proposed a clause for the suspension of the tenth clause of the Act 10 Vic, commonly called the quarter-acre clause, for a limited period. He begged to call attention to the various statements descriptive of the state of the Irish population, for the purpose of showing that a great deal of the evil of the present position was mainly attributable to the operation of this quarter-acre clause.

Clause brought up and read a First Time.

said, that on the last day this Bill was under discussion the question was debated, whether they should cut off outdoor relief altogether; but the proposal now made by his hon. Friend would have the effect of giving outdoor relief to an unlimited extent; and, he asked, would it be safe to extend the provisions of the Poor Relief Act in the way his hon. Friend proposed? It could not be denied, that by the law, as it stood at present, great distress might exist under the operation of this clause; but they should consider whether the suspension of the clause would not lead to a much worse state of things. It should be remembered that there was a power vested in the board of guardians to suspend the clause if they thought fit; and oven when a man gave up his land, it was in the discretion of the board to give him relief or refuse it. Therefore, supposing that a suspension of the clause should take place, it would be still in the discretion of the guardians to refuse relief. The House should recollect that the poor of Ireland were supported out of the means of the ratepayers, and they should take care that, by too great an extension of the law, those means should not fail altogether. For the reasons he had stated, he must oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend.

believed that the effect of the quarter-acre clause, forbidding outdoor relief to holders of more than a quarter of an acre until they had obtained a certificate from the landlord that they had given up their land, had been, during the late famine, to exterminate and depopulate entire districts.

knew that great numbers of persons had lost their land without legal process under the operation of this clause. Such was the tenacity with which land was held in Ireland, that there had appeared in the public papers the details of instances in which men had suffered their children to die of starvation rather than, by surrendering their land, to qualify themselves for receiving relief. It should be remembered that, as long as there was no produce on the soil, there was no difference between a holding of twenty acres and a quarter of an acre, for the occupier of twenty acres might be just as much in a state of starvation as the tenant of a quarter of an acre. But when they made the occupier of a few acres give up his land and go into the poorhouse, they made a permanent pauper of him, and took away every chance that he might have of regaining his former position.

regarded the Bill before the House as essentially a Landlord Bill; any changes in it were all in favour of the landlord, and against the tenant. It was horrible to hear the Government say, through the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, that it was better for human beings to incur some risk of Starvation, than to disturb the operation of the present poor-law in Ireland. He feared there was a policy not avowed in that House, but concealed and disguised, of allowing the famine to do its work in Ireland, and waste the population, and then good easy men in office told them it was a visitation of Providence which it was impossible to arrest. The operation of the quarter-acre clause was one which exposed the poorer inhabitants of Ireland not only to grievous suffering, but to the strongest possible temptations to fraud and deceit— destroying not only the body but the soul—imposing upon them not only degradation but crime.

protested against the manner in which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had imputed to him language that he had never used. The hon. Member ought to have known the importance of such a phrase as the "risk of starvation," and ought not lightly to impute its use to any Member of that House.

said, that if he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, he entirely withdrew the expression; but he thought the words "risk of starvation" were certainly used.

denied that he had used the word "starvation" at all.

said, that the effect of the clause would be to decimate the people. He would not say that that object was intentionally pursued, but there was full knowledge that the result must be most disastrous. Its operation must be to compel a large proportion of the poor to give up their holdings, and the inevitable consequence of that must be to leave them and their children paupers for an indefinite time; in fact, they must continue to be paupers all their lives. Mr. Twisleton, the commissioner, thought the clause too stringent. Those who gave up their holdings went into the workhouse, to remain there for life, while a great many who refused to go remained in their cottage to die; and thus the Legislature was driving off the face of the earth an industrious, frugal, and estimable class of men. They had tilled their ground and planted; they were now within six weeks of the harvest, yet, if this clause passed, the law would say to them, "You must give up to others that which you have sowed, and go into the workhouses for the remainder of your lives—you and your children." It was of no use to talk of outdoor relief; on that their lives would not be worth a month.

stated, that the account given of the sufferings of the Irish poor was only too true. Many of them, with the greatest possible self-denial, had put seed in their ground; but they were now placed in such a position that they must either die or give up that ground. It was, however, not to be denied that there were great difficulties on the other side of the question; and he did not overlook the fact that under a former state of management the rents of the smaller landlords were paid out of the rates; those landlords arranged so as to have their tenants placed on the relief funds, and in that way contrived to get their rents. In whatever point of view the subject might be regarded, there could be no doubt of the difficulties by which it was surrounded; hut he should nevertheless take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. Member for Clonmel to withdraw his clause for the present, and on bringing up the report to propose another clause, giving power to the commissioners to suspend the quarter-acre clause, whenever the justice of the case might require it. By such an arrangement he thought that the difficulties in a great measure obviated. He thought also that the law ought to be made clear respecting the power of the landlord to refuse to take the rest of their holdings from such tenants as were not willing to surrender the quarter of an acre and the house in which they lived. The first object which he sought was to give a discretionary power to the commissioners; the second, to have the law made more clear.

considered the quarter-acre clause the only means left, in connexion with a poor-law, to preserve the independence of the yeomen of Ireland. It would be quite impossible to raise an adequate rate for the relief of all applicants, if the check imposed by the clause were removed. As it was, the check was waived by guardians in a large number of cases, which seemed to call for relaxation. There were returns from the unions of Ballina, Swineford, Westport, and elsewhere, showing no fewer than 4,566 cases in which this relaxation had been made, without insisting upon the surrender of the recipients' holding.

was satisfied, by the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel, that it was necessary to suspend the clause. In the ordinary state of things, he would not be inclined to support the proposition, but an extraordinary state of things at present existed, and there were grounds therefore for suspending the clause. It was deplorable to think, that when the harvest could be reaped in a few months, the men by whom it was sown should be compelled to give it up and go to the workhouse.

said, the present state of affairs in Ireland was out of the ordinary course of events; and, therefore, he hoped the Government would see the expediency of giving the commissioners a power of dispensing with that clause if they deemed fit.

observed, that one class of persons was entirely kept out of view in this discussion, namely, the poor ratepayers. They would have to pay, as the law now stood, 7 s . 6 d . in the pound; and what would they say when they saw another person, holding perhaps a greater portion of land than themselves, receiving relief? Let the House then only consider the exasperation and annoyance that would result from the suspension of the clause. He saw all the reasons that were used on the other side, hut felt that by suspending the clause they would bring the law into discredit, and render it utterly inoperative. He would exercise what he considered to be a sound discretion, by voting against the proposition of the hon. Member for Clonmel.

conceived that what was really desirable was, that the poor-law should give as much relief as it was possible for any law of that kind to give. But if it was said that there was no case that should not be relieved by this poor-law, they would find that it would not answer that purpose. He could not consent, therefore, to the Motion of the hon. Member for Clonmel.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause he read a Second Time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 74: Majority 62.

then moved the insertion of a clause authorising the division of electoral districts.

opposed the Motion, on the ground that it would needlessly involve a protracted discussion at a period when it was most desirable to transmit this measure to the other branch of the Legislature; and having intimated that it would be open to the hon. Gentleman to introduce the subject at some more convenient occasion.

consented to withdraw the clause; but begged at the same time to say that he thought the question to which it referred was a most important one, and he hoped that on a future occasion there would be a full discussion of it.

could not let the clause be withdrawn without saying that until the area of taxation was altered, the Irish Members would not be satisfied.

admitted that a number of the present electoral divisions were too large, but it was exceedingly difficult to say on what principle they should proceed with the subdivision.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

moved the insertion of a clause permitting the guardians of any union in which the order of the Poor Law Commissioners to afford relief to persons by food only is in force, to afford such other relief to them, besides food, as shall appear to them necessary for the preservation of their lives and health.

said, they stood much in the same position with respect to this clause as they did with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Clonmel. The question was, how far their means would permit them to go, and whether, by drawing on them to an unlimited extent, they would so diminish them as to bring all down to one common level of pauperism. It was unfair to throw odium on the persons who opposed such a proposition, without making the slightest allusion to the abuses that would be created by acceding to it. Instead of distributing clothing, they should consider the means of the ratepayers, and confine the relief to the most necessitous cases.

considered that, even on the ground of economy, they ought to adopt the clause. If they abstained from giving fuel and clothing as well as food, disease would be created, and the number of poor would be increased.

thought the clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud would be wholly inoperative. If they gave relief in clothes, it could be only done by diminishing the relief in food.

observed, that this was about the fourth clause which had been brought forward in total oblivion of the first clause of the Bill. They adopted a proposition to guard the ratepayers from more than 7 s . in the pound, and then they came forward with all sorts of propositions to increase the expenses.

said that the guardians at present had only the power of giving relief in food to the able-bodied poor; and he thought a poor man who had been turned out of house and home required relief in shelter and clothing quite as much as food. He was therefore desirous of giving the guardians the discretionary power of administering relief to the ablebodied in clothing and shelter as well as food.

observed, that any poor-law would be subject to the difficulty of administering outdoor relief in such a way as not to induce the ablebodied poor to prefer it to supporting themselves by their own labour. It might be in many cases most desirable that the guardians should have the power of granting relief in shelter and clothing as well as in food; at the same time he thought such a power would be always liable to abuse, inasmuch as the ablebodied labourer would frequently prefer such relief to depending upon his own exertions.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

proposed a clause relative to the residence of applicants for relief. The proposition of the hon. Member for Cork would not relieve the small towns. What he (Sir D. Norreys) proposed was, that the provisions of the poor-law should not become applicable to a pauper who had not come to reside in towns within the last two years.

Clause brought up and read a first time.

opposed the clause.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 73: Majority 66.

moved the following Clause:—

"And be it further enacted, That when any land shall have been unoccupied and laid waste for the period of twelve months next before the 25th day of March, 1849, the board of guardians may excuse any new occupier of such land from the payment of any arrears of rates left unpaid by a former occupier of such land."

admitted that it was originally proposed to introduce a clause of this description, but as the opinions of persons generally were against it, the idea was given up.

thought it was right that they should know the nature of the objections to the clause, and from whom they came. When it had been thought expedient by the noble Lord to hold out some hope on this point to the Irish proprietors, it was necessary that some reason should now be given for the clause being withdrawn.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

begged, before the Chairman left the chair, to thank the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and his Colleagues, for the great attention they had given to this question.

The House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

hogged permission to be allowed to state the course which it was proposed to take on his side of the House with reference to the adjourned debate on his Motion. Hitherto, when the policy of the Government had been brought before the House, there had always been an understanding that Gentlemen who had notices upon the Paper would waive their individual claims, in order that discussions of such a nature might be completed at once. That was the feeling on his side of the House; and he was sure, that if any Gentleman had brought forward a proposition for financial reform, or for a new construction of the legislative body, who was supposed to represent the feelings of any section of the House, the Gentlemen on his side would have immediately given way. That, however, was, unfortunately, not his lot, when, at the request of no inconsiderable portion of the Members of that House, he had been induced to express their sentiments in the Motion he had introduced the other day. It was due to the Government to say that they had given every facility for bringing on that Motion, and that they had shown every disposition to give the question a fair encounter. He was also bound to remove an impression that might have arisen unfavourable to the hon. Member for Montrose respecting this matter. He understood that the hon. Member yesterday refused to withdraw a notice he had on the Paper for to-day; but it was due to him to say, that he had on a previous occasion endeavoured to facilitate the Motion of which he (Mr. Disraeli) had given notice, by withdrawing a similar notice to the one which he had on the Paper for that night; and though from misconception, he could not practically favour him, he (Mr. Disraeli) was, nevertheless, sensible of the obligation. In the present state of affairs, it was impossible for him, according to the forms of the House, to bring forward this debate until the 31st of July. The House would agree with him that it was extremely inexpedient to be called upon to give a decision on such a subject at such a time, even should the House be then sitting. There was an opportunity on Tuesday to have concluded the debate; but, unfortunately, the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone thought it expedient to enter into a discussion, the main object of which, to use his own words, was to show that every policeman was a "petty tyrant." ["No, no!"] Well, well! upon that point he would not insist. The hon. Member for Middlesex urged upon the noble Lord to proceed with that discussion on the ground that this was a flash-in-the-pan Motion. He did not know what idea the hon. Member for Middlesex might associate with a flash-in-the-pan Motion, but he had always understood that when Motions were brought forward, supported by a considerable number of Gentlemen, who, at great inconvenience, had, on more than one occasion, come down to express their opinions and record their votes—and this was generally conceived to be the test of sincerity of motive—it was the custom, and it did credit to the House, to treat Motions of that kind in a favourable spirit. He would only say, that those who were bringing forward this Motion, had no intention whatever to avoid a decision. It was their earnest intention to call for a division of the House on that question; but circumstanced as they were, it was difficult to see how they could attain that object. If, however, the noble Lord would agree to give them another Government day, he was authorised to say, on the part of the Gentlemen near him, that, so far as they were concerned, nothing should prevent the division taking place on that day. But if the noble Lord found that it was not in his power to permit the House to come to an expression of its opinion, then he had only one alternative, which was to move that the Order for the Day be removed from the Paper. He had made this statement in order that those out of doors might not be led to think there was on the part of the supporters of his Motion any wish to avoid a decision.

admitted that the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that it was usual when a Motion of importance, such as he had brought forward the other night, was adjourned, for Members who had notices on the Paper to give way, in order that the debate should be proceeded with. But, at the same time, the hon. Gentleman did not mean to impugn in any way the discretion which every individual had, of estimating what was the importance to the public and his constituents of any Motion he might wish to bring for- ward. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone thought himself hound to bring forward his Motion, and by thinking himself so bound to discharge his duty, the delay had taken place to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As the hon. Gentleman had stated, the Government was most willing to make any sacrifice of time at their disposal for the purpose of enabling him to bring forward his Motion—and he might say now, that if it were merely with respect to the character of the Government, he, for his own part, would not propose that any other day should be given to the discussion, being perfectly satisfied, after having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, and the answer of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the character of the Government required no farther support; but as the hon. Gentleman had brought forward a Motion of importance, and as it would be unsatisfactory if the House did not come to a formal decision regarding it, he was willing to make some sacrifice of convenience, in order that the debate should be continued. If it was to be continued, then the sooner the better, and, accordingly, he would give the earliest day at the disposal of the Government. He, therefore, proposed that the adjourned debate be taken to-morrow. In that case, he must ask the House to meet on Monday morning, to consider those Bills relating to Scotland, to which he attached great importance. The hon. Gentleman having asked for a Government day to conclude the debate on his Motion, he (Lord J. Russell) thought he was not asking too much when he requested the House to sit on Monday morning to proceed with those Bills. There was another question which was on the Paper for to-night, with respect to which he wished to say a word or two. The hon. Member for North Lancashire had a Motion for inquiring into the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, and praying Her Majesty to issue a commission for that purpose. Now, he did not think that the cause of the improvement of education in those universities would be promoted by a discussion at the present moment. There had been several proposals made of improvement in these universities, and they would be better able, after this Session, to judge of the value of those improvements, and of what would be the then state of the universities. His hon. Friend had, no doubt, a desire to promote the object he had in view; but it would be rather an obstacle in the way of that object than an advancement of it, to have a discussion on the subject in the present Session. It was known that there were objections both to the proposals of reform which had been made, and to the commission; and these objections would be strengthened by any discussion just now. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would not proceed with his Motion.

assured the noble Lord that the course he had proposed to take would be extremely inconvenient to the Members of Scotland, and very distasteful to the people of that country, who attached great importance to these Bills. He believed that there existed a very strong feeling against the Bills. He would not enter into the question of the merits or demerits of those measures, but he must repeat that the course which the noble Lord was pursuing respecting them, was not only most inconvenient, but extremely prejudicial. The reason why so few Scotch Members attended the meeting which had been alluded to was, that already a great number of them had left town for Scotland. When he mentioned the names of two hon. Members who had left London, the noble Lord would at once see that it was important that both these Gentlemen should be present at the discussion of these Bills—he alluded to the hon. Member for Perthshire, and to the hon. Member for Argyllshire. He believed the former hon. Gentleman had already expressed an opinion upon these Bills, but that he was unable to return to his Parliamentary duties to take part in their further discussion; and with regard to the hon. Member for Argyllshire, he had left town before the noble Lord gave notice of his intention to proceed with the Bills this Session.

said, that he had consulted the convenience of the Government only, and had he regarded his own opinion of the merits of these Bills, he certainly should have proceeded with them to-morrow. Such had been his wish, and such had been his intention. He had already stated, with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that he should not have thought it any reproach to the Government if the order for the resumption of the debate on that Motion were to be discharged. But hon. Members who had notices of Motion, having, no doubt, exercised their discretion in refusing to allow the adjourned debate to be resumed, he had, for the sake of the convenience of the House, proposed to give up a Government day to the consideration of that Motion, and had proposed that the two Bills—the Marriage and the Registration Bills, which, he believed, were calculated to be very beneficial to Scotland, and a great improvement in the law—should be postponed until Monday. He had done so, not for the convenience of the Government, but for the convenience of the House and the general mode of conducting the public business. In so doing, he was obliged to take, he admitted, an inconvenient course of appointing a morning sitting for the consideration of those Bills.

Subject dropped.

said, he was glad to be able to notify to the House, that in consequence of the consent of those who might have been supposed to entertain intentions hostile to the Motion of which he had given notice, it would be unnecessary for him to trouble the House at any length on the present occasion. He had received, from the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company, a communication to the effect, that they did not object to the inquiry he proposed, into the legality of their powers; and he had likewise been apprised, by Her Majesty's Government, that such being the feeling of the parties interested, neither were they prepared to make any objection to the proposed inquiry. As, therefore, there was to be no hostile discussion on this Motion, he should, with the greatest satisfaction, refrain from speaking one word that could be considered to be of a criminatory or controversial character. He had felt it his duty, on other occasions, and might again feel it his duty, to enter upon a variety of controversial questions, connected with the Hudson's Bay Company; but, on the present occasion, he should follow what he thought to be the plain course of public duty, in sedulously abstaining from touching upon all such subjects. He would, however, very shortly state to the House, the real subject-matter to which his Motion applied; because, the affairs of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the condition of that large portion of North America, which was under their government, had attracted so little notice, in former years, from the British public, or from that House, that there might, other- wise, be some misunderstanding as to the real purport of the inquiry he proposed, and what was the relation it bore to the Motion of his noble Friend the Member for Falkirk. The Hudson's Bay Company might be said, generally, to hold under three perfectly distinct titles. The first, was the original charter of 1670; which applied to a certain part of the territory now under consideration. Powers were also granted to the company by Her Majesty, under a license to trade, dated in 1838, which placed another large portion of North America, or, in fact, he might say, the whole of the rest of the company's territory, under their rule. Those powers, not being powers of government or of territory, but of exclusive trading, the legality of them was unquestioned, so far as they rested upon an Act of Parliament. But, besides these two titles, the one being the charter of 1670, and the other the license for exclusive trading, the Hudson's Bay Company had likewise recently received, by Act of Parliament, other powers, relating to Vancouver's Island. That island constituted a part of the territory over which the company had previously received the license for exclusive trading; but this Act gave to the company territorial rights which they had not before possessed. The original charter was only considered to apply to the territories in the immediate vicinity of Hudson's Bay, and those lands which were watered by the large rivers that ran into that bay. Those waters took their source from the Rocky Mountains; and, descending thence through various rivers and lakes, at length entered Athabasca Lake, on the west of Hudson's Bay. By these waters, the territory over which the company possessed power, under their original charter, was usually held and considered to be defined. The territory to the north and to the north-west was comprised within the waters which ran into the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans; and this territory was the subject-matter of the license of exclusive trading, granted in 1838. The territory of Vancouver's Island spoke for itself; and that had been made the subject of those recent proceedings which his noble Friend the Member for Falkirk had already called in question. The Motion which he (Mr. Gladstone) was now about to submit to the House, contemplated, strictly and properly, those territories only, which the Hudson's Bay Company was reputed to hold, under the charter of 1670. For some reasons, it might have been advantageous, considering the gravity of this question, if there could have been a fuller exposition of it; but he had perfect confidence in Her Majesty's Government, so far as related to their comprehension of their public duty, in regard to a Motion such as the present. The terms of the Motion were sufficiently clear to render it manifest, that its object was to secure a full and perfect, but, also, a dispassionate inquiry—not into the powers which the Hudson's Bay Company might possess—not into any abuse of their powers, which might have been alleged against them, whether truly or untruly, or any complaints against them, whether properly or improperly made—but, simply and dryly, to the legality of those powers. It might have been, in some respects, advantageous to have a fuller discussion; but if a clearer understanding could be arrived at by foregoing such a discussion, there would be a compensation for its loss, in having secured, what was above everything desirable, namely, that the strict character of this investigation should be preserved, so that it could not be mistaken for a matter of political controversy, or of grievance, or complaint; and, that those who would advise Her Majesty's Government as to their course, and who would be, he presumed, the law officers of the Crown, might approach this question without the recollection of any hostile debate or controversy upon it, but might regard it as one essentially judicial. He was content that the reasons for the Motion should be for the present taken to be only those obvious upon the face of it, consisting of matters of fact, perfectly undeniable, and not involving matters of reproach, or charges against any one. If the most superficial inquiry were made into the system of government under the Hudson's Bay Company in North America, it would appear that the powers exercised by them on that great continent, were so far exceptional and diverging from rule and precedent, and were so far from affording the usual guarantees for the liberty of the subject, as to render it obvious that, on the question being raised in that House, the Crown should proceed to ascertain the legality of those powers. Those powers might be stated, first, as a perfect and exclusive territorial possession of the tracts under the charter of 1670; secondly, as the power of exclusive trading reaching over the whole of that tract; and, thirdly, the powers of government now extended throughout the remainder of the country, from the Arctic Ocean in the north, to the Pacific Ocean in the west. These powers of government, which were now in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company, he could not otherwise qualify than as absolute powers of government, which made no provision whatever for the liberty of the subject. He did not enter into the question whether the circumstances of the case were such as to render the granting or the exercise of those powers proper and expedient. He wished to avoid all questions of policy. No doubt large questions of policy presented themselves to the mind, and on this question he entertained in his own mind particular opinions, which had been suggested by his inquiries. But he would postpone these considerations, because Parliament could not enter upon them with advantage until practical measures had been taken to ascertain what was the nature of the legal title of the company. Having stated the general grounds of his Motion, he was contented to let the matter rest upon this basis. It afforded him the most sincere satisfaction to be able to pass by the controversial part of this question, on account, as well as on other grounds, of the sincere respect he entertained for many of the gentlemen he knew to be engaged in conducting the affairs of the Hudson's Bay Company. Nothing was further from his intention, in entering upon this subject, than to cast the slightest slur upon the character of those gentlemen. It was only to-day that he had received a letter from Mr. Isbister, stating that, notwithstanding the strong language in which he had set forth his complaints, and the gravity and importance he attached to the subject, he entertained the greatest respect both for the character of Sir John Pelly, the governor of the company, and also for that of Mr. Harrison, the gentleman who was, or had been very lately, associated with Sir John Pelly, as deputy-governor. The complaints, then, were not against the character or conduct of these individuals, but against the system. He slightly referred to these subjects, not with any view of influencing the minds of hon. Members as to the nature of that system, but solely to afford himself the gratification of stating his appreciation of those gentlemen, and expressing his satisfaction that his sense of public duty permitted him to pass by any detailed discussion. He would therefore beg to move—

"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will he graciously pleased to direct that such means as to Her Majesty shall seem most fitting and effectual, be taken to ascertain the legality of the powers in respect to territory, trade, taxation, and government, which are or recently have been claimed or exercised by the Hudson's Bay Company on the Continent of North America, under the Charter of His Majesty King Charles the Second, issued in the year 1070, or in virtue of any other right or title, except those conveyed by or under the Act 43 Geo. III., c. 138 (extending the criminal jurisdiction of Canadian Courts), and 1 and 2 Geo. 4, c. 66, intituled, "An Act for regulating the Fur Trade, and establishing a Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction within certain parts of North America."

said, he had very few observations to make, and he should strictly follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman, in avoiding the expression of any opinion which could lead to controversy. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in stating that the Hudson's Bay Company had, much to their honour, as he (Mr. Hawes) thought, immediately assented to the inquiry proposed by the right hon. Gentleman into the legality of their charter. That being the case, Her Majesty's Government had of course not the slightest objection to offer, and he gave his cordial assent to the Motion.

wished to know what the noble Earl the Member for Falkirk intended to do in regard to his Motion upon Vancouver's Island?

said, the House would remember that upon the day subsequent to that on which he had brought forward his Motion, when the House was counted out, he gave notice that as it appeared impossible he could obtain another notice day, he should renew his Motion on the first opportunity when the Government fixed a Committee of Supply. He adhered now to that intention.

said, that before the question was disposed of, he wished to make a single observation. He wished to understand whether the noble Earl really intended to bring forward this question again, and if so, whether he would give sufficient notice ill order that gentlemen connected with the Hudson's Bay Company might be able to state their case? So far as he (Mr. Ellice) was concerned, and so far as his knowledge extended, a great deal more importance had been ascribed to this question about Vancouver's Island and the Hudson's Bay Company than it deserved, and it had grown into a magnitude which did not properly belong to it. He was not in the House last year when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford brought forward this question, and when his (Mr. Ellice's) name was frequently referred to; but he saw in all the newspapers that a statement had been made to the effect that his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office had given this island to the Hudson's Bay Company as a favour—or what was termed a job—to him. Now he had heard nothing at all of the transaction until the right hon. Gentleman brought the subject before the House, and all he could say was, that so far from considering that grant valuable to the Hudson's Bay Company, his conscientious conviction was that the company had undertaken to do that which would never repay them in point of interest; and if his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office had offered to give him that island, subject to the conditions upon which it had been given to the Hudson's Bay Company, he should have thought himself fitter for a lunatic asylum than for addressing the House of Commons if he had accepted it. He suggested to the noble Earl to reflect a little before he persevered in this matter. In the Hudson's Bay Company this country had an instrument by which the affairs of a vast region, almost inaccessible to civilised beings, were administered without expense; and it was not probable that other means would be found to effect the same object. There was no imputation upon the company that hitherto they had abused their trusts and powers, or that they had not done their best to maintain peace and order. If his right hon. Friend opposite, upon whom, at some future period, the duty might devolve of administering the colonial affairs of this empire, would only consider by what other system the administration of this enormous district could be provided for if the Hudson's Bay Company were superseded, he would hesitate very much before he sought to destroy that most efficient instrument for the purpose. If the hon. Member for Montrose would move for a Committee, and if Members would act upon it, he (Mr. Ellice) would prove to the satisfaction of that hon. Member and of the Committee that the company had hitherto creditably and efficiently exercised the powers which had been given to them by the House and the Government; and he should be greatly surprised if the Commi- ttee should be "able to devise any other machinery as a substitute for the efficient administration of the Hudson's Bay Company. The Hudson's Bay Company, like all others of the kind, had probably imperfections in its management. For some time no Colonial Administration had existed against which complaints had not been made in that House; but he knew of none against which there had been fewer than the Hudson's Bay Company. He did not see any public good that could accrue from the discussion of this subject. The right hon. Gentleman would now derive every information he could desire in a legal point of view, as to the powers of the company, under Acts of Parliament and charters, from the inquiry about to be made; and there was no reason why those things, or why the administration of the Hudson's Bay Company, should not be inquired into. But he hoped the noble Earl the Member for Falkirk would hesitate before he cast a slur upon an institution which had hitherto very efficiently performed its duties.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry had addressed him as if he had been bringing the Hudson's Bay Company to the bar of public opinion. But he had done no such thing; on the contrary, he had distinctly stated that he did not blame the Hudson's Bay Company, but that he blamed the Government for placing Vancouver's Island in their hands. That objection was still valid. The company might very well manage those vast regions which belonged to them, but the placing of a new colony under their administration was another question altogether.

said, he should not attempt to reply to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, because, if he did so, he knew that he should be immediately called to order, having once already briefly addressed the House on this subject.

wished to say one word in answer to the appeal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, who seemed to think it was his (Mr. Gladstone's) intention or desire to obtain hostilely from the House some judgment by anticipation upon the policy of the Hudson's Bay Company's system. Now, he had expressed his intention, in the shortest and most stringent terms he could use; he had distinctly said, that he did not wish to weaken the company, or raise any prejudices at all against their title. It appeared to him, after so much had been said, that it was fair to the company themselves that their title should be investigated; and if the result "was satisfactory, the company would greatly benefit from the inquiry. The question of policy he should reserve for further consideration; and after the examination was concluded, he should have the opportunity of urging his objections—if he entertained any—against the policy by which so large a part of North America was now governed; and his right hon. Friend would also then have the opportunity of stating his views. He hoped his right hon. Friend would do him the justice to admit, that he (Mr. Gladstone) had never breathed one whisper of the imputation upon his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, that he had granted Vancouver's Island upon the secret application of his right hon. Friend opposite. Never had he (Mr. Gladstone) for a moment entertained or given credence to so unworthy a suggestion. With respect to the question of that grant, although the right hon. Gentleman had invited discussion upon it, he would not then enter into it further than to say, that while it might be of small importance to the Hudson's Bay Company, he was led to attach importance to it on account of the principle involved in it, and of the practice of which is set an example in the foundation of colonies. Upon the question then before the House, in relation to the old territories, they were, happily, all harmoniously agreed; but with regard to Vancouver's Island he feared there was no prospect before them but that of war to the knife.

Motion agreed to.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to establish throughout Ireland the custom of tenant right prevailing in the province of Ulster. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale had frequently urged this question upon the attention of the House, but meeting with no success, he had given up any further attempt in despair. His hon. Friend not only theorised upon the question, but he put his theory into practice, and in consequence he was regarded all over Ireland as the poor man's friend. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had no hope that any better success would attend his efforts than had followed those of his hon. Friend; but when he traced, as he did distinctly and clearly, the very root of the overwhelming evils of Ireland to the existing relations between landlord and tenant, and he found that the Government would make no effort to amend those relations, he felt hound in duty not to despair. He was not wedded to any particular plan, and if he described his theory, it would be only to invite an expression of opinion on the part of those who were better qualified than himself to suggest remedies. Both sides of the House had introduced projects for the settlement of the question. Successive Ministers had tried to meet the difficulties of the case; but they had always abandoned their measures before they had been advanced many stages, leaving the evil to grow until it had reached its present tremendous extent. It was absolutely necessary that something should be immediately done upon the subject. A most disastrous emigration was going on from Ireland. Capital was either wasting away or departing from the land. In other words, there was a vast emigration of capital as well as of men; and at the present moment, when efforts were made by the classes connected with the land to increase its cultivation, those efforts were only made with the view of realising the means of transporting themselves next autumn to a happier land, where their industry would be free—he meant America. Government interference, where it could be avoided, he deprecated; but in the existing circumstances of Ireland, it had become necessary, because, if the bones and sinews of the country were allowed to depart, it was evident there must be a large contribution from the national resources in order to avert utter ruin. For these reasons he had deemed it necessary to make this last effort before the Session ended to introduce a measure, grounded, not upon any theory of his own, but upon an existing system, which the experience of more than a century had shown, by the physical state of Ulster, to be most beneficial. The custom was in full operation in the north; and he wished to know what there was in the condition of the other parts of Ireland to render its adoption impracticable?

Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.