said, he wished to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, what course Her Majesty's Government intended to adopt this Session of Parliament with the view of introducing a system of agricultural statistics into the United. Kingdom; and in putting this question to the right hon. Gentleman, he begged to inform him that in the month of December last he put a similar question to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who inform- ed him that an experiment was about to be tried in two or three of the Scotch counties through the Royal Agricultural Society of Scotland. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would at the same time inform the House what progress had been made in that experiment?

said, that through the agency of the constabulary, information such as the hon. Gentleman desired with reference to agriculture had already, so far as Ireland was concerned, been laid upon the table of the House. With respect to Scotland he had to state that the Highland Agricultural Society were taking considerable pains to furnish information of a similar character. The inquiry which had been instituted by that body, however, did not embrace the whole of Scotland, but was limited to Sutherland and a few other counties. In England an inquiry into the state of agriculture had been also set on foot, and would be prosecuted during the present year in Hertfordshire and Devonshire. The experiment in both Scotland and England was upon a limited scale; but he hoped that arrangements would be made for a more comprehensive scheme of inquiry in connexion with the subject of agriculture in the United Kingdom than at present existed.

begged to ask the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works (Sir W. Molesworth), whether the bronze statues in the metropolis are ever inspected, or the rust cleared off, and whether they are under the control of any Government office, and whether it is intended, before the scaffolding is removed from the statue of Charles I. at Charing-cross, to repair it?

said, that the Board of Works were not officially bound either to inspect the statues in the metropolis, or to see that they were cleared from rust. With respect to the second portion of the hon. Member's question, he should observe that the bronze statues were not under the control of the Government department of the Board of Works; while with reference to the statue at Charingcross he had to state that he had ascertained that the repairs of the statue and pedestal would cost a sum of about 1,000l., and that there was no immediate necessity for making any repairs in that statue. At the end of a year, however, it might be desirable to ask a vote to the amount of 1,000l. for that purpose.

said, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, of which he had received notice previous to the recess. A Bill had passed that House for the purpose of relieving the Jews from certain disabilities, and had been rejected by the other House of Parliament. The City of London had returned a Jew to represent it, but that Gentleman was unable to discharge his duties. The seat was full, and a new writ could not issue. Holding the noble Lord responsible for the arrangement of business in that House, and in reference to the very peculiar position of the City of London, he wished to ask him what course he would advise the House to take, and also whether it was the intention of the Government to make any further effort during the present Session, or at any future time, to settle this important question.

said, he had to state, in the first place, that he did not think this question could be settled by leaving it as it stood at present. In his opinion it was much more probable that it would be settled by a Bill which should make a general alteration in the oaths to be taken by Members of Parliament, than by recurring to a Bill of the nature of that lately rejected by the House of Lords; but at what time such an alteration might be proposed, he could not at present undertake to say. He, however, might observe that a Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament for an alteration of the oaths. He had not seen that Bill, but it was possible that it might be sent down in a short time, and in such a shape as to remove the difficulty which now existed.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed him when he intended to propose his Resolution for the imposition of an additional duty of 8d. on' Irish spirits, he should have opposed it. Being precluded from taking that course at present, he would not detain the House with any lengthened remarks. He felt bound, however, to express his opinion as to what would be the result of the change. In 1842, when Sir Robert Peel proposed an addition of 1s. to the duty on Irish spirits, he ventured to tell the right hon. Baronet that he must not expect any increase of revenue—that he would fill all the gaols, and encourage illicit distillation, and would be compelled to retrace his steps. Before a year had passed, his prophecy was verified, and the additional duty was removed. He now told the Government that they were about to repeat the experiment, and that the result would be precisely the same. It was true that the addition was now to be 8d. instead of a shilling; but that amount was quite sufficient to produce the effect. From a return moved for by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), it appeared that, in the five consecutive years from 1834 to 1839, the consumption of spirits in Ireland varied from 12,000,000 to 10,800,000 gallons. After the addition made in 1842 the quantity brought to charge came down to 5,000,000 gallons. It was not to be supposed that one drop of whisky less was consumed; the deficiency was made up entirely by illicit spirits. After the additional duty had been removed, the quantity of spirits gradually increased until the year 1851. In the financial year, ending March, 1852, the quantity was 7,500,000 gallons; in the year just passed it was 8,208,000 gallons; and if the present duty were allowed to continue, he had no doubt the consumption would soon be 10,000,000 gallons. In this way, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might expect to obtain some addition to the revenue; but none could be got by means of an increase of the tax on spirits. It was, from the nature of the country, utterly impossible to prevent illicit distillation, so long as there was a premium upon it. It was not his intention to divide the House against the second reading, but he must be allowed to enter his protest against the proposed increase of the duty.

said, he wished to give notice that on Friday the 3rd of June, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control would state the views of Her Majesty's Government respecting the future government of India.

said, notwithstanding the notice which had just been given on the subject of India, he entertained such a strong feeling with regard to the administration of Indian affairs, that he could not forego the present opportunity of pressing the question of which he had given notice, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. He thought it was for the interest of the Government, for the interest of this country, and especially for the interest of India, that the question should be maturely considered before they attempted to legislate upon it. He would remind the House that the original appointment of the Select Committee took place at a very late period; the subjects upon which it had to report were very numerous, and the House had as yet received a report on only one of the eight heads of inquiry which had been instituted: and that a vast mass of information still remained behind, which it was almost essential should be in the possession of the House before they attempted to legislate on its subject-matter. There were, he knew, some who were anxious for immediate legislation, because they thought that the public mind was excited against the East India Company, and that such an occasion should be taken by the forelock. On the other hand, others were afraid of the consequences which a prolonged agitation of the question might produce among the inhabitants of India. No doubt the probing of a wound was painful, but it was the wisest method towards healing it. Were there no imputation against the East India Company, its charter ought, of course, to be renewed without question; but no man in that House would get up and say that the administration of Indian affairs for the last twenty years had been satisfactory. As to the danger of Indian agitation, it was not to be supposed that India was to be excited because the public here might feel an increasing interest in its government; and it should be borne in mind that a proper settlement of the question would conduce to the permanent tranquillity of that country. With regard to the Select Committee, though he had no wish to speak of it with disrespect, he must say that it had acted in a manner only to deserve severe animadversion. In its first report it mistook the ship for the cargo—the machinery of government for the Government itself. The aim of the Committee should have been an inquiry into the whole working of government, and not a mere examination into the official relationships of Leadenhall and Downing-street. As he took it, it should be an inquiry into the progressive well-being of the whole people of India, how they were governed, and what had been done to improve their social, physical, moral, political and intellectual condition. As far as these points were concerned, the Committee had not really done anything. They had merely reported—what? Not even their own opinions, but those of the witnesses they had examined, and who most naturally expressed a favourable opinion as to the present system of Indian administration. For who were those witnesses? Eighteen Gentlemen, individually to be spoken of with all respect; but every one of them deeply interested in the past, present, and future of the East India Company. Three had been Governors General of India, six Members of Council and Commissioners of ceded provinces, three East India Directors, a Secretary of the India House, and a Chief Clerk of the Board of Control. Some were still in the receipt of high salaries, others had received high honours, or were enjoying or expecting great emoluments or honours, and all had been or were more or less administrators. It was not his wish to undervalue the information communicated by these gentlemen; but the country wanted also independent opinions, and desired to know how the government of India had really worked. Strong assertions had been made out of that House, and a blue book had been produced within it; but a great deal more remained behind. They had heard nothing, for example, of the naval and military armaments of India; and yet it had been broadly stated that no native Indians, except of the lowest caste, would now enter into a service, where they could not rise, whatever might be their worth or ability, to any rank which exempted them from being commanded by the rawest and most ignorant English ensign. The time had been when the sepoys had crossed bayonets even with the French; but they were then officered and led on by natives, and had a spirit of confidence and self-respect; whereas now both spirit and discipline were relaxed, and everything confided to the English officers, who looked on the native soldiers with contempt. The despatches of Sir Charles Napier abundantly proved this; and the Earl of Ellenborough stated in his evidence that, with few exceptions, the younger officers in the native regiments treated the natives with a want of respect which was highly detrimental to the ser- vice, and that in some instances the adjutants did not even know the names of their own native officers. He added also, that a mutinous spirit had shown itself more than once in the Bengal army. The present plan of officering the army was based upon an unjust system of private patronage, and it might be a question for consideration whether one-half of the native army should be officered by native Indians. But the evil did not stop here. At present every officer of ability, or who had interest, managed to escape from his regiment as soon as he could, by obtaining either a staff or a civil appointment. He found, from an official return, that the Indian army recently included 4,716 officers, of whom 948 were absent on leave, and 1,040 were employed in the civil service, or held staff appointments, leaving only 2,728 for regimental duty. By analysing the return still further, he found that while Her Majesty's troops had for every twenty-five soldiers one officer present at head-quarters, the East India Company had in its European regiments only one officer for every fifty men, and in the native regiments not quite so much as one officer for every hundred men. Looking to these facts, he would ask whether they did not throw much light upon the terrible, sanguinary, and almost doubtful contests of the Punjaub, and the calamities of Cabool; and whether, at the same time, they did not disclose a state of things which, threatening the stability of our power, called loudly for inquiry and redress? But if such was the state of the Indian army, what was the state of Indian finance? In this country one year's deficit would alarm a Ministry; but in India during the last thirteen years, twelve had been years of deficiency. One year there had been a surplus to the amount of 300,000l.; but the deficits on the other twelve years averaged above 1,000,000l. annually. In 1833, when the Charter was renewed, the debt amounted to 33,000,000l.; but, deducting the commercial assets of the Company, then giving up trade, it was really only 29,000,000l., whereas at the present moment it exceeded 50,000,000l. Here was an accumulation of 21,000,000l. in less than as many years. True the revenue had increased, but in no proportion to the rate at which the debt had increased. In 1782, when the Charter was granted, the debt and revenue were nearly equal, about 8,000,000l.; in 1833 the debt was 29,000,000l., the revenue 14,000,000l.; and at present therevenue was 20,000,000l. and the debt above 50,000,000l., one having increased two-and-a-half fold, while the other (the debt) increased sevenfold. It might be said that with an improved Charter this state of things would improve; but that story was as old as the Charter itself. Lord Melville, in 1793, had foretold a near and certain surplus; so had the Duke I of Wellington ten years later; and when the Marquess of Hastings had effected what was called the pacification of India by the termination of the Mahratta war, he not only repeated the prophecy, but went so far as to declare that its probable amount would be 4,000,000l. annually. Even so late as the time of the Marquess of Dalhousie, the Saturnian reign was again promised, but it had never come. What was the inference from these miscalculations and failures of these resolute and eminent men? Why, that the present system was radically bad—that its tendencies to war and extravagance were too strong for even those strong men—and that no change for the better could be expected from mere modifications. The next point upon which he would touch was the judicial department, which certainly required to be thoroughly investigated. There was no provision whatever for the special education of those gentlemen who were called upon to administer the law in India. Mr. Campbell, a distinguished civilian in Bengal, showed the sad revealed mysteries of the judicial system. He stated, that when a man was fit for nothing else, he was considered good enough to be a Judge; that many civilians were made Judges, in order that they might be got rid of; that when any collector mismanaged his district, he was therefore often proposed to be a Judge against his will; that, in short, the judicial bench was a refuge for the destitute. Mr. Norton, a Madras barrister, declared that those who occupied the judicial bench were totally incompetent for the decent fulfilment of their duties. The justice of these gentlemen's animadversions was supported by a Bengal return showing, that out of 567 criminal trials there had been 338 appeals, and in 131 cases the decisions of the inferior courts had been reversed, that is to say, little more than two chances to one in favour of a just decision. Education, also, was a subject of vast importance, and on which the information was most meagre and unsatisfactory; and closely connected with this was, the elevating the Indians by a right distribution of the Company's patronage. It was alleged that if we gave a share of that patronage to natives, our rule would not be worth a year's purchase. It was said that India, having been won by the sword, must be hold by the sword; but he thought that was a sentiment which would find little re-echo in that House. There might be some, however, who believed that India required what was called a paternal Government, which would do everything for the natives, but not by the natives. In that opinion he did not concur, for he considered it to be the duty of every governing body to instil manly, noble, and generous sentiments into its subjects by employing them in the administration of their own affairs; and in his view no stronger stigma could be cast upon the Government of any country than that which had been thrown upon the East India Company by its own Secretary, when he said, that the people of India were unfit to be entrusted with appointments of high trust and emolument. That, however, was found not to be the true reason for their exclusion; for a still harsher tone was subsequently taken by Mr. Melvill, declaring that the present system was one of native agency and European supervision; and that it was necessary to keep up the distinction in order to retain that salutary deference which had hitherto been paid to Europeans by the people of India. Now, he was at a loss to imagine what "salutary deference," to use the phrase of Mr. Melvill, could arise from the practice of injustice, or from excluding a whole people from the administration of their own affairs. But, after all, perhaps the truer reason peeped out when Mr. Melvill affirmed, that it was necessary the patronage should be entirely in the hands of the Company, in order to sustain its position at homo, and maintain a useful sympathy, not with the natives of India, but with its servants there. In plain English, it was necessary the whole of the patronage of India should be vested in the Company, in order that they might bestow it upon their own friends and relations. He contended that this was no reason at all why the natives of India should be excluded from the administration of their own affairs; and the objections thus raised were an aggravation of the original injustice. But a paper had been brought forward to prove that there were 2,800 native Indians employed under the Company. What were their employments? Why, 1,100 of them were paid at the rate of from 1s. 6d. to 6s.8d. a day—mere labourers' wages; about the same number were paid at the rate of from 6s. 8d. to 13s. 4d.—mere artisans' wages; 277 enjoyed salaries of between 2001. and 3001. a year—mere clerks' wages; and the rest had between 400l. and 500l. per annum. That is to say, some 300 natives out of a population of 150,000,000 gain, at the close of a long servitude, places and salaries which the youngest and most ignorant civilian would scorn on the day he left college. With respect to the question of works, he would only say that the Company had been most negligent even as regarded their own interests. Amongst many instances, it appeared that rather than spend a few thousand pounds, the Company had allowed a large tract of country to be swept by an inundation, which destroyed about 100,000 people, a large amount of property, and land yielding about 1,000,000l. of revenue. He likewise complained of the conduct pursued by the Company towards neighbouring States, and of the dangerous results of our treatment of the subsidised and protected States, concerning which we were furnished with no information whatever. He condemned the system by which the greater number of the Directors were kept in total ignorance of the most important political proceedings respecting India; while their Secret Committees were compelled to sign orders and despatches of which they entirely disapproved, and against which they could neither protest nor even remonstrate. The whole system now in operation was cumbrous and extravagant in its machinery, was based upon an unsound and injurious plan of private interest and favouritism, was attended by the maladministration of justice and other crying evils, and had, as its final result, bankruptcy looming in the distance. He did not mean to say that all these charges could be proved, but he did say that they were supported by statistics, and bore an appearance of truth. At all events there was a sufficient case made out for inquiry. The government of India by the East India Company was asserted to be so ill managed, that that House was called upon to interfere and to protect the natives of India from its evil fruits. It was incumbent on the East India Company to stand up and to refute the charges that were made against them, not by mere assertion, but by means of examination and cross-examination before the Committee of that House; and when that course should have been taken, Government might proceed to legislate with dignity and ad- vantage. He believed that Her Majesty's Government were well disposed to do their duty towards India; but that House was also bound to consider what was its duty; and as an individual Member he, for one, must deprecate any hasty legislation. One or two years' delay would, after all, be no great inconvenience, and was really as nothing compared with the importance of giving an opportunity to the great mind of England of being brought fully and strongly to bear upon the noble object of constituting a broad, honourable, industrious, and peaceable form of government for India.

said, he fully concurred in the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rich), that he was actuated alone by a desire for the welfare of that extended Empire in bringing forward his present Motion. But he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the course he had taken was the one best calculated at the present moment to accomplish the desired object. The subject was to be legislated upon in the course of the present Session, and it was most desirable it should be so. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not consider it discourteous of him that he did not then enter on the question. His noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had already fixed a day on which the subject would be taken, and on that day it would be his (Sir C. Wood's) duty to explain the views of Her Majesty's Ministers on the subject. It would clearly be of disadvantage to press on the question sooner, and he therefore abstained from saying more on the subject.

wished to know how the stud houses in Bushey Park (on account of which there was an item included in this vote) were occupied, whether by the horses of private persons or not? It was understood that public sales were to take place periodically of thorough-bred horses from these stud houses, and he begged to inquire whether a debtor and creditor account would be kept of the sales?

was understood to say, that the proceeds of the sales would be brought into the public accounts. With regard to the stud houses, he was not aware what the arrangement that was come to some years ago was, but would inquire.

said, he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Sir W. Molesworth) to the Royal Botanical Gardens and Pleasure-grounds at Kew. The number of visitors to these gardens in 1841 had been only 9,134; in 1851 they had been 327,900; and last year they were 231,000. Very few of the working classes, however, were able to take advantage of the gardens; and the reason was this—that they were not open on Sundays. He thought it peculiarly desirable that hardworking men, who were shut up in close alleys and unwholesome dwellings during the whole of the week, should have an opportunity afforded them of visiting so delightful a place of recreation on a Sunday. Why were these gardens shut on Sundays? It could not be contended that they were kept closed out of respect to a due observance of the Sunday.

said, the gardens were opened last Sunday to the public in pursuance of instructions which he himself had given.

said, he was extremely happy to find that such was the case. He had gone there the Sunday before, and the gardens were not then open. There was another part of the gardens, called the pleasure grounds. That was opened only from Midsummer to Michaelmas; he hoped his right hon. Friend would give directions that those grounds should be thrown open every Sunday in the year. He would now call the attention of his right hon. Friend to Richmond Park. There was a considerable part of that park not open to the public. He meant that portion which lay between Roehampton and Robinhood-gates, and extending up to Lord Bessborough's villa. It was on a slope, and had no trees upon it, but if the people were allowed to go there they would witness a beautiful scene. It would be a great advantage to throw that into Richmond Park.

said, he would suggest that it would be a matter of great convenience to the public if there were two gates at Kensington-gardens, one for per- sons entering the gardens, and another for those passing out of them.

begged to suggest, that a carriage-road should be made to cross the park from Victoria-gate to Albert-gate. At present it was very inconvenient for persons to go a considerable distance round in order to get from Paddington to Kensington.

said, he entertained a strong objection to any opening for carriages in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, as it would make it necessary that the park should be opened all night—a plan that could not be sanctioned. The opening of such a road would, at the same time, cause considerable inconvenience to equestrians.

said, that it had always appeared to him that public works were carried on at a much greater cost than similar works executed for private individuals. The fact was, that persons made enormous profits out of Government contracts. This was a subject to which the attention of Parliament ought to be in an especial manner called, for there did not appear at present to be a sufficient control exercised over these matters.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just resinned his seat, that it was time the House of Commons should exercise some control over the vast expenditure made on account of the Royal palaces. Since Her Majesty came to the throne, no less than 518,000l. had been expended on the palaces which were in the occupation of Her Majesty, and 400,000l. had been expended in the maintenance of other Royal palaces, not at all for the convenience of Her Majesty in any shape. Some of those palaces Her Majesty had never seen, but were occupied by certain members of the aristocracy in a state of half-pauperism. If those palaces were applied to such purposes, the parties who occupied them ought to be at the expense of keeping them in order. With regard to the vote for maintaining the Royal parks and gardens, he found that 1,000,000l. had been expended upon Royal parks since Her Majesty's accession to the throne. He did not for one moment wish it to be understood that he considered that vast expenditure to be on account of Her Majesty. She had the convenience of the parks in common with her subjects, and a great accommodation they were; but he did consider that when such a large sum of the public money was so expended, every convenience ought to be afforded to the people. Now, there was one subject to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth). That right hon. Gentleman had taken votes for the Woods and Forests, and also for Works which bad never appeared in the estimates before. But there was a sum exceeding 100,000L. which had been received for Crown revenues, and which was not accounted for in any way whatever. He (Mr. Williams) did not expect the right hon. Baronet would be able to answer the question satisfactorily, and he would not particularly press it upon the right hon. Gentleman, because he (Mr. Williams) found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at last pursued an honest straightforward course of paying the whole amount of the Crown revenues into the Exchequer. Next year, and for the first time in the history of this country, the people would know how the very large amount of the Crown revenues—400,000L. a year, had been dealt with. Hitherto they had been squandered without control. He hoped the right hon. Baronet was prepared to give the House some definite answer as to what was intended to be done with respect to Battersea Park. Nearly 200,000l. had been laid out in the purchase of about 300 acres of land upon the banks of the Thames for making that park. The situation was very beautiful for the purpose. It had a river frontage of two miles in length, and if it were completed it would afford the greatest benefit that had over been conferred on any portion of the metropolis. But seven years had now elapsed, and the work still remained to be done. It appeared that the Government had purchased the land at so moderate a price that a speculator had come forward and offered to take it off the hands of the Government for his own benefit. He hoped the Government would never entertain such a thought as that of giving up the land to any speculator, but that the right hon. Baronet would, with his characteristic energy, proceed with the park.

said, it was true a proposal had been made by Mr. Cubitt to take the land which had been purchased for Battersea Park off the hands of the Government at the price they gave for it; but that proposal had not been acceded to, nor was there any intention of acceding to it. With regard to the appro- priation of the land revenues, it was not a matter within his department; he believed, however, that since 1851 the receipts had regularly been accounted for.

said, that he was one of the Metropolitan Commissioners, and the subject of Battersea Park had come before that body. It was true that Mr. Cubitt did offer to purchase the whole of the land from the Government; but, for reasons which it was not necessary to state, the Government declined the proposal. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) was desirous, however, since the subject had been mentioned, that some honour should be done to Mr. Cubitt for the liberal and disinterested offer which he made. As to the expenditure in the Royal parks, which had been alluded to, he was satisfied the bargain begun by George III., and continued by George IV., with the people, had been for the benefit of the latter, and it appeared by a return he moved for some time ago that while the Crown had received 32,000,000l. the nation had received no less than 94,000,000l in the same period.

said, he did not mean the slightest reflection on Mr. Cubitt—quite the reverse. He was surprised the hon. Baronet should have again alluded to the subject of the Crown revenues in that House. A more fallacious Return, as the hon. Baronet well knew, had never been made than that to which he had referred. If the Crown estates were properly managed, they would very nearly equal the expenditure of the civil list. He had never grudged any expenditure necessary for the comfort of the Crown, but he objected to extravagance.

said, he agreed with those who thought it desirable to establish public parks about this great city; but, as it certainly was the richest city in the world, the inhabitants ought really to put their hands in their pockets, as they did in the provinces and country towns, to provide parks for themselves. In Manchester the people had subscribed 30,000l. for parks.

said, he wished for some explanation respecting a charge in the estimate before them. First, they had "Richmond Park, 2,105l.;" next, "Ditto (department of Ranger), 2,740l. 3s." What was the meaning of the last item, and what was the salary of the Ranger?

replied, that there were various expenses connected with the department in that charge. The actual salary received by the Ranger (the Duchess of Gloucester) was only 200l.

said, he wished to know who superintended the expenditure of the interior of the House. He found a charge for lighting with oil and wax the offices and division lobbies of the House 6,8212., and for gas in both Houses 2,8422., being nearly 10,000l. for lighting alone.

said, the lighting was in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms; the lighting of the roof was under the control of Mr. Meeson; the gas was supplied by contract.

said, as the gas was cheaper than oil and candles, it would be better to use that more generally.

said, there was an item on account of carcase walls and ordinary finishing of the building, including warming and ventilating works, 91,700l. He believed that a sum of 25,000l. had been already expended on the ventilation of the House. What was this sum for? Was not the House ventilated already? Certainly, the ventilation was very unsatisfactory, for the House was always alternating between great heat and great cold. He had been told by Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney that the whole present apparatus for ventilation was useless, and that he would undertake for a few hundred pounds to take it all out, and keep the House regularly ventilated. He (Mr. Spooner) had no hesitation in saying that the ventilation of the House was most disgraceful. Unless some explanation was given, he would bring forward a Motion on the subject.

said, this 91,700l. was chiefly for the carcase walls and progress of the works, and had no reference to the ventilation of the House. As to the ventilation of the House, he was well aware of the talents of Mr. Gurney, and there was no doubt he could make an alteration in the ventilation; but it would cause a large outlay if the whole plan was changed. Mr. Meeson had been engaged for one year, and it was but fair that he should have a trial.

said, no answer had been given to the question as to whether the expenditure of the Houses of Parliament was under the control of the Treasury or the Board of Works.

The expenditure for the new works was under the control of Sir Charles Barry, who gave an estimate for the year to the Board of Works.

Was the whole expenditure under Sir Charles Barry's control, without any control from the Treasury or the Board of Works?

It is under the control of the Treasury. All the Commissioners of Works had to do was, when Sir Charles Barry certified that a certain amount of work was done, an examination was made to see if it had been performed, but the control was in the Treasury.

said, he must admit the unsatisfactory state of the expenditure on the Houses of Parliament. The subject had occupied the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself, who had called on Sir Charles Barry to render such accounts as would enable them to ascertain the state they were in, and he hoped shortly to lay before the House full accounts of all that had been done.

said, he wished to know of the hon. Secretary to the Treasury, whether Sir Charles Barry had made any estimate of the future expense of the Houses of Parliament. Two estimates had been made—the first was 700,000l., and the second amounted to more than 2,000,000l. Was there any new estimate made, or would one be made?

said, he could not exactly promise a new estimate. What was being done was this:—that the Treasury was determined to know exactly the condition in which the expenditure was, and when that information was gained they would turn their attention to the cheapest mode of finishing the building. They were clearly of opinion that things could not go on as they were.

said, he wished to understand whether Sir Charles Barry was allowed to go on spending money, no one knew how? Was there any control over him?

said, he was afraid there was very little; but better care would be taken in future.

said, he wished to inquire whether that sum would be sufficient to complete the office?

was bound to say that the sum in question would not be sufficient to finish the office, as it was intended to make such an enlargement as would enable a number of Government hooks and records to be kept in that office, which were now kept in buildings for which a large rental was now paid; so that, although probably 10,000l. more would be required, there would be an eventual saving.

said, that this was the seventh year in which there had been a vote for the improvement of Holyhead harbour. The original estimate was 628,000l., and he wished to know if that sum would cover the whole of the expenditure?

said, with regard to a work of such magnitude, he could not say that the estimate in question would cover the expense.

said, he was sure the estimate would not nearly cover the expense. It was supposed by some persons that Holyhead would not answer as a harbour of refuge, and that the original plan had been deviated from. It was a subject very interesting to Irishmen, and he should be glad to know whether the plan was likely to answer.

said, his attention had been only recently called to the subject. When he came into office, the control of harbours of refuge was in a somewhat anomalous position. The Admiralty was not answerable for the works which were under the control of the Treasury, although they were answerable for the expenditure. He believed that the estimate for Holyhead harbour would be sufficient to defray the cost. He said that with confidence, as the works were under the direction of Mr. Rendel, and reliance was to be placed on his estimate. He was told by all who saw the works that they were executed in the best possible manner; that the plan would prove successful, and that it would be a harbour of great use in the Channel communication between Great Britain and Ireland.

said, he wished to call the right hon. Baronet's attention to the necessity of a harbour of refuge which should afford shelter to shipping on the coast of Wales and the northern part of Devonshire,

said, the subject of harbours of refuge had been too long-neglected in this country, and, considering our maritime position, he was surprised it had not before engaged the attention of the Government. Between Harwich and the Tyne there was not a single harbour which, in boisterous weather, a ship could possibly run into for refuge, with the exception of the Humber in certain states of the wind. Both in Cornwall and Devon a harbour of refuge was much wanted; but the House must proceed by degrees in this matter. A large sum of money was required in the present year for works of this kind at Holyhead, Portland, Alderney, and Dovor, and when the works there were accomplished, it would be then the time to proceed to such other works as were considered necessary. He could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buck) that the subject alluded to by him should receive consideration, so far as he was concerned.

said, he had heard with great gratification the statements of the right hon. Baronet, that these works would be completed within the estimated expense. When they were commenced, there was a great difference of opinion among the engineers as to the expense, and some of the most eminent made estimates, the lowest of which was upwards of 1,000,000l.

said, that a note was appended in the estimates, stating that the particulars of the expenditure for each harbour, accompanied by reports of the engineers in charge of the works for the year to 31st March, will be found in a return to be presented to the House of Commons as a separate paper in the present Session. He thought they ought to have these particulars before they gave the vote, and not afterwards.

said, he saw the amount for Dovor harbour was only 34,000l. He wished to know whether there was to be any further estimate for that harbour.

replied, that the plan respecting Dovor harbour had been recently under revision. 34,000l. would complete the work as far as the present contract went; but to render the works really effectual it would be necessary to prolong them to a considerable extent. It was now proposed, after the 34,000l. was expended, so far as the contract went, to carry the works 800 feet further into deep water of course, as they went into deeper water, the expense would be greater, but it was not intended in the present year to expend more than the 34,000l.

said, he wished to knowupon which of the Channel Islands the expenditure for the formation of a harbour of refuge was to be made?

said, there were two works in progress in the Channel Islands—one at Jersey, which it was not intended to carry out—and another, a most important one, in the Island of Alderney, which was a work of very great expense, because it had to be carried on in deep water. After having consulted with the best engineers, and having considered the subject both at the Board of Ordnance and at the Admiralty, it had been determined to proceed with those works at Alderney.

said, he wished to call attention to another part of our coast very much in want of protection of this kind. He referred to the harbour of Aberdeen, where the Duchess of Sutherland steamer had lately broken up in a very short period of time, and a great many lives had been lost. Between the Tay and Peterhead there was no harbour for the protection of shipping.

said, he had before expressed his opinion as to the necessity of proceeding by degrees in this matter. The sum asked on account of the formation of harbours of refuge in the present Session approached very nearly 400,000L.; and it would be necessary, therefore, to wait before any further expenditure on this head could be entered into. With reference to the accident alluded to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hastie), the loss of life by the wreck of the Duchess of Sutherland steamer seemed to have been caused not so much by the want of protective works at Aberdeen, as the want of ordinary caution on the part of the authorities there.

said, he wished to ask in what time the works at Alderney would be completed, and what would be the expense?

said, it was impossible to work more than seven months out of the twelve at Alderney. It would, perhaps, take seven years, and the estimated expense was about 600,000l.

said, he wished to know when the works at this harbour were to be finished? An assurance was given some years ago that it should not appear in the estimates again.

said, the hon. Gentleman was right in stating that an assurance had been given that this harbour should not again appear in the estimates; but a storm had demolished a portion of the works, and it was thought necessary to replace them. Since the estimate was presented, a fresh survey had been made, and the amount reduced by 1,000l. He regretted that so large a sum had been expended at Donaghadee and Portpatrick, and thought he could assure the Committee that, while he remained at the Admiralty, a similar vote should not be asked for.

said, there was a probability of a railway being made from Dumfries to Portpatrick which would render the harbour more useful.

said, that he did not know why money should be laid out on this harbour more than another.

said, as the hon. and gallant Member (Col. Blair) had stated, it was hoped that the railway between Dumfries and Portpatrick would be continued. At all events, 100,000l. having been expended on the harbour, he thought it would be bad economy not to spend 2,500l. to repair the breach caused by the storm.

said, he rose to move the omission of a sum of 1,2352l. 13s. for repairs at the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. He did not desire to go into the question of principle, which he had brought before the House in a direct manner in the course of the present Session. He had been then defeated, but still had been encouraged by a very large minority. On that occasion an hon. Member (Mr. Scholefield) had moved an Amendment, and the hon. Member had then objected to the Motion merely because, being founded upon principle, it did not comprise every analogous example of the principle. That objection could not apply to the present Amendment, for the case was quite a solitary one, there being no similar vote. In 1845, the late Sir Robert Peel carried a measure allotting 30,000l. to build a new college at Maynooth, and charged the Consolidated Fund with a nearly equal annual sum for its maintenance; and yet the Board of Works came year after year for grants for the repair of this new college, which had been constructed out of a Parliamentary grant. In 1846, there was a sum of 578l. voted for repairs; in 184s., 2,685l.; in 1849,1,128l.; in 1850,1,240l; and in 1851, 1,236l. He had in 1848 divided the Committee against the Vote, which, however, was then carried by a majority of 109 to 38; in 1849, by 96 to 27; in 1850, by 68 to 55; but in 1851 the vote was only carried by 121 to 119. Encouraged by this evident progress of opinion in the House of Commons upon the question, he felt himself justified in repeating his proposition upon pecuniary grounds. The vote certainly was small, but it was wholly unreasonable; and, therefore, upon this ground, without relinquishing his opinion that it was a sin for a Protestant Parliament to vote any sum for the maintenance of Popery, he should move that the grant be omitted.

said, he was much obliged to the hon. Member for bringing forward the question, in which he represented an overwhelming amount of public opinion in this country.

said, that he also should support the proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) on the ground that when the grant was obtained, in 1845, Sir Robert Peel promised that not a single farthing more should be asked from Parliament for this college.

said, that his recollection of what took place on the occasion of the grant being made to Maynooth, in 1845, by Act of Parliament, was entirely different from what had just been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams). He would, however, in the first place, refer to some of the statements of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. It was not the fact that this was a new building; on the contrary, it was an old one, and until Parliament granted 30,000l. for its restoration, it was one of the most dilapidated buildings in the country. Every farthing of that 30,000l. had been expended on the respon- sibility of the Government on the repair of the building, only a very inconsiderable sum having been devoted to its enlargement. The annual grant was expended, not in maintenance of the building, but in that of the students and professors. When the Government of Sir Robert Peel made the proposition to fix a certain sum as an annual charge upon the Consolidated Fund, it was a question whether they should name 30,000l, a sum sufficient for the maintenance of the students and of the establishment apart from the repairs of the building, or whether they should add to this amount a sum sufficient to cover the annual repairs of the building—and it was then decided by the Government, and if he was not mistaken it was stated either by himself or by his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), that they deemed it expedient that this college, so endowed and upheld by Parliament, should be annually brought under its review, in connexion with the Vote to cover the expense of repairs. It did not appear that the annual repairs would average more than 1,200l. a year, and unless they desired to starve out this establishment, to have it no longer waterproof, and to expel sum professors and students, some such the as that now asked for was necessary.

said, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), on the ground that he objected to all religious endowments whatever. He had visited Maynooth, and had found that both the old and the new buildings were kept up; and that no fewer than 400 students were accommodated in them—a number far too large, he thought, for the market. He wished to know whether voting on this Motion would preclude his asking questions as to any other part of the vote, because he thought the proposed charge of 5,790l. 11s. for Phoenix Park, lodges, gardens, demesnes, plantations, &c, was a monstrous expenditure; and he should like to know whether there were no items of receipt from the sale of grass or timber?

said, that the hon. Gentleman would not be prevented from putting questions on that subject.

said, the object of Sir Robert Peel in introducing the Maynooth Endowment Act was to avoid the annual recurrence of irritating discussions on this subject; but that object would be quite defeated by a vote of this nature. He had referred to the speech of the late right hon. Gentleman in 1845, and he found that he had declared that the annual charge of the establishment would be 26,3601.; and therefore in fixing the endowment at 30,000l. he had left a sum of nearly 3,600l. available for repairs. He should vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member.

said, he should take the same course, because he should have opposed any similar vote, whatever the religious body might be that was to have been benefited by it. One characteristic all these ecclesiastical items appeared to possess in common, namely, that when once put in the estimates they remained there until the Committee thrust them out.

said, he would call the attention of the Committee to a passage in the speech of Sir Robert Peel, when he put the establishment of Maynooth on its present footing, in which he proposed that the Board of Works should undertake the repairs of the College, as they undertook the repairs of other public buildings, and that the costs for its repairs should be included in the annual estimate of the public works. He, therefore, considered that the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) had misapprehended the purport of that speech.

said, he must beg to call attention to the oath that was taken by Roman Catholic priests educated in the College of Maynooth before they were appointed to parishes. He thought it was the duty of the Government to institute an inquiry into that oath. It was endeavoured to be set aside on more occasions than one, even by the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, who gave evidence before Parliamentary Committees. They endeavoured to make it appear that there was no such oath taken by the Roman Catholic clergy except the oath of allegiance. That was perfectly right; it was an oath of allegiance, but to whom? To the Pope of Rome, and not to Queen Victoria, to support the canons and councils, and to put aside altogether the Scriptures. When they transported Ribbonmen for taking an illegal oath, why should they allow Roman Catholic priests to take the same oath to all intents and purposes? He maintained that the oath taken by the Ribbonmen in Ireland was the oath taken by the Roman Catholic priests. Were those proper persons to have the management of the education of the children of the country? He said that the person who took that oath was as deserving of punishment and transportation as any Ribbonman.

said, he was opposed to all ecclesiastical endowments; but he must say that, to begin by objecting to a small sum like this,' would be very like straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. When the House of Commons was prepared to do justice to all classes, he should be glad to support such a proposition, but in the mean time he should vote against the Amendment.

said, he was quite prepared to vote against all endowments whatever; but he wished to draw attention to the fact that in this very Vote there were several other items of a similar character. There were sums of 38l. for repairs of the chaplain's house at Dublin Castle, and 39l. for furniture; 90l. for repairs of the chapel royal, and apartments in the basement; and furniture, 51l. 6s. 8d.; Irishtown Church 24l. 15s. repairs, and 13l. 4s. furniture; the chaplain's apartments at Kilmainham Hospital 4l. repairs; the chapel 117l. repairs, and 18l. 10s, furniture; Royal Hibernian Military School Protestant Chapel 51. repairs, Roman Catholic 44l. 10s. repairs, and 21. for furniture. If the Amendment was so framed as to eave out all these items, he should not object; but as the Motion stood, it was on the face of it a gross act of injustice.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) would himself move the addition of the items he had mentioned. Personally there was nothing that he (Mr. Hadfield) would so strongly oppose as the endowment of the denomination to which he himself belonged. Indeed they had struggled against the Begium Donum, and they had at last got rid of it, so that they came there now with clean hands. If the representation were only in the hands of the people, they would have none of these baneful discussions about religious endowment.

said, he did not go a single inch with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) in the principles which he had been in the habit of propounding in that House; but on the broad principle of being opposed to all religious endowments from the public purse, he would vote for the proposition of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Meath, instead of continually telling them what he would do, should put his intentions into a form that had something like reality, and which would show that he really was ready to fight with them against all religious endowments.

said, that in reply to the appeal which had been made to him, he had only to observe that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) had given notice of a Motion which was to come on upon the 31st of this month, for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of religious equality in Ireland; and it was on that account that he objected to nibbling Motions like these. With respect to the statement of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hadfield), he had only to say that he had received a circular begging of him, in pathetic terms, to support the Irish Megium Donum, on the ground that its recipients professed the evangelical doctrines of the Westminster Confession, and because they hoped that he was an enlightened supporter of the Protestant interests.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had confounded the Nonconformists of England with the Presbyterians of Ireland. English Nonconformists were not inconsistent upon this question. They had last Session, after repeated efforts, succeeded in abolishing the payment made to certain Nonconformist ministers. They had also opposed the Irish Presbyterian Regium Donum, and there would have been a chance of getting rid of that vote too if they had been supported by the Irish Members. He thought they ought to fight out this principle in detail, as well as upon the general ground.

said, that there were three or four other items in the votes that were open to the same objection, and he begged to add them to the proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. There was for Irishtown church a sum of 37l. 19l.; chaplain's house in Dublin Castle, 77l.; and the royal chapel and apartments in basement, 141l. 6s. 8d.; making a total of 256l. 5s.8d. There was a charge also for chaplains, both Catholic and Protestant, in the hospital of Kilmainham; but he did not wish to withdraw the means of religious consolation from the poor pensioners. He begged to propose, that in addition to the sum of 1,235l. 13s. for Maynooth, the sum of 256l. 5s. 8d. should be also disallowed, making together 1,491l. 18s. 8d.

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, if carried, would merely have this effect, that the doors and windows of the College of Maynooth would not be repaired; that the rooms would not be properly lighted, and so forth; but he wished to put it to those hon. Members who had voted in the last division on the principle of opposing all religious endowments, whether the question stood now in the same position as it did before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams). That Amendment tested the feeling of the Committee on the question of religious endowments; and as the Committee had refused to take away all votes for religious purposes, and as the question of principle was thus decided, he wished to put it to hon. Members whether they would single out one endowment belonging to that denomination in Ireland which obtained the least of public support, and deprive it alone of its share of the public money? He hoped hon. Members would sec that the question was totally altered now, and that the question was not whether they would vote against religious endowments generally, but whether they would single out one denomination for refusal.

would only say, in reply to the noble Lord, that hitherto those who had taken the view that he (Mr. Miall) did with regard to this question, had entered into combination with hon. Gentlemen opposite in order to carry out their object wholesale. The decision of the Committee, however, prevented that object from being carried out, but that should not prevent them now from endeavouring to effect their purpose in detail.

said, he must protest against the supposition that his vote had been registered against State endowments in general for religious purposes. His vote had been given without any reference to those other items alluded to by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), and of which, let him add, he could find no account in the estimates. Three times had he asked for an explanation of the vote they were going to take, but all explanation had been denied him, and he was now wholly unable to say what they had voted upon.

begged very respectfully to point out that the position in which he and other hon. Gentlemen were placed who objected on principle to all religious endowments by the State, was by no means altered by the Vote which had been just come to, and he begged, therefore, to adhere to his opposition to the Vote.

said, he must reiterate his conclusion that those who were about to vote against the grant would be merely singling out the Roman Catholics of Ireland, on whom alone to visit the exercise of their principle.

said, he felt it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on this Vote. He thought that the revenues of the Church were quite sufficient to maintain all charges on account of the Commission, without calling upon the general taxpayers of the country to meet an expenditure undertaken for the sole benefit of one Church.

said, he had always objected to the maintenance of such officers as Her Majesty's "Limner," Her Majesty's "Clockmaker," and Her Majesty's "Historiographer," included under this Vote. He had hoped that some assurance would have been given that the country would no longer be called upon to defray such a useless expenditure.

said, he wished to direct attention to the item for Queen's plates in Scotland under this Vote. He was not sufficiently learned to define the reasons which had originally suggested such grants of public money; but he supposed it was to encourage the breeding of horses. He did not object to racing, but he thought that to support it by public money was a mal-appropriation of the public funds.

said, he had objected for several years to these plates being granted out of the public money. The amount for Scotland was very small as compared with the sum in the next Vote devoted to a similar object in Ireland, against the granting of which he should certainly divide the Committee.

said, that if there was to be a division against the Queen's plates in the next Vote, it would be inconsistent to allow a similar item to pass unobjected to in the present Vote. He therefore moved that it be reduced 200l.

said, he believed that the origin of these grants had another object in view beyond the encouraging the breeding of horses. He believed that there was no public amusement which afforded such general satisfaction in this country as horse-racing; and if it was alleged that it only induced gambling, he must say that, if such was the case, those who engaged in it would not be deterred by its abolition from pursuing their avocations in a still more objectionable form. He sincerely hoped that the Committee would not, by rejecting the Vote, carry its economical notions ad absurdum, and at the same time deprive the working classes of Scotland and Ireland of a principal source of amusement.

said, that despite what had been said, he did not believe that the people of Scotland took the smallest interest in racing.

said, there was a strong feeling out of doors against the continuance of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—a feeling which he believed was shared in by the people of Ireland themselves. He wished, therefore, to ask, whether the Government intended to introduce any Bill to do away with that office, and whether the Vote asked for was merely for this year?

said, he was not able to say that since the formation of the present Government the question of continuing the existence of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been formally under the consideration of the Government. At the same time, the hon. Baronet should understand that the Vote was necessary for its present continuance.

said, he thought that the answer of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was excessively unsatisfactory. Whatever the hon. Member for Westminster might say, the expression of opinion was strong in Ireland upon this subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given the frank denial which they should have expected from any member of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, no hesitation in adding to the taxation of Ireland. Now what the people of Ireland complained of was, that the Government drew from that country a large amount of taxation which was not spent upon it. The feeling in Ireland against the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy was nearly unanimous.

said, he was not aware how the answer he gave to the question of the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) failed in point of practice. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Col. Dunne) would put to him another question, he would endeavour to improve upon his answer. The question asked by the hon. Member for Westminster was evidently intended to be put to some other Member of the Government; and out of courtesy to that hon. Member, in the absence of the Member of the Government to whose department the subject more properly belonged, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) answered it. The question was to the effect, whether the Government had any plan before them for the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? In reply, he stated that no plan of the kind was brought under the consideration of the present Government since it was formed. Now, there might be a great evasion in his answer, but he confessed he could not see any.

said, he would accept the challenge given him by the right hon. Gentleman, and he now begged to ask him whether he was aware of any intention on the part of the Government to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?

I am not aware of any such intention.

I am satisfied with that answer.

said, there were two items in the present Vote to which he objected—the one was 184l. 12s. 8d. for the Chaplain of Dublin Castle. Inasmuch as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was allowed a liberal salary, he thought his Excellency could afford to pay for his own chaplain. There was also an item of 1,574l. 6s. 2d. for fifteen Queen's plates, to be run for at races in Ireland. To those two items he could not assent. He would, therefore, move to reduce the vote by those two sums.

said, that representing the county in which the races were principally run, he could safely say the people of Ireland attached very great value to these plates, and he thought they were very much indebted to them for their breed of horses. It would be ungenerous to withdraw these plates, and his constituents would feel it very severely, as a great body of them were engaged in pursuits connected with racing.

said, that he objected to the people of England and Ireland being taxed for the purpose of horse-racing, for it led to a system of gambling, worse, perhaps, than almost any other that existed.

said, in England the Queen's plates were provided out of the Queen's private property, and he thought the Votes for Ireland and Scotland were for purposes that ought to be supported by private individuals.

said, he thought the financial reformers of that House would fall into contempt if they took away such paltry votes as these. They had now voted the money for the plates in Scotland, and he protested against a measure of this kind being allowed to one country which they would not allow to another. Considering the heavy calamity with which Ireland had been visited, and the spirit of oppression under which the people suffered, he thought the present moment would be an unfortunate one for depriving them of the opportunity of enjoying the exhilarating sport of racing.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the estimates, expense, and results of the different drainages executed under the orders of that Board, and the various complaints of persons interested in these drainages. There were two Committees appointed to inquire into the subject of drainage. The report of one of them was held cheaply by that House, and particularly by the Government, although he thought that it deserved much attention, inasmuch as it was made by gentlemen who were above all suspicion. The first Committee was appointed to estimate the right and the amount to be paid under the consolidated annuities. These had been pronounced to be unjust by a Committee of the House of Lords, but they had been offered by the present Government as an equivalent for a permanent impost. The second Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject of arterial drainage, of which the Earl of Rosse was Chairman. The Report of that Committee was as strong as it could be as to the estimate of those works. Upon the faith of that estimate twelve of the landed proprietors in Ireland undertook those works, believing them to be of great benefit to the country; but the original estimates generally were exceeded by three times their amount, and in many cases they went even beyond the value of the land. He did not think that any reparation could well be offered to those proprietors for the injustice to which they had been exposed. The misfortune was that all subjects of this nature affecting Ireland were placed in the hands of the Treasury. The Treasury was a bad executive; and the Lord Lieutenant and the Government of Ireland were in no way responsible for these works, which, he must be permitted to add, had been carried on in a manner that was disgraceful to a civilised country. He believed the intentions of England towards Ireland were now, and always had been, of a benevolent character; but the execution of those intentions had been most injurious to that country. He would take that opportunity, then, of warning Irish Members that they would do well to consider this question before they were called upon to enter on the general subject of taxation in Ireland.

said, he did not understand it to be the wish of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) that the Committee should at that moment enter fully into the important question he had referred to. He would, therefore, content himself with assuring the hon. and gallant Member that it was a subject which had not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that they would take the earliest opportunity of going into the consideration of the whole question.

said, he could not conceive for what purpose this secret service money was required.

said, he had opposed the Vote for a number of years, and was glad to find that latterly there was a considerable diminution in the amount asked for. He hoped that next year it would be still further reduced.

said, there was no vote granted by the House of Commons which the public looked upon with greater suspicion, not to say dislike, than this Vote for secret service; and that feeling was not likely to decrease in consequence of certain suspicions which had lately spread throughout the country with regard to secret services, and the watching and inquiring about the proceedings of various individuals, whose names it was not necessary for him then to mention. He wished to know if the sum now asked for was the same in amount as that which was voted last year?

begged to ask if any portion of the Vote was applied to the support of the detective police?

said, in reply to the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart's) question, that it was the same sum as was voted last year; and to the question of the hon. Member for Southwark, that no part of it was appropriated to the detective police.

said, he wished to know whether the Government were aware that a considerable saving might be effected by transferring the business of the Insolvent Debtors Courts either to the Courts of Bankruptcy, or to the County Courts, or to both?

thought the question was one which could hardly be dealt with on the estimates.

said, the duties performed by the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors Courts were exceedingly light; and as the salaries of the County Court Judges had been increased, and as the time of some of them was not fully occupied, he did not see how the transfer suggested could be objected to.

said, the hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that the duties of the County Court Judges were light. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that it had recently been found necessary to provide additional accommodation on account of the increase of business.

said, if the hon. Gentleman referred to the Returns, he would find that even in the County Courts of the metropolis there was a good deal of time unoccupied.

said, the hon. Gentleman was not aware, perhaps, that in the country a great deal of the insolvent business was done in the County Courts.

said, that the generality of prosecutions in Ireland were carried on at the expense of individuals, and not by the Crown. But if the system of taxation was to be equalised between the two countries, he thought the same alleviation in regard to the expenses of prosecutions should be extended to Ireland as now prevailed in England. Another point to which he desired to call the attention of the Government was, that in England the schoolmasters under the poor-law were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, whereas in Ireland it was not so.

said, he trusted that some alteration would be made in the present system with regard to the appointment of Crown prosecutors. He believed that at present the failure of justice was in too many instances to be traced to the fact of effete nominees of the Attorney General having to contend with young, active, and more experienced men than themselves.

said, he wished to know if the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) would wish to see equality between the two countries carried out so as to include the payment of the constabulary in Ireland from local rates, as in this country, rather than be borne as at present by the Consolidated Fund?

would have no objec- tion to that change, provided everything else were placed upon the same footing. The police were introduced by England, but Ireland also supported 25,000 soldiers for the general purposes of the Empire.

said, he would admit that the present mode of assessing the county rates in Ireland was defective, and he recommended that the attention of Irish Gentlemen should be directed to the subject. He thought it was a fair matter for inquiry, and it was one to which he was ready to devote his best attention. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) he was not at all disposed to substitute the English system for the present mode of carrying on Crown prosecutions. At the same time he was far from saying that the Irish system was perfect, and he believed that means might be taken, by a different organisation in the localities, for collecting the evidence in a more perfect shape previous to the trial. The subject had already engaged the attention of the Irish Judges, and in the course of another year he hoped that some satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at.

said, he thought the aged gentleman at present filling the office of Crown prosecutor in Ireland, should be got rid of, and by that means the system of public prosecutions could be amended.

said, it was impossible to have justice in Ireland unless the English system were adopted in respect to the prosecution of criminals.

said, he very much objected to the payment of this sum out of the Consolidated Fund. There might be some reason why the general police force should be placed on the fund—they were partly a military force; but he could see none for the Metropolitan Police.

said, he had a Motion in connexion with this Vote to bring before the House, which would create discussion, as it referred to the treatment of Roman Catholic prisoners. It was, he thought, too late to discuss it then, and he considered that it would be better that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

said, he had no objection to take the discussion on the bringing up the Report; but he could not consent to stop the progress of the Committee now, merely because the hon. Gentleman was not ready to make his statement.

moved that the Chairman do report progress.

said, he trusted the Committee would not agree to the proposal. There was certainly no reason for reporting progress so early as eleven o'clock.

said, the noble Lord had put the case as if he (Mr. Lucas) was not prepared to bring on the question. He had not put it on that ground, but upon the ground that it would lead to a longer debate than there was time for this evening, and because several hon. Gentlemen who wished to take part in the discussion were now absent. In the details appended to the Vote be found several sums, amounting to 4,520l., for chaplains and other religious instructors in these prisons. In the vote for Irish prisons, sums were included for Protestant chaplains, for Roman Catholic chaplains, and for Presbyterian chaplains; in other words, in Ireland the fact was recognised that there were criminals of different religions, and some sort of provision was thus made for their religious instruction and reformation. But in the Vote for Government prisons in England not a single sixpence was asked for the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains, nor was anything paid in the local or country prisons for Roman Catholic chaplains, though a large sum was proposed to be voted for the maintenance of prisoners in those gaols. County gaols were entirely under the management of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; the rules were sent to him every year, and any alterations, amendments, or additions which he made were obligatory and binding upon the local authorities. County prisons, as well as Government prisons, were therefore, as re- garded this question, under the management of the Home Secretary. What provision, then, was made for the religious instruction of Roman Catholic prisoners? None either in England or Scotland—with the exception of Millbank. Now he wanted to have an opportunity of laying the whole of this case before the Committee in detail; for it was impossible, without discussion, that so gross an injustice and absurdity should continue to be perpetrated. The motive of prison discipline was reformation; but with regard to Roman Catholic prisoners, reformation was begun with a profession of hypocrisy. The case was a grave one—it would require an answer from the Government, and it would certainly lead to a lengthened discussion on the part of Gentlemen who took the same view as himself. He had, therefore, no alternative but to press his Motion. To take the division now and the discussion afterwards was an absurdity, and he had only proposed it by way of joke.

thought the proposition of the hon. Gentleman very unreasonable; but if he was really determined to persevere with it, he (Mr. Smith) begged to submit to the noble Lord the leader of the House whether, with a view to the expedition of business, it would not be better at once to postpone the present vote, and proceed with others to which there was less objection. He begged at the same time to express a hope that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department would take an early opportunity of giving the House some explanation on the kindred subject of transportation? He found that there was an enormous increase proposed under this head, and it was mentioned that 120,000l. was to be taken "to provide additional accommodation for convicts on the cessation of transportation." Now he, for one, was not aware that transportation was completely to cease. There had been as yet no discussion in that House on the subject; and, from what he had gathered out of the discussion in another place, it was left in doubt as to what position the question stood in. He thought, then, that they were entitled to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department to give them some explanation of what this "additional accommodation" consisted, and also what secondary punishment he proposed to substitute for transportation?

said, he had no objection to the course proposed by his right hon. Friend with reference to the present Vote. With respect to the very important subject mentioned by his right hon. Friend, it was undoubtedly desirable that, on some rather early occasion, the views of the Government with respect to transportation should be stated to the House. It would, indeed, be necessary before long to bring in a Bill on this very subject; and, either on the introduction of that Bill, or on the discussion of this Vote, the views of the Government should be stated by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, that having objected to the vote for Maynooth, he felt himself called upon to object to this vote also. It was very discreditable to the two Universities that they should require this annual vote. He understood that the college revenues of one of these Universities amounted to 150,000l. a year, and those of the other to 180,000l. Now he must say, colleges possessing this vast amount of wealth ought to be ashamed to come upon the public taxes of the country for this vote. The House had a return a few years ago of the number of persons who attended the lectures of the professors, from which it appeared that the attendance was most ridiculous. He hoped, therefore, that the vote would be withdrawn.

said, he also begged to enter his strong protest against this grant to the Universities. Those Universities excluded the majority of the people from the benefits which they yielded, and it was a piece of effrontery to tax this same majority of the people for the support of institutions from which they were excluded.

said, he wished to take that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. In a discussion which took place some weeks ago, the noble Lord, in speaking of the improvement which might be introduced into the Universities, used language to this effect—namely, that he should not invite the assistance of Parliament, unless the Universities should show themselves to be unwilling to propose certain reforms themselves; and he believed the noble Lord used the expression of "within the space of either one, two, or three years." Now, there was a very unhappy vagueness about this statement; and he put it to the noble Lord, whether, in the interest of the Universities themselves, and in order especially to give the University of Oxford a fair notion of what he intended, it would not be better to fix some definite period within which, if the Universities did not bring forward some satisfactory measures of reform, he would think it his duty to invite the assistance of Parliament.

said, he must beg to be allowed to mention, in the first place, with reference to the Vote then under discussion, that it had been stated several times on behalf of the Universities that they felt aggrieved that certain stamp duties should be levied upon them, especially upon taking degrees, and that they considered, on the whole, that they were more burdened by public taxation than benefited by the votes annually accorded them by the House of Commons. This statement he had certainly heard from quarters entitled to respect, and so far he might say that the whole question of this Vote combined with the burdens laid upon the Universities, was being considered by Government, and that if any arrangement could be made so as to render it unnecessary to ask for this Vote, they would be glad to adopt it; but at present, especially considering that the grant to those ancient institutions was the result of an engagement with reference to the civil list between that House and the Sovereign, he could not consent to withdraw the Vote. With respect to the question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Blackett), he did not think he had stated any specific time—either one, two, or three years—beyond which he should consider the Government were free to propose any enactment which they might think necessary for the government and management of the Universities. What he had said was, that he did not think it would be expedient to proceed at present—meaning in the course of the present Session. The hon. Gentleman had asked him to fix a definite time beyond which he would not delay inviting the assistance of Parliament; but he (Lord J. Russell) would rather not fix any particular time. His would, however, hold the Government free to proceed after the present Session—he would consider that they were not bound to wait beyond that time.

said, he must meet the statement of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) with a similar answer to similar statements. The hon. Member had periodically made the same complaint, and as the reply, in facts and figures, was the same, truth required that the same answer should always be returned. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said, the Universities paid a large sum in stamps for degrees, &c. The Universities paid double the amount in stamps—double the amount, in fact, which was received in the shape of fees. The grant to the professors was an act of liberality on the part of the Crown, for the purpose of encouraging learning. The grant at first was paid out of the revenues of the Crown, but by an arrangement on the part of that House it had been transferred from the Crown to the civil list. It was rather too much for that House to say now, that having got the control of the public funds, they would put an end to the bargain. About twenty years ago, another hon. Member for Lambeth brought forward a proposition of this kind; and Mr. Spring Rice, the present Lord Monteagle, then one of the Lords of the Treasury, laid on the table the documentary evidence, by which what he had just stated was proved to be the fact. If Government would not exact the stamp duty on degrees, he had no doubt the Universities would not be unwilling to consider how their claim to the smaller sum could be waived. With reference to the time to be given the Universities to come forward with their plan of reform, the noble Lord specifically said to the Universities, Government will not interfere if you will consent to destroy professorial chairs, and disregard the wills and intentions of founders; but Government could hardly expect that the Universities would adopt such a course indicated to them. SIR DE LACY EVANS said, he thought the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge stood on a very different footing from the University of London, for which a similar vote would next be taken. Oxford and Cambridge had very large property belonging to them, and the system of education there was most expensive. It was very proper to promote the education of the people; but the most opulent classes of the country received their education at Oxford and Cambridge, and the charges were abundantly large. Knowing that those Universities were richly endowed, that they possessed many sinecure appointments, and that the higher classes alone were educated within their walls, he did think it inconsistent to ask the public to contribute the sum of 2,000l. under the name of professors.

said, he agreed that the University of London was on a very different footing from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The latter not only excluded those who could not conform to the established religion of the country, but prevented any divulgement of facts with regard to finances and endowments, by the imposition of oaths. They ought to look with great jealousy on societies that would not give the slightest information as to what were their incomes, or how they were derived. They must assume that their resources were abundant, and, therefore, a contribution from the State unnecessary. He was a great friend to education, and was glad to see the system of instruction by professors extended; but he thought the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had money enough of their own, and should oppose the vote.

said, the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) had stated that this grant was the consequence of a bargain on the part of the Crown; but he would like to know who authorised the Crown to make such a bargain. Some of the Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge possessed estates yielding 10,000l., 15,000l, 20,000l., and even 30,000l. a year, and he thought it was most unjustifiable that the representatives of the people should be asked to provide lecturers for such institutions at salaries of something like 100l. a year each. He would not divide the Committee if he had the assurance of the noble Lord that the Government would take these matters into consideration.

said, he thought the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) had been either entirely evaded or overlooked. The argument was this: That this sum was the property of the Universities; that it was granted by the Crown; that Parliament chose to take upon themselves the payment of sums for which the Crown was pledged; and now, having done that, they wanted to break the bargain, and come and talk there of honour and integrity.

said, he understood this Vote would be given for the purpose of religious teaching in Belfast. A majority of the Committee had objected to a vote of a similar character with regard to Maynooth College, in Ireland. The principle laid down was, not that they objected to the Roman Catholic religion as such, but to public money being given for religious teaching of any kind. In consistency, therefore, they were bound to refuse this Vote.

said, the hon. Member could only answer for himself and the views which dictated his vote, but he for one had never scrupled to declare he objected to paying any money for teaching that which he conscientiously disapproved. In conscience he disapproved of the teaching in Maynooth, and on that ground he objected to the vote with regard to Maynooth; but that was not the ground on which he conceived himself justified in objecting to any other vote on the table of the House.

said, the great objection of the Nonconformists was to any allowance of the State for the teaching of religion, and, therefore, he should join in voting against this sum.

asked if the hon. Member for Rochdale proposed to divide?

said, he should certainly divide the Committee upon the whole of his class of votes.

said, he regretted that he should have to detain the House a few minutes on this question. The subject was one so new and important that he hoped hon. Members were in a better condition to judge of it than he was when the Bill was first introduced. By this Bill they were about to deal with property of one class, that in hackney carriages, of more than 1,700,000l.; and of another class, in cabs, of little less than 800,000l. When, in addition to that fact, he informed the House that the livelihood of many thousands of their fellow subjects in the metropolis was involved in this Bill, he was sure that any mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence would be merged by the House in the higher question of personal interests involved in the Bill. His own belief was, that a Bill of this sort was never passed unless it had undergone a previous investigation by a Committee of that House. He might allude to the subject of the Hackney Carriages Bill in 1835, and also to the Building Regulation Act, and to the Smoke Regulation Act, none of which were proceeded with in that House till they had been examined by a Select Committee. Had his hon. Friend (Mr. FitzRoy), he would ask, satisfied the House by any statement which he had made in connexion with the measure under their notice, that he had thoroughly investigated the subject upon which he was about to legislate? The hon. Gentleman sought to induce the House to adopt a specific rate of wages as that which a particular class of their fellow subjects should be entitled to receive; and in carrying that object into effect, did he hope to receive the support of those hon. Members who were the consistent advocates of the principles of free trade? The Bill was in direct violation of the very principle for which his hon. Friend and his Colleagues glorified themselves, namely, that of free trade; for it sought to adopt a maximum and minimum of wages, prices, and profits, which a particular class of the community should be entitled to receive. Again, the power given to the magistrate by the Bill was most arbitrary. The question was one which in his (Sir R. H. Inglis's) opinion, assailed the liberty of the subject; and there were provisions in the measure before them which would prove hazardous to that liberty. Under Clause 14 were enumerated a large number of offences; and those who were convicted of having committed any one of those offences would be liable, at the discretion of a single magistrate, to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, or to be imprisoned for a period not extending beyond one month. Now, in his opinion, that was a discretion which that House ought not, without due consideration, to vest in any single individual. He should, therefore, propose that in all cases of summary conviction before a magistrate, there should be a power of appeal to another and a higher tribunal; and he made this suggestion the more confidently, because he was aware that in many instances in which an appeal from the decision of a magistrate had been made, that decision had been unhesitatingly reversed. He hoped that his hon. Friend would have no objection to refer his Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee, in order that the subject to which it related might be more thoroughly investigated than it had been up to the present moment. When an analogous Bill was brought before Parliament in 1835 by the Government of that day, it was not thought unbecoming to submit it to the previous consideration of a Select Committee. His hon. Friend either knew of that fact, or he did not. If he did not, then he had entered upon a subject without inquiring into what was now termed its antecedents; if he did know it, then he had taken upon himself to depart from the practice and precedent of those who had previously legislated upon similar subjects with all the responsibilities which attached to Government measures. He was quite willing to admit that his hon. Friend had given the supreme direction in this matter to a very competent person. Still it was to be doubted whether even Sir Richard Mayne was entitled to such absolute power over the property and persons of any portion of his fellow subjects. He held in his hand one of the orders issued by Sir Richard Mayne; and he would ask any Member of the House whether he would be willing to put his name to the grammar of such a document. It ran thus—"No driver or licensed waterman are to prevent so and so." He should be ashamed if any servant of his household could be guilty of putting forth such a composition. But he did not accuse Sir Richard Mayne of this. He had not leisure to correct the grammar of those who prepared his general orders. If, however, that was the case, how was it to be expected that he could take personal cognisance of all the offences which would be created by this Bill? The House would, in fact, be leaving to the shadow of the name of Sir Richard Mayne a subject that was too important for any one individual, even for one who could give his whole mind and time to it. Before he concluded, he would just state to the House the amount of property concerning the management of which they were now called upon to decide. Before a single journey was made by the omnibuses, a capital of 414,000l. was sunk in horses, and 436,800l. in the construction of omnibuses; and, including the keep of the horses, the repairs of the omnibuses, and the licence duty, there was no less a capital involved than 1,709,600l. With respect to hackney cabs the case was similar. There were 3,500 cabs, and the amount of capital employed in them and in horses was 332,500l.; and, including the annual cost of the keep of the horses, the repairs of the cabs, and the charge of licences, the amount of capital involved 745,000l. The aggregate capital of the trade in both approached the sum of 2,500,000l. There was one fact which he wished particularly! to point out. The duty paid by the proprietors of omnibuses and cabs was little less than 300,000l., while the whole amount of duty paid by all the railways was not more than 252,000l. He thought he had made out a case which justified him in asking the House to consent to his Motion, by way of Amendment—namely, that the Bill now on the table should be referred to a Select Committee.

seconded the Amendment. He hoped they would give the subject a calm consideration. He knew that there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction towards persons connected with hackney carriages, because there was hardly any gentleman who had not at some time of his life been in altercation with some of these persons. Still, they ought to look carefully into this Bill, and take such steps as would give an opportunity for all its provisions to be thoroughly sifted. That could not be done so well in the House as in a Select Committee. He was not opposed to the principle of the Bill; he wished to see the public carriages of the metropolis made better, cheaper, and more convenient; but he wished to do justice, at the same time, to the drivers and owners of the carriages. The Bill concerned cabs and metropolitan stage carriages. His hon. Friend, in introducing the Bill, made a long speech in which he spoke of cabs only, and did not mention the metropolitan stage carriages, so that those concerned in those vehicles had no knowledge at first that the Bill would extend to them, nor could they have discovered it from the title of the Bill. The first objection he had to the Bill was, that it gave no power of appeal, but it gave to the Chief Commissioner of Police power to grant licences and take them away. He might be told that to send the Bill before a Select Committee would occasion delay; but the old adage was true—"most haste, worst speed," If the hon. Gentleman had adopted his advice, and had consented to the Select Committee when he first suggested it, they would already have had the Report on the table, or at least the Committee would have made considerable progress with its inquiries. There could, however, be no pretence for saying that the proposal would lead to delay, for the Bill was not to come into operation until the 1st of October, and, therefore, there was plenty of time. For Sir Richard Mayne he had the highest esteem, but they might not always have such a chief commissioner, and, at all events, the power was too much for one man. He could not conceive what objection there could be to refer the Bill as proposed.

said, that he hoped the House would agree with him in thinking that the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R, H. Inglis) had not adduced reasons sufficiently strong to justify him in acceding to the proposition for referring the measure before them to a Select Committee. The hon. Baronet and the noble Lord who had seconded his Motion, stated, that they wished to have certain Amendments introduced in the Bill. Now he had no hesitation whatever in saying that those Amendments should meet with his most respectful consideration, and should—if such a proceeding were not inconsistent with his duty—be readily adopted. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, the evidence which would be laid before that Committee would be the testimony of the omnibus and the cab proprietors themselves, while the public would be almost altogether excluded from placing their views and opinions before the Members who would compose that tribunal. On the contrary, the course which he (Mr. Fitzroy) proposed to take would enable hon. Members in a Committee of the whole House to consider impartially the measure before them, to bring their experience to bear upon it, and to suggest such Amendments as they deemed desirable for the advantage of the public, and the proper regulation of those conveyances with which the Bill proposed to deal. The hon. Baronet was not quite correct in stating that the last Act on the subject was passed eighteen or nineteen years ago. He had forgotten that the 6th & 7th of Victoria, by which the licensing of cabs and stage-carriages was at present regulated, had been passed long since the 1st & 2nd of William IV. As to the arbitrary powers conferred on the Chief Commissioner of Police by the Bill, the only addition to those he already possessed was, that of inspecting carriages and horses, and granting the owners a certificate, or giving them notice, in case they were unfit for public use, and then suspending their licences. He considered that power essential to the working of the Bill. If appeal was given against his decision, was it not plain that the Bill must be useless? for, when the Chief Commissioner decided that a cab or horse was unfit for use, and the owner appealed, the public might have to go on for three months using it till the appeal was heard. He was perfectly ready to admit that there was an immense amount of property at stake; but on the other hand, there ought to be some consideration for the large number of persons travelling by the metropolitan conveyances. Perhaps it would hardly be credited that, calculating that each omnibus in London bad 250 passengers per day, no fewer than 300,000,000 persons would be annually conveyed by them. At present many of those vehicles were perfectly unfit for use; they were narrow, ill-ventilated, deprived of light and air by the advertisements pasted over the windows; and was it not necessary, both for public use and for public credit, that those omnibuses should be put into an efficient state? If the House gave their assent to go into Committee, no injury whatever would be inflicted upon the interests of the proprietors; but, he believed that, on the contrary, this Bill would be for their pecuniary advantage. Under these circumstances, therefore, believing that a Committee of that House was perfectly competent to dispose of the Bill, he should certainly resist the Motion of the hon. Baronet.

said, he was of opinion that the Bill ought to be sent before a Select Committee. If that course were not adopted, the proprietors of stage and hackney coaches would not have an opportunity of stating their case; and, with all respect to the House, he thought it was not a competent tribunal to decide upon this matter without bearing the other side of the question.

begged to return his thanks to the hon. Gentleman who bad brought forward this Bill. He had come to the conclusion that, in the long run, the effect of the reduction in the fares would be very beneficial to the cab proprietors themselves. Hon. Members had alluded to the property invested in cabs and omnibuses; but he appealed to the House whether there was a large town either in England or on the Continent, where the public vehicles were of so wretched a character. As an instance of the good that would result from the Bill, he might mention a circumstance which had recently occurred to himself. Some days ago he had accidentally left a largo bundle of papers distinctly marked with his name in a cab, and it was only that very day that the Hansom cabdriver had brought them to his house, in the hope of obtaining a reward. If the Bill had been law, he should have been furnished with a ticket specifying the number of the cab, and should have been able to find the driver in an hour or two. The only fair ground for argument was the question of appeal; but he could not think that a Committee of that House was not as good a tribunal before which to argue that point as a Select Committee upstairs. Believing, therefore, that ample justice might be done to those who had invested their capital in those trades by a Committee of that House— believing also that the general convenience of the public required some important alteration—he should certainly support the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fitzroy) in the course proposed by him.

said, he should support the proposal for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. They ought to afford a hearing to the parties most interested in the question, before they determined on requiring a better description of vehicles than those at present in use, and on effecting, at the same time, a considerable reduction of fares.

said, it was a desecration of the name to speak of the four-wheeled things that went about London as "property." Those nailed-together boards which were called cabs, and in which ladies and gentlemen were put to be driven about, were a disgrace to the metropolis. As to springs, there were no springs at all, and you were shaken to death in them. Then, again, the drivers were the most ignorant men in the world, and frequently did not know the difference between the east and the west end of town—the north and the south side of a square; so that, he thought, there ought to be an examination into the qualification of the cab driver before he was appointed. He differed from his hon. Friends around him, in approving most cordially of the principle of this Bill, and in thinking there was no need of referring it to a Committee upstairs.

said, if he had not heard from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fitzroy) an expression of great willingness to receive suggestions upon points of detail from both sides of the House, he would have rather seen the Bill referred to a Select Committee. He thought that, as most hon. Members were great cab riders, and experienced personally, therefore, the inconveniences of the present system, they ought to be careful not to allow their individual annoyances to influence them in legislating upon this subject. In his opinion, the unfortunate condition of cabs in the metropolis was to be attributed very much to the want of a proper municipal government in London. At present the drivers were exposed in our streets to all the vicissitudes of our often most inclement weather; whereas, under proper municipal government, the cabstands would have been placed in wide streets, under a glass roof, whore the men would have been sheltered from the weather. By this, and similar arrangements, a great improvement would have been effected in the character of the drivers and of their vehicles.

said, he also would refer to the privations to which the cabmen were subject, and the temptations to which they were exposed. They admitted that many improvements were capable of being effected by legislation; and those who had good cabs would readily submit to the inspection. He was in favour of the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

said, the cab owners ought not to be precluded from a hearing before a Select Committee. Had such a course been proposed with reference to any larger interest, it would at once have been acceded to as a matter of justice. While much improvement was required in the cabs, and a Bill for that purpose might be necessary, they ought not at the same time to insist on a reduction of the fares, which would be an interference with the rights of property and commercial enterprise.