualities and their system of protection. In every department of their political existence he would regulate them from their birth by one code; and he would burden them with the expense of a governor, unsupported by an army—a mere emblem of the connexion with this country. It was, he thought, ominous when the hon. and learned Gentleman hailed the explosion of the doctrine of "ships, colonies, and commerce;" he was afraid that it foreshadowed the separation of the colonies from this country, and the loss of her commerce. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, recommending the separation of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, for he believed that that separation would be only the forerunner of the separation of both provinces from the mother country.

congratulated the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield on having had the principle of his measure recognised and sanctioned by the Government; for, although the Under Secretary for the Colonies had felt it his duty to oppose the introduction of the hon. and learned Member's Bill, yet the measure which the hon. Under Secretary had announced it to be his intention to bring forward in the course of the present Session, was an acknowledgment of the principle advocated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If ever there had been a scheme propounded for the benefit of the colonies, it was that which had been so ably opened before them by the hon. and learned Gentleman tonight; and it was peculiarly fortunate that the position of our colonies, more especially Canada, possessed singular facilities for carrying out that scheme.

, who rose amidst cries of "Divide! divide!" was surprised that on a debate upon a question of such importance, so much impatience should be exhibited in the House by hon. Members whom he could point out who had only just come in for the first time that evening. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was most comprehensive. The plan was most comprehensive, and he (Mr. Aglionby) should wish to see the Bill and judge of its provisions before he gave his opinion upon its practicability. He was sorry that the colony of New Zealand was to be excluded from the Bill about to be introduced by the Government for the improvement of the government of the colonies. The measure proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield would include all the colonies, and therefore he was the more anxious to see that Bill. As to the colony of New Zealand, the prudence, energy, and caution with which the present Governor, Sir G. Grey, had acted, had caused the land question to be brought very nearly to a complete and satisfactory adjustment, and so far matters were going on well. But the settlers were memorialising the Government for the grant of free institutions, and he called upon Her Majesty's Government either to bring in a Bill to confer free institutions upon them, or to send out instructions to the Governor that he should endeavour to meet the wishes of the colonists. He begged to refer to a petition which he had presented last week from the largest and most influential meeting of shareholders in the New Zealand Company he had ever seen, and to a resolution which they had adopted, in which they set forth that in their opinion the best security for the colony against arbitrary government would be the grant of a charter, such as over and over again had been promised to the colonists, and given to other English settlements.

Sir, I should have risen to address the House before, had it been as full as it is at present, when my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies addressed it. But I do think it necessary, in the present state of the House, to state shortly what I think are conclusive objections against the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield. I give him every credit for ability in the speech which he has made, and for the large and comprehensive outline which he gave of what he considered should be the system of government in the colonies. But when I come from that view to consider his actual proposal, and that it is by a Bill his statement is succeeded—that it is by an Act of Parliament he thinks we should lay down certain fixed rules, by which we are to govern all the colonies of this country, and dispose of forty or fifty settlements of various races, in various parts of the world, under one certain system—I own I cannot but feel appalled at the magnitude of his scheme. The first objection stated, and most truly stated, by my hon. Friend is, that with regard to certain of the colonies you would be actually interfering with rights which they already possess by Act of Parliament, and which rights they are not ready nor willing to surrender. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the mischievous meddling of the Colonial Office. That is a sort of cant phrase which parties often use without knowing exactly what meaning is attached to the words; and, therefore, I am sorry to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman, precise and correct as he is in general, repeat an expression which other hon. Gentlemen use without attaching any meaning to it. But if the Colonial Office, which is, in other words, Her Majesty's Secretary of State, should write a despatch to the governor of a colony, giving instructions to a governor, that meddling at least admitted of correction. The governor or the legislative assembly, as it may be, remonstrate against the objectionable order, and another despatch may set right the error, if error it be. And so, with some little discontent it may be, or with some remonstrance, the grievance, whatever it be, is removed, and the wishes of the colonists are gratified. But if Parliament wish to intermeddle and lay down fixed rules for the government of the colonies, and the colonists find these rules interfere with their just rights, only consider the mischief that may ensue from bringing forward these Acts of Parliament. In 1839 the Crown renounced to the United Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada the right of dealing with the hereditary revenues of the colonies. They were placed, during the lifetime of Her Majesty, at the disposal of the Government of Canada. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to abrogate, destroy, and abolish the rights of the Canadians, and to introduce certain other rights of his own. Why, the discontent that would arise on finding their rights interfered with, would be exceedingly vehement and indignant. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes other divisions of Canada than those that now exist. He does not know that the Canadians would agree to those propositions, or that the other British North American colonies would be willing to he united with Canada. His suggestion of this new arrangement and union is not a new one. It was considered before, but the time was not believed to have come when the scheme, even if it were a wise one, would be carried into effect. It excited the attention of the Earl of Durham, who mentioned it to me, and I inquired of persons connected with the government of the province, and found that the prevailing opinion amongst men whom I thought best acquainted with the subject was, that the fiscal difficulties were so great that there could not be a legislative union between Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. If that be so at the present time, only consider the mischief you would produce by laying down by Act of Parliament that a union should take place, whether Nova Scotia or New Brunswick liked it, or whether it were utterly offensive to them—whether they thought even that it would destroy their self-government. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems surprised when my hon. Friend and myself tell him that it is not on behalf of the Colonial Office merely we on the present occasion object to this Bill, but that it is on behalf of the colonies themselves we say that an act like this should not be legislated upon without at least consulting the colonists. You would be depriving them of rights which they have been confirmed in by Acts of Parliament; rights which Parliament has acknowledged, and all this without the least consultation with them, or any attempt being made to obtain their opinions. There are many other questions with regard to other colonies, which my hon. Friend went into, and which I do not think it necessary to go into again. But supposing the plan was good for the North American colonies, it does not follow that you could carry out the same rule in Australia or Africa. The hon. and learned Gentleman was hardly well founded in his history with regard to New Zealand. He said the Colonial Office, not choosing that there should be an English settlement in New Zealand, a number of English settlers arranged together certain rules for their government, embarked, and made the voyage to that island, where they called into effect those rules which they had formed. Now, my recollection is, that the Secretary of State who preceded me, having determined that New Zealand should be governed as a British settlement, if the consent of the natives could be obtained, a considerable number of settlers emigrated from the Thames, and made rules by which they determined to dispense both civil and criminal justice in the settlement. But when I saw such rules, I saw that they could not enforce them. The law of this country and the supremacy of the Crown could not permit them to put such rules in operation. The company consulted the present Lord Chief Justice Wilde, and his opinion agreed with mine. They threw their rules into the fire, and made themselves subject to the laws of England, and the Queen of England, and not to the legislation and jurisdiction which they had previously framed. Part of the support which this proposed Bill has received, has been from the hon. Member for Cockermouth; and he says that he approves of it because it lays down certain rules applicable to all the colonies. But how does he support that with regard to the colony with which he is connected, and with the condition of which he is better acquainted than any hon. Gentleman in the House—New Zealand? He says that the land question—the question which has given rise to such disputes between the company, the settlers, and the natives, has been nearly arranged by the skill and ability of the present Governor, who has brought it very nearly to a successful termination, and he has every hope that in a short time that very difficult question will be finally adjusted in a manner agreeable to every party. Why, if this be the case, does it not show the House that it is bettor to treat every one of the colonies according to the mode most suitable to each? You have in Canada the representatives of the people disposing of the land according to their rules. In Now Zealand you have the Governor arranging between the parties who have claims. Those two modes are perfectly satisfactory to the colonists in each case. But then comes the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, and says there is no uniformity in those cases. "You have colonies, and because the word 'colonies' applies to all, I shall apply fixed rules to all, and by Act of Parliament I will dispose of all." Why, is not that a plan, that instead of making a settlement, will make a fresh distribution? And it will be many years before you can undo the mischief. Now, with regard to the introduction of the Bill, if it were a matter of indifference or of domestic concern, or near home, I could be more easily induced to listen to those hon. Gentlemen who urge the introduction of it in order to judge of its provisions. The hon. Member for Cockermouth says that as he has not read the hon. and learned Gentleman's book, he would like to see his Bill. But this is not a subject which you can treat in this way; it is not a subject which you ought to tamper with. If the Government or the Colonial Office, or my noble Friend Earl Grey, or any of the present Members of the Cabinet, are unfit to deal with the question, then change your Government, or have an Act of Parliament, and place your colonial government in the hands of this House. But if it is not so, then let each particular measure, as of old, be the subject of inquiry in this House; and, if defective, let them be censured in the House. And if that be the better mode of government, do not let the hon. and learned Gentleman introduce his Bill; for if you allow it to be even introduced, you will lead the colonists to think that you are about to adopt its provisions. They will think that you are about to effect some great changes in their mode of government. Their minds will be unsettled, and for that reason I shall oppose the introduction of the measure.

said, that at an early period of the Session he voted with the Government against the appointment of a Committee on the affairs of the colonies, because his belief was that such a measure, if adopted, would not have been of any practical advantage; but, on the present occasion, he felt it to be his duty to give a vote in opposition to the noble Lord. The noble Lord had said, that if this had been a matter of indifference, or one that related to our own domestic affairs, he would not have felt indisposed to permit the Bill to be laid upon the table, reserving to himself the opportunity of forming a definitive judgment of its merits when he had become acquainted with its details. He (Mr. Gladstone) confessed he was inclined to invert the doctrine of the noble Lord. He fully agreed that when a Bill was of a nature to which it was clear that Parliament ought under no circumstances to accede, it was a sound rule at once to refuse leave to introduce the Bill; but with respect to the positive objections which the noble Lord had made to the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought they were not sufficient to justify the House in rejecting it, at all events in the present stage. The noble Lord had stated that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to interfere in various respects with privileges guaranteed by Act of Parliament to the colonies. He hardly thought the noble Lord correctly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman when he imputed to him such an intention. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] But, at all events, it was quite certain that, if the Bill made its way to a Committee, there was not the slightest fear that it would pass into a law in such a form as would interfere with any privileges which the colonics possessed at this moment. As respected the principle of uniformity, he (Mr. Gladstone) agreed that it would be most unwise to attempt to apply uniform rules and maxims to colonies under such infinitely varied circumstances as the colonies owing subjection to the Crown of England; but he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to begin his speech by admitting that there were many exceptions to the application of the principle he proposed to lay down; and when the House saw the Bill in print, they could then consider whether they ought to enlarge the list of exceptions, and it would be their own fault, and not that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, if they applied it to any of the colonies except where it was found to be really applicable. The noble Lord had objected to the introduction of the Bill on the ground that it would disturb the minds of the colonists, by leading them to imagine they intended, as a matter of course, to pass it. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not know whether he was bolder than other men; he had thought he was not nearly so bold as the noble Lord, but certainly he was not apprehensive of any such results. Thinking as he did, therefore, that there was not sufficient force in the objections of the noble Lord, he would now go on to state the positive reasons which induced him to give a deliberate vote for the introduction of the Bill. He begged it to be distinctly understood that in giving that vote it implied no accordance whatever in the censures which the hon. and learned Member had cast, either upon the Colonial Department generally, or upon the Minister who at present held the seals of that department. He conceived that the question before the House was altogether apart from and above the merits of any particular Minister. The hon. and learned Gentleman had addressed his mind with the advantages of great ability, and great knowledge and experience, to the consideration of a most difficult and most important public question—a public question with respect to which there was a general, and, he thought, a just feeling in the country, that our present colonial policy was susceptible of great improvement. He was far from saying that the fault lay either with the Colonial Minister or with the Colonial Department. He looked upon the fault as lying much deeper, and he did think that public opinion was merging more and more towards the conviction that there was much which required amendment in our colonial policy. That being the case, he felt greatly indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having given his thoughts on the subject in a recent publication, and he felt inclined to enlarge the debt by encourging him to put his thoughts into the detailed and developed form which they would necessarily assume in a Bill. If he had thought the notions of the hon. and learned Gentleman chimerical or unsound, he would undoubtedly have opposed them in the first stage of their progress; but he confessed that, generally speaking, so far as he understood them, he thought the doctrines which had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman were sound and true doctrines, and that his views of our colonial relations were such as, if adopted in practice, would substantially conduce at once to the glory of England and the prosperity of the colonies. He thought it possible that the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the establishment of a federal government might be found to be impracticable. Indeed it was probable they would be so, except they were introduced very slowly; but, as the views were in themselves good and sound, and offered a solution of a difficult practical problem, he desired to urge the hon. and learned Gentleman onward in his career, and to bring his plan before the House in such a shape as would enable them to form a definite judgment of its merits. With respect to the effect which it would produce on the colonies, he emphatically differed from the noble Lord. The noble Lord himself, on one occasion, introduced a Bill with reference to Canada at the termination of a Session, avowedly with the intention of not pressing it during that Session, but that it might go out to Canada and be discussed there in the interval between that and the ensuing Session. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought that a similar course might he adopted with advantage on the present occasion, for he did not imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman was sanguine enough to hope to pass any measure on the subject during the present Session. It would be of great importance, therefore, to have it sent out to the different colonies concerned, in order that they might have an opportunity of offering such suggestions as might materially assist them when they came to the practical consideration of it in the following Session.

thought the reasons adduced by the noble Lord were conclusive as to the necessity of opposing the introduction of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had stated, in opposition to the remark of the noble Lord, that if the measure had been small, he would have resisted it; but as it was large, he would vote for its introduction. He (Mr. V. Smith) must say that this was a very extraordinary announcement to proceed from one who had held the office of a Minister of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman asserted, moreover, that the effect of allowing the Bill to lie on the table, so far from being prejudicial, would be favourable. He (Mr. V. Smith) was surprised to hear such an opinion. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know the jealousy which existed among the colonists as to every kind of legislation which had a bearing upon their concerns; and was it not contemplated by the Bill sought to be introduced, to compel certain federal arrangements to be carried out? Had the right hon. Gentleman held the office of Colonial Secretary, and had he consented to the introduction of such a Bill, he (Mr. V. Smith) would have said that he had adopted a course altogether unworthy of him. He congratulated the House upon the absence of abuse of the Colonial Office which had marked this discussion of colonial matters, and which, he thought, was calculated rather to retard than to advance their progress towards useful colonial reform. He thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for having brought forward this Motion; and, although he agreed with his noble Friend as to the views he had stated respecting the bringing in of the proposed Bill at the present time, he was glad that the subject had been introduced, as public attention would be drawn towards it, both in this country and in the colonies.

rose to say one word in explanation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had come late to the House that evening, and had not heard his (Mr. Hawes's) noble Friend. He, however, seemed to assume it as the principle of Government to oppose the federal principle. Now he (Mr. Hawes) stated distinctly it was a part of the scheme he intended to, introduce, and that the Bill he should bring in to-morrow contemplated the form of federal government for the Australian colonies.

said, that the tone generally taken by the House in colonial debates, and on the absence of which they had been congratulated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton arose from the fact that the Colonial Office had always set itself in opposition to any plan of improvement. There was a feeling all over the country that great changes must take place in our present system; but whenever any one ventured to make them, they were met with the single reply. "Oh, Lord Grey is a very good Minister;" but that answer was not at all satisfactory. The measure proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be regarded as compulsory; but, as he (Mr. Adderley) understood it, the Bill was for the advantage of those colonies which chose to apply to the Colonial Secretary; and that any application of it would only be by the consent of the colonies themselves. The evil which the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to remedy was universally complained of—the uncertain condition of our colonies at this moment. The average duration of a Colonial Minister's stay in office seemed to be about triennial, so that it was a chance whether he could carry out any scheme he might have prepared. The evils of the system were especially felt now, as operating as a check upon emigration. He could not say that he thought the whole, or even the more essential part, of the scheme of the hon. and learned Gentleman as likely to be successful. In the first place, where did the plan come from? From the United States. There was a large party in the House who were, he thought, rather too apt just now to borrow plans from America; but if he took hints from that quarter at all, he would rather take them from their earlier than their present system. At the same time, if the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not exactly what was wanted, still it tended in the right direction; and he (Mr. Adderley) hoped the introduction of it at least would be allowed, in order that the House might see the manner in which the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman were intended to be carried out.

, in reply, said, he thought that the noble Lord and the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies had hardly dealt fairly with him. In the first place, he was pretty sure they did not understand his plan; they had misconceived it. He said that because they had misstated it; for he was sure they would not have misstated it if they had conceived it. The noble Lord had stated that he (Mr. Roebuck) proposed a plan by which he was about, by Act of Parliament, to invade rights already established by Act of Parliament. That was a great mistake on the part of the noble Lord. What he proposed to do was, not to take from existing rights, but to put them into a lucid order, to consign them to Parliament, and, by these means, obtain a general rule for their future conduct. He thought there was no necessity to tamper with the rights that did exist; no proposal of his would tamper with existing rights in any manner. Therefore the noble Lord did him an injustice in stating these things, and not allowing him to do what he intended. The noble Lord had, in times past, not tampered with existing rights, but utterly and completely abolished them. He had heard the noble Lord propound a Bill to do away entirely with the constitution of Lower Canada. He did away with the constitution of Upper Canada. He united the two Canadas. He (Mr. Roebuck) did not propose anything of the sort, and no single right would be invaded by his proposal in Canada, in any portion of North America, or, in fact, in any of our colonies. When it was supposed he applied a general rule for a not homogeneous colony, he was entirely mistaken. He conceived that the colonies were entirely identical. You were dealing with English going from England to form settlements in a wild country; they took with them the habits and feelings of their own country, and all that he asked for was to give them some determinate rule, when they left this country, so as to enable them to conduct themselves in the country which they adopted as their own. He did not propose to be able to propound so large and comprehensive a plan at once. He was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the House; they must decide. We all knew what a condition our colonies were in; he had no hopes of a general rule being propounded. We had been colonising since 1606, and we were now only beginning to do the same thing. His hon Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had been guilty of making great mistakes in the last proceedings of the Colonial Office as to the colonisation of Vancouver's Island. He must solemnly protest against one statement, that England had possessions enough. England had not more than enough. What he said was, that England could not make upon this vast globe too many habitations; and if out of her bosom there might come thousands, whilst only one man should be instrumental in the enlargement of her liberal race, in the spread of her liberal institutions, of her language and literature—who should multiply the English over the face of the globe—that man would not only deserve well of his country but of his kind. He had that pride in his countrymen which led him to think that they could not be introduced too often to other countries, and could not make too many happy communities.

observed, that he thought the House owed it to itself to inquire whether its reputation was not involved in the maintenance of a rule by which strangers could be excluded on the Motion of a single Member. He was utterly at a loss for any reason which could be assigned for keeping up this regulation, and should be glad if any hon. Member, with greater Parliamentary experience than himself, would point out any case in which the abrogation of the rule could lead to inconvenience. He trusted that the House would come to some decision which would be found useful hereafter. For his own part, he felt strongly the importance of the House so keeping up its reputation with the country, that in everything its deliberations should deserve to be designated as the "wisdom of Parliament."

seconded the Motion.

The question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had brought before the House was one of very considerable importance, and such as ought not to be briefly discussed at that hour of the night (near twelve o'clock). He was not at all prepared to say, that the time might not come when some of the rules of the House (and this among others) ought to be reconsidered and revised; but he certainly thought that the best way of doing that would be to make a full and deliberate inquiry—first, by a Special Committee, whoso duty it should be to consider what alterations were desirable. If the House thought that any change should take place, he thought that such would be the most prudent and judicious course. He hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Motion, and that, at all events, if the matter was to be taken up, due notice would be given of bringing the matter on at an early period of the evening, so that there might be a larger attendance of Members than at the present moment, and that they might deliberately discuss the propriety of a rule of a very long standing which might not be any longer necessary, but which ought not to be hastily departed from.

understood that his hon. and gallant Friend was willing to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this proposition should be referred to the consideration of a Committee, sitting under the immediate sanction of the right hon. Gentleman. [Sir G. GREY: NO, no.] His hon. and gallant Friend had shown the existence of a substantial grievance, and as he had brought forward a measure to remedy it, it was only fair that the proposition should be referred to the examination of a Committee.

should be sorry to see this question referred to a Committee, because it might then be put off for an indefinite period. What prevented the House from deciding upon the Motion at once? Was it reasonable that a single Member should have it in his power, by merely mentioning that he noticed strangers in the House, to exclude, not only the occupants of the strangers' gallery, but of that other (the reporters') gallery, which was the most valuable part of the House—for without their assistance the public would be ignorant of the proceedings of the House? He believed that they (the reporters) gave most fair representations of what took place in the House; and considering the circumstances in which they were placed, the difficulty of hearing, and the rapidity with which many Members spoke—considering, too, the unconnected way in which many speeches in that House were delivered, it appeared to him to be almost a miracle that their proceedings were so accurately reported. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not propose, by way of remedying the evil to which he had alluded, to take out of the hands of the House any power which might be useful in cases of emergency. All he proposed was, that no single Member should have it in his power to order every stranger out of the House any moment he pleased. Surely it was but fair that a Member, desiring to exclude strangers, should propose a Motion for exclusion, and have it seconded and put to the House. He thought there was no necessity for referring this matter to a Committee, or postponing its discussion in the House to some future occasion; let the sense of the House be taken upon it at once.

moved the Third Reading of the Landlord and Tenant Bill.

moved as an Amendment that it be read a third time on that day six months.