said, he would take the liberty of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure for the Extension of the Franchise, the Protection of the Voters, and the Equalisation of the number of Electors to the number of Representatives?

, rising with the hon. Member's question in his hand, said: Mr. Speaker, whenever "it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure for the Extension of the Franchise, the Protection of the Voters, and the Equalisation of the number of Electors to the number of Representatives," they will think it consistent with their duty to give a formal notice to the House of that intention; but it would not be respectful to the House, that any intimation of such an intention on their part should be first made to the country in answer to a mere inquiry coming to us from a private Member, without any more formal notice than I have received to-night.

Is it the intention of the Government to submit to Parliament the same measure which they introduced at the close of the last Session, for allocating the four seats now vacant to new constituencies, and which measure the Government then considered to be one of great urgency?

I consider that question also to be a portion of the great subject of "progressive reform," and I prefer giving a more formal notice of the intentions of the Government than that which is to be elicited under the circumstances which have just taken place.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in consequence of the Report of the Cambridge University Commissioners in reference to King's College, Cambridge, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to recommend to the authorities of Eton College to concert measures with the Provost and Fellows of King's College, for the improvement and extension of the two foundations?

, in reply, said, that a Copy of the Report of the Commissioners had been sent to the University, and to the Heads of the several Colleges in the University, with the request that they would make their observations upon that Report either as affecting the University generally, or the Colleges separately. With regard to the question to which the hon. Gentleman more immediately referred, it was perfectly true that the College of Eton, as mentioned in the Report, was intimately connected with King's College—he had, therefore, thought it proper to send a Copy of the Report to the authorities at Eton, in the same way as he had sent it to King's College; and when he had received their observations upon it, he should be prepared to state what course he might deem it necessary to take upon the subject.

gave notice, that in the event of any measure being introduced by the Government for the allocation of the four seats now vacant in that House, he should propose that those seats be given to the metropolitan districts of Chelsea and Kensington.

said, in the absence of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), he would repeat the question which that Gentleman put to the right hon. Home Secretary on Monday—namely, whether, within the last few days, the Lord Chancellor bad placed on the Commission of the Peace for the borough of Derby, Dr. Hilett, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Henry Fox, all ardent supporters of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Horsfall)?

, in reply, said, if there were any feeling of a want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government, or any complaint to be made with regard to their appointments to the magistracy, let it be expressed openly and directly. He had made inquiries of the Lord Chancellor with respect to the appointments referred to, and the noble and learned Lord had informed him, that, after receiving a memorial from the inhabitants of Derby, he had appointed to the Commission of the Peace there three of the most respectable persons in that town, in lieu of three persons who did not qualify last year when they were appointed by the Government of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell).

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the period for payment of rates and taxes for the Elective Franchise. By the Bill of last year on the subject, as it passed the House of Commons, it was provided that the payment of the rates should be made as enacted by the Reform Bill, on or before the 20th of July in each year, hut that the rates so to be paid should be not those which had fallen due on or before the 5th of April previously, but those which had fallen due on or before the preceding 6th of October. In the House of Lords, however, the period was altered from the 6th of October to the 5th of January, and with the date so altered, the Bill was eventually passed. The Bill he now asked leave to introduce was to extend the period backward from the 5th of January to the 10th of October. The principle of the Bill had been repeatedly affirmed by the House.

said, that if the object of the Bill was still to require the payment of the rate on or before the 20th of July, but that the payment then made must be in respect of rates due in the preceding month of October, instead of the month of January, as required by the Bill passed last year, he did not see any objection to its introduction, though he reserved to himself the right of opposing it on a future stage, should he consider it necessary so to do.

said, he was convinced that the Bill would be unsatisfactory to the country. In fact, he regarded the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir De L. Evans) as altogether a retrograde movement. The objections of the public were directed against the whole of the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Bill. They contended that Borough electors ought to be put upon the same footing as County electors—that the payment of rates was no condition for the registration of the latter, and that it ought not to he so for the former. He condemned the Bill as a retrogressive measure, because the measure introduced by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London (Lord John Russell) last year abolished the payment of Assessed taxes as a condition of registration; and the noble Lord was, therefore, in point of fact, in advance of the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. and gallant Member might bring in his Bill if he liked, so far as he (Mr. Duncombe) was concerned; but he must enter his protest on the part of the public that it was only trifling with and frittering away a greater and much more important question.

said, be rose to move for Copies of the Correspondence respecting Buddhism not printed by the Committee on Ceylon Affairs in the Appendix to their Reports. The question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) a few nights ago upon this subject was one of great importance, and his (Mr. Hume's) anxiety was to prevent the evils that might follow from the violation of any treaty with the natives of Ceylon. He wished these documents to be laid before the House, so that hon. Members might have time to considers how dangerous it would he if any individual, however zealous he might be for promoting Christianity, were to interfere, with the religious ceremonies of the natives of Ceylon.

said, he fully concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Hume). He had stated, in answer to the question from his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir E. H. Inglis), and he had thought it right so to state from what he knew had been stated to the contrary in Ceylon and in this country, that he felt we were bound by treaties, and that whatever course might be taken out of just and proper consideration to the feelings of the Christian part of the community, we were bound to recollect our treaty obligations, and to carry them out in a fair spirit. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had expressed his anxiety as to the danger of interfering with the Buddhist people on the subject of their religious ceremonies; and he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that, if there was to be any interference, it should be exercised with the greatest care and caution. But, as regarded the immediate object of the hon. Member, namely, the production of the particular papers for which he had moved, he begged to state that he had felt it to be his duty to make himself acquainted with the contents of those papers. The hon. Member had been a member of the Ceylon Committee, and he no doubt recollected the grounds upon which the Committee drew up their Report and withheld these papers. He (Sir J. Pakington) had not himself been a member of that Committee, consequently the hon. Gentleman must be more conversant with the circumstances than he could possibly be; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that it was because of the events which had then recently occurred, and the state of excitement which prevailed upon the question, that the Committee thought it prudent not to publish these papers in their Report. The state of things which had induced the Committee to exclude the papers from their Report had now, however, passed away, and, so far as that was concerned, there was no obstacle in the way of producing them. Generally speaking, he was always anxiously desirous of furnishing information to the House, to the utmost extent in his power; and with regard to these papers he should entertain no objection to produce them; but he appealed to the hon. Member to do him the honour of remembering the announcement he made a few evenings ago, that he had given his anxious attention to the subject with the view of putting an end to the differences and unseemly excitement that prevailed in Ceylon with regard to it, and that he was now about to communicate with the Colony in the sanguine hope that a plan might be suggested which would do no injustice to the Buddhists themselves, whilst it would maintain our treaty obligations, and satisfy the just scruples of the Christian portion of the community in the island. He put it to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, knowing, as he did, what were the contents of these papers, whether their production at this moment might not tend to revive excitement both in this country and in the Colony, and thereby do much to mar the attempt he was making to effect a complete and final settlement of the whole matter. He should have no objection hereafter to produce the papers; but he trusted after what he had stated, the hon. Gentleman would not press for them now.

said, he had to express his perfect satisfaction at the frank explanation of the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Baronet having distinctly stated that the solemn treaties entered into with the Kings of Kandy would be respected by the Government of this country, he (Mr. Hume) had attained the only object he had in view, and would, therefore, withdraw his Motion.

said, he now had to move for Copies of the Correspondence between. the Secretary for the Colonies, and Sir Henry Ward, Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands, since February, 1852. He thought the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary could have no objection to the production of these documents, particularly as, on a previous occasion, he expressed his readiness to afford every information on the subject. Within the last three years no fewer than sixty-eight persons had been "relegated," as it was styled, but which meant "banished" by the police from the Ionian Islands. He had felt it his duty to move for these papers last year, but they were never produced, until after Parliament had been dissolved. Since then a new Parliament had been assembled, and prorogued by the Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands. In fact, no Government whatever existed in those dependencies, save the will of one man. When these papers were produced, he would be prepared to show that acts of most brutal absolutism and ferocious tyranny had been perpetrated by Sir Henry Ward, which were more atrocious, and reflected more discredit upon the character of the British Government, than any conduct pursued by the Austrian Government towards the Hungarians. The Ionians had a free constitution when they were placed under the protection of this country by the Treaty of Paris in 1815, and it was unjust to deprive them of it. He was anxious to have these papers laid upon the table of the House, so that every Member might have the papers in his own hand, and not take the facts contained in them merely upon his statement. It would be his duty upon an early occasion to call the attention of the House to those papers.

said, he heard with very great satisfaction one statement of the short speech of the hon. Member for Montrose—and which he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not forget—namely, that on obtaining those papers he was determined to bring the question before the House. He was perfectly ready and willing to produce the papers moved for, and had the hon. Gentleman asked him for them privately, he should have been just as ready and as willing to have placed them at his disposal. The hon. Gentleman, however, could not forego the opportunity which the Motion gave him of repeating those attacks on Sir Henry Ward and the Government of the Ionian Islands which he had already made on two occasions, in language equally harsh and equally unjust with that which he had chosen to employ that evening. It was but justice, however, to Sir Henry Ward to state that upon one occasion, when the hon. Member made an attack upon that Gentleman relative to his conduct in the administration of his Government, he had only found thirteen Gentlemen to support him. He (Sir J. Pakington) had brought down to the House some of the Correspondence to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. With regard to the banished members of the Legislative Assembly, he wished, in common justice to Sir Henry Ward, to read one or two extracts from the Correspondence, in order to show the real character of the conduct of Sir Henry Ward towards them, and how far it was from meriting the character of absolutism which the hon. Gentleman, in so off-handed a manner, ascribed to it. Signor Domeneghini was one of the gentlemen so banished. To an interposition in his favour, on the part of his wife, what was Sir Henry Ward's reply—that of the ferocious tyranny imputed to him by the hon. Gentleman? Let the House judge:—

"I shall be ready and happy to release Signor F. Domeneghini, whenever he thinks proper to comply with the conditions which I have felt it to be my duty to propose, by giving me his word that he will abstain from seditious attempts for the space of twelve months."

So that if he only promises to be a good boy for the space of twelve months, he will obtain his full liberty. In the next despatch Sir Henry Ward then wrote with regard to the relegated members generally:—

"I took advantage of the farewell visits paid to me by all those members who have any pretensions to a character for moderation to make a fresh offer to the gentlemen now in confinement under the high police power at Cerigotto, through the medium of Count Lunzi and Signor Corrianiti, two of the members for Zante. I was sincerely in hopes that the Session would not have terminated without a law being passed that would have enabled me to put an end to all questions connected with high police. But as this expectation has not been realised, I must now decide what course to take respecting these prisoners, and I have resolved to propose, once more, to release them, provided they will give me their word to abstain from taking an active part in politics for twelve months."

Next, there was the case of Signor Montferrato; and here he (Sir J. Pakington) would state to the House not only Sir Henry Ward's proposition to the banished, Member, but also the answer which that Gentleman thought proper to return:—

"Before I set out on my visit to the southern, islands, I had the honour to inform you that I had directed my secretary, Mr. Fraser, to acquaint Signor Montferrato, who was relegated to the island of Merlera under the high police power in October, 1851, that I was willing to allow of his return to Cephalonia upon a simple promise that he would abstain from taking any part in political agitation for the next twelve months. In making this proposal, I neither asked nor expected from Signor Montferrato any renunciation of former opinions, hut made the condition of his release-analogous to what would be termed in England, in the ease of a man convicted of seditious practices, entering into his personal recognisances to keep the peace for one year. As Signor Montferrato, in his reply, which I have the honour to enclose, not only rejects this very reasonable proposal, but tells me plainly that as soon as he is freed from the bondage of high police, he shall devote all his energies to the prosecution of the work so violently interrupted until it is brought to its legitimate end—the liberation of his country,' I have no alternative but to leave him where he is, until he learns to entertain more rational views."

These extracts would, he thought, convince the House that the object of these seditious enterprises was really to throw off the authority of Her Majesty, and to establish some other form of government. Now, as to the remonstrance of the Parliament, which had not long ago been brought under his consideration, he was surprised to see that it had only received three signatures; but, upon looking to Sir Henry Ward's despatch, he found a full explanation of this significant fact. Parliament there was constituted of several parties, as it was in this country, who had all joined for party purposes to resist the Government measures; but when the remonstrance came to be signed, there were only found three persons who would join in the particular form of words in which it was drawn up. The ultra-liberal party would not agree to any form of remonstrance, as they believed, by subscribing to a document of that kind, they would be acknowledging the authority of the Crown of England, which they were by no means willing to do. Now, this showed how necessary it was to exercise caution in dealing with these gentlemen; and if the hon. Member for Montrose had applied to him in private, instead of making a public attack upon the Governor, he (Sir J. Pakington) would have at once assented to the production of the papers, and have shown him that the conduct of Sir Henry Ward, instead of having deserved censure, entitled him to great praise for his extreme moderation.

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had taken the present opportunity to defend the conduct of the Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands. For his (Lord John Russell's) part, he thought that the Governors of distant dependencies, who were called on to act in cases of difficulty, were entitled to have their case fairly stated by those who were entrusted with office at home, and that they should not be subjected to misrepresentation. He owned, therefore, that he was extremely pleased to find that the right hon. Gentleman had discharged his duty in this instance with such alacrity and with such ability. It ought always to be recollected that those persons who were opposing the Government in Zante were not opposing it for the sake of obtaining more liberty under that Government, but for the purpose of severing the connexion between them and the British Crown, and placing themselves under some other form of government. It ought also to be recollected with respect to the powers of high police, Sir Henry Ward had offered to relinquish them upon exceedingly liberal terms. These persons so complaining were only endeavouring to incite the people to insurrection against British authority, and Sir Henry Ward had erred rather upon the side of too great liberality than from any desire to exercise any undue authority.

said, he was very glad that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had spoken, because he and the Government were all in the same boat upon this subject: one was as bad as the other. Sir Henry Ward had offered to give up the powers of high police if they would give up the liberty of the press, and publish only what he pleased. This was the proposition which he had made to the Ionian Parliament; and because they had refused it, he had prorogued them. They were quite right not to give up the palladium of their liberties. Sheridan, in one of his eloquent speeches, said, "Give me the liberty of the press, and I care not what you do—I will meet the strongest opposition." So far as to asking questions, they were all witnesses how he had been treated already. He would not expose himself to any insult, and all his questions should be put publicly. He pledged himself within ten days after those papers were laid upon the table of the House to bring the matter under its consideration. As to thirteen Members only voting with him, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1829 be proposed the repeal of the Corn Laws, and upon that occasion he was left in a minority of thirteen. He had, however, lived to sec that Motion carried.

said, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, he had to move for a Select Committee to consider the principle of amalgamation as applied to Railway or Railway and Canal Bills about to be brought under the consideration of Parliament.

would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should state the extent to which he proposed that the inquiry should be carried on in the Committee.

said, he thought it would be very desirable to extend the terms of the Motion. There were other means of effecting amalgamations besides Amalgamation Bills, and other proceedings which attained the same purposes as Acts of Parliament. It was desirable the Committee should consider the whole of them.

said, that it would probably be better, in the absence of his right hon. Friend, to postpone for the present the appointment of the Committee.

said, he thought it very desirable that they should know what course was to be adopted on this subject. If, on the one hand, it were inconvenient to move the Committee now, on the other hand there would be great inconvenience in the postponement of the Motion for any considerable time. He almost thought that the general convenience of the House would be best promoted if the right hon. Gentleman would move for the Committee that evening, and would take some other opportunity of explaining the views of the Government as to the course they would pursue.

said, he was not aware of the details of the measure which his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was to have proposed; and, as there seemed to be some doubt whether the terms of the Motion were sufficiently extensive, be thought it would be better not to press it at that time, though he saw no objection to the sugges- tion of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone).

said, that it was his opinion that the scope of the Motion should be much more extensive than it was now proposed to be. He should be glad to have the whole subject of the future legislation with regard to railways submitted to a Committee. There were nearly two hundred Bills coming before the House for amalgamation purposes, or running powers, and he viewed it as of the utmost importance that the House should undertake the question, and that they should not be afraid to grapple with it, but should lay down some principle to guide those great companies, the directors of which were frequently unjustly attacked and accused of a monopolising spirit, when their only object was to afford a fair security to those who bad invested their money in these undertakings. It would be quite as well, in his opinion, to defer the Committee for a day or two, and in the meantime the Government might consider whether it would not be better to make the Motion even more extensive than the terms proposed by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone.) He had no objection to the Committee considering the questions of amalgamation and of leases and agreements, because, in point of fact, they were one and the same thing.

said, he had had some experience of this matter in former Committees, and he knew that, unless the Government stated for the consideration of the House the policy that was to be submitted to the Committee, their labours would be of very little use indeed, so far as any practical result was concerned.

entirely concurred in what had just fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. If the Motion for the Committee were agreed to, he took it for granted that the right hon. President of the Board of Trade would be ready to state the views of the Government before the names of the Committee were determined on; because it was quite certain, if there were one question more than another on which the House most absolutely required the guidance and assistance and restraint and control of the Government, it was the question of railway legislation. The Government and the House together had made but a very indifferent affair of it heretofore, and if a Committee were to attempt to go into the question without a previous declaration of the policy to be adopted, they would become an instrument of mischief rather than of good.

said, under these circumstances, he would rather not move the Resolution at present.

presumed that the right hon. President of the Board of Trade would be ready to state what his views were when he proposed the Committee.

said, no doubt he would. His right hon. Friend intended to have clone so that evening if he could have been present.