appeared at the bar, and said that the Address which had been agreed to on the subject of Sunday labour in the Post Office had been presented to Her Majesty, and the following was Her Majesty's most gracious Answer:—

"I have received your Address, praying that the collection and delivery of Letters may in future entirely cease on Sunday in all parts of the Kingdom; and, also, that an inquiry may be made as to how far, without injury to the public service, the transmission of the Mails on the Lord's Day might be diminished, or entirely suspended; and in compliance with your request, I shall give directions accordingly."

begged to put a question to the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown with reference to this important subject. He wished to know whether there would be any exemption in favour of the foreign correspondence of the country? Suppose a packet from America arrived at Liverpool yesterday with some ten or twenty thousand letters. Under present circumstances those letters would be sifted in the Liverpool post-office late last evening, to be sent up by the mails, and would be delivered this morning in the metropolis, containing perhaps 100,000l. worth of bills of exchange, stocks to a great amount, and letters of the greatest possible consequence. He wished to know whether there would be any exemption in favour of such letters lying at Falmouth, Southampton, and other places?

said, that with respect to the delivery of letters, the directions to be given by Her Majesty would be in accordance with the orders of that House, and therefore there would be no exemption with respect to the delivery of letters. With respect to the transmission of letters, the Address only proposed inquiry.

desired to put a question with regard to the answer to the Address. He had only heard the words "collection and transmission." [Sir G. GREY: And "delivery."] He presumed that in post-office language, the word "collection" meant bringing the letters from the branch offices. Although the collection of letters in the large towns might be put a stop to by the Government, he presumed it did not follow that letters put in the chief office would not be transmitted. He supposed there was no intention to prevent the sending letters from the principal towns on the Sunday evenings, although the collection might be stopped.

presumed that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the transmission of letters; but what the Government wished to do was, to carry into effect the orders of that House. It was not for him to say whether any advantage would be derived from the arrangement.

said, he supposed, although no mention was made of the circumstance, there would be no alteration with regard to Sunday newspapers.

said, the object of his Motion was to put an end for the present to the proceedings of the Committee of Taste. But he had also another Motion on the paper, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and examine the various reports, statements, and plans of the architect relative to the New Houses of Parliament. He was aware that he was undertaking an unpleasant duty in submitting these Motions to the House; but he had been requested by several Members to do so; and it was evident that if something was not done, there would be no limit to expense. He did not grudge the expenditure of a proper sum of money for a House of Parliament which would afford due accommodation to its Members; but seeing the enormous sums that had been already expended, and that proper accommodation had not been provided, it was full time that the House of Commons should interfere to prevent further waste of money. He would give a précis of the proceedings which had taken place, from which it would be abundantly clear, that if adequate care and precaution had been taken, such extraordinary delay would not have taken place, and they would not have incurred an expenditure of 2,000,000l. instead of 724,986l., which was Mr. Barry's estimate. If there was to be an end of expenditure even at 2,000,000l. it would be some satisfaction; but no person could tell how much beyond that amount would be expended. It was their duty, therefore, to require a definite statement as to the further expenditure that was likely to be incurred. None of the requisites which had been pointed out by the Committee of 1835, had been carried out. They required that there should be sitting room in the body of the House, for from 420 to 460 Members, with accommodation for the remainder in the galleries. Well, they had been sitting in the New House, and instead of accommodation for 420 or 460 Members, there was not accommodation for anything approaching that number. The lobbies were required to contain—one 1,800 feet, and the other, 1,100. They had an opportunity of testing the accommodation afforded by them in case of a division. They had a division in which 287 Members divided, and he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen if the lobby was not crowded to an inconvenient degree. They might thus judge of the inconvenience when a full House divided, and he had seen an occasion in which 500 Members had divided on one side. It was likewise considered of importance that there should be accommodation for 200 strangers in one or more galleries at the end of the House. But he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen if that part of the House was not required for the accommodation of its own Members? The 11th resolution of the Committee of 1836 was, that there should be 10 Committee rooms about 40 by 30, from 18 to 20 feet in height; ten, 35 by 25, from 16 to 18 feet in height; ten, 30 by 20, from 14 to 16 feet in height. He would leave hon. Gentlemen who had sat in these rooms to speak of the accommodation which they afforded. It was evident that the accommodation in the three points he had mentioned was deficient. The principal men in the House at that time sat upon the Committee which drew up these resolutions; and when Mr. Barry's plan had been adopted, the Committee stated that they did so "on the express understanding that it could be executed for a sum not exceeding, by any considerable amount, the estimate submitted to them by Mr. Barry—that was to say, 724,986l." Now, he (Mr. Hume) had some reason to doubt the accuracy of Mr. Barry's estimate, for he had written to Mr. Hodgson, the eminent contractor of Bloomsbury, requesting his opinion of it, and Mr. Hodgson informed him that the expense would amount to 1,100,000l; and when Mr. Barry amended his plan, he calculated the expenditure at 1,300,000l. On the 13th of June, 1836, he (Mr. Hume) presented a petition from eighteen to twenty architects of the metropolis, in which it was stated the building would not be executed for less than 2,000,000l., and that they founded their calculation on the expenditure of Henry VIIth.'s Chapel, to which Mr. Barry's plan nearly approached. Accordingly a Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Harwich was chairman, was appointed to inquire into the subject. He (Mr. Hume) put the following questions to Mr. Barry during the course of that inquiry:—

"Q. 170. What is the amount of your estimate, including everything?—724,986l., exclusive of the site. 172. It is the maximum estimate, applying to the building only. 184. Ventilation is included in the plan.

"Q. 211. You have been making an estimate of this building: have you done it yourself, or employed competent persons to do so?—I have done it myself, and employed competent persons to assist me.

"Q. 217. Have the calculations been made from the plans which are upon the table?—They have.

"Q. 218. The amended plans?—Yes.

"Q. 272. Then are the Committee to understand that the estimates that you have given in are on that general principle that you have stated, as to the quantity and the amounts, such that you can rely upon?—Yes.

"Q. 290. May I ask you, strictly speaking, what style you consider this building to be?—It is of the third syle of Gothic architecture, including the Tudor period.

"Q. 404. How long would it take a person to make a detailed specification, and the working drawings, so as to enable a correct estimate to be formed of the whole building?—At least a twelvemonth.

The Committee made the following report:—

"The Committee are not satisfied on the head of expense; and before any part of the building be commenced, or any vote be proposed to Parliament, there should be the most minute and accurate estimate that can be formed."

It was then referred to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to inquire into and report upon Mr. Barry's plans and estimates. That report was made on the 18th of April, 1837, and was signed by Lord Duncannon, B. C. Stephenson, and A. Milne. The gentlemen appointed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to examine the estimate were Messrs. Seward and Chawner, architects; and they reported "That the new Houses of Parliament can be satisfactorily erected, according to the said drawings, for the sum stated by Mr. Barry (707,104.)" This was exclusive of the proposed embankment of part of the river Thames, the estimate of which was 44,000l., and the purchase of the site, &c., which was estimated at 85,000l.; making a total of 129,000l., which was to be added to the 707,104l. It appeared that a great many deviations had been made from the plan, whether on the motion of Mr. Barry himself, or at the suggestion of some other person or persons, he did not know; but it was full time for them to see that some limit was put upon the expenditure. He had been informed that very day that it was intended to take down all the buildings on that side of the bridge next to the new Houses, not to speak of the courts of law, and thus one thing would lead on to another, heaping up the expenses more and more, unless some control was established. He found in a paper published by one of the Commissioners (Lord Sudeley) in 1844, some remarkable statements as to the deviations made from the original plan with reference to the House of Lords. According to that paper, the original way by which the Queen's state carriage was to pass through the great tower, had to be materially altered by Mr. Barry. A pillar had to be removed in consequence of the passage not being wide enough; and the Queen's carriage, instead of going out by the way at first intended, was now to go by a subterranean tunnel—a passage of only nine feet in width. But as the width of Her Majesty's carriage was eight feet nine inches, he thought there would be some danger in passing through. If any person happened to be in the passage, he could not well es- cape being crushed. He was astonished that any Government could allow these things to go on in this manner. He was not authorised to blame Mr. Barry; Mr. Barry might have authority for what he did. He did not mean to cast the least reflection on the eminent talents of Mr. Barry. He was ready to acknowledge his taste and imagination. He only meant to say, that having undertaken to make a House of Lords and Commons, he failed to do that. It was not many days since that Mr. Barry had received a gold medal from the Institute of Architects; and he begged to call the attention of the House to the language used on that occasion by Earl de Grey, one of the Commissioners appointed to control Mr. Barry. Earl de Grey Baid—

"We read that your predecessor, Sir C. Wren, himself laid the first stone of that superb edifice St. Paul's Cathedral, which is now the greatest monument of his genius; and I trust the same good fortune will await you. May you live to see the magnificent work now in your hands completed! St Paul's was thirty-four years in its erection; you have not occupied half that time as yet—and have made a progress which, if it had depended on yourself, would have brought the Houses of Parliament nearly to a completion; but the means of working have not been at your disposal. Tour work is to be devoted to I know not how many purposes. Sir C. Wren had to deal with men who knew what they wanted. Sir C. Wren, no doubt, received his instructions from men who knew the purposes to which the building was to be dedicated, and what was required to carry it out; but, I am sorry to say, that is not always the case with respect to the building entrusted to you. Sir C. Wren's masters were few—yours are legion. I am sorry to say, that au gust assembly which has most to do with the erection of this magnificent structure has in it a vast number of men who ask questions, make suggestions, and offer criticisms, while, at the same time, they do not know what is wanted, or, indeed, what they want themselves. It is not wonderful, then, that the architect should be impeded, and that fault should be found without any good substantial ground. And yet you have made a wonderful progress, &c. I have said the purposes to which it is to be applied are multifarious—there are wide and gorgeous palace halls, long corridors, short passages, lowly doorways, magnificent entrances, aspiring towers, groined staircases, every class of residences, porters' lodges, committee-rooms, offices, and even kitchens. As one of the Fine Arts Commissioners I have had more opportunities than, perhaps, any of his professional brethren, of seeing how cleverly and how readily Mr. Barry was able to make the suggestions he received from parties he was obliged to obey harmonise with his own conceptions, and thus preserve intact the beauty and unity of the original design.

Now, he left it to them to say whether that was or was not a fair description of the conduct or proceedings of that House. His (Mr. Hume's) object was to ascertain who the parties were, and by what sanction and authority the expense of erecting the building had been increased from 724,000l. to over two millions. It might turn out that Mr. Barry might be able to clear himself from all those charges, as he (Mr. Hume) wished he might, because it was through no personal or hostile feeling to Mr. Barry that he brought on the Motion, but because he conceived the House was bound to have a full and candid detail of every expense connected with the undertaking. He called on them, then, to disallow the 3,000l. to the Commissioners of Fine Arts for one year; because by stopping the supply they would prevent their proceeding, further until the building itself should be in a condition to be used, and then they could see whether or not the money ought to be voted. He therefore called for inquiry into this, as it appeared to him, inextricable difficulty; and he hoped the House would support his proposition.

seconded the Amendment.

was not sorry that this Amendment had been brought forward, or the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, into which he had so fully entered; but he was sorry that he should have made that statement with reference to the whole question of the New Houses, when his Motion referred to a subject totally distinct—namely, whether they were to stop the proceedings of the Fine Arts Commission? This was the sole object of the hon. Gentleman's Motion; but nevertheless he had gone into a long statement with reference to the building of the New Houses during the last 15 years. He was sorry for the sake of the House, that he should have introduced these totally distinct subjects into one debate; but he hoped that the House would not accede to the Motion which he had made. It should be remembered that the House, on the recommendation of a Committee, came to a resolution that a good opportunity of benefiting and promoting the fine arts would be found during the time of building the New Houses of Parliament. That was determined on many years ago; and it was a determination which had been acted on ever since. It was only last year that an arrangement was announced to the House, which received its unanimous approval—namely, that instead of proposing year by year the various objects on which the expenditure for the fine arts was to take place in the ensuing years, thus constituting themselves into what they were remarkably ill fitted for—a Committee of Taste—a certain limited sum should be annually placed at the disposal of the Commissioners of the Fine Arts for that purpose. And, certainly, though the hon. Gentleman might differ from the views taken by the Commissioners of Fine Arts on certain points, yet, on the whole, that was a more satisfactory mode of dealing with such questions than making them, in that House, the subject of interminable and unsatisfactory discussions. Last year, the sum placed at the disposal of the Commission was 4,000l.; and, anticipating a similar sum for the present year, the Commissioners had entered into arrangements with artists for works to be placed in the New Houses; some of these works had been executed, and were ready to be handed over; and if the House of Commons now withheld this vote, he need hardly say that an act of injustice would be done both to the Commissioners and to the artists. Therefore, whatever resolution the House might choose to adopt with respect to such votes in future years—whether or not they wished to put an end to all expenditure on account of the fine arts—so far as this vote of 4,000l. for the present year was concerned, they could not refuse it without being guilty of great injustice. Now, though it was a little inconvenient to go into those matters connected with the New Houses generally which the hon. Gentleman had introduced, he, nevertheless, would take that opportunity to address a few words to the House on the subject. He certainly thought it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had waited till he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was able to lay on the table a return which would have given the House information as to the whole state of the case—how far the estimates had been exceeded, what deviations had taken place from the original plan, and such other particulars as would have enabled them to come fully prepared to the discussion of the subject. From statements made by the hon. Gentleman, it might almost be implied that we had actually incurred an expense of 2,000,000l. for purposes within the estimate; but, in fact, the whole amount expended for purposes included in the esti- mate, with all the expenses of the deeper foundations and similar matters which could not be foreseen, was about 900,000l. Then he talked of the additions to the plan as having been attended with an enormous extra expense, whereas the addition to the plan ultimately approved of cost exactly 20,000l. It was quite true that in 1837, after minute inquiry, a plan was decided upon, the estimate for which, so far as buildings were concerned, amounted to 724,000l., including the architect's commission and some other items of a similar kind. The actual estimate for buildings was 682,000l.; but the hon. Gentleman spoke of all expenditure, other than that, as if it formed part of the original estimate. Now, it did no such thing. When the original estimate was made, it was distinctly stated that there were many other purposes for which expenditure must be incurred in addition to those estimated for—such as the cost of site, the river wall and embankment, carrying the foundation to an extra depth, sewers, and so on—those which he had named amounting to about 183,000l. The House would see, therefore, that a large expenditure was necessarily incurred for purposes not included in Mr. Barry's estimate at all. Previous to 1844 some alterations had, no doubt, been made; but the Committee which sat that year reported that though they had been made without proper authority, they were nevertheless great improvements, and they entirely approved of their being made. And here he was reminded of what the hon. Gentleman said about the removal of a pillar to make room for the Queen's coach. It was true that a plan had been made such as that to which he referred, including a pillar, but it never appeared in the approved plan, so that the pillar could never have in fact existed. As to the operations which had led to the extra expense, they arose from circumstances over which Mr. Barry had no control. The additional expenditure arose from improvements which were afterwards sanctioned by the Committee of 1844, or for purposes which had been sanctioned by the Commissioners of the Land Revenue, and by the Commissioners of the Treasury. For example, he found that for a supply of water, temporary buildings, and other incidental expenses, there was an additional expense of 23,000l., and for a better description of stone, the substitution of metal for wooden sashes for the windows, and other items, 82,000l. Then there was an extra cost owing to the change of circum-stances and the delay that had taken place, amounting to 68,000l., making, altogether, 173,000l. This was over and above sums not included in the original estimate, such as the expense of the site, the extra foundation and the river wall, &c., which was 183,300l. Now, surely, there was no blame attachable to Mr. Barry that in his original estimate, he had not included things which formed no part of the buildings, nor was it fair to say that such things were included in the original estimate. His hon. Friend had spoken of the time which had been occupied. No doubt the works were continued much longer than had been anticipated by Mr. Barry, though through no fault of his; but it should not be forgotten that in many items this delay had led to much additional expense. Take the article of iron, for example, which had greatly increased in price while the operations were going on, and it would be found that in consequence of the delay a sum of 68,000l., as he had already stated, had been incurred. Then, for warming and ventilating the buildings there were several items of expenditure resolved on after the original estimate was made, amounting to 120,000l. In consequence of these alterations further fire-proofing was rendered necessary in order to protect the buildings from the danger thereby incurred, and these led to an expense of 80,000l., making, under these three heads, a sum of no less than 200,000l. But surely this could not be put down as the fault of Mr. Barry. In the original estimate, there was no allowance for fixtures and furniture and some other matters, amounting to 500,000l. Including everything that could fairly be charged on the original estimate, the additional expense incurred was 230,000l. The original estimate was 682,000l., besides an addition to the plan of 20,000l.; and the excess consisted of supply of water, temporary buildings, &c., 23,000l.; improvements by means of better stone and other articles he had mentioned, 82,000l.; the cost caused by the loss of time, chiefly by the increased price of iron, 68,000l., and a sum of 37,000l. put down for contingencies. Then the charges produced by innovations upon the original plan were for cost of site, river-wall, embankment, &c., 183,000l., and for warming, ventilating, and fire-proofing the buildings, 200,000l.; furniture and fixtures, 500,000l.; approaches, if ever made at all, 32,000l.; taking down St. Stephen's Chapel, 3,000l., restoring the crypt, 22,000l., and the architect's remuneration, 75,000l. This, including the sum of 912,000l., which was the amount expended for purposes included in the original estimate, and those added to it, made a total expenditure of 1,927,000l. It would be much more convenient if the House were to abstain from taking any steps till put into possession of the information which would be laid before it. The hon. Member for Montrose adverted also to the accommodation in what was called the New House of Commons. A morning sitting would be held there to-morrow, and an evening sitting in the course of the week. In order to enable Members to come to some unanimous opinion, it was not undesirable that a Committee should be appointed on that subject. There was not the same objection to such a Committee as to one on the whole works; and he felt confident that the information it would be his duty to produce, would obviate the necessity for any general inquiry. [Mr. HUME said, that if the right hon. Baronet would consent to the appointment of a Committee, he should be quite satisfied.] He did not think it desirable that a Committee should be appointed to rip up all that had been done since 1836; but it might be advisable to have a Committee appointed for the minor purpose of inquiry into the accommodation in the New House of Commons, and ascertaining how far it was adapted to meet the wishes of, he did not say all, but a great majority of the House.

said, he apprehended the practical question on which the hon. Member for Montrose intended to take the opinion of the House was the vote of 3,000l. which it was proposed to apply to the decoration of the two Houses. Before adverting to that topic, he wished to say a few words on that collateral point to which the hon. Member devoted nine-tenths of his speech. The hon. Member referred to an address made by Earl de Grey to Mr. Barry in presenting him, at the Institute of British Architects, with a medal, in admiration of his genius, and approbation of his conduct. He (Sir R. Peel) rejoiced that Earl de Grey had made that address—had taken the opportunity of recording the estimation in which Mr. Barry was held by the architects of this country. His noble Friend did not act against the House of Commons or its recorded sentiments; but he had a perfect right to entertain his own opinions; and the House of Commons ought not to be so critical with respect to expressions of opinions. They were not exceedingly reserved themselves in expressing condemnation, and they ought not to be fastidious in objecting to the course pursued by any one who, on a fit and proper occasion, gave expression to his views. But his noble Friend Earl de Grey might have found in the report of 1844 an expression of opinion on the part of the House of Commons, that if there had been an alteration in the original plan, Mr. Barry was not responsible. In that report it was expressly stated that the Committee, having examined various persons with respect to the course hitherto adopted by Mr. Barry in regard to alterations in the interior arrangements, imputed no blame to Mr. Barry, and declared that they "had every reason to believe all the alterations hitherto made had conduced to the convenience and general effect of the building." In 1844, then, there was a complete acquittal of Mr. Barry by that Committee appointed by the House of Commons. Earl de Grey referred to various changes of opinion which had taken place, and said Mr. Barry had met with critics who did not understand their own mind. The hon. Member for Montrose was one of the main suggesters of alterations; and, therefore, he ought to be especially chary of impeaching Mr. Barry on the ground that alterations had been made. The evidence of the Earl of Bessborough, then First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, referred to the original plan of Mr. Barry, and showed, if deviations had been made, and expenses incurred on account of them, that Mr. Barry was not responsible. But certain Members of the House of Commons, thinking important alterations might be made for the more convenient accommodation of Members, and the residence of persons connected with the House of Commons, suggested modifications of the original plan. The Earl of Bessborough said the first deviation was providing a house for the Sergeant-at-Arms. Being asked if he could state when that was proposed, he replied, "During the sitting of the Committees of both Houses which altered the plan of 1836. I can speak to that from a conversation I had with Mr. Hume." He (Sir R. Peel) read that evidence in vindication of Mr. Barry and of Earl de Grey, who, having expressed approbation of Mr. Barry, had incurred the censure of the hon. Member for Montrose. He should have read it, if only to convince that hon. Member that he ought to be tolerant of the opinions of others. A plan was offered by Mr. Barry, among other competitors, and adopted. [Mr. HUME: And altered.] It was altered in 1836, and again at the instance of the hon. Member. From the Earl of Bessborough's evidence it appeared that the Treasury consented reluctantly, and that the noble Lord himself had objected in consistency with the advice of Sir B. Stephenson, who said, if they once consented to make alterations, more would be suggested. But who overruled that opinion? "I recollect," said the Earl of Bessborough, "Mr. Hume coming to me, and stating that it was absolutely necessary the Sergeant-at-Arms, who had charge of the House, and so had a great responsibility for so large a building, should have an apartment." Lord G. Somerset inquired in what character did Mr. Hume make such applications? The answer of the Earl of Bessborough was, that he made the applications as a member of the Committee. Being asked if be acceded to the representation of the hon. Member, the Earl of Bessborough replied, "I assented to it, but with very great reluctance. I got the consent of the Treasury, but they objected very much." Here were these two reluctant departments consenting to new buildings and fresh expenditure in consequence of the suggestion of the hon. Member who now asked the House to curtail the vote for the New Houses of Parliament by 3,000l. It might be questioned whether it would not have been better had the Woods and Forests resisted the fascinations of the hon. Gentleman. When the Earl of Bessborough was asked whether Mr. Hume stated the suggestion as his own opinion or as that of the Committee, the answer was that the hon. Member described it as the general opinion. [Mr. HUME: Who was the chairman?] Who was the chairman? It was not, he believed, the hon. Member for Montrose. Every precaution, however, was taken by the departments, and this question was asked, "Mr. Hume was not the chairman of the Committee, was he?"—"No, he was not." That made the conduct of the hon. Gentleman still more improper then. He was very sorry to make this exposure of the hon. Member. He (Sir R. Peel) was anxious to have stated to the hon. Member before he brought on his Motion, in what a strait he was placed by his conduct with respect to this suggestion. The witness stated "he was not chairman of the Committee, but I think he said that it was the opinion of the majority of the Committee." [Mr. HUME: That's all very well.] If the hon. Member denied it, he (Sir R. Peel) could only say that he was quoting from a Parliamentary document, and it was quite sufficient to vindicate his noble Friend Earl de Grey from any reflections upon his conduct, and to show that Mr. Barry ought not alone to bear the blame of these alterations. Some observations had been made with respect to the inconvenience of divisions in the new House. He (Sir R. Peel) had a similar impression that the mode of taking divisions in this House was more convenient. But Mr. Barry was not responsible, for the Committee appointed in 1836 considered the principle on which the New House of Commons should be constructed, and they expressly recommended that the New House should not be so long as the present—in which he thought they made a mistake; the defect was its breadth relatively to its length. It would have been more desirable to afford accommodation in the centre of the House than in the gallery, and to have had its proportions more resembling those of the present House. But Mr. Barry for that was free from blame. He offered a plan, which was submitted to the Committee, and the Committee recommended that the House of Commons should be broader, and that the length should be curtailed. They expressly recommended an apartment on each side of the House of Commons in which divisions should be taken in the very matter Mr. Barry had provided. The House of Commons must, therefore, adopt the whole blame with respect to the construction of the New House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted prudently in proposing, before new alterations were made, or fresh expenses incurred, that there should be a Committee of the most experienced Members appointed with the view of ascertaining what alterations might be necessary. So much with respect to the House of Commons. As regarded the particular vote on which the hon. Member for Montrose intended to take the opinion of the House, the House of Commons appeared to have a short memory in these matters. They thought they were going to revise an act of the Crown—to express disapprobation of the course pursued by the Crown with respect to both Houses of Parliament. The House was perfectly at liberty to do so. If they did not think the Commission of the Fine Arts appointed by the Crown the proper tribunal to decide on the matters committed to its charge—if they thought the House of Commons should withdraw the vote altogether, they were perfectly at liberty to do so. If they thought all the great artists of the country—many of whom had been brought into prominence by the competition which took place under the auspices of the commission—ought to seek encouragement elsewhere; if they thought it necessary to mark their disapprobation of the delay which had taken place, or their anxiety to promote economy by withdrawing the grant, they were perfectly at liberty to adopt that proceeding. As a member of that commission, so far from deprecating such a step, he should be heartily glad to be relieved from the duties, particularly if it were intimated that the commission had not the confidence of the House. But no step had been taken by the Executive Government, or by that commission, except in the belief, and the justifiable confidence, that the Commission and the Government were acting in consonance with the views of the House of Commons. That commission was issued solely in consequence of an unanimous recommendation of a Committee appointed to consider whether it was not fitting that the opportunity should be taken for constructing that magnificent building to promote the fine arts. He should feel it to be his duty to put it beyond all possibility of doubt, that the acts done had been so in consequence of the sanction and recommendation of the House of Commons. In 1841, during the Government of Lord Melbourne, a Committee was appointed on the 6th of May, to consider the promotion of the fine arts in this country, in connexion with the rebuilding of the New Houses. That Committee came to a unanimous report; and, strange again to say, one of the Members of that Committee, thus making a unanimous report, and compelling the Government to undertake the consideration of the subject, was Mr. Hume. What did the Committee recommend? They said they had examined several distinguished professors and admirers of art, who were unanimously of opinion that so Important a national work afforded a fitting opportunity for encouraging, not only the higher, but every subordinate branch of the fine arts In this country; mouldings, design in the most extensive signification of the term, the manufacture of ornaments in brasswork &c. Everything relating to the fine arts was comprehended within the scope of the Committee's recommendation. It was the House of Commons which recommended that a department of the Government should be solely responsible for carrying out the measures which the Committee's report contemplated. It was thought right to take a collective and united view of the whole question. The Fine Arts Commission thought they were acting in deference to the authority of that Committee when they asked the Treasury to intrust them with the expenditure of an annual vote, in order that they might ascertain to what extent the ingenuity, talent, and industry of this country might he employed. The Committee observed that doubts might he entertained with respect to the encouragement of fresco; some might think it a foreign taste; but the commission did not encourage fresco painting without their understanding that it was the wish of the House of Commons that that mode of painting should be tried. The Committee observed that it had been lately revived on the Continent, and tried, especially at Munich—that the subjects it was fitted to illustrate pointed it out for a national building as almost the only subject by which full effect could be given to the qualities which distinguished it of grandeur, breadth, and simplicity. The Committee recommended that that style should be adopted, and not oil-painting only. It was the House of Commons which suggested the encouragement of a branch of art not unknown to this country in former times, but which had remained dormant for above a century; and that the artists of this country should be asked to compete in that novel department of art. Reflections might be east on the selection made by the commission of eminent men whose effigies should adorn the New Houses, as well as of subjects illustrating the national history. But by making a selection of historical subjects, and of men distinguished in British annals, they thought, up to that night, that they were adopting the recommendations and acting in conformity with the wishes of the House of Commons; for the report of the Committee concluded by observing that they unanimously recommended the evidence to the favourable consideration of the House, with the view of its receiving the immediate attention of the Government. Such was the opinion of the House of Commons at that time—an opinion which the Crown was obliged to respect, because it referred to the decoration of the edifice appropriated to the House of Commons and the House of Peers. The report of the Committee concluded by saying—

"We humbly recommend the evidence herewith presented to the House to its favourable consideration, with a view to its receiving immediate attention at the hands of the Government, in the hope that the new Houses of Parliament may hand down to posterity a memorial as well of the genius of our artists as of the importance attached by the country to the nobler productions of art, and that subjects embodied in such representations, whether by painting or by sculpture, may serve to perpetuate the facts of our past history, and to preserve the memories of our public benefactors in the grateful remembrance of our people."

Supposing the Crown had neglected that recommendation of the House of Commons, had appointed no commission, had done nothing with reference to the declaration of the two Houses in promotion of art, would not the House of Commons have taken credit with artists and the lovers of art for a disposition to give them encouragement? Might the House of Commons not have said—"Here you have evidence of our disposition to provide the means, but the Crown, the natural patron of art, has done nothing in furtherance of this great national undertaking?" The Crown acted on the suggestion of the House of Commons. It appointed a commission. If that commission had abused the functions intrusted to them, that was a legitimate ground for refusing to assent to their proceedings. But the commission, on their own part, were not aware of any dereliction of duty which a sense of justice ought to make them acknowledge. They obtained a public competition; they gave prizes to the best works; without restriction as to any particular class of art, they opened a competition to the whole talent of the country. Three prizes were awarded of 500l. each, three of 300l. each, and three of 2002. each. A commission was appointed to award those prizes, and, greatly to the satisfaction of that commission, they were, in almost every instance, awarded to young men whose names had hardly been heard before. Latent genius was brought to light. These were the names of the successful candidates:—Mr. Pickersgill (not the Royal, Academician), Mr. Watts, Mr. Armitage, each received prizes of 500l.; prizes of 300l. were awarded to Mr. Frost, Mr. Poole, and another; prizes of 200l. were awarded to Mr. Lauder, Mr. Lucy, and Mr. Foster. It could not be said that the opportunity had been thrown away for the encouragement of art, or that any favour had been shown in awarding the premiums; for he doubted whether the names of any of the successful artists had been known to those who awarded the premiums. The commission certainly thought they were acting in conformity with the wishes of the House of Commons when historical subjects were selected. A Committee was appointed. The recommendations on that subject were offered by that Committee, which was composed of the following members:—Prince Albert, the Marquess of Lansdowne, Lord J. Russell, Lord Morpeth, Lord Mahon. Mr. Macaulay, Sir E. Inglis, Mr. Hallam, and Mr. Wyse. If the House thought that Committee badly selected, and objected in any respect to the course taken in the matter, he did not deprecate their rescinding the vote, and withdrawing from the commission the power of encouraging art; but, in doing so, he wished the House distinctly to understand that they were rescinding an act not of the Crown, but of the House of Commons, and withdrawing encouragement which the Crown had given, acting in compliance with the express wish of the House of Commons. He ought to inform the House—it might be an additional inducement to withdraw the vote—that the commission had proceeded in the confidence that not only in this but in future years the grant would be continued. They had selected an artist of the highest eminence, to whom they had given a commission to execute a series of works. [Mr. OSBORNE: In how many years?] He should be sorry to be charged with any concealment whatever. Mr. Herbert was the artist. They had selected him for the decoration of an apartment, the commission being given on the distinct understanding that he could only enter on it bearing in mind the precariousness of the tenure by which the commission held the grants. But, with reference to one particular apartment they thought that there would be an advantage in intrusting the decoration of it to one artist of eminence than to several hands; that more uniformity of design would be insured; that it was more in common with the practice of former ages to take that course; and they had invited Mr. Herbert to commence a series of paintings for that apartment. [Mr. OSBORNE: Which apartment?] He thought it was the Peers' robing-room. If any doubt existed of the merits and genius of Mr. Herbert, hon. Members who had not had an opportunity of seeing it, ought to look at the magnificent fresco of King Lear, painted by him. The character brought out in the Cordelia bending at the side would attract particular attention; and hon. Members might judge for themselves whether a better selection could have been made than of that artist. He did hope the House of Commons would be of opinion that it would not be creditable to the country, were the opportunity allowed to pass without affording what encouragement they could to art; that if they thought the commission had not taken a course calculated to encourage other departments of art as well as the highest, they would give the commission credit for anxiety to discharge its duties aright. If, on the other hand, the House thought the commission had abused its trust, had given given encouragement to departments of art which it ought not to have encouraged; if they thought a Committee of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons generally, would be a better tribunal for the consideration of these matters of taste, without murmur and without complaint, he, for one, would see the commission extinguished, and would only hope the House of Commons would appoint a better authority for the purpose of executing its purpose—if it were its purpose—to make this magnificent building conducive to the advancement of the fine arts.

wished to call back the House to the real question, and hoped they would not he deluded by the "fine arts" of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who had never delivered a speech, even when he sat on the Treasury bench, supported by a majority, in which the question was so entirely evaded. There were two points in the right hon. Baronet's speech; one of them, that the hon. Member for Montrose, in a moment of weakness, suggested that the Sergeant-at-Arms should have a house. That house had never been built to the present day; and the topic so admirably brought forward by the right hon. Baronet had as much to do with the New Houses of Parliament as St. Paul's. The other point was, that a commission had been given to Mr. Herbert to decorate one of the apartments; but, although a Commissioner of the Fine Arts, the right hon. Baronet was puzzled to know which of the rooms it was that was to be decorated. But the question before the House was not whether they were to destroy the commission, but whether they should suspend its operations, and have the money which was proposed to he laid out on what he considered monstrous frescoes and narrow-shouldered barons devoted to putting the House of Commons in a proper state. Let them finish the House first, and proceed with the commission afterwards. The commission consisted of a number of gentlemen—he supposed men of great taste—who were employed in spending other people's money, and passing most agreeable mornings in giving orders to Mr. Herbert and all those artists of whom the right hon. Gentleman read a list. But the right hon. Gentleman rather threw a slur upon his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and said, "You are not tolerant of other people's criticisms." The complaint, however, of his hon. Friend was, that Earl do Grey, who was a Commissioner to expedite the building of the Houses, was bandying compliments with Mr. Barry, presenting him with medals, and holding out inducements to him to copy the example of Sir C. Wren, and not to finish the Houses for thirty-four years. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet, or some other of the Commissioners, might explain the reason of the delay in the building; but Mr. Barry, to use his own words, attributed it to—

"Want of time experienced by all modern architects, and of that proper frame of mind to produce, with full effect, the æsthetical development of design which he was unable fully to explain."

If an architect was to tell that House that he was not in a proper frame of mind to continue this building, and it was received with a cheer by Earl de Grey, was the House to be satisfied with that sort of rubbish? But the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets, when anything was ever said on this subject, always praised the building. That reminded him of the story told of John Kemble, who, when he was asked his opinion of Mr. Conway, the actor, said, "He is a very tall young man." In the same way it might be said this building was a very large building, but he denied that it was either beautiful or useful. And he said further, that if the country had seen a fine building, or an useful House of Commons, he should not have grudged the money, but when he heard, day after day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting up and saying, "you have had very little expenditure," he would observe that they had spent 200,000l. for ventilation, and yet an hon. Gentleman got up on the other side—one of the country party who knew the value of fine air—and said, the air was so mephitic it was totally impossible he could breathe in the lobby. Why, he found that Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid, upon whose joint labours the comfort of the House depended, had not spoken for six years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware of the enormous expense of pulling down what Dr. Reid had set up, and of setting up Mr. Barry's designs. They had now three systems of ventilation. They were parboiling the House of Lords; they were going to kill the whole country party in the lobbies—he believed it was a design of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's; and then they had those enormous boilers—God knew what they were going to do with them, but he understood Mr. Barry, when asked, refused to say. He asked the House to come to some vote, not as a mark of censure on the commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had read the names of the Commissioners, and read them with an emphasis, as though the House would be deterred by it from doing anything; but he would remind the House that this was no vote of censure—it was only a vote to suspend the commission—though he would say, if it were suspended sine die and never met again he should be the better pleased. This was a question whether a sum of money voted should be applied to complete the House of Commons, or whether, whilst they were paying 2,000l for the residences of the officers, because they would not finish the Houses, they should spend it on frescoes. He said, finish the Houses first, and adorn them afterwards. After what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, he did not think there was any great encouragement for the House handing over its business to Committees, for it was proved that all these expenses arose out of the Committee. His hon. Friend wished to give the Sergeant-at-Arms a house, and the right hon. Gentleman wished to give Mr. Herbert an order for a picture, and they were running up an enormous bill, building abominably bad houses, and, if their legislation was not better than the Houses, the longer they remained in their present chamber the better. He hoped some hon. Gentleman would express a decided opinion that they ought to remain in the pre- sent House until the new one was put into such a state that they could hear, and sit with ease. One word now as to the Fine Arts Commission. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth would state the number of artists who were applied to to paint pictures for the refreshment room; he wished the right hon. Gentleman would state whether Mr. Stanfield refused, whether Mr. Roberts refused, whether the commissioners were not going to put Mr. Landseer's pictures into a room not so good as a billiard room, because there was not light from the top to see them; and he wished the right hon. Gentleman would state whether Mr. Landseer had asked whether there was another room, and whether Mr. Landseer did not consent to paint, and did not say he would paint, the picture for nothing. And in extenuation for the vote he (Mr. Osborne) had given the other night, he did it as much to save the reputation of that gentleman as to save the money of the country, because he thought it an affront to that artist that the commissioners should put his picture in such an abominable place. He hoped, therefore, the House would do their duty to the country, and support his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.

would assure the hon. Gentleman that his (Sir R. Peel's) omission of all reference to the circumstances under which Mr. Landseer was invited to paint certain pictures in the apartment to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, was intentional, because he thought the House had decided on the point. He was influenced solely by a respectful feeling toward the House—that he would not call in question a decision of the House, however strongly he might feel upon it. The three artists to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, were called before the commission. The commissioners accompanied them to the apartment in question. Upon entering the apartment they found that the greater number of the panels which could be appropriated to the particular pictures were opposite to the light—and every Gentleman was aware that that was an unfavourable light for the exhibition of pictures—but there were three compartments in which the light was excellent. Those were at the end of the room, and were lighted at the side. The commissioners had a picture painted by Mr. Stanfield, one by Mr. Roberts, and one by Mr. Landseer. They were brought to the apartment—the com- missioners made an actual experiment of the light before the pictures were placed there; they made it in the presence of the three artists; the commissioners themselves thought the situation of the panels opposite the light was not suitable for the exhibition of paintings, and they therefore did not give a commission to Mr. Stanfield or Mr. Roberts, because they thought a more suitable place for works of those distinguished artists might be found; but the panels selected by the commissioners for the pictures of Mr. Landseer were selected with the full and entire concurrence of Mr. Landseer himself. That gentleman thought the purposes of the apartment were not unsuitable for the exhibition of works in that particular department in which he had attained a higher eminence, he (Sir R. Peel) believed, than any artist of any country or of any ago. He entirely approved of the light, and in no respect objected to the apartment. Of the liberality of Mr. Landseer, he (Sir R. Peel) could not speak in terms of too high praise; whatever sum might be awarded to Mr. Landseer for these pictures, he (Sir R. Peel) was confident it was not one-third of the real intrinsic value of them. All that the hon. Gentleman could say in favour of the eminence of Mr. Landseer was entirely justified. All the hon. Gentleman had said of his liberality was equally deserved: he hid not believe there ever lived an artist of greater eminence than Mr. Landseer; but the selection of these panels for his pictures was not made without his full and entire approbation.

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex began his speech by saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had not spoken to the question, and that he misled the House by referring to a question totally irrelevant; but the fact was that the right hon. Gentleman did address himself to the question, which was, whether those sums of money which were voted in Committee of Supply should likewise be consented to by the House for the purpose of certain decorations and of the fine arts as proposed by the Fine Arts Commission. Now, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not address the House upon that question, because his speech was almost entirely on the merits of Mr. Barry and the building of the two Houses of Parliament. According to the logic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, there ought to be a vote for the House very much diminishing the sum to be apropriated to Mr. Barry for the Houses, and not interfering with the Commission of Fine Arts, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he did not wish to pass any censure on the commission; and yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's conclusion after his speech was, that every farthing asked for by Government for Mr. Barry and the Houses of Parliament should be voted, and that the sum asked for the commission should not be voted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's object was not a censure on the commission, but merely to say that every sum they could spare, every penny they could afford, should be devoted to continuing and finishing the Houses of Parliament. If that were the case, they ought to vote the whole sum of 150,000l, the sum asked by the Government and the Treasury of the House of Commons, only declaring that no part of it should be applied to painting and decorations. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman, so far from taking that course, would take away the whole sum proposed for these paintings, and leave the whole of the sum for the Houses neither increased nor diminished—therefore the Houses of Parliament would not have one farthing more money voted for them; they could not be proceeded with further; not one day's work more would be done in consequence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's wish. If the House of Commons really said that 150,000l. was not sufficient, and that 4,000l. more ought to be voted—if that were the deficiency, he thought the Government, in any supplementary estimate, might have applied for that additional sum to proceed with the Houses of Parliament; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not interfere with the sum for the Houses—he neither increased nor diminished it. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman said it was only suspending the works of art, and that when the building was completed they might be proceeded with. But would not that be departing from what the House had done? Did not the House originally say—he was not one of those who were most sanguine on the subject—but did not the House say that that opportunity should be taken to decorate the Houses with works of art—that it would greatly promote the fine arts in this country, and did not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth advise the Crown to appoint a commission for the special purpose of carrying into effect the wish of the country? Then, if they suspended that commission— if they told them, after they had led the people to expect that this money should be devoted to the purpose of the fine arts, that it should not be so devoted, the only result would be that it would be impossible for the commission, with any regard to their character, to proceed with the works, the House of Commons having declared that they were not fit to proceed with them. It would be a vote, in fact, declaring that their commission must be put an end to, and that they departed from their original purpose. He said this with immediate view to the vote. The question was not then with regard to Mr. Barry's merits—it was not whether that or the other House of Parliament did a wise thing in adopting Mr. Barry's plan in preference to a less expensive style of architecture; but whether after the House had gone on for five or six years in votes for this purpose, they would now put an end to them, and refuse to have the Houses decorated.

wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman in the chair whether he could withdraw the Motion he had already proposed, for the purpose of substituting the other of which he had given notice for the appointment of a Committee? The noble Lord at the head of Government knew that all he (Mr. Hume) wanted was to have an opportunity of taking the sense of the House as to a Committee.

asked the hon. Member whether he proposed to withdraw his Motion?

objected to its being withdrawn.

thought the hon. Gentleman was so convinced of the injustice and impropriety of his Motion, that he wished to withdraw it.

said, that not one word had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose which could justify the observation which the right hon. Baronet had just made. He protested against it; but he thought his hon. Friend wished to withdraw his Amendment in order that he might put another more consistent with the view of the House.

had no objection, if the forms of the House would permit it, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose should put his Motion exactly in the manner he thought best; but he understood the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex to say he could not consent to the Motion first made by his hon. Friend being withdrawn.

said, that he should now move, as another Amendment, for the Select Committee of which he had given notice.

said, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already stated, that in a few days a complete return would be made of all the details of the expenditure, showing what the excess of expenditure had been, and he thought the House should have an opportunity of seeing that return before they came to any decision upon this question.

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, and complained that no person appeared to be responsible for all the expenditure. The main ground of his supporting the Amendment was, that it would give the Committee the means of an effectual control over it. The House of Commons could not act as an executive body; all it could do was to pass good laws, and to give the means of establishing a proper control over all expenditure.

said, that after all the expenditure incurred, had they not produced a monstrous failure, not only as regarded the architecture, but convenience itself? Was not the new building most unsatisfactory as regarded hearing, and was it not insufficient on the score of the number of Members it would accommodate? He thought that if a Committee were appointed, one of the first questions for it to consider would be, whether Westminster-hall had not been desecrated by Mr. Barry, who was now erecting a monstrous passage to a more monstrous staircase. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex in thinking that Mr. Barry was an accomplished architect, as far as one branch of the profession went; but he felt that the country had been misled by him in the adoption of a bad style of architecture.

said, that he scarcely knew what they were going to divide upon, and that it was most preposterous in them or any Committee that they could appoint to pretend to know anything about architecture. He thought that if they had appointed one man at first to build a house for them, and had not interfered with him, they would have acted more wisely. He thought it absurd to hear one hon. Gentle man getting up and talking about arches, and another about pediments, neither knowing anything about them. Everybody seem- ed to find fault with the New House of Commons; but he was totally incapable of forming a judgment on it. Everybody seemed to attack it as to hearing; but on the principle of acoustics he could not understand how one man talking on his legs could be heard when there were a hundred others about him talking on their heads' antipodes. The House which they were then in, he believed was as good a one as they could have; but he had no knowledge to guide him as to whether the New House was a good one or not. He thought that it would be better not to appoint a Committee, but to leave the responsibility on the Government.

was quite sure that if the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had attended to the terms of his hon. Friend's notice, which was on the Votes, he would have given the Motion his support. The question before the House was for a Committee of Inquiry, and he denied that the responsibility rested with the Government. The responsibility fell on the House, and they ought not to shrink from it. If the papers promised would give the information required, he would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion; but the information that was wanted could only be elicited by a Committee. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could tell the House, within half a million, what sums had already been paid, and what liabilities had been incurred?

entreated the House to wait until the return which he had promised was produced. In one of the returns laid on the table towards the end of the last Session, it was stated the total expenditure upon the New Houses up to May, 1849, was 938,000l., and certainly not more than 100,000l. had been expended on it since that time. It would be found, if hon. Gentlemen would wait for further information, that the great portion of the incurred expenditure had taken place in consequence of the demands for additional accommodation which had been recommended by Committees of both Houses, and by the Woods and Forests.

thought that a useful and practical Committee might be appointed, after they had sat in the New House four or five days, to consider what further accommodation was required in it, and also the cost of any such alterations as might be deemed desirable. Such Committee could state what steps it was desirable to take to avoid the risk which he feared might arise of Members not being able to hear comfortably in the New House. Great care must be taken to see what would be the cost of any alteration which might be made, such for instance as an extension of the side galleries. As to an investigation into what had been the cause of the past expenditure, he did not think it would be attended with any great advantage, and if they appointed a Committee of Taste to superintend the future progress of the building, it would be found to be perfectly incompetent, and they would lose the advantages which they might attain by such a Committee as he had suggested.

hoped that Ministers would abandon this measure, which, according to report, was not viewed with favour by individuals in high positions connected with the Government. The Legislature had no right to pass a Bill for abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant. The office was guaranteed to Ireland by the treaty of union between the two countries. The people of Ireland were as much entitled to have their Lord Lieutenant as the people of England were to have their Lord Chancellor. The law officers of the Crown had not attempted to answer the legal objection which was taken to the abolition of the office. That the people of Ireland were opposed to the removal of the Lord Lieutenancy was apparent from the circumstance, that whilst many petitions had been presented against the measure, not one had been presented in favour of it. It had been expected that an important petition from Dublin would that evening have been presented against the Bill by one of the Lord Mayors of that city; but it would appear that now there were two Lord Mayors of Dublin neither of them could come to London. The state of public feeling in Ireland with respect to this Abolition Bill might be inferred from a declaration recently made by a gentleman who had hitherto been a supporter of the Government, who said, "I am not a repealer, I am a rebel; for the Government is driving us to madness." It was the fashion now to assert that the Lord Lieutenant had nothing to do; but the time had been when Ministers stated in that House that his duties were most onerous. Ireland had been deprived of her nobility and gentry, and now it was proposed to deprive her of her Lord Lieutenant. Do that, and how would you govern the country? The Marquess of Wellesley once said to him, "If things continue to go on as they do at present, Ireland will be governed either by the mob or by the military." That declaration was made as the Marquess was leaving his Council of State in Dublin at two o'clock in the morning—a proof, by the way, that the Lord Lieutenant had some business to occupy his attention, and if further evidence upon that point were desired, it would be found in the Earl of Clarendon's letter upon the table of the House, describing the measures adopted for preserving the peace of the country after the suppression of what he must be allowed to term the mock rebellion two years ago. It was a significant fact that this Bill was warmly supported by the party which was supposed to have looked with approbation on that insurrectionary movement. The noble Lord at the head of the Government must believe the people of Ireland to be a mere besotted race if he supposed that they could possibly regard this as an advantageous measure. One of the most objectionable provisions of the Bill was the transferring to Her Majesty the power now possessed by the Lord Lieutenant of issuing proclamations. Why, the Irish people were born under proclamations, they lived under proclamations, and under proclamations they died, and were buried. But how were these proclamations to reach Ireland from Downing-street? They must resort not merely to the parachute, but to the electric telegraph itself. Did the noble Lord think that the people of Ireland would submit to this? The noble Lord did not know of what kind of spirit those people were. When he (Mr. Grattan) was a young man, he could have adopted means of agitation under such a law which would have upset any Ministry of the day. He would refer to a reply of the Earl of Clarendon in answer to a memorial that was presented to him, which would at once show the advantage Ireland must derive from having a man high in authority on the spot to superintend the administration of justice in that country. In the case of certain individuals who had been transported from Ireland, an address was presented to the Lord Lieutenant in their favour, and particularly requesting that those individuals should not be treated with severity. The Earl of Clarendon, being on the spot, knowing the circumstances of the case, and being satisfied that the safety of society was secure, made this reply:—

"I fully appreciate the motives of humanity which have dictated your address, and in reply, I am at present only able to assure you that the Government in the performance of its duties can have no other desire than that justice should be administered without any degree of severity beyond that which the interest of society demands."

That was a proper, an honourable, and a constitutional reply. Now, one of those individuals who was so transported to Maria Island, was a gentleman whose friendship he had long had the honour to enjoy. How had the humane treatment so strongly recommended by the Earl of Clarendon been carried out towards that individual? Mr. Smith O'Brien had 50l. forwarded to him, and he wished to purchase some tea, but he was prevented doing so; he wanted to read the papers, but that privilege was denied him; he was anxious to take exercise, but that he was not allowed to do without being constantly accompanied by some official person; in short, they would not allow him to expend any portion of the 50l., either in a way conducive to his health or to his amusement. Such was the treatment Mr. Smith O'Brien experienced at Maria Island. Such was the humanity of the generous mind of the Earl of Clarendon, in Dublin, on the one hand, and such the inhumanity of the officials at Downing-street, on the other. But, in the case of the administration of justice at home—suppose a man tried in Ireland on a Thursday, sentenced on a Saturday to death, and the execution of that sentence to be carried into effect on the following Monday. In such a case what appeal could be made to the Government in Downing-street to arrest that sentence? Was it not clear that instead of having justice promoted by the transferring of the criminal administration from Dublin to London, the risk would be incurred of the people of Ireland receiving no justice at all? But there were many other difficulties in the way of this measure. The Bill would bring a number of onerous duties on Her Majesty which she would never be able to discharge. Without intending to make the assertion himself, it certainly was generally supposed that the creation of this fourth Secretary of State was a job, and that it was for the purpose of giving increased power and influence to the Crown. He would request the House, at all events, to consider whether it was not calculated to have that effect. His own opinion was that it would not only very largely increase the expense of the government of Ireland, but that it would increase most formidably the power of the Sovereign. The effect of the measure would be to desolate Ireland. If the Lord Lieutenant were removed, the landed gentry, who were already too few in that country, would immediately depart from it, and those whose welfare they ought to promote would be left entirely without resource. What was the condition of Ireland, even now? Prom his own personal observation he could declare that it was getting worse and worse every year. He had, within the last few months, visited the north of Ireland, not having been in that part of the country for six years previously, and there he saw the people in the greatest state of wretchedness and misery. A Mr. Mauleverer had been recently murdered, and great indignation had been expressed of the management of the estates under that gentleman; but what was the fact? Talk of Irish landlords neglecting their duty! Why, the manner in which English landlords managed their Irish estates was a disgrace to the name of England. The hon. Member for Manchester, in one of his philosophical dissertations on free trade, thought it proper to give a description of the character of Irish trade; and observed that the exports from Ireland consisted now of Irishmen only; who went abroad, not to found flourishing colonies in amity with the mother country, but that as soon as they planted their feet on a foreign shore, wherever it might be, it was their boast that they harboured a feeling of unabated hostility to this country. These words of the hon. Member for Manchester were received with cries of "Hear, hear!" and cheers. Now, that in England a body of English labourers should have cheered the hon. Member on making such a statement as that, was to him very surprising, and he could attribute it but to one cause alone. There was in the English labourer an innate love of justice. They knew that no Government would dare to treat Englishmen as they had treated the Irish. That was the meaning of the cheer; and so far it was a proper cheer of caution. He once attempted to allude to a difference between America and this country, and he was sneered at; but he had heard this Session a like allusion made by an Englishman, and it was received with decorum. He could assert that a proposition, and that not very long ago, had been made to send 70,000 men from America to Ireland. He had himself, when in France not many years ago, been offered to land in Ireland 30,000 men from that country. But he was a loyal citizen, and he would never invite the Americans over to his country, though in five days a communication could be effected by the Viceroy—meant, not the Viceroy of Dublin, but the steamer from Galway Bay—with the American shores. He had once declared that he never would sharpen his sword but on one side, and that was as a loyal subject and in support of the constitution; but now so stricken down and doomed had his country become by the insane policy of the Ministers of this country, he would not sharpen his sword on either side, but would leave the Government to fight out their battle by themselves. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Tant mieux.] Tant mieux, said the hon. and learned Gentleman. It might well be, so much the better for him, for a very little sword would soon cut him in two. He must say that, after nearly 25 years of intimate connexion with England, and after upwards of 50 years' strict observance of public affairs in Ireland, he was as much at sea in regard to what was the policy of the Government of this country towards Ireland as ever he was in the earliest days of his life. No set of Ministers bad had the spirit to act boldly towards that country. In all their measures they had halted half way. What had been their policy in regard to the Church? They had abolished ten bishops—a measure of which he had never approved, but they had made no provision whatever for the real working clergy of the Church. Then, how had they dealt with absenteeism? For years men living in London had been receiving vast sums from their estates in Ireland, leaving those estates and the people living on them to be managed and cared for by others. Could such a system last? It might last his day, for he was old; but would it last with the young men who were now growing up. What did those young men say now of the system which the British Ministers were pursuing? Why, they declared that so thoroughly did they detest that system that there was not one man amongst them who would draw his sword for that Ministry to-morrow. They were giving constitutions to the colonies, to Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape of Good Hope; why would they not give a constitution to Ireland? It was because the young men who were their public writers in that country, and who gladly earned their money, were deceiving them. Therefore it was that he condemned the removal of the Lord Lieutenant, because he knew how easily the Ministers were deceived. The present system of government in Ireland was demoralising the people; a general apathy was coming over them. But bad government was not only demoralising them, it was sending them by thousands and tens of thousands away from the country altogether. The people would not remain in it. Repeal was once the question, but you refused it. You would not give King, Lords, and Commons to Ireland. But what was now the question? It was not repeal, it was separation. 408,000 individuals had loft Ireland within the last three years. That was separation; but there was not only separation, there was war. Here, then, they had a pretty state of affairs. There was a quarrel between the different members of the Church, where they had baptism without regeneration—sin without remission; while, again, there was marriage without regard to blood; and, lastly, there was in Ireland separation without repeal. It appeared to him that the proceedings of the Government would involve Ireland in conflicts which would be interminable, unless, indeed, they were terminated by the good sense of the House and the spirit of justice and humanity which ought to in fluence the Ministerial benches. The truth was, the hard work of legislating for Ireland had killed Ministers of State as well as Members of Parliament, and the decimation would go on so long as we approached the task in our present spirit. England took away Ireland's nobility and gentry, and supplied their place by 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 police. He appealed to that spirit of humanity which ought to animate the Government and Parliament not to permit the errors of Ireland to perpetuate her misery and degradation.

said, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on so important a question. He felt sure of this, that things in Ireland would never be in a satisfactory state—that Ireland never would cease to be England's difficulty—until a complete change was made both in the system of legislation and of administration in that country. [Cheers.] He need scarcely say the meaning in which he used those words was different from the sense in which probably the hon. Members opposite, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who had cheered him, understood him. What he meant was, that the system of legislation as regards Ireland should be so assimilated with that of England, that English Members would be actuated by precisely the same motives and feelings in legislating for Ireland as they were when legislating for England. He was far from saying or meaning that Englishmen were at all indifferent as regarded Ireland: quite the contrary; but so long as the system of legislation and the laws were so different—and he was sorry to say the differences were widening every day—it was impossible for English Members, engaged as they were with English legislation, to bring to bear upon Ireland that sound practical good sense, and those habits of business, which were eminently the characteristic of Englishmen; and when he spoke of administration, what he meant was, that the administration of affairs in Ireland should be on the principles of the British constitution—on those principles which were recognised as the only ones on which the conduct of affairs could be carried on in England—namely, that the law should be made and held paramount; that the rights of property should be maintained; and that the legislation and administration should be conducted for the good of the community, and not from any party or political motives. He had hoped that the noble Lord would have propounded some such policy as this: and as a part of such policy, he (Mr. Hamilton) would have supported him in the Bill before the House. He had watched anxiously the speech of the noble Lord, and he was unable to discover any indication of such a policy: on the contrary, the Bill itself, and nearly every Government Bill that had been laid on the table this year, indicated a different policy. In all there was a tendency to centralise, and a jealousy of the local authorities. The Bill for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy increases the power of the Poor Law Commissioners—the Petty Sessions Bill contained most absurd provisions indicative of their policy—the magistrates were not of themselves even allowed to fix the day for petty sessions, or a place for keeping their books without the consent of the Government. Would such a thing be tolerated in England? In the same way the Medical Charities Bill was full of the centralisation principle. It seemed from the measures of Government that Ireland was henceforth to be ruled by boards. The Poor Law Commissioners, the Board of Works, the Board of Health, were to be her governors. Now, he did not hesitate to say that the abolition of the Lord Lieutenant—except as a part of a new policy and of a new system on English principles—would be an injury instead of an advantage. There could be no doubt it would injure Dublin and its mercantile interests. It would give increased political power to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who, with the Privy Council, would constitute the local government. He thought there were many objections to that. Again, how was the patronage to be dispensed? Already, there were complaints of the disposition of patronage by the Government in Downing-street as regarded Irishmen. The right hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Harwich had taken offence at some observations that were made some time ago as regards patronage in his department. It was not intended to blame him in particular, but it was quite notorious, and was strongly felt in Ireland, that in foreign appointments, and in India and the colonies, Irishmen did not receive their fair share. He (Mr. Hamilton) had made out a list of one department; there were twenty-two colonial bishops and forty dignitaries; as far as he could discover, not one of them was an Irishman. These evils would be aggravated by the removal of the Lord Lieutenant. He also thought the time and manner of bringing forward the measure was improper. So important a measure involving so great a change in the constitution of Ireland, ought to have been announced formally in the Queen's Speech. Public attention would thus have been directed to it in the proper and constitutional manner. For these reasons, having given the sub- ject his best consideration, he felt bound to record his vote against the second reading of the Bill.

expected that some Member of the Government would have favoured the House with a few reasons for the necessity of passing this Bill. Failing that, however, he was driven to look at the arguments adduced on the occasion of the first reading. The main argument appeared to be, that there had been abuses connected with the office in former times, and that the parties holding it had been abused in all times. He was not there to deny that there had been injustice and maladministration by Lord Lieutenants; but the argument, if it were worth anything, went not only against all offices, but all governments also. The Bill left the Privy Council and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to carry on the executive; so that, whilst they were going in England to separate the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor from his Parliamentary functions, in Ireland they were going to superadd to his judicial functions the duties of the Lord Lieutenant. Another argument in favour of this Bill had been founded on a reference to Scotland. The cases, however, were not parallel; for, in the Union with Scotland, the Church of the people had been left as the established Church of the realm; whilst in Ireland the Church of the few had been made all-dominant. With all those abuses standing before their eyes, and patent to all the world, the Ministers of the Crown continued to tell the House that the cases of Ireland and of Scotland were alike. They continued to tell Parliament that the case of Scotland was a precedent that might be quoted in favour of the measure which they now proposed for removing the Lord Lieutenant from Ireland. It might be all very well for them to talk of Scotland, but they left the government of that country to Scotchmen; they never sent a spendthrift there to rule the people, nor a political adventurer. The people of Ireland never had the nomination of their own Lord Lieutenant; they, on the contrary, were obliged to take whomsoever the English Government for the time being thought proper to send. Now, in the course of the present discussion, they had heard much of the evils attendant upon, and supposed to be inseparable from, the administration of the government of Ireland by a Lord Lieutenant. But he maintained that those evils were not inseparable from the ancient practice of ruling Ireland by means of a Viceroy. The present system was the abuse of the institution; and, though the remark might be old, it was not the less just, that no argument against the legitimate use of anything ought to be derived from its abuse. He would say to the present Ministers of the Crown, "Reform the abuse, and give to Ireland the benefit of that reform." He could supply to the House many instances in which the presence of a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland had been of the highest value and importance, not merely in maintaining order within the limits of the kingdom, but in preserving the empire intact. In 1745, when Prince Charles Edward landed in Scotland, and advanced at the head of his followers as far as Derby, the Earl of Chesterfield was the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and at that critical moment what kept the Catholics from rising on behalf of the exiled family? Nothing but the politic character of the Earl of Chesterfield, and the profound knowledge of human nature which he possessed. That wise and able man soothed the discontents of the people, and alleviated the mischiefs produced by former Governments in Ireland; there was, therefore, no rising there simultaneously with the rising in Scotland. He never, in his own person, had occasion to transact much business with the Lord Lieutenant; officially he knew but little of that functionary; no one, however, could be acquainted with events occurring in Ireland, and not know that, in proposing this measure, the Government were striking the first blow against the connexion subsisting between the two countries. It appeared to him scarcely possible that the Government of Ireland could be safely and efficiently carried on unless there was always to be found on the spot an eminent public officer, invested with full powers, and prepared to exercise those powers. He knew that Ministers would tell him that they, by the present Bill, gave those powers to the fourth Secretary of State in Downing-street, and that the improved facilities of communication rendered such an officer quite competent to the task of governing Ireland; but surely that wonderful ease of transit was equally available in Dublin as in London, and the fourth Secretary of State would possess no advantage denied to the Lord Lieutenant. He desired now to come to the argument founded upon the economy of the proposed change. The hon. Member for Montrose had often brought the subject under their notice, but he had rested his arguments chiefly on the ground of economy. Now, nothing could be more manifest than that it would not effect the saving which the hon. Member for Montrose anticipated. His opinion, deliberately adopted, was, that they would effect no saving whatever by the removal of the Lord Lieutenant; and they would prevent the spending of a certainly small sum—only 54,000l. a year—in the capital of Ireland. There would, he repeated, be no saving to the united kingdom, but a great loss to Ireland individually. Unless the Government could show a very great saving, he should continue to hold the opinion that the sum expended in Ireland, however small, was a great loss to that country; and that the empire at large was deeply injured by the increasing centralisation of all the powers of Government in this metropolis.

thought that the Irish Members had derived no encouragement from the debate which should induce them to draw tighter the bonds between the two countries. On the last night of the debate, one of the Secretaries of State was left to answer the charges made by hon. Members as best he could; and this night the noble Lord, trusting to a majority in that House, and to the newspapers which vilified the motives of his opponents, had taken off his hat, and asked them to abolish the office of Viceroy of Ireland. He protested against this measure. It was fifty years since centralisation had been attempted, and during that fifty years Great Britain had attained a high pinnacle of glory. What advantage had, during the same time, accrued to Ireland, who shared in those conquests by sea and land which rendered England great? The Irish Members, being but one to five in that House, could do nothing but protest against their legislation. In the year '98, Ireland owed but nine millions and a half—she now owed one hundred and thirty-four millions and a half; and how was this incurred? By wars in acquiring those colonies by which England enriched himself. Their trade to the colonies had scarcely increased since the Union. Before that period, there were Peers and commoners residing in Dublin. One hundred Peers had residences there, and now he knew of but one, and so depreciated had house property in that city become, that some houses which had been mortgaged for 20,000l. were lately sold for 5,000l. Their taxes were increased, their trade was depressed, and, by the repeal of the cornlaws, their agriculture had suffered; in return for which they had got free trade, which was no free trade except to the foreigner. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that it was not the intention of the Government to remove the law courts from Dublin. This would come to pass in time, and they should not trust the assertions of a Minister, for no Minister could answer for the acts of his successor. In 1846, when there had been a discussion on this same subject, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth had declared, not that it would be impossible to remove the Lord Lieutenant from Ireland, but "that it must be done with the will and the wish of all the Irish people." The people did not wish it: he, as one of their representatives, protested against it. It was alleged, as two reasons for abolishing the office, that Lords Lieutenant governed by corruption, and that libels were heaped on their characters. The corruption was derived from the fountain-head in Downing-street; and as to the other reason, a governor of Ireland should be above libel. To proper censure he might be liable; and a fear of public opinion being unfavourable to him, would be the best motive for inducing him to govern with justice. He had lately noticed, with great surprise, an article in a paper remarkable for its aptitude at cooking statistics, and also as enjoying the confidence of the Government—the Economist—showing the rapid prosperity of Ireland. Nothing was more calculated to mislead public opinion than such paragraphs, in papers supposed to be clothed in official authority; and he was sure that the paper in question had no such authority for making the statements, which were a tissue of misrepresentations. Such statements might be taken as a specimen of the kind of information upon which the people of England were expected to form a correct opinion upon Irish affairs. The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex had ridiculed what he called the mock royalty of the Lord Lieutenancy. But if this was an objection, it was an objection which applied wherever a Viceroy existed. If the Lord Lieutenancy be done away—if the people of Ireland—the most loyal people upon the face of the earth—are to be deprived of the presence of a representative of their Sovereign in Dublin—let an assurance be given, as far as an assurance can be given on such a subject, that the presence of the Sovereign Herself may be occasionally depended upon. The right hon. Member for Tamworth, when arguing, in 1846, against the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, stated most truly that one of the effects would be to increase the amount of absenteeism. He (Colonel Dunne) was of opinion that the same result would inevitably follow from the adoption of the present measure, and that it would increase the plague spot of Ireland instead of removing it. He thought it would be far wiser to pass laws to discourage and prevent absenteeism, rather than to promote it. For the reasons enumerated, he would give every opposition in his power to the progress of the Bill, and, in doing so, he considered he was acting a consistent and honest part towards Ireland.

might ask what was the real question before the House, because from the multitudinous array of arguments which had been brought forward, one could hardly believe but that they were engaged in a general debate, not only upon the measures of the present year, as regarded Ireland, but of every year since the union of the two kingdoms. It was proposed by the Bill before the House that the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland should cease to exist; and therefore the question before them was—whether that was an alteration which would be for the benefit of the people of Ireland? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin said he wished to see the Government of Ireland so like the Government of England, that nobody could distinguish the one from the other. In that case they would find in Ireland counties and boroughs governing themselves exactly as they did in England, and the same system in every respect in operation; but then the hon. and learned Gentleman desired that there should be in Dublin an officer called the Lord Lieutenant. Now, what did that Lord Lieutenant do for Ireland? He asked those who contended for the existence of that functionary, to point out, not by references to past history, but to the present state of Ireland, what benefit was conferred upon that country by his presence there? He denied that there was any hostility on the part of the English people to Ireland. Those who said there was, could not point out a single effect of legislation since the beginning of the Reformed Parliament, except one Act, in which there had been expressed any hostile feeling towards Ire- land. It had been said England ruined the manufacturers of Ireland. That he acknowledged; but when? Were they to look back upon the page of history without reference to the circumstances that then governed men, and ask if the English Parliament, in the reign of William III. in that of Anne, or of George III. or even of George IV. could be contrasted with the present House of Commons? Let any one point out the Act injurious to the manufacturers of Ireland passed in the present day? [An Hon. MEMBER: The abolition of the corn law.] An hon. Member spoke of the corn laws. Now, what was the fact? The English people provided money during the famine, and it went to buy foreign corn abroad to feed the Irish people; and yet they had been charged with sending their money abroad, and not thinking of the people of Ireland. Could there be a more senseless complaint than that? And he was ready to maintain that, whatever might be the case with Irish landlords, the abolition of the corn laws had been an inestimable boon to the great mass of the Irish people. But, the question recurred, what had Ireland received from its mock Royalty? They were told that it was the means of bringing up to Dublin Irish gentlemen and ladies to go through an imitation of what took place in St. James's; and then they were further told that there had been a rapid diminution of property in Dublin. But had not all this poverty been created during the existence of a Lord Lieutenant, and were they likely to be worse after his removal? If the office were abolished, would not the Secretary for Ireland be seen in that House with full power and responsibility, ready to answer at that table for every act and deed he committed? But at present he shrouded himself under the covers of divided authority in Ireland. To take an illustration from the poor-law in this country, formerly there were constant complaints and universal discontent with the working of that law; but from the time that the board was changed, and one Commissioner brought into that House, the rule was, a fault found a fault answered, discontent and dissatisfaction disappeared, and perfect contentment followed. In the same way when the Secretary for Ireland was made really responsible, they would find him with not half of the government, but the whole of the government in his hands, and the Irish Members able to deal with him in his place. He asked wherein, after this alteration, was the possibility of evil to Ireland? The only objection was, that the Court would be withdrawn from Dublin, and that the shopkeepers would thereby suffer; but was that an argument which ought to influence the House? He hoped that by breaking down the petty intrigue which characterised the present state of things they would give the Government of Ireland an imperial character, and, by making it imperial, promote the interests of England and Ireland under the same system of a free and liberal administration of public affairs.

, in supporting the Bill, expressed a wish that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had, in doing the same thing, rested his arguments more on the real points of the question before the House, and indulged less in those personalities, of which, he regretted to say, he made too liberal use. He (Mr. Conolly) thought that the abolition of this office could fairly be argued on grounds of national policy; and that it was for the interest of Ireland at large that the office should be done away with. There appeared to be no real ground of opposition offered to the measure, but that of the city of Dublin; and, such being the case, he thought it was the duty of the Government to persevere with it. It was an old and acknowledged maxim, that union was strength; and it was on the principle that the union between England and Ireland was for the benefit of the imperial constitution that that union was originally promoted by Mr. Pitt. He believed, therefore, that they were only carrying out Mr. Pitt's policy in removing this last obstacle to the real union of the two kingdoms. On that ground, he supported the measure. He believed it was a measure for the benefit of Ireland, for whose welfare and future good government he considered it was of great importance that they should have in that House a responsible Irish Secrectary.

considered it as somewhat remarkable that on a Bill of such importance as that then before them—a Bill for the abolishing an office which had existed in Ireland for centuries—no Member of the Cabinet should, up to that moment, have addressed the House. The first person to speak in favour of it was the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, a Gentleman whose arguments were easily answered. That hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Donegal, were the only persons to support the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield desired to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant on the ground that they would have a responsible Secretary in that House. Why, that might be attained by having the Secretary for Ireland a Member of the Cabinet—that which the present Irish Secretary was not; but that the preceding Irish Secretaries had been. There was, then, no necessity for making this change, and in so doing abolishing an office, when it was notorious that the Irish people were induced to support the Union on the promise that a Lord Lieutenant should be continued. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield boasted of what the Reform Parliament had done for Ireland. He (Mr. Grogan) said that the policy pursued by that Parliament—he said nothing of its motives—had been most injurious in its consequences to Ireland. The trade of Ireland had been destroyed, upon an application from the Parliament here to that effect. The woollen trade had been so destroyed; but the hon. and learned Gentleman said that no such thing could occur at the present day. What was the fact? That which was the only trade of Ireland—its agriculture—was annihilated; and this happened for the benefit of the manufacturing interests here, who deemed it to be very convenient to increase their foreign trade. He asked them what single interest of Ireland had been benefited by their legislation? Let the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield show him one class in Ireland that had been benefited by their legislation. He (Mr. Grogan) could point to many that had been injured by it. That which they complained of in Ireland was the system of centralisation—the system which promoted absenteeism from Ireland; and the noble Lord's argument in favour of his Bill went to show that the evil would be extended still further by this Bill. The policy for establishing a fourth Secretary of State was more than doubtful; and as to their policy, it was proved by the fact that in the short space of three years not less than 500,000 acres of wheat land had been thrown out of cultivation.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed surprised that no Member of the Government had yet risen in defence of the measure now before the House. But the hon. Gentleman, and those who preceded him, could not, he thought, fail to perceive that the Government had taken the usual course; and that after introducing the measure, and stating the reasons which had induced the Government to bring it forward, they had been waiting, on the second reading, to hear what objections could be urged against it. Having waited, therefore, he found from hon. Gentlemen that in fact the objections which they had to urge were not directed against the present measure; but, whether they were good or bad, were almost all directed against legislation by Parliament for the united kingdom, and if these objections were good for anything, they tended, not to maintain a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, but to repeal the Union. One of the topics on which the hon. Gentlemen dwelt, namely, the repeal of the com laws, which the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington said had been most injurious to Ireland, was not connected in any way with the maintenance of the Lord Lieutenant. The decision for a repeal of the corn laws was come to by a Parliament of the united kingdom; and unless there had been a Parliament sitting in Dublin, that Act was sure to have passed, whether there was a Lord Lieutenant or not. The arguments which hon. Gentlemen had used, in some cases unceremoniously, had put them, not in the situation of objectors to the removal of the Lord Lieutenant, but of repealers of the legislative Union. He would not now enter into the question of the injuries said to have been inflicted on Ireland by William III.; he gave up William III. to those Gentlemen who had been pleased to attack him, and abandoned his memory altogether. The question at present before the House was that of the maintenance or abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that, by pronouncing a single word, they uttered the condemnation of a measure which the Government had brought forward after considerable deliberation. They said that the measure tended to "centralisation"—a word now in very common use. There were occasions when that word was properly used, as when local powers were proposed to be transferred to the central Government; it might be argued, whether rightly or wrongly, that these local powers ought to be preserved, and that such centralisation should not take place. With respect to the Imperial parts of administration, he had never heard any one deny, unless there were insuperable objections to it, that it was desirable to have the Government in one place, so that persons in different departments might readily confer with each other—that Ministers might easily communicate with their Colleagues, so that they might he enabled to form their measures in such a way as was calculated to promote the general welfare of the empire. These were advantages which he believed no one had denied. The objection hitherto urged against the adoption of such a measure as the present, was the time that was consumed in making communications with Ireland. This argument might have been of a valid character formerly; and at present, with regard to particular parts of the empire, it was of a binding character. With regard to India and Canada, those countries must have a local administration; for it never could happen that they could communicate in due time with India and Canada in the affairs of these countries. Did this obstacle now exist with regard to Ireland? He recollected the time when a Lord Lieutenant might be three or four days performing his journey to Holyhead, and be forty-eight hours more on his voyage to Dublin; or even, as had happened, he might be a week at sea. At that time the Government might justly say that it could not trust to the winds, or to the chances of the delays of a long journey, and therefore they must place a man in Ireland with the power of administering the affairs of that country in his own hands; by those means avoiding the stormy and adverse gales that [might impede the intercourse between the two countries. But now these evils had been done away with; and by means of the progress of mechanical science, they had succeeded in doing that which the gods had formerly been called upon in vain to do, namely, annihilate space and time. Those objections and obstacles which formerly were urged no longer exist; so that they might now observe the rule, that there should be one general Government for the united kingdom, which should take upon itself the administration of affairs. This was the reason for the introduction of the Bill before the House at the present time. He had stated, on a former occasion, the general reasons and arguments in favour of this measure; and he had also stated some evils which were connected with the continuation of the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin; and he had hitherto heard no answer to them. He had said, he thought that party spirit in Ireland, which was generally of a very violent and vehement nature, was embittered by the continuance of a separ- ate authority in that country; for if the Lord Lieutenant was known to be favourable to one of these parties, it gave rise to great hostility on the part of the other party, and thus it proved most injurious to the general administration of the country. He did not wish to repeat to the House what he said on that occasion; but there were instances which must be in the recollection of all. Such, for instance, as the hostility manifested towards the Government of the Marquess of Normanby by a great part of the nobility and gentry of Ireland; and, on the other hand, the hostility shown by large masses of the people to the administration of a Lord Lieutenant of opposite politics. In such instances, they found party spirit of a far more bitter nature than it would have been if the administration of affairs had rested in this country. Hon. Members had stated that a number of gentlemen residing in different parts of Ireland went at particular seasons to Dublin, in consequence of the Lord Lieutenant holding a court there, and that their expenditure in consequence amounted to a large sum. This might, no doubt, be a very excellent reason for the representatives of Dublin to urge; but if there was no court at that place, the gentlemen would still have their money to spend: and, for his own part, he believed it would be more advantageous if they spent it in living on their own estates, than in going to a distance to do so. He did not see any reason, as the two countries were so close, for the necessity of having more than one Court, which would be held by the Sovereign of the united kingdom; nor did he perceive the necessity of there being a reflection and imitation of Royalty in Dublin. The reason he had just alluded to could apply only to Dublin; but, with respect to Cork or Limerick, the Lord Lieutenant's court could have no more to do with those places than if it was in London. The same facilities for communications from these places would exist with the Secretary of State in this country as there now was with the Lord Lieutenant. That part of the Bill which he had heard the most objected to, but into which he did not then wish to enter, was in respect to the appointing an additional Secretary of State. It was said that it would be much better to have but one Secretary of State to administer the whole of the internal affairs of the united kingdom; but when they went into Committee on the Bill, he should be able to show that there were so many questions of administration relating to Ireland constantly arising, that it was desirable there should be a Minister to have this department, and this department only, and who should be responsible for its administration. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, that all the advantages which were proposed to be attained by having this additional Secretary of State could be effected by the Secretary for Ireland, as the office was now constituted, having a seat in the Cabinet; but the hon. Gentleman did not see the weight of the objection to this, as the circumstance was, that the Chief Secretary was only the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The Cabinet was appointed for the whole kingdom, in which the Ministers of the several departments had to bring forward their different propositions for consideration in framing instructions for the administration of affairs, so that when the I Chief Secretary for Ireland was sitting in the Cabinet, he was giving orders to the Lord Lieutenant; but immediately on his arrival in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant was his master. This was an anomaly that, could not be got over, and he believed that great inconveniences arose in the administration of Irish affairs, in consequence of there not being a person in this country who was responsible for that department, with whom the rest of the Government could communicate from day to day. That advantage would be obtained by passing this measure. They would thus have a Minister who would be able directly to confer with his Colleagues on the measures to be brought forward, and who would be able to defend either in that or the other House of Parliament the administration of any measures for which he might be responsible, and could show whether or not he was pursuing such a course as would afford satisfaction to Ireland, and at the same time promote the great interests of the empire at large. He believed this change would tend more and more to make the legislation for Ireland similar to that for England. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin said, if he (Lord J. Russell) had stated that the object of this measure was to make a change in the legislation for Ireland, so as to make it more in harmony with the legislation of this country, ha should not have opposed it. Now he (Lord J. Russell) thought that it was quite unnecessary on his part to make any such statement, for he had hardly ever spoken on an Irish subject in which he had not dwelt on the importance and advantage of attaining that object. He would refer on this point to what he had said on the Municipal Corporations Bill for Ireland, when he had repeatedly urged upon the House his anxious desire that the Irish should feel that they enjoyed all the advantages and privileges possessed by the inhabitants of this part of the united kingdom. The hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington must excuse him (Lord J. Russell) when he referred to the rather extraordinary language which fell from him just after that House had declared that it would make a large extension of the franchise in Ireland, and make it as far as possible correspond with the franchise which the people of England enjoyed. When a large majority of the House had so recently adopted a measure for that purpose, it was rather disappointing to hear an hon. Member say that no measures had been brought forward by the Government, or supported and adopted by that House, which were not introduced for the injury of Ireland. They had heard a great deal respecting ministers' money, and the evils which arose from its being levied in Ireland; and no doubt when they met next year, and Her Majesty's Ministers brought forward a measure for its abolition, they would be told that ministers' money was a blessing to Ireland, and that nothing but a determination on the part of the Government for the ruin of Ireland could have induced it to propose such a Bill. Such was the mode in which some Gentlemen argued on the affairs of Ireland. This measure had been under consideration ever since the Earl of Clarendon had been sent to Ireland; and last August he (Lord J. Russell) wrote to the Earl of Clarendon, and having referred to the termination of the famine in 1847, and to there being an end of the perils of 1848, he asked whether he should be justified, in the course of the present Session, in bringing forward a measure for the abolition of the office of the Lord Lieutenant. His noble Friend after having given the most mature consideration to the matter, assented to the proposal, and it was in consequence, with his advice and counsel, the measure had been brought forward.

said, as he, with many other hon. Members connected with Ireland, were anxious to address the House on this subject, but who had not been fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye, he thought it was not too much on his part to ask for an adjournment of the debate, notwithstanding the understanding that prevailed during the Session that a debate should not he adjourned after the Prime Minister bad addressed the House.

would not agree to an adjournment. He trusted the very useful course which had been adopted during the present Session, of abstaining as far as possible from having adjourned debates, would not be departed from in this instance, as the measure would be often under discussion in its future stages.

thought it would be better at once to assent to the adjournment, as it was desirable that the people of Ireland should see that the measure had been fully discussed.

observed, that there were Members in that House, both Irish and English, whose opinions it was most desirable to have on this subject. He believed the greatest man in England, the Duke of Wellington, had not changed his opinion as to the inexpediency of such a measure as this. He believed also the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth had not changed his opinion on the subject; and it was most desirable, before they went to a division, that that right hon. Gentleman should let the House know what he thought of this measure.

seconded the Motion, and declared his willingness to persevere till six o'clock in the morning to gain his point. He thought Irish Members should have an opportunity of stating their opinions upon a Bill of such magnitude.

said, he had given his vote for the adjournment, as he did not think it unreasonable that, considering only four hours had been appropriated to discuss the second reading of a Bill making such a great change in the internal administration of Ireland, and many Irish Gentlemen wished to declare their sentiments upon it, there should be another opportu- nity for their doing so. At the same time that he was desirous of deferring to the sense of the majority of the House, and was perfectly prepared to state his opinion on this Bill, giving however precedence to Irish Gentlemen on this subject; yet, as he saw the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University was anxious to deliver his opinions, and he (Sir R. Peel) had never heard a speech from that hon. and learned Gentleman that did not make him desirous of hearing him again; and as many Irish Members wished also to speak, he thought the Motion for an adjournment was not unreasonable.

said, that after the division which had just been come to, he was ready to consent to the adjournment of the debate.