Sir, I beg leave to present a petition, of which I gave notice about a week ago. It is a petition from a British merchant, Mr. George Ward, long resident at Caracas, in the State of Venezuela. He states, that having been established at Caracas for more than a quarter of a century, and being mainly instrumental in procuring that state of commercial relations subsisting between Venezuela and this country, he was about two years ago suddenly arrested by the Government of Venezuela, thrown into a common prison, and there kept as a prisoner twenty-six days, in violation of all the principles of the constitution of that country, and of all the rules of legal procedure acknowledged there, and which regulate the relation of the subjects of that State with the Government: in violation also, he states, of that Treaty of Commerce which in the year 1825 was signed and ratified between this country and the State of Venezuela, and under which protection was secured to all British subjects, and under which and coeval with which the establishment of Mr. George Ward at Caracas took place. The petition also states that, after the termination of those twenty-six days—the Government not being able to substantiate any charge whatever against him, and he having been arrested only on a vague suspicion that he was connected with some revolutionary transactions in the interior provinces of the State—he was dismissed from the prison by the Government, but kept as a prisoner in Caracas for the space of seven months. He states that in consequence of his first imprisonment, and his subsequent detention within the walls of the city of Caracas for seven months, his affairs were greatly injured—especially a coffee estate, situate about two days' distance from Caracas, which was under his superintendence, was wasted in a great degree; and, after he was free, in consequence of representations made by the British Government, the damages he incurred with respect to this coffee estate were assessed, according to the custom of the country, and by one of the legal tribunals of the country, at the amount of 35,000 dollars. He states that, beyond this claim of 35,000 dollars, he has another of 25,000 dollars, in consequence of the insults and injuries he received, especially as regarded his business at Caracas. He states that, in consequence of not having received any redress from the Government of Venezuela he has come over to Eng- land, and that he has appealed to Her Majesty's Government, but hitherto in vain. He states, that there is no doubt of the validity of his claim on the Government of Venezuela, because that Government has partially recognised it, inasmuch as, in consequence of the representation of Her Majesty's Government, they apportioned compensation to the amount of 25l. a day for the twenty-six days he was in the prison, making 650l., which he, under protest, has received, and which does not amount to the legal expenses he incurred in consequence of that imprisonment. He states that, not having received redress from Her Majesty's Government with respect to these claims on the Venezuelan Government, he has thought it his duty to appeal to the House of Commons. The petitioner is not an adventurer of doubtful allegiance who was a casual visitor to the city of Caracas; but he begs us to understand, which is the truth, that he is a British merchant, established there for more than twenty-seven years; that his commercial transactions are on the greatest scale; and that it is mainly owing to his instrumentality that the commercial development of this country in those regions has taken place. He says that, unless protection to British merchants, in countries so imperfectly organised, and where the constitutional institutions are so rude, be secured at home, and by an English Parliament, which this House has always afforded, it will be impossible to carry on commercial affairs; and he protests against a State like Venezuela oppressing a British subject so long established in the country in the gross and vexatious manner which he has experienced, or that they should try to avoid all further responsibility, which, according to the law of nations, they have incurred by the miserable payment of 650l. He states that he has submitted his case to some of the most eminent lawyers of the day—to Dr. Phillimore, for instance, and to an hon. Member of this House, Sir Frederic Thesiger—and that he is advised that the conduct of Venezuela is a gross violation of international law. Under these circumstances he appeals to this House. It was my intention to address some inquiry on this subject to the Secretary of State if he was present; but, as he is not, I will do so on Monday.

rose to move, pursuant to notice, that after the 1st of July the Orders of the Day should have precedence over notices of Motion. He made this Motion as, at this period of the Session, it was desirable to proceed with the business before them as fast as possible, especially that the House of Lords might have time to consider the Bills which they sent up.

said, that arrangement had been originally agreed to at a time when the Minister of the day introduced a variety of measures of the very greatest importance, and as the Members were anxious that these measures should be discussed, the sacrifice, which was a great one, was cheerfully made on the part of hon. Members; but he was not aware that there had been such a prodigal number of important Bills introduced during the current Session on the part of the Government, as to justify this demand. It was not his intention to divide the House on the Motion, but he thought it a dangerous precedent that they should agree to it as a matter of course, and therefore he had thought it his duty to point out that the noble Lord's proposition was made under very different circumstances from those under which it was originally made by a preceding Government. He did not think there were so many or such important measures before the House as to authorise the present appeal.

justified the Motion on the ground that there were so many Irish Bills standing over. Among others he might mention the Medical Charities Bill, and the Land Valuation Bill, both of which were of great importance.

said, the Medical Charities Bill had been thrown out of the House of Lords last Session in consequence of the lateness of the Session when it came before them. He suggested that it should be taken up at a morning sitting.

said, the Medical Charities Bill now stood for the 25th, and if it could not be brought forward on that day, it would be taken at a morning sitting. The Land Valuation Bill was set down for the 9th of July.

thought it would be entirely surrendering the business of the House into the hands of Government if they agreed to this Motion. At the last ballot for precedence of Motions, no fewer than seventeen Members attended, and he had come down to the ballot no fewer than six times without having had the least chance of success. He must oppose this Motion, as he thought it would amount to an absolute prohibition of independent Members bringing forward any question.

rose to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary.

rose to order. There was a Motion now before the House.

apprehended he was perfectly in order. The Motion related to the forwarding of business, and therefore he had a right to ask now, whether Government meant to bring in a Bill this Session to continue the present Commissioners of Sewers, or a Bill to reform the Commission?

said, his right hon. Friend the Homo Secretary meant to bring in a Bill upon the subject, but there would be an inconvenience in stating its provisions before it was introduced. With respect to the complaint of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), he did not think it was well founded, because the whole of Wednesday was given to individual Members to bring on their Bills. The House would recollect that the Government were now called upon more than at any former time to introduce measures of legislation; and, besides, it was their duty to bring on questions relating to supplies, both military, naval, and miscellaneous, which now occupied much longer time than they formerly did. Besides, in the early period of the Session, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays were at the disposal of individual Members; and it was necessary to bring on the Estimates for the year at an early period, because Motions were made on going into Committees of Supply, which consumed a considerable portion of their time. At the most, Government had only eight days in a month at the beginning of a Session; and when hon. Gentlemen said, as they sometimes did, that the House had sat two months, and Government had not brought forward their Bills, the fact was, that of these two months, Government had only had sixteen days, and several of these were taken up with other measures in which the country felt an interest. So that the time of the Session was not so much taken up by the Government as it was supposed to be. But at that period of the Session, it was well known that the attendance of hon. Members began to slacken; and therefore he thought it was desirable to proceed with the Government measures now as rapidly as possible. He might have stated, likewise, that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had asked him for a day on which he might bring forward his question respecting Borneo. The hon. Member certainly had a claim upon him, as, at the request of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he had not brought forward his Motion at a time when he might have done so. On the other hand, Sir James Brooke was equally anxious that this question should be brought forward. But unless the present Motion was agreed to, the Government really could not spare a day from the other business of the country. He trusted, therefore, that the House would accede to the Motion.

agreed with the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French), that the Irish Bills were very important; but as it appeared that these were to be taken at morning sittings, and as there was very little other Government business, he must oppose the Motion now before them.

wished to know whether Government meant to reintroduce this Session a Bill which was withdrawn last year, relating to the Incumbered Estates, and called Securities Advance Bill.

said, his right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls had already given notice of a Bill for that purpose, and the only reason he did not proceed with it was the delay caused by the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

said, the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had complained of being deprived of private legislation. Now, though he was not one of the supporters of Her Majesty's Ministers, he must say that he greatly preferred their legislation to that of the hon. Member for Lambeth. There was another reason why he supported the Motion, and that was that he had no wish to remain in that House up to October; and he was sure that the lowest estimate of the time that would be necessary for every Member who had a Bill to carry it through would be the middle of September. Under these circumstances, and considering that all his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) asked, was no more than his predecessors had obtained before him, he thought they ought to accede to the Motion.

thought they had already wasted too much time this Session, and that they ought now to proceed with the real business of the country.

had no objection to the Motion in itself, but he should not like to hear from a Member of the Government that two Wednesdays—the 25th of June and the 9th of July—were to be occupied with Government business. Now he thought it was not fair for the Government to have Wednesdays and Thursdays both.

said, the Government always made it a rule to give way to private Members on Wednesday.

said, it was of little consequence how many or how few days private Members had, unless the House changed its regulations for meeting, because otherwise, in all probability, when an independent Member brought forward a Motion on a Thursday the House would be counted out.

thought it would be much better that the Government should take every day in the week, and get on with the public business, for it was plain that at present private Members had no chance of bringing forward a Motion, and of proposing to redress a grievance, in consequence of the stringency of the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, Sir, for leave to bring in two Bills of which I have given notice, namely, a Bill to improve the Administration of Justice in the Court of Chancery and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and a Bill to regulate the Salaries of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench and the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Sir, with respect to the second measure, it is merely the reintroduction of a Bill brought forward last year for the purpose of enacting that the salary of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench shall be by law what it has for some time past been by custom, namely, 8,000l. a year, and that the salary of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, which is now 8,000l., shall henceforth be 7,000l. a year. The more important measure is the Bill for improving the Administration of Justice in the Court of Chancery and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am not willing again to go over the ground which I travelled on a former occasion with respect to the Court of Chancery. I wish, however, to remind the House that certain propositions I then laid down obtained the general if not the unanimous assent of the House, while there were others to which some objection was taken. I stated, on the occasion referred to, my opinion that—looking to the amount of judicial business which pressed on the Lord Chancellor, in addition to the important political functions he has to discharge—it was desirable to adopt means to relieve him from part of his extensive duties. I stated that it was desirable to take this course for the sake of the public, because, as no man can do more than employ the whole of his faculties in his business, if more than that is required, the public must be losers in regard to the manner in which the Lord Chancellor is necessarily compelled to perform some of his numerous duties. I think I am correct in assuming that the House concurred with me in that view of the question. I also stated—for reasons which I gave—that I thought it desirable the Lord Chancellor should not be restricted merely to the discharge of his judicial functions, but should retain his political position and continue to exercise those functions, in connexion with the Executive Government, which has hitherto been the distinguishing feature and characteristic of his office. To that likewise the House, I think, was disposed to assent. I further declared my opinion that it was desirable the Lord Chancellor should remain Speaker of the House of Lords, and continue to preside over the House of Lords when it sits as the highest Court of Appeal known to the constitution. The House agreed with mo in that too. I then proposed—in order to relieve the Lord Chancellor from some part of his present labours—that other Judges should sit in the Court of Chancery, for the purpose either of assisting his Lordship or of carrying on the judicial business of the Court in his absence. I said that I thought the Master of the Rolls and one of the Puisne Judges of the Common Law Courts might discharge those functions. To that proposition some objection was made. It was urged, and not without justice, that it was impossible to obtain the assistance of the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Chancery without taking him from his own court, and thereby depriving the suitors and the public of the services which they are entitled to expect from him there. Since obtaining leave to introduce the former Bill, I have endeavoured to collect the opinions of those most conversant with the subject. I have consulted some persons holding judicial situations, and some gentlemen of great experience in the Court of Chancery, besides other persons connected with the court and acquainted with its business. Among others, I received a letter from my lamented friend the late Lord Cottenham, whoso opinion it was of course desirable on every ground to have, and who was so entitled on every account to have his authority listened to upon such a subject, making objection, I must say, to the proposal which I made, and stating that he thought the measure should be directed rather to relieving the Lord Chancellor, than to relieving the Court of Chancery over which he presided. I have thought it far better, therefore, to submit the whole question to reconsideration than to persist in attempting to pass a Bill to which persons of so much authority have taken objection. I shall, therefore, state what I think can be done with respect to the providing assistance for the Lord Chancellor in his high functions. One method which might be taken, and which was originally much considered by the Government, and upon which indeed the Bill which Lord Cottenham introduced in 1836 was founded, is that of entirely separating the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor in the Court of Chancery from the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, and also from his political functions; in other words, that there should be a permanent Judge at the head of the Court of Chancery, and that the Lord Chancellor's duty should be limited to sitting in the House of Lords, presiding over that Court, and continuing in the exercise of his political functions. The objection made to that plan, and which I found was entertained by authorities to which I felt compelled to bow, was, that unless a Judge at some time or other, and during some part or other of his labours, was exercising judicial functions—if he was sitting merely as a court of appeal—he would not preserve that ability which he might have originally possessed to try and decide causes; and that, therefore, his decisions would not carry the same weight which the decisions of the Lord Chancellor at present do, or those of any person in a similar situation to the Lord Chancellor, sitting in the Court of Chancery, and at the same time exercising the functions of a Judge of a Court of Appeal. This being an opinion to which I felt compelled to bow, and which rests upon the statements of many eminent men, beginning with the late Sir Samuel Romilly, and still held by persons well acquainted with the subject, I am not prepared to introduce a measure upon that principle. Another course would be—and which we proposed in the Bill which I obtained leave to introduce, and to which have been made the objections to which I have alluded—another course would be to appoint a Vice-Chancellor or some other person holding a similar title, who should sit in the place of the Lord Chancellor when he is detained either by his political functions or by his judicial duties in the House of Lords. To this plan the objection occurs, that, although the name and authority of the Lord Chancellor carry such weight to his decisions that the Lord Chancellor may well sit alone, yet if we had a Judge of no higher authority or title than the Master of the Rolls or Vice-Chancellor, to whom the appeal was made from the decision of those Judges, that the opinion of one subordinate Judge against another would not satisfy either the public or the profession. There remains another plan, and one which I have had recommended to me by a great concurrence of opinion, and that of the highest authorities, and that is that two new Judges, to be styled "Judges of the Court of Appeal," should be appointed for the special purpose of sitting either at times with the Lord Chancellor, or, in his absence, of sitting together, to decide in cases which are to be reheard and appealed from the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-Chancellors. The only objection which I can see to such a proposal is, that it would greatly increase the amount of judicial force, and therefore impose a great amount of additional expense either on the country or on the suitors' fund. But, on the other hand, we have to consider that a very great benefit is sought and would undoubtedly be gained. I cannot avoid the opinion which I entertain, that, with the present duties of the Lord Chancellor, it is desirable that he should be able to obtain further aid in the exercise of the duties which he now performs in the Court of Chancery. In the first place, with respect to the judicial duties, the amount of property which is brought into the Court of Chancery, and the number of cases which are brought into that court and heard by the various Judges who sit in that court, have gone on increasing from the time of the introduction of the Bill to appoint a Vice-Chancellor, in 1813 till now, to an enormous extent. I have here a return which has been made to the House of Lords with respect to the quantity of business done between the 2nd of November, 1850, and the 30th of May, 1851, both inclusive: It appears, that with respect to appeal motions and special motions, there were heard by the Lord Chancellor, 36; by the Master of the Rolls, 273; by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, 878; by Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth, 679; and by Vice-Chancellor Turner (who has only been recently appointed), 21; the total being 1,887. Of petitions there were heard—by the Lord Chancellor, 16; by the Master of the Rolls, 333; by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, 866; by Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth, 1,051; and by Vice-Chancellor Turner, 27; total, 2,293. Of cases of exceptions, further directions, further directions and exceptions, pleas, demurrers, and objections, there were heard by the Master of the Rolls, 96: by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, 353; by Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth, 216; and by Vice-Chancellor Turner, 19; total, 684. Of appeals and re-hearings, there were heard by the Lord Chancellor, 17. Of claims, there were heard by the Master of the Rolls, 26; by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, 267; by Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth, 80; and by Vice-Chancellor Turner, 16; total, 389. The total of all matters disposed of in the Court of Chancery in the period mentioned is 5,270. Now, this is an enormous amount of business, and it shows how much persons who are engaged in transactions regarding property are coming more and more to the Court of Chancery for the disposal of business of that description. It is quite true, as experience of late years has shown, that the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the three Vice-Chancellors, can all attend their courts; and Lord Cottenham stated before his illness that there was quite sufficient business in every one of the courts, but not too much, if they were allowed to attend to it without interruption. It is quite evident, however, that if any of the Judges were seized with illness, from overwork or other causes, there would immediately be an arrear of business, the whole machinery would go out of order, and justice would not be done to suitors who go to the Court of Chancery. Now, this is a great evil; and I think that some effort, although it may be somewhat costly, should be made, in order to prevent its occurring. Now, the way in which we propose to remedy the evil is, that while the Lord Chancellor is employed elsewhere—if he is sitting in the House of Lords, or attending any Bill in the House of Lords—the two Judges of the Court of Appeal should sit for him. In this way the business would not be interrupted. We propose, also, that in case of the illness of the Master of the Rolls, or of any of the Vice-Chancellors, the Lord Chancellor should have the power of calling upon one of the Judges of the Court of Appeal to sit in the Court of the Judge who is absent from illness, and to dispose of the business before it. I allude to such a case as that of Vice-Chancellor Wigram. No one would wish that an accomplished man like Sir James Wigram, fully competent to perform the duties imposed upon him, and fulfilling these duties to the satisfaction of every one, should resign either from conscientious motives or from public complaint in consequence of a disease or disorder which may be only of temporary duration. But at present he was compelled to retire from his Court, and there is no mode whatever of preventing arrears. Another Vice-Chancellor cannot take the place of the one who is away from illness, because his own Court is probably full of business, and he has no time to come to his aid, either to reduce that arrear or to prevent its accumulation. I think it, therefore, most desirable that one of the Judges of the Court of Appeal should in such case sit in the vacant court for three weeks or three months probably, in order to see whether the Judge who is absent from indisposition is likely again to resume his duties. The other question relates to the political functions of the Lord Chancellor; and I must say, that considering the general wish for a reform and improvement of the law, it is desirable that the Lord Chancellor, holding as he does the highest position connected with the law, and master as he must be of the practice of the various courts, should be enabled to give his mature and deliberate attention to subjects of this kind. I think this desirable, because on the one hand it is a great misfortune to the country that a really useful and desirable reform should be postponed, because the Lord Chancellor has not had time to mature a measure for the improvement of the law; and because, on the other hand, it is a great misfortune I that there should be ill-considered and ill- digested legislation on such a subject, which in a few years would he found not to produce the benefits which were expected. On both grounds, therefore, I think it most desirable that the Lord Chancellor should be able to give his time to such subjects. I have found, however, both in the case of the late Lord Cottenham and in the case of the present Lord Chancellor, that, with every desire on their part to attend to such subjects, they have been unable to do so. There have sometimes, for instance, been Committees of the House of Lords sitting on important subjects for the amendment and alteration of the law—on the questions of the Bankruptcy Laws, County Courts, and the like—and they found themselves unable to attend them, feeling, and rightly feeling, that their first duty to the public was to attend with care and diligence to the judicial functions of the Court of Chancery. On this subject, likewise, I would say that, if it is desirable that the Lord Chancellor should be connected with political affairs—if it is not considered advisable to sever that connexion altogether—it is desirable that he should be able to give his mind fully and deliberately to the political questions that come before him. For these reasons, therefore, I think it desirable that the House should adopt the proposition which I am now about to make, that I should obtain leave to bring in a Bill to establish two new Judges of the Court of Chancery, to be called the Judges of the Court of Appeal, who shall have the functions to which I have alluded. With respect to the financial view of the case, I don't think the burden will be exceedingly heavy on the public, because I propose, as I stated on a former occasion, that the Lord Chancellor shall in future, instead of 14,000l. a year, receive only 10,000l., with a retiring pension the same as now—thereby saving 4,000l. a year; and that the Master of the Rolls, who has hitherto received 7,000l. a year, should in future receive only 6,000l., thereby saving another 1,000l., making in all 5,000l. a year less than has been till lately the cost of the offices of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Bolls. With respect to the new Judges, I propose that they should be put upon the same footing as to salary as the Master of the Rolls, namely, that they should each have 6,000l. a year. There would thereby be, on the one hand, an increase of expense of 12,000l. a year, and on the other a saving of 5,000l. a year, which will make the amount to be derived from the suitors' fund 7,000l. a year. I must say I contemplate great advantage from this arrangement, if adopted by Parliament. I certainly should expect that both the Court of Chancery and the general business of the country would be benefited by relieving the Lord Chancellor from some part of his present duties. The House will see that in my present proposal, as in my former one, I do not propose in any way to diminish the dignity of the office of Lord Chancellor, and that I do not desire to change his character and functions. I shall leave him as a political Judge connected with the Executive Government to preside in the House of Lords, and I shall also leave him to sit in the Court of Chancery to carry on the ordinary business of the Court. But I certainly think that in the present state of circumstances, considering how much the business has increased, it is impossible that the Lord Chancellor can, with benefit to the public, undertake the whole of the duties he has hitherto performed. If this plan is carried into effect, it will likewise enable me to make a change which I think will be beneficial with respect to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There has been on various occasions very considerable difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of Judges to attend that Court. It is provided by the Act of Parliament that four Judges shall be a quorum in the Judicial Committee. It has sometimes been a difficult matter to get four Judges to make up a quorum; and I know that an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite once complained that in order to obtain a quorum, and to enable that Court to proceed with the administration of justice, the Master of the Rolls was obliged to leave his own court, and to postpone the cases which came before him there. There is another thing that I should mention with respect to the Judicial Committee. It is provided that the Puisne Judges of the Common Law Courts, who are Members of the Privy Council, may sit in the Judicial Committee, and this provision has often been carried into effect. But at the same time there is an objection to this—not a serious or grave objection, but still an objection—that the Crown should select one of the Puisne Judges, and give him a rank and a dignity not belonging to the other Judges. It occasions questions of dignity and precedence, which it is desirable to avoid among persons occupying positions on the judicial bench. What I propose therefore is, that there should be two new Judges of the Court of Appeal, who should at the same time be Privy Councillors and Members of the Judicial Committee; and that three instead of four Judges should he a quorum. In this way it would not be difficult to obtain a sufficient number of Members to attend the Judicial Committee. In this case too, as in the other, I do not propose to alter the constitution of the Court, which has worked most usefully. All that I propose is, that it should be enabled to proceed with greater facility in the performance of its present functions. I beg therefore to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery and the Judicial Committee of the Privy-Council.

thought that the House would perceive an illustration of the remark of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in reference to the dangers of ill-digested and ill-considered legislation, in the proceedings of that day. When they remembered that the noble Lord in the early part of the Session introduced a measure, and stated opinions, on this question essentially differing from the measure now introduced, and the opinions now expressed, they would see a new warning of the importance of not dealing with such a question without due consideration. And, as they had now arrived at a period of the Session when the indispensable business of the county was pressing heavily upon them, and when the Government were driven to the necessity of asking the House to grant them the Thursday, he thought it a matter of serious doubt whether a question of this importance should be introduced at such a time, or, being introduced, whether there was the slightest hope of seeing it passed before the termination of this Session. There were special reasons why he doubted the propriety of the course taken by the noble Lord. The Court of Chancery was at the present moment, and had been for the last twelve months, in a peculiar and extraordinary condition. The noble Lord had spoken of the immense pressure of business in Chancery. This was admitted on all hands; but the inquiry ought to be made how far that pressure had been artificially created by the accidental circumstances which had placed the court in its new and strange situation. The Court of Chancery consisted of the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and three Vice-Chancellors; and it was a very remarkable circumstance that of these Judges only one had, at this moment, held his office more than twelve months. The Lord Chancellor himself had not been twelve months in office. Vice-Chancellor Turner had not held his office twelve weeks—nay, hardly twelve days. The Master of the Rolls was not a Judge of two months' standing at the present moment. It would surely be conceded that, in order to appreciate the capacity of the court as now constituted to deal with the business, a little time should be given to the learned and excellent persons who were the Judges to become familiar with the practices of the court, and to allow them to get into the habit of transacting its business, which to some of them must be very new. It might also be conceded that a little time was necessary in order to enable other persons, having business in the court, to accommodate themselves to the practices and manners of the Judges. In such a state of affairs, ought they not to wait a little before they ventured to legislate? The Bill might be brought in and printed, and its details explained; but it was obvious that there would be no time to discuss it properly, or, with any deliberation, to pass it into a law during the present Session. Their premises were, in other respects, incomplete. The noble Lord had read a return, presented to the other House, being a statement of the amount of business transacted in the Court of Chancery within a certain period. That return was, no doubt, perfectly correct as to the figures; but how much of all this was made tip of formal motions and proceedings, which took no time whatever to dispose of? He believed, an enormous proportion; and therefore, the return was little more than useless until the formal motions were separated from the business of real importance and difficulty. Unless the return were analysed in this way, it would be practically useless. He had had a Motion on the paper in reference to this subject, which he had been most anxious to bring on, but which, in consequence of the arrangement entered into by the House that evening, he feared he would be unable to introduce. He had wanted to show how this increase in the business of the Court of Chancery had been occasioned. For the last three or four years in particular, but he might say for the last twelve years, Session after Session, the Legislature had been throwing1 on the Court of Chancery a species of busi- ness utterly foreign to the purposes for which that court really existed as an institution of the country, the Court of Chancery being all this time overloaded with its own proper business. And before they proceeded to alter the constitution of that court, in appellate jurisdiction or in the ordinary jurisdiction, by increasing the amount of judicial force, it was well deserving of consideration whether a great portion of that business which was the cause of the pressure complained of could not be more advantageously and conveniently disposed of before some other tribunals. They had existing tribunals the Judges of which had been heard to complain of an absence of business. Before they appointed new Judges, ought they not to ascertain if the labour of the existing Judges was properly distributed? He was far from saying that after consideration given to that topic, it might not be proper or necessary to appoint two Judges to be called Judges of Appeal, according to something like the scheme proposed by the noble Lord; but the House ought to see its way clearly, and not proceed to establish those Judges at once. But the House was in this difficulty on the subject, that at that period of the Session there was no time to hear a Motion brought forward by an humble Member like himself. It was only the other night he ventured, between twelve and one o'clock, to bring on a discussion on a Motion referring to the existing Com-mission to inquire into the proceedings before the Court of Chancery, but he was told it was then too late to discuss so important a subject in the absence of the Master of the Rolls; and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department was kind enough to offer him, if he consented to adjourn the debate, the choice of another night for its renewal. He unfortunately chose last Monday night, when there was no House. He referred to that for the purpose of satisfying the House that at that period of the Session it was too late to press the House to discussions on a subject so important as the present with any hope of carrying any useful measure before the prorogation. The Bill, as explained by the noble Lord, was far too important to be treated in an off-hand way. The Bill was new to the noble Lord; it was still newer to the House. Undoubtedly he (Mr. Stuart) should make no objection to the Bill being brought in. But he did beseech the noble Lord to consider well the importance—the overwhelming importance of the subject; and not hastily to press a measure which this Session it would be utterly impossible properly to discuss and deliberate upon.

regarded this Bill for altering the constitution of the Court of Chancery, so far as to supply the Court with additional judicial power commensurate with the wants of the people and with the wisdom exhibited in recent acts of committing to that Court a further portion of the judicial business of the country, as a first instalment of the reform which had been long needed. On the latter point, of the increase of business, he differed from his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken, for he thought that the Court of Chancery, if adequately supplied with judicial power, would be found, more than any other tribunal, adapted to the administration of justice in a manner required by the intelligence and growing necessities of the people. He, however, repeated that the present Bill was but an instalment of the reform that was wanted; and his hon. and learned Friend would probably be happy to learn that there was another Bill, cither on the table or about to be laid there, which would, in another way, facilitate the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery, by relieving the Master's office from the great pressure now upon it, impeding its functions, and contributing to delay. He earnestly hoped that the House would not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that now, not yet the middle of June, it was too late to enter into the discussion of this important measure. That was a difficulty conceived in the true spirit of Chancery delay. He was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have thrown out a taunt against the noble Lord, because the present measure appeared to be somewhat different from the one previously introduced; and the hon. and learned Member also spoke of "hasty legislation." For his own part he did not know what other course the noble Lord could have adopted more fitting for the purpose, or more calculated to result in a scheme in which all parties should agree, than the one he had announced. The noble Lord had sketched out a scheme, and submitted it for general consideration; and he thought there were many Members of the House, besides the hon. and learned Member for Newark, who knew also that it had been submitted to a large body of men well qualified by their experience to form an opinion upon it; and the result was, that the collective opinions of those Gentlemen having been submitted to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the noble Lord had framed the measure which was about to be introduced to the consideration of the House. He did not know that any course could have boon adopted more likely to lead to what the hon. and learned Member called well-considered legislation than this. They were now about to have a measure laid before them that would accomplish a point of great importance. As the Court of Chancery was at present constituted, it was impossible for the courts of the first instance in that large tribunal to go on with their business if they allowed the appellate tribunal to remain loaded, as was the head of that Court and the head of the House of Lords, with the weight of political and judicial duties. The appellate tribunal was undoubtedly a great, obstruction to the whole course of Chancery business; and not only that, but the whole administration of justice was materially impeded by the present state of that tribunal, because it was impossible for it to dispose of business with any regularity so long as the Lord Chancellor was taken away from it to attend in the House of Lords, and in fact to give a little bit of his time first in one place and then in another. He would just give the House one example out of many he was acquainted with, of the evils which resulted from this system. In the year 1847 an important appeal was brought forward, and the House of Lords were earnestly entreated to allow the further hearing of it to stand over till the next Session. The Lord Chancellor declined to accede to this proposal, saying that he must hear the appeal then, in order that he might be able to devote a portion of the long vacation to the consideration of the case, with a view to its decision in the ensuing Session. That suit involved half a million of money, and the expense of getting up the hearing itself involved an outlay of no less than between 5,000l. and 6,000l. But the Session of 1848 rolled away, and also that of 1849. The Session of 1850 passed away too, without seeing the decision of the case; and now the lamented death of the late Lord Chancellor had obliged the parties to begin again, and the time and money spent were absolutely wasted. Was not that a denial of justice? The delay originated from this circumstance, that as soon as the Michaelmas term arrived, the Lord Chancellor, instead of having time to consider the important points argued in the case—of the magnitude of which the House might have some idea when he stated that his brief was as large as a volume of the Encyclopœdia Britannica—was involved in the duties of his own court, and found it impossible to bestow proper consideration on the appeal he considered the noble Lord's present proposition of value, not only because it was important that there should be a permanent court of appeal, and the Lord Chancellor should he enabled to attend to his duties in the House of Lords and in the Cabinet, hut because there should be an appeal in Chancery no longer from one single mind to another single mind, but to a plurality of minds, in order that the suitors might be satisfied with the ultimate decision, for at present the appellant, if the decision was against him, went away in a discontented state of mind, attributing the result to mere chance, and thinking that had the Judges occupied different positions the judgment would have been in his favour, and then followed lamentations over the uncertainty of the law. Even if a division of opinion should arise among the appellate Judges, there would remain the judgment of two minds, and it would no longer be an appeal from one single mind to another single mind. That he regarded as a most valuable improvement in the administration of justice; for he had known instances of appeal having been made to depend upon an accidental impression on the mind of the Judge of the appellate tribunal. Another and more important point would he gained by the noble Lord's measure. For a country so advanced in intelligence and science as this, it was disgraceful to observe the position in which judicial jurisdiction now stood. Parties might get a little, bit of justice in one court, and another small bit in another, and the unfortunate suitor was often obliged to go through the territories of all; and it was frequently of the greatest difficulty to settle within whose jurisdiction what he wanted fell. A great portion of the time of Judges was also spent in endeavouring to spell out the sense of Acts passed by the Legislature. All this arose from there being in this country no head of the law—no responsible person to control the composition of Acts of Parliament, or to fulfil the functions of Minister of Justice. But now, if they relieved the Lord Chancellor, he would be able to attend to all his duties in the House of Lords during the Parliamentary year, and in the Cabinet as law adviser of the Government; and would also, he (Mr. Bethell) trusted, be able to discharge something like a part of those duties which would belong to him as head of the law and as the great Minister of Justice. He hoped eventually that the evils of the existing system, and of the mode of legislation, would he abolished. As matters stood, a great part of the time of the Judges was occupied in discovering and explaining the meaning of the extraordinary passages which occurred in the Acts passed by Parliament; this, he hoped, would be put an end to. He hoped the House would not listen to the suggestion that there was not abundance of time in the present Session to consider the Bill; and, though the Session would not be remarkable, he feared, for any great public benefit conferred, yet if this portion of Chancery reform were adopted, he should think that they had not met in vain.

was not inclined to carry on a discussion on so large a subject upon the mere Motion for leave to introduce a Bill, and would therefore forbear from now adverting to some of the topics mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend who had just resumed his seat. Without going into details in respect to the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), he expressed his opinion that it was entitled to the approbation of the House and of the country. The first point contemplated by the Bill would be that all the inferior Courts of Chancery—the Courts of the Master of the Rolls and of the Vice-Chancellors, would be sitting constantly and hearing causes without interruption, thereby keeping down arrears; the second, that there would be a permanent Court of Appeal sitting in the Court of Chancery, thus preventing the evils of delay, which chiefly, if not entirely, arose from the impossibility of the Lord Chancellor attending to appeals both in Chancery and in the House of Lords; and the third, that the Lord Chancellor, instead of being entirely removed from the Court of Chancery, and debarred from maintaining a proper familiarity with the law, would be, by occasional attendance there, keeping up a knowledge of the practice and business of the Court, while he would likewise be able to attend to the business of the House of Lords and of the Cabinet. If the measure were so worked out in detail as to affect those three objects, it would be a great improve- ment on the present system of Chancery jurisdiction, and would have his cordial support.

bogged leave, as one of the unlearned of the community, to thank, his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) for at last commencing in earnest this great work of Chancery reform. He had heard with the greatest satisfaction not only the proposition of the noble Lord, but also the announcement of the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell), that there was to be introduced simultaneously with this a Bill to reform that greatest of all Chancery abuses, the state of the Masters' Offices. He had been some time a patient in those offices. He had listened with great pleasure to the advice of his physicians, but he had not yet heard from them how they were to deliver him from that slough of despair from which no suitor involved in any considerable cause in Chancery could ever hope to be delivered during his natural life. In the Committee on Official Salaries last yean he asked a witness of the greatest character and authority, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, whether he had not frequently known cases which had been in the Masters' Offices ten, twenty, or thirty years, until the parties had all died, and whether then they had not been further delayed until the new parties who had succeeded to the former interests had also in their turn departed, and whether he did not think that those cases which had been so many years in the Masters' Offices might not by a simple reform of the machinery of those offices have been disposed of in as many weeks; and the answer he received from Mr. Pemberton Leigh was that he had no hesitation in saying that matters might be disposed of in the shorter period he had mentioned. He could not understand why in the Masters' Offices they should not adopt the practice followed in other courts of this country with respect to a most important part of their business.—namely, simply take accounts as between individuals. In the Admiralty Courts, probably the most complicated accounts had been taken in matters of prize during the war. In that court the Judge referred the accounts to a merchant on each side, and the Master of the Court sat de die in diem until the account was concluded. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman who presided over that court now, whether the same practice could not be applied to the Court of Chancery; and he said there would not be the least difficulty about it. In the Scotch courts there was no difficulty in taking the accounts. Great as had been the reform which that House, to the benefit of the public had effected within the last fifteen or twenty years, the greatest abuse, and that under which the public suffered the most, was this Court of Chancery; it was a disgrace to the times in which we live; and he hoped that now the noble Lord would take up the question in earnest, and would be as successful in conferring on the public benefit by a great reform on this subject as he had already been by the reforms he had hitherto promoted and carried into effect.

said, he understood the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to propose some reduction of the salaries of two of the present Judges of the Court of Chancery. Now, he had always thought that with respect to the reduction of expenditure there was none of so questionable a nature as that which regarded the salaries of hardworking public servants; but more especially did be consider the reduction of the salaries of our Judges as the most questionable of all departments in which that principle could be applied.

could not deny himself the pleasure of saying that it appeared to him the House and the country ought to acknowledge very gratefully the great candour with which this subject had been dealt by the noble Lord. No criticism could be less well founded than that this measure was brought forward without due consideration. It had been in contemplation for more than a year; the necessity of it had been felt for a longer period, and at the early part of the Session the noble Lord had brought forward a measure which appeared to him to be a favourable one. The present plan, however, united a greater number of advantages than the former or any other; for, at an additional expense of 7,000l. only to the country or the suitors, it relieved the three Courts of Appeal, and made them all efficient—all being at that moment interrupted. It would have been very difficult to have conceived a cheaper mode of conferring so great a benefit. Nor should it be supposed that the benefit would be wholly confined to the increased efficiency of the Courts of Appeal, because the causes in those courts retarded the business in the other courts, in which further proceedings had to be taken.

had no doubt of there being a call from all parties in the country for some measure of this kind, and a call so strong that it would not be competent for any Government to resist it. Yet be could not fail to observe that in dealing with a small part of this subject—for it was but a small part that was touched by the Bill—the noble Lord had within a short time formed two opinions. He would not, however, press that point at present. He only wished that the noble Lord himself had made the statement which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell), because he believed that the country would have been better satisfied to have heard from the Government that it was their intention to go somewhat further by a reform of the Masters' offices. There was nothing in the speech of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to indicate such an intention; and the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury had not informed the House whether it was a measure of his own, or whether he announced it on the part of the Government, but he had stated distinctly that such a measure was about to be brought in. The public at large, he believed, felt more interested in the reform of the Master's office than in the arrears of business which happened to exist in the Court of Chancery, and which had been increased by the illness of more than one of the Judges. He hoped the Government would deal with this difficulty of the Master's office, for it had been dragging most slowly on, while what the country wanted was action. All that the country wanted was that the Government should place their shoulders to the wheel, and endeavour to abate that which was an intolerable nuisance. Once let a man get into the Master's office, and no human being could venture to predicate when he would get out again. He could not see why accounts in the Court of Chancery could not be wound up in the same way as in the Bankruptcy Courts. At the same time he hoped that this measure would not be the means of stopping other measures of importance.

said, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire appeared not to have exactly understood the nature of the Bill originally introduced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as compared with the present measure. This Bill was not in principle different from that which the noble Lord introduced at an earlier period of the Session. The former attempted to remedy the evil felt from the want of power in the appellate part of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, by introducing two Judges from the other Courts to assist the Lord Chancellor, one being taken from a Court of Common Law, the other from a Court of primary jurisdiction in Chancery. But the defect of that measure was, that the Court of Chancery, by no means too strong as to its judicial force, would have been deprived of one of its Judges of primary jurisdiction, the Master of the Rolls, although the Court of Appeal would have been benefited. This Bill, however, would afford that benefit without depriving the Court in question of its primary jurisdiction. With respect to what had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. J. Stuart), as to there being no immediate necessity for legislation on this subject, because the arrears were mainly due to the business which had been brought to the Court in consequence of recent legislative measures, such as the Winding-up Act, and other measures of that description, he begged to call attention to this single fact:—By reference to a Return of all the business despatched by the Court of Chancery in 1841, when the two additional Vice-Chancellors were appointed to take a share of its primary jurisdiction, the number of causes disposed of had gradually increased, and in the year 1849 by no fewer than 1,300 causes, yet the arrears had been greatly diminished as compared with 1841: just before the introduction of any business from the Winding-up Acts, therefore, they would find that there had been a gradual steady increase of business for several years past; in 1841, 7,300 matters were disposed of; in 1849 the number was 8,600. There was this additional fact as to the labours thrown on the Lord Chancellor. Lord Cottenham, with his great powers and energies, doing all he could to promote the hearing of appeals in Chancery, was enabled, he feared at the great sacrifice of his health, to bring down the arrears of appeals from fifty or sixty, which used to be the average number at the beginning of Michaelmas Term, to eighteen. [Mr. J. STUART: And at one time he had heard all the appeals, and heard some original causes besides.] But his health began to decline, and in the next year, instead of the number being eighteen, it increased to thirty-three; and when the noble and learned Lord resigned, the number of appeals on the list was eighty, a number which the present Lord Chancellor, if he worked as hard as Lord Cottenham, could not dispose of for a year and a half, even supposing there was not one additional appeal. When the hon. and learned Member for Newark recommended the House to wait another year, he ought to recollect that many widows and orphans were kept in a state of the greatest misery and suspense by the delay of their causes at the present moment, and there could not be a greater grievance than a continuance of that state of things. As to the Masters' offices, he thought the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had misunderstood the remark of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell); for the Bill to which that hon. and learned Gentleman referred was already on the table of the House, having come down from the Upper House, and was a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts, by enabling the Judges of those Courts and Commissioners of Bankrupts to take such references as the Lord Chancellor might send to them from the Court of Chancery. That, no doubt, would afford great relief to the Masters' Offices in causes where accounts were to be taken of a not very complicated nature. At the same time, the measure now brought in by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was by no means to be considered as the termination of Chancery reform. There was a Commission sitting at that moment considering the subject of the reform of the Court of Chancery in all its branches, and he trusted that by next Session it would have made such a report as would enable the House to consider a complete system of reform as to the Masters' Offices, and other branches which this measure did not embrace. The right hon. Gentleman the late Member for Coventry (Sir George Turner), who now so ably filled the office of one of the Vice-Chancellors, had sketched out a Bill for the purpose, but had been obliged to postpone it. That right hon. Gentleman, however, as well as the Master of the Rolls, was a member of the Commission, and he had no doubt that great advantage would he derived from their assistance. He (the Solicitor General) was also a member of it, and he should most anxiously concur in doing all in his power to effect such a reform of the Court of Chancery, that the court should no longer be considered a blot on the administration of justice in this country. But the first step to an effectual reform of the Court, was to relieve the Lord Chancellor from the present state of his duty. The Lord Chancellor was, and must be, the head of the Court of Chancery—the person whom they must be most anxious to consult in all Chancery reform; but at the present time it was impossible to get the mind of any Lord Chancellor fairly devoted to the subject. From the moment he was in office he had not time to give to the subject, and therefore, by taking this step, in relieving the Lord Chancellor, he (the Solicitor General) believed that not only would it confer on the country the benefits which had been mentioned, but would also give an efficient aid to carry into full and complete effect the various reforms that were suggested.

begged to say, that he had been misunderstood by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. He (Mr. Stuart) had not in the observations he had made confined himself to the Winding-up Act, but had alluded to those Acts passed within the last twelve years in reference to joint-stock companies, and in particular to the disputes between railway shareholders and directors generally, which had occupied so much time in the Masters' offices.

said, in explanation, that he hoped nothing which had fallen from him, in reference to the Masters' offices, would be considered as attaching blame to the Masters themselves for not getting through their business, for he believed that that business was so heavy as to render it an impossibility for them, or for any body of men, satisfactorily to discharge. With reference to the Bill which had come from the other House, he did not think that it would afford any remedy.

trusted that the hon. and learned Attorney General would be able to give them the assurance that the question of fees in the Court of Chancery would be taken into consideration. It was gratifying to see all the gentlemen of the long robe who had been practising in the Court of Chancery so desirous to see reform carried out. The public, however, desired that the cost and the duration of suits should be immediately redressed by some legislative proceeding.

could not agree with the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) as to the utter inutility of the measure to which the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell had referred regarding the Masters' offices, because the practical effect of that Bill would be to relieve the Masters' offices to the extent of almost all the country business. There was nothing in the machinery of the Masters' offices which rendered them incompetent to the discharge of the functions which devolved on them; but they were so overlaid with business that they could not get through it, so that if they could be relieved of the country business, as proposed by the County Court Extension Act, it was quite clear that great benefit would ensue. He was glad to see that, on the part of the profession, there existed a most laudable anxiety to render their best assistance in the carrying out of those legal reforms which it was so desirable should be effected. It was most satisfactory to know that the proposed constitution of the Appellate Court had met with the unanimous approbation of the profession. The hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. J. Stuart), however, suggested that there should he delay in the matter till the ensuing Session. The hon. and learned Member had not one single objection to make to the details of the noble Lord's Bill. It would have been very strange if he had, for when the noble Lord had brought forward his former Bill (which was the same in principle as the present, only that it did not increase the judicial power of the Court of Chancery, but proposed to make the best use of existing materials), the hon. and learned Member had made some objections, and now every one of those objections had been met. And yet the hon. and learned Member was the only man in that House to stand up and ask for delay. He hoped and trusted the hon. and learned Member would divest his mind of all idea of throwing any obstacles in the way of the passing of this Bill. Let him, on the contrary, give his best assistance in rendering the measure as perfect as possible, for no man was more competent to do so, either by knowledge, learning, or experience. Let the hon. and learned Member put forward no suggestions for delay.

The word "delay" never crossed my lips. I merely asked for further consideration.

hoped the House would give due consideration to the Bill, but admit of no delay. He concurred in all that had been said as to the necessity of reform in the Court of Chancery. Much as he had said on the subject of the taxation of the country, he believed that the Court of Chancery, what with its enormous expense and its monstrous delay, had taxed the country to the full amount of the national debt. The present Bill was the first step, and a very material one, towards the reformation of the grievous abuse under which the country had so long laboured. In reference to the remark of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that the Masters' offices would be relieved of the country suits, he (Mr. Hume) begged to ask what was to become of the town suits? Provision of some sort ought to be made that they might be expeditiously got through. The machinery of the Masters' offices was not so perfect as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think. The present system of hearing part of a case, and then adjourning it, was not, in his estimation, attended with beneficial results. The Masters on taking up a case should dispose of it before they interfered with any other. This would save much trouble, annoyance, inconvenience, delay, and expense; and he trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would see the propriety of adopting some provision of the kind to which he was referring. Whatever additional expenditure for salaries might be requisite, would be money excellently bestowed; and, for that matter, with the progressive reduction of business in the Common Law Courts, some of the Judges of those courts might very well be spared for other jurisdiction.

had been misunderstood by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) if he supposed that he conceived the machinery of the Masters' offices to be perfect. All he had meant to say was that the present judicial staff of these offices would be sufficient, provided they were relieved from the country business.

was of opinion that the evils and mischiefs of the Court of Chancery were not to be attributed to mal-practices in the Masters' offices in particular, but must be regarded as the results of a thoroughly bad and corrupt system, and which, unless they were reformed by the present Bill, the measure would be of little or no service. He would take occasion to express his opinion of the Bill when it had reached a more advanced stage, and would for the present content himself with observing, that the fact of the measure having obtained the full concurrence of all the most eminent practitioners of the Chancery Bar was not, perhaps, the best recommendation that could be required for it.

thought that it was of the highest importance that the number of affidavits, now required in the course of a Chancery suit, should be curtailed, and that some new regulations should be introduced with respect to the passing of accounts. Why should not accounts be wound up in Chancery upon the same principle as in bankruptcy? The process was simplified and accelerated in the latter case by examining the bankrupt himself; and why, upon an analogous principle, should not the parties in a Chancery suit be examined? Masters and Judges of County Courts ought to be empowered to examine the parties themselves, as well as witnesses, in open court, upon matters of account, otherwise the mischiefs of the present system would be permanent and irremediable, and the present Bill would prove a failure. With respect to the County Courts Extension Bill, be feared that it would be necessary to modify many of its provisions in order to make it work well.

said, that the clauses of the Bill referred to had been materially altered, and he hoped that, as they now stood, they would meet the approbation of the hon. Member (Mr. Mullings).

was exceedingly gratified with the reception which the measure he had announced had met with from hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House. With reference to other reforms of the Court of Chancery, it was by no means a logical conclusion, that because this particular measure went to remedy one particular set of evils, there were not other reforms which it was desirable to effect, and which should be effected in the Court of Chancery. He had had frequent communications with the late Lord Cottenham on the subject of the; Masters' offices; and some of the rules issued by that noble and learned Lord bad had special reference to a reform of the system in those offices. The subject, however, was one involving considerable difficulty, and requiring the most careful consideration. The Bill which had been introduced from the other House of Parliament would, if carried, be attended with considerable benefit. He was, however, disposed to think that much further amendment was requisite.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the salaries of the Chief Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Chief Justices of the Court of Common Pleas.

willingly gave his approval of the general purpose of the Bill; but he would beg to point out to the noble Lord at the head of the Government the necessity of introducing sundry improvements with respect to the suitors' fund. It appeared to him that it was highly desirable that a printed account of the out-goings and in-comings of that fund should be laid every year upon the table of the House. All taxes upon law proceedings were contrary to justice and sound policy, and they ought to be avoided as much as possible.

explained, that the chief object of the present Bill was to diminish the amount paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He concurred with the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) in thinking that it was desirable to reduce, to as low a point as possible, the taxes upon law proceedings; and he had much satisfaction in informing the hon. Gentleman that the present Lord Chancellor had already reduced the fees of the Court of Chancery by no less a sum than 22,000l. He would take into consideration the suggestion of the hon. Member with respect to the suitors' fund.

rose to "call the attention of the House to the petition of the late Guardians of the Ennistymon Union, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the causes assigned for their dismissal, and the administration of the affairs of the Union." He was induced to bring this matter under the consideration of the House from a conviction that the Commissioners of Poor Laws in Ireland had established a most pernicious precedent by dissolving the Ennistymon Board of Guardians, who, up to the time of their dissolution, were performing their duties in a most upright and exemplary manner. The reason assigned by the Commissioners for dissolving them was, that they had manifested a disinclination to resort to the outdoor system of relief; but the Guardians, in so acting, had pursued a most judicious course, and had entitled themselves rather to commendation than to censure. The feeling of the county was decidedly averse to the Poor Law Commissioners, and in favour of the Board of Guardians. At a meeting of the ratepayers, at which he had himself presided, this fact was demonstrated in a manner not to be mistaken. He confessed he had expected that the ratepayers would have taken part against the Board of Guardians, but he was agreeably surprised to find that the current of feeling was quite the other way, and that the opinion was of very general prevalence that the Poor Law Commissioners had not acted wisely in dismissing the Board of Guardians. During the last six or seven years, the sum contributed by the county of Clare for the relief of the destitute poor fell little short of 1,000,000l. The poor-law expenditure in 1848 was 111,000l.; in 1849, it was about 175,000l., on a valuation of 300,000l., a larger expenditure than had occurred in the county of Lancaster, with a population of nearly 1,500,000l., and last year it was 121,000l., on a valuation of 220,000l. This enormous taxation had reduced the country to a most unhappy condition, and called for the most serious attention of that House. All classes of ratepayers were in a position of deep distress, and the sufferings of the clergy were of the most grievous description. A clergyman with a nominal income of 230l. a year, was obliged to pay 110l. in rates, which left him 120l. for the support of his family. The only means by which this evil could be checked, and the course of ruin stayed, was by reversing the policy on which the Poor Law Commissioners had acted in dissolving the Ennistymon Union. The only plan for restoring the country to anything like prosperity was to commit the administration of the poor-law as much as possible to the local authorities and the resident gentry. The Poor Law Commissioners had, by their proceedings in Ennistymon, weakened the hands of every Board of Guardians in the country. A great pressure was made upon the boards by masses of paupers, many of whom were, no doubt, in deep distress, and deserved relief; but, mingled with these deserving objects were crowds of persons who had no legitimate claim whatever on the Boards of Guardians, but whose fictitious pretensions, hacked by the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners, became irresistible. These people were the ablebodied poor—the labouring classes of the country, who were required to cultivate the soil, but who, in too many cases, would not work when they found that they could obtain the means of sustenance at the workhouse. No doubt it would be urged against him that the deaths in the west of Ireland had been very numerous; but he thought that that should rather be an argument in his favour, because it resulted from allowing improper persons to force themselves upon the rates, to the exclusion of the proper objects. He had known cases where farmers, tenanting forty acres of land, had received relief all the year round at the workhouses; and cases wore not uncommon where persons in comfortable circumstances sent for their rations regularly to the workhouse, and had them conveyed to them in a cart driven by a well-fed boy, and drawn by a stout pony. He could not bring himself to believe that such practices as these had ever been contemplated by the original framers of the poor-law, nor did he think that the Ennistymon Board of Guardians had acted inhumanely or unconstitutionally in setting their face against them. In fact, abuses existed to such an extent as no one could have an idea of who was not acquainted with the country. Local guardians alone could apply the only correction to abuses of this nature. The petition which he had presented on a previous occasion fully set out the case of the Guardians. They stated that when they took charge of the Union from the former vice-guardians, under whom it had been for two years, they found a debt existing of 13,000l., and an expenditure of 38,000l. a year. The relief list was in the greatest possible confusion. The rents of the auxiliary houses wore enormously high, and no less than fifty-six officers were employed of one kind or another. The petitioners immediately set about reducing the rents, the salaries, and the number of officers; and that, of course, occasioned a clamour against the Board of Guardians, which ended in its dissolution. The question, as affecting the general operation of the poor-law system in Ireland, was one of very great importance, and he hoped the House would consent to grant him a Select Committee to institute a rigid investigation into all the facts connected with it.

seconded the Motion.

said, he felt compelled to oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend, because, were he to consent to the appointment of a Committee, he should be admitting that the Poor Law Commissioners had in this instance improperly made use of the powers which Parliament had confided to them, for the purpose of providing for the relief of the poor of Ireland. The question they had to consider was, whether in this particular case the Poor Law Commissioners had properly exercised their power in dismissing the Board of Guardians of the Ennistymon Union. He did not deny the great difficulties which the Guardians of the Ennistymon Union had to contend with. Perhaps there was not an Union in Ireland that had greater difficulties. The House would remember that Parliament had thrown the responsibility upon the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland; and the papers which had been moved for, and were now in the hands of hon. Members, would put them in possession of all the facts of the case, and show them that the Poor Law Commissioners had not been hasty in dissolving local Boards, for this very Board of Guardians of Ennistymon was the only Board that had been dissolved, and only in this instance was there a Board of paid Guardians existing in Ireland. As early as the 23rd of August, 1843, the Board of Guardians expressed a desire to put an end to outdoor relief; and the Poor Law Commissioners then called their attention to the excess of inmates in the workhouse at that time as compared with the accommodation. The Board of Guardians took no notice of that communication, but applied for a loan to the treasurer of the Union for the purpose of providing additional workhouse accommodation; and they discharged in six weeks about 470 persons, notwithstanding which there still remained an excess in the workhouse, as compared with the accommodation, of 480 persons: and Mr. Briscoe reported that the destitution continued to increase, hut for want of room admission to the workhouse was refused, except in urgent cases. Upon that the Poor Law Commissioners wrote, as he thought was their duty, that they would not permit the workhouse to he in this overcrowded state, and that some steps must he taken to relieve the applicants out. The Board of Guardians met on the 29th November, and resolved not to admit any more paupers into the House, to discharge any they could be legally relieved from, and to postpone the consideration of the Commissioners' letter for a fortnight. The Poor Law Commissioners, thereupon, wrote to the Board of Guardians, and stated that, under the circumstances of the Union this resolution amounted, in fact, to a suspension of the administration of relief to the destitute poor for one fortnight, and they therefore peremptorily called upon the Board of Guardians to take efficient steps for the relief of the destitute poor, otherwise they, the Commissioners, would be compelled to revert to the extraordinary powers vested in them by the Legislature, in case of any Board of Guardians abandoning its duty. The Commissioners at the same time wrote to Mr. Briscoe, requesting him to call an extraordinary meeting of the Board of Guardians, to consider this state of things, and that in the meantime they relied on him instructing the relieving officers in the execution of their office. Mr. Briscoe replied that it was of no use calling a meeting of the Board of Guardians before the ordinary meeting, as the result would be a very scanty attendance; and as he felt confident they would not grant any outdoor relief, and that the relieving officers were perfectly aware of the duties they had to discharge. The Board of Guardians met on the 6th of December, and passed a resolution assuring the Poor Law Commissioners of their wish to carry out the administration of relief, but they considered outdoor relief was utterly impossible. The House would see that the Board of Guardians said they desired to carry out the administration of the law, but unfortunately they did not do it. Mr. Briscoe wrote that the opinion of the majority of the Board of Guardians was, that they would not be able to resist the pressure consequent upon outdoor relief, and that the affairs of the Union ought to be managed by paid officers—that the affairs of the Union deserved the best consideration of the Poor Law Commissioners—and that for the assistance they had rendered, the Board of Guardians had at all times expressed their thanks. The Board of Gruardians again met on the 13th of December, and adjourned until the following day any arrangements for entering upon the occupation of houses for additional accommodation. On the 18th the Poor Law Commissioners wrote to the Board of Guardians stating that no meeting had taken place on the 14th to make arrangements for the occupation of additional houses, notwithstanding that the workhouse continued to be overcrowded, and that many applicants were refused solely on the ground that there was no room; and on this ground they urged the necessity of affording relief out of the workhouse, at least until more workhouse accommodation was obtained. The Commissioners then wrote to Mr. Lynch, and desired him to examine into the condition of the Ennistymon Union, and to make a special report on the subject. He would merely read one paragraph from Mr. Lynch's letter, which was at page 12 of this correspondence, the last paragraph but one:—

"I was sorry to hear that the Guardians refused children from nine to fifteen years of age more than half a pound of meal a day, which, in my opinion, is not sufficient to sustain life."

After receiving that letter from Mr. Lynch, the Commissioners made an order for the dissolution of the Board. Parliament had placed upon the Poor Law Commissioners a serious responsibility, and, considering the delays which took place in the administration of relief by the Board of Guardians—that they totally failed to provide relief for the destitute poor, the way in which they proposed to administer relief after they had determined to administer it out of the workhouse—taking into consideration all these circumstances, if ever there was a case in which the Poor Law Commissioners could be justified in carrying out the powers confided to them, this was the case. If under such circumstances the Poor Law Commissioners were to be complained of, and the House was to grant a Committee of Inquiry, they had better at once take away the power from the Poor Law Commissioners altogether. He should, therefore, feel it his duty to oppose the Motion.

said, that the Motion might be objected to on the ground that it involved a censure upon the Poor Law Commissioners; but he thought, as the only appeal from the decision of the Commissioners was to that House, it was very right that the House should determine the question. He considered, also, that the state in which the Union had been left, afforded great excuse for the conduct of the late Board of Guardians; and he would therefore give his vote for the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir L. O'Brien). he (Colonel Dunne) was one of a deputation, including nearly all the Irish Members, which waited some time ago upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and there were two points upon which, he believed they were all agreed—first, that the system of outdoor relief, as part of the permanent poor-law, ought to be abolished; and also that the Poor Law Commissioners ought to be deprived of the power of arbitrarily dismissing Guardians of the Poor. In the case of the Ennistymon Union, the Poor Law Commissioners considered outdoor relief necessary, and they gave directions to the Guardians to afford such relief. It was true that the Board of Guardians delayed for a fortnight their consideration of the Commissioners' letter; but they did not delay acting upon the recommendation of the Commissioners, for it would be found from the published correspondence that the vice-chairman of the Union actually went at once to look at some houses with the view of obtaining increased accommodation. It was alleged that there was a combination to raise the rent of these houses; and the Board of Guardians therefore endeavoured to obtain the accommodation they required without any public demonstration of their intentions. The paid Board of Guardians had afforded outdoor relief on a most wasteful scale, and the new Guardians were therefore obliged to proceed with the utmost caution; but it appeared from reports made to the Poor Law Commissioners that the relieving officers had full power to afford relief in urgent cases. The distress in that district proceeded, in his opinion, from the conduct of the former paid Guardians; and he considered that the appointment of Guardians by the Poor Law Commissioners, and the granting of outdoor relief to the ablebodied poor, were two of the worst evils of the present law. The accuracy of Mr. Lynch's report was denied by the Board of Guardians, and they actually appealed to the Poor Law Commissioners to send impartial persons to investigate the state of the Union. The fact was that paid Guardians and outdoor relief were throwing all the land out of cultivation. He did not mean, in speaking of outdoor relief, to say that when the people required it, they should not be fed, but that ought to be a national affair, and not be made to rest upon any one district. It certainly seemed to be the worst possible way of removing famine to pursue a policy which had the effect of throwing all the land out of cultivation.

thought the Poor Law Commissioners were wrong in dismissing the Board of Guardians, and that his hon. Friend (Sir L. O'Brien) was fully justified in bringing this question before the House. If there was one thing more than another in which that House ought to exercise jealous vigilance, it was when the Commissioners had recourse to a measure which was condemned by both sides of that House with reference both to outdoor relief and the dismissal of the Guardians. When the Board of Guardians were blamed so much for postponing their obedience to the mandate of the Commissioners, it was not immaterial that the House should know the expenditure which had taken place. The outlay for the year had been no less than 22,886l., a larger sum than the yearly valuation of the whole Union, which only amounted to 22,624l. It was rather hard, then, such being the state of things, to impute to the Board of Guardians any want of consideration for the poor, merely because they had taken a fortnight to deliberate on the best course to be pursued. The Poor Law Commissioners had acted most improperly and unwisely in dismissing the Board in the manner they had; and he hoped that the notice which had been taken of the case would make them more cautious in future. Under the circumstances, however, he should recommend the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Motion.

did not agree with the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. The hon. Baronet (Sir L. O'Brien) had no business to bring forward the Motion on a night such as this, and to delay the House from going into Committee of Supply, if it was not a matter of sufficient importance to require a decision. But it was, in truth, a matter of the most vital importance to the people of Ireland. If the Board of Guardians had not conducted themselves properly, he did not seek to spare them any portion of the obloquy which ought to fall upon them; but, on the other hand, if the Poor Law Commissioners had acted in an unconstitutional and arbitrary manner, were they to be shielded by a majority of that House? The sole charge against the Board of Guardians was, that they had asked for a certain time to consider the ill-considered document which had been sent down to them from head-quarters; and it must be recollected that the nominees of the Commissioners had previously plunged the Union into pecuniary difficulties, and left it to their successors in such a state of disorder that there was no possibility of telling even the number of paupers. In fact, rations were drawn for persons who had been dead as much as eighteen months and two years, and for others who had gone to America. The vice-guardians left for their successors a debt of 13,000l., and no fewer than 17,000 persons in the receipt of outdoor relief, some of them being in possession of as much as forty acres of land. Surely this, at least, was an abuse which no English Member would stand up to defend. Such were the circumstances under which the elected Guardians asked time for consideration. Convinced that it was impossible to submit to the fraud and roguery which were inseparable from outdoor relief, they took steps to abolish it; and it was very desirable that they should have time allowed them to consider what was best to he done. They asked for a loan, but that was refused them; and the whole responsibility having thus been thrown upon them, they had discharged their duties efficiently and sensibly, as even the ordinary officer of the Commissioners had admitted. The Poor Law Commissioners had acted in this matter much as the Government had done when the measure was imposed upon Ireland. They had sent able men to inquire whether the measure was adapted for the country, and those gentlemen reported that it was not; whereupon they sent a Special Commissioner, a Mr. Nicholls, by whose cut-and-dried reports, the law was passed, and had carried desolation through the land. The ordinary officer of the Poor Law Commissioners had reported favourably of the Guardians, upon which they sent a special officer, Mr. Lynch, on whose inquiries, conducted without the knowledge of the Board, they had acted. But were Irish Guardians to be trampled upon, insulted, and dismissed by irresponsible Commissioners—and then the sole body of English Gentlemen to whom they could appeal refuse to hear them? He asked for simple justice alone, and he hoped that they would road the Poor Law Commissioners such a lesson as would teach them to be more careful in future.

said, he agreed in the recommendations of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) in advising the withdrawal of the Motion, on account of the present state of the House. He thought the Poor Law Commissioners might have adopted other means, and interposed a longer delay before dismissing the Board of Guardians; and he thought also that the ratepayers of the Union had a right to complain of being again handed over to men whose former management of the Union had brought its affairs into the greatest confusion, and had shown their own total ignorance of the administration of the Poor Laws. He knew that in many Unions representations were made to the Government to get vice-guardians appointed, under the belief that that would lead to Government assistance being given; and he was rather inclined to think that some such influence had been at work in the present case. He thought that an inquiry should be made into the present case, for the correspondence showed that the Board of Guardians had made every possible exertion to do their duty; and he thought that more forbearance should have been exercised by the Poor Law Commissioners before they branded them as the only Board of Guardians in Ireland who were worthy to be dismissed. There might have been other means adopted by the Commissioners, further entreaties and further examination, before such an extreme step. It was not an uncommon thing for a fortnight to elapse before a Board of Guardians was able to agree with the Commissioners as to the facts of a case. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Somerville) left out of the question the conduct of the former board and the feelings of the ratepayers; but ratepayers would feel that the Poor Law Commissioners were handing them over to gentlemen who ruined the union before. Though the question could not now be pressed to a division, he hoped the subject would occupy the serious attention of the Government.

said, that in the present thin state of the House it was very difficult to know what was best to be done. There seemed to have been a great exercise of power, and there appeared to have been also various allegations extremely injurious to the character of the guardians. He was very much dis- posed to think that they had been rash in confiding such powers to the Poor Law Commissioners, when he saw them used in the manner they had been used; and he took blame to himself for the share he had had in supporting the measure. At all events, the case was so clear that they could not refuse an inquiry. If one-half, or one-tenth, of what was stated with respect to the vice-guardians were true, there was ample ground for what was asked. He thought that two or three gentlemen, unconnected with the Union, would form a better Committee of Inquiry than one of the House of Commons. Probably the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) could promise such an inquiry should take place, and then there would be no necessity for the hon. Baronet (Sir L. O'Brien) to press his Motion.

said, that he was sorry that he could not comply with the request of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume); but after hearing the statement of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, he could not promise any further inquiry into the subject.

said, that he would not then press the subject to a division; but would refer to the subject again when the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) brought forward his Motion for an inquiry into the state of the Unions in the west of Ireland.

stated, that he found he could not, in accordance with the forms of the House, bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, on the subject of the expenditure upon the Kaffir War; but he proposed, with the consent of the House, to make a brief statement upon the subject either then or in Committee of Supply.

said, that he must request the hon. Gentleman to take the regular course by allowing the House to go into a Committee of Supply, and he had no doubt that the Committee would then allow him to make his statement.

said, he rather anticipated, from what had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman, that it was probable the discussion which might follow the proposal he had now to make, would turn upon other matter than the expense of the war; but he should endeavour to confine his observations to the financial part of the question. He need hardly detain the Committee with details as to the present state of the colony at the Cape of Good Hope, as they were no doubt sufficiently aware that a war was at present raging there with the Kaffir tribes, and that a considerable expense must be incurred for the purpose of putting an end to these hostilities; and he need, hardly remind the Committee of the character of the hostilities which, in former times, as well as the present, had generally prevailed between a civilised people and their less civilised neighbours; nor that, unless there was an interference on the part of the Government, the hostilities between the border settlers and their neighbours were of a very sanguinary description. Such were the hostilities formerly carried on with the Indians in our North American colonics, and such he was afraid were the hostilities between the Dutch Boors and Kaffir tribes at the Cape of Good Hope. The more enlightened spirit of modern times had, however, put an end as far as possible to that description of warfare. The necessary consequence was, that the warfare which was carried on was of a much more expensive character; and he thought it worth the while of a civilised nation to carry it on that way rather than in the barbarous mode which had hitherto characterised that description of hostilities. In the late Kaffir war a very serious expense was incurred, mainly arising from the officers in the colony being then very much unprepared for hostilities; and from its being necessary to provide the means of supplying the troops in great haste, without a proper staff being on the spot. It was also necessary to convey the supplies to the troops from a very great distance, as at that time the supplies were landed at Port Elizabeth, and then forwarded by Graham Town to the seat of war, through a tract of country exposed to the hostilities of the Kaffir tribes. Fortunately, the expense on the present occa- sion would be very much diminished by our now having possession of a landing-place at the mouth of the Buffalo River, which enabled us to land stores and munitions of war nearer to the scene of action. They wore now forwarded from East London to King William's Town, the centre of hostilities, at a less expense, and with less liability to attack by the Kaffirs, than in the former war. When he last addressed the Committee, he was apprehensive that a greater expense would be incurred than he thought would now probably be the case. The first estimate sent home by the Commissary-General at the Cape was, that the probable extra expenditure on account of the war for the six months would be about 400,000l.; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) then proposed to take a vote for 300,000l.; hoping that the war might possibly be brought to a speedy termination. He was afraid that that hope was very much diminished; but at the same time he was happy to state that the probable expenditure for the time was very much diminished also. Profiting by the experience of the late war, very stringent instructions were sent out to the commissariat officers in 1849, and a very much more rigid system of accounts was enforced upon them. A number of persons conversant with the business had been trained during the late war, and the Commissary-General was now able to avail himself of their assistance in keeping down the expenditure more effectually than in the former war. Great part of the expenditure then of necessity passed through hands over whom the commissariat officers had no adequate control. He had often been asked whether the accounts of the late Kaffir war had been completely audited; and he had been obliged to answer that that was not the case, in consequence of the impossibility of obtaining accounts from those colonial officers who were intrusted with the expenditure of a considerable portion of the money. The whole accounts of the commissariat officers had been rendered long since; and, as far as they went, the accounts had been audited, so far at least as it was possible to audit three-fourths of an account when it had been, so far, impossible to got the remaining one-fourth. Recent accounts from the Commissary-General at the Cape of Good Hope were of a much more satisfactory character with respect to the probable amount of expenditure, while at the same time letters from Sir Harry Smith to the Commissary-General stated, that he never knew troops more efficiently or more perfectly supplied with all necessaries. The actual expenditure for the month of January was 12,600l.; and while the original estimate for the expenditure up to the end of July was 400,000l.; it was now (from the experience of the first three months of the year up to the end of March) estimated at only 202,000l. in addition to the 12,600l. for the month of January, a sum not much more than half the original estimate. In the month of April last, 15,000 men in arms were in receipt of rations, and 15,000 more persons, consisting of the families of the levies, were in receipt either of rations or allowances during the absence of their husbands and parents. Altogether there were 30,000 persons receiving supplies from the commissariat. Notwithstanding this reduction in the estimate, he did not think it would be prudent to reduce the sum for which he originally proposed to take a vote, for no one could tell what would be the duration of these hostilities, and of course the money would not be spent unless it was wanted. It was only justice to the Commander-in-Chief to say, that while he had very properly required from the Commissary-General that all the necessary stores should be sent to the troops, he had joined heart and hand with that officer in keeping down the expenses on the frontier, and, according to the last accounts, he had succeeded in doing that to a very great extent. A great system of jobbing went on during the last war, and very large sums of money were put into the pockets of some parties; but this system had been put down by the exertions made upon the spot by the Governor-General. He should conclude by moving that a sum not exceeding 300,000l. should be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Kaffir war, beyond the ordinary grants for the Army, Navy, and Commissariat services for the year 1851–2.

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to recommend to the Committee the Vote which he had just moved, upon two grounds: first, that it was a small vote; and, next, that it was for a war of a more satisfactory character than might have been anticipated under a different course of policy. He (Mr. Adderley) thought, however, that the present vote was a mere exponent of the future expenses of wars which, under present cir- cumstances, and if we adhered to our present course of policy, promised to be almost interminable. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it matter of satisfaction that the present war was not such as those which formerly existed on the frontier of our North American colonies, or such as the Dutch Boers formerly maintained with the savages of the Cape of Good Hope, against whom we were now contending. He did not think, however, that either of the precedents referred to would present us with a more atrocious or barbarous system of warfare than that we were now carrying on ourselves, on the frontier of the Cape of Good Hope, under the command of Sir Harry Smith, who was not only the commander-in-chief of the forces, but the representative of Her Majesty in the colony. That war was now being carried on by the destruction of the crops belonging to the Kaffirs, who retaliated by roasting the prisoners whom they captured. Though he hardly knew what line to take since his position had been changed with reference to the Motion of which he had given notice, yet he wished to state some considerations which might have some influence in inducing the Committee to arrive at the conclusion that the vote now proposed should be adjourned for a few days, till more satisfactory information should be obtained. What was this vote? It was a vote of 300,000l. towards the expenses of the Kaffir war; but he believed if a vote of half-a-crown, or of any other sum, were proposed, such a vote would be just as reasonable, as good for the purpose, as legitimate an exponent of the gigantic expenses now incurring at the Capo, as this merely arbitrary sum of 300,000l., for naming which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assigned no reason or ground, had produced no estimate or data on which he could be justified in preferring it to a sum much larger or much smaller. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the expenditure on account of the present war would be conducted in a much more satisfactory manner than that on account of the late war. But let the Committee recollect that this was the seventh Kaffir war for which the country had had to pay during the short period in which we had been in possession of the colony; and if it was the case that we were taken by surprise in the late war, that the Governor General did not know how to conduct his commissariat department, and that he was embarrassed by the long distance which the supplies for the troops had to be carried, this only proved that the sixth war was expensive because the five former ones had not taught us how to manage our commissariat. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the accounts of the late war had not been audited; that they wore still lying unexamined, in a heap, in the office at Cape Town, to which they were first sent; and as for sending them to England, he believed there was no one here who wished to see them, and no one at the Cape who wished to send them. They never had been and never would be audited; nor did any one know the extent of the imposition and peculation (which the Governor General himself said was unbounded) during the late war. Because an estimate of 202,000l. had been sent home to the right hon. Gentleman instead of the 400,000l. which he expected, he (without knowing how much of the expenses already incurred this 202,000l. represented) was ready to anticipate a much more satisfactory limitation to the expenditure upon the war, than any one who had been accustomed to consider the subject would be inclined to do. The Committee, before agreeing to this vote, must consider its causes and the chances of its recurrence. It had been laid down by many Colonial Ministers, and by none more clearly than by Earl Grey, in the late correspondence with the Governor of New Zealand, that every colony which had a representative government given to it must bear the expenses of its own internal defence. In considering this vote it would therefore be much more to the purpose to inquire why the colony of the Cape of Good Hope had not a representative government, than to consider the precise amount of the expenses of the war. Every one knew perfectly well that we must pay the whole expense of the present Kaffir war, and the only question was whether we had a hope of its coming to a speedy conclusion, or of such a constitution being granted to the Cape of Good Hope as would relieve this country from the burden of such expenses in future. No doubt, if the colony had to bear the expense, it would be a great check upon these wars; for the colony would then be much more careful of running into them; but so long as there were the Army and the purse of England to fall back upon, there would always be a large body of men in the colony whose interest (though not that of the colonists generally) it would be to have these wars. At all events, however, we should then cease to bear the expense. He believed, therefore, that the result would be that they would cease. What the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer called the barbarous system of dealing with the natives would again recur; the settlers would take strong measures for repressing aggressions upon their property; they would again pursue the system which they once took successfully, and which he thought was in reality more merciful than the one now pursued. The question then was, why had not the Cape of Good Hope a representative government? In the early part of 1850 Her Majesty sent out letters patent to the Governor of the Colony, authorising him, with his Legislative Council, to form a representative constitution for the Colony. The first task of the Governor, on the receipt of these letters patent, was to form a Legislative Council, to enable him to exercise the powers thus granted to him in conjunction with that body. No Legislative Council had existed in the Colony for two years, as no one would consent to what was considered the degradation of sitting in it; so that for three years previous to the present time there had been no Government at the Cape of Good Hope except the Governor himself. Acting on a suggestion of Earl Grey, Sir Harry Smith proceeded, then, to fill up the Council by what was virtually popular election; that was, he announced that he would appoint as members of the Council those who were recommended to him by the colonists. The task of forming a constitution was a most material point to which he (Mr. Adderley) wished to refer; that and another were the only two points to which he should call the attention of the Committee, for they were the two most essential points of the whole history. Those who were not aware of the facts erroneously supposed that it was in consequence of some minor differences respecting the formation of the constitution, that the elected members resigned. That was not so. The members elected by the people were ready to take any constitution that was offered to them; and would have been perfectly thankful if they had received the constitution as it bad been sketched out and contained in the letters patent sent out by Earl Grey. It was not on account of the nature of the constitution they resigned, but because the Government presented to them a series of measures on other subjects, which led them to suppose that they had been tricked into being elected into a Council, to be used as an ordinary legislature, instead of being used as a constituent assembly. They said they had been sent there by the municipalities to constitute a constituent assembly, and bad not been sent there as an ordinary legislature, and were not authorised to act as such. Thirteen Bills had been presented to them as if they were an ordinary legislature previous to considering the new constitution, and they refused to go into those subjects. It might be said that the first Bill presented to them was not a Bill of any great moment—a Bill relating to the Dutch Church; but any person who had leisure to read the blue book could not doubt for a moment this fact, that the point at issue between the Government and the elected members was, that the elected members refused to pass the estimates for the expenses that had been incurred during the two previous years; whereas the Governor was afraid to meet a new Parliament without having that expenditure sanctioned by the Legislative Council. The Council wished the question of expense to be postponed until they bad framed a new constitution. On that point solely they resigned, and having so resigned, the proposed constitution could not be proceeded with. The elected members who resigned, having met together, drew up a draft constitution according to the expressed views of the larger part of the colony. Two gentlemen had come from the colony with that proposition, and they were authorised to speak the sentiments of nine-tenths of the future proposed electoral body of the colony. Of that there could be no doubt in the mind of any man who looked at the papers they had circulated for the purpose of making the facts known throughout this country. That constitution consisted of sixteen articles, and the colonists who approved of it were represented in this country by Sir Andreas Stockenstroem and Mr. Fairbairn. Upon the arrival of the first delegate (the second had only just arrived) he proceeded to Earl Grey; but both he and the House of Commons had to wait for an answer until the arrival of certain despatches from the Cape of Good Hope. Those despatches had arrived at length, and had been printed and laid upon the table of the House; and what they showed was this, that as soon as Earl Grey had heard of the statement upon the point, his first act was to reprimand Sir Harry Smith on two grounds: first, that he had appealed to popular election in filling up his Council; and, nest, because when the four gentlemen so elected had resigned he did not go on with his Government with the remainder of the Council. Sir Harry Smith defended himself on the double ground that he had no other mode of filling up his Council, having tried to do so for two years, and had failed, and his only mode therefore was to appeal to popular election, or rather to popular recommendation; and, secondly, that his having so appealed to popular recommendation had been done at the suggestion of Earl Grey himself; and any person who looked to the despatches would see that Sir Harry Smith was fully justified on that point. With regard to the other part of the reprimand, be defended himself by stating that he had consulted his law officers as to whether he could go on with his Government after the four members bad resigned, and that the law officers gave it as their opinion that he could not go on with the remnant of the Council. They said that the remnant having been reduced below the legal number, it would be illegal for him to proceed with them. On receiving this answer from Sir Harry Smith, Earl Grey wrote back to say—

"I cannot myself personally agree in the opinion of your legal officers, and I think if I were to ask the legal officers of the Crown here their opinion on the subject, they would give a different opinion. However, it is too late to make it worth while to dispute this point, and therefore I have advised Her Majesty to send out fresh instructions, by which you will be enabled to carry on the ordinary powers of the Government with the remnant of the Council."

Whether Her Majesty had the power to issue those fresh instructions, after the letters patent of 1850, was a matter more for the consideration of the law officers of the Crown than for him. He should suppose there was considerable doubt on the point; at all events Earl Grey seemed himself to have some diffidence about it, and cautioned Sir Harry Smith that it was desirable that he should do no more than the mere ordinary routine business of the Government with that remnant, and that he should not attempt to exercise the powers given to him in the first letters patent with that Council, but should wait for a better season to fill up the Council to its first amount, in which case he might be able to proceed under the original letters patent in forming a new constitution. That brought the whole history of the constitution to a close; that was the end of all the despatches on the subject that had been laid upon the table of the House; and he would now call the attention of the Committee to the epitome of the last despatch he had alluded to, winch was simply this—"Sir Harry Smith, if you cannot find four men in the whole of the colony to fill up your Legislative Council, then you must govern the country without one single colonist." If this were acted upon, Sir Harry Smith would be the first Governor that ever was invested with such authority; he had received a sort of Emperor-of-Russia authority over the colony; but that was not the whole of the grievance. The Governor himself was not at Cape Town. He was beyond the frontier acting in two other capacities: he was at King William's Town in Kaffiraria, acting as Her Majesty's commissioner and general in command of the forces, carrying on the war. The Cape of Good Hope at this moment was under the government of Mr. Montague, the Government secretary, and no other person; it was a Montague government, and nothing else, and that was a secret government, for he was not a responsible man. The colony of the Cape of Good Hope (one of the most important of their colonies) was under the nameless and irresponsible government of Mr. Montague. He alone wrote despatches, conducted the government, had no council, no responsibility, and was the secret government at the Cape of Good Hope at that moment. While such an anomalous state of things had existed in the colony, how had the expenses of the government been carried on? For three years there had not been a single vote legalising the appropriation of the revenue; it was mainly raised from permanent taxes, but it had been appropriated upon the responsibility of the Governor. The revenue had not mot the expenditure during that time, and the excess had been taken from the Orphan Guardians' Fund arising from the estates of minors. In the midst of such a state of things the Kaffir war had occurred; but he had no intention to allude to it. The Committee was acquainted with the circumstances, and he had no intention to trace that to Sir Harry Smith's conduct; but he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a new fact, and that was, whether the policy of the Government was in process of being brought to a conclusion, or was in process of being further carried out and exaggerated. He believed there was on the part of the Committee and of the country an indefinite notion, that if they were content to bear the 2,000,000l. they had to pay, this would be the last war, and that the policy which had occasioned it was in process of being changed; but instead of the policy being in process of being changed or checked, it was in process of being exaggerated to such a gigantic extent, that all that had heretofore occurred appeared as nothing when compared to what might be expected hereafter from the future policy of Earl Grey. On the 12th of July, 1850, Sir Harry Smith wrote to Earl Grey, as a piece of good news, that there had been a new lake discovered 700 miles north of the northern frontier of their colony. It appeared that the Boers, discontented with their rule, were rejoiced to find a fertile spot in the interior, and were resolved to give up their possessions to escape to this lake, and Sir Harry Smith congratulated Earl Grey that he had been beforehand with them, that he had already sent his agent there, that he was glad to find he had arrived at this lake before the Boers, and he asked Earl Grey to extend the 6th and 7th William IV. c. 57, which was an Act passed for extending their jurisdiction beyond the frontier of the colony; he asked him to extend that Act immediately to the Equator. He said it was his impression that it would be advisable to accredit a British agent to reside with the chiefs in the neighbourhood of the lake, and that they should select a missionary. He held out to the natives as his opinion that the Boers were their enemies, that it was at their risk and imminent danger they would allow the Dutch Boors to come amongst them, and he held up the Dutch Boers to the hatred of the natives. Sir Harry Smith said—

"In giving your Lordship this advice, I am following the same principle which guided me in inducing Her Majesty to proclaim British sovereignty between the Orange and Veal rivers."

Earl Grey's reply to this communication of Sir Harry Smith was dated in November last. He began by telling Sir Harry Smith that his determination to declare that whole country under British rule was right, and then he adds—

"At the same time I would advise you to enter into friendly relations with those chiefs; advise those chiefs to combine against the Boers under a general authority; tell them the British Government will help them. If they choose, the Governor of the Cape will send them an officer to reside amongst them, and aid them by his advice and direction. His first stop is to induce the chiefs to establish a confederacy against the Boers, and induce them to invite the residence of a British officer amongst them, who may act as the commandant of the Kaffirs has acted, and would conduct the government, and establish a force like the Kaffir police, and impose taxes. I hope to introduce a Bill next Session to extend the Act 6 and 7 William IV., c. 57, to the Equator."

He thought the extract he had read from that despatch would show that the policy which had created the war was continued; and if they had to vote millions for the expense of Kaffir wars, they would have to vote tens of millions for a war between the Orange River and the Equator. The frontier policy which had created these wars—wars which the colonists themselves deprecated, which were ruinous to the colony, and most burdensome to this country—instead of being checked and diminished, was about to be exaggerated. The frontier policy had been referred to a Select Committee, and he would say no more on that point; but they should bear in mind that the effect of referring the subject to a Select Committee was to fix upon the country the responsibility of that war. At that moment the whole mass of the Kaffir tribes was combined against us in an internecine war, and the last man who had been gained over was the greatest of all the chiefs, Kreili, and there was not at that moment a single district where the natives were not at war against us. So far he had drawn a gloomy picture, and such as would not much encourage them to sanction a policy which led to such a result. He now begged to call the attention of the Committee to more encouraging symptoms, and he did so with great satisfaction. The two deputies from the Cape of Good Hope had made a solemn appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, pointing out to the noble Lord the means he had in his hands to put an end to the present disastrous state of things, and they implore him humbly to interfere and render aid to those men who felt that the lives and properties of themselves and their countrymen depended upon his answer. He (Mr. Adderley) believed that the noble Lord's answer was such as gave them the greatest encouragement; and it certainly was no less than he (Mr. Adderley) had anticipated, not alone from the character of the noble Lord, but in consequence of his antecedents in connection with the colonial department of the country, for he believed that every one would allow the noble Lord to have been one of the best Colonial Secretaries this country ever possessed. The noble Lord requested they should state to him what alterations they wished to have in the constitution that had been offered to them, and the reasons they had for proposing those alterations. Their reply was, that they wished for no alteration whatever, and were content to take the constitution offered to them, with this material difference, that no previous legislation should be necessary on the part of the old Legislative Council. The noble Lord's second answer, though as kind and considerate as the first, was perhaps, not quite as encouraging; for though they understood it to mean that the noble Lord felt and sympathised with them on account of the momentous crisis at which the colony had arrived, yet at the same time he thought it right to wait for further despatches, to see if there was any chance of the war being concluded before he gave a definite answer as to the time they might expect this representative constitution would be given to them. At the same time he alluded to certain technical or legal difficulties that should be removed before he could say that the new constitution would be sent out from this country without the intervention of the Legislative Council. He (Mr. Adderley) thought the noble Lord might have taken a bolder step, and stated his views more decisively and resolutely, and he could not see what impediment there was in the way of the noble Lord doing so, Since the noble Lord had given that answer, despatches had arrived which proved that there was not the slightest chance of the war being concluded for many months. What, then, should prevent the noble Lord from proceeding at once to the completion of that constitution which he thought was so necessary for the colony? He had the means of completing it if he chose. While Sir Harry Smith was engaged in the war beyond the frontier, he might, acting on the precedent of Canada, scud out a nobleman of rank and position, as Commissioner, to carry the constitution into effect. If a constitution was granted to the colonists at the Cape, they would do that which they offered to do twenty-three years ago if a constitution was given them; namely, to take on themselves, from their own energies and their own resources, the whole of the expenses incident to the maintenance of war in the colony. He (Mr. Adderley) would therefore press on the noble Lord a considera- tion of the statement he (Mr. Adderley) had ventured to make, at much greater length than he had intended. He would put it to the Committee whether the discussion of this vote ought not, at least for a day or two, to be adjourned until the noble Lord gave a decided answer, which the noble Lord said he should be able to do in a few days.

must say he thought the hon. Gentleman, though no doubt fully persuaded of the views he expressed, was very much mistaken with respect to the causes of our present difficulties at the Cape, and as to that which he believed to be their immediate remedy. The whole statement of the hon. Gentleman resolved itself into this—that this country was making war on the native tribes, and that the wars in which they had engaged had been entirely wanton and unnecessary, and he thought, if the colonists had representative institutions, and were told they would have to vote taxes for the war, they would decline to hear any such burden, and that the war would cease from the want of aliment. Now, all that theory of the hon. Gentleman's was based on the supposition that Her Majesty's subjects at the Cape of Good Hope made war on those savage tribes merely for the purpose of making war, and with no other purpose than the destruction of the people, without any aggression having been made upon themselves. But any man who had looked to the history of the Cape colony before and since it had been in their possession, must see the real state of things had been totally different, and that the Dutch and English settlers, having extended their settlements beyond the immediate frontier of Cape Town, had maintained their positions, and that the Kaffirs and other tribes had from time to time rushed down to destroy their dwellings, and to carry off their cattle. Thus in 1845 the account they had received was, that 10,000 Kaffirs had entered within the frontier, had destroyed the farmhouses of the inhabitants, and had carried of all the cattle belonging to the farms. To defend themselves against such attacks and incursions, was surely no wanton act on the part of the colonists. He (Lord J. Russell) thought it was an extravagant proposition to say to the colonists so circumstanced, that they were to defray the expense of protecting their property and their lives, and that if they did not defend their settlement, they would be exposed to the chance of murder at the hands of the savage tribes by whom they were continually liable to be assailed. He thought it much more reasonable for the colonists to call for protection on those in whom the sovereign power resided. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose the constitution would be of such value that, contrary to his former supposition, it would immediately mate the inhabitants defray the expenses of the war. He had no doubt received assurances of that kind; but he (Lord J. Russell) did not find there was any party ready to make public assurances of the same description, and they had no intimation that the colonists were prepared to say if we gave them a representative constitution they would vote taxes, and give what would be sufficient for the purposes of the war without the assistance of the United Kingdom; on the contrary, Mr. Fairbairn, he understood, held very different language before the Select Committee, and very prudently and properly declined to commit himself to any pledge that the colony would sustain that expense. It being impossible, considering the revenue of the colony, that the expenses could be defrayed otherwise than by this country, large questions arose connected with the subject, some to be considered by the Select Committee, and others which were matters for debate in that House; but he really did not think they could lay down any system which would give them perfect security on the subject. He was aware that the war was of a very distressing character, that many savage acts had been committed, and that the plan adopted had not been so entirely successful as to enable them to say they were free from the danger of Kaffir wars in future; but, at the same time, the policy the hon. Gentleman derided as mere folly, and as utterly unworthy of this country, was the policy that had been adopted partly in consequence of the advice of such able men as Sir Benjamin D'Urban and Sir Henry Pottinger, and their successors, and partly in consequence of a very strong feeling in that House and in the country that they ought not for the sake of the character of the nation to support the former system of the Dutch settlers, or the old commando system, which consisted in persons going out with their rifles and shooting any native they saw, whether engaged in any predatory proceeding or not. It certainly deserved examination hereafter to see if they should go on with the present system, and, if any alteration was to take place, what it ought to be. At the present moment the question was, whether this country should bear the expense, which it was clear the colony could not bear; but when the hon. Gentleman asked him whether he was prepared on other grounds to issue an immediate grant of the constitution, he must recall what were the real circumstances which had happened, and which would be found, perhaps, not to be in entire conformity with the hon. Gentleman's statement. It must be in the recollection of the Committee when the proposal of a representative constitution came over to this country, Lord Stanley, who was then Secretary for the Colonies, discouraged the project, entertaining doubts whether it was practicable to introduce a representative constitution at that time; and from 1842 to 1849 very little had been heard of it. On considering the whole matter, and examining it in the most solemn way by the Committee of Privy Council, it was resolved by Government to attempt to establish a representative constitution at the Cape; but the persons whom Sir Harry Smith called to the Executive Council, with the view that they should assist him in carrying into effect the details of the representative constitution, so that the whole instrument might receive the approbation of Government, instead of aiding him, set themselves to thwart him and his counsels by every kind of obstructive annoyance; and Sir Harry Smith said, he believed that from the very first their intention was to do so. They began by disputing the right of two Members of Council nominated by the Governor to sit there; and after that they refused to carry out the details of the representative constitution, and retired from the Council altogether. Whether the representative constitution would have worked for good or for evil, it was quite obvious that if these gentlemen had accepted the instrument sent from London, and had taken the representative constitution and filled up the details, and had bowed to the decision of the Executive Council, the constitution would have been in operation in the colony at this moment. Therefore, it was entirely the fault of the colonists themselves that they had not now a representative constitution. When the hon. Member said, with some truth, that there was a despotic Government and authority at the Cape, the reason was, that these gentlemen were the real authors of it by their refusal. He had only two things more to say. The first was, that Her Majesty's Ministers were fully determined to carry into effect that proposal of representative government for the Cape of Good Hope. Whatever questions might arise as to its particular form, and as to one very important consideration, namely, the wishes of the inhabitants of the eastern part of the colony as compared with those of the western part, the Government were fully determined that there should be a representative constitution for the Cape. The other point was, that however anxious they might be to introduce it at the present moment, there appeared to them—and certainly, after the last despatches, rather more than before—an insuperable difficulty to the immediate putting of the constitution in force in that colony. A war was raging there which occupied the whole mind and energies of the Governor-in-Chief, so as to prevent his being present; and with the whole Council divided from him, and being unable to act, it would be impossible for him to carry it into effect. There was another difficulty with respect to sending out any separate Commissioner or Governor to carry it into effect, which was, that a great portion of those who took an active part in the discussion and election of a free constitution were themselves engaged in carrying on the war and in fighting in the field, and while that was the case it seemed exceedingly difficult to have any elections. He did not know he needed to say anything of the nature of the proposed constitution—the disputes about the several points of it did not seem to present much matter for present discussion; but it would be necessary to get some law passed to enable them to fix within certain limits the operation of the judicial and executive functions in the colony. But the immediate question before them was, whether or not they would vote the sum proposed for the expenses of the Kaffir war, and that depended on the very general question, namely, that in 1819 and subsequently, they had encouraged emigrants to go out and form settlements on the frontiers of the Cape, and he believed the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had approved of it at the time; that these emigrants had been from time to time exposed to the incursions of savage tribes, and that the occurrences of 1846 had not prevented a fresh outbreak; and then the question was, whether they would leave the colonists to be overpowered without any assistance whatever. He believed that as to sending assistance to prevent the murder of colonists, who had been encouraged by the House to go out to the Cape of Good Hope, there could be no doubt whatever.

said, there was one sentiment in the speech of the noble Lord, and only one, of which he approved, and that was, the noble Lord's intimation that the Government were determined to extend a representative responsible government to the colony of the Cape. He had, however, seldom heard a speech which more misrepresented the case under consideration than that of the noble Lord. The present war had no connexion whatever with former wars. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) seemed to forget that in 1828 petitions were forwarded from the Capo of Good Hope to this country to the effect that they needed a responsible government, and that, if they had such a government, they would undertake the whole expenses of the colony, and thus relieve the mother country. Since that time the colonists had repeated that statement several times; but they said at the same time that they would not defray the expenses of wars of injustice. They were willing to manage such wars of their own as might be forced on them by the conduct of the natives; but they refused to defray the cost of a war of injustice and aggression waged against the aborigines. It was true, as stated by the noble Lord, that he encouraged emigration to the Cape; but then he always said that the people should get representative institutions, and that they should not be left under the despotic sway of one man. It was the want of such institutions that had caused the ruin of the colony and such a drain upon the people of this country. He recommended that the surplus population of this country should go to the Cape of Good Hope; but he never recommended them to go amongst savages, or to drive people from the property which they had possessed. The territory of Kaffraria formed no part of the original Cape colony. So far as he could judge from the map which was laid before the House, it was about one-third of the extent of the old possessions at the Cape, and in seizing the land there, which the people wanted for feeding their cattle, they went out of their way to attack them. The noble Lord spoke as if the native inhabitants had attacked us; but the truth was that we had gone out of our own territory to attack them. We had settled military colonies beyond the frontier of the Capo of Good Hope, and the war which was going on was not upon land formerly belonging to the Cape, but on the territories of which we had robbed the natives. The consequence was that the people of England were not only obliged to defray the cost of the last war, but were now called upon to pay for that which was being carried on. He had before him the proclamation of Sir Harry Smith of the 14th March, 1849, in which he took possession of the territory to the north of the Great Orange River; and it was this act of aggression and spoliation that the people of England were now called on to support by their money. Sir Harry Smith, feeling the necessity of some plea by this act, applied to Mr. Porter, the Attorney General, for his opinion; hut Mr. Porter said that it was not a colony by conquest, by cession, or by settlement, and therefore there could be no pretence for taking possession of the territory. He (Mr. Hume) submitted that the Government were supporting a policy of aggression against the native inhabitants, and that that aggression had naturally led to a system of retaliation on their parts. The Committee was called upon to vote 300,000l. to carry on a war of aggression. When the Attorney General for the Cape two years afterwards was asked on what grounds the war was justifiable, he was compliant enough to alter his previous opinion and say, that it was a war for territory belonging to us by cession; because, forsooth, some chief who could never command fifty followers, had ceded that to which he had no right. But the real truth was, that they were engaged in a war for land that did not belong to them. The tribes were now said to be barbarous and cruel; but the missionaries who had been amongst them, and Sir Harry Smith himself on former occasions, gave a very different account of them. He (Mr. Hume) believed that if Sir Benjamin D'Urban bad not been removed, these disturbances would never have taken place. He did not think that any man out of a lunatic asylum would have used the language, or adopted the proceedings, which Sir Harry Smith had recourse to in reference to the Boers. Those people actually fled to the wilderness rather than have anything to do with our Government. The farmers left the homes where they were born, and preferred to trust themselves to savages, than to remain under the British Government. They fled to Natal, but we follow- ed them there; and when they fled to the Salt Lake—700 miles still farther from the British Government—Sir Harry Smith said he would take possession of the Lake, and would make provision to extend the British power there; and Earl Grey also approved of such conduct. There were two letters from him, in one of which he says that they were not to take possession of this place, but in another he stated that he approved of the conduct of the Governor. Now he objected to giving any money to support this war, because it would be giving encouragement to robbery and oppression. That being his view, he would not give a single shilling unless he had a promise from the Government that a representative form of government would be given to the colonists, which he was sure would be the speediest mode of establishing peace at the Cape. If representative institutions had been given in 1838, or even last year, they would have been saved the expense and disgrace of the present proceedings. They were now asked to send out a Commission, or to carry out the Orders in Council with respect to representative government. That seemed to him to be a reasonable proposition, and he should give it his support. But the noble Lord said that it was not the fault of the Government that the colonists had not free institutions, and that they refused them themselves. Never was there any statement made which deserved less attention than that. He gave the noble Lord every credit for the Orders in Council or letters patent which were obtained; and he was willing to admit that Sir Harry Smith was actuated by the best intentions when he received these instructions. He ordered every municipality to meet, in order to select delegates to be sent to Capo Town, with the view of forming a representative constitution. Sir Andries Stockenstroem, Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Brandt, and another gentleman, wore selected, and they wished to proceed immediately to the business for which they were appointed. But a proposition was made that they should vote the expenses of the colony. But the delegates said that they could proceed to no other business till they had first agreed to the form of constitution. The Government, on the other hand, insisted on having the estimates voted, and ten or twelve measures besides were introduced. One of these was a Bill for renewing the ordinances of 1843 respecting the Church. On this Bill Sir A. Stockenstroem moved an Amendment, that they should first take into consideration the arrangements for framing the representative assembly. After a long debate, the Governor and all the officials voted for the Bill, and the four delegates voted for the Amendment, which was lost. A second Amendment was proposed by the Attorney General for the colony, that it was indispensably necessary to take the annual estimates into consideration before any other business was proceeded with. The four delegates voted against this, but they were again in a minority in the Council: they retired, and referred their conduct to the colony. Eight-tenths of the constituency declared that they approved of their conduct; and yet this was the cause of the whole dispute. Under the circumstances, the Government ought to have hastened the promulgation of the constitution. The inhabitants were prepared to accept it; and it was with deep regret that he had heard the noble Lord attempt to justify a delay which the colonists must consider to amount to a refusal. When the Government had announced their assent to the constitution, the colonists would no doubt do their best to put an end to the war. It was not a war of the colonists, but a war of the Commissioners of the Orange district; the Cape colonists had nothing to do with it; and it appeared to him that by granting any money at that moment, without a previous satisfactory explanation, the Committee would be sanctioning the injustice of the Government in taking possession of Kaffraria. He did not say that the money must not ultimately be voted; but the Government should be compelled to put matters in a new train. At present they were only widening the breach. He had no hesitation in saying, that if peace were once established, and a constitution granted, there would be a termination of the war expenses thrown on the British public. It would be very unwise in the Committee to give encouragement to the wild schemes of Earl Grey. Anyone who read the despatches would see that that noble Lord was teaching the inhabitants near the Salt Lake that their condition would be improved by the payment of taxes; but he would not find that the best way to cultivate the affections of a people was to call upon them to pay taxes, and at the same time to refuse them a constitutional form of government.

said, he was glad, though not surprised, to hear his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) declare in the latter part of his speech, notwithstanding all that he had previously said, that this vote must pass. He was quite sure that if circumstances were stated plainly it would be seen that there never was a case in which it was more necessary that the Committee should come to a decision, in order to assure their fellow-subjects at the Cape that their interests were not overlooked in the hour of extreme peril. The hon. Member (Mr. Adderley) who introduced the subject, had stated, that if a constitution were granted to the colonists, there would be no more wars; and his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had described the present war as one of aggression. He must dispute both those propositions, and he would first address himself to the latter one. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) had spoken as if the sole purpose of the war was the extension of territory, and he said Sir Benjamin D'Urban would not have been the man to pursue such an object. Why, the policy now pursued was identically that recommended by Sir Benjamin D'Urban, and afterwards by Sir Henry Pottinger, but which was for a time, he thought through an error of judgment, reversed. Let not hon. Members, however, be led away with the idea that there was any attempt unnecessarily to extend the frontier. In the first place, with regard to the extension of the territory northward, he must observe that the idea that there was such an intention had no other foundation than this, that it had been thought right to extend, not British territory, but jurisdiction over British subjects. If the hon. Member who introduced the Motion had referred to the Act 6 and 7 William IV. c. 57, or had read the papers now on the table, he would have seen that his notion of an intention to extend British influence or British power to the Equator had no foundation in fact. The extension eastward was in accordance with the policy recommended by Sir Benjamin D'Urban. It should be remembered that the frontier of the Cape had never been a peaceful frontier. In 1835, shortly after the prevalence of a state of tranquillity similar to that which was said to have existed recently, there was an inroad of 10,000 Kaffirs, who committed the greatest atrocities; and after having quelled that outbreak, Sir Benjamin D'Urban thought it necessary to the defence of the frontier that British authority should be extended beyond it. That was precisely the view taken by Sir Harry Smith; and what was the result of acting upon it? Why, that even at this moment, during the present war, there had been no incursions into the colony, none of those murderous and desolating inroads which took place formerly. Having British military authorities in their rear, the Kaffirs had been afraid to enter the colony, and no serious injury had been sustained at any point except at the Kat River settlement. The extension of territory northward, and the appointment of a resident there, was made at the request of natives, with the view of protecting them against the aggressions of the Boers. With regard to the constitution, he could only repeat the statement of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), that there was no intention whatever to withhold representative institutions from the Cape, and that if the colonists had not at that moment a popular constitution, it was entirely their own fault. If the colonists were delighted with this constitution, why, he asked, did they not accept it at once?—why was there any delay or discussion? The truth was that these gentlemen were indisposed to become legislative councillors except for one special and single purpose, though they were elected to exercise all the functions of a member of a legislative council. Sir Andries Stockenstroem himself accepted petitions from different parts of the colony relative to various legislative measures, and there was no ground for saying that he was elected for any particular purpose. In the letters patent it was stated that the Council were to "make, enact, ordain, and establish laws for the good government of the settlement;" and when these gentlemen interposed vexatious proceedings, it was to benefit a party to which they belonged, and to which a large, and by far the most important, party in the colony was diametrically opposed. There wore no grounds for saying that representative institutions were delayed by the Government. Earl Grey had simply said, that whilst the Governor was devoting his whole time and attention to the suppression of an insurrection, and whilst every functionary in the colony was distracted and disturbed, it was impossible that the details of a representative constitution could be considered calmly and dispassionately. The moment peace was restored, it would be quite in the power of the Legislative Council to obtain a constitution. With regard to the statement that Kaffraria had been seized unnecessarily, he must observe that the colonists to a man supported Sir Benjamin D'Urban in that quasi extension of territory, while the Government at homo disallowed it. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) proposed to revert to the old policy, which he characterised as "the strong arm of self-defence." He (Mr. Hawes) would tell the Committee what that meant—it meant that the colonists should revert to the old commando system, which was marked by deeds so atrocious that it was found impossible to maintain it. He had asked Mr. Fairbairn whether he would wish to see that system reverted to, and he replied that he would not. What Mr. Fairbairn desired was that there should be a military force on the frontier, which was the system at present. In saying that the colonists would undertake to hear the expense of defending the frontier, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) opposed himself to the opinion of Mr. Fairbairn, who distinctly stated that they would not undertake to pay the expenses of any war. [Mr. ADDERLEY: Of this war?] No, of any war, beyond a certain proportion. To say that the present war was one of aggression, was to say what was absolutely unjustifiable. The war of 1835 was without justification on the part of the Kaffirs; and Sir Peregrine Maitland declared the Kaffirs to be without excuse. It had always been our policy to defend the Cape frontier by outposts; and, as far as he could learn, that had been found to be the best system to protect the colony from devastation. With regard to the vote itself, he could not believe that the Committee would refuse to the Government the moans of protecting the colonists, and of bringing the war to a successful conclusion.

was unwilling to aggravate the difficulties and embarrass the authority of Government with respect to the calamitous circumstances of the Cape of Good Hope. He agreed with his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury that when war was raging, and when the energies of every person were required to bring it to a conclusion, it was not the time to discuss the question as to whether they would give the colony representative institutions or not. But there was one thing which might fairly be urged in his own defence by the hon. Member (Mr. Adderley) who bad brought forward the subject on this occasion, and it was this—that hon. Members had no other opportunity of discussing it; that it was only when sums of money were voted for ex- pensive wars like the present that they could give attention to the subject of the institutions of the colony. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that the only question regularly before them at present was whether they should vote the sum of money which was asked for or not. But there was another question which might not unfairly he put on this occasion, and that was how often were they to be called on to vote such sums of money; and what the interest was that the people of England took in these colonies and in these wars to justify the expense? His noble Friend always referred to the emigration of 1819; but had the emigrants of that time any notion of the subsequent extension of the colony, or the present state of affairs, whether called a war of aggression or extension? He agreed in the observation that this was an imperial war, and was not a war of the colonists. He did not believe that they would willingly have engaged in it, or conducted it in the manner in which it had been conducted. If attention had been paid to the cautions of the colonists, the war might possibly have been prevented; and, under these circumstances, of course the colonists could not be asked to pay for it. This war was not only our war, but he believed it would be one of considerable length, and should be carried on in a way to settle the question whether these tribes should be reduced to submission, or we driven back within the precincts of Cape Town, which, in his opinion, we ought never to have exceeded. Without entering at length on the difficult questions now perplexing the colony, he wished to impress on the Government the necessity of caution in their conduct respecting it; and here he must express his surprise at the course pursued during the present Session by his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, who, after opposing the issue of a Commission of Inquiry, and proposing a Committee of that House instead, nevertheless, at a subsequent period, issued, in addition to the Committee, a Commission to inquire into the relations with the Kaffir tribes. Thus the present position of affairs was this—Sir Harry Smith was Governor of the colony, without any representative assembly to assist him; the constitution of the colony might be said to be in abeyance; and two gentlemen—excellent appointments be admitted—were going out to act with Sir Harry Smith in investigating the relations with the native tribes. In the mean time a Committee would sit here during the operations, and the evidence, perhaps hostile to their policy, would inevitably be sent to the colony mail by mail, and tend very much to embarrass their proceedings. He understood that the Committee had now been sitting for some days, and that the witnesses examined before them hitherto had been Mr. Fairbairn, the editor of a journal which was hostile to Sir Harry Smith, and Sir Andreas Stock-enstroem, who was represented by Sir Harry Smith himself as the most able and active agitator against his Government. Now, their evidence would go out to the Cape; and, therefore, he thought a more indiscreet thing than the appointment of the Committee could hardly be imagined. A more indiscreet course as regarded the security and prosperity of the colony could scarcely be adopted. With regard to the vote before the Committee, undoubtedly they must come to it now; but he complained that they were pinned down to the necessity of giving that vote without having had an opportunity of considering whether the war was just or not, or whether the frontier should or should not be extended.

said, after what his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) had stated, he must be allowed to explain the conduct which had been pursued. He thought his right hon. Friend was somewhat inconsistent in his views. He had certainly stated that the question immediately before the Committee—the only question put into the Chairman's hands—was the vote of money. But so far from his having attempted to conceal from the Committee the larger question, as his right hon. Friend had stated, he (Lord John Russell) brought forward a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject, stating at the same time the whole history, so far as he understood it, of the frontier disputes, and proposing that they should be referred to the Select Committee. His right hon. Friend objected to that course; and now, according to him, the only course which the Government were taking was to obtain the money. He could not undertand, after the appointment of a Select Committee, what other question could be before them than the question of money; because his right hon. Friend knew very well that it was not usual for a Government to come down to that House and move a Resolution that their policy should be such and such upon the frontiers, and that such and such should he their relations with the Kaffirs. Such a course would be neither usual nor wise. But his right hon. Friend said it was strange that, after having objected to the appointment of a Commission, he (Lord John Russell) should immediately afterwards have sent two assistant commissioners out to the Cape. Now, what he objected to was that commissioners should be sent out virtually to supersede Sir Harry Smith; and what he wished done—at the time he was in consultation with Earl Grey respecting it—was that certain persons should be sent out as assistant commissioners who would assist Sir Harry Smith while he was wholly engaged in the war, and who, being well acquainted with the Kaffirs, might communicate with them and lead to the peaceable settlement of affairs. He thought his right hon. Friend had mistaken the object of their policy at the Capo. The object of that policy was not to extend their territories, but to protect the colonists; and the whole question amounted to this—how the colonists could be best protected. Now, one way of protecting them was to have perpetual skirmishes upon the frontier, and to shoot the Kaffirs whenever they came into the colony for plunder. But others said—and among them Sir Benjamin d'Urban, Sir Peregrine Maitland, and Sir Henry Pottinger—"There is a much better way—let us have posts within the territories of these people—let us govern them by means of their chiefs—and in that way let us reconcile them to a civilised mode of life, and prevent the present aggression and ravages." That was the system—whether wisely or not—which had been adopted to protect the colony, and it was no question of extending the empire.

said, that from all he had collected during the debate, it appeared they were all dissatisfied. They were all agreed upon that; but they all seemed to disagree as to what should be done. Now he thought the proposition of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) was the most reasonable one that had yet been submitted, for it had reference to one great difficulty with which the Government had to contend in dealing with the question, viz., the present unfortunate temper of the inhabitants of the colony, who appeared to have almost no sympathy with the Governor in his efforts to bring the war to a successful conclusion. So long as the war was not brought to their own doors, they appeared to look upon it as they would do on a war going on in some other part of the world with which they had no concern. This feeling had arisen no doubt from the unfortunate circumstances that took place in the course of last year, when by a passive resistance—almost a passive rebellion—they opposed successfully the attempt of the Government to send convicts to the Cape. The proposition of the hon. Member (Mr. Adderley) was that the constitution for which the colonists were anxious should at once be conceded to them. The noble Lord at the head of the Government objected to this, because at the present moment the Governor was so much engaged in conducting the war on the frontier that he had no time to attend to the matter; and the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes) had added that the colonial functionaries were so distracted by the state of affairs, that they could not undertake the duty of introducing the constitution. No doubt Sir Harry Smith felt far more at home in carrying on the war against the natives than in performing the duties of Governor of the colony; and it was one of the most unfortunate features in our system of colonial government, that we either sent out a military man as Governor, or, if a civilian, some one who had a had banking account, and found it inconvenient to remain at home. Sir Harry Smith, in conducting the war, was of course following his legitimate occupation; but he had not shown any very great ability, he thought, as Governor, and he did not consider the colony would suffer if some other person were appointed to give to the colonists the constitution, leaving Sir Harry Smith to carry the war to a conclusion. If this was not done, and the war should last a year or two, the people would have to wait that time ere they could obtain that constitution which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) considered so essential to their prosperity. The noble Lord had misrepresented the hon. Member for North Staffordshire when he said that he proposed to send out a Commission to supersede Sir Harry Smith; that was not the proposition, but that Sir Harry Smith should carry on those duties for which he was best fitted, and that some other person should be sent out to give to the people that constitution which should restore confidence, and make them well affected to the mother country. He understood the mail would go out the day after to-morrow which would carry out to the colonists the discussion of that night; and whether the speech of the noble Lord, or that of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, would assuage the feelings of the colonists, he much doubted. His opinion was, that when they saw how their wishes were disregarded, seeing the temper they exhibited, it was only their want of power that would prevent the passive resistance of last year being followed by a resistance of another kind in a future year. Perhaps it might be objected to sending out another person to confer the constitution on the colony as a matter of official etiquette, that it would be a sort of slur on the capacity of Sir Harry Smith to govern. He (Mr. Bright) did not believe it could be so considered; but, if it were, he still contended that the liberties of a whole people should not depend on a mere question of official etiquette. Ho, however, could not consider the sending out a Commission, as suggested, would be more a slur on the Governor than the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry by that House. He thought the recommendation of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire was in accordance with the policy of the noble Lord himself, and would go far to conciliate the colony. He had known the noble Lord at the head of the Government on former occasions take recommendations from the other side of the House more readily than he and the noble Lord's other friends approved of; but on this occasion the recommendation was based upon the true interests of the Cape and of this country, and therefore lie entreated the Government to accept it. With regard to the vote itself, there was but little to be said upon that beyond what had been said with regard to the vote for the previous Kaffir war, that the money being spent it must be paid. The noble Lord had done an injustice to the hon. Member for North Staffordshire when he charged him with saying that the people of the Cape, if they had the constitution, would pay the expenses of the war themselves. The hon. Member had said nothing of the kind; and it would have been madness to say so, for the war had not been undertaken by them. If he were a colonist at the Cape, he would say, "Give us a Government of our own, let us carry on our own affairs, and we shall go on without entering into these barbarous and horrible wars." There had been instances in the world of men who, by the exercise of mercy and justice, had lived in peace with savage tribes of aborigines; and if our policy towards the aborigines of South Africa was a policy of justice and mercy, he believed the same result would ensue, and that we should not be involved in these cruel and sanguinary struggles.

said, that the sentiments of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had been so much misrepresented, that he wished to say a few words on the present occasion, for he was unwilling that the account of the views of Her Majesty's Government should go forth to the colony as represented by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright). He believed it was contrary to the fact that Her Majesty's Government had shown any disposition not to give as speedily as possible constitutional government to the Capo of Good Hope. He (Mr. Labouchere) had the honour of labouring in the Committee of Privy Council to frame such institutions as would he suitable for that colony; and the desire of the Government had been to frame them in the most liberal manner. He rejoiced to hear it admitted by almost all the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the subject, that the recommendations of that Committee were well adapted to the wants of the inhabitants of that colony. He regretted that circumstances had unfortunately occurred which had as yet prevented the establishment of those institutions, for he thought they would not only be advantageous in carrying on the internal affairs of the colony, but in enabling the colonists to defend their frontier. All that his noble Friend had stated was, that the establishment of these institutions had not been delayed by any fault of the Government, but, unfortunately, in consequence of a misconception of duty on the part of some Members of the Legislative Council at the Cape. His noble Friend had stated that he did not think it would be a proper time to establish these institutions when the Governor was at the frontier, and a war was raging in the colony. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) said that it would be easy to send out some person to represent the Governor at Capo Town, who might introduce these institutions. He said that it was a mere matter of etiquette which prevented the Government from doing so. He (Mr. Labouchere) must say that it was a serious thing to interfere with the Governor of a British colony, at a time when a fierce war was raging on its frontier. The functions of the Commissioners sent out were strictly limited, and they were only to advise the Governor with respect to the arduous duties which he had to perform on the frontier. He sincerely hoped to see these institutions come into operation at the Cape, and he hoped also that the inhabitants would not oppose any unnecessary delay in the way of their establishment. He could only say that the Government had an earnest desire that the Cape should enjoy the advantage of having those free institutions. He was a Member of the Committee which had been appointed on this subject; and the Committee would no doubt consider the whole question of border policy at the Cape, and the relations of the colonists with this country. The time would therefore come when that House would be able to decide this question with better means of information. They were now engaged in a struggle which must be brought to a prompt conclusion, and it was with that object, and that alone, that they asked for this grant of money.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken the object of himself and his friends upon the present occasion. They wanted to strengthen the hands of the Government, by creating unanimity in the colonies. He thought the voting of this money should be postponed for a week, in order that Government might have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter.

said, it appeared that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) did not propose to grant a constitution to the Cape till the war was over.

had said nothing of the sort. He had claimed for the Government the right to a discretion as to the period when a free constitution could be most expediently given to the colony, but certainly he had not said that he saw any necessity for waiting until the conclusion of the war before the constitution was given. The time at which it could be given was quite a question of circumstances.

thought that the debate was of so much consequence that it should be adjourned, and he should therefore move that the Chairman report progress.

said, he viewed this question with quite as strong feeling as the hon. Member (Mr. Adderley); but he thought the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was not disposed to carry out his intentions so far as he had explained in his opening speech. He might find, probably, by the time the next mail went out, that he could grant the Cape a constitution then. It therefore seemed a pity to divide the Committee; but if the hon. Member felt so strongly upon the matter as to do so, he (Mr. Bright) should support him.

said, if the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) were Colonial Secretary, very probably the colony would not have to wait long for a constitution, but the noble Lord was not Colonial Secretary, and the hon. Gentleman who represented the Colonial Secretary in that House had distinctly told them that the colony should not have a constitution until the war was concluded.

had not said any such tiling; he had merely said that while Sir Harry Smith was actually engaged in war on the frontier, and while the authorities at Cape Town were anxiously watching the progress of that war, there was no opportunity for the calm deliberation which so important a subject demanded.

said, that although he was obliged to deny that he had said that the Cape could not have a constitution till the war was over, still there was no particular period when he felt bound to grant a decision upon it. He wished the Government to have the free liberty of coming to such a decision upon this important subject as the public interest might require.

said, under these circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved the Second Reading of this Bill; he said, that a feeling in favour of the measure prevailed out of doors, and he was credibly informed that Members of Her Majesty's Government had declared that they would be rejoiced if the Bill were passed. For his own part he could in all sincerity declare that he had no object in view but the public welfare, He was a soldier, and was accustomed to military music, and would sleep soundly and with a good conscience as times went, even though a band of military music and one hundred barrel organs were playing under his window. But human lives had been lost by barrel organs, and great inconvenience was caused by those yet more offensive nuisances, advertising vans, and he felt it to be his duty to propose something effective with a view to the protection of the public in these respects. Constant complaints had been made of the injury to the revenue and of the annoyance to the citizens which result from the practice of driving vans through the streets, and horses wore continually taking fright at the barrel organs, and yet the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) was prepared, he feared, to oppose this Bill. He had ventured to hope the right hon. Gentleman would have acceded to the second reading of the Bill, and allowed it to go into Committee, when any modifications that might be needed could have been made, He begged humbly to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would permit the Bill to be read a second time pro formâ? If not, he should console himself with having done his duty, and with regretting that a public servant should have so far forgotten his duty as to meet him by a refusal. He had, however, the proud reflection that he had done his duty, and that thought would console him under any defeat.

could assure the hon. and gallant Member that he gave him credit for being actuated solely by a regard to the public interest in bringing forward this Bill, and he (Sir G. Grey) consequently regretted that he felt it his duty to oppose the measure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had given the House no information as to the contents of the Bill. He (Sir G. Grey) admitted that the monster advertising vans were a great nuisance in the streets, and that it was desirable to put them down; but when the hon. and gallant Gentleman came to draw his Bill, he had evidently found the same difficulties which he (Sir G. Grey) had encountered in dealing with the case, namely, in defining these advertising vans, and legislating directly against them. He (Sir G. Grey) took no exception to the Bill on technical grounds; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman was obliged, even after having obtained able professional assistance, to use such general words that persons who carried about with them any advertisement or placard whatever would be subjected to penalties. Then the Bill imposed a penalty upon any person causing a cart to be drawn through the street for the purpose of exhibiting any advertisement or placard; many tradesmen's carts, used in their ordinary calling, had such advertisements upon them. It would be bettor to leave the matter to the existing law, which enabled the police to remove dangerous obstructions, unless the House thought fit to give them a general discretion to interfere with any such vehicles. The Bill proposed to subject to a penalty of 40s. any person playing any musical instrument in a public street. Now already there was a penalty on a street musician refusing to depart at the request of a householder, on account of the illness of an inmate of his house, or other reasonable cause; and there was a penalty for blowing a horn or using a noisy instrument to call people together or obtain money. This would meet the case of those large horse organs with a drum inside, which, he believed, the police had succeeded in removing from the streets, and which exceeded the limit that should be allowed. But to stop all street music would be depriving a large portion of the inhabitants of the metropolis of a very rational entertainment. The operation of such a Bill as this would be very arbitrary, and unreasonably severe, and he (Sir G. Grey) must move, as an Amendment, that it he read a second time that day six months.

said, he must charge the Government with inconsistency in not bringing forward some Bill to meet the evil, the existence of which they had admitted in the year 1846. [An Hon. MEMBER: Divide, divide!] Ah! Sir, you are a van-man, I suppose. I beg to assure Her Majesty's Government that there is a very strong feeling out of doors on this subject, and that upon the head of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department must fall the responsibility of refusing to legislate upon it. The right hon. Secretary for the Homo Department does not appear to care one farthing whether I pass the Bill or not. Sir, I am satisfied that I have discharged my duty, and although I may have failed in succesfully carrying the measure on which I have set my heart, I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he shall not escape the castigation which he deserves for the dereliction of a duty which he owes to the public, a dereliction which I believe to be induced by political cowardice unworthy of a statesman.

agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sibthorp), that the question was one well worthy of legislative interference. It was impossible to dispute the fact that the traffic in the streets of the metropolis had greatly increased of late years, and that owing to the inactivity of the City authorities in not opening the parallel street to Ludgate Hill and Fleet Street, the stream of intercourse was often cheeked by these unwieldy vans. He had himself on one occasion encountered on Westminster Bridge a "tremendous" van, quite enough to frighten man and horse, and so affrighted was the animal he rode that it jumped upon the pavement and nearly threw him into the river. He really thought the time had come when the Government ought to take some steps to remedy the evil.

declined to divide the House; he considered that as he had done his duty, he should throw the responsibility upon the Government.