wished to bring under the notice of the House a matter to which his attention had been called by Sir James Stephen; who had read in the newspapers a statement as to what had fallen from him (Lord J. Russell) as to the number of lectures delivered on modern history at Cambridge. Having had to recommend to the Crown the appointment of professors of modern history both at Oxford and Cambridge, he had naturally felt anxious to know in what manner those professors were received at those universities, and how they were enabled to discharge the important duties which belonged to professors of modern history. In the course of the last autumn he had had a conversation with Sir J. Stephen, and had put a question to him with respect to the time which he could devote to the delivery of lectures at Cambridge. The House would recollect that he had stated in the course of the debate that he had understood from Sir J. Stephen that he could only give one lecture in the course of a week, and that that would be of an hour or an hour and a half, or two hours' duration. Sir James Stephen had since stated to him that he did not remember any conversation that had taken place, but he said he presumed, though he was only speaking from conjecture, that he (Lord J. Russell) must have understood him to mean that he could deliver only as many lectures as there were weeks in the academic year. Such a statement would, he presumed, have been perfectly accurate, an academic year embracing about 25 weeks. Sir James Stephen added that it was provided by the university regulations that the number of attendances on any course of lectures required from a student as the condition of certificate should not be less than 20, nor more than 25. It appeared, therefore, that he had been mistaken in supposing Sir James Stephen to have said that he could not give more than one lecture in a week, because he could give two, or three or four, if he pleased; but, according to his own statement, it appeared he considered himself restricted by that regulation from giving more than 25 lectures—that was to say, that he was at liberty to give more than 20, but, by that regulation, not more than 25, which, in substance, amounted to one lecture a week on the average in the course of the academic year. Sir James Stephen had likewise stated to him that, having read to the Vice-Chancellor what he had just stated, the Vice-Chancellor had remarked that the law in question did not forbid the lecturer reading as many lectures as he pleased, but only exempted students from the necessity of attending more than 25. Practically speaking, he (Lord J. Russell) presumed the difference was not material. Perhaps it might be right he should further state that the conversation took place last autumn, upon his asking Sir James Stephen a question as to the time, and that an inference had been drawn. Very unfairly, that Sir James Stephen had been addressing some complaint to him as to the restricted time allotted to him. The fact was, that he had simply asked him what was the time he could devote to those lectures.

said, what he had stated on a former evening was, that Sir James Stephen was giving, at the time when he addressed the House, three lectures a-week to the students. The restriction as to the number arose from the circumstance that some limit must be imposed, in order to see whether a man had sufficiently complied with the regulations in order to go in for honours in that particular branch; and the university had decided that it was not necessary to attend more than 25 to go in for an examination.

, pursuant to notice, rose to move that the House resolve itself into Committee On that day six months. He Strongly disclaimed being actuated in so doing by any unkind feel- ing towards the sister kingdom. On the contrary, he always had voted, and always would vote, for any measure which he really believed was for the benefit of Ireland; and, acting upon the same principle, if he thought the present Bill would tend permanently to the relief of that country, he should have felt it his duty to support it. But it was no such thing; and it was just intended to cloak the delinquencies of the Government in their Irish policy. When he was at school he was taught to believe that two and two made four, and that two taken from four left two remaining; but the returns which had been laid upon the table on the subject of these advances to Ireland, did not appear to go upon that rule. The total amount of loans and grants made to Ireland during the last ten years, amounted to no less than 12,027,432l 13s. 2d. The loans amounted to 8,704,225l. 7s. 8d.; the loans repayed to 3,184,421l.; leaving a balance still due of five millions and a half—an awful sum. And yet there had been no assurance from the noble Lord when he proposed a grant of 300,000l.—an awful sum too—that no more would be required. But before this grant was agreed to, the House and the public had a right to know what chance there was of getting it back again. That was only the course which every prudent man would adopt. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had said that "rate uncollected was not rate in arrear." For his own part, he didn't understand such phrases, for if a man owed him 5,000l., and didn't pay it, he should say it was in arrear. The right hon. Baronet had said he "hoped the condition of the country would soon improve." Well, hope was the poor man's staff; but, if he had had no dinner, hope wouldn't relieve his hunger; and he asked the right hon. Baronet whether be would assure the House that there should be no further demands for money for Ireland. He believed that they would never hoar the end of these loans and advances unless the House determined on putting a stop to them. He wished to see the sister kingdom not only happy and prosperous, but maintaining its position; at the same time, if successive Administrations had governed the country rightly, Ireland would never have required assistance from the Imperial Exchequer. Holding these views, he should certainly persist in his Amendment.

said, whenever this question had been approached by the House, there had been assertions hazarded so totally at variance with the facts, that he thought some Irish Member should take the first opportunity of making a few observations upon the subject of Irish loans and grants; more especially when English Members took every occasion of making assertions that were totally unwarranted, and insinuations which personally would be most insulting. The very persons who the oftenest spoke on these subjects, and mode those assertions the most recklessly, were just those who, by every remark they made, showed a total ignorance of the subject on which they spoke. On a former occasion it had been said that an Irish loan was the same as an Irish grant; and upon another occasion it had been asked in contemptuous tones, "What is an Irish loan?" He held in his hand a very comprehensive return, moved for by the hon. Member for Glasgow, which would aid to answer that question. From this it appeared that from the year 1817, when the Exchequers of England and Ireland were consolidated, up to 1845, the total loans to Ireland were 11,326,596l, of which sum 8,483,201l. had been repaid to 1848, leaving a balance of 2,843,395l. In this sum he had left out the loans made during the three years of famine, because he proposed dealing with them on a differ-rent principle. He was not prepared to show that every loan that had been made during the period of famine had been repaid before it was asked for, and before the famine was over; but what he was prepared to show was, there had been nothing in the financial transactions between the two countries to warrant the assertion that a loan to Ireland was tantamount to a grant; and that, as a general rule, the loans to Ireland had been punctually repaid. Well, he found that out of the sums which had been lent to Ireland between 1817 and 1845, there at present remained a balance on the face of the account of 2,843,395l, which he must say was not a very large sum out of 11,326,596l He pegged to observe, too, that there was a large part of the instalments not yet due, and that with regard to a great part of the workhouse loans, there was an understanding that they were not to be immedi- ately demanded. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, whether it was not the fact, that if the Government had pressed for repayment of the workhouse loans they would (except perhaps in the case of three or four of the more distressed unions) have been repaid also? He would next ask the House to look at the large repayments which had been made during the period of the famine, notwithstanding the unparalleled sufferings of the country during that calamity. He found that the total local taxation of the country amounted in 1840 to 1,306,937l., while in 1848 it had risen to 3,077,164l. In the same period the poor-law valuation had fallen from 13,272,797l. to 9,000,000l. Well, notwithstanding this great increase of taxation, this depreciation of property, and the visitation of a famine during the period, Ireland had repaid on loans 370,283l. in 1846, 514,481l. in 1847, and 357,117l. in 1848, making an aggregate repayment in those three years of 1,241,881l. Now, he put it to the House whether, in the face of these facts, there was anything like the shadow of justice in the allegation of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, that Irish loans were tantamount to Irish grants. With reference to particular instances, he found that out of 83,321l. lent to the county of Kerry, from 1834 to 1847, at 5 per cent, a balance of 13,743l. remained due to the Treasury in 1847; and since that period the whole balance had been paid off. Again, he found from a return lately obtained by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, that out of 27,931l. 16s. 5d. lent to the county of Mayo at 5 per cent, 25,219l. had been repaid up to the 1st of January, 1846, leaving a balance of 2,711l. Of these sums, it appeared, by reference to the items in the return, that only 225l. 6s. 5d. principal, and 73l. 13s. 9d. interest, was due at the date of the return (the 19th of March last). He would next call the attention of the House to the following important extract from the evidence given by Sir J. Burgoyne before the Devon Commission in 1845:—

"In pursuance of an order of the House of Commons, dated the 3rd of May, 1843, a return was presented, being a general statement of the transactions of the Commissioners of Public Works, from the appointment under the 1st and 2d William IV., chap. 33, showing the working of Exchequer-bill issues, with repayments, and the estimated profit up to January 5, 1843. This statement, made out in strict accordance with the principle adopted in a similar one furnished by the English Loan Commissioners, and which was referred to this board as a model for theirs, exhibits an estimated profit, up to the 5th of January, 1843, of 32,980l.; a statement on the like principle, if carried up to the 6th of January, 1844, would show an estimated profit of 47,374l.; and if to January, 1845, of 61,719l. There is another way of estimating the profits arising to the public from the operation of loans made by Exchequer bills, and which appears to coincide with the intention of the Legislature, as expressed in the 1st and 2d William IV., chap. 33, sect. 57, and this consists in striking a balance between the total amount of interest paid by Government on the bills issued up to the given period, and that received from the debtors of the board to the like date. The profit at the foot of loan transactions, when estimated on the principle last adverted to, will appear to be much greater than under that which recognises as one of its elements a debtor and creditor interest account at 3 per cent with the Exchequer, for a reason which will be obvious. Thus, if to the amount of interest on loans made by Exchequer bills which has been actually received from parties, viz., 161,056l., 13s. 2d., we add the amount due on the 6th of January, 1845, 17,246l. 2s. 9d., there is a total of 178,302l. 15s. 11d.; from that deduct the amount of interest paid on bills issued for the same period, 86,480l. 1s. 7d., and there appears a profit of 91,822l. 14s. 4d.; from this, however, it would be necessary to deduct bad debts, estimated at 21,836l 5s. 3d., which leaves a net profit of 69,986l. 9s. 1d."

Next, with respect to railway loans. On this subject he could not, as an Irish Member, mention the name of the late Lord G. Bentinck without an expression of the deepest gratitude; because he believed that if the large and gigantic scheme which that noble Lord propounded to the House had been adopted, the result would have been equally fortunate as it had been with regard to the small and diminutive scheme which had since been adopted in its stead. He found that out of 157,200l. lent to the Dublin and Kingstown Railway, 99,595l. 17s. 4d. had been repaid, and that the balance was in course of repayment by half-yearly instalments of 3,000l There was no statement in the return of any arrear of principal, and the amount of interest due was only 1,874l. In the case of the loans to the Dublin and Drogheda Railway, the Great Southern and Western, the Waterford and Kilkenny, and Midland Great Western, the columns for "interest in arrear" and "principal in arrear" were each filled up with the word "nil." With regard to some of the recent loans to Ireland, he begged to remind the House that they had not only been forced upon the country against the remonstrances of every man of sense connected with it, but they had been spent with great prodigality. They had, therefore, excited no gratitude in return. He did not, however, dispute the generosity of Parliament even in these cases, though he certainly did blame their discretion. It had been stated that large sums of money had been paid out of the English Exchequer for the relief of the Irish poor. He denied the existence of the English Exchequer. England having by bribery obtained the union of the two countries, the two Exchequers were consolidated in 1817. There was now only one Exchequer; and when a great calamity like that of the recent famine occurred, he thought that the portion of the kingdom so afflicted had a right to look for relief from the common fund. Would it be suggested as a reason for not making further advances, that some of the districts were so poor that they were not able to pay? Surely not. No Member of that House, he was certain, would sanction the proposition, that because particular districts were distressed, all the people in them must therefore starve unaided. The House of Commons, which gave 20,000,000l. to emancipate the negroes, which only the other day affirmed the principle that 1,000,000l. a year should still be spent upon a scheme of most doubtful issue, could never refuse to advance a paltry loan to save the Irish people, whom they had for centuries so cruelly ill treated, from starvation.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln did not seem to understand the nature of the Bill before the House. The money which it was proposed to advance was simply money that was required to make good the monstrous waste, the reckless extravagance, of the Government officers who had been intrusted with the execution of the Labour Rate Act. The people of Ireland were ready and willing, now as ever, to repay to the full extent any money that had been bonâ fide laid out for their advantage; but they objected, most naturally, to sanction the waste committed in every possible way by the Government officers. Contrary to the wishes of the whole country, the authorities had insisted upon superseding the ordinary guardians of the poor in Ireland, by a set of officials under their own immediate control; and the result of the appointment of these paid vice-guardians had been exactly what the country had expected. The rates had everywhere increased to the most ruinous extent, while the wants of the poor were worse provided for than before. For ex- ample, the debt of the union of Listowell, which, when the vice-guardians came into office was only 5,400l., had reached, by the time they went out of office, the enormous amount of 12,000l.; the debt of the Gal-way union had in like manner increased from 7,000l. to 12,000l; and the whole list of unions would exhibit, if examined, corresponding results. The details of their management were perfectly monstrous; he held in his hand statements showing that the abuses which they permitted were sufficient to keep a whole country in a state of pauperism; from every load of coals, for example, furnished to particular unions he could prove that 112 lb. were subtracted; while the milk, bread, and other provisions, were of the most inferior description, and altogether fraudulent in quantity. With such facts before him, he was at no loss to account for the expenditure of the advances which had been in-trusted to the management of these functionaries.

rose to complain of a return which had been sent in by the Poor Law Commissioners, with reference to a union with which he was connected. All he had to say of that return was, that it was a complete fiction from beginning to end, the effect of which was to make the union appear as defaulters; and though the guardians remonstrated, the commissioners refused to make the proper alteration. The fact was, that the commissioners were collecting the money as unpaid relief advances, and appropriating it to the ordinary poor-law purposes. He cordially approved of the Bill, which had been conceived in a fair and liberal spirit, and which, while it did no more than justice, he could not say fell short of it. It was important, however, that the House should examine carefully the manner in which the public money was now expended in Ireland. That money was expended now either under the Commissioners of the Board of Works, or the poor-law authorities, in both of which departments he believed there was room for economy.

hoped the House would remember that vice-guardians had only been appointed when the elected guardians had failed to perform their duty, and to give relief even when the lives of the poor had been in danger from the intensity of the famine. So far from wishing this Bill postponed, he regretted that it had been so long delayed; at the same time he must protest against the manner in which the money had been expended in the distressed unions. The proper course would have been to have made the unions self-supporting by employing the poor in profitable works; but the plan which had been pursued was to keep them in idleness, or, if employed at all, employed only in works of a perfectly unproductive and useless character. During the time he was in Ireland he had seen grass growing upon the heaps of stones, and in some instances crops of potatoes on the stones, which those who received relief had been employed in breaking. Surely that was not a wise or sensible appropriation of public money. [Cries of "Question"] The question was—should they vote 300,000l. to pay the debts of certain distressed unions, and spread over forty years the repayment of the money already advanced? And that was a question requiring their serious consideration. He had selected eleven of those unions, four in Clare, five in Mayo, and two in Galway—these he found had expended in the relief of the poor during the two years ending December, 1849, 725,000l., of which sum the unions themselves had contributed only 250,378l. The remainder, nearly half a million, had either been made up already, or was to be made up, from the pockets of the ratepayers of England, or those who contributed to the rate in aid. The objection he had always raised to this mode of spending money was, that it was not only wasteful and improvident, but was forestalling the resources of the country. What could be a more insane or suicidal mode of relieving distress than by keeping the recipients of such relief in idleness, or employing them in useless works? In the Limerick union last year—certainly not one of the worst administered in Ireland—where there was a debt of 61,000l., there being at the same time 12,000 paupers in the workhouse, of whom 9,358 were able-bodied, 6,600 of them being ablebodied adults—when he visited that union at six o'clock on a fine afternoon last summer, how did the House suppose he found those ablebodied paupers employed? Why, they were all in bed, though they had done nothing during the day ill the shape of work. Could there be a more unwise, improvident, or demoralising system of giving relief? Why not expend the money which the relief cost in employing these persons profitably in reclaiming waste lands, making roads, arterial drainage, or other permanent im- provements? But it was the opinion of the poor-law authorities that the more useless and unproductive the works on which the poor were employed, the better. His object was not to oppose or delay the Motion for going into Committee, but to urge upon the House that before more money was expended they had better decide upon the mode in which it should be applied, and do so in time.

wished to be allowed to make one observation. After the charge which the hon. Gentleman had made against the Limerick union, in consequence of finding the ablebodied paupers in the workhouse all idle and in bed at six o'clock in the evening, the House would perhaps be surprised to hear that the only day on which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had visited the workhouse in that union was a Sunday; and he thought the House would be able to see whether there was any ground for his strictures on the Limerick guardians, when they found him complaining that they had sent the paupers to bed, instead of employing them in the cultivation of the land, at six o'clock in the evening on a Sunday.

was of opinion that this grant was needed in consequence of the maladministration of the poor-law in Ireland. In his opinion the cause of the distress which prevailed in many of those unions was entirely owing to the maladministration of the law by the Government officers. In some instances the effect of their bad management had been to increase the expenditure double and treble. The fault was not with the Irish landlords or the elected guardians, and this was sufficiently proved by the fact, that during the time that thirty-three unions had been under the official guardianship of the nominees of the Government, the taxes for the relief of the poor in Ireland had reached over 2,000,000l., and that, too, at a time when provisions had been lower in price than in any previous year. It was also a matter worthy of remark, that the expense of the administration of the poor-law under the paid guardians, had been far greater than under the elected guardians.

suggested that after the words "unions," the words "electoral divisions within those unions" be inserted.

believed it was ascertained, when the Bill was prepared, that no such words were necessary. The debts were due from the unions, though as between the several electoral divisions, particular electoral divisions might be the parties who were to pay. In such a case, when the debt should be discharged out of this 300,000l, it would be due from the electoral division to the Government. However, he would take care that inquiry wads made whether there was any doubt upon the point.

wished to know how the advance of 300,000l. was to be apportioned among the distressed unions of Ireland, as he understood that their liabilities amounted to 513,000l?

said, it was with great pleasure he informed the hon. Gentleman that, on the 31st December last, those liabilities were reduced to 392,000l.; and, therefore, looking to the efforts that were still in progress, he had great hope that this advance of 300,000l would extinguish all the remainder of the liabilities. The debts of what were called the thirty worst unions amounted to from 250,000l. to 270,000l., which would leave from 30,000l. to 50,000l. of this advance applicable to the debts of electoral divisions in some of the other unions. The money would be placed at the disposal of the Poor Law Commissioners, acting through the poor-law guardians in each union, who would examine into the debts charged against the unions, and strike off what appeared to be exorbitant charges. He had certainly no idea that the penalties insisted upon by some of the contractors would be allowed.

complained that the expenses incurred by many of these unions had been increased by the delay in passing this Bill, because they might have been able to purchase food cheaper elsewhere if they could have discharged their liabilities with the present contractors. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked of poor-law guardians and poor-law commissioners but, in fact, these were mere cyphers, who had no other business than to execute the orders of a central authority, and the Bill was nothing more than an attempt to place the whole rateable property of Ireland, where debts had been contracted to the poor-law, under the hands of Sir Charles Trevelyan.

wished to know how much money had been advanced on loan to Ireland since the famine?

said, the whole sum amounted to 4,335,000l., of which the sum of 100,000l. had been repaid, leaving still due the sum of 4,235,000l., which, with the 300,000l. now proposed, would make the total liability of Ireland, 4,535,000l.

again complained of the unlimited discretion with which this clause invested the Treasury, both in making the advances and in arranging the time of repayment, and under which the grossest partiality might—he did not say would—be practised. This was a power greater than any Government had ever asked before.

admitted that the powers were anomalous, and he should be very glad if any scheme could be devised to take them out of his hands. He had done his utmost to discover some rule which might be laid down that would be applicable to all eases, but he found it was impossible; and he did not see any other way in which they could deal with the vast variety of cases that existed in Ireland, but to leave it with the Treasury.

thanked the Government for the measure then before the House, for he believed it would do much to raise the country from its present state of prostration, and make the poor-law work better than ever. Under the Labour Rate Act, twenty years was the time allowed for the repayment of advances; but since that period, the Treasury had arranged that the greatest limit of time should be given to the unions which were in the most distressed condition. He believed that if only forty years were given to unions such as Clare and Limerick, other unions would be grievously disappointed, and that the Bill would not be considered in the light of a boon.

said, the fact was, that in Ireland, honesty had been found to be the worst policy. He knew eases of his own knowledge, where unions had been screwed to the uttermost, and rates to the amount of 14s. had been paid. In such cases no money was received from the Treasury, while in neighbouring unions not more than 2s. in the pound was levied, but by having noisy guardians, noisy inspectors, or perhaps noisy Members of Parliament, large sums were received from the Treasury. To prevent the like partiality shown in allowing time for repayment, he would suggest that a uniform rate of 6d. in the pound should be levied upon each townland equally for repayment of that portion of the debt due by it.

was also anxious that some scale should be laid down. He had known unions where from 10s. to 14s. were levied for their own poor, afterwards assessed to the rate in aid for the benefit of unions that had hardly paid anything.

was also in favour of a uniform rate of 6d. in the pound on each townland, though he was aware that that would not, in some very distressed cases, repay the whole debt in forty years.

thought the proposition of the 6d. rate mentioned by the hon. Member for the county of Limerick, a very good one, and he would be very glad to see it adopted; but he was precluded from inserting it in the Bill.

said, that the power given to the Treasury was the matter now before them, and the question was not one of payment, but of liability.

proposed an Amendment for the purpose of clearly defining the proportion to be borne by each townland in the union or electoral division, which was adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

suggested that it would be of advantage if the term of forty years was adopted decisively by the Act, leaving it to any union to apply for leave to repay the annuity in a shorter period if they pleased. He thought the working of the clause would be much better left in the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners than in the Treasury.

said, that he agreed so entirely with a suggestion made by the noble Lord the Member for Bandon, that he should move an Amendment in order to prevent the Commissioners of the Treasury from having the power of shortening the duration of the debt at their own mere will and discretion, and to give power to the guardians to elect a shorter time than forty years for repayment, should they find themselves in a position to discharge the debt sooner.

urged the Government to consent to give the full period of forty years for repayment of advances, unless the guardians themselves should wish for a shorter time.

declined to accede. He thought the request unreasonable, seeing that the Government were giving so much.

said, that when he proposed the Bill, he never thought it would have been treated in such a manner. It was intended as a means of giving relief to Ireland, and it was treated as if the Government wanted to gain an advantage by it. The power given in the third clause to the Government, to extend the period for repayment of the advances to forty years, if necessary, was considered by them to be a very great relief. Yet the whole Bill seemed to be considered rather as an injury than a benefit. He did not think that that was the spirit in which the Bill should have been met by Irish Members.

assured the noble Lord that he was quite mistaken in supposing that the Bill had been received in any other manner, or viewed in any other light, than as a relief. But there were two evils which they had to contend with. They had, in the first place, a poor-law which had completely broken down in thirty unions, and they wanted to avoid giving to the central board of the poor-law more power than was necessary. They had suggested, with that object, two Amendments. One, proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, to settle the proportionate amount to be levied upon each townland; and the other, which was under discussion, by the hon. Member for Leitrim, to fix the time for repayment of advances. There was nothing inimical in those propositions.

thought that the Government had gone a great way in bringing forward this Bill, and that the people of Ireland had a right to be grateful to them for it. Some parts of Ireland, which had not suffered the pressure of distress to so great a degree as others, were ready to repay their advances within a shorter time; but it would be satisfactory to the more distressed districts to know that a further extension of time would be granted to them.

opposed the Amendment. It appeared to him that if it were carried, the Treasury would be placed in the position of being obliged either to make the advance, or, if the case appeared at all doubtful, to refuse it altogether. Now he thought it would not be well to have a union refused altogether.

supported the Amendment. Whatever might be the case with the very distressed unions in the west of Ireland, he did not think the Bill, as it stood, was so well fitted for the unions of Tipperary as it would be if the Amendment were carried.

asked the hon. Gentleman to name an instance in which the Treasury had dealt harshly with a union in Tipperary.

said, that the Poor Law Commissioners had summarily dismissed a board of guardians, and appointed paid guardians in their stead, merely because they refused to strike a rate for repayment of advances, which they did not think the union was in a condition to pay. And, as a proof that they were right, the paid guardians themselves did not attempt to strike a rate for the purpose.

said, that that was no answer to him. It was not a case in point. They were discussing the leaving in the hands of the Commissioners of the Treasury the power of exercising their discretion in cases of advances to distressed unions, as to the time which they would allow for repayment. It had nothing to do with the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

believed that the moral effect of this Bill had been exceedingly good. Many acres of land had been taken into cultivation that but for the introduction of this Bill would have remained un-tilled. He trusted the Government would reconsider the proposition of the hon. Member for Leitrim. It was expected that forty years would be allowed throughout Ireland for repayment under the provisions of the Bill, and the beneficial moral effect would be greatly diminished if it were found that this was not the case. If the present Ministry were to remain in power during the forty years, he might be content to leave it to their discretion to demand the repayment. But the Bill did not extend the time of repayment for a single year, except at the discretion of the Treasury.

wished to be informed what had been done by the Poor Law Commissioners towards erecting additional workhouse accommodation in Ireland.

, before that question was answered, desired to put the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in mind of the strong remonstrances which had been forwarded to the Government by the Limerick union, against any alteration of their ancient boundaries. In return for the generous way in which that union had relieved the necessities of the poor during a period of great distress, he hoped that the Government would accede to their earnest supplications for the preservation of their ancient limits.

made a similar request on behalf of the unions of Listowel and Tralee.

wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a hardship in the operation of the poor-law in Ireland, which he was afraid there were no legal means of remedying. At the time that the electoral divisions were altered, there happened to be some townlands which were within a union on which a rate of 3s. had been struck for the relief of the poor; those townlands were then joined to another union, in which, shortly after the change, another rate of 4s. 6d. was struck, and to which those townlands of course would be subject.

said, that, with regard to the first question which had been put to him as to the building of additional workhouses, he entirely concurred with the hon. Member for the county of Limerick that nothing was so essential, he would not say so desirable, as the erection of workhouse accommodation for all the unions which had recently been formed. He could not give the hon. Gentleman any very recent information as to what had been done in that respect by the Poor Law Commissioners, but he hoped to receive information from the Commissioners in a few days. But this he knew, that up to March 31 the Government had supplied the Commissioners with all the funds that they required for erecting additional workhouses. With regard to the case of alleged hardship mentioned by the hon. Member for Ros- common, his answer was that the town-lands in question could not eventually suffer from the infliction of double rates, as the first rate was levied for expenses already incurred by them, and the second was for money that would be expended by the union for the relief of the poor in those townlands.

The right hon. Gentleman had no right to assume that the first rate was levied for past expenditure. He did not think it was just to call upon the townlands under such circumstances to pay double rates.

rose to put the question of which he had given public notice to the hon. and learned Attorney General, with regard to the part which he had taken in the differences which had arisen between the Trustees of the Grosvenor-place district and the Marquess of Westminster, as to the repair of the highway known by the name of the King's-road, Pimlico. The state of that road had become a most intolerable nuisance to that portion of the public who resided in that part of London, and he had to state, on the part of the ratepayers who reside in that district, that in their judgment they had to complain of a very serious grievance. He, therefore, considered that he was taking a perfectly proper and constitutional course in availing himself of that occasion, on the Motion for a Committee of Supply, to address to the hon. and learned Attorney General the question which he intended to propose to him. He wished the hon. and learned Gentleman to understand distinctly that he (Sir J. Pakington) did not then come forward as one of the trustees of the district in question. He had nothing to do with the trustees. He was no party to anything that they had said or done. The position in which he wished to put this question to the hon. and learned Gentleman was as a ratepayer of that district. In that character he had no hesitation in saying—and he believed he spoke the sentiments of his fellow-ratepayers—that he considered himself to be directly aggrieved by the conduct of the Marquess of Westminster in reference to the road in question. He was glad to see the noble Lord the Member for Chester in his place. He begged to assure him, that in what he might say, he did not mean the slightest discourtesy to the Marquess of Westminster when he said frankly, that as a ratepayer, he considered himself to be aggrieved by that noble Lord. He would not venture to use that expression if he was not supported in that opinion by the very high legal authorities which he should proceed to state to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly must rise to order. When I did not interfere between the hon. Member for Glasgow, and the exercise of his discretion as to giving way with respect to his Motion, I certainly did understand that the hon. Baronet would shortly state his question. He is now going into a long statement of circumstances which will entitle the two noble Lords to whom he has alluded, to reply, or at least to make comments on his statement. I, therefore, having a Motion on the paper next to that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, must certainly protest againt the hon. Baronet entering into such a statement as will prevent me from bringing forward my Motion.

The hon. and learned Member will not be prevented from bringing forward his Motion after the hon. Baronet has proposed his question.

There will be no time.

He was very sorry to be obliged to delay the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was about to say that the origin of this dispute was an agreement that was entered into in the year 1820, between the Marquess of Westminster and the Crown, by which an exchange was made of the then existing King's-road, as it was called, for that large thoroughfare now known by the same name, which passed through Eaton-square. It was a most important advantage to the Marquess of Westminster to have become possessed of the old King's-road. All who were acquainted with the district must be conscious of the very great advantage which the Marquess of Westminster derived from that exchange. He had been thereby enabled to build the north side of Baton-square, which, as the House was well aware, contained one of the handsomest range of residences in this or any other metropolis. The row of mansions on the north side of Eaton-square were built upon the site of the old King's-road. In order to be enabled to build that row of mansions on the old King's-road, the Marquess of Westminster effected an exchange with the Crown, by which he transferred to the Crown what was now the present King's-road; and the condition upon which that exchange was made was, that the Marquess of Westminster should undertake for himself and his heirs to complete that line of road, and maintain it for ever thereafter for the use of the King, his heirs, and successors, and for the use of the said Marquess, his heirs, and successors, and all other His Majesty's subjects. In 1820 the Crown abandoned the old King's-road as a private road, and the roads of that neighbourhood were at the instance of the Marquess of Westminster committed by Act of Parliament to the management of the trustees of the Grosvenor-place district. In perfect ignorance of any covenant between the Marquess of Westminster and the Crown, the trustees repaired that road for about three years, at the end of which they discovered the existence of that covenant. They consequently ceased to repair the road, and a negotiation with the noble Marquess took place, and to this very important point he wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In consequence of that negotiation the late Marquess of Westminster, after having investigated the circumstances, made an arrangement with the trustees by which he paid to them 150l. per annum for the repair of the road, and he continued to do so till the time of his decease, in 1844. Upon the decease of the late Marquess of Westminster, the trustees continued to repair the road, presuming that of course they were to receive the usual payment of 150l. a year. After the lapse of some time, the present Marquess of Westminster refused to continue the payment. In consequence of that refusal, the trustees thought it necessary to take counsel's opinion. They consulted two of the most eminent counsel, namely, Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Hay. Those gentlemen, were of opinion that the Marquess was liable to repair the road in pursuance of the provision of the indenture of 1820. They then went on to say that in their judgment the trustees would hardly be justified in continuing to expend the money of the ratepayers in repairing the road without making an attempt to enforce the obligation to repair on the part of the Marquess created by the deed of 1820. They then proceeded to say that in order to enforce that covenant it would be necessary to obtain the permission of the Crown to bring an action against the Marquess of Westminster. After that opinion the trustees proceeded to lay the same case before two other most eminent counsel—the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. He must beg to recall the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the opinion of himself and the Solicitor General. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am quite aware of it of course.] That opinion was to this effect:—

"Primâ facie, the parish is bound to repair the road; but the Marquess of Westminster is also liable to the Crown upon his covenant to repair. This covenant can only be enforced by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, in whose name the trustees would have to sue. The trustees ought to apply to the commissioners for permission to sue upon the covenant in the name of the commissioners."

In consequence of that opinion the trustees made application to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; but it was found upon investigation that the Attorney General and not the commissioners was the proper party to sue the Marquess. The trustees again took legal advice as to the course which they should pursue, when they were of course advised that they should apply to the Attorney General for his permission to sue. The hon. and learned Attorney General sent this answer:—

"Temple, Oct. 24, 1849.

"Sir—With reference to your application on behalf of the trustees of the Grosvenor-place district for liberty to sue the Marquess of Westminster in my name for the purpose of enforcing a covenant entered into by the late Marquess with the Crown for the repair of a part of the King's-road, I have to inform you that, having considered the circumstances mentioned in your memorial, I must decline to allow you to use my name for that purpose. The covenant was evidently intended to relieve the Crown from any liability which might accrue by reason of the alteration of the line of road, and not for the benefit of the public at large. The road being now open to the public without obstruction, should be repaired by the trustees, in the same way as other roads within the limits of their jurisdiction.—Your obedient servant,

"JOHN JERVIS.

"A. M'Arthur Low, Esq., 65, Chancery-lane."

Now, he (Sir J. Pakington) must express the extreme surprise with which he read the words, that this covenant was not intended for the benefit of the public at large. He had just read all the words of the covenant, in which the Marquess of Westminster and his heirs were bound to repair the road for ever, for the benefit of His Majesty and all His Majesty's sub- jects. The answer of the hon. and learned Attorney General then proceeded thus:—

"And the road being now used for the benefit of the public should be repaired by the trustees in the same way as the other roads within the limits of their supervision."

That answer was dated the 4th of October, 1849. The trustees held a meeting to consider the circumstances, and at that meeting they passed a resolution, in which they declared that the Attorney General's reasons did not appear to them to be well founded, or consistent with the opinion of himself and the Solicitor General; and they therefore determined to renew their application to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his permission to sue the Marquess, and they addressed to him a letter, requesting his permission to bring such action. The Attorney General sent them a much more extended answer; he would not trouble the House by reading the whole of it, but there were two passages in it to which he must beg to recall the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention. He said—

"The Committee is mistaken in supposing that there is any inconsistency between the opinion given by myself and the Solicitor General, that the Marquess is liable to the Crown upon the covenant to repair, and my refusal to enforce that covenant."

The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to make use of what he (Sir J. Pakington) must describe as a very remarkable expression, for he spoke of there being a vast difference between the existence of a legal liability and the propriety of enforcing it. There was something he must say in that expression of which he felt himself called upon to require from the hon. and learned Gentleman a public explanation. It did riot appear to him (Sir J. Pakington) that it was for the hon. and learned Gentleman to take upon himself to decide, when parties were at issue upon a point of law, and were seeking to litigate it, the propriety of allowing that question to be decided by the proper legal tribunal. The ratepayers of the district felt that the Marquess of Westminster did derive a great direct pecuniary advantage from the exchange. They had the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself that the Marquess was liable to the repairs, and they were, therefore, surely entitled to some voice on the question with regard to the propriety of enforcing that liability, a fact which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not for a single moment attempt to contravene. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman pro- ceeded in his answer to state his reasons for refusing the use of his name. One of those reasons was that the trustees of the Grosvenor-place district had obtained an Act of Parliament with respect to the repair of this road; but that was an error; it was obtained by the Marquess of Westminster himself for the benefit of his own estates. In consequence of these repeated refusals on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the trustees determined to apply for relief to a court of equity, and they laid their case before Mr. Rolt, Q. C, one of the most eminent members of the Chancery bar. Mr. Rolt said—

"There is no appeal to any legal tribunal from the decision of the Attorney General refusing his name to sue the Marquess of Westminster on the covenant in question."

After discussing the legal merits of the case, Mr. Rolt proceeded to say—

"Although the legal remedy is thus doubtful, I am of opinion, on the facts before me, that the advisers or officers of the Crown will do an act of injustice to the ratepayers of this district either by attempting to release the Marquess from the operation of the covenant, or by refusing to sue upon it. I cannot understand what is meant by saying that a covenant by a private individual with the Crown, making that individual for ever maintain a road for the use of all the subjects of Crown, was not intended for the benefit of the public at large."

He (Sir J. Pakington) begged to say that as far as he could form an opinion, he entirely concurred with Mr. Rolt in thinking that the Attorney General's refusal would be an act of injustice to the ratepayers, and it was that act of injustice that he now wished him to explain. Mr. Rolt concluded thus:—

"I advise the trustees to lay the matter again before the Attorney General, and to attend him either personally or by counsel. It is probable that the case has not been fully presented to him. If he should still decline to allow his name to be used, then, after the experiment of a suit inequity, the only course for the trustees to take will be to appeal to the Government or the Legislature for their assistance."

An appeal to the Government had been made. The trustees intended to wait upon the noble Lord the Prime Minister, but he declined to receive a deputation upon the subject. He should not blame the noble Lord for that decision. The noble Lord considered that a point of law was at issue, with which, as a Member of the Government he had nothing to do. He (Sir J. Pakington), therefore as a ratepayer of the district, was prepared to act upon the latter suggestion of Mr. Rolt, and to appeal to the Legislature on the subject. But he preferred making that appeal not in the shape of a direct Motion, but by way of an earnest request to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, considering the broad justice of the case, he would reconsider his decision, and that he would not persevere in his refusal to allow these parties to go into a court of law. He believed that the noble Marquess himself was anxious to have the matter settled by a legal tribunal. He was not disposed to think that the noble Marquess was desirous of shrinking from his legal obligation.

rose to order. He begged to ask whether the argument they had been hearing for the last half-hour came within the definition of a statement?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that upon the question that the Speaker do leave the chair on going into Committee of Supply, any hon. Member may bring forward a question of what he considers to be a special grievance. While the hon. Baronet was speaking on such a question, it would be very improper for me to interfere.

, still speaking on the question of order, wished to ask whether, having given notice of a Motion on the question of the Speaker leaving the chair, and having distinctly stated that although the hon. Member for Glasgow gave way, he (Mr. Anstey) did not, he had not a right to precedence over the hon. Baronet?

If the hon. Baronet had signified his intention to conclude with a Motion, then no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have precedence over him; but the hon. Baronet having stated that he only intended to put a question, I do not think that I ought to interfere.

hoped that it would be some consolation to the hon. and learned Member to know that he had nearly concluded. In consequence of the advice of Mr. Rolt, an interview took place between that learned Gentleman and the Attorney General; and here he desired to direct the attention of the House to an expression of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that in questions of a social character they should take care that in enforcing the letter of the law, they did not inflict hardship on individuals. In his opinion the hon. and learned Gentleman did not sufficiently bear in mind the hardships which were inflicted on the ratepayers. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, also, that a court of law would not travel out of the record before them; but that, as his decision should be final in the case, he was bound to look to all the circumstances of the case. [Cries of "Question!"] He would not detain the House much longer; he was very sorry for having detained it so long, but he did not think that they had any right to complain at his bringing forward this question at such a length as would make it intelligible, affecting as it did the rights and privileges of the subject. He appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as a constitutional statesman, whether he was prepared to give his approbation to the principle, that it was right there should be any authority which might interfere to debar any portion of Her Majesty's subjects from making an appeal to a court of law to decide the merits of what they conceived to be a grievance? It did appear to him that this was a very serious case. The ratepayers were aggrieved by the Marquess of Westminster. They were desirous of going to law to remedy the injustice—they were supported by the opinions of the most eminent counsel in their favour. Mr. Watson, the Attorney General, and Mr. Rolt, had all declared that the Marquess of Westminster was liable. They desired to go into a court of law to prove that liability; but the Attorney General refused them the use of his name, and he was at a loss to conjecture what answer he would give; and how explain his conduct. [Mr. ANSTEY: Question, question!] He was not disposed to detain the House much longer; but if the hon. and learned Member for Youghal persisted in his uncourteous interruptions, he would proceed at greater length than he originally intended. He was informed by good legal authority that the indictment which was now pending would not raise the question of the liability of the Marquess of Westminster. He would conclude by asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to make a public explanation on what grounds it was that he debarred the ratepayers from their undoubted right, and whether he intended, as the first law officer of the Crown, to persevere in his refusal, and lend his name as it had been desired.

said, it would be inconvenient to enter into a general statement of the grounds of his decision, especially as an indictment was now pending against the trustees for the repair of the road. But as the hon. Baronet was manifestly in want of information, he would partly answer his question. He did not complain that the hon. Baronet had not given notice of his question on the Votes, as he had personally conveyed to him (the Attorney General) his intention of putting it. But the circumstance of its not being on the Votes, might have precluded some hon. Members who wished to make a statement on the subject from doing so.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was very grievously misrepresenting him. He had given notice of this question before the holidays; it was upon the books; and he had now put the same question. He had given public notice, on the first night after the holidays, that he intended to renew this question on the next supply day. He had explained the accidental omission, by the clerk at the table, of his notice from the book; it ought to have been there; but he had last night given the hon. and learned Gentleman notice that he should put this question.

said, he had not complained of what the hon. Baronet had done, nor had he at all misrepresented him. He found a notice on the paper, on the Monday after the holidays, that the hon. Baronet would put this question, which had been stated to him verbally that day and the day before. What he had stated, and would again repeat was, that it might possibly be inconvenient to those who wished to say something on this question, that the notice had not appeared on the Votes; but that might not be the fault of the hon. Baronet. He was very glad to find that his hon. Friend disclaimed any participation in the "statement" which had been drawn up and circulated amongst all the inhabitants; and that there might be no mistake, two copies had been sent to himself. Anybody who knew his connexion with the city of Chester, knew that he was not assailable on that charge at least; and those who made the statement, or believed it, without taking the trouble to ascertain the facts, were utterly beneath his contempt; and, therefore, he would say no more about it. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the ratepayers had a very great grievance to complain of. He was a ratepayer in the district, and was open to the same grievance; living two or three doors from his hon. Friend, he thought he had a very great grievance to complain of. Their grievance was fourfold. He was particularly aggrieved that the new road in the centre of Eaton-square was not watered, on account of the dust; he was extremely aggrieved by its not being lighted, and being therefore made a resort and receptacle of everything that was improper; he was greatly aggrieved likewise at its not being cleansed; and also because it was not repaired. Now, whatever doubt there might be as to one of those liabilities, between the Marquess of Westminster and the trustees, there was no question whatever that the trustees had taken upon themselves by Act of Parliament the imperative liability to light, water, and cleanse the road; and because the Marquess of Westminster would not repair, they would not do the other three things. The hon. Gentleman; if he would forgive him for saying so, had misunderstood the whole question. The question between the Marquess of Westminster and the trustees was, who was legally bound to keep the road in repair. The Marquess alleged that though it was true he entered into a covenant with the Crown to keep the road in repair, yet the road having been made public he was not bound to do so—that if he attempted to set up any exclusive right to it, he would be liable to be driven off by the public. The trustees, on the other hand, said he was bound by the covenant, and that the road should be repaired by him. Now, if he brought an action on the part of the Crown, he must do so on the covenant, and there could be no defence whatever. There must be a verdict for the Crown, whatever the damages might be, whether they were nominal or not. The only question was whether the Crown should bring such an action. He had come to the conclusion that it ought not to do so. He had come to that opinion according to the best of his judgment; and he should feel that he was unfit for the office he held, if he arrived at a different conclusion because the trustees might be dissatisfied with his decision. But having come to that decision without any communication with the Marquess of Westminster, he was pleased, after his opinion and final determination had been come to, by receiving from the agent of the Marquess, a confirmation of that opinion on the part of the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the present Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and Mr. Crompton, all of whom concurred with him that no proceedings could be taken. He believed the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, and the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract, also concurred in the view which he took. He was in the position of a judicial officer on this question, and it would not be right for him to enter into the grounds upon which his decision rested, and therefore he was not going to argue the question again. He arrived at the decision on the responsibility of the position he held; and, even if that decision was wrong, he could not help it.

wished to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman, as one of the trustees, how they could now get out of the scrape?

said, that he had had the misfortune to get into some difficulty, by giving a professional opinion. He must, therefore, decline to give an unprofessional one now.

disclaimed the intention of casting any imputation on the hon. and learned Gentleman; but the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been severely critised by the board of trustees, and many of the gentlemen of that board were in the habit of calling things by their right names—[laughter]—he meant by harsh names. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman in the chair had suffered from the grievance, and that oven the Crown had not been insensible of it. The trustees had done their best, and acting under the opinions they had received, they had endeavoured to procure the hon. and learned Gentleman's sanction to a proceeding at law; but the hon. and learned Gentleman had declined, and at the same time gave them no reason why he would prevent them from bringing the question before a court of law. He would ask whether, henceforward, in England there was to be an officer who should prevent any one of Her Majesty's subjects from bringing a question before a court of law. If so, there was no law, no liberty in England. He was astonished to find the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom he remembered as one of the most gallant and distinguished advocates for liberty in former days, now coming forward in a most despotic manner, and saying he had given his opinion upon the subject, taking, indeed, a view of it which was not sanctioned by four or five eminent Queen's Counsel. Mr. Rolt, in very gentle terms, in his opinion, on the question, speaking of the hon. and learned Gentleman, said, "it is very probable that the case has not been fully pro- sented to him." He had never heard any thing half so severe as that little hint of Mr. Rolt's. He should be extremely sorry to come forward and assert that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not given the trustees the power of going into a court of law, but as it was they must suffer under what he must consider was nothing less than tyranny and despotic conduct. He grieved to say there was a general impression, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had rather acted on a preconceived impression, and given a decision from which he did not now like to depart.

said, as one of the ratepayers of this district, he had read a vast number of papers that had been submitted to them, and he should be ashamed of himself if he did not rise and state to the House that, having read those papers, he believed his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would have been guilty of a most gross dereliction of duty if he had permitted his name to be used for the purpose for which the trustees required it. If the noble Lord would apply himself to what was the real business and duty of the Attorney General, he would see that it would have been a great injustice that the Attorney General should so lend his name as was desired.

said, he had applied himself to this question; he did not want the law, but he wanted permission to go to law.

said, that he doubted whether, after what had passed, it was necessary for him to say anything upon the subject now before the House. As, however, the name of his noble relative had been so much in question, he thought he might be permitted to give the House the opinions of three very eminent lawyers upon the case, in order to show that the Marquess of Westminster had not acted upon light grounds in the decision to which he had come. The noble Lord then read the following opinions of Sir F. Pollock, Lord Campbell, and Mr. Crompton:—

"I am of opinion that the Marquess of Westminster cannot be deemed liable to repair the road, either at the suit of the Crown or any other party. I think there is no pretence for considering the Marquess liable as between him and the public; the only ground upon which any liability rested was the covenant to repair given to the Crown and the commissioners; and this, I consider was abandoned when the Crown gave up the road to the public. In my opinion no indictment would lie, and a court of equity would restrain any action on the covenant. The road ought to be repaired by the parish in which it lies, or by the body on whom that duty has devolved by any Act of Parliament. "F. POLLOCK.

"Temple."

"I am of opinion that the trustees are compellable to repair the road in question. The liability cast upon them by the Act passed in 1826 is not affected by the Marquess of Westminster's covenant contained in the deed of 1820. There is no pretence for calling upon him to keep it in repair for all the heavy waggons which may travel upon it in consequence of the Woods and Forests, with the concurrence of the Treasury, having entirely surrendered the King's Road to the public.

"Temple." "J. CAMPBELL.

"I concur in the opinions that have been given as to the Marquess of Westminster being under no liability to repair the road in question.

"Temple." "C. CROMPTON.

[Viscount CASTLEREAGH: What was the date of those opinions?] The opinion of Sir F. Pollock was given in 1833; that of Lord Campbell in 1835, and Mr. Crompton's in 1840. It was a matter of great regret to his noble relative that his tenants and the inhabitants of that district had been put to so much annoyance, and he had felt it so much that, contrary to the strenuous wishes of his advisers, he had offered to pay an annual sum as a compromise, which had been refused by the trustees. He would only add, in conclusion, that he could most conscientiously confirm all that had been said by the hon. and learned Attorney General, as well in regard to his position as representative for the city of Chester, as to the entire absence of communication of any description between himself and the persons interested on behalf of his noble relative.

regretted the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract. It was on the ground of such eminent men as the hon. and learned Member and others holding different opinions on the subject, that he and many other inhabitants of that neighbourhood were anxious to appeal to that which he had always conceived to be the right of a British subject—the power of trying a great question in the public courts. Mr. Rolt had given his opinion against the noble Marquess; the Attorney General for him. Why not, then, allow the matter to go before a tribunal which no influence, authority, or bribery could warp? He must say that he considered the conduct of the Attorney General in this case as harsh and arbitrary, and a great grievance, of which the public had a right to complain. It was worthy of remark, that, since the opinions of Lord Campbell and Chief Baron Pollock had been given, the one seventeen and the other fifteen years ago, the Marquess of Westminster had continued to repair the road in the way in which it had been previously repaired.

expressed his objection to stamps on marine assurances, and other matters connected with shipping.

seconded the Motion.

said, that he must give the same answer to this Motion which, a few nights ago, he gave to the Motion for the reduction of the duty on paper. He had already stated the amount of taxation which he thought it would be advisable to make, and he could not consent to reduce the revenue still lower. But the hon. Member for Glasgow, with a just regard for the public revenue, was not, he believed, prepared to urge any reduction of duties which would affect that surplus which the best interests of the country required to be maintained. With regard to any future reduction of taxation, he thought it would be unwise to pledge themselves as to the taxes to be remitted. He would not say a word on the subject of the tax, any more than he did on the other branches of taxation on which he had been urged to make a reduction; because he conceived it would be unfair that his opinion should be open to any but the best consideration on the subject. Therefore he hoped the House would join with him in negativing the Motion; and he hoped his hon. Friend would see the necessity of not pressing it to a division, but permit the House to proceed with the business of supply.

was at a loss to know on what grounds the House would be justified in negativing this Motion; for the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not adduced a single argument in favour of this most objectionable tax—a tax not only objectionable on every principle and at all times, but peculiarly unjust now that they had deprived the shipping interest of the protection it enjoyed under the navigation laws. He therefore called upon the right hon. Gentleman to vote for its repeal.

would have preferred that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had not brought forward his Motion until after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fully declared his intentions, which, he believed, would be in the course of the ensuing week. However, he should observe, that marine insurance societies with large capital, and conducted on the most honourable principles, were established in every port town of the United States, where no duty prevailed, and a like system was in operation at Hamburg. It was the manifest interest, not only of shipowners, but also of shippers of goods, to effect insurances in these countries; and, to his own knowledge, they did so to a great extent. For his own part, he was prepared to remove that incubus on the trade and navigation of this country; and in so doing he thought he would be supported by every practical man in the House. The existing policy of insurance was very heavy, and militated much against the shipping interest; and therefore, if the House divided, he would feel himself bound to support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow.

called on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to redeem the promise he had made at the time of the passing of the navigation laws, and on the faith of which promises—to the effect that the shipping interests would be relieved, so as to enable them to enter into competition with other nations—his vote, as well as the votes of many other hon. Gentlemen, had been given in favour of the Government policy. Now, he wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not apply the surplus of 500,000l. to the relief of the shipping interest, instead of applying it to the liquidation of the national debt? He thought the House ought to compel the Government to fulfil the pledges made by them. He would vote in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow; and he hoped the House, by its vote, would compel the Government to see that it could not with impunity violate its promises.

said, the hon. Member laboured under an entire mistake when he said the Government had given a pledge when the repeal of the navigation laws was proposed that this tax should be remitted. Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the President of the Board of Trade recollected ever having given any such pledge. His right hon. Friend had given good reasons for refusing to accede to this Motion. He had stated that it was not a question as to what might be said either in favour or against this peculiar tax; but simply, whether it was desirable to maintain the credit of the country; and that, in the present state of the revenue, he could not safely agree to any further reduction of the surplus.

should say, that the impression on his mind was, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had promised to remove all restrictions connected with shipping as soon as possible; and under that impression his vote was given. He, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow would divide the House on the question.

regretted hon. Gentlemen did not hold their votes until they got all that had been promised them. Every class and interest had its own grievance to complain of; and if all those grievances in the shape of taxation were removed, the income of the country must suffer materially. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown no reason for continuing the tax; and as there was a surplus, he thought it could be better applied in the abolition of a tax, than in the way it had been.

said: Sir, this is a Motion for going into Committee of Supply, to vote the public money, and it really is a matter of great interest that the House, before they agree to vote any more of the public money, should be in possession of the financial statement of the Government for the year. I maintain we are not at present in possession of the financial statement of the Government for this year. It is true that about two months ago Her Majesty's Ministers favoured the House with their general view of the finances of the country, and what they intended to do with respect to the remission of taxation. It is always held in this House to be a matter of great importance that the financial statement of the year should be made as early in the Session as possible, because before we voted the supply it was always considered of primary importance that our constituents should be able to form an opinion as to whether they could hear the burden of the supply. First of all it was intimated whether it was in the power of the Government to make any remission; and when they knew what the remission of taxes was, probably or possibly, they would be better able, through their representatives, to say if they could meet the exigencies of the occasion. Her Majesty's Government have always considered it to be a matter of self-congratula- tion and just pride that they could meet the House of Commons and make their financial statement early in the Session; and Her Majesty's present Government, I must do them the justice to say, took an early opportunity of making it nearly two months ago; but though they commenced it two months ago, they unfortunately have not yet finished it. I am not sure we shall not find ourselves in the same position as in the year 1848, when Her Majesty's Ministers were also extremely elate that they could early in February—I think the 17th of February—make their financial statement; but in that remarkable year of 1848, the budget commenced on the 17th of February was not concluded until the 25th of August. I will shortly remind the House of that remarkable occurrence; for we may he about to enter into a similar course, and Her Majesty's Government may be about to adopt an identical career with that of the year 1848. In the year 1848, Her Majesty's Ministers, in the course of the financial exposition, got entangled with the sugar duties. Her Majesty's Ministers, in 1848, produced a new Sugar Bill that was not successful. They withdrew it, and produced a second one, which met a similar fate. A third Sugar Bill was produced, and all those Bills were accompanied with schedules, as we see in recent Bills—schedules very similar to those stamp schedules that were lately criticised in this House so successfully, that Her Majesty's Ministers at this time find themselves in the same position as in the year 1848. Nearly two months have elapsed, and, though we see the Government commencing the Session with a statement of their views of the finances of the country—views of course matured, well-digested, and the consequence of many councils—we are now at the 26th of April, and there is no Member of this House who has a clear idea what are the objects and views, and what will be the policy, of the Government with regard to the finances of the country. It is of great importance, especially after the late division or divisions of that kind, that Her Majesty's Government should tell us whether they will proceed—I will not say with their measure respecting the stamps, for that is already given up, but whether they intend to introduce a new measure. If they introduce a new measure, they are again, we may say, commencing their financial exposition. All that has happened hitherto is the repeal of one excise duty; but no person can say that is the budget of the Government. All that recommends it is, that it repeals the duty on an article of excise; and as it is the repeal of an excise duty, and not of a customs duty, it recognises a salutary principle. I am aware that it is always understood that some indulgence should be exhibited to the finances of a Whig Ministry. We cannot, it is admitted, expect that the Government should excel in every branch. The foreign policy of the Government, by its peremptory decrees, maintains the dignity of the country, and, by its numerous blockades, vindicates our supremacy of the seas. The Colonial Office, by its ingenuity in manufacturing constitutions, upholds the well-won reputation of this country as the pattern of liberalism throughout the world; and there is always in the pigeon holes of a Whig Cabinet a traditionary policy that inevitably renders Ireland rich, and England content. These are things that may well compensate for an apparent deficit, and sometimes for a proposition to double the income tax. I agree with the majority of the House, that the finances of the Government is a subject that should always be treated with indulgence; but there is a limit even to Parliamentary patience, and, as two months have elapsed since we had the financial exposition, and, so far as we can form an opinion, there is no prospect whatever of its ideas being fulfilled, or its plans completed, I think it would be indiscreet on our part hastily to vote the public money without giving the Government an opportunity of clearly telling us what their intentions are. I assume it—and it is not a monstrous assumption—as a fact that we shall hear no more of the Stamp Act, for the case of the Stamp Act is a much more aggravated case of Ministerial incompetence than the case of the Sugar Bill; and if three failures on the Sugar Bill brought the end of the budget to the 25th of August, it follows that four failures on the Stamp Act already amount to a certainty that the original scheme of the Government, or any scheme similar to it, can no longer be contemplated as a political probability. What was the principle of the budget of Her Majesty's Ministers? It was this—more embarrassed how to deal with a surplus than even with a deficiency, the Minister announced that it was resolved to recognise the claims of a great interest in this country that was suffering, and which, from a peculiar combination of circumstances, was recognised specially by Her Majesty's Ministers, and universally acknowledged to be the only interest that was suffering. Relief to the agricultural interest was the voluntary offer of Her Majesty's Ministers. A certain sum was allotted—a particular amount was appropriated to be given immediately, and distinctly, for the relief of that suffering interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer owes us that moiety of the surplus, and the House will acknowledge that we come forward to remind him of that promise with no ill grace, because, in the interval, we made more than one attempt to relieve another interest, that, to our astonishment, we also found was suffering, without any reference whatever to our prior claims; for we were perfectly prepared to waive those claims if that could serve our suffering fellow-subjects. But those attempts have not succeeded; one of them recently, within the last five minutes, has failed; and now, when Her Majesty's Ministers ask us to form ourselves into Committee of Supply to vote the public money, I cannot consent to do so without some distinct expression from them of their intentions, and of their means to secure that relief to the suffering interest of agriculture which has been so long and so voluntarily promised us by Her Majesty's Government. I ask the House and Her Majesty's Government, have the circumstances changed which prompted Her Majesty's Ministers, at the end of February, to announce to the House that a considerable portion of the surplus was to be applied, as it ought to be, for the relief of that interest? Have the circumstances that since occurred in the country, with respect to that interest, rendered their exigencies less severe; or are they of a nature to justify Her Majesty's Ministers in changing their opinion with respect to the distress of the agricultural interest? I know there was an opinion prevalent on the Treasury bench—indeed it was often intimated to us—that, when we met after Easter, we should meet with more cheerful countenances, and that the dark cloud which lowered over the broad fields of England would have vanished. Is that the case? There are Members in this House who can give testimony on that subject. Now, we are told by a high authority, a Member of the Government, in another place, that this unprecedented depression of the agricultural classes is an exceptional case; but exceptional in what respect? Are we to understand that low prices are exceptional? Why, I thought it was to obtain low prices you changed your legislation. I cannot agree that the circumstances are exceptional; and it is not to the credit of this House, of the present Government, or of the late Government, to believe that the circumstances are exceptional. If we were selling wheat, for instance, at 80s. the quarter, I could understand the logic that would tell me that the circumstances were exceptional; but, when we are selling at 35s. the quarter, instead of denouncing the circumstances as exceptional, you ought to tell us that they are consequences most legitimate. By the unhappy fact of which we are aware, notwithstanding the logical deductions of the new philosophy, we must look upon this state of things as one of a very permanent character; and it is, therefore, still more important that Her Majesty's Ministers should inform us what they intend to do for the relief of the agricultural interest, assuming, as I do assume, that their legislation respecting the stamps is defunct. If it were necessary to relieve the agricultural interest three months ago, and if to do so was the spontaneous suggestion of Her Majesty's Government, it is more necessary now that they should come forward and offer that relief; and, on an occasion like the present, when we are asked, as a matter of course, to form ourselves into a Committee of Supply to vote away the taxes which are wrung from a suffering community, the most suffering part of which it is our unhappy lot to represent, it is not too much to tell the Government that the time is gone by when it can be a matter of course for any Ministers to have a Committee of Supply while their financial exposition is still imperfect—I will not say disgracefully imperfect, for hard phrases do not mend a case; and when a part of its completion is, the relief from taxation of a suffering interest of the community. I invite Her Majesty's Ministers, before they expect us to vote away the public funds, to come forward and tell us distinctly whether they mean to proceed with another attempt to complete their budget on their original scheme, and if not, what they propose to do for the relief of the suffering agricultural classes of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was hardly worth while for the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire to have delayed the House from proceeding with the practical business of the evening, either for the sake of the information which he has conveyed, or for the sake of making those inquiries which he has made. In the first place, the hon. Member informs hon. Members that when the House goes into a Committee of Supply they probably go into it for the purpose of voting away the public money; and as my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has given notice of his intention of bringing in the Navy Estimates in Committee of Supply, that information was, I think, hardly required by the House. In the next place, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire informed the House that it was the usual course for all Ministers, very early in the Session, to bring forward the budget, to state what taxes could be removed, and then to proceed with the supplies for the year. Now, that is not the usual course—very far from it. Such a course in times of peace would not be very expedient, and in times of war it would be utterly absurd and impracticable. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, in the first place, has given us information very superfluous, and well known to all the world, and has also given information which is totally incorrect. But the hon. Member went on to make certain comments with respect to our proceedings as to the finances of the year. I think what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated very early in the Session was sufficiently plain: he stated that he found, according to his estimates of expenses and of receipts for the year, there would be about 1,500,000l. of surplus revenue. Of that surplus he proposed to devote one-half to the relief of the public burdens, and the remaining half to the redemption of a portion of the public debt incurred within the last few years. Whether that was a wise course or not—whether suited to the circumstances of the time or not, nothing could be more clear than the line of policy indicated thereby. That policy, which was stated on the 15th of March, we were pursuing at the present time, and one of the excise duties which pressed heavily upon the improvement of the dwellings of the poor of this country has already been removed. Such being our general policy, I certainly shall not accept the invitation of the hon. Gentleman to go into any detail with respect to those financial measures, or to state now what course we propose to pursue with respect to any particular measure which may be before the House. But as the hon. Gentleman has invited us to the general consideration, I cannot avoid—having stated what our policy is—calling the attention of the House for a few moments to the policy which has been pursued by the hon. Gentleman himself, and those who have acted with him. The policy of the hon. Gentleman and his party is not a little remarkable, and it is one which appears to me not a little wavering and inconsistent. The hon. Gentleman, as we were informed by the public papers, before the commencement of the Session, expounded a great plan of finance of his own, which, whether it was advisable to adopt or not, certainly had one very strong feature in it—a feature honourable to the hon. Gentleman, namely, that he proposed to maintain the credit of the country very high, and to have a very considerable surplus above expenditure for the purpose of establishing a sinking fund, in order to keep the funds high, and to enable all persons who had need of borrowing to do so at a very low rate of interest. Probably this plan would not be agreed in by persons who had thought much upon finance; but at least it had this very creditable feature in it, that it was founded upon the basis that the revenue was always to exceed the expenditure of the country. Then again we were told on the first night of the Session that the grand question was to be to endeavour to obtain the restoration of protection. The Amendment upon the Address did not, hewever, exactly contain that proposition; and no sooner was that proposition negatived, than we were told that it was quite clear there was a majority of the House against protection, and there was no need of talking of protection any more, or of making any Motion on the subject of a restoration of protection. That was entirely inconsistent with what we were told on the first night of the Session. Futher than this, the hon. Gentleman propounded in the last autumn a great plan by which the revenue was to be increased and be kept considerably above the expenditure. During the last few months we have seen, however, that when any hon. Member brought forward a Motion for the repeal of any duty, whether of paper, of the window tax, of marine insurance, however little it might affect the agricultural interest, or however little it might relieve the landed interest—whether the proposition might come from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, or any other hon. Member who pro- fessed to hold strong opinions upon free trade, or whoever it might be, still the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire and his Friends appeared only eager to diminish the revenue of the country, and to bring it below the expenditure. The hon. Gentleman talks of our plan of finance; I am not ashamed of the principle of our plan; it is one which combines some relief to the country, with a continued surplus of income above expenditure. But a course of policy which consists in voting with any person or any party who has objections to a particular tax, and who, having studied that particular tax, deems it more objectionable than any other, for hon. Gentlemen to come down and, without considering the general state of the finances, to vote for anything that will impair the general credit of the country—that does appear to me for a great party a most singular and extraordinary course of policy, and one which does not seem calculated to raise them very much in public opinion. But some hon. Members who proposed a reduction of taxation, proposed also a diminution of expendiditure. One hon. Member proposed that 20,000 men might be taken from the Army, or that great reductions might be made in the Navy, or other means might be resorted to for preserving the balance, and for making our receipts still exceed our expenditure; but the hon. Gentleman opposite, who voted with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, had no excuse of that kind. It was contrary to their views to make those great reductions in the expenditure, and, therefore, they exposed themselves to the chance of being responsible for making a great inroad upon our finances, and leaving them in that state in which the credit of the country could not be maintained either at home or in the eyes of foreign countries. Some persons say, that if these reductions of taxes were made without any corresponding reduction of expenditure, and the revenue of the country would not suffice for the expenditure, the House would find itself obliged to impose those taxes upon provisions, upon the admission of foreign corn, and of foreign articles of general consumption which it has been the policy of different Governments and of different Parliaments of late years to reduce. [Loud cheers from the Protectionist side of the House.] By the cheers which I have just heard, there really does seem some ground for entertaining that opinion; and I must say that a more wild-goose chase I cannot well imagine. To suppose that be- cause a certain number of Gentlemen had voted with them for the reduction of the tax upon windows or upon paper, that they would thereby find themselves in a majority in favour of the restoration of protection, and that a majority of the House would be found to restore a tax which would go to enhance the price of food in this country—a more visionary expectation I cannot conceive. If their great plan of finance, which they have not openly revealed to us, is that they will vote for every diminution, and for the abolition of every tax, with the hope that if the taxes were reduced they may get a duty imposed upon all foreign articles of consumption, and especially upon corn, I must say, that a worse plan of finance—a plan of finance based upon more shallow views, or one which tended more to destroy the credit of the country in the first, and to destroy the peace of the country in the second, place, was never conceived by any party which had numbers, wealth, and station in this House. The hon. Gentleman has invited me to this discussion of his plan of finance, by the observations which he has made upon ours. I am sorry to see that he has utterly departed from that very honourable notion which he entertained before the House met, that, whatever we did, we must keep up the credit of the country, and that we ought to have a large surplus revenue over expenditure. I think that if the hon. Gentleman, and those who act with him, had adhered firmly to this principle, they might have kept up a high reputation in this country, and it might have been said of them at least, that their views of policy were conformable to that which had been followed in the best periods of our history. The hon. Gentleman also alluded to something which he supposed to have passed elsewhere. I have seen reports of things, too, which have transpired elsewhere, and I have seen that it is said that people are beginning to ask not only what revision of salaries there should be, and what reduction of offices, but were also beginning to ask whether it was possible any longer to pay the dividends of the national debt. I doubt whether such questions are really and seriously asked by any portion of the people of this country. I do not think it wise that such notions should be set about, especially in the high places in which currency is given to them. I believe that any such notion will obtain no credence or followers among the people of this country in general. I think really that if hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of abandoning their own course of policy, and striving to get into a majority by following in the train of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, and adopting and following his views, were to resort to their own policy, and place plainly before us whether they adhere to protection, and meant to strive to obtain it, or whether they keep it in reserve for some future occasion, or whether, as in point of fact I believe is the case, although they do not venture to say so to the farmers of the country, they utterly despair of obtaining again a return to the system of protective duties—[Cries of "No, no!" from the Protectionists.] Well, if that is not so, let us have a direct Motion to that effect. There is a large party of protectionists who are calling out and saying that so long as free trade continues every interest must be suffering. If that be so; if the country be really suffering under these influences of free trade; and if that policy which has been pursued since 1842 be an utter mistake—if the people are weary of going on in the road to ruin in consequence of that policy, I say it is the duty of those who entertain that belief to bring the whole question before the consideration of Parliament. At all events, I will say, that we are not afraid of meeting that question. We are ready to meet it at any time; but we hold, that, at the present time, while the revenue is sufficient for our expenses—while that revenue shows, both by the duties of excise and many other duties, that there is no falling off in the consumption of the great articles which pay duty in this country; that there are other circumstances which will show, and which can be stated whenever that question is brought forward, that the great masses and the great majority of the people of this country, are now in the enjoyment of as great comforts as they have ever enjoyed.

said, that the noble Lord should have thought the information of his hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire superfluous, he could readily understand, for it must be unpleasant for the noble Lord to be reminded in that assembly, pledged, as it was, to the principle of free imports, that a great and important interest in this country was still suffering. The noble Lord, far from endeavouring to explain the financial position of the country, had most ingeniously diverged from the real question at issue, and given them an elaborate statement founded partly on fact, but trenching also very materially on the agreeable and more seductive ground of fiction, as to a proposition which had been made at some time or other by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. But when the noble Lord found fault with what he had truly termed the "great scheme" of his hon. Friend, he might be reminded that that very scheme had been mentioned with the highest eulogy, and even plagiarised by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the introduction of the budget. He was unwilling to protract the debate, but he had risen to protest against the injustice of several of the assertions of the noble Lord. In the first place, the noble Lord said that they had followed every Gentleman who might have proposed some reduction of taxation, irrespective of the justice of the claims and of the expenditure of the country; and the noble Lord had had—what should he call it?—the courage, to say that his hon. Friend and the great bulk of his supporters had voted with the noble Viscount the Member for Bath for the repeal of the window duty. The noble Lord was not correct in that statement, and he asked him now to retract it. The noble Lord said, that they had voted for any reduction that might be proposed, without thinking of the maintenance of the credit of the country, and instanced the vote which they had come to an hour ago. The sum of money implicated in that vote was under 200,000l a year; and let him ask the noble Lord what was the present available surplus which he proposed to grant by way of relief to some interest or other? Was it not a sum greatly exceeding that? Upon what ground then did the noble Lord accuse Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House of voting for a reduction of taxation without the least regard to the maintenance of the public credit? He maintained that the party with which he had the honour to act, had never given a vote during the present Session of Parliament without a direct reference to the maintenance of public credit. If he wanted any justification of that assertion, he would find it in the concluding portion of the noble Lord's own speech; for he had admitted that they (the protectionists) were not without a policy which would supply the necessary funds for that purpose. But he (Lord J. Manners) assured the House that the votes which they had given in favour of the re- duction of taxation could be, and were, fully justified altogether irrespective of that policy, and without any consideration with regard to the reimposition of what the noble Lord called "the taxes on the food of the people." When the noble Lord took the opportunity of accusing them of acting in a headlong and improper manner, he-cause they had voted for the repeal of taxes, in favour of which nothing had been said, and in favour of which nothing could be said—when the noble Lord took the opportunity of making that accusation against them, in vindication of the policy which they (the protectionists) impugned, and in defence of a budget which was rapidly falling in pieces before their eyes, he would tell the noble Lord that if that was his defence, they were perfectly willing to leave the question in his hands.

assured the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that however well-intentioned, and however honest in heart and disposition, he was totally mistaken in the course of proceeding he had adopted. He said this even although the noble Lord was backed up by his (Colonel Sibthorp's) right hon. relative (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). That right hon. Gentleman had told the House some time ago that he had a surplus at his disposal. He would tell him to his face that he had no surplus at all; that, indeed, if he put the debtor and creditor account together, he was worse than nothing. With regard to the noble Lord he would only say that there was a time when the house of Russell was the farmer's friend; but he was sorry to say that the present representative of it had entirely lost that feeling. The noble Lord did not seemd to be well pleased with certain votes which had been given on that (the Opposition) side of the House in favour of economy. He, for one, confessed that he was rather of an economical turn, and he must take the liberty of saying that he wished that other hon. Members beside him would use their power and influence a little more than they did to support the measures of economy which he brought under the notice of the House. Dinner was a good thing, and amusement was a good thing; but duty ought to be paramount to either of them. Before sitting down he would ask the noble Lord whether the deanery of Hereford had yet been filled up? and if so, by whom? and what was the salary connected with it?

replied, that the deanery of Hereford was not yet filled up.

said, that a novel scene had taken place that evening, which he had witnessed with much attention. There was crimination and recrimination, but he was fortunately in a condition to blame both. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire called on Her Majesty's Government, very properly, to give relief to the agricultural interest. He (Mr. Hume) had pressed on the Government the propriety of giving relief to all interests, and he had proposed the honest and legitimate mode of reducing expenditure, in order to obtain a surplus. Hon. Gentlemen opposite complained that the Government had not a policy, but he complained that they had, and seemed determined to abide by it—namely, that no farther reduction in expenditure should take place. It was impossible, therefore, that they could have a surplus; but who was to blame for that? Why, hon. Gentlemen opposite. They came to the rescue when the Government was in difficulties. ["No, no!" from the Opposition benches.] But he maintained that they had done it. Every Committee who had inquired into the subject had laid it down that the best and only way to obtain relief was by the reduction of our establishments. He had complained of the Government taking five or six millions from the pockets of the people for the Army and Navy, and made an appeal to the House for a reduction of the number of men employed; and what was the consequence? Hon. Gentlemen opposite joined the noble Lord, and he (Mr. Hume) was left in a miserable minority of some forty or fifty. If they wanted relief, they should take those means by which relief could be obtained, and do as they would in their own establishments—reduce their expenditure when it balanced their income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had no money to give relief, but hon. Gentlemen might give him money for that purpose by reducing the national establishments. So far both sides had been quarrelling about nothing, and he thought they were both to blame. When our establishments were reduced, and a surplus was obtained, it might be applied towards the relief of the most deserving parties. Above all, however, he begged the House to consider, that as this was a commercial country, and as the welfare of the agriculturists themselves depended on the prosperous condition of commerce, it was most de- sirable to remove every fiscal restriction on commerce at home and abroad, and everything that tended to injure the health and comfort of the mass of the population.

begged to remind the hon. Member for Montrose, who had made a very interesting speech, that it was quite beside the question raised on the Opposition side of the House. They had only asked for 300,000l., which was at present unappropriated, and which they thought might as well be applied to the relief of the agricultural interest.