wished to know from Her Majesty's Government, whether it was their intention to assent to all the Amendments introduced into this Bill by the House of Lords. If it was their intention, he begged to say that the Bill would be very different in its character from that which the Government considered essential at the commencement of the Session. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that he should offer one or two remarks, in order to show that the Bill could not be expected to receive the sanction of the Australian colonies. Considering the narrow majorities by which it had passed in another place, and the great changes made in it, the expression of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies could hardly be said to have been borne out, that there never was a Bill of so much magnitude passed with such slight alteration. The colonists had reason for strong complaining of the course pursued towards them by Government in this matter. They had been led to suppose, upon the authority of the First Minister of the Crown, that the whole control of their lands would be left to their own decision and judgment. But the Bill deprived them of that privilege. The Bill, in passing through the other House, had been changed in another most essential feature. As sent up from the House of Commons, the Bill contained provisions for a Federative Assembly, which Her Majesty's Government had admitted to be of the greatest importance as a means of uniting the strength of the colonies; hut these provisions having been struck out elsewhere, the Government proposed to agree with that Amendment. It was immaterial whether he person-sonally concurred in these Amendments or not; but, as they had been made, he must declare that the Bill was not the Bill which had been introduced to Parliament, and that it was not one which had received the assent of the colonies. It was an entirely different measure. No fewer than four different Bills, each materially different from the preceding, had been brought in since the opening of the present Session—one in February, one in May, one in June, another in July; and now, in the last week of the Session, changes so considerable in the measure to which the House had assented were proposed for their consideration, that he could hardly believe that Government really intended to pass the Bill this year. Two Bills having been introduced on the subject last year, making six in all, each differing from the other, the Government could not truly state that this, the last of the six, had been approved of by the colonies. It was not that which had been recommended by the Privy Council. It was not the same that had been sent out to the colonies. For these reasons he affirmed, that if it were passed under the pretence of being acceptable to the colonies, it would be passed under a false pretence, inasmuch as it had been altered in all its material features, and in its entire principle. For example, the re- port of the Privy Council said, the best form of government for the colonies would be that which gave them a double chamber; and the colonists themselves, in all their petitions and memorials, had asked for the same. Why, then, had it been altered? By whom, and when, had any declarations been made on the part of the colonies that they preferred a single to a double chamber? On what authority was it alleged that they desired a form of government different from that of the mother country? It would be urged, perhaps, that the alterations had been made in order to meet the wishes of the colonies. He could not admit that argument, because all the colonies desired a form of government similar to our own. The Government, however, proposed to make alterations which they did not ask for, but refused to make alterations that they requested. He was at a loss, under these circumstances, to discover the sincerity of their intentions; and he protested against any such measure being considered likely to cement the affections and feelings of the colonies to the mother country, or as being supposed to contain that form of government which the colonies most desired to possess. He asked the Government again whether they had not seen in the newspaper which was affirmed to be of authority, and which they quoted when it suited their purpose, memorials in favour of a double chamber, and reasons why the colonies ought to have local self-government, as far as regarded the control of the land fund? But he would come to the immediate questions involved in the Amendments they were called upon to consider. One of the purposes of the Bill was to separate the colony of Port Philip from New South Wales; and there was also a power to separate the northern from the middle portion of that colony. The effect of this power would probably be that More-ton Bay would be erected into a separate colony. Besides this, another Amendment was to diminish the franchise one-half; so that whilst the boundaries of the colonies were curtailed, the franchise was extended. The consequence would be that the neighbourhood of Sydney, where the largest portion of what was called the convict population resided, would have a preponderating influence—an influence so great that, instead of a constitution similar to that of our own being provided, it was probable that it would assume a decidedly democratic character. He did not object to the extension of the franchise; but its effect ought to have been counteracted by another deliberative assembly in the colony of New South Wales; and he bade the Government be aware lest by thus splitting up the colony into sections, lowering the franchise, and confining the legislative body to a single chamber, they should give an undue and dangerous influence to the convict population, weakening the bond with this country, and injuring the pastoral interest in the colonies. Another great alteration which they had to consider was that which he had already alluded to—the absence of the provisions for confederation. The Federative Assembly, which was professedly created to have the power of controlling the land funds, had been struck out; and the Government had determined to retain that control to themselves, in spite of the wishes of the colonists. The effect of their retention of this power would be to perpetuate the high price of land—a result which would materially affect the progress of the colonies. It had already operated to divert the tide of emigration towards the United States, and to deprive the mother country of the benefit of its colonies as a vent for its surplus population. Between 1831 and 1847, no fewer than 70 different regulations respecting the sale of land had been made in New South Wales, each successive change being for the worse. The falling-off in the land sales from 316,606l. in 1840, to 7,402l. in 1844, showed the impossibility of maintaining the high upset price of 1l. per acre. The number of emigrants to the United States, where the upset price of land was 5s. 6d. per acre, had risen from 40,000 in 1840, to 140,000 in 1847, and to 219,000 in 1849—a number equal to the whole Australian population; while the emigrants to New South Wales, where the upset price was 1s. per aero, had fallen from 15,000 to an average of 1,100 a year. Earl Grey boasted that a high price of laud had promoted emigration; whereas the fact was, that from the proceeds of the sales of country lands in New South Wales, only 8,000 persons had been conveyed there since the price of land had been raised from 12s. to 20s. an acre; but immense numbers had resorted to the United States. In fact, emigration to America had increased in exactly the same ratio as emigration to Australia had decreased; whilst the population, instead of being concentrated, was so dispersed that they were beyond control and authority. The foundation of immoral habits was thus laid. Another objection which he enter- tained to the Bill was, that it gave a power to change the boundaries of the colony after six months' notice. How was a colony which it was intended to divide, to object within six months, when four months at least would expire before the notice could reach this country, so that eight months was necessary for the news to return? He further objected to the Bill, because it gave power to the Governor to alter salaries of his own accord; so that if a Judge happened to give a decision adverse to the wishes of the Governor, he would be liable to be mulcted for it in the shape of a reduction of salary. He put it to the House whether such a power as this was constitutional, or at all in unison with the usual mode of dealing with the Australian or any other colonies. The independence of the Judges would undoubtedly be destroyed if it were suffered to exist. Such were some of the objections be felt to the passing of the measure—a measure which he could not allow to proceed without calling attention to the fact, that if the Government were right in the first place in declaring they would act in conformity with the wishes of the colonies, they were certainly wrong in coming to the opposite conclusion, of acting adversely to their wishes. If they were right in determining to give the colonies a constitution similar to the British constitution, they were clearly wrong in giving them a government different to the British constitution. In conclusion, he could not assent to a Bill containing provisions adverse to the feelings of the colonies, and not calculated to cement those bonds of attachment which ought always to exist between them and the mother country.

could not agree with the hon. Member in his observations respecting the land fund, for his arguments to induce the Government to forego their claim to its control were utterly untenable. The mother country was at great expense in various ways upon account of the colonies, and it was utterly impossible for her to surrender all claim to the whole territory to the present inhabitants. Such a policy would not be acting justly towards future settlers. He approved of the Bill as a whole, but he felt some objection to several parts of it. He was opposed, for instance, to the appointment of a Church Establishment in the colonies; and he thought they would go on very well in religion as well as morals without the presence of an episcopate. At present he hardly ever heard of the settlement of a few hundred persons in any part of our possessions, but a bishop was to be appointed and sent out. In this ease, however, he hoped the ecclesiastical establishments would not be increased as the colonies increased, so that there might be no established churches there, similar in proportion to the Established Church of the mother country. The hon. Member for Berwickshire and the "happy family" of would-be colonial legislators, contended for a constitution similar to that of the British Government; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had proposed, if not a peerage, certainly a life peerage, with some important privileges, for the bishops. He was very glad that not a tittle of encouragement was given in the Bill to these views of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the existence of two chambers, for which the hon. Member for Berwickshire contended, his (Sir De L. Evans) own opinion was in favour of it theoretically; and when the proposition was made, he voted for it on general rather than on special grounds. But as he continued to hear the question discussed, and to read the documents which came from the colonies, he doubted the propriety of that vote. He doubted whether, at present, there were elements for another chamber; and, therefore, when the question was debated at a subsequent period, he abstained from voting. Taken altogether, the Bill was a fair and liberal measure. Not only was it beneficial to the colonies in many respects, but it contained a direct invitation to them to propose whatever alterations or modifications in their form of government they might deem proper. It might be said they had not the power to carry such alterations or modifications into effect, which they might have had. He admitted that. He wished further that there had been less of nomineeship. One-third was perhaps too much for the Government to possess; but he did not find that the colonists were prepared, at present, to alter the proportion. On the whole he ventured to think that the Government had acted rightly in not prematurely disposing of the question, hut in leaving the colonies themselves to consider any future modifications and alterations in their constitution.

was not, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire, at a loss to form an opinion whether the Government intended to persevere or not with the Bill this Session. In the present state of the House they could carry almost anything; and he could not doubt that they intended to carry this Bill; but, he-fore proceeding any further, they ought to disclose their views as to which of the Lords' Amendments they intended to reject, and which to adopt. The Bill was one of very great importance. [Lord J. RUSSELL: The question now is, whether the Amendments shall be considered.] The how. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster, however, had scarcely alluded to the Amendments made in it by the other House. For his own part, he considered the majority of them rather improvements; though some of them completely diverged from the principles adopted by the House, and laid down by Her Majesty's Ministers. The first important Amendment was a very large omission. All the clauses by which a Federative Assembly was proposed to be established had been struck out. To this omission he had no objection. The fact of their omission, however, showed the difficulty of legislating for the Australian colonies; for although they had been carried in that House by a majority of six to one, the House of Lords cut them out; and at present the Government had not stated whether they intended to insist upon them or not. In striking them out, then, he feared they were exhibiting to the colonies a spectacle of how little attention was paid to the subject which interested them. The next Amendment introduced by the Lords was one which he had vainly attempted to press upon the House. It was the introduction of something like a franchise to what was called the squatting interest; and the Lords' Amendment in this respect had substantially carried his proposition into effect. The next alterations made by the Lords were much more important, and they were objectionable because they would restrict the functions of colonial legislation, and continue powers to the Colonial Office which ought to be abandoned without delay. Another Amendment of the Lords was the omission of certain words in the sixth page of the Bill, enabling the Colonial Legislature to extend the franchise, without leaving an equal power in the 32nd elause. They had also introduced a new clause—the 35th—stating what it was lawful for the Colonial Legislature to do; but there was nothing respecting the extension of the franchise in that clause; which led him to suppose that there would he considerable trouble on this point in the future. [Mr. HAWES: The 32nd clause; settled that point.] The important alteration, however, in his opinion, was the omission of certain words in the 32nd clause, which, in his view of the case, went to limit the powers of the council to vary the power of the colonial constitution. This ought to be restored to the Bill for the sake of keeping faith with the colonies. As this was the last opportunity he should have of speaking on this Bill, he could not but express his regret that it had not been made more liberal and extensive. He should move that they disagree with the Lords' Amendments relative to the constitution of the Legislative Councils.

I should have stated, Sir, in the first instance, what is the purport of the Lords' Amendments, and what the Government propose to do upon them, if the hon. Member for Berwickshire had waited until we came to the first of them. But I must add, in answer to an observation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, that some days ago, in reply to a question, I stated that the Government would propose to agree to the Amendments made by the Lords, so that the House is not ignorant of the course we proposed to take. Like my right hon. Friend, I think it far more convenient to deal with these Amendments as they are, than to go into other considerations as to the views of the Government in the early part of the Session, or the debates which took place upon those views admit that the greatest change made in the Bill by the Lords is the omission of the clauses with regard to the federative assembly. It will be recollected that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and other Members of the Government, repeatedly stated that they thought it desirable to show that we were willing to allow the colonies to meet together for legislative purposes, by a body legally constituted for that purpose, but that we did not expect that for some years any such power would be called into action. When the clauses proposed for that purpose came under consideration, it was stated in this House that the smaller colonies would be overpowered by the great influence of the colony which was the most populous and the most powerful, namely, New South Wales. We endeavoured to meet that objection by giving greater power to each separate colony, and by diminishing the proportion which the Members would bear to the population of each colony in the federative assembly. However, upon further discussion of this question, my noble Friend was of opinion that, as the colonies stand, that provision might give means to the most powerful and the most populous colony to take funds, derived from all the colonies, for purposes which would be advantageous more especially to the colony which was the most powerful of the whole. He was of opinion this defect was such, that when the question was argued he was not prepared with any provision that would have completely obviated the inconvenience. Seeing, then, that it was a part of the measure which was not expected to come into immediate operation, he thought it better to omit the clauses altogether, rather than insist upon their being carried with this acknowledged and avowed defect. I think my noble Friend took an expedient course upon that occasion. I think, at the same time, we have shown to the House of Commons that we should be quite willing, if a Federative Assembly should be thought generally advantageous to the colonies, to entertain that question; that we have no insuperable objections to it; and that although we have not been able to frame clauses entirely satisfactory at the present time, if in future they are asked for by the colonies, we should endeavour to frame some provisions which would guard the smaller colonies, and at the same time provide for the requirements of the greater. We propose, therefore, to agree to this Amendment of the Lords, and omit these clauses—clauses which were conceived to be useful and valuable for future operations, but which were not part of the advantages to be obtained by this Bill. Another point in the Amendments made by the Lords is the admission of certain classes of voters, known under the denomination of "squatters"—persons who in general are very wealthy. Whether the provision to this effect has been framed in such a manner as to meet assent in, and to give satisfaction to, the colonies, I am certainly not able to say; but I think it is expedient to show that we are willing to concur in provisions which shall enable these persons—persons of property and respectability— to have a vote in the election of Members of the Legislature. With this proposal the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham naturally concurs, because he originally suggested it in this House. But then there was another proposal which I admit to be one of very great importance. We stated in this House that one of the main objects of this Bill was to give the legislatures in the colonies greater power to alter their own constitution than they now enjoy. I say this was one of the main benefits of the Bill; but I consider that one of the main objects of the Bill was to give to several colonies which had no representative institutions at all, representative institutions similar to those of New South Wales. At the present moment those colonies are governed entirely under the authority of the Crown by persons nominated by the Crown; but by this Bill we introduce into those colonies—four colonies I think—in which they have been hitherto unknown, representative institutions. That advantage remains in the Bill so far untouched by the Amendments of the Lords. With regard to the next question, the House will remember there were very great discussions whether or not we should constitute two chambers, or whether we should be contented at present to leave the constitution of the colonies as fixed by the Act of 1842, introduced by Lord Stanley, or whether we should give them power to make alterations in their constitutions. This House was of opinion the last course was the most desirable—that, however desirable two chambers might be, in our present state of information we are not justified in introducing two chambers without further information, and without more knowledge of the feelings and wishes of the colonies. As the Bill at present stands, with regard to several of the subjects which were intended to he matters of legislation in the colonies, though some alterations have been made, the measure stands in fact and substance as it was sent to the House of Lords. The House of Lords have, as the hon. Member for Berwickshire says, reduced by one-half the amount of the franchise; but they have likewise left to the colonies the power of altering the qualification of the electors and the elected. They have therefore a power left of altering the constituent body. They have likewise left to the colonies the power of dividing the legislative body into two chambers, and of appointing the mode in which those two chambers shall be con- stituted. But there is a change which it appears to have been contemplated might be proposed by the Legislative Councils; for the words "the power to vary in any manner the constitution of the colonies" are excluded by the alterations that have been made in the Bill. I do not think it would, under this alteration, be in the power of the Legislative Council to pass an Act by which the whole body of the single chamber should be elected, and no one member of it be nominated by the Crown. I do not think it would be in their power to alter the present propositions, unless some further legislation by the Imperial Parliament took place. They may, however, alter the qualifications of electors; and although they may divide the present Legislative Council into two chambers, they would not have the power of saying that the nominees of the Crown—whether official or non-official—should be altogether excluded. Upon that subject I should have been disposed to say, if such an alteration had been proposed by the Legislative Council in New South Wales, that, although it was a matter for their discussion and deliberation, I felt very great objections to such an alteration. I should have doubted whether it would be expedient in the Crown to give any assent to such a proposition; I therefore feel the less objection to the alteration that has been proposed; the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the University of Oxford, being, I think, in favour of the two chambers, wishing at the same time there should he in the second chamber, not nomination entirely nor election entirely, but a mixed body, composed partly of elected members and partly of members nominated by the Crown under certain conditions and limitations. But I imagine, though it would be competent according to the words of the 32nd clause for the Legislative Council to propose that it should hereafter be divided into two bodies, and that they would divide the future legislature of Now South Wales, or any of the other colonies, they are restricted only in the respect I have mentioned. Though this is a very considerable alteration in the Bill, I am not disposed to refuse my concurrence in the Amendment as made by the Lords. I certainly think there were defects in leaving the whole subject to the Legislative Council; but if there is anything on which we ought to place a restriction, I think it is on the power of altering the Legislative Council into the only legislative body, that legislature to be solely elective. I therefore concur in the general policy of the Amendments made in this Bill by the Lords. I consider the Bill will be a great benefit to the Australian colonies; and I do not think the observations of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, although they show he has paid great attention to the subject, will tend to diminish the satisfaction with which a Bill of this kind, in the shape of an Act of Parliament, will be received in our Australian possessions. For these reasons I propose that this House agree to the Lords' Amendments.

said, he should endeavour to follow the example of the noble Lord at the head of the Government by confining his attention to the Lords' Amendments upon this measure; but he must, in a single sentence, allude to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, because a great part of it had been occupied with references to himself. He would not say that the hon. and gallant Member's speech had been misplaced; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been so occupied with the cares and labours of the Session that he had not had time to peruse either one of the print of the Bill, or any of the Amendments placed upon the Votes, or to attend to one of the debates, or, lastly, to read any of the Amendments introduced during those debates. With regard to the personal allusions the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made, and the description he had given of various proposals which he alleged he (Mr. Gladstone) had made, and various other proposals which he had not made, instead of going through the series of statements made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman one by one, he begged him, wherever he had set down an affirmative, to make it a negative, and wherever he had mentioned a negative, to make it an affirmative, for then his statements would be as nearly correct as possible. There were three Amendments made by the Lords upon which he thought it necessary to make a few remarks. With regard to the two first, the omission of the federative clauses, and the alteration of the franchise in New South Wales, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord. It was quite plain, although the federative clauses formed an important portion of the Bill sent out to Australia in 1849, they did not form an acceptable portion. So far, therefore, as the colonies were concerned, the House was free to part with them without involv- ing themselves in embarrassment; whilst, so far as concerned the merits, however desirable a general assembly of the colonies might be in given circumstances of juxtaposition and community of interest, he thought, with the noble Lord, though for more permanent reasons, those clauses were out of place. As to the franchise, it would not become him to cavil at the amendments made in this respect, because he had strenuously urged that a Bill giving a permanent constitution to the Australian colonies ought to contain just such provisions. But he had been much struck by what had fallen from the noble Lord; for the noble Lord had admitted that they had in a great degree been legislating in the dark. Whilst they had been altering the franchise upon principles which were generally sound, the noble Lord confessed they had been doing so without adequate information. This circumstance led him to doubt whether they might not have lost time, and omitted opportunities, which would have enabled them to permanently legislate in a satisfactory manner; and it confirmed his impression that Parliament had not before it means of information to enable it to arrive at satisfactory conclusions. The Bill before the House was not, in his mind, satisfactory in its principle. He admitted the perfect purity of the noble Lord's intentions, and that, in various respects, the measure conferred material boons upon the colonies. No doubt it was a matter of crying necessity that the separation of Port Philip from New South Wales should be accomplished; no doubt it was a great advantage, though, perhaps, not a matter of crying necessity, that during the present year representative institutions should be conferred upon South Australia and Van Diemen's Land. But if they were reduced to the dilemma of either taking an imperfect and a bad measure this year, or of incurring the risks of postponement, the House would have done wisely to take the alternative of postponement, for the sake of securing a satisfactory measure. The point upon which the measure was unsatisfactory to his mind was brought out in the third Amendment of the Lords—that which took away from the legislative councils the power to alter the proportions between the nominated and the elected members in the composition of those councils. That Amendment went to the very root of all the dissent upon the Bill, and upon the principles involved in it. There were two arguments by which the Bill had been justified. The question of abstract excellence had been thrown overboard. The House had been told, not without truth, that the most important question for Parliament to consider was not in all cases what was abstractedly best, but that which was best suited to the particular community, as proved and indicated by the expressed wishes of that community. So it had been said in this case. The Bill had been sent out to the colonies, and it had received the approval of the colonial community; but then the colonial community had power to alter it in any sense they thought fit. That argument was now cut away. The power of altering the constitution, and of affecting the balance of power as fixed by the Bill between the Crown and the popular clement, was altogether taken away. True, the power was left of constituting a double chamber; but that was by far the most unlikely power to be used, for the Government had forgotten, throughout all these discussions, that, of all the changes a single chamber was likely to make, the last would be that of resolving itself into a double chamber, because it would cut directly at the personal vanity and the sense of self-importance and pride of the members. Unless he was much mistaken, what had recently occurred in Canada was a case in point. According to the accounts in the public journals, the Canadian Assembly had had before them a question whether they should address the Crown to pray that Parliament should pass an Act for giving an elective constitution. The Legislative Council refused to pass the Motion; they preferred the nominated to the elected council. Why? Because they knew perfectly well that a nominated council was a plaything and a delusion; that it had been found necessary, upon great changes of opinion, to swamp the council; that if there should be another change it would be swamped again; and that, by a series of successive swampings, it would gain in numbers more than it would gain in dignity. He quoted this to show, that where you had one popular body to administer the affairs of the country, it was most unlikely that that popular body would consent to set up another popular body by its side. What was wanted in New South Wales was to have two popular bodies; and he had always said, "If you have information enough to justify you in passing this, pass it; but, if not, postpone it." With regard to ap- pointments for life, he had stated his desire that the basis of the legislative council, as well as the legislative assembly, should be an elective basis, and that he should resist anything which would Interfere with the substantially elective character of the council. He was in hopes, however, that the prerogative of reward vested in the Crown might have been retained under greater restraint; but whether that were so or not, he would do nothing to hazard the elective basis of the legislative council, because on that depended its strength and utility. But in what shape were they now going to send the Bill to the colonies? They were about to send it without the power of altering the legislative organ in its composition. They wore about to say, "You shall have twelve nominated members, and twenty-four elected members; you may alter the aggregate number of members of the council, but not the proportions." The proportions were to be sacred, and not departed from. Here the false principle was introduced of hoping to check democracy in Now South Wales by influences from home. He wished to check democracy in New South Wales; hut he wished to see it checked by stable institutions springing from the soil, rather than by influences from the Crown, and enactments from Downing-street, which only tended to give a more wildly-democratic character to the feelings of the people, and to weaken the ties which should bind the colonial community to the mother country. He could not help remarking, at the same time, that this Amendment of the House of Lords amounted very nearly to a breach of faith with the colony of New South Wales, because the power of altering the constitution was really the one thing in the Bill which induced the qualified sentiments of approval on the part of the colony, upon which the Government had been all along relying. He was, therefore, afraid that when the Bill went back mutilated in this important particular, they would be met with outcries of "You have sent us a Bill which is essentially different from that which, by your pleading or approval, passed the House of Commons, but which was altered by the House of Lords." It was plain, he thought, that the very first thing the popular party would wish to do, would be to oust or reduce the number of the nominated members. But they had been stopped in that respect. The Bill, therefore, would be unsatisfactory. For these reasons, he must record his protest against the Bill, because they ought to have sent to New South Wales no constitutional measure for the purpose of reforming their institutions; except such as would be final. It was impossible that this Bill could be final. It was not possible that New South Wales; could rest content with such a measure; because, whilst her power had been apparently increased, an exhibition of jealousy was made in an invidious and offensive form, which said to the popular principle, "Thus far you shall advance upon: your way, but no further; and we will take the responsibility of hemming you in and stopping your progress."He protested altogether against such an attempt to impose restraints upon the popular principle by the legislation of that House, after once having determined to give free institutions. In these essential points the Bill was defective. It maintained the control of the Crown over the local legislation of; the colony, introducing into its legislation a feeling of uncertainty and uneasiness; it took away the great gift of liberty, which: was the argument that carried the Bill through that House; and, lastly, it entirely withheld from the colonies the administration of the public lands, to which, if they had a tolerable constitution, they were entitled. Under these circumstances, thinking that no advantage would arise I from taking the sense of the House upon these Amendments, he must record his last earnest protest against the passing of the measure.

in explanation said, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly proposed to establish something like the commencement of a Peerage in the colonies. He was also disposed to create ecclesiastical privileges. But the right hon. Gentleman had denied these allegations, and charged him with ignorance. He begged to remind the House that on the 12th March last—["Order, order!"]

said, the hon. and gallant Member was entitled to explain anything that had been misunderstood, but not to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford.

said, it was useless to divide the House upon the Bill; but he held it to he his duty to enter his most solemn and earnest protest against it. He charged the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department with great want of discretion in the management of the measure. The House had just learned that they had been acting upon imperfect information. If perfect information had been requisite, it might have been obtained; but the truth was, the noble Lord was so determined to have only his own plan, and nobody's else, that he would never listen either to suggestions from the colonies themselves or from this country. The noble Lord had got himself, with regard to at least one important provision in the Bill, into considerable difficulty. The House was not without experience in this matter. If there was one point upon which they had had peculiar experience, it was with regard to the formation of a federal assembly. But the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary was determined to have one council, and one council alone. He was told over and over again, that if he adopted that plan it would be impossible to make a fair and honest federal assembly. The noble Lord at the head of the Government acknowledged this; for he said that, do what they might, New South Wales must predominate in the federal assembly. But the Colonial Secretary, though he was told this over and over again, that there was experience in the matter to which no sane man could shut his eyes, and that there was a simple plan by which he might check that great power without difficulty, would not see. What was the plan? Simply to have two chambers: one representing the population of the colony, and the other representing the colonies themselves. This was the plan of the United States; and the noble Earl had no right to shut his eyes to that, for it was a plan hit upon by the master minds which governed the American Revolution. It was a plan which the world would hereafter follow whenever there were institutions to be formed; and why the noble Earl, through some strange freak, should not have followed it, he could not conceive. Here, however, was a lame, limping measure instead—a measure which did not, and could not, effect its object. The noble Earl was going to give a federal assembly, which would have made one colony rule over a vast continent. The noble Earl and his colleagues shut their eyes to its evils; they would not listen to anybody or anything in opposition. But they had listened to the House of Lords, because the House of Lords had struck out the provision. Why? Because it was unjust towards all the other colonies. This was the first and foremost charge he had to make against the Government. He referred them to the example of California. There was a congregation of most heterogeneous materials—men from every clime, speaking every language. They had, however, framed a constitution for themselves which, when compared with this miserable specimen of legislative wisdom, ought to shame every person who sat in the Parliament of England. There they had taken advantage of all the great principles which we were bound to regard in the government of our colonies. They had framed provisions of the largest and most generous nature for the education of the people; they had laid down rules so clear and so simple for the fair representation of every class of the population, that there could be no doubt of their justice, of their policy, or of their easy working. Yet we, with the largest colonial empire in the world, and the largest experience of any nation upon the earth, when called upon to frame a charter for a great portion of our colonial territories which hereafter would contain free men, framed a Bill which would absolutely disgrace any set of men who had never heard of a parliament at all. There was no certainty in it, and by it we had sown the seeds of discontent. The rapid improvement of these colonies mainly depended upon the administration of the lands; but the Bill left that matter in a state so confused and utterly unsatisfactory that they must soon come to Parliament again for a remedy. The Bill had been passed through the House of Commons, and it had been brought back with that pretence struck out; and it was to be sent to the colonies after they had been promised by the noble Lord, over and over again, a measure which would enable them to make their own institutions. He condemned the principle of nomineeship. The legislature so composed would not represent the colony, but they would have the government of the Government. On this ground, if there was no other, he should oppose the measure. He denied that it would please the colonists; and he only hoped, when it arrived out, it would create such general discontent, that Parliament would be obliged to reconsider the whole question. When he heard an ex-Secretary of the Colonies saying that he had learned from his experience that the true constitution for these colonies was to have two chambers both elective, the House should consider whether or not so unwilling a conclusion was not the most marked and disinterested evidence to prove the wisdom of the principles laid down when the American constitution was founded. It was all very well to say our colonies should be governed by British institutions. The colonists could not rely upon us; and they had no materials for an aristocracy. If, then, we could not make an aristocracy, we were bound to put a check on hasty legislation by the arrangement of a second chamber under circumstances different from the more democratic body, and calculated to ensure greater stability. The noble Earl the Colonial Secretary had thrown all these principles aside, and the Government had no opinion of its own. Under present circumstances, the House of Commons was obliged to bow to them. All he could do was to protest; and having protested, he had, so far as he was concerned, done his duty.

objected to the new clause which had been sent from the House of Lords relative to ticket-of-leave holders. He thought that and the subsequent clause ought not to be passed without a protest. There was already a too strong convict class in the colonies, and these new clauses would make that class still stronger by the infusion of a more degraded class of convicts. The present Bill was Earl Grey's Bill—it was not the noble Lord's Bill—that Bill had been superseded by the Amendments of the House of Lords, which the House of Commons were now required to agree to. Those Amendments he objected to, and protested against. The Bill was not suited to the wants of the colonies, and would not relieve the colonists from their representative difficulties. The Bill was a contemptible Bill, and rather than agree to it as a final measure, he hoped the House would reject it. He wished the noble Lord, who had already changed his opinions so many times, to take a week's time to consider whether he would not resist the insidious alterations made by the House of Lords.

said, the question was, whether this Bill gave or took away any privileges from the colonists. He believed that it gave many of them privileges which they had never before possessed. Taking into consideration the moral and social condition of the colonies, he thought the Bill was a good Bill, and that it had been rendered rather more practical than otherwise by the Amendments of the Lords. He considered that the measure would be very acceptable to the colonists, and he would give it his cordial support, being anxious that they should be kept no longer in suspense as to what were the intentions of the Legislature.

said, that a person named Somerville, better known as the "Whistler at the Plough," who had been discharged from the Army, had recently published a circular addressed to the Manchester school, in which he stated that he had been involved in great expenses in his exertions to put down the Land Company scheme; that he had been in daily attendance upon the Committee of the House upon that subject; and that he had received 10l. for procuring information for the private use of the Chairman of the Committee on the Land Company. He now wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the 10l. thus paid for procuring information was paid out of his own pocket, or the secret service money. He wished to know whether the statement of this great man was true or false—whether Mr. "Whistler at the Plough" had been paid for getting up information against him?

said, the hon. Gentleman had not thought proper to give him any notice of the question—[Mr. O'CONNOR: I only heard of the matter this morning]—but it happened that the facts were perfectly fresh in his recollection. The hon. Member for Nottingham had endeavoured to throw discredit upon the person to whom he referred, and who, he (Mr. Hayter) believed, was quite as respectable as the hon. Member himself; but the statements he had made with regard to that person were not borne out by the circumstances of the case. The hon. Gentleman, with a view to throw discredit upon Mr. Somerville, who, he (Mr. Hayter) believed, was a very respectable person, had stated that he had been dismissed from the Army. The facts connected with the case were known to almost every Member of that House, and it was well known that Mr. Somerville was not dismissed, but that he was permitted to purchase his discharge, and obtained his discharge in consequence of that permission. At the time when he (Mr. Hayter) had what he must always consider the misfortune of being Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into the affairs of that company, which had obtained so unenviable a notoriety, and in which the hon. Member for Nottingham had so large a share, a person named Somerville, whom he had never seen before, was recommended to him as a person capable of giving very important information with regard to the matters which would come before the Committee. He made inquiries of some hon. Members as to the character of that person, and found that he was a man of intelligence and good conduct. The statements he received from that person were, unfortunately, not very material; but he certainly endeavoured, as far as he could, to acquaint him (Mr. Hayter) with some of the circumstances which were afterwards disclosed in evidence before the Committee, and a considerable portion of his time was occupied with reference to these communications. He (Mr. Hayter) thought it right, therefore, that a person who had been so employed, and who was so ill able to dispense with remuneration, should be remunerated, and he accordingly made him such a compensation for his lost time as he thought suitable, not, as the hon. Member had insinuated, from any public funds, but out of his own pocket, and with his own money.

hoped he might be allowed to state, in justice to the person who had been named, that he (Mr. Hume) and several other gentlemen collected a sum of money to purchase his discharge, under circumstances which attracted great attention at the time, and which were honourable to that individual, who had got into a scrape in his regiment, and had been subjected to punishment. Every act of that individual—["Order, order!"] When an attack was made on an absent individual, the House, he believed, generally allowed an explanation to be made; and he had only to say that every act of the person referred to, since he had been discharged from the Army, had been highly to his credit, and had met the approbation of his friends.

begged to ask the noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he would have any objection to state the nature and the amount of the disputed claims made upon the Government of Tuscany for injuries sustained by British merchants at Leghorn?

replied, that the claims made upon the Government of Tuscany arose out of these circumstances:—When there was a revolt at Leghorn, the town was taken by storm by an Austrian corps, acting as auxiliaries of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. After the town had been taken, and when resistance was over, some of these Austrian troops plundered the houses of certain British subjects. Among others, the house of a Mr. Hall, was forcibly entered by a detachment, headed by an officer, which remained in the house for several hours, brought into the house the wives of the soldiers, broke open and plundered everything, from the cellar to tire garret, destroyed what they did not take away, carried away many of the things in the house, selling them to people at the gate, which was not far off, and returning afterwards to take away other cargoes. This was done at the houses of Mr. Hall, of a widow lady, and of other persons, each of those houses having, as a matter of precaution, been marked visibly on the outside door as the residences of British subjects, under the protection of the British Consul. It was for these losses that, upon legal advice, compensation had been demanded. The amount originally claimed had been very much reduced, in consequence of communications which had taken place between Her Majesty's officers in Italy and the claimants, and the total sum now claimed was about 1,530l. Communications were now being carried on upon this subject with the Government of Tuscany, and he hoped they would see the justice of the claim.

wished to make a short explanatory statement. In a recent debate he had animadverted upon the conduct at the Bristol riots of a regiment of yeomanry, which he was made in the reports, by an error no doubt, to describe as the West Somerset; whereas, in fact, he had meant the North Somerset Regiment. Now, in the Times of to-day there appeared upon this subject a most abusive and blackguard letter reflecting upon him.

rose to order. He apprehended that the epithet just used was unparliamentary.

Well, at all events, the letter was most offensive. It was as follows:—

"Sir—Lately there appeared in your columns the 'lie official;' now I must as plainly give the lie direct to Mr. Berkeley's statement respecting the bad conduct of the West Somerset Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry in any case where the members thereof have been called upon to aid the civil power. Had he taken the trouble to refer to the statement of the Lord Lieutenant (Portman) and Sir George Grey in 1847, during the time of the bread riots in this county, he certainly would not have had the unblushing impudence so to have misrepresented facts.

"One thing is certainly established, that the imaginative powers of the hon. Gentleman (having, as in the recent debate, a total disregard for truth) are of that order which generally tends in the long run to bring odium on the originator, rather than injury to the parties to whom he re ferred. With regard to the Bristol riots, his statement of the conduct of this regiment is a pure fiction, as not a single member on that occasion received marching orders.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

"JOHN CHAPPIE."

In reply lie had only to say, that he had never mentioned the West Somerset Yeomanry at all. He was advised that the letter was a decided breach of the privileges of the House; but as he found he could only call the editor of the Times, and not the writer of the letter, to the bar, he would take no steps in that direction, but would merely observe that after the explanation which he had given, the writer of the letter would—if a man of proper feeling—be sorry for the expressions which he had used. If he were not so, then he was a low ruffian, whom lie would only I condescend to treat with contempt.

having held a commission in the West Somerset Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry for some years, wished to say a few words. From the reports which were given in some of the public newspapers, the yeomanry considered that the hon. Member for Bristol had made statements impugning the alacrity with which they had assembled when called out in aid of the civil power. In justice to the West Somerset Yeomanry, he ought to say that when he held a commission in that regiment they were twice called out in aid of the civil power, and on both occasions received the thanks of the Lord Lieutenant, who called them out for the promptitude with which they obeyed the call, arid the assistance which they rendered to the civil authorities on those occasions.

wished to give notice of his intentions with respect to some papers recently laid upon the table of the House referring to the proceedings of the Hudson's Bay Company. The House would recollect that an address had been already laid before the Crown, calling upon Her Majesty to take measures for discovering the legality or illegality of the rights claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company over the vast territories possessed by them. Papers had been presented a few clays ago to the House, by which it appeared that the course taken by the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies in the matter had been this: He had called upon the Hudson's Bay Company to state their case; that case he submitted to the law officers of the Crown, and having received their opinion on the case—that was to say, the case of the Hudson's Bay Company, drawn up by itself and for itself—the noble Earl had despatched a letter to a young gentleman who had recently arrived from America in this country for the purpose of his education, and who was without any other means than those actually requisite for his own support—to inform him that he might, if lie thought fit, prosecute a petition against the Hudson's Bay Company at his own proper costs and charges. On the young gentleman's declaring that he could undertake no such task, the matter, if he (Mr. Gladstone) might judge from the papers, appeared to have fallen to the ground. On the presumption, then, that the proceeding had thus terminated, he wished to give notice that—if he were correct in his supposition—believing in that case that the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary had most grossly neglected his duty—he should, at the earliest possible period next Session, call the attention of the House to the whole proceeding. He might add, that he was only precluded from immediately proceeding with the matter by the advanced state of the Session, and the difficulty of securing a proper discussion for such a subject.

had not had his attention called to the subject lately. In the last communication he had with his noble Friend the Secretary of State, he said he was taking measures to ascertain the matter with a view to which the address was presented. However, he would communicate with his noble Friend on the matter.

thought that it was the bounden duty of the Government to prevent great companies like the Hudson's Bay Company from tyrannising over and setting at nought the rights of individual subjects.

begged to call the attention of the House to the proceedings of the Railway Commissioners, and the Waterford, Wexford, and Dublin Railway Company. He would therefore move an Amendment for that purpose.

did not think there were any grounds laid for inquiry. The period of the Session was in itself no inconsiderable reason against embarking in such a proceeding; and there appeared other very substantial reasons against the Motion. All that could be heard would be statements and counter-statements, and the House had really no means of forming a judgment. The proposed inquiry into the circumstances of the alleged abstraction of documents from offices connected with that House, would be superfluous, for it had already taken place where it could be taken upon oath, namely, before the House of Lords; and that House, if blame had attached to the officers of the House of Commons, would doubtless have informed this House, that it might proceed to punish them. He could not consent to a Committee, which would imply blame on them, believing that there was not the slightest ground for suspicion as to the manner in which they had performed their duties. As to the abstraction of these documents, a more unfounded suspicion could not exist. As to the statement that the Commissioners of Railways did not enter into the necessary inquiries on this subject, he would tell the House what really had occurred. Mr. Nash, a gentleman connected with the railway, had sent on behalf of a portion of the shareholders a large quantity of documents to the Commissioners, entering largely into some disputes between those shareholders and the directors, and had also frequently requested interviews with the Commissioners. The reply sent by the Commissioners was, that they had nothing to do with those disputes, but that if Mr. Nash would send to them in writing a statement of any point respecting which they ought to interfere, or to which their functions applied, they would immediately grant him an interview. The Commissioners had never received any statement in reply, and they had refused to allow Mr. Nash to drag them into such a discussion, or to force them to express any opinion as to these squabbles and disputes between shareholders and directors. It was not the duty of a public department to interfere in matters which did not concern them, and that was his answer to this allegation against the Railway Commissioners. He must beg the House not to agree to the hon. Baronet's Motion, and he could not think they ought to occupy their time with a question which had been fully considered already by the other branch of the Legislature, and with respect to which they (the House of Lords) had expressed no unfavourable opinion of the officers of that House.

thought, if the right hon. Gentleman and the Railway Board refused to take up this subject, the House of Commons was bound to consider it. Where else were the shareholders to look for redress? [The hon. Gentleman, at some length, went into an analysis of the financial position of the company, and complained of the practices of the directors in their attempt to impede the action of the London deputation of shareholders, by inducing the shareholders to withdraw their proxies, as well as of the extravagance of the directors.] Among the items to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the House, was one for "a white-bait dinner at Greenwich," and for "the expenses of the journey of Sir Thomas Esmonde to London," at the height of the season. They might talk of referring the matter to the Court of Chancery; but it might go on for ever there without being decided, and the expense would be ruinous. It was very extraordi- nary that the person who was responsible for a document which had been abstracted had since absconded. The directors had spent 40,000?. in cutting down two hills at Bray, near Dublin, and had never attempted to get beyond them. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh did not want a Committee of Inquiry to issue now, but merely asked the House to decide that inquiry should be made, and he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would press his Motion to a division.

said, that two bills had been filed in Chancery against the directors, and an injunction had been granted against proceeding with the works. Under these circumstances the House ought not to interfere with the case; for, though the Court of Chancery might be tedious, it was on such a matter likely to be as speedy as a Committee. Besides, a Committee would not have the power of examining a witness on oath; and, without going into the painful question of what had happened in the House of Lords, he might say that the power of examining the prime mover of this business on oath would afford a strong sanction to his evidence. As to cutting down the two hills, it was usual with railways to set to work first where there were the greatest difficulties.

thought the statement of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade very extraordinary, considering the Railway Commission, of which he was at the head, had been specially constituted to entertain such matters. The right hon. Gentleman could have found a much better excuse for refusing inquiry than saying the House of Lords had made no remark on the conduct of officers of the House of Commons.

said, no good could possibly result from the Motion, which might do a great deal of harm, in interfering with a case which was under consideration in a court of law. They had heard grave charges against the directors; but was it likely that a board, of which the Earl of Besborough, the Earl of Coin-town, and Sir Thomas Esmonde, were members, could be parties to such malpractices? He believed Mr. Nash was at the bottom of this Motion, and had made a tool of the hon. and gallant Member.

supported the Motion. The Dublin meetings were unanimous that to proceed with the railway would be ruinous. He had been offered a release from all claims on account of his shares if he would withdraw his proxies from the London deputation.

suggested, that instead of forming the enclosure according to the plan proposed, it might be better to inclose a much wider space, to place the arch in front of it, as well as to form roads connecting both Constitution-hill and the Birdcage-walk with Pall Mall. It was evidently desirable that the Palace should be protected, in the event of crowds or any popular excitement, by a fence placed at a considerable distance from it, perhaps as much as 150 yards.

wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the different items of this vote separately. Would the construction of the railing, as proposed, be such as to involve further expense for the gardens?

had distinctly stated that nothing should be done that would involve the necessity for further expense. The question as to the removal of the marble arch was not yet settled; but supposing it to be possible that the arch could be removed in the manner he had said, it would be attended with a small expense. The vote he now proposed to take would cover the expense of taking it down and putting it up again. If the arch was not removed, that part of the vote of course would not be expended.

suggested, that the marble arch should be taken to Charing Cross, and be placed at an entrance to be made there into the park. Unless they could make some use of it, it appeared to him the best way would be to sell it.

said, he had made inquiries as to what would be the cost of purchasing the property at Charing Cross, if it were desirable to put the arch there, and he found that it would be about 85,000l.

said, a great deal of that was Crown property, and he hoped the leases would not be renewed.

expressed himself of opinion that these votes should all come under one head. 561,000l. had already been raised on land revenues for Buckingham Palace, and why should not this be raised in the same way?

said, he thought his hon. Friend would agree with him that all these expenses should be brought before the House of Commons, and agreed to by them.

said, that the charge of 650l. for commission for designs, superintendence, &c, and 350l. for the salary of the clerk of the works, was very heavy for a work which was to cost only 10,000l.

replied, that he did not know whether the charge would amount to so much, but he had taken sufficient to cover it.

said, this was a very large sum, and he found that there were prospective votes under this head, amounting altogether to 1,283,000l.

should wish a Committee to be appointed on this vote. He advised the House not to vote any part of this money. He took the trouble to go over to Guernsey and Alderney, to look at these harbours. At Alderney he was not for- tunate, for he was a few hours after the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor stayed two or three hours, but he (Mr. Hume) stayed long enough to enable him to see the works at high and low tide; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stood, as he had done, at Catherine's Bay, he must have come to the conclusion that a more useless expense was never incurred. There was a girdle of rocks all round, and it was absurd to expect that a ship, running for refuge into that harbour, was an occurrence which would take place more than once in twenty years. He had moved for some papers on the subject, but they were quite useless. The Tidal Harbour Commissioners had recommended that those matters should be placed under competent authority, and that there should be reports every year. But in this case there was no report except from the contractor. He believed that the money was completely thrown away. They had besides purchased land to the amount of many thousands of pounds, with the view of fortifying the heights against some supposed enemy; whereas they might laugh at all those defences, whether on the right or left of the basin. Had these works been necessary, he should not have quarrelled with the mode in which they had been set about; no doubt the formation of a railway was the most economical plan which they could have adopted. But what did the Government mean to do with those wings of St. Catherine Bay? There were five rocks in the middle; and a single vessel could not swing inside without dragging some of the rocks, unless they were blown up; and then there would only be sufficient depth and space to swing three frigates in. On two occasions a considerable portion of the pier of St. Catherine's Bay had been knocked down; he wished to know to what extent it was intended to repair it.

said, he was sorry he had not had the pleasure of meeting his hon. Friend on the spot. He was mistaken in supposing that the north pier of St. Catherine's Bay had been washed away; it was the north pier at Alderney, the western arm of which had been destroyed by a violent storm. Reports had been made in favour of these works by very eminent engineers, as well as naval and military officers. They had been designed to serve partly as harbours of refuge, and also for steamers at high tide, the services of which might be required for the protection of the island and of trade, and to guard against hostilities, which he hoped, however, would not occur. Several other places had been named, but this site had been selected as the most eligible for the purpose. On the southern arm of St. Catherine's Bay the works would not be continued without the fullest inquiry and due deliberation. It would not be advantageous to stop altogether the works on the northern arm; but they would be proceeded with exceedingly slowly.

wished to know if any fresh authority or reason had been given for prosecuting those works; for it was clear that the Commissioners who had given evidence before the Select Committee on the Navy Estimates were panic struck; and he was sorry that the Duke of Wellington appeared to have lent himself to all these alarms. He could find no authority for the works that had been executed. Not a single individual could be found on the island to sanction the works, or say that they were necessary. He admitted that the northern arm at Alderney might have boon thrown out to screen steamers engaged in watching ships from the opposite coast; but the place would only accommodate two or three. He considered that every shilling-spent in those islands was wasted, and he hoped the expenditure would be brought to a close as soon as possible. It was; painful to see the gold and silver of England shovelled into the sea in such a manner. All that had been done would only afford security for one vessel in the event a war; and the loss would be much smaller were that one vessel taken. Indeed the whole island was not worth the amount that had been expended—300,000l. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take another visit to the spot. He (Mr. Hume) would meet him there with a jury, if he chose, whose verdict would satisfy him that the whole thing was unnecessary, While retrenchment was going on in every department at home, it was most painful to see this lavish expenditure.

said, that whatever sup-port he might have, he should certainly take the sense of the House on this vote. It was useless for him to go into the question of the composition of the Commission, which had been repeatedly discussed; but he contended that the Commissioners did not deserve any grant whatever from that House. Through their negligent appointment of a person as collector who was a connexion of one of the episcopal body, and a man who was not worthy the confidence of the Commissioners—which was a complete body—they had been robbed of 6,000l.; and now the House was called on to grant them upwards of 3,000l. more. When this matter was under discussion before, he had asked about some returns which were ordered on the 2nd or 3rd of May, from the episcopal body, as to the several pieces of preferment which the members of that body held. Two or three days after circulars had been sent from the Home Office to the different bishops; and though three months had elapsed, and the returns might have been made in a fortnight, they had not yet been presented.

said, the returns were yet imperfect, but he proposed to lay before Parliament those which had been received from different quarters, with a statement of the reason why they had not come from other quarters. Several of the bishops stated that they had not the means of compelling returns from the different members of the chapters; and he feared it would be necessary to make an order for the returns on those individual members. As far as those returns had come in, they should be presented before the Session closed; but he begged to say it was not the Ecclesiastical Commission that had to make them.

contended that the expenses of the Commission ought to be paid out of the church property. By voting them out of the public funds, they were paying so much more towards the maintenance of the Church.

said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken on that point. The Church had not objected to continue to manage its property as it had formerly done; but the State had stepped in, and wished a different distribution of church property to be made—that the incomes of the deans and chapters of cathedrals and of various prebends should be differently distributed for the good of the public at large. When the Prime Minister of the time proposed the change, the chief Pre- lates of the Church very naturally said—"If the church property is to be distributed more generally for the benefit of the public, let the expense of making that change be at the charge of the State; otherwise you will take from the Church that which it now possesses, and will apply to the purpose of this change funds which are devoted to the support of those who are connected with the religious instruction of the country." That was a very fair argument; and had the House been satisfied that the church property should be distributed as it had formerly been, they would have heard nothing of that vote. As the State wished for a different distribution of the property, it was necessary to have a Commission and officers for conducting the business. The hon. Baronet the Member for Marylcbone said the Commissioners had appointed a secretary who was unworthy of their confidence; but that was not the act of the present Ecclesiastical Commissioners; the appointment was made in 1834 or 1835, and the present Commission was in no way blameabie for it.

dissented from the doctrine of the noble Lord, that if they, the members of the Church, desired a better distribution of the Church's revenues, Parliament was to pay for it. He contended that the property of the Church belonged to them as members of the community; and it was unjust that the public should be taxed for obtaining a better distribution of that property, and for correcting the great abuses which had existed under the dignitaries of the Church. They desired that, by this commission, abuses should be remedied, and that the property should be made available for the benefit of the community at large who were members of the Church, as well as the bishops themselves; and Parliament ought not to vote any sum towards this expense. He looked upon the bishops merely as members of the same community, as trustees of the national property, in which they had only a life interest. He protested against this vote, whether it was to be an annual one, or only occasional; and he would certainly divide the House against it.

objected to the continuance of the Commission.

wished to know if there was any intention of carrying out the recommendation of the Committee for doing away with the Commission, and transferring its duties to the Board of Trade?

said, that to carry out the recommendations of the Committee would require an Act of Parliament. By an Act of Parliament the powers of the Board of Trade, for the superintendence of railways, were transferred to the Railway Commissioners, and it would require an Act of Parliament to restore those powers to the Board of Trade. He thought the question of economy the very least part of the subject, which involved considerations of a much higher nature. He could only promise, that during the recess the subject should be carefully considered, and in the next Session of Parliament, Government would be prepared to state the course they meant to adopt.

said, he wished to call attention to the system of valuation of land in Ireland. The declared object of the Valuation Act had been to obtain uniformity; and this object was now much more desirable, as the new franchise was founded on a particular valuation. No time ought to be lost in ensuring that that valuation should be uniform. It appeared in evidence before the Poor Law Committee of last Session, that in the western counties particularly, great discrepancies occurred in the proportion which the valuation of one union bore to another. He knew numerous instances where neighbouring unions varied 20, 30, or 40 per cent in their valuation. This must lead to grievous injustice on the county generally.

thought that no public department required a more thorough overhauling than the Board of Works in Ireland. More money had been squandered by the extravagance of that board, on the one hand, and its gross ignorance on the other, than by all the other public departments in Ireland. There was a job in connexion with the office of secretary, who received a salary of 500l. Two years ago a person named Walker filled the office of secretary, and was in the full enjoyment of his health and faculties. It appeared, however, that it was necessary to supersede Mr. Walker to make room for the nephew or son-in-law of the Chief Commissioner, Colonel Jones, whose name was Hornsby. Mr. Walker accordingly was pensioned off upon 370l. per annum, and was now riding on a blood horse in the streets of Dublin. Opposite to Mr. Walker's name was placed, as the ground for his retiring, not "old age, ill health, or imbecility," as was usual, but "adjustment of the office." He (Mr. Reynolds) had sought an explanation of the term "adjustment of the office," and the explanation given him was, that Mr. Hornsby 'was son-in-law to Colonel Jones, and that it was convenient to supersede Walker to I make room for Hornsby. But thereby hung another tale. Walker "kicked up a row," and said he had been sacrificed to the principles of nepotism. He published letters and threatened to make revelations. He said, "If you do not give me something, I will tell something." All at once Mr. Walker became silent, he retired to Sandymount, and he (Mr. Reynolds) got no interpretation of his silence until he saw his name down for this retiring pension. This transaction ought to excite inquiry on the part of the Government. The Commissioners of Public Works each received-a salary of 979l. 19s. 9d., he supposed on! Rory O'More's principle that there was f "luck in odd numbers." What were these Commissioners doing? He would tell them. They were doing nothing. He believed that one man of business would do more than the whole four Commissioners put together.

said, the transaction to which the hon. Member referred occurred two years ago, and he was not prepared to explain it without making inquiry, which he would do immediately.

thought that Mr. Griffith's salary (1,500l.) was not excessive, and that too much rather than too little labour was thrown upon him. A correct and uniform valuation of the whole country was exceedingly necessary.

believed that there never was a public department more overwhelmed with work during the last few years than the Board of Works, which had the charge of the fisheries, the arterial and local drainage, and the public works of Ireland.

maintained that the Board of Works had too many commissioners, and that some of them were very inefficient. A man named Mason, a book- keeper of the Board of Works, had received draughts upon the Bank of Ireland, which it was proved were signed in blank by Colonel Jones. The public were robbed: in consequence, and Mason was convicted. If the board were presided over by a man of business, and not by a military man, one person would be quite sufficient to do the entire work.

complained that the individual who was to superintend the valuation of Ireland had been withdrawn from that duty, and other duties imposed on him, which prevented him from performing the duty of valuation, for which he was so well qualified.

said, he was surprised to hear any one state that the Board of Works in Ireland had but little to do. He believed that no department in the empire had more duties to discharge, or discharged its duties under all the circumstances of the case in a more satisfactory manner. He should observe, with respect to a statement which had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry, that Her Majesty's Ministers were fully sensible of the expediency of completing at the earliest possible moment a uniform valuation in Ireland, and that they would use their best efforts for the accomplishment of that object.

did not doubt that the Board of Works in Ireland had important and multifarious duties to perform, but it was a question for the House whether the board should continue to perform those duties, and whether the public money should be voted for the maintenance of the board. In England such duties were discharged by local bodies, which were enabled to bring to bear on the affairs entrusted to them a much more effective supervision and control than could be exercised by any public office. He was strongly of opinion that it would be greatly for the profit of Ireland if a similar system could be introduced in that country.

said, that the fault lay with the grand juries, who imposed the works alluded to on the Board of Works, which there was nothing to prevent their performing themselves.

had heard with great pleasure the observation of the right hon. Member for Northampton, that in Ireland these matters should be managed in as local a manner as possible. Every Irishman was, he believed, agreed upon that point. A great many things were com- mitted to the Board of Works which they ought not to manage, the fisheries for example. He did not wish to get rid of the Board of Works altogether, but he desired to see a separate board for the fisheries.

asked whether the accounts of the Board of Works with the Treasury had been brought tip nearer than they were two or three years ago, when they were much in arrear, and when it was said in excuse, that the board was so overwhelmed with its duties that it had no time to make up the accounts.

said, the arrear which had accumulated in bringing up the accounts of the Board of Works was as near as possible wiped off.

said, here was a vote for 35,000l. nobody knew for what. Now, he contended that the expenditure of money taken from the pockets of the people ought to be made known. Then it was so remarkable that about the same sum should always be demanded. There was never any balance left from the preceding year to be carried to the current year; but the demand was nearly the same. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to be ashamed of the balance in his hands. He could not conceive what was paid for out of this vote. He had sometimes thought that the white bait dinner might be included in it. He had never been able to make out what Secret Service Money was spent in, and he feared that the Government were ashamed to tell. But until the fact should be known, ugly suspicions would be entertained that it was devoted to very improper purposes. If hon. Members would only back him, he would knock the whole thing overboard. However, as the matter was, he would be contented with knocking down half, and then with the stipulation that the House should see what the money was wanted for; and he had no doubt, if this House would let the Government have only half they asked for, they would be glad enough to come forward and show reasons for wanting more. But he contended it was a most dangerous practice to throw money about loose after this fashion. He should now propose a Motion, if hon. Members would support him. He would first try to reduce the grant of the whole sum to 25,000l.

said, there might have been a time when Secret Service Money was required, but since the war he did not see what necessity there was for it. When he first objected to this vote, he satisfied himself that a large proportion of the money was given in pensions to individuals who came from other places and in a variety of ways which it was not possible to prevent. But he should have expected that the incumbrances would fall off. It was true there was a reduction in the vote this year from 39,000l. to 35,000l.; but that was not enough, and he should like to know on what principle the reduction took place. He believed that five-sixths of the whole went to the Foreign Office. If the money was spent, it should be spent aboveboard. All attempts at bribery were improper. Besides this vote of 35,000l. there was 10,000l. charged on the Civil List, which made the whole Secret Service Money 45,000l. He should have no objection to do away with the vote altogether; but as he believed there were incumbrances upon it, he would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member to get at its extinction gradually, and to move that the vote be reduced by 10,000l. this year.

said, that no grant ought to be viewed with more jealousy by the representatives of the people than this grant of Secret Service Money.

called on some Member of the Government to give information to the Committee on the subject of the vote.

said, that the vote was one which could not be explained. Secret Service Money implied that it could not be made public. They only asked for it as in former years, in order that it might be applied to the public service.

wished for some explanation as to the reduction in the amount of the vote.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied that there should be a reduction, he would be ready to take the same sum that was voted on former occasions.

said, that as no explanation could be given, the only alternative was that the House of Commons should not grant the money.

objected to the grant. He found that all that Ireland had received during the year in stationery amounted to 300l. How was that to be accounted for? By the fact, that the paper was chiefly made in London, and transmitted at great expense to Dublin. Thus, the Irish tradesman was robbed of his profits and his right to the printing and making of stationery for Irish use. The same principle was carried out in the Stamp Office, the law courts, and all the public departments in Dublin. He was told that this was right in carrying out the spirit of centralisation; but towards the people it was a gross injustice, and an injustice too towards the people of England, for the work could be done cheaper in Dublin, and also it would then cost nothing for transmission. He begged the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this subject. He believed that if Ireland had her fair portion of these enormous contracts, the result would have been, instead of 300l. for stationery, it would be somewhere about 80,000l. In the name of his constituents and his countrymen at large, he protested against the continuance of the present system as regarded Ireland; and he desired to know why Ireland should be deprived of this benefit? If Ireland was to be considered an integral part of the empire, she ought to have her fair share. Was the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that a resolution of the Lords of the Treasury, or of some department of the Treasury, existed, declaring that all the printing for the public departments of Ireland ought to be executed in Dublin, and not in London?

said, that if the right hon. Member would look at the estimate, he would see that the vote was for the whole amount of printing and stationery for the whole country, including the great amount for England, and reckon- ing the Parliamentary printing. There was the obvious cause of the apparent inequality complained of by the right hon. Gentleman. But the whole of the paper and printing for Ireland had been supplied through Irish factors and stationers. There was a stationer in Dublin who furnished the articles and executed the printing of the reports of a great many of the commissions and public boards in that city. These were printed by the Queen's printer, and sent over here by him. There were on the table of the House a great many reports which had been transmitted in a printed form from Dublin. So the Queen's stationer furnished the offices in the same manner as in London. He was not aware of the existence of any such Treasury resolution or minute as that referred to by the right hon. Member, but he would make inquiry into the subject.

denied that to be the case, and alleged that there was no such office in Ireland as the Queen's stationer. There was an office, indeed, conducted by Messrs. Grierson and Son, as the Queen's printing-office; but their occupation was chiefly confined to printing the Dublin Gazette, and an occasional small order from the Government. In one year the total amount of printing paid for by the Excise Board of Ireland did not exceed 51. Where was the printing for that board performed, for printing it was compelled to have? He hoped the Government would make inquiry of Mr. M'Culloch, who was at the head of the Stationery Office, but was no friend to Ireland, and that the Irish tradesman would no longer be defrauded, but that printing for the Irish Government would be given out where it ought to be done, namely, in Dublin.

had been chairman of the Committee on these subjects, and he found, by the evidence taken before them, that in Scotland the public printing had amounted to 13,000l. a year, and that it could be done in London for 4,000l. While the Customs and Excise were different establishments in Scotland and England, the case of Scotland might have been different; but when the Excise and Customs in Scotland were put under the same board, it was found that the quantity required by Scotland could be sent down at the amount of saving he had mentioned, and the office of Queen's printer in Scotland was put an end to. There was 100l. for the catalogues of the National Gallery, which were sold at the doors for 1d. a piece, and which therefore ought, he presumed, to pay for the expense of printing them. There was also a sum of 6,500l. for the London Gazette, for the printing of which he understood a contract had been entered into some months since. He desired that the accounts of the Gazette should be made public, that the House might be better able to judge of the charges made on account of it. There was also a charge for the sheriffs' court in Scotland, which was a patent office maintained by fees, and another for the Edinburgh Gazette. He suggested that the price of the London Gazette ought to be lowered, the effect of which, he believed, would be to quadruple its sale. There was also an item of 2,000l. for the promulgation of Acts of Parliament. In 1806, it was determined that a copy of every Act of Parliament should be lodged in every court of justice in the country, and 5,000 Acts had been distributed in accordance with that rule; but he believed that the magistrates of the various courts generally put the Acts in their pockets, and that they were not deposited in the various courts of justice at all. He would suggest that every public office should have copies of Acts of Parliament on paying for them, and the charge might be entered in their accounts. He proposed to strike out the different items he had mentioned.

said, that the great object for some time past had been to bring the different departments connected with the printing of public documents into one, and to place it under the control of one responsible officer, and a saving of 42,000l. had been effected by that means. He was rather surprised to hear the objections just raised by his hon. Friend, as they were directly in opposition to a system which he had himself recommended, namely, that they should take away these charges from each particular department, and put them under one general responsible head. If they were now to act upon the advice of his hon. Friend, they would be undoing all they had done, and would have been devoting a great deal of time and money in a most unavailing manner.

must tell his right hon. Friend that "none are so deaf as those who are unwilling to hear." It was needless to tell him (Mr. Hume) of the advantages of having all the public printing under the management of a single department, because he was the chairman of the Committee who had recommended the adoption of that plan. He only complained of the unnecessary expense incurred in certain departments. The War Office, for instance, was supplied with stationery at a price 300 per cent above what need be paid. His suggestion was, that there should be one office, but that each department should be charged with the amount proper to it. However, he did not want to apply that principle to public offices, but only to trading concerns like the London Gazette.

thought that the amount which would be saved by not promulgating Acts of Parliament would be small, and that it was not a point on which a saving ought to be effected. A greater saving was to be made by the manner in which the accounts were consolidated, than by any reduction in the cost of printing. There should be less printing, but that which was printed should be more available for use than the enormous volumes which were now printed. The Home and other departments of the Government should follow in this matter the example of the United States, where the public accounts were laid on the table of the Senate before the 10th of June last, including not only all the items which our accounts gave, but agricultural, shipping, and other statistics in the utmost variety of detail. In this country small returns were constantly called for, which would not be required if complete accounts were supplied at an earlier date.

said, that the delay of which the hon. Member complained, arose, as far as the Board of Trade was concerned, from the length of time that was required to procure returns from the colonies and foreign countries. He (Mr. Labouchere) had communicated with the Secretaries for the Colonial and Foreign Departments, and they had undertaken to procure from the diplomatic agents abroad the statistical information which was required.

said, that the Government of this country did not render its consular establishments abroad so available for the transmission of commercial information as the Governments of other countries.

said, that very considerable improvements had been made, and were still progressing, in the mode of printing the Parliamentary papers; and, among other features, in the preparation of abstracts, in which items alone a saving of 8,000 l. had this year been effected. He could also state that, by fresh arrangements with the printers to the House, a reduction of 10 per cent in the cost of printing had been effected this year; and that a further reduction of 10 per cent would take place next year. Still the whole system of Parliamentary returns and papers required the closest observation. There seemed absolutely no discrimination exercised on the part of Committees of the House as to printing evidence, and papers, and reports; everything, good, bad, and indifferent, was sent off to the printers, whereas very much that was printed might quite as usefully remain in manuscript. He saw among other items of this estimate 1,000l. for the Railway Board; this appeared to him a very unreasonable charge.

said, that no printing for the Government offices could be executed without authority from the Secretary of State, and such authority was never given without due inquiry. With regard to the printing for the Railway Board, it was merely an estimate, and might not all be expended.

wished to ask a question respecting agricultural statistics. He thought it very desirable that they should be obtained, and as full as possible. They bad already had them from Ireland, and they were very striking and valuable.

said, that if the Irish Government printing were left in Dublin, he would undertake that it should be done 20 per cent under the English charges.

said, that the charge for the printing of the catalogues of the National Gallery was the balance over the produce of the sale.

would ask, upon whom were the effects of a diminution of printing and other expenses to fall? Was it to be upon the working people or their employers? There was a strong feeling pervading the great body of the working classes in this metropolis with respect to the contract system which was so largely carried out. He thought it would be very unfortunate if that system were extended further.

said, that if they had a California under the table, there might be some force in the noble Lord's observation; but seeing that the taxes came principally out of the pockets of the working people, he did not see how they could be served by wasting these taxes. But the object for which he had principally risen was to renew a petition he had made last year in favour of the octavo form in printing Government papers. It had already been tried, and had proved very successful. The booksellers had discarded the old quarto form; nobody would buy quarto volumes, and they had no shelves in their libraries for them. He believed that the substitution of the octavo form would cause a saving of 20 per cent, and he did not see why it should not be adopted.

pressed for an answer to the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin.

said, he could not place much confidence in such volunteer offers as that of the right hon. Member for Dublin.

could inform the hon. Member for the West Riding that the Printing Committee were trying the experiment of the octavo form with every prospect of success. He was also glad to know that the same experiment was being tried in another place.

hoped that in adopting the octavo form, they would not make the figures too small. At present old eyes had much difficulty in deciphering them.

could corroborate his hon. Friend, especially as regarded the prison returns.

hoped that the octavo form would be that hereafter employed in printing Parliamentary books. As to these publications themselves, he observed hon. Gentlemen were exceedingly apt to indulge in easy sneers upon blue books and their contents, but in his opinion there were no works sent from the press which contained a greater body of continuous and valuable information: whether for depth of investigation or amplitude of detail, he would back the blue books against the great mass of literature—productions that assumed much higher pretensions.

said, it appeared the cost of printing for the military in Ireland was somewhat less than 700l., though there was a force of 36,000 men in that country. The charge for printing for the constabulary, who numbered only 12,000 men, was, however, 1,000l.; and there was another charge of 1,700l. for "police." He should like to know what was the difference between constabulary and police in Ireland? Although the charge for printing for the Irish Poor Law Com- mission was 2,000l., in the amount required by the English Commission there was an additional or supplementary charge in this vote of 1,500l. "for the Poor Law Commissioners." He thought the Government ought to afford the Committee some explanation on these subjects.

wished some further information to be laid before the House on this subject.—[Sir W. G. CRAIG: The papers have been laid on the table.] He had not received the papers. Edinburgh was a place whore people were very competent to do these things themselves. He did not see why Edinburgh should have such votes, when Liverpool and Manchester had nothing of the kind. He protested in principle against such a vote for the city of Edinburgh.

said, that some of his Friends around him were very anxious that the House should consider this to be his job. He considered it a reproach to the country that Scotland had not some establishment to promote the fine arts. The school of art had arisen under great disadvantages, and it was now acquiring such a station that the Government might fairly give it some assistance. There were many persons who knew much better than he did, the value of the works done by some of his countrymen. It was for the promotion of science and art generally, that this sum was now asked for. The city of Edinburgh had come forward with 14,000l. It was a grievous thing that on a rainy day the working classes were obliged to have recourse to public-houses, as the only museum they had an opportunity of visiting.

would be glad to know who was responsible for the manner in which this vote was proposed. It was signed "W. G. Hayter," and the vote for the Edinburgh galleries was preceded by these words—"The sum proposed to be contributed by the Government towards this important object is 25,000l." That was the sort of language found in the advertisements of the late Mr. George Robins; but he had never heard of epithets of this description being interlarded in votes of public money. It seemed as if it was thought the Committee were not competent to form an opinion upon the vote, and he hoped this new system of description would not be followed.

said, that the manner in which this vote was originally introduced was very objectionable, but it was now altered. The Government had furnished a great deal of information on this subject. He wished, however, for further information as to how the building was to be carried on, and under whose superintendence. It appeared that the building was to be erected on the Mound at Edinburgh, which was certainly one of the finest sites in Europe; and he hoped, now his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had got this vote, he would get those to superintend the work who would produce an edifice worthy of the nation and of the purpose for which it was designed.

said, that on looking over this item he found something which made him think that the whole of this detail was done for the purpose of making things pleasant in the House. He had had an opportunity of speaking under the gallery one evening with a gentleman high in authority in Edinburgh on this subject, and although he understood that the city of Edinburgh was to give the site for this building for some 1,000l., there seemed to have been put down a sum of 4,000l. That was one point which made him doubt the accuracy of the whole of this statement. He had learnt, on very good authority, that the city of Edinburgh was afflicted with a superabundance of money in the charitable institutions. There had been foolish old men who had died and left large sums of money for charitable purposes, and he had it on the best authority that the population of Edinburgh was suffering from the extraordinary amount of money which was constantly going through the hospitals, by which children were withdrawn from the superintendence of their parents, and reared in a manner not favourable to their own good or the public good. If the city of Edinburgh, having this superabundance of money, did this mischief, would it not be better for the House to pass an Act of Parliament to apply some of these funds mischievously employed for purposes of this nature? It might be a better thing than coming to the House for a vote of 10,000l. In the ease of Heriot's Hospital an Act of Parliament had been obtained by which a considerable portion of the funds had been applied from the will of the founder. There were three schools in various parts of this city. The money got in this way was laid out in the adornment of magnificent buildings, because there was no other object upon which you could bestow it.

said, that that portion of the site on the Mound which belonged to the corporation of Edinburgh would be purchased for 1,000l., but the other portion of ground which would be required, belonging to the Royal Society, would cost 3,000l. Mr. Playfair, the greatest living architect in Scotland, would have the superintendence of the building, and he would take care that the money was properly expended. As for the charitable institutions alluded to by the hon. Member for Manchester, he would remind him that they were strictly laid up for particular objects, and they could not divert the funds belonging to them. An attempt was made last year to mate a very slight change in one of their charities, but the Bill was rejected by the House of Lords on the ground of such interference.

said, that he had given notice that he would move that the blank should be filled up with the sum of 8,000l., the amount which was given to the Duke of Gloucester when he was placed in a similar position. The Duke of Gloucester bore the same relationship to the then reigning Sovereign as the Duke of Cambridge did to the present Sovereign. It had, however, been suggested to him that 10,000l. would be considered as the sum more likely to be agreed to by the House. He would, therefore, propose that instead of 8,000l., the sum of 10,000l. should be inserted, as he thought there was some hope and chance of carrying it.

wished to suggest one consideration to his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and asked him to consider why this Royal Duke should have such a high sum. He quite acknowledged that as long as they had a Royal Family there should be an adequate provision for a certain portion of them; but it was a matter of very great importance to know when individuals connected with that family should cease to have a claim. There should be some line drawn; and it should be laid down as a rule that the further those individuals were removed in relationship from the Sovereign, the less should be the demand. He agreed that persons in the position of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge should be provided for; but they ought to judge of the manner in which he was to be provided for by the habits of the people of this country. Now, 10,000l. was a very large sum of money; and they ought to recollect that the late Duke of Cambridge had, when he was alive, 24,000l. a year. [Mr. HUME: 27,000l. a year, besides his regiments.] Yes, independent of them. The late Duke died, and 3,000l. a year was left to each of his daughters, and 6,000l. a year went to his widow, and both these sums, together with the 12,000l. which was now proposed for the Duke of Cambridge, would make the sum of 24,000l. as a provision for His Royal Highness's family. Now let them recollect that Her Majesty the Queen had been so fruitful as to produce to the country several children, every one of whom would have the same claim, and they would have a multiplication of applications for grants of this description. Now he wanted to know where were these applications to end. It might appear an indelicate proceeding to enter into discussions of this nature; but they should consider that these sums were wrung from the hard earnings of the working population of this country, and it was their duty to look to the sources from which they were derived. What he proposed was, that these Princes should be supported in that sort of decent splendour which was compatible with their situation. He thought that the sum which the hon. Member for Montrose mentioned was a great way beyond what he wished to be considered as the amount necessary to support a Prince in that decent degree of splendour. He trusted the House would not sanction the grant of 24,000l. a year to this family. As for the grant to the present King of Hanover, they might lay that out of the question; but still they could not forget that the money was still paid to him. Now he wanted to know where this was to end? He supposed that the Duke of Cambridge would marry, and that naturally he would have a family. Was that family to be provided for by the country also? What he felt was that they ought now to begin by cutting down these incomes to the lowest degree possible, and he would propose that the sum of 5,000l. be put to fill up the blank.

said, that he could not agree that so large a sum as 12,000l. was necessary to support the dignity of the Duke of Cambridge. He thought that when they considered the small amount which was given to Ministers of State who, in consequence of their duties to the country, had hardly time to eat, drink, or sleep, and who must always have great and anxious responsibilities, that they must think 12,000l. a very large annual income to give to a person who was not called upon for this wear and tear of constitution, and had little responsibility or claims upon his time. When they looked at the enormous taxation in this country, they could not contemplate any vote that could be more unpopular than this; and they should remember that the Duke of Cambridge was neither heir apparent nor heir presumptive. They must really hold their hands somewhere in giving these large grants, and he thought it ought to commence here. At the same time, he was sure that the loyalty of Her Majesty's subjects would ever make them willing to support the Crown and its immediate descendants with munificence, and in splendour. He could easily fancy that the Gentlemen on the Ministerial benches, and those who hoped to be there, were placed in a position of great delicacy; and it was not unnatural to think that hon. Members on the opposite benches (the protectionists) would consider it a less evil to throw the responsibility of an unpopular measure on the Government, which would weaken their hold to office, rather than that they should continue to occupy the Ministerial benches, which they might fancy would be better filled by others. He was not, therefore, surprised at their opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, nor in their concurring in that which would be damaging to Ministers. He therefore hoped that those Gentlemen around him who looked to what was just and right, would unite in resisting this unpopular and unnecessary grant of 12,000l. He would vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose.

wished to know why the sum should be more than he proposed. The Ministers of the Crown had 5,000l. a year, and the Judges had only 5,000l. a year. Every moment of the time of these men was devoted to public business, and there was not a moment in which they were not occupied for the benefit of the public. He was not now saying anything that would tend to the indignity of His Royal Highness; but he thought that 5,000l. was amply sufficient to support him as an English gentleman. The Prince had a sum of money left him by his father, and he understood also that he was a general officer, from which office he had a salary. All these things made up a very good income. Add to this the sum of 5,000l., and it would make a perfectly sufficient sum for an English gentleman to live upon. He was performing no service to the country for this additional sum, and they were only doing their duty to the public by making it as low as possible.

said, that he did not see any reason why 5,000l. should not be considered sufficient; but yet he could not see what good practical result could follow the Motion which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, when they remembered that those who voted for 8,000l. had been beaten by a large majority, by those who were more for Royalty than for economy. [Cries of "No. no!"] What, did not the hon. Gentlemen who cried "No!" beat them? [Cries of "Yes."] Well, then, if they voted for 12,000l. instead of 8,000l., they were not in favour of economy. What he wished to say was this, that there was no use in dividing the House on the 5,000l. proposition, as they were before beaten by the Gentlemen who cried for Royalty, and were much stronger in point of numbers. They were told that a great many Gentlemen absented themselves on that occasion, because they thought that 8,000l. was too small a sum; it was supposed that they would think 10,000l. sufficient, and it was on that account that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose was induced to move that the sum of 10,000l. be inserted. At the same time he should say, that if the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield pressed for a division on his Motion, he should vote for the 5,000l.

was of opinion that it was very difficult to make any argument on the question whether 5,000l. or 12,000l. was the proper sum. Gentlemen must judge for themselves what they thought a Prince of the Royal Family re- quired for the maintenance of his dignity, and to meet those demands which came much move on members of the Royal Family than others. It was not fair to say there was a distinction between those who were for Royalty and those who were for economy. On both sides the desire might be to do that which was best for the country, some considering the smaller sum sufficient; others thinking that, either for the credit of the country or for the public utility, it was not desirable to see a Prince of the Royal Family very much reduced in his pecuniary means. According to the arrangement of the civil list, in later times that civil list was made for the support of the Sovereign, and of the Sovereign only. When, as in former times, there was a considerable sum derived from the property of the Crown, the Crown had the means of supporting the sons and daughters either of the reigning Sovereign, or of collateral relations, out of the revenues of the Crown. But these were now merged in the public revenue, from which it was therefore necessary that a sum should be granted; and it seemed to him that 12,000l. was a more fitting sum than 5,000l.

said, that after taking into consideration his Royal Highness's position, and the necessities of the public, he had previously supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose: and if the hon. Member had proposed that amount again, he would again have voted for it. He objected to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and he was rather surprised at his making it, considering that in a speech at Sheffield, the hon. and learned Member had formerly had the manliness to support the allowance to the Cambridge family. 5,000l. was evidently too little, seeing that 6,000l. extra had been granted to the late Duke for the maintenance of his son. He thought that justice to these royal personages required that they should know what was expected from them, as the condition of receiving public grants. If there was to be a continual pull at their purses for charitable objects, they must of course have larger allowances. The precedent cited by the hon. Member for Montrose—that of the case of the late Duke of Gloucester—was a fair and reasonable one. At the time when 8,000l. a year was allotted to him, the price of provisions was pretty nearly the same as at present; and when the increase was made in 1806, it was on the express ground of a rise in the principal articles of consumption. As an argument against the small grant of 5,000l. he would mention that the Duke of Cambridge had recently given appointments to four equerries.

wanted to know what his Royal Highness had to do with aping the fashions of Royalty by means of equerries? When he addressed his constituents on the occasion referred to by the right hon. Member for Northampton, what he said was, that it was absolutely necessary that the members of the Royal Family should be maintained out of the funds of the State, but that he considered the vote for them extravagant under the circumstances.

deeply regretted that any Prince of the blood should be placed in the position of His Royal Highness in having this application made to the House; but it was the Act of Parliament that placed a Prince in that position. He would not enter into a controversy as to what might be the rental of the estates of the Crown, if the Crown had been left in possession of them. If they had been properly managed, as they probably would have been if the Crown had been left to the resources of its estates for the support of its dignity, there would have been no necessity to apply to Parliament; but that was not now the question. He must confess his utter inability, if the case was to be argued upon severe principles of logic, to make out that 10,000l., or 12,000l., or 14,000l., was the exact and proper sum to be voted; in fixing that sum he should be very much influenced by the opinion stated by the Government of the day, who of course had given to the subject the consideration it deserved. But the House must never forget the position in which they had placed the Princes of the blood. Take the peerage of England; throw your eyes over the wealthiest of our patrician houses; you would find that their wealth had been created, in the course of centuries, by marrying heiresses, that the most powerful and justly popular of our patrician houses had been established by absorbing the wealth of great heiresses to an extent which few, probably, were aware of. Such was the nature of our society, that the poor Peer of this generation would probably not be a poor Peer in the next, from the power he possessed for establishing his family. But we had passed a law which prevented a Prince of the blood founding a family by those means which the experience of the nation and the feeling of the country showed to be the means by which noble families were established. The Duke of Cambridge was an English duke—the first of the English nobility. A few months ago he was the eldest son of an English duke; did we allow him to come and stand a contest for Westminster? Did we permit him as a commoner, like the son of any other English duke, to enter the House of Commons, and, exercising what abilities he might possess, assert that position which nature justified him in fulfilling? It was said, he was paid more than a Secretary of State: did we allow him to try to be a Secretary of State? We shut him out from any such courses of honourable ambition, and means of creating a fortune. He could not be Governor General of India. We shut him out from all the public offices of life, with the exception of the military. These were restrictions we had placed upon the life, career, and fortunes of individuals in this position. To his (Mr. Disraeli's) mind they were most unnatural and unjust. We might abrogate them, and place the Prince in the position in which all other persons were placed, and then there would be some foundation for our criticism; but while these restrictions lasted, we must come to the consideration of the subject influenced by them. The Bill provided that, in the event of the Duke of Cambridge becoming King of Hanover, the annuity should terminate. It should, however, be borne in mind that in these times a man might be a king one day, and a private citizen on the next; and therefore it might be expedient to introduce a proviso that, if his Royal Highness, after exercising sovereign power, should revert to his original condition of a pure English Prince, he would be entitled to the annuity again.

believed that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had made some mistake about the law, when he said that Prince George of Cambridge was precluded from canvassing the electors of Westminster if he had thought proper to do so. Such an application was not in accordance with custom, but there was no law against it.

said, that not only on that side in the House of Commons, but out of doors generally, the opinion was that the sum proposed was an extravagant one. With regard to the Marriage Act, he was no party to it, and he regarded it as one of the most absurd and wicked Acts that had ever passed; therefore that was no reason why he should vote a larger sum as an allowance to the Duke of Cambridge, than he thought necessary. He doubted also whether, if an opportunity for an advantageous marriage offered, the consent of the Crown would not be given. If the late Duke of Cambridge had been taught to look upon the House of Commons as an enemy to extravagance, he would have provided adequately for all his children, and the present Duke of Cambridge would not have been placed in this painful position. He had already the colonelcy of a regiment, which was worth 1,500l. a year to him, and he would, no doubt, receive other appointments from the Government, which would make his income considerably larger than the sum which the House was about to vote. He thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government had overlooked the interests of the public in proposing this large grant of 12,000l. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire that this would be one of the most unpopular votes of the Session, and he much feared that it would he made a precedent which this country would have cause to regret.

could not allow the assumption just made by the hon. Member to pass unnoticed. When the grant was first proposed, and the precedent of the Duke of Gloucester, who received 14,000l., was adverted to, he (Mr. Disraeli) expressed his gratification that the smaller sum of 12,000l. had been fixed on by the Government, and intimated an opinion that the reduction was the result of the injurious laws which the hon. Member for Manchester had supported.

thought that enough of the public money had been voted, and would therefore move that the Chairman should report progress. ["Oh, oh!"] He was prepared for that expression of feeling, but he would state the reasons which induced him to make the proposition that had called it forth. He had waited until Thursday had ended and Friday commenced (it was now after midnight) for the performance of a promise made by the First Minister of the Crown. A rumour had reached him, not from the noble Lord, but from the city of London, that it was the intention of the Government to sacrifice the privileges of that House to the will of the House of Lords, upon a matter which he and other Mem- bers had much at heart. ["Question!"] He was speaking to the question. The question was redress of grievances before supply—the maintenance of the privileges of the House of Commons before voting public money. The noble Lord intended by his resolutions, in the first place, to postpone to next Session the question which had within the last few days agitated the public mind, and in the next place to put the privileges of the Commons at the absolute disposal of the House of Lords. That was the rumour which had reached the city of London, and from the city of London had reached him and other Members of greater importance than he was. This was what the Prime Minister intended to keep secret until he had got all the public money which he wished the House to grant, when he thought it would no longer have any control over him. He would now move that the Chairman should report progress, at the same time giving notice that, notwithstanding he was strongly indisposed to do anything offensive to the Royal Family, he would vote against granting any public money to the Duke of Cambridge or any other person, till the question respecting Baron de Rothschild was properly decided in the present Session.

thought, that as the hon. and learned Member for Youghal was acquainted with the substance of the resolutions which the noble Lord intended to propose, he might allow the business in hand to proceed. The noble Lord would doubtless presently make the statement which he was bound in good faith to submit to the House.

begged the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his Amendment.

complained of the conduct of the Government. In the first instance, it was understood that the resolutions promised by the noble Lord would be printed in the Votes that morning. Subsequently it was announced that they would be laid upon the table in the course of the evening before twelve o'clock. It was now a quarter past twelve.

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had been ready to state the nature of the resolutions in the course of the evening, when Mr. Speaker informed him that he would be out of order in doing so at that time. His hon. and learned Friend would bring the resolutions forward as soon as the House resumed.

thought the hon. and learned Member for Youghal was right in demanding redress of grievances before voting supply. He (Lord D. Stuart) had vainly endeavoured to extract from the noble Lord a statement of the substance of his resolutions. The House had a right to the information sought for, and the House had been very ill treated by the Government. Although the noble Lord had undertaken to lay resolutions before the House, they had not yet been presented; and under such extraordinary circumstances the hon. and learned Member for Youghal did right in interposing.

was as anxious as any one to know what the noble Lord's resolutions were, but he protested against the Amendment, as being opposed to the ordinary practice of the House.

thought his object was misunderstood. He did not want to force the noble Lord to a disclosure of what he was so inclined to keep secret. His desire was, that the House should retain some control over the Government by withholding the public money. For his part, he would not vote a farthing of the public money to the Duke of Cambridge or any other person until the House had an opportunity of vindicating its privileges and doing justice to the citizens of London.

hoped the hon. and learned Member for Youghal would not divide, seeing that the noble Lord would state the views of Her Majesty's Government touching the admission of Baron de Rothschild at the earliest possible moment. Besides, the annuity to the Duke of Cambridge was not the last vote of supply; therefore other opportunities would arise for opposing the Government.

expressed a hope that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal would withdraw his Motion.

wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he would persist in the vote for 12,000l., seeing that if those who were obliged to vote with him were taken away, there would be a majority for his (Mr. Hume's) Amendment? He knew, too, that there were some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side who did not approve of the vote, and yet had voted for it under peculiar circumstances. He did not attribute motives to any hon. Member in particular; but it was to be remembered there were two classes of expectants, namely, those who were "in," and those who were expecting to get in. If these were deducted, along with the Members who were obliged to vote with Government, those who acted on behalf of the public would be in a considerable majority.

Can the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War give an answer to the question I have put respecting the appointment to the Guards? I wish to know, without any quibbling, whether the appointment of the Duke of Cambridge to the Guards has taken place or has been decided on?

I put the question to the Military Secretary about two days ago, and asked him if any arrangement had taken place with respect to the disposal of the regiment of Guards? Lord Fitzroy Somerset then informed me that no arrangement had taken place; and I have not heard that any arrangement has taken place as to the disposal of that regiment.

I wish to ask a plain question. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that it is decided that the Duke of Cambridge is to have that regiment?

No, Sir, I do not.

would not have risen upon this occasion but for the imputation cast upon hon. Members sitting upon his side of the House. [Mr. HUME could assure the hon. Gentleman he did not allude to him.] He was very glad no improper motive was attributed to him; but such an imputation should not be cast upon any of the hon. Members who had supported this vote. They who supported it were actuated by principle. He could discover no principle amongst its opponents, who were shifting about from 8,000l. to 5,000l., and then to 10,000l., and who, not having any principle, merely showed their animosity against the Royal Family. In giving his vote he was sure he had done that which would be popular; for the people of this country desired to maintain the Royal Family with proper dignity. The people of this country saw that the late Duke of Cambridge, though possessing a large income, had died a poor man; and this solely because he was so benevolent, so generous, and so gracious in his patronage and support of their several charities. He had a right to express his reasons for giving the vote he had done on this occasion; and, in addition to the other arguments that had been brought forward in supporting it, he could not avoid adverting to the fact, that their aristocracy had large fortunes, that their merchants had large fortunes, and even their tradesmen were able to clear from 12,000l. to 14,000l. a year; and that, therefore, 12,000l. a year to a Prince of the blood, with large demands upon him, such as none of those persons had, could not be considered too large a sum to grant him. It certainly could not be called extravagant; and in supporting such a vote he certainly could not be called an expectant, for he did not participate in the Royal Family entertainments, and he believed his constituency would consider that he had given a right vote.

said that, in answer to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Montrose, he could only say, that after having brought forward this vote seriously as the proposition of the Government, and having been supported by a majority of the House, he certainly should adhere to the vote.

protested against an observation of the hon. Member for Reading. He (Mr. Roebuck) had thought it his duty to propose 5,000l., and his hon. Friend had thought it right, that Amendment not being pressed, to propose 10,000l.; and for the hon. Gentleman to insinuate that in that there was any enmity towards the Royal Family was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman himself, and of him (Mr. Roebuck) to answer it.

said, the hon. Member for Montrose had said the majority in favour of this vote consisted of those who were in office, and those who expected it; but he would ask the hon. Gentleman, whether those who opposed the vote might not consist of a third party—those who had been disappointed?

said, if the House would permit him, before the next Order of the Day was read, he begged to give notice that he should, on Monday next, move the two following Resolutions:—

"1. That the Baron Lionel Nathan do Rothschild is not entitled to vote in this House or to sit in this House during any debate, until he shall have taken the oath of abjuration in the form appointed by law."

After that was disposed of he should propose this Resolution:—

"2. That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in the next Session of Parliament take into its serious consideration the form of the oath of abjuration, with a view to relieve Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion."

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the different opinions which had been expressed by the late Attorney General and the present Attorney General with respect to the intended use of Hyde Park for the proposed Exhibition in 1851. Sir J. Jervis had stated—

"On the accession in each reign the parks, as well as the hereditary revenues of the Crown, were transferred to the Woods and Forests as trustees for the public. So long as the public—cestuique trusts—did not interfere, the commissioners had a right to erect buildings."

But the present Attorney General said a few evenings ago—

"There was no right in the public to the enjoyment of the parks. The enjoyment of them depended solely on the grace and favour of the Crown. It was alleged that the Woods and Forests were trustees for the public. This he conceived not to be the law."

That being the case, who was to decide? There were Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, Mr. Justice Cresswell, Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Rolf, and, in fact, eight eminent lawyers to one, that these parks were the pro- perty of the public. He gave notice that next Session he should take the sense of House upon the vote for the support of the Parks, and the salaries of the officers of Woods and Forests.

stated, that the Bill had a double object—one was for the protection of designs generally, and the other was to protect from piracy those articles which might be Exhibited at the Exposition of 1851, or any other public exhibition.

said, the House had had no pledge that in case of a deficiency for the purpose of the Exhibition of 1851, they should not be called upon to make up that deficiency. He objected, therefore, to the House pledging itself to the necessity of, or to the benefit likely to arise from the proposed Exhibition.

said, the Bill was not intended to revise and amend the law of patents.

said, that his constituents would, he feared, very much object to this Bill, since it would prohibit them from improving their designs and manufactures, which they were anxious to do.

said, that he believed the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be just the persons to wish it to pass. Persons who made inventions never allowed them to become public until they had secured a right to them by patent; and under this Bill the exhibition of these articles would not be such a publication as would prevent the obtaining of a patent.

objected that the Bill was a one-sided measure. It protected the inventions of the foreigner, but did not protect English inventions from the piracy of foreigners.

asked why the House should be called upon, at half-past one o'clock in the morning, to discuss such a one-sided measure as this? Let hon. Members read the admirable charge of Baron Pennefather in the Times of that morning, when pronouncing sentence upon a landlord for murder. He thought the sentence in that case a lenient one, and that the person convicted ought to have been sent to a penal colony. But ought they to be passing a Bill to arm the landlords with fresh power?

denounced the speech of the right hon. Member for Dublin, as a class speech of the most ferocious character. He had held up the Irish landlords as extortionate and as murderers. [Mr. REYNOLDS denied this.] That was the inference to be drawn. He had seen the system of cutting the crops and defrauding the landlords pursued to such an extent that he was convinced the House ought to come to some legislation on the subject.

thought that if this Bill, or something tantamount to it, had been law last year, some unfortunate circumstances attended with bloodshed and the loss of life would have been prevented.

characterised the Bill as one of a very injurious character, and stated that, at a future stage, he would express his opinions more fully regarding it. To discuss the Bill at that late hour would be a perfect farce; but he would take the opportunity of saying that no Minister, nor, indeed, any Member of that House, would dare to introduce such a measure for England; though, by the mere force of numbers, they were prepared to impose it upon Ireland.

hoped, that at that late hour the right hon. Gentleman would not proceed with the Bill.

said, he had that day postponed the Bill to suit the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman, on the understanding that no opposition would be offered to its being proceeded with after the other Orders of the Day.

said, it was true he had given his reluctant consent to that arrangement, but he did not expect that the Motion would come on so late as two o'clock in the morning. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had on a former occasion stated that this Bill was the result of a compact; but he (Mr. Reynolds) denied that any compact whatever had been entered into with his constituents. The hon. and learned Gentleman, at the same time, took the opportunity of sneering at his (Mr. Reynolds') constituents, and of remarking that he (Mr. Reynolds) had said that he was the representative of the respectable electors of the city of Dublin; or that, at least, he (Mr. Reynolds) thought so. Well, he did think so; and he thought so still. And he would take the opportunity of telling the hon. and learned Gentleman, that his (the Solicitor General's) superior in office (the Attorney General for Ireland) was the first man who recorded his vote in his (Mr. Reynolds') favour at his election. He had not the honour of being acquainted with that hon. and learned Gentleman, but he begged to say that he had been elected by a large majority of the citizens of Dublin, among whom he had lived during the whole of his life, and that he had not been compelled to seek a seat in an English rotten borough.