took the chair at Twelve o'clock.

said: I rise, Sir, to ask the House to agree to the postponement of the whole of the public business which stands upon the Paper for twelve o'clock this day, until after the other Orders of the Day shall have been disposed of in the course of the evening sitting. I regret that the House has been put to the inconvenience of meeting thus early to-day; but as the orders which now stand for twelve o'clock were fixed several days since for consideration upon the morning sitting of to-day, it was unavoidable that the House should meet upon the present occasion. But, as my noble Friend at the head of the Government is anxious to take the first opportunity of the meeting of the House, and before entering upon the discussion of public business, to express the feeling—the deep feeling—which he, in common with every Member of Her Majesty's Government, and every Member of the House, must entertain with respect to the melancholy occurrence which has so recently taken place, and he considered it better that that expression of feeling should take place at the ordinary hour of meeting, and when the House would be full—I would therefore ask the House, having now been constituted, to allow you, Sir, to take the chair again at half-past four this evening, when my noble Friend will be in his place. I hope the House will consent to this course, and that no discussion will take place upon this occasion. I wish, however, to add one word, in order to express my deep regret, and to apologise to the House personally and on my own account, for being unavoidably absent yesterday, my noble Friend not having been present. It is, Sir, a matter of the deepest regret to me; had I been present, I should certainly have joined most cordially in that appropriate mark of respect which the House, upon its first meeting after the melancholy event took place, paid to the memory of that great man who has been thus suddenly removed from us by the dispensation of Providence.

The House adjourned at half-past Twelve.

having brought up the Report of the Commissioners of the National Exhibition for 1851, on the subject of the proposed site in Hyde Park, said: Mr. Speaker, in moving that these papers lie upon the table, I will ask the House to allow me to take this opportunity of mingling my voice of sorrow with that of the House in general, at the great loss which this House and the country has sustained. Sir, at the first contemplation of that misfortune it is impossible not to be overcome with a feeling of awe—that one who, so late as Friday night last, informed the House by his judgment, and took a part which became him in one of the most important discussions of the year, should already be mingled with the dead, and that, Sir, not by an attack of disease gradually overcoming nature by the exertion of its power, but by one of those common accidents by which we are apt to think that a life so gifted could hardly be taken from us. Sir, in speaking of that great man, it is impossible not to reflect that hereafter this House will no longer be guided by that long and large experience of public affairs, by that profound knowledge, by that oratorical power, by that copious yet exact memory with which this House was wont to be enlightened, instructed, and guided. It is not for me, or for this House, to speak of the career of Sir Robert Peel: it never happened to me to be in political connexion with him; but so late as that last debate to which I have alluded, I took occasion to thank him for that fair and frank support which he had given to the present Government. Sir Robert Peel, in that speech which preceded the one which I addressed to the House, in speaking against the policy of the Government, spoke with such temper, with such forbearance towards all those who might hold opposite opinions to his own, that it must be a satisfaction to those who remain that his last address in this House should have been one of such candour and of such kindness to all around him. There can, I think, be no doubt that, however history may deal with the wisdom of the career which he pursued, it will be admitted that upon two great occasions when he held power undisturbed, and apparently with almost perfect security, and when he proposed measures to this House which shook, and afterwards subverted, his power, that he did so from the motive of deep love to his country, and from that deep sense of duty which always distinguished him. Of these occasions I shall not speak; but there is one part of his career to which I would wish but briefly to refer, and of which I trust I may be allowed to speak, because I feel it due to him to pay that tribute which has not perhaps been hitherto paid to his merits. I allude to that period which elapsed from 1832 to 1841. After the contest which took place upon the Reform Bill, it was to be dreaded that those who had opposed that Bill, expecting results from it calamitous to the country, would have retired in disgust from public contests, and thereby have left a war of classes to be carried on which would have involved permanent injury to this country. I consider Sir Robert Peel to have been the man who prevented such a contest from taking place. Although he had opposed the Reform Bill, yet he addressed himself manfully to the situation in which he was placed; he addressed himself to the country on behalf of those principles of which he was the most able defender; and brought back again the various powers of the State into harmony, and showed himself not afraid of abiding by the verdict of the people upon these measures and principles of which he was the advocate. I consider that great service was thus rendered by him to the country upon this occasion. Without entering, however, into the merits of that distinguished man, I think that a man so gifted, having the means of living apart from the struggles, the contentions, and the labours of political life, and having likewise a love for literature and a taste for art which might well have enabled him to live a happy life, apart from all political contests—the example, I say, of such a man devoting himself to the labours which a Parliamentary position imposed upon him, for the advantage of the people, is an example which ought not to be lost, and which I hope will not be lost, on the people of this country. With respect to those questions upon which he differed from a large portion of this House, I do not wish now to enter into or discuss them; but this I must say, that my testimony will always be, that the harmony which has prevailed for the last few years, and the safety which we have enjoyed during times of trouble and contention in this country, have been mainly owing to the course which the late Sir Robert Peel thought it his duty to follow. With these feelings, I wish to say, that if it should appear to the friends of Sir Robert Peel that it will be desirable to take that course which was taken upon the death of Mr. Pitt, I should, for my own part, though I shall not proceed to make any Motion, or raise any discussion on such a subject, give my willing support to any Motion that may be made for a public funeral. Or if it should be thought that the example which was adopted with respect to the funeral of Mr. Grattan should be followed, I should be ready to concur in any course of that kind. I may, perhaps, be permitted to add, that, thinking it right to obtain the sanction of the Crown before I made any such proposal, I feel assured that anything which could do honour to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, or which could add any further tribute of respect to his name, would be unhesitatingly sanctioned by the assent of Her Majesty. Sir, I wish, in concluding these few words, to say, that I place myself entirely in the hands of the nearest friends of the late Sir Robert Peel. Having had no political connexion with him myself, perhaps this proposal may come more fitly from me, as not being moved by any partiality; but I do feel that this country now, and that posterity hereafter, in reckoning the names of eminent statesmen who have adorned the annals of this country, and have contributed to their lustre, will place that of Sir Robert Peel among the foremost.

then rose, and said: Sir, I am sure that the House will not consider it unnatural or unbecoming, if, after what has fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, I, who have had the inestimable advantage of being connected with the late Sir Robert Peel in the most intimate bonds of friendship for above forty years, as one selected by him as one of those who are to carry into effect his dying directions, and as being authorized by his family to speak their feelings on the subject—I address a few observations to the House. Sir, I do not rise with the view of adding anything (it would be impossible) to the testimony the noble Lord has borne to my late right hon. Friend's abilities, exertions, and public services. And if I were to attempt to enter upon other topics, Sir, the wound his friends have received is too recent to admit of their being touched upon, and the tongue would fail to utter what the heart is too full to express. Sir, I rise merely to express to the noble Lord and to the House the feelings of his friends and his family with respect to the proposition the noble Lord has intimated his readiness to make. Sir, I accept the proposition on their behalf, with the strongest gratitude, as an acknowledgment of the gracious disposition of the Crown as to the merits of a great public servant; and I accept it with equal gratitude as the highest tribute which the House of Commons can pay to any individual, however eminent or exalted—that of offering a public funeral. I feel deeply, Sir—and I speak on the part of the family—we feel deeply the honour of having such a proposition suggested by the First Minister of the Crown, and responded to, if I mistake not, by the unanimous assent of the House. But I must be permitted to state one other feeling which influences our decision on the matter. Those who are unacquainted with the private character of my late right hon. Friend have little idea of the simplicity of character which was in harmony with all his other great qualities. If ever there was a man desirous to avoid pomp and ostentation, that man was Sir Robert Peel. And such pomp and ostentation he particularly reprobated in connection with funerals. At a very early period of my acquaintance with him, these feelings have been expressed, and have been continued down to the latest moment of his career. And as the House might think it not consistent with what was due to their desire and their feelings on the occasion, if reliance were placed upon opinions privately expressed to an individual friend, I will read to them an injunction contained in a will my right hon. Friend signed on the 8th of May, 1844, when he was in the full plenitude of power—at the head of a large party in this House, and when the measures he had brought into Parliament had been crowned with a success even transcending his own expectations, and when, if any man could have been swayed by fortunate circumstances or the desire of public renown, it was the man who penned the passage I am about to read:—

"I desire that I may be interred in the vault in the parish church of Drayton in which my father and mother were interred, and that my funeral may be without ostentation or parade of any kind."

Nor, Sir, did these sentiments undergo any alteration, for not later than six weeks since, when an alteration was made in that particular church to which this memorandum refers, Sir Robert Peel pointed out to Lady Peel, on an inspection of the church, the very spot in the vault in which he wished and trusted his body would be laid, without any of that parade and ostentation which, in all cases, he so earnestly deprecated, and the absence of which he so admired and approved in the case of the funeral of the Queen Dowager. Under these circumstances, I am sure the House will feel that I have but one duty to fulfil—that his family have but one wish to express—and that is, thankfully to acknowledge the intention, both of Her Majesty and Her Parliament, in confering upon him what I before stated is the greatest honour that can be paid to a subject by the Commons' House of Parliament; but at the same time to say they are compelled respectfully, but firmly, to decline the proposition. It is no doubt a satisfaction to all of us who were connected with him to have had this tribute of respect paid to the man whom we admired as a statesman, and whom we loved as an individual friend; and I only entreat his House that, in addition to the mark of respect which they have paid to his abilities and public services, they will consent to pay this further mark of respect to his simplicity of character, and give effect to his intentions as to the manner in which he wished to be buried; and I feel sure that the House of Commons will readily comply with the wish his friends have expressed, because they have already recorded in the most feeling manner their sense of his high merits by spontaneously adjourning, the moment his decease became known—an honour that will live for ever in the journals of this House, and which I believe was never before paid to a subject, whatever might be his station. Under these circumstances, I throw myself on the indulgence of the House, that they will not feel, in declining the proposal, there is anything but a sense of the deepest gratitude for the offer made, which I trust they will not force, as it is one we should feel it our duty to resist. I will only further entreat the House, upon a subject of this nature, when the wound is so recent, and the feeling so strong, that this discussion may not proceed.

Sir, my reason for venturing to ask the attention of the House for a very few moments is simply this, that it happens that I am the oldest friend connected with that great political party which occupies so large a space in this House, who was intimately acquainted, politically and privately, with the late Sir Robert Peel. Through all the various successions of political changes from the year when I first had the honour of a seat in this House, to the year 1841, it was my fortune to be connected with Sir Robert Peel, not merely by political relations, but I have to boast of it as one of the proudest circumstances of my life, that I was on terms of intimate personal friendship with him; and I shall add that when, after a separation for some time, returning unfortunately in opposition to him on measures of the greatest importance and deepest interest—returning to oppose conscientiously measures on which that great statesman had embarked his political reputation, not the slightest disturbance was made in that personal friendship. I should in vain attempt to pronounce on this occasion an eulogium or panegyric on him. I rose only to add to that universal expres- sion of admiration which the mention of his name has called forth, my testimony to those feelings of regard with which his memory is cherished, feelings which spring from the very heart, and which I believe I may confidently say I know to be the feelings of those who surround me. No reminiscence of diversity in respect of political opinion will for one moment be allowed to mingle with the sentiments of profound sorrow at the occurrence of the melancholy accident which has deprived the country of its most eminent statesman, and this House of its most distinguished ornament.

I mentioned, Sir, the other day, that the debate on the foreign policy of the Government having disarranged the order of public business, I intimated a short time ago that I should state to-day what course the Government intended to take with respect to certain Bills, and whether we should go on with them in the course of the present Session or not. I think it quite a reasonable proposal to make that when Bills have not been a long time before the public, we should not send them up to the other House of Parliament at a very late period of the year, when they can hardly be expected to undergo discussion. That remark does not apply to measures relating to the revenue; and therefore I can say that my right, hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will proceed with the Stamps Bill when he can find a day for that purpose. The Government are of opinion that they ought to proceed with that Bill. The next Bill I would mention is one of very great importance, upon which the House has decided in favour of the principle by a very considerable majority, I mean the Bill for the abolition of, the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. But, from what has already taken place, it appears that there will be a good deal of discussion as to the mode in which the power to be exercised by the Crown should be exercised in Ireland; and that discussion would probably extend to so late a period of the month, that the Bill would probably not reach the other Honse till the beginning of August. That, I think, would be too late to propose a very large change in the customary mode of governing Ireland; and, having obtained the assent of this House to the principle of that Bill, I don't mean to proceed with it in the course of the present Session. Another Bill affecting Ireland—with respect to which there has been much objection to the measure as introduced, and other proposals have been made which we think so much opposed to the original principle that they can hardly be admitted—I mean the Securities for Advances (Ireland) Bill, will come under a similar description, and that will also be postponed. The Ecclesiastical Commission Bill has been already before the House of Lords, and was intended to be brought on a few days ago. It now stands for this day. I propose to go on with it on Monday, hoping we shall be able to legislate on the subject this Session. The Mercantile Marine Bill, proposed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, will likewise be proceeded with, and I should propose that the House should sit on Monday, at 12 o'clock, for the purpose of proceeding with that Bill. My right hon Friend would have proceeded with it to-day, but that we understand there are objections on the part of certain persons who have taken a great interest in the subject, to our going on with it to-day. The Merchant Seamen's Bill I don't think we shall be able to proceed with in the present Session. The Woods and Forests Bill, which is a measure for the rearrangement of that department, and which has met with general assent as regards the principle, yet requires a good deal of alteration in detail; and I don't mean to proceed with that Bill either in the course of this Session. After Monday I shall propose that we proceed with the votes in supply. I wish to give three days, Friday, Monday, and the Friday following, for the purposes of supply, there being many votes yet remaining, and these votes of supply ought, I think, to be taken as soon as possible while this House is still well attended. There is very great inconvenience in protracting the Session of Parliament to a period when many Members find it necessary to leave town, and are unable to give their attendance at the discussion of important measures. There is one other Bill which I don't mean to proceed with, namely, the Railway Audit Bill. If there is any other Bill on which information is desired, as to the course we mean to pursue, I shall be ready to give such information. [An Hon. MEMBER: The Parliamentary Oaths Bill?] With respect to the Parliamentary Oaths Bill, I mean to go on with it. I shall fix it for this day fortnight. I cannot state our in- tention with respect to every Bill that stands on the Order-book. But I mention these Bills that the House may at once know we are not to proceed with them. We propose to proceed with the Charitable Trusts Bill in the morning.

presented a petition from certain persons residing in the vicinity of Hyde Park, against the appropriation of a portion of the park to the buildings for the Exhibition of 1851, complaining that the effect would be to depreciate their property for two years, and praying the House to interpose so that they might not be put to the expense of legal proceedings for the purpose of preventing such appropriation.

then brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice. He said he was confident that a more vague, unsatisfactory, and inconclusive report had never been submitted for consideration. The replies of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the inquiries which had been made on the subject, were also very unsatisfactory; and that of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the inquiry made a few days ago with respect to the legality or illegality of the proceedings which had taken place, without previous intimation on the part of the Woods and Forests, not only deserved to be characterised in the same terms, but, however presumptuous it might seem to question the authority of the first law officer of the Crown, the opinions expressed in another place by two very distinguished and noble Lords, both of whom had held high judicial offices, warranted the assertion that the reply of the hon. and learned Attorney General was not in accordance with constitutional law. The Woods and Forests, as trustees for the public, were bound to preserve, protect, and improve the property intrusted to their care. The trees in Hyde Park were cut down at the mere caprice of the Woods and Forests before any sanction for their demolition had been given under the sign-manual, Nine trees out of ten were felled; the tenth was left to represent the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests. The Commissioners came like a thief in the night, and cut down those beautiful trees. A gentleman who lived near the Park, and paid 110 l. a year ground rent for his house, had told him that he was admiring the trees one evening before he went to bed, and when he got up in the morning to shave, they were gone. The gentleman thought that some thieves had run away with them; for it did not occur to him to suspect the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. It was reported that more trees—sixteen he was told—were to be cut down. If the Commissioners had left the beautiful elms alone, and cut down some decayed trunks which were used for purposes objectionable to the olfactory nerves, the public would not have censured them. As to the objection for which Hyde Park was to be desecrated, it was the greatest trash, the greatest fraud, and the greatest imposition ever attempted to be palmed upon the people of this country. The object of its promoters was to introduce amongst us foreign stuff of every description—live and dead stock—without regard to quantity or quality. It was meant to bring down prices in this country, and to pave the way for the establishment of the cheap and nasty trash and trumpery system. It would better become the promoters of this affair to encourage native industry, and support the industrious people of England, from whom they drew all they possessed. "Live and let live" was his maxim. It was painful to hear the accounts that daily reached him of the measures resorted to to compel industrious tradesmen and mechanics to contribute from their hard earnings to the furtherance of a scheme directly inimical to their dearest interests. The report which the Commissioners had published at the eleventh hour contained this passage:—

"Considering the importance of the undertaking, and the circumstances attending its promulgation, the selection of the metropolis as its intended locality appears to be both natural and proper."

He ventured to dissent from that opinion; but, whatever might be said as to the metropolis generally, the selection of Hyde Park in particular for the site of the Exhibition seemed to be both unnatural and improper. The Commissioners alleged that Hyde Park was the most central and accessible part of the metropolis, but everybody knew that was not correct. It might be most accessible from Downing-street, but it was not so from the most populous part of London—the City. There was neither canal nor railroad running to Hyde Park. In the confusion caused by the operations of workmen, and the carting of materials in hundreds of waggons, there would be no end of accidents. That was a serious objection to the proposed site, independently of the nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, whose ingress and egress to and from their own houses would be completely interrupted. All the bad characters at present scattered over the country would be attracted to Hyde Park as a favourable field for their operations, and to keep them in check an immense body of police must be constantly on duty night and day. That being the case, he would advise persons residing near the park to keep a sharp look-out after their silver forks and spoons and servant maids. The public press had condemned the selection made of Hyde Park for the site of the Exhibition, and pointed out other places more suitable for the purpose. Now, what he wanted was the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether this absurd Exhibition should take place at all; and if that should be decided in the affirmative, then to determine what would be the most fitting site for it. It had been calculated by some persons that the building for the Exhibition would cost 100,000 l.; but he had been informed by one of the most eminent practical men of the day that it could not be completed for less than 200,000 l. Where the money was to come from he knew not, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be called on. He must say that a more wildgoose chase, a more undefined scheme, a more delusive or dangerous undertaking never had been attempted by any man. And who was to pay for it all? John Bull. And who was to give the prizes for the things exhibited? John Bull. [ Loud cries of "Divide, divide!"] Ah! he supposed that those who cried "Divide, divide," were some of the Commissioners, or those who had given a shilling a piece to the fund. [ Laughter. ] They might laugh. He felt it to be his duty to speak against, and to vote against a project which he believed to be prejudicial to the country. He would never subscribe a shilling to it, and he would press his Motion in order that there might be at least that due deliberation which ought to be given before any further step was taken in this rash and intemperate course.

Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That the Report respecting the proposed Exhibition in Hyde Park in 1851 be submitted to a Select Committee of this House, for the purpose of examination and due consideration of the same; and that the Report of the said Select Committee be laid upon the Table of the House, and that the sanction by this House be given to such Report before any further proceedings on the part of the Commissioners, with regard to the said Exhibition, shall be proceeded with or adopted by them."

, although he disclaimed participation in many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, was nevertheless so thoroughly persuaded of the necessity of referring this important question to the consideration of a Select Committee, that he would not hesitate to second the Motion. He did not object to the Exhibition. He had no hostility whatever to the scheme itself. On; the contrary, he wished it every success; for he believed that it would tend materially to the advantage of the country, and that it would do honour to the Illustrious Personage with whom the idea had originated; but he had serious misgivings as to Hyde Park being the very best site that could have been selected for the erection of the enormous structure which it appeared would be required for the purposes of the Exhibition. The advantages of such a site as Hyde Park were few and questionable; whereas those of such a place as Batter-sea Fields were very numerous, and must be obvious to all. No place could be selected which would be easier of access, both by rail and water, than Battersea Fields. The desirability of selecting a position to which there would be abundant facilities of easy and cheap communication in both ways, would be at once apparent when it was taken into consideration that on an average 150,000 persons travelled by omnibusses, and at least as many by steamboats, in London during the course of a single day, and that on one day last summer the number of persons who travelled up and down the river between London Bridge and Chelsea amounted to no less than 324,000. Two objections had been urged against the selection of Batter-sea Fields as the site for the contemplated edifice; but he would at once abandon his opposition to the suggestion of the Commissioners, and never say another word upon the subject, if he should not be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the House that those objections were utterly destitute of foundation. In the first place, it was urged that there could be found in that locality no strip of land of sufficient length for the site of the intended building; but he was in a position to state most authoritatively that for such an apprehension there was not the smallest pretext in truth. He was prepared to state that a quantity of land, not less than thirty-five acres—which was double the complement that would be required for the site of the edifice—might be procured in Battersea Fields by to-morrow morning, if necessary. It was true, that upon those thirty-five acres might be found one or two pieces of land of which it would not be practicable to obtain possession in the course of a few hours; but he was sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would bear him out in the assertion that, no matter what opposition might be offered by interested individuals, the Chief Commissioner of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests might be put in occupation of those plots in the course of fourteen days, by empanelling a jury to decide upon the sum to be granted by way of compensation to the proprietors. This might be easily done if it should be found absolutely necessary to have possession of all the plots in question; but what he was prepared to maintain was, that no such necessity in point of fact existed. Even though those plots should not be in the possession of the Commissioners, the site of such a building as the one contemplated would not be in the least interfered with. All he would say further on this point, therefore, was, that an adequate quantity of land might be procured with ease at Battersea Fields, and that he would himself undertake to procure it before Monday. The second objection that had been made to that site was, that the fields were below the Trinity House highwater mark; but this, too, was a mistake—at least, it was a mistake so far as the argument for the site was concerned, for though it might be true that some parts of the fields were below the standard water mark, it was equally certain that the precise portion of the fields which he had in view was ten feet higher than it. If the site which he advocated were determined upon, there would be no necessity for making the least alteration in the plan or design of the edifice. No matter what might be said to the contrary, he would take leave to assure the House—and he was certain there was not a competent architect in England who would not agree with him in the assertion—that there was no building that could be erected in Hyde Park which might not with equal facility be constructed in that particular portion of the Battersea Fields to which he was referring. Moreover, there was this other important considera- tion to be kept in view, that such were the facilities of communication by rail and water with the latter locality, that bricklayers, masons, and carpenters would be able to do more there in the way of building in the course of three or four months, than they would be enabled to effect in such a place as Hyde Park in eight or ten. If it should be found necessary to erect a wooden bridge from Ranelagh to the Red House, the thing might be done with ease, for, in the year 1846, an Act of Parliament was passed to enable such a structure to be erected whenever the occasion for it might arise. He had no interest to serve in this matter, and once again he must disclaim the idea of being actuated by any feeling of hostility to the Exhibition.

said, he had understood the noble Lord to say, on a former occasion, that the House would be better able to come to a conclusion after the production of the letter of the Commissioners, which had lately been laid on the table, and they would then have the means of estimating the reasons for the selection of Hyde Park. Now, he would endeavour to draw the attention of the House to that very document, to show the reverse of that conclusion, and that that site ought not to have been chosen. He should confine his remarks to the site. For his own part, he had no objection whatever to the Exhibition, but great objection to the site; and, as regarded the public, the moment they saw the dilapidation about to be committed on what they conceived their property, questions regarding the intentions in that respect had been put to the Government in that House. It had been proposed to him that he should oppose and endeavour to put aside the site now chosen; but his answer at first had been, that he must decline to do so, because he was afraid, if he did so and succeeded, that the Commissioners would bring their Exhibition in the midst of his own constituents in the Regent's Park, where they certainly had no wish for it to be. The House would probably recollect that, several years ago, it had been a very troublesome and difficult matter to secure that park for the enjoyment of the public, although the fields which formed its site had been taken from them—the fields forming its site having been open to them for years antecedent. But as he had since heard that the Commissioners could not take the Regent's Park for their Exhibition, in consequence of certain provisions in the leases granted by the Crown on the Regent's Park Estate, he felt himself at perfect liberty to take the course he now proposed. He (Sir B. Hall) wished now to call the attention of the House to that document, a copy of which he held in his hand. Like a lady's letter, the most important matter was to be found in the postscript. In the 27th paragraph, the Commissioners said that they had confined themselves principally to the question of site, and that the possibility that the bringing the Exhibition into Hyde Park would be considered as an interference with the enjoyment of the park by the public had never entered their minds. He supposed that it had not; as if they had reflected on the matter for a moment, it must have been obvious to them, that taking from the public one of the most delightful places of recreation, must have been objectionable to them. He begged to call the attention of the House to the 22nd paragraph. Upon the cutting down of the trees, the Commissioners said—

"Another ground of apprehension is stated to be, lest the park should be injured by the erection of the building, and the injury should continue after the structure is removed. This apprehension is, however, groundless; a small clump of ten trees has been allowed to be removed, in compensation for which it is proposed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to plant another clump elsewhere."

What innocent simplicity in a public document! They cut down ten trees; true, they were forty or fifty years old, but they would plant ten more, and in forty or fifty years more, when the present generation was dead and gone, the fault would be repaired. The Commissioners went on to say, that—

"As regarded the surface of the ground, it would not be injured, but would ultimately be materially improved by being drained, and freshly sown with grass seed."

Surely if the land wanted draining it should be done irrespective of the Exhibition; and they all knew that when a park was once broken up, it took years before it recovered a sward like that in Hyde Park. He would now return to paragraph 4, and he wished to call the particular attention of the House to the dates. They said that—

"Although Hyde Park, and even the particular space now in question, had been already mentioned before the issue of the Commission, and, indeed, so far back as October 1849, as a probable site for the Exhibition, it is unnecessary to assure the Lords of the Treasury that the Commissioners approached the question of the site, after their appointment, without having in any degree prejudged the merits of particular localities. On the 14th of February, their attention having been directed to the importance of determining the site by the committee then recently appointed for all matters relating to the building, they deputed two Commissioners—namely, Earl Granville and Mr. Labouchere—to wait upon the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and to confer with him upon the subject. The result of this conference is set forth in the report presented by the Building Committee at the next meeting of the Commissioners (February 21), of which the following is the portion which relates to the question of the site."

Now, it appeared that these Commissioners waited on the Earl of Carlisle on the 21st, and that on that very day the Commission had to determine on the comparative merits of these sites:—

"With respect to the site, it appeared to your Committee that, firstly, the north-eastern portion of Hyde Park; secondly, the long space between Her Majesty's private road and the Kensington-road, in the southern part of Hyde Park; and, thirdly, the north-western portion of Regent's Park, are the only available spaces about the metropolis which would afford the necessary accommodation; and it is believed that the order in which they have been named represents also their relative eligibility."

But they decided on the same day without further consideration, giving the preference at once to Hyde Park.

"The Commissioners prepared and published a statement explanatory of the nature and objects of the Exhibition, which was widely circulated in this country, was forwarded to our consuls abroad, and to the foreign consuls in England, and was officially transmitted by the Secretary of State to all foreign Governments, and to all the Governors of the British colonies as well as to India."

When had they published that statement? They had only agreed upon the site on the 21st, yet on the 28th they—of course after a great deal more consideration—published it, and they announced in this statement that

"Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to grant a site for the purpose (of the Exhibition) on the south side of Hyde Park, lying between the Kensington-drive and the ride commonly called Rotten-row."

So the Committee was appointed on the 14th of February, waited on the Earl of Carlisle on the 21st, considered the report of their Commissioners on the same day, and on the same day also it appeared that they had Her Majesty's sanction. There was another point which required some consideration. The matter had been under consideration some months ago, and then the whole was to be got up on contract, and some person—Mr. Munday, he believed—was to carry it all out, and there was to be no subscription, no application for money, public or private. Had the Queen's consent been given upon that understanding? The House had heard nothing with respect to that part of the transaction. In paragraph No. 8, the Committee said that the site had not been selected without due consideration; and they went on to say, in another part of the document, that

"they could only regard a change of site, particularly if it should involve a change of plan, as tantamount to the postponement of the Exhibition till another year. And the Commissioners cannot shut their eyes to the fact that a postponement of the Exhibition would, under the circumstances, lead to its entire abandonment."

[Lord J. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord said "Hear, hear!" which appeared to him to be very like a spoilt child declaring if it were not allowed to have a particular thing it would have nothing at all, but would create as much disturbance and annoyance as possible. That was not treating the public fairly; for although the fee of the park was in the Crown, the use of it was in the public. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear!] The public, therefore, ought to be consulted on the matter. One of the main arguments used by the Commissioners for the selection of Hyde Park was, that the last three exhibitions of this nature had been held upon somewhat similar sites; that in Paris having taken place on the Champs Elysées, that at Vienna in the Prado, and that at Berlin in the Thiergarten. There was no comparison whatever to be drawn between these sites and Hyde Park; and he regarded the proposition as one of the most idle that could be put forward. They said further that no other sites were to be found; but he should be able to show the House the contrary. There were several most eligible sites. In the first place, there was Kensington Park, which was only four and a half furlongs from Tyburngate, and two and a half miles from the terminus of the Great Western Railway, and of convenient access from the London and North Western Railway, and also from the Regent's Canal. Another site, which possessed all the requisites essential for the purpose, would be found in a spacious plot of land at the back of Maiden-lane, King's Cross, which was immediately contiguous to the Great Northern Railway, the London and North Western, and the Regent's Canal, and, altogether, one of the best that could be chosen. Another would be found at a spot near Lee and Kennedy's nursery, in the vicinity of Kensington. He repeated that he had no de- sire to interfere with the Exhibition, but he thought Hyde Park was not calculated for the purpose. In the Times of the previous day there was a statement on this subject which appeared to him to be pretty correct. It stated that

"The brick walls of the 'temporary' building will alone absorb 12,000,000 bricks; and if to them be added the lime and sand for mortar and the scaffolding, we shall find a collective weight of about 40,000 tons of materials, which must all be carted into Hyde Park within the space of 100 working days. A cart drawn by one horse will convey about one ton, 400 carts per day, or one cart every minute and a half for ten working hours, must therefore enter, and the same number quit the park, for the service of the brickwork alone. If only as many more are required for the stone, timber, iron, slates, lead, &c., and a fair allowance be made for breaks-down—a very common occurrence—the park must, of necessity, be, to all intents and purposes, closed against the public."

That would be a very serious inconvenience; but what he was most desirous of calling the attention of the House to was, the very serious damage that was likely to accrue to some of the finest trees in the metropolis, which really were great ornaments to the park, which he regarded as one of the finest pieces of public property in Europe. A map of the park had been that morning circulated with the Parliamentary papers, showing the site selected, and he had directed an eminent surveyor to go to the spot, and there mark on the map the number and girth of the trees which would be destroyed or injured by the erection of this building. And it should be remembered that they could not make walls and cross walls round trees without injuring them. The result of the survey was as follows:—In one space there would be destroyed or injured 5 trees, averaging 6 feet in girth. In another 21 trees, averaging 4 feet. In another, 1 tree, 8 feet. A fourth 13 trees, averaging 17 feet. A fifth 4 trees, averaging 15 feet. A sixth 21 trees, averaging 7 feet. And another 3 trees, averaging 17 feet. Besides 60 others on the south side, and 90 on the north side, adjoining Rotten-row, making in all 218 trees, which would be built round by this enormous fabric. In addition to this, it was proposed that the park should be shut up for two years at least, commencing on the 1st of next month. Great trenches must be dug for the foundations of the main and cross walls. A constant passage of people to and fro would be kept up, trees would be destroyed, and the whole park would have to be scarified. In fact, it would be reduced to nothing more nor less than a ploughed field. He hoped the House would determine on an address to the Crown, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased not to allow this building to be erected in Hyde Park, because he believed that there were many other sites very preferable as regarded railway and canal transit, and more convenient in every point of view. He believed, moreover, that if they wished to cast unpopularity upon this Exhibition, they would do it by taking away that of which the public ought to have the use and enjoyment.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that no Buildings may be erected in Hyde Park for the purposes of the Exhibition intended to be held in this Country in the year 1851,'"

instead thereof.

seconded the Amendment.

complained that the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone had not read the whole of the 27th paragraph of the report. After his first extract he ought to have added—

"They (the Commissioners) cannot, however, but express their decided opinion, that the renouncement of the selection of the most beautiful park in London for the scene of the Exhibition, may be looked upon as indicating a diminution of interest in the undertaking, and would materially detract from that appearance of hospitality on the part of England, which has been one great cause for the very favourable reception which this proposal has everywhere received."

And after the second quotation he ought to have read as follows:—

"They have, on the contrary, always intended it as a means of recreative and intellectual enjoyment for the greater portion of Her Majesty's subjects; and they have hitherto had reason to believe that it has been so regarded by the country in general."

In the sentiments here expressed by the Commissioners he entirely concurred. He was glad that the vote of the House was to be taken upon the Motion of the hon. Baronet, rather than upon that of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, because the effect of the hon. and gallant Member's Motion would only be to create delay, whereas that of the hon. Baronet would at once raise and decide the question of the best site. The principal objection of the hon. Baronet seemed to be founded upon the amount of cartage of materials which would be necessary for a brick and mortar building of the large extent required. But the fact was, that not only was the question of a brick and mortar building an open question, but it was one on which there was considerable difference of opinion among the Commissioners. It had been suggested, for instance, that the building should be constructed of corrugated iron or zinc, which he believed could be done at a comparatively small cost, inasmuch as the Commissioners could afterwards dispose of the materials at nearly the original price, leaving as the only expense to be met the cost of the erection, and removal and the hire of the materials. If this system were adopted, it would meet the hon. Baronet's principal objection. He maintained that it was now too late to object to Hyde Park being selected as the site of the building; because, if they altered that arrangement, it would amount to an abandonment of the whole scheme, and this they could not do without breaking the pledge which they had given to Europe and the world.

, being a member of the Building Committee, and having had opinions attributed to him publicly in favour of Battersea Fields as a site for the Exhibition, felt desirous of correcting an impression which might well exist in the minds of many hon. Members. It was true that when Battersea Fields were first suggested as the site, he acquiesced in it generally as possessing some advantages. Its contiguity to the river, for instance, admitted of cheap and easy access by steam boats. He examined the locality personally, and he found that if the building were placed upon the spot most proper for it, it would certainly be at a level which would be highly inconvenient. In fact, the whole of Battersea Fields, immediately adjacent to the river, upon which it would be desirable to place the erection, was some feet under highwater mark; it was at all times badly drained, whilst at some periods during the winter it was inundated. To obviate these objections, the hon. Member for East Surrey suggested the erection of the building at a distance from the river, upon a piece of ground which was certainly some feet above high water, and therefore, as far as drainage was concerned, not open to the objections to which the first site was exposed. But when he (Mr. Stephenson) went upon the site, he expressed an opinion which he now repeated, that its distance from the river was objectionable. It was, as nearly as possible, half a mile from the river, and without the power of the land being given into the immediate possession of the contractors. The fact was, the hon. Member had forgotten that a way would have to be made between the building and the river. In point of fact it would be insulated; there would be no connexion with the river except upon sufferance, and he left the House to consider what private individuals under such circumstances generally did. With regard to the obstruction of the thoroughfares, some hon. Gentlemen appeared to attach the greatest weight to it; but it was one to which he attached the least importance. In order to enable the House to appreciate it, they should make themselves acquainted with the existing amount of traffic through the thoroughfares of the metropolis. He would take Hungerford Suspension Bridge as an example, the narrowest bridge, and the most inconvenient in its approaches on both sides in the metropolis. He would assume a parallel between the traffic over that bridge and through the streets in the vicinity of the exhibition. In fine weather 15,000 persons passed every day over the bridge, and through a turnstile, paying toll, without producing the least inconvenience; and in addition, 25,000 passengers per day departed from or arrived at one of the piers of the bridge, in connexion with the steamboats on the river. A free passage was thus given on that narrow bridge without inconvenience to 40,000 persons daily; and he asked any hon. Member if he could call to mind any obstruction upon either side? The figures read by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone with regard to the inconvenience of the cartage of 40,000 tons of materials into Hyde Park, were at first sight almost overpowering. But it was not so great as was imagined. From the Camden-town station 8,000 tons were weekly carted through two openings into that station, independently of coals and cattle; and no inconvevience had been felt. He believed, therefore, that the inconvenience with regard to the approaches into Hyde Park was perfectly chimerical. As to the number of trees likely to be destroyed, he did not profess to be a very good judge upon the subject, but he could confidently assure the House that not one-tenth of the number stated by the hon. Baronet would be injured. It was not the intention of the Building Committee to encroach upon the trees beyond what had been already done. He must, therefore, ask the House to look upon the whole question as practical men. The Building Committee had devoted much time and attention to the selection of the best site; and not one position, or scarcely one, had been suggested which they had not carefully and deliberately considered. The recommendation of Hyde Park had not been hastily arrived at; and they considered it, upon all grounds, the most eligible site in London. He had himself studied very carefully the plans of this vast and extensive building; and he assured the House, that if a month's delay from this present time took place, the Exhibition would be jeopardised. The country was pledged, not only to Europe, but to the civilised world, to proceed with it. They were all now at work manufacturing articles for exhibition, and the Commissioners were pledged to have the building ready by next May. In conclusion, he assured the House he was speaking the unanimous opinion of the Building Committee, that if the delay took place which the adoption of the Motion would create, it would prevent the Exhibition taking place at all, and the position of the country in such a case would be one of utter disgrace.

denied that the traffic of Hungerford-bridge afforded any just ground of comparison with the probable traffic in connexion with the proposed Exhibition. The traffic of Hungerford-bridge was all of one kind. There was no horse, carriage, or cart traffic, but merely two uniform streams of pedestrians—one towards Surrey, and the other towards Middlesex. Neither could he admit the applicability of the remarks of the hon. Member for Whitby respecting the traffic of the Camden-town station, because the inhabitants of Belgrave-square and Grosvenor-place were determined to live in a neighbourhood not quite so bad as the entrance to a railway station. He confessed he was somewhat surprised at the report which had emanated from such a high body as the Royal Commissioners in defence of two such important considerations as the site of the great Exhibition, and the integrity of Hyde Park. He found them saying, for instance—

"It being thus distinctly evident that the Exhibition ought to take place in London, it is further obvious that the actual site which may be selected for it should be within the precincts of, or in the closest vicinity to, the most central and accessible parts of the metropolis itself."

Now, the idea of calling the west end of London a "central position" was exceedingly amusing. But the Commissioners proceeded to say—

"It need hardly be pointed out that it would be objectionable to impose upon persons who may have come to London from a great distance the necessity of an additional journey to visit the Exhibition; a consideration which has already been urged upon the Commissioners by the representatives of several of the most important provincial towns, who are apprehensive of the inconvenience to which artisans, in particular, might thus be subjected."

So, therefore, it was considered to be for the benefit of artisans that the Exhibition should be placed near Belgrave-square. In paragraph 11 of the report it was said—

"The site suggested in the Regent's Park has been found, since it was visited by the Building Committee, not to be available, as the leases under which the houses in that neighbourhood are held, contain a clear and stringent provision that no new building of any kind shall be erected within the limits of the park."

Now, he contended that this was one of the strongest moral arguments that could possibly be drawn against placing the exhibition in Hyde Park. They all knew that the growth of Hyde Park had been gradual, whereas Regent's Park was the single creation of great public spirit and public taste on the part of the Sovereign. If, therefore, it was found necessary to impose a condition of this kind in regard to Regent's Park, it was to be presumed that if Hyde Park had been similarly created by a single act of the Royal will, a similar condition would have been imposed. In paragraph 21 of the report, he found a statement which to any one who understood building operations must appear rather strange. It was stated that—

"Although the eminent architects and engineers whom they have consulted, and to whom they have uniformly given instructions to prepare plans suitable to a temporary structure, have agreed to recommend the use of brick and other durable materials, they have left it perfectly open to contractors to send in their tenders for the execution of the work in any material or materials whatsoever, and have notified their readiness to entertain such tenders."

Now, had any one ever before heard of a body of men who had property planning a building which they determined should be executed in a certain material, and then allowing contractors to send in tenders with reference to entirely different materials? There was another objection to Hyde Park being chosen as the site of the building, and that was that in the neighbourhood of the spot selected there were a number of low public-houses, which, if the Exhibition took place there, would be sure to be frequented by crowds of improper characters, and thus add to the disorder of that already disorderly neighbourhood, and make it a perfect nuisance to the more respectable streets adjoining. He held in his hand a letter from the clergyman of the parish strongly urging this as a reason against the Exhibition being held there. It had been said there was no other site to be had equally convenient. He would mention two which, in his opinion, would afford ample space, and be in every way convenient. The one consisted of two brick-fields of fifteen or twenty acres in extent, bordering the north bank of the Regent's Canal, and the other was situated immediately south of the Islington Cattlemarket. The market, indeed, actually abutted on the spot, and he had no doubt that, if necessary, it might be incorporated as part of the proposed building. He was not at all unfavourable to the proposed Exhibition. On the contrary, he believed that England would appear in it with all the advantage to which her great engineering ability and manufacturing development, and the energy, industry, and patience of the Anglo-Saxon race, entitled her. He only regretted that its popularity and usefulness would be marred by the selection of an improper site. He would remind hon. Members of the answer of Sir R. Walpole to the amiable Queen of George II., when she asked him how much it would cost to rail in a portion of St. James's Park—"Please, your Majesty, only three crowns." He believed the English people were loyal enough not to sell Hyde Park at that price; but the anecdote sufficiently showed the value which the sagacious mind of Walpole then attached to the public parks; and if they were so valuable then, when there were so many other open spaces near the city, how much more valuable must they be now, when those other spaces were all covered with buildings?

was really surprised at the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. After having given his opinion that the Exhibition would do credit to the nation, he had thrown objections in the way of its being carried out of a partial, limited, and personal character. Every one considered the object of the Exhibition to be deserving of this great commercial country, likely to do honour to England, and likely to bring every manufacturing nation into unison with us in providing for the wants of mankind. An opinion seemed still to prevail in some quarters that we were to be the great monopolisers. The Exhibition would be the means of showing that we were ready to give as well as to receive—to communicate as well as to obtain knowledge respecting the production of the best articles. Thus would nations and manufacturers be brought together from every part of the world; and thus would advantages be derived creditable to the parties engaged in the undertaking. A few individuals, however, were found to object, on the ground of some anticipated inconveniences, forgetting that the property would be taken possession of only for a temporary purpose, and not be alienated from the public. Was any one so selfish as to consider his own personal inconvenience in a case so noble and national? If so, the view was one of the most narrow that ever entered the mind of man. The idea of personal inconvenience was too paltry for consideration, where the honour of the whole country was concerned. The manner in which India and the several other nations of the earth had responded to the call made upon them to produce their best articles, was highly creditable. And were we to stop short in our plans now, merely because of some supposed inconvenience—inconvenience to a few ladies and gentlemen who were accustomed to ride out—or inconvenience to a few persons who lived in Belgrave-square, who feared that they would be interrupted by the passing of waggons which they could not see, and which would not approach within a mile and a half of their residences? He had always been in favour of devoting the parks to the health and recreation of the public; but now that Her Majesty had consented to appropriate a portion of one of them to the Exhibition, of what material right would the public be deprived? What more useful to the public than the great and expansive scheme about to be carried out? He therefore regretted extremely that any opposition should have been manifested, because be did not know a better site than the one in Hyde Park. The shed was to be 700 yards long, 175 feet wide, and 25 feet high; and all the injury it could do was to destroy the grass over which it was placed for a short time. He hoped the building would be divested of the enormous overgrown dome which it was proposed to construct.

quite concurred in the reasons which had induced the Com- missioners to deprecate any decision on the part of the House that should disturb the arrangements which, after the most mature deliberation and after consulting the highest authorities, the Commission had adopted with respect to the site of the Exhibition. He felt that the report which was in the hands of hon. Members, and the speech of the hon. Member for Whitby, had laid the case of the Commissioners so fully before the House, that he should be without excuse if he troubled them with many observations. But the deep anxiety he felt on the subject prevented him from giving a silent vote, for he could not but feel, with the hon. Member for Montrose, that the credit of this country with all the nations of the world, and, he would add, the credit of the House with all the nations of the world, were deeply involved in the decision to which the House should come on this point; and he trusted the House would not disturb the closely considered arrangements of the Committee, because of the clamours of persons who would not for a brief space sacrifice their own fancied comforts and convenience to promote a great national, a great world-object. He was not surprised that the misrepresentations circulated on the subject should have aroused apprehensions in the public mind, naturally sensitive to the preservation of Hyde Park; and did he himself feel any apprehension that Hyde Park would be degraded or destroyed by the Exhibition, he should be one of the first to invoke the opinion of the House on the point, deeming the parks a matter of national concern; but he altogether denied that Hyde Park would be degraded or destroyed in being rendered thus subservient to what was also a matter of national concern. [Colonel SIBTHORP: No!] The "No," of the hon. and gallant Member represented, he believed, the solitary dissent in that House on the point. [Colonel SIBTHORP: No! Pooh! No!] It was proposed to refer the decision of the Commissioners to a Select Committee of that House. Now, of whom would the Committee, at all events for the most part, probably consist? Of the very Members of that House who were also members of the Commission, and whose unanimous votes had already confirmed the report of the Commission as to the site. Who were those Members? First, Lord John Russell; the name of the second was a name not to be I pronounced without emotion, it was the name of Sir Robert Peel; and he believed that the last public duty performed by that eminent man, who never neglected any duty, connected or unconnected with politics, which he considered conducive to the public good, was the attending a meeting of the Commissioners, and giving his cordial assent to the principle embodied in their report. Then came Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. Pusey, and Mr. Alderman Thompson—Gentlemen representing the most various political opinions, but unequivocally united in their opinion on this particular point. Nor let the House forget how long this subject had been before the public and before themselves, and how long it had been distinctly understood—known he might say—that Hyde Park would be the place selected for the Exhibition. No remonstrance had been made against that site, month after month, and he trusted that now, at the eleventh hour, the House would not step in and disturb the arrangement so carefully adopted. Reference had been made to the various official modes in which the public had been informed that Hyde Park would be selected. He would refer to another mode of informing the public, far more generally informatory than official modes—to the columns of the leading and most generally circulated paper in this country, the Times; and he would read to the House an extract from that paper of the 18th of October, 1849, which would at once demonstrate how completely the whole of this country, how completely all foreign countries, must have been so long ago as that aware that Hyde Park would, in all probability, be the site of the Exhibition:—

"At present no other site seems more likely than Hyde Park, where the vacant space between Kensington-drive and Rotten-row offers peculiar advantages. All nations are invited without distinction or preference. It is proposed that a Royal Commission, presided over by the illustrious Prince from whom the idea of this Exhibition has chiefly originated, shall arrange the prizes, the subjects for which they are to be offered, the character and course of the Exhibition, the selection of the judges and other preliminaries, while it is left to the Society of Arts to raise the funds—and, as itself a permanent body, to provide for the permanent establishment of these exhibitions. There seems, then, no reason to doubt that in 1851 Hyde Park will witness an assemblage more numerous, more brilliant, more beneficial, and more intimately associated with the fortunes of this empire, than the aristocratic array in which some observers are wont to read the rise and fall of our national prosperity."

He hoped that this brilliant and eloquent anticipation would not be clouded. He was satisfied, indeed, that the good sense and public feeling of the House would not permit private and peculiar views and notions to interrupt a course prescribed by sound reason. Reference had been made to the inhabitants of Knightsbridge, who, it was represented, would be especial sufferers in the matter, though even those whose houses absolutely fronted the proposed site would be separated from the Exhibition by two roads, a broad terrace, and thick trees. He must say he thought that this complaint of the parties in question, this indisposition to undergo for a brief time a little possible disquiet for the sake of a great national benefit, came with peculiar ill grace from persons to whom so singular a favour had just been accorded in the throwing open, on their account, of Prince's-gate, a favour alike promoting their personal convenience, and benefiting their property. A more striking illustration still of the nature of the objections was afforded by the hon. Member for Maidstone, who was prominent among the complainers, although he lived altogether at the other side of the park, where he could in no possible way be annoyed by the Exhibition, which would be alike remote from his sight and his hearing. It was said that the other contiguous inhabitants, besides those of Knightsbridge, would be aggrieved. It was at all events only very recently they had intimated any such apprehension. It was only in April last that the inhabitants of Chelsea and its neighbourhood held a meeting for the express purpose of promoting the Exhibition, as an exhibition calculated in every way to benefit all classes of the community, and especially the inhabitants of the western portions of the metropolis. Among the many distinguished names which figured in the requisition for that meeting, he would only mention one, it was that of the Hon. William Frederick Campbell, M.P. Nothing, in fact, could be more gratifying than the earnest zeal with which this subject had at once been taken up by all classes of the people; and it was essential that the place in which the Exhibition was held should be readily accessible to all classes of the people, not merely to the rich, but to the poorest artisans, who, coming from all parts of the country in crowds, as they would, ought to have the facility, not merely of visiting once, as they might a wild beast show, but of revisiting, time after time, the Exhibition, so as to derive the desired benefit from its contents. The alarm at one time mani- fested, that this building would not be a merely temporary erection, had not been much referred to on the present occasion. He could assure the House that he was himself as strongly opposed as any man could be to any permanent encroachment upon the parks; and he considered the Commission and the Government pledged to the public that the building contemplated should only be a temporary building. The contrary apprehension, he had no doubt, was closely connected with the durability of the materials it had been proposed to use; but, in the first place, the Commissioners were not at present pledged to any particular materials, and, in the second place, if bricks were adopted, it would be simply because, as Mr. Cubitt himself shows, bricks, even for temporary buildings, were most economical, most effective, and most easily transportable. As to the dome, which still haunted the imagination of many of his hon. Friends, he could not at the moment pledge the Commissioners on the point, but he believed he could safely inform the House that the dome would vanish into thin air. As to the expense of the structure, he was equally prepared to express his confident belief that it would pay for itself, and that the public would not be called upon to give a single farthing beyond their voluntary subscriptions and the admission money at the doors. He would only point out to the House that the latter receipts would materially depend upon the facility of access to the Exhibition, and that they would inevitably be much less in aggregate amount if the public had to travel five or six miles from town to the place where it was held. He trusted that the House would, in its decision, bear in mind how intimately the interests of the humbler classes, and how nearly the national credit and honour, were connected with the adoption of the Commissioners' report.

said, that in offering a few words upon this subject, he should not indulge either in lofty flights of eloquence, or in brilliant perorations as to the honour or credit of this country being pledged to the erection or otherwise of the proposed building in Hyde Park. The hon. Member for Montrose, imitating the sic volo, sic jubeo style of the Commissioners' report, had presumed to differ with all who raised objections to Hyde Park; but that hon. Gentleman had not put the question before the House in a fair shape. The question was, was Hyde Park the best site? If there was any doubt on the subject, he attributed it to the conduct of the Commissioners. It was all very well to read a list of the names, and to say that these were the names of practical men. The Commissioners, whose report was published the other day, had only taken into their consideration in February last, three sites. They took the north-eastern portion of Hyde Park, the Regent's Park, and the present site. They never took into their consideration Battersea Fields or Islington. He thought the best site for the Exhibition would be the Regent's Park, inasmuch as it was in the immediate neighbourhood of the Regent's Canal, and the terminus of the London and North Western Railway. It had been said that the locality of Battersea was ineligible for building purposes; but a report was presented in 1846, which stated that that was not only a salubrious neighbourhood, but that it was most eligible as a building site. The surveyor of the district had moreover reported that the foundations there were most excellent, with a gravel soil. He contended, therefore, that the report of the Royal Commissioners had been ill considered. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when speaking of the advantages conferred by the opening of the Prince's-gate, had forgotten to tell the House that the inhabitants of the locality had been made to pay 4,000 l. for the opening of that gate, and that they were also obliged to pay a certain sum of money to keep a gatekeeper there. But further, a large speculation has been entered into in that neighbourhood, twenty-four houses having been built at an expense of 150,000 l., and paying a ground rent of 1,800 l. a year. It was all very well to say that this was not to be a permanent building; but who would take those houses for the next two years? It was all very well, too, to talk of the honour and credit of England being pledged to the carrying out of this Exhibition; but there were some other things equally to the honour and credit of England which were not to be forgotten. He meant the law on the subject. A Judge of great reputation had given it as his opinion—[An Hon. MEMBER: He has bought a house there.] The hon. Gentleman said, he had bought a house there; but he should be sorry to think that the opinion of a Judge could be swayed by any such matter; and Mr. Justice Cresswell was in- capable of being influenced by such a motive. That learned Judge had a strong opinion, not in his capacity as the buyer of a house, but as a lawyer, that the erection of this building in the park was illegal, and that it required an Act of Parliament to enable it to be done. Unless the House gave some decided expression of opinion, he would strongly advise the hon. Member for Marylebone that the Motion should not be pressed to a division. He had felt it to be his duty to state his opinion, and he thought that the report of the Commissioners should be reconsidered; at the same time he was not joining in any cry against the Exhibition, but he thought the House ought to pause before sanctioning the erection of this building in Hyde Park.

said, this Act had been described as a matter sic tolo, sic jubeo, on the part of the Commissioners; but he should be sorry if there should be a disposition on their part in any matter to decline to defer to the jurisdiction of that House. He was sure there was an unequivocal admission among the Commissioners that that House was the proper and constitutional guardian not only of the liberties but also of the enjoyments of the people. That House could not, however, lightly interpose in a matter of this kind. If they were prepared to come to the vote to which they were now invited to come, they must be prepared to take the responsibility of that vote, which might destroy the success of the Exhibition which had been projected. It had been said that the Commissioners had neglected their duty; but the Commissioners, he would contend, had not neglected their duty in the very important point of the selection of sites. It had been asked why they had only referred to three sites? The answer to that was, because it was assumed among the Commissioners as a thing entirely beyond dispute, and one which had been announced to the world, that this Exhibition was really to be holden in London, and not at six or seven miles distance from it; and, he submitted, it would be practising a deceit on the whole world if, after having brought foreigners from every part of the world, on the faith of the Exhibition being held in London, they took them to Battersea instead. If this were an exhibition at which persons could acquire sufficient information from a single visit, it would not be so very important whether it was held in London, or five or six miles away from it; but the objects would be so extensive and multifarious that three or four visits would be necessary in order to a proper appreciation of them. With regard to the Regent's Park, he would really say he placed more confidence in the legal view entertained by those who had advised the Commissioners as to the Exhibition being held there, than he could in the opinion stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, the Member for Middlesex. The Commissioners had had the advice of a lawyer, acting in his public capacity, and acting deliberately; and he (Mr. Gladstone) thought that was an opinion on which the House was bound to rely. It was not disputed that so late as October last it was known that this Exhibition would be held in Hyde Park; and since January last that announcement had been before the world. And now what was the predicament in which they stood? The hon. Member for Whitby told the House, as a practical man, that it would be impossible to open this Exhibition in the spring of the next year if they interfered to change the site. He (Mr. Gladstone) deprecated any interference, so as to change the site, which would be a virtual abandonment of the Exhibition. The Commissioners took their stand on a knowledge of the multitude of difficulties that were to be encountered, of the multitude of arrangements that were to be made in order to give effect to a scheme of this kind, and upon the knowledge that if the House now undid those arrangements, some time must again intervene before they could reconstruct those arrangements for another site: and therefore that it was a matter of impossibility to hold the Exhibition in the spring of next year if they were obliged to abandon the proposed site. He thought the House was right to be jealous of the beauty and security of this park, and of the trees, which of course could not be replaced; but he was of opinion, at the same time, that the honour and credit of England was very greatly involved in this matter, and that the House would be laying itself open to a charge of light-mindedness and instability of purpose if they were now to take the step they were called on to take. He would remind the House that property of the value of some millions was now in preparation for the purpose of being entrusted to this Exhibition; thousands of labourers were at work in this and other countries on productions which they knew, or thought they knew, were to be exhibited in London on the 1st of May next; and large masses of persons in the country were saving their wages, and a vast concourse of people in various parts of the world were making plans and arrangements with a view to visiting the proposed Exhibition; and the question was whether the House would frustrate all those plans and expectations which, although they had not been formed by that House, they had allowed to be performed by others, and had never interfered while the time for interference remained. He submitted that the proposed Exhibition was only the substitution of one public kind of enjoyment for another, of a higher and more important for a lower and less important enjoyment, of one on a small for another on a large scale; and he would venture to say that for every man, woman, and child, who used this ground for the purpose of recreation, at least a hundred—he thought he might say a thousand—would resort to this great Exhibition for the purpose both of recreation and instruction.

said, he had that day presented a petition from seventy householders of great respectability, and residing in the immediate vicinity of Hyde Park, all of whom entreated that House to change the proposed site of this building, and he trusted he might be allowed to say a very few words. He was sorry to say that the remarks of the hon. Member for Whitby had not addressed themselves to one point; some explanation as to which he could not but think would go some way towards allaying the apprehensions of these petitioners, namely, as to the nature of the construction of the building in question. Now, the hon. Member for Montrose did touch on that point to a certain extent; but he thought that when his hon. Friend had said that it was to be 175 feet in breadth, he must, of course, have meant to say 175 yards. [Mr. HUME: Yes, yards.] The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, too, had, in the remarks he had addressed to the House that evening, rather led them to suppose that there was a leaning to a building of a more permanent character than it had been hitherto presumed this building was meant to be. They were told that the walls were to be of brick, and twelve feet thick, and that it was to be crowned with a cupola twice as large as that of St. Paul's. He trusted, however, they would, before the discussion closed, have some official statement as to what the real intentions of the Commissioners were as to the nature of the construction of this building; in which case, perhaps, the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Marylebone might be allayed. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, that the honour and credit of the country were at stake as regarded the Exhibition itself; and he had understood him to say that if one month were suffered to interpose before the site of the building was fixed upon, the Exhibition would be at an end; but he (Sir De L. Evans) should imagine that the space of one month would be sufficient time wherein, if necessary, to decide upon some other site. He did hope, however, that they should be favoured with some assurance that the grievance apprehended by these householders was not to be of the duration they feared it would be, and also that the whole of the materials for erecting the building were not to pass through one gate in their immediate vicinity.

said, that no doubt it would have been more grateful to the feelings of every hon. Member, after the great calamity that had so recently occurred, if they could have dispensed with the consideration of this or of any other subject on the present occasion, but private feeling must naturally give way to public business. This was not a frivolous question as to whether some few trees should be cut down, or whether one site was preferable to another. It was a great national question, and he thought a fundamental error had crept in throughout the whole of these proceedings in leaving so important a matter, on which the honour of the country was at stake with foreign nations, not to the control of Parliament, but entirely to the management of a private body of gentlemen. He thought the hon. Member for Finsbury had put the real merits of the question before the House, when he stated that if the fund raised by private subscriptions should fall short of the amount required, the House would naturally be called upon to indemnify the Commissioners, and that the responsibility which at present rested on that small body of men, would ultimately devolve upon the Legislature of the country. One point was obvious, that they were about to expend at least 100,000 l. upon a temporary building. But if the Exhibition were so desirable as it had been said to be, and would confer such great advantages in promoting the indus- try and stimulating the talent of the country, why should there not be triennial or quinquennial exhibitions in the same way as foreign nations had followed them up? They ought, before any proceedings were taken, to determine whether the Exhibition was to be of an ephemeral character, or whether it should be permanent, for the advantage and triumph of art in this great country.

wished merely to correct a mistake he had been supposed to have made on a former debate, when he stated that the corporation of Wisbeach had only subscribed 5 l. to the Exhibition, and thence inferred that the source of voluntary contributions was getting dry. He had received a letter from the mayor, stating that the corporation had given twenty-five guineas; but there was a misprint in the accounts given of the subscriptions, which caused the mistake, and perhaps the corporation ought to have gone with their complaint to the newspapers that made the mistake. He should vote for the site being Hyde Park, because he thought it was a good site, and indeed the best. As to any infringement on the enjoyment of the poor, that might have been the case if Primrose-hill or Victoria Park had been chosen, but the poor never went to Rotten-row; and even Rotten-row would not be infringed upon, so that the hon. Member for Marylebone would still be able to disport himself there, and view the Exhibition from his horse in the usual ride. His (Mr. Duncombe's) constituents would be much disappointed if the Exhibition was either postponed or abandoned.

said, one fact had been made apparent by this discussion, namely, that upon this subject there was but one opinion, with the solitary exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, and that was in favour of the Exhibition of 1851. But another thing had been elicited, and that was a declaration on the part of the Government and the Royal Commissioners, that the building to be erected in Hyde Park (if it were to be Hyde Park) would be only of a temporary description. The House had also been assured that no money would be asked for by the House from the people of England on account of the Exhibition. But there nevertheless existed a great discrepancy of opinion with regard to the site. An opinion had been expressed by a distinguished Judge of the land that it was illegal to make the site of the Exhibition in Hyde Park. Now, although the Attorney General might dissent from that opinion, it could not be altogether dismissed as a fable. That opinion had been declared by Mr. Justice Cresswell. If so, why should they go on with the determination of making Hyde Park the site until the question was decided? Suppose the inhabitants of the district were to move for an injunction, where would the Royal Commissioners be then? It would cause so great a loss of time that the whole matter must be abandoned. If there were any truth in the opinion of the learned Judge, then the House, by agreeing to the Address, might be the means of saving the Exhibition. Seeing that the inhabitants of the vicinity of Hyde Park were very much opposed to having the Exhibition there, while the inhabitants in other parts of the metropolis were anxious to have it in their neighbourhoods, he certainly thought it would be wise for the House to change the site. King's-cross, near Copenhagen-fields, was a much more central position than Hyde Park, which was only one corner of London—Hyde Park corner. He would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, and leave the Commissioners to do what they might think proper, and also to leave the inhabitants to take what course they pleased.

said, the House had two Motions before it, and it really seemed to him there might be some inconvenience in taking the course now proposed by either of them. He, for one, was not prepared to concur in anything which had a tendency to destroy or imperil the Exhibition of 1851. At the same time he was entirely prepared to concur in voting for the Address moved for by the hon. Member for Marylebone. They were very much pressed for time, he (Mr. Stuart) admitted; but he asked the House not to forget the importance of the consideration adverted to by the noble Lord opposite who had just resumed his seat. There were legal rights involved in this matter; petitions had been presented from persons representing property of large value, including buildings on which an hon. Member had said 150,000 l. had been expended, which would be imperilled by the building being erected on the proposed site. It was not a province of that House to interfere in deciding legal questions; they would greatly embarrass public interests, and the course of proceeding of any Government, if they interfered in such a way in such matters. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated his opinion to be that the site was a legal site unless the public interfered. He (Mr. Stuart) ventured to express some surprise at this mention of public interference; it excited some very startling considerations coming from him—most startling indeed. The hon. and learned Attorney General held his office in order to represent the public interests; and if any of the constituents of his (Mr. Stuart's) hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster, or his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Middlesex, called on him to do so as relators, the Attorney General was bound by his office, and it was ex dubito justitiœ for him to appear before the Lord Chancellor when Lord Chancellor there was—or before a court of equity, to complain, at the relation of any aggrieved party, that the Commissioners were about to do an illegal act, and to ask for the interference of the court. The House of Commons ought not to make any difference between the high and the low; and if the Lord Chief Justice of England had "private and partial right" near Hyde Park, there was no reason why they should be scoffed at by the Attorney General. He trusted that the Government would pause before they proceeded further in this matter, and he would suggest that the debate on the Address moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, should be adjourned.

was induced to rise in consequence of the hon. and learned Gentleman having said that the Commissioners had set up a new doctrine—namely, that the private and partial rights of the rich might be interfered with, but that the rights of the poor ought to be respected. Who was the hon. Commissioner who had said this? [Mr. J. STUART understood the hon. Member for Montrose to have said it.] What he understood his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose to have said was, that if this were a question as to interfering with the amusements of the poor rather than that of the rich, he would prefer interfering with the amusements of the rich. In the formation of new streets, were not the conveniences of the poor often sacrificed for the conveniences of the rich? but those inconveniences to the poor man, in forcing him to lodge at a distance from his work, were never considered by the House. He was glad at having heard the explanation of the hon. Member for Whitby, who had entirely disposed of the objection which had been stated in the Times newspaper with regard to the enormous amount of materials that would have to be taken to Hyde Park. The hon. Gentleman had equally met the objection raised on the ground of the obstruction which would be occasioned by the vast concourse of people visting the Exhibition, and this he did by stating the simple fact that 40,000 persons passed over Hungerford-bridge daily. He had not had a single representation made to him by any of his constituents to induce him to oppose the site being in Hyde Park. He had no doubt it would be inconvenient to many, but we could not have any such thing without some sacrifice being made; but that would be amply compensated for by the honour that would redound to this country in consequence of this great Exhibition having originated here.

complained of the shyness of the Attorney General in expressing his opinion on the legal question. The hon. and learned Gentleman was bound to give some explanation, lest there should be legal proceedings.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Newark had laid down a doctrine which the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, should have well considered—namely, that it was not for the House to interfere upon questions of law, or pretend to decide questions of law; and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had gone too far in wishing that the House should come to any opinion upon the question of law. He (Lord J. Russell) thought that observation was perfectly true; but it was not quite consistent with what the hon. and learned Gentleman afterwards suggested, namely, that the House should wait in order to have the question decided in a court of law. The question before the House was not a question of law; but the question was whether the House should offer any advice to the Crown in regard to the selection of Hyde Park as the site for the proposed Exhibition, from a wish to take care of the rights of the public, or whether the House should refrain from offering any such advice. Now, he thought the House might keep such a question as that entirely free from any question of law. If any private rights should be infringed upon, let the parties make any application they please to a court of law. With that the House had no concern; where they could hardly come to any satisfactory conclusion as to what was clearly the law upon the subject. With respect to the general question, he was happy to think that this discussion had not been without its use, and it appeared to him that the House had very nearly come to a conclusion upon the subject. He thought he was not misrepresenting the sense of the House when he said that they were anxious that no building of any very great strength and permanence, with a a very enormous dome, should be erected in Hyde Park, and that every care should be taken not to do injury to the great trees that were an ornament to the park. So far he thought the sense of the House was very clear; but he also believed that it was not the disposition of the House to assent to an address to the Crown which might interfere with the Exhibition of 1851. There were only two other points upon which he wished to offer any remarks. It had been represented, he thought from some misapprehension, that the Commissioners had in a very arbitrary manner come to the conclusion that the Exhibition must either take place in Hyde Park, according to their opinions and advice, or not at all. Now the fact was that the Commissioners, having considered the various sites which might be suitable for the Exhibition, came to the conclusion towards the end of February that Hyde Park was the best site for the purpose. The Commissioners immediately made their decision known, and they circulated information, not only in this country, but in others, that the Exhibition would take place in Hyde Park, so that the public must have been fully aware of this intention. Some time afterwards drawings were prepared, and proposals were issued, by the Commissioners for the erection of a building for the purposes of the Exhibition in Hyde Park; and what the Commissioners said was, that having done all this, it was now, in the month of July, too late to provide for an Exhibition in 1851 in any other situation than Hyde Park. The Commissioners at their meetings had made very close inquiries on this point; they had taken the opinions of the Building Committee, and of very able architects and engineers; and all the Commissioners were satisfied that they must either have the Exhibition in Hyde Park, or that they must give up the hope of having any exhibition of the kind in 1851. His noble Friend the Member for Middlesex had said most truly that some sacrifices must be made in carrying out such a project. On the one hand the proposed arrangement would certainly cause some in- convenience to perhaps 70 or 80 occupiers of houses on that side of Hyde Park on which the Exhibition would take place, and it might cause inconvenience to the riders in Rotten-row, though he believed they would obtain some compensation. But, on the other hand, if the proposed change were adopted, the sacrifice would be enormous, and the working classes of the country would be the sufferers. If those of the working classes resident in London had to make a journey of some five or six miles out of town, whether by railway or by some other mode, in order to see the Exhibition, they would lose their whole day in the journey; and if those who came up to London from various towns in the country were obliged, after spending a considerable sum of money in coming to town, to undertake another journey of some miles out of town to see the Exhibition, there would be entailed upon them not only a considerable expenditure of money, but also a great sacrifice of time, which they were ill able to afford. He believed, therefore, that it was the interest of the great majority that the Exhibition should take place in Hyde Park, as was originally proposed. Had the subject been brought before the House in the month of March, he did not mean to say they would have come to another decision, but they would have had the question before them in a different shape. As it was, however, he did not think the House would come to any other conclusion than not to interfere in the matter. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not divide the House, for he thought the effect of this discussion would be to induce the Commissioners to take all possible care both to provide for the accommodation of the public in the construction of the building, and to preserve the trees in Hyde Park. He hoped, at all events, that the House would not assent to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark for the adjournment of the debate.

said, that after the statement of the noble Lord, and as it appeared that the building would be merely of a temporary character, and that no grant of public money would be proposed for the Exhibition, he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would feel it his duty to pursue a straightforward line of conduct, and to take the sense of the House upon the subject.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 47: Majority 119.

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 166: Majority 120.

said, he hoped that the Government would not press on the discussion at that late hour.

considered that they should go on with the question, due notice having been given of bringing it on that night.

thought the course taken by the Government was hardly a fair one, considering the importance of the subject. It was impossible to have anything like a fair discussion at that hour of the night.

said, as the subject was important, and as there was an understanding that they would not go on with it at a late hour, it should not then be pressed forward.

considered that at that period of the Session it was not an unreasonable hour to proceed with the discussion.

said, that the question had not been discussed for some time, and when a particular Member took it in charge it should not be considered he brought it on at that late hour. So far as he was individually concerned, he would be satisfied to wait for the result of the inquiry which he understood there was a distinct understanding should take place elsewhere. He wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, with respect to the Minute relating to the Kneller-hall Training School. He had read the minutes and the general arrangements, and an account of the subjects in which candidates were to be examined, and he did not find in the list of subjects for schoolmasters, who are to be members of the Church of England, any subject that identified them in that capacity.

said, the examination of the candidates who were members of the Church of England took place under the superintendence of the principal and the clergyman, and they were to be examined in the formularies of the Church of England.

said, he felt great diffidence in calling the attention of the House to the distribution of the grant; but as a member of the Church of England, he did object to it. Understanding that the subject was under discussion between the National Society and the Committee of Council, he had delayed bringing it forward, being perfectly confident that the National Society, having on its Committee the whole bench of bishops, the question could not be left in better hands. It went on for two years, and it was not until December last that the National Society closed their correspondence with the Committee. The Society had placed before the Committee petitions asking for freedom being given to local founders and for an appeal to the bishops; but they were refused. Previously to 1839 the grant of 23,000 l. annually voted by Parliament for the promotion of education, was divided by the Treasury between the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society. In 1839, however, when the Members of the present Administration were in office, they issued orders in Council relative to normal and model schools, which excited the deepest feeling throughout the country against what was then termed a scheme of godless education. The Archbishop of Canterbury moved resolutions against the scheme in the House of Lords, which were carried by a majority of 111. That for a time stopped the proceedings of the Committee of Privy Council, and in 1840 was published what might be termed the concordat between the National Society and the Privy Council, the conditions being legal security for trustees and Governmental superintendence of the schools. It, however, soon became apparent that the Committee of Privy Council were bent upon enforcing conditions on the founders of schools which were distasteful to them. Archdeacon Sinclair had remarked that a feeling of security prevailed as long as the educational grant was controlled by the Treasury, but that suspicion and distrust had been engendered by the proceedings of the Committee of Council. As soon as the noble Lord opposite came into office in 1846, great activity was manifested in the Council Office, and in 1847 the adoption of the management clauses by the schools was made compulsory; that was what he objected to. The noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet opposite might recommend any regulations they pleased: but they should abstain from forcing them upon the schools. It appeared from the returns, that half of the schools which had applied for aid to the Committee of Council, had rejected it rather than submit to the conditions which the Committee of Council wished to impose on them. One of the petitions which he had the honour to present, and which was numerously and respectably signed, after complaining of many of these circumstances to which he referred, alluded to the Kneller-hall establishment, which it declared to be full of danger to the teaching of the public, and was the commencement of a system of latitudinarianism. When they had examined the schoolmasters of their unions, they found that but little attention had been paid to religious instruction, and that the highest knowledge in divinity that was therein required, was a good Biblical knowledge, and the knowledge of the geography of Palestine. What did they find in a Minute to which his right hon. Friend alluded relative to Kneller-hall? No student was required to learn any religious formula to which he had a conscientious objection; and this was in a school where schoolmasters were trained entirely for the administration of pauper education in workhouses, and criminal education of youth in prison. There was no examination in the catechism, in the ordinances, or the prayer-book; there was, in fact, nothing whatever to show the distinctive mark of the Church of England. These schoolmasters were bound, upon the expiration of the term of their apprenticeship, to serve in these schools for a period of seven years. He could not but think that an education communicated under such circumstances must produce the worst results. Since the question had been discussed in the other House of Parliament, it had taken a different turn. Although a Committee had been denied to the noble Lord who made the Motion in the other House, yet the noble Lord the President of the Council stated, that the time had come when he thought an inquiry was necessary, and he only objected to it then, becouse it would be impossible to come to a conclusion on the subject before the end of the present Session of Parliament. As he (Mr. Miles) understood, there would be no objection to an inquiry in the next year, as the petitioners stated the applicants were unable, from conscientious scruples, to participate in those advantages which it was evidently intended by the Legislature they should enjoy. After the decision that had been arrived at in another place, he did not think it necessary to submit a Motion upon the subject.

said, that the impression under which the hon. Gentleman had addressed the House with reference to the probability of an inquiry into the system, of education established under the superintendence of the Committee of Council on Education, led him to state at once that to such an inquiry the Government would offer no objection. The hon. Gentleman had directed the attention of the House to two points—the management clauses and the establishment at Kneller-hall. With respect to the first, the principle on which the Government felt bound to act was, that it was the duty of the State, and of the Government as representing the State, and intrusted with the administration of the funds, to demand ample security for the management of the schools. They had not felt themselves at liberty to interfere with the nature of the religious instruction. With respect to the Church schools, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the constitution of many of them having been shown to be most defective, it was thought essential by the Committee of Privy Council, in 1845, when presided over by Lord; Wharncliffe, to take security against the continuance of that defective constitution of the schools. In 1845 the first management clauses were prepared. A correspondence took place on the subject between the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council on Education, and it seemed to be admitted that the Committee, so far as they felt it consistent with their duty, had shown themselves ready to meet any objections which could be urged to the details of the management clauses. But this the Committee did think it necessary to insist upon—that where it was possible to combine lay with clerical agency, lay should be combined with clerical agency. At the same time, there was not the slightest approach to an infringement of the right of the clergy to have the exclusive charge of the religious education of the schools. The Committee had the full concurrence of a portion of the clergy who did not enter into the views of the National Society. A statement was made that some clergymen, who had made application for grants, afterwards withdrew their applications on perceiving what was described as the insidious character of the management clauses. But the mischief which lurked in these management clauses was not indicated. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say the clergyman who had made and withdrawn applications apprehended the mixture of the laity as of a dangerous character? Such appeared to be the real nature of the objection. Allusion had been made to petitions against the management clauses. In one from the clergy and laity resident in the diocese of Bath and Wells it was said—

"We find ourselves called upon by present events to declare our conviction that national peace and prosperity depend essentially on the early education of the poor."

They went on to state—

"That by the term 'education' we mean training for time and eternity, and that according to our belief the Church of England is the divinely-appointed teacher of the English nation."

The petitioners further said—

"We deeply regret to perceive that within the last ten years a vast change has been rapidly taking place in the education of the children of the poor, and that this change has been introduced, and is now being carried into effect, by the Committee of Council on Education."

It was obvious that they objected to the existence of the Committee of Privy Council as trenching upon the rights of the Church as the divinely-appointed teacher of the nation.

"We observe that this Committee does not recognise the Church as the teacher of the people, but regards various and conflicting religionists as equally qualified to teach, and thus is morally disqualified from exercising any influence over the form and substance of religious instruction."

They denounced the proceedings of the Committee of Privy Council as an interference with the apostolical and evangelical mission of the Church. Such were what he must call the extravagant views of, he would not say a large portion, but of a portion of the National Society, who had taken a leading part in opposition to the views of the Committee of Privy Council. The hon. Gentleman did not appear to concur in these extreme views. But was it just to say that the system of the Committee on Education was that pursued in France, Germany, and other parts of the Continent? Those having the control and management of the Church schools must be members of the Church. Those clergymen of the Church of England who expressed apprehensions as to the interference of laymen, and who would have the clergy have the exclusive control of the schools, were doing little to increase the affection, esteem, and regard which it was his desire that the Church should secure, and the continuance of which was essential to the best interests of the country. With respect to Kneller-hall, it seemed to be imagined that the institution there was full of danger; but it ought to be remembered that it, Kneller-hall, was established as a normal school for two classes of schoolmasters—teachers for prisons, and teachers for workhouses. For some years past the want of qualified teachers for prisons had been felt. Many of those who were appointed were drawn from Scotland—not a few from the admirable training school in Glasgow, known as Mr. Stow's; and of these it could not be said that they have received instruction in the principles of the Church of England. So with respect to the workhouses; the teachers were taken from whatever sources were available. It had never been made a condition that they should be members of the Church of England. With respect to Kneller-hall, it was thought desirable that when a portion of the salaries of schoolmasters was defrayed by the public, measures should be taken for training schoolmasters; with that object it was thought desirable that the institution should be established, and that those who were educated there should be instructed in the principles of the Christian religion. Future opportunities would present themselves for discussing the subject more in detail; but he had thought it due to the hon. Gentleman that he should give the brief explanation he had now offered.

said, that in the spring of 1847, the Government had greatly extended the system of education. The Government proposal was strongly resisted by the Dissenters; but he asked any one who witnessed that debate, if he could for a moment have thought that it was the intention of the Committee of Privy Council to make those management clauses compulsory. Late in 1847, when such a rumour was propagated, he asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether such was the intention, and the answer then given was such as to remove all doubt upon the subject. The answer given by the noble Lord on the 12th of July, 1847, was—

"With regard to the first question of the noble Lord, he said that before the present Government were in office, certain propositions and conditions were placed before it by persons in connexion with the National Society. In order to prevent those new conditions from being carried into effect in a manner the Committee of the Privy Council thought injurious, it suggested four forms of clauses that might be adopted in these trust deeds. A proposition to that effect had been made to the Archbishop of Canterbury in a letter from the Secretary to the Committee of Privy Council, and the suggestion was adopted; the only limitation being that, as his Grace desired, the local committees should be left at liberty to accept or reject. The further proposition was made, that normal as well as other schools should be included. With regard to the last question, the Committee of Privy Council had taken the suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury into consideration, and had adopted it in nearly the same words; but the clauses respecting trust deeds had again been submitted to his Grace, with a view to the admission of laymen; these clauses seemed to the Government to have been essential, and, as the National Society had not expressed any objection to them, he (Lord J. Russell) hoped they would be agreed to. They had, in point of fact, already been adopted in almost all the schools which had since received aid from the Government. With respect to the second question of the noble Lord, whether preferment in Ireland was only to be given to clergymen approving of the scheme of national schools, he had to state that there was no foundation for the rumour. Of course, every Government had its own reasons for preferring certain persons; but undoubtedly there would be no exclusion on the ground of non-adherence to the scheme of the national system."

And yet, not long after the period when the noble Lord made his statement, a minute was entered upon the books of the Committee of Privy Council, by which the operation of those clauses was made compulsory. He had frequently heard hon. Gentlemen opposite declaim very loudly, and very warmly, on the blessings of religious liberty. Would they support a Government in a direct infringement on that liberty? What could be more against religious liberty, or against the cause of education, than to insist that, before any money was granted by the State to aid in the purposes of instruction, the layman or clergyman who applied for the grant should be obliged to conform to the dicta, or prejudices, or caprices of half a dozen gentlemen sitting in Whitehall? He repeated that political and religious liberty was invaded by the enforcement of those clauses. It was all very well so long as they were recommendatory and not compulsory; but why should it be presumed that the decisions of the Committee of the Privy Council were infallible? Why should it be supposed that Englishmen who were willing to subscribe funds—pious, well-disposed men, men who were willing to build and found schools—should not be able to have those schools properly conducted without the arbitrary interference of the Committee of the Privy Council? But the right. hon. Gentleman said that the majority of the clergy was in favour of those compulsory clauses. Very likely. But did the right hon. Baronet lay it down as a principle that the consciences of the majority were to be strictly respected, while the consciences of the minority were utterly disregarded? Was that the theory of men who had the words "civil and religious liberty" always on their lips? He must also allude to the memorial which had been presented respecting those compulsory clauses. [Sir G. GREY said, that he did not consider those schools could be efficiently carried on unless those compulsory clauses were enforced.] Did the right hon. Baronet mean to lay down as a position that those schools could not be efficiently managed by the clergy? He hoped this dictum of the right hon. Baronet would go forth to the country. He objected to the constitution of the Committee of Privy Council altogether. What the memorialists asked for, what he asked for, and what the country had a right to expect was, freedom and liberty of instruction. That right could not be consistently resisted, and would not long be successfully resisted. They only asked for themselves that which they willingly conceded to others; and his belief was that, if the Government persisted in its present course, it would excite feelings of suspicion, distrust, and alienation amongst a great body of the Church of England. Let them do justice—even-handed justice—that was all he asked.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had represented the feelings of the petitioners to be that of arrogating to the Church the exclusive right of educating the people of the country in the schools in the hands of the Church. Now, he (Mr. Adderley) considered that an entire mistake. What the petitioners asked for was, that if any body of Churchmen wished to raise funds for starting a school of their own, they should be allowed the same participation in the national grant as was conceded to other bodies for the purpose of carrying out their own system. And he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it was dealing with equal fairness towards all, if Churchmen, desirous of instituting schools for themselves, were deprived of a share of public money merely because they wished to have their own particular school under the management of their own particular Church?

thought the noble Lord the Member for Colchester had rather overstrained the meaning of the right hon. Baronet with reference to the inefficiency of the schools. He did not suppose that the right hon. Baronet meant all schools were inefficient that were not under the management clauses, or because certain clergy were connected with them, but that particular schools so situated might not be efficient.

thought that the right hon. Baronet had not fairly represented the case of the National Society to the House, when he brought forward a memorial which appeared to have emanated from some Gentleman entertaining strong views. [Sir G. GREY had no wish to conceal from whom the memorial came. It was from the Rev. Mr. Denison.] He was not, as a member of the National Society, bound by any views Mr. Denison might entertain. The memorial seemed to assume that there was something incorrect in the Government affording aid to Dissenting schools. Now, it was perfectly clear that such was not the sentiment of the Church of England, for it supported the granting of support to all denominations, provided that they made voluntary contributions in aid of the Government grant. It was not fair to read the memorial of two or three clergymen, and then say that their view was the point in discussion between the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council. Then, it was alleged that there was an aversion on the part of the National Society to lay interference. That was a misunderstanding; and that it was so, was evident from the fact that the National Society recommended these very management clauses, which the Government thought the best, up to a certain time. But it was plainly understood by them that freedom should be allowed to persons who might take a different view; and it was only after the Committee of Privy Council, not content with recommending these clauses, insisted upon them in an unlucky hour, as the best possible, and that every thing else should be repudiated and rejected, that the National Society felt it to be their duty to withdraw their assent from clauses which would deprive their subscribers of liberty of action. The House thought fit to promote education by the combined action of voluntary assistance and support from the State. That system worked so well, that during the ten years of its existence the number of children attending the national schools had increased by 400,000. It was not, therefore, likely that they would give it up, nor was it just that those who contributed two-thirds of the amount to the school should be deprived of all control. He was glad that a Committee was likely to be granted on this subject; because it would tend to allay the heats and errors at present existing. But it was not unnatural that the clergy should show some uneasiness on this subject when they saw clauses, which were at first merely voluntary, afterwards made compulsory. A great constitutional question also arose from this matter, because a large sum of money—a sum increasing every year—was placed at the disposal of the Government, for the distribution of which no individual Minister was responsible; and the Privy Council, sitting in conclave, might issue orders respecting it from which there was to be no departure. It was not reasonable that of three parties founding a school the party who contributed one-third should claim to lay down all the rules of management. For his own part, whilst he admitted that there had been errors on both sides, he could not think it wise, if the Government wished to stimulate voluntary exertions, to lay down a set of cut and dried pedantic rules from which there should be no departure. He trusted that, ere long, they might be able to come to some cordial understanding to wage war against nothing but infidelity.

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had really not properly represented the conduct of the Committee of Privy Council, when he said that they assumed the power to regulate the whole of these schools, and declared that their regulations were to be binding without any reference to the founders of the schools whatever. The fact was, that the Church and the Committee of the Privy Council came to an agreement in 1840, by which these grants were to be regulated. He thought it was a fair agreement, but it gave very great power to the archbishop and the bishop. The inspectors were to be named in conjunction with the archbishop. They were not to exercise any inspection without their consent. The reports were to be sent to them, and the whole religious inspection was placed under their conduct. Now, that was an agree- ment certainly not hostile to the Church of England. Afterwards there was a question with regard to the clauses of management; and he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted a good deal when he said, in the first place, that it was very desirable that provision should be made for the perpetual management of these schools, and, secondly, that those clauses had been recommended by the National Society themselves. But the objections that were made were as to the interference of the Committee of Privy Council in any way on the subject. No doubt it was right to give every encouragement to voluntary zeal and local bodies; but, suppose that those local bodies, in their voluntary zeal, neglected the clauses by which they founded their school so much that the conveyance should be altogether invalid in law, or that it was settled in persons who would provide for no future management of the school? The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted, however, that it was right there should be that permanent management; and that was an answer to those who said that it was altogether wrong for the Committee of Privy Council to interfere in any way with the deeds and arrangements of the school. So far, however, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Then the next question was as to the efficient management of those schools. With respect to that subject, again, it was not denied that it was desirable there should be some lay members of the Church who should be on the committee of management; and he said "lay members of the Church," because that had been very strictly required by the National Society; and, whether necessary or not, they had asked a power which had been conceded, by which, though there might be lay members on the committee, yet they were members of the Church of England, and their character of laymen did not deprive them of their character of Churchmen. Upon that point, again, they agreed. He now came to the body which was to be perpetual, which consisted of the clergyman, and in populous places of some lay members of the Church; and there was this further security, which had been asked and agreed to, that the religious education should be entirely under the superintendence of the clergyman and the bishop. The bishop might exclude from the schools any books that might be objected to on religious grounds, and he might insist upon the removal of any master or mistress, if they were not sound in religious doctrine. That was, so far as the religious teaching was concerned, a complete exclusion of the Committee of Privy Council, and of any body but the clergyman and the bishop. He next came to the question of secular teaching; and the Committee of Privy Council said that if a question arose upon this head there should be a committee of laymen, who should consider it along with the clergyman, and then, if an appeal should be required, that it should be a fair appeal to an indifferent tribunal. The National Society required, on the other hand, that if the clergyman should be of one opinion, and perhaps six or seven members of the committee of a different opinion, the question should be decided by the bishop. It did not appear to him that that would be a wise and efficient course. Considering whence the funds came, he thought it desirable that the lay members should have some voice, and that they should not be entirely suspended by the clergyman and the bishop alone. Then, what the Committee of Privy Council said was, that in such cases there should be a fair appeal, and that if the school committee wished to make the school altogether an ecclesiastical body, both as to secular and religious teaching, they must provide for it out of their own funds, without the assistance of the State. He did not think that the proposition of the Committee of Privy Council was an unreasonable one. If there should be a Committee of Inquiry next year, and if it should then appear that the Church of England had enjoyed great advantages under the present system, and that large sums of money had been given to meet the subscriptions of its members, which might be calculated to raise some jealousy on the part of those who dissented from the Church, that was a question to be considered by those who asked for this inquiry, rather than by the Government. He thought that the Government made none but fair conditions with respect to those grants—that the Committee of Privy Council were reasonable—and that, if they indulged in any unreasonable assumption of power in any one year, it was, of course, a question for Parliament, and the grants could not go on as before. For himself, he believed that great good had been effected by these grants. He believed that three-fourths of the whole had gone to the Church of England, and that it was desirable, both for the sake of the Church itself and the general public, that the sys- tem, as at present constituted, should continue.

said, the question was, whether a body intrusted with the distribution of a Parliamentary grant to promote education ought to use that power indirectly, so as to control the development of education among the religious bodies. The most wise and politic course was to promote by voluntary efforts the spread of useful education, and not to impose checks and impediments in the way of that voluntary effort. Now, if there existed any religious body whose principles led them to found schools upon those principles, and if the number of the schools founded by that body were diminished by certain regulations, then the Committee of Privy Council were checking the very thing which the grants were intended to promote. He said this, whether these parties were Dissenters, members of the Church of Scotland, Roman Catholics, or members of the Established Church. He thought such a course still more impolitic if these schools devoted themselves exclusively to religious instruction, because Parliament could not exercise a direct control over any religious body. Now, in the Church of England there was a body of persons who were disposed to come forward liberally and aid in the foundation of Church schools upon the principles of clerical management. It might be quite right to encourage and to assist schools founded upon the principle of lay management; but if there were members of the Church who would aid more liberally in the maintenance of schools under clerical management, he thought that both would be found useful assistants in the work of education. But if the Government said they would grant no aid to these schools under clerical management, then they roused against them the independent feelings of the Church. The National Society would find itself compelled to receive separate subscriptions from those who would support clerical schools and no others, and they would thus prevent the national schools from aiding so efficiently in the work of education as they otherwise might be enabled to do. The true course to pursue was not to be exclusive. All persons who came forward to found schools should have their proposals freely entertained, and they should not be excluded from the benefit of the grant because they had founded schools in accordance with their religious principles.

said, he coincided in much that had been advanced by the hon. Member who had last spoken. He thought that the most perfect freedom of action should be conceded to those who in any way whatever attempted to promote the great object of the education of the poor; that all churches and all individuals who thus manifested their liberality should be free to make whatever regulations they pleased, and to manage their schools in whatever manner they thought best. The business of the State in its encouragement of them was to look to results, rather than to arrangements and management, and to extend its liberality in proportion as they showed themselves efficient in producing moral, useful, and industrious members of society. He therefore thought no school ought to be excluded, because its founders thought fit to put it most entirely under ecclesiastical management. He might question their wisdom in so doing; he might doubt whether ecclesiastical bodies had ever been the most ardent and active friends of education; but he fully recognised the right of others to take a different view, and to see in ecclesiastical interference what they thought the best security for the most wholesome kind of instruction. Whilst admiring in many particulars, the conduct of the Committee of Privy Council, he thought this mistake was apparent in many of their proceedings; they looked too much to machinery, and too little to actual results. It was not in the building of schools, in management clauses, in the appointment of trustees, and in those various arrangements in which there had been too much of minute superintendence, that the proper grounds existed for State encouragement; they should inquire rather what were the actual results; and according to those results should be their encouragement and patronage of the different schools by which they were produced. If they found schools training up men who worthily filled their several stations in society—if they found them checking the amount of crime, pauperism, and misery in the localities in which they were established—if, on the periodical visits of the inspectors, these schools were found in a flourishing condition as to the inlectual and moral results of their teaching—the liberality of the State should be guided by these actual practical results; and whether men contributed largely or scantily—whether they tied up their schools to this or that particular church, sect, or denomination, or made them as free and open as they could—whatever these arrangements might be, they should be left in all cases to the parties. A body constituted like the Committee of Privy Council was not the best and most perfect means of communicating instruction and training. We were yet a long way from that; and the way to progress towards it was, not by minute directions of a central power, but by assisting different kinds of schools in different localities—by assisting one school instituted on the most rigid and exclusive principles—another on the widest and freest basis. Some schools flourished by teaching in one method, some in another, and often according to the idiosyncrasies of the teachers employed in them. Therefore, the best mode of administering this grant, and the way to make it most productive of good, was simply for the inspectors to report, not on the amount of subscriptions, the visiting arrangements, or the constitution of the trustees, but on the number of children well and wisely educated; and where such satisfactory results were obtained, there let the public liberality be proportionably bestowed.

agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that the inspectors ought not to inquire into the character of the trust-deed, but the result of the teaching. But the Government, in the construction they had put upon the points now in dispute, had certainly departed from the understanding come to in the years 1839 and 1840, and a certain portion of the people had a right to complain of this. The rules of the Committee of Privy Council worked particularly hard and unjustly in the case of small agricultural parishes, because under no circumstances could they avail themselves of the grants made in other places to masters, pupil teachers, and the other machinery that the Government had introduced. The children in these parishes went out to work so early, and the masters were of so inferior a class, arising from the slenderness of their emoluments, that the only advantage they could get from the grant was that which the Government used to afford them in the building of the school-houses. Of this advantage they were, however, now debarred, because in many of these parishes there did not exist the materials for forming a lay committee. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had made a statement which he thought would rather astonish some parties by the frankness with which it sketched out what kind of education Her Majesty's Government intended to give at Kneller-hall. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there were to be no formularies of religion taught even to members of the Church of England.

said, he had most distinctly stated that, although it was not provided that formularies of religion should necessarily be taught to any of the pupils, it was provided that the principal should be a member of the Church of England. He had therefore assumed, as a necessary consequence, that members of the Church of England would be taught the formularies of that Church.

said, that there were many schools provided over by members of the Church of England in which the formularies of the Church were not used, so that that was no security. He maintained that if a man belonged to the Church of England he ought to be so educated; and if he was a Wesleyan, or a Roman Catholic, let him be so educated; but he decidedly objected to the milk-and-water slipslop system which made a man neither one thing nor another.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said resolution be now read a second time."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution read 2°, and agreed to.

moved, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

felt it to be his duty to resist the Motion, because it was one which, in his opinion, was founded upon no adequate reason, and which would inevitably open the door to a vast amount of fraud. He did not think that the Scotch and Irish distillers had any claim whatever to pay a less amount of duty than they now paid upon, their spirits. On the contrary, he thought they ought to pay rather more than less, so far as general policy was concerned; although, for the sake of avoiding illicit distillation, it was found necessary to ask them to pay less duty than the English distillers. He thought every Gentleman would admit, that it was exceedingly desirable that there should be one uniform system of levying the duties in the three countries. Now, the system at present in operation was a uniform system of charging the duty upon the quantity of spirits which appeared at the conclusion of the distilling process, or at what was technically called "the worm's-end." Now, it was admitted in evidence before the Committee which sat on this subject by the distillers themselves, that it was perfectly impossible, with any sort of decent security, to charge the spirits distilled in England in any other manner. He must repeat the opinion which he had previously expressed, that it would be most unfair to do that for Scotland and Ireland which they had refused to do for England; and he was bound to inform the House, that he had received from the English distillers strong representations, setting forth with great truth the injustice of any such arrangement. The demand made was, that foreign and British spirits being placed in a certain relative position towards each other, spirits the produce of different parts of the united kingdom should be similarly treated. Now, there was not the slightest similarity between the two cases, for the warehousing and bonding system was wholly different from the practice under the excise laws. When an article was warehoused in bond, it became impossible to say when it would pay duty, for it never did pay any duty till it was brought into consumption; but the principle of the excise was, that the duty should be levied at the earliest possible period; but though the amount of duty was thus ascertained, indulgence for the payment was usually given to the extent of three or six months' credit. If the distiller were treated as the maltster was, he would, of course, have to pay his duty at the worm-end; or, rather, he would be charged at the worm-end and pay in six months; but, in a bonding warehouse, he would be allowed a credit of indefinite length, and so be placed in a more favourable situation than any other person liable to the excise laws; but, though the distillers were in this way so favourably treated, yet that indulgence was made a ground for a demand of further indulgence. The only apparently fairground upon which the distillers of Scotland and Ireland could complain was, that the colonial spirits were introduced at a rate of duty unjustly low, and that the distillers in those parts of the united kingdom were therefore exposed to a dangerous competition. But if those Scotch and Irish distillers were injured by the competition of rum, the remedy for that would be to alter the differential duties, and in a direct and fair manner to carry out the plan of the noble Lord the Member for Kildare. The noble Lord grounded his case upon the injury which the competition of the colonial spirits occasioned; but nothing could be easier than to show that the produce of home-made spirits in Scotland and Ireland was not injured by the introduction of rum at the present duty. He should not go into the question of the abstraction of spirits while in the warehouse, because, whether abstracted or not, he got the duty; but he would just shortly call the attention of hon. Members to the quantities of rum and of home-made spirits consumed in the years 1847 and 1849 respectively. In the former of those years the quantity of rum consumed in Scotland and Ireland was 558,000 gallons, while in the latter it was only 432,000, showing a diminution in that short period of 126,000 gallons, and that, they said, was swamping the Irish and Scotch distillers. Then the quantity of home-made spirits, the produce of Scotland and Ireland, consumed in the first of those years, was 12,230,000 gallons, while in the latter it was 13,908,000, showing a difference in favour of 1849, as compared with 1847, of 1,678,000 gallons, and then the producers of home-made spirits declared that they were ruined. For every 100 gallons of home-made spirits consumed in Scotland there was only a consumption of four gallons of rum, and for every 100 consumed in Ireland only two gallons and a half of rum. On these grounds, then, he did not hesitate to say that the noble Lord had altogether failed in making out his case. The duties in this matter had been carefully adjusted in 1848, and if the arrangement then made were to be altered, he thought that it ought to be not indirectly. He therefore, for these reasons, opposed the measure of the noble Lord.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

moved the adjournment of the debate.

I shall certainly resist that Motion.

said, when the Government had business to carry through the House, no such Motion as that made by the hon. Member for Bodmin was made by the supporters of the Government. If hon. Gentlemen were anxious to go to bed, it would be better for them to decide upon the question at once.

said that, until the matter was more fully discussed, he should not be satisfied.

could not help expressing his surprise that the hon. Member for Bodmin, after having heard the speech of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could have made such a Motion. Of course it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to deprive the Irish Members of the benefit of a division that would most likely prove to be triumphantly in their favour.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned.

The House divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 135: Majority 40.

protested against the measure on behalf of the people of Scotland. Within the last few months meetings more important than he had ever seen in that country had taken place upon the increasing intemperance of Scotland. At the last General Assembly of both Churches in that country, addresses had been agreed to upon the subject, and steps had been taken to organise in Scotland societies which should endeavour by all means in their power to put an end to that which was considered the great calamity of that country. He would confine himself solely at present to that portion of the question. He had had entrusted to him a petition on this subject, in which the petitioners implored the House not to pass this Bill. It could not be doubted that this was a question affecting a particular trade in Scotland. It was a essentially a distiller's question, and they would find before long that the voices of the people of Scotland would be raised against it; and it would become a national as against a distiller's question. Of that agitation he felt as confident as that he then stood in that House. The tendency of this Bill was, to render whisky cheaper in Scotland than it was at present. It was owing to the present cheapness of whisky that at this moment the gaols of Scotland were filled with criminals. Cheap whisky was filling their poorhouses with paupers. The proceedings of the courts of justice in Scotland, from the highest to the lowest, bore daily testimony to the awful results of the increased consumption of whisky. It might be a light matter for that House to deal with; but he did implore them to consider what the effects of such a measure as this would have in increasing crime and pauperism. He was sure that any hon. Gentleman who might have watched the increase of the poor-rates of Scotland would not willingly lend his aid to a measure whose inevitable result would be the raising of the poor-rates of the country; and he was sure he saw many hon. Gentlemen opposite who would not willingly lend their aid to a measure tending to increase the crime of the country. And yet he did most sincerely protest that, in his conscience, every step they took in the direction of rendering ardent spirits cheaper would be followed by these two lamentable results. On behalf of the humbler classes of his fellow-countrymen especially, he implored the House not to pass this measure. He should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill in every stage; and he did most earnestly trust that a returning sense of justice to the poorer classes of his country would prompt the House to reject the measure.

There are several hon. Gentlemen who, though apparently anxious to address the House on this subject, have not had an opportunity of doing so; yet I think the last division showed that it is clear that a majority of the House is in favour of the present stage of the Bill, and I shall be quite ready to regard that division as a division upon the Bill, and not divide upon the second reading. At the same time I think it right to say that we still retain the objections which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated to this measure, and that we shall oppose its subsequent stages.

Bill read 2°.

The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.