in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, he wished to explain that its object was to improve and amend the administration of the charity. The funds to be dealt with by this trust, which were originally only 40l. a year, had now mounted up to 12,000l. annually. The trustees, as the affairs of the charity were at present administered, were many of them persons filling a very humble sphere in life. Great patronage rested with them. They exercised considerable influence over the scot and lot voters, and the elections to the office frequently led to turmoil and political excitement. The scheme proposed by this Bill would remedy all these abuses, and since it had been approved of by three Attorney Generals, besides the Court of Chancery, and had received the sanction of the House of Lords, he hoped the House would experience no difficulty in passing it.

(in the absence of the two hon. Members for the Borough) said, he had been requested by several of the inhabitants to represent to the House their repugnance to the present Bill, which they stated to be adverse to the wishes of nineteen out of every twenty of the ratepayers. Sixteen hundred out of eighteen hundred householders had petitioned against the Bill, and certainly when he looked at its provisions he thought the House ought to hesitate before they passed it. He was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Attorney General state that some of the trustees were men in the lower walks of life, and consequently that they ought not to be in such a position. He had yet to learn that poverty was to be an exclusion from such trusts—but was this so? One of the persons of whom his hon. and learned Friend had spoken, had, it is true, been insolvent, but he had paid his debts in full, and was now a man of means. Another, represented as a turner, was the owner of several houses in the borough. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that some of the inhabitants had petitioned for a new scheme, but not for such a scheme as the present. He said it was desirable to alter and amend the distribution of the funds: this was so far correct, and the inhabitants agreed to some of the proposed changes in such distribution. The only changes, however, the Bill proposed in the distribution of the funds, were to reduce the number of marriage portions from forty to twenty-eight, to do away with the good-apprentice fee of about 200l. a year, and the distribution of 500l. a year to the poor. All these were in accordance with the will of the founder, but were not objected to by the inhabitants. The Bill left 11,000l. out of 12,000l. a year totally untouched. It had been said that some mal-appropriation had been made; this was adverse to the Report of Lord Brougham's Commission, which reported favourably of the charity. It was equally adverse to the statement of the present Recorder, who stated in writing—

"He was satisfied, under the existing system, the charity, upon the whole, had been well and honestly administered, and that nothing could be proved to have been done either by the present trustees or their predecessors to justify so great a change as that which was recommended."

The present constitution of the trust was a most popular one, and the trusts, he was led to believe, had been well administered under it. There were twenty-four of the Town Council, of course popularly elected, the Lord Lieutenant, and the two borough and two county Members, with the two Masters of the school, and the Recorder, making thirty-two. To these were added, eighteen trustees elected by the inhabitants by ballot, making fifty trustees in all. It was proposed to supersede this Board by substituting six aldermen, and twenty-four persons selected by the Lord Chancellor from the inhabitants residing within four miles of the borough, and these twenty-four persons, so elected, were to be trustees for life. Even for the six aldermen they were indebted to the House of Lords, who inserted them in the Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General. That such a scheme should be supported by a liberal Attorney General, greatly surprised him (Sir J. Walmsley), and could only arise out of some idea of political patronage to the Chancellor himself, which the hon. and learned Gentleman might look to, or for want of due consideration of the real bearing of the Bill. It appeared to him (Sir J. Walmsley) to be adverse to the spirit of the age; was contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants, and was a vicious system of self-election, which had led to much of the mischiefs attendant upon our charitable trusts. They had now before the House a Charitable Trusts Bill, the Commissioners under which were to propose schemes for the future management of those trusts. If they were to be such schemes as the present, there would be little or no improvement, but in some cases the reverse. Though he were alone, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose what appeared to him to be so unconstitutional a Bill; and he therefore moved that it be read that day three months.

said, that this charity was founded in the reign of Edward VI., and at that time the Corporation of Bedford were appointed as the trustees. Various Acts of Parliament passed since then had introduced new trustees, and what he thought had led to the vicious system which now prevailed was the law which allowed eighteen of the trustees to be annually elected by the scot and lot voters of the borough. This law had enabled needy men to get into the trust, and the consequence was that while many relatives of these trustees had become recipients of the charity, one of the trustees himself was actually an inmate of the almshouses which the charity supported. It was hardly likely that such men could administer the charity with strict impartiality, and hence this measure had been introduced at the earnest entreaty of some of the most respectable and influential inhabitants of the borough.

said, he thought it necessary to propose an Amendment in the 60th clause, under these circumstances. The clause provided that the Act should not extend to the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London, or Durham, or to any college or hall therein. Now, the London University was peculiarly situated. That institution had the power of sanctioning and increasing within its own compass any place of education in conformity with the principles of the University, and in a manner to merit the approbation of the trustees and governors. If the words remained as they now stood, "any college or hall" might exempt from the operation of the Act any of those educational institutions which receive the sanction of the London University, and are thereby brought within the provisions of the Statute, and constitute a component part of that University. He proposed that the Act should not extend to the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, the University of Durham, or any college or hall in the said Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

said, he had now to propose, in the 60th clause, after the exemptions of cathedral or collegiate churches, to extend the exemption to funds for the exclusive benefit of persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion.

said, he viewed with very great regret and alarm the course which had been now adopted with respect to this Bill, because, although the words were few they were pregnant with mighty consequences, and involved a most important principle; and he must entreat the attention of the House to the period at which the noble Lord had thought proper to propose this most formidable Amendment. The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords under the auspices of the Lord Chancellor. It received the most careful consideration of a Committee of that House, consisting of per- sons pre-eminently qualified to judge of a measure of that description. It had the entire sanction and approbation of the Government, and it came down to the House of Commons substantially in the same form in which it had passed through the Committee of the other House. The second reading of the Bill took place without the slightest intimation that there was any intention on the part of the noble Lord to introduce an Amendment of this description. The noble Lord asked the House to be permitted to take the second reading, and to reserve the discussion until the time when the Bill should be in Committee; and the House acquiesced in that suggestion. The noble Lord only the other day, on going into Committee, intimated his intention of proposing this Amendment, and had it not been for the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that important alteration might have been carried in a House which, without straining a metaphor, had had the greater part of its lifeblood drawn from it, and was not at this period of the Session in a very active state of existence. The noble Lord stated that his ground for making the alteration was, that the Roman Catholics bad intimated to him the apprehension they entertained that under this Bill some of their trusts might be found to be within the law against superstitious uses, and that these trusts might be liable to forfeiture and penalties; and the noble Lord, therefore, deemed it necessary to frame a provision to guard against these consequences, and he proposed that these trusts should be exempted, promising that he would on a future occasion introduce some law with regard to superstitious uses. Now these apprehensions of the Roman Catholics had been expressed at a very critical period. The Bill had been for a long time in the House of Lords. It was similar to a Bill which had been previously introduced. Its provisions were well known. It was apparent then that the danger apprehended by the Roman Catholics was not a new one; and yet when there was a full attendance of Members the Roman Catholics reserved the expression of their fears, and only brought them forward at this late period, and under the peculiar circumstances which he had mentioned. The noble Lord might have easily allayed these apprehensions, instead of encouraging and adopting them. The noble Lord said, "You are not taken by surprise, because similar exemptions have been introduced into other Bills for establishing Commissions to inquire into charities." And in support of that statement the noble Lord referred to the exemptions introduced into the Bill of 1835. The noble Lord was perfectly correct, and had rather understated his argument. In every Bill which had been introduced on that subject, there were these and other exemptions, to which he would call the attention of the House, in order to show the force of the argument in favour of the present exemption. He would first take the Act 5 & 6 Will. IV., passed in 1835, which was—

"not to extend to the Universities, nor to Cathedral or Collegiate churches, nor to any funds belonging to any persons of the Jewish persuasion, or to the people called Quakers, or to persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and which shall be under the superintendence and control of persons of such persuasions respectively."

The noble Lord said that no claim for exemption had been set up by any member of the Jewish persuasion, or by any of the people called Quakers. Now, what did the noble Lord mean by that observation? Did he mean to say that the Quakers, and persons of the Jewish persuasion, had the same right to exemption as the Roman Catholics? If that was the noble Lord's meaning, did he intend to say that justice was only conceded to those who demanded it? And if he meant to say they had no other right of exemption than members of the Jewish persuasion or Quakers, then he must perceive that his arguments drawn from these exemptions were of no avail; for if they did not apply to other persons introduced into the Act as exempted, they would not apply to the Roman Catholics. But the fact was that the previous Acts were Acts for the institution of preliminary inquiries, and not for purposes of permanent legislation. He wished to remind the noble Lord of the Bills which had been introduced from 1844 downward, for the purpose of establishing a Board for the Administration of chartable trusts. In 1844, 1845, and 1846, Bills were introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Lyndhurst. In 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1850, Bills were introduced under the Government of the noble Lord by the late Lord Cottenham. In 1852 another Bill was introduced by the noble Lord and his Government, which Bill was taken up by Lord Derby's Government, who endeavoured to pass it into a law. Now, he would ask the noble Lord if any of these Bills contained any exemptions respecting Roman Catholic trusts? If these Bills never contemplated such ex- emptions, surely that was an argument more forcible than any which the noble Lord had drawn from the exemptions in the Acts passed, not for the purposes of legislation, but merely for the establishment of preliminary inquiries. The noble Lord said, his reason for introducing this exemption was, that the Roman Catholics are apprehensive that in consequence of the searching investigations to be instituted by the Commissioner it may appear that certain trusts are illegal, and that they may come within the law against superstitious uses, and be declared void. And one would imagine, from the observations of the noble Lord, that an entirely new law was introduced by this Bill with respect to the Roman Catholics. But the law would not be changed in the slightest degree by this Bill, the object of which was merely to provide for the better administration of existing trusts, and did not change the law respecting them. At present any person might be a relator, and impeach a Roman Catholic trust, and if any such trust should be found to come under the Statute with respect to superstitious uses, it would be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to declare it void. But no information was likely to be filed on any such ground. If the noble Lord should succeed in carrying his Amendment, he would do the most mischievous act towards the Roman Catholics which could possibly be imagined, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) would establish that assertion by an authority to which Roman Catholic Members would be disposed to pay some respect—he alluded to an hon. and learned Gentleman formerly a Member of that House, who, in 1847, proposed to introduce a Bill for the regulation of Roman Catholic trusts. On that occasion the hon. and learned Member said—

"The trustees of Roman Catholic charities may be guilty of any amount of maladministration without the Roman Catholics, for whose benefit the trust was created, daring to ask relief, because the issue of an application with that object may be a declaration that the charity was ab initio illegal, and continued illegal."

Now the noble Lord, by exempting Roman Catholic trusts from the operation of this Bill, would continue that state of things which was considered so prejudicial and mischievous. Now what would be the state of the Roman Catholics supposing this Bill to pass in its original state—including Roman Catholics in its operation? No proceeding could be instituted with respect to any trustees except by permission of the Commissioners, or ex officio by the Attorney General. Now he would seriously ask hon. Members whether they believed, with the feeling which now existed with regard to these trusts, that the Commissioners would sanction any proceedings to impeach the validity of the trust of the Roman Catholic body, on the ground of its being a violation of the law against superstitious uses; or whether any Attorney General was likely to sanction an ex officio information on any such ground. If it was visionary to think such proceedings would be instituted, did not the noble Lord by this proviso leave the Roman Catholics in the helpless and crippled state which had been described by the hon. and learned Member whose remarks he had quoted; and would he not leave them in such a situation as to prevent them from complaining of any abuses or maladministration on the part of these trustees? The noble Lord appeared to him to be proceeding in a manner contrary to his expressed opinion: like a rower, he appeared to be turning his back on the course he was pursuing. The noble Lord said, "I think the operation of the Bill ought to include Roman Catholic trusts, but what I propose to do is this—I propose at this period of the Session to exempt them altogether, and at some future indefinite time I will bring forward a measure which will bring them within the operation of the Bill, and determine the question with regard to superstitions uses generally." it was very well for the noble Lord to give a pledge of that kind; but what security had the House that the noble Lord would be in a position to be able to fulfil that pledge? The noble Lord was not at the head of the Government. Strictly speaking, he was not a Member of the Government. The opinions of the majority of the Cabinet with regard to the Roman Catholics were perfectly well known. And he would ask how could the House be secure that the Cabinet might not be of opinion that the exemption of Roman Catholic trusts from the operation of the Bill was a part of the natural development of that policy which the Cabinet intended to pursue with regard to the Roman Catholics? What security had the House that the noble Lord would be permitted to introduce a Bill of that kind? And if the noble Lord should be permitted to introduce it, what security was there for his being able to carry it through the House? Why should not Roman Catholics be content with a declaration that if this Bill should be found to affect their trusts some measure to secure them against danger would be introduced? Now, if be (Sir F. Thesiger) believed that the Bill would prejudice Roman Catholic trusts in an improper manner, he would gladly assist the noble Lord in framing any Bill to protect them against that danger. But he thought a much more reasonable course might be pursued than that proposed by the noble Lord. This Bill was introduced into the House of Lords under the sanction of the Government, and it was never suggested there that any such exemption was necessary. It came down to the House of Commons substantially as it was framed by the House of Lords; and he would ask whether it was fair now at this period of the Session and in the present state of the House, that in such a measure there should be introduced such an important and formidable alteration, and whether the proper course would not be to leave the Bill as it was? Believing, as he did, that it would not be injurious to the Roman Catholics, let them remain as was originally intended, included under its operation; then, as he had previously stated, if there was found any real grievance, or any the slightest danger to their trust, let the noble Lord come forward with a healing measure. To that measure he (Sir F. Thesiger) would give his cordial assistance; and he believed that the general feeling of the House would be in favour of preserving Roman Catholic trusts intact. Under these circumstances, and for these reasons, he should feel it his duty to resist the addition of the words proposed by the noble Lord, and he called upon the House to pass this Motion in its integrity.

I think, Sir, notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that if the House should be of opinion that any class of Her Majesty's subjects would run any great risk of being injured in their property, or in the application of that property to charitable and beneficent purposes by the enactments of this Bill, this House would give a favourable hearing to any apprehensions and complaints upon such a subject. I cannot think that it is sufficient to say, supposing that there is that just ground of apprehension and complaint, that, because there have been Bills introduced for several years which have not contained any exemption of this description, therefore "whatever may be the evil and the injury to you, you have found it out too late; you must submit to the depreciation of your property; you must submit to any evil consequences that may ensue, because for several years you have not made an appeal upon this subject, when Bills which related to it had been introduced into this House." I cannot conceive the justice of making such an answer. I cannot conceive the House of Commons saying to people, "We admit that you are injured—we admit that you are wronged, and we are about to pass a Bill that may wrong you; but, because you have never appealed before, your appeal now shall be valueless." If that be the case, the real question really is, whether or not this Bill might work an injury to Roman Catholics in respect of their trusts. I must admit that it is in many respects a question of confidence on one side, and of suspicion on the other; but I think I shall be able to show that the suspicion on the part of the Roman Catholics is a justifiable suspicion, and that it ought to be listened to by this House. The point, as it has been stated to me, is this—and I will not deny that it has been stated to me by a Roman Catholic barrister—many of these Roman Catholic charities are void in point of law. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) says, that I did not mention this subject on the second reading of the Bill. Well, I will tell the House how this matter has proceeded, and what is the fact. When I moved the second reading of the Bill, I was entirely ignorant that any complaint of this kind could be made, and I moved the second reading not expecting that there was any such grievance to be complained of. It was only just before we proposed to go into Committee, that I was informed that these apprehensions were entertained; and as soon as I was so informed, on moving that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair, in order to go into Committee, I stated to the House those apprehensions, and I stated that in the course of the Bill I should propose words exempting Roman Catholic charities from the operation of the Bill. Therefore, I gave to the House the first notice that I could possibly give with respect to this subject, and when in the course of the Committee it was suggested that the House required further time for deliberation, I immediately assented to that further time being given. The hon. and learned Gentleman has taken advantage of some words that I used with respect to Jews and Quakers, whose charities were exempted from the inquiries under the Bills of 1818 and 1835. I mentioned that there was no complaint on the part of Jews and Quakers; but if there had been a complaint, I should have required, as I do in this instance—first, that they should feel themselves aggrieved, and next, that they should show adequate reasons for exemption; and if they had failed to show that, I should have refused the proposition on their part. I propose it now on the part of the Roman Catholics, not merely because some parties on their behalf complain, but because I think that they have good grounds for their apprehension. I do not know that there is any law by which the charities of Quakers and Jews are in any way rendered illegal; but there are such laws with respect to Roman Catholics. Why, at the very time that that last Act of 1835 was passed, enacting that there should be further inquiries as to charities, and when, after the Roman Catholic Relief Act had passed, Parliament thought it right to exempt Roman Catholic charities from that investigation, there was a decision by a very high authority, the late Lord Cottenham, who was then Master of the Rolls, that a bequest for masses for the dead was a bequest for a superstitions use, and was, therefore, void in law. That was declared to be the law at that time. Now, look how far the operation of that decision may extend, for I do not believe that since 1835 there has been any Act rendering legal those Roman Catholic charities. We have had this very day a question with respect to a large property of 12,000l. a year (the Bedford Charity Estate) which both my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger) said, was mismanaged under the present state of the administration of that bequest. Now, let us suppose that that 12,000l. a year had been left by a Roman Catholic, and that at the same time there had been a provision in the deed that at certain times in the year there should be masses said for the repose of the soul of the founder of that charity. I take it that the strict construction of the law, though undoubtedly it might be argued in a Court of Equity, would at least render doubtful the whole application of that sum of 12,000l. a year, and a bequest for founding, a useful educational institute, perhaps of the very best kind and under the best regulations, might thus be defeated and set at nought by that provision in the deed for the occasional saying of masses, which would bring it under the law of su- perstitious uses, I do not wish to expose the Roman Catholics to that danger. But the hon. and learned Gentleman says it is quite sufficient security for the Roman Catholics that they should have the faith that the Attorney General, upon the part of the Crown, will never think of bringing a suit to set aside those Roman Catholic charities on the ground of superstitious uses; and at the same time the hon. and learned Gentleman says, "What security have we that any Member of the present Government will propose to apply this law to Roman Catholic charities in future? Why, if you have no security for that, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman founds a great part of his argument upon the fact that there is no positive security that a Bill will be brought in subjecting Roman Catholic charities to the beneficial provisions of this law, then I say that so likewise the Roman Catholics have no security that the Attorney General—I will not say the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger), but such a one as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) might be if he were a member of the legal profession—might not think it his bounden duty to proceed against charities which, according to his views, were promoting purposes that were mischievous and superstitious. One would have thought that no security was greater with respect to institutions belonging to Roman Catholics than that contained in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, providing that that Act specially shall not extend to convents or females. There seemed to be there a very sufficient security. There seemed to be a very safe provision enacted by law, and there was also by custom as well as by law an immunity for those private houses where Roman Catholic ladies agree to live together. But that security has not been sufficient, and has not prevented an attempt to investigate and inquire into the mode of life of those ladies who have entered those private houses. I say, then, that there is just reason for the Roman Catholics to suspect what may be done under the provisions of this Act. I said that I proposed to exempt them for the present, because I thought it too late at this period of the Session, especially as this Bill came from the House of Lords, to introduce other provisions upon the subject. But I will read to the House what the provision was that was proposed by the Master of the Rolls when he was a Member of this House, and when, in 1847, he proposed to regulate Roman Catholic charities. By the second clause of the Bill which that hon. and learned Gentleman introduced, he proposed to enact—

"That no use, trust, or disposition of real or personal property now limited or made, or hereafter to be limited or made, to or for any charitable purpose for the benefit of Roman Catholics within Great Britain or Ireland, or any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, and in conformity with the doctrine, discipline, canons, laws, and usages of the Church of Rome, shall merely for or by reason of such purpose be, or be deemed to be, superstitious, unlawful, or void."

Was that Bill discussed in this House?

I am not aware whether it was discussed or not. The words are evidently very wide, and it is obvious that I could not propose words of that kind without exciting a great deal of discussion. If I proposed, on the other hand, to limit them, the limitation also would require a great deal of discussion, and would provoke contending feelings on the part of Protestants and Roman Catholics. I think every man would agree, and I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman himself will not deny, that these Roman Catholic charities ought not to be set aside merely on account of their coming within the law of superstitious uses. At the same time, I doubt not that there are Roman Catholic charities which, whether justly or not, some hon. Gentlemen opposite would declare to be so mischievous and so opposed to their own views of national policy, that they would never consent, by such a large clause as that, to give them the validity and the force of law. If that be the case—if I cannot, on the one side, relieve the Roman Catholics from the just apprehension that their charities may be rendered null and void by the provisions of this Act, and if I cannot, on the other hand, frame a clause by which those charities may be saved from such consequences—I think it is a case for exempting them for the present from the operation of this measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that they will have the same security under the proposed law that they have under the existing law. But it is a very different thing silently to connive at the violation of the law as we do in many respects—both the Government and the law officers of the Crown are continually permitting violations of the law to take place, because an exact observance of it in every respect might occasion such a scene of discord as would make the coun- try hardly tenable to those who have to live in it—but, as I was saying, it is a very different thing silently to permit the violation of the law, and to have brought before you by inspectors, by persons appointed under this Act, and by Reports laid before both Houses of Parliament, a decided and clear violation of the law. Would it not be the case, then, when such a Report was laid upon the table of this House—when it was shown that certain charities were clearly void in law, and when in the opinion of many they ought to be void in law—that we should be called upon to put the law in force, and that the Attorney General would be accused of a violation of his duty because he had not proceeded in the Court of Chancery to set aside those charities for superstitious uses? These appear to me to be sufficient reasons why for the present we should exempt these charities from the operation of this law. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no security that they would not be for ever exempt. I understand that an hon. and learned Friend of mine, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Blackett), mentioned an intention of proposing that there should be an exemption for a limited time. To that I do not object. If the time is proposed to be limited, and if two years is mentioned as the time during which Roman Catholic charities should not be subjected to this Act, I think that that would give time to the House to consider the question, under what limitations and restrictions, or in what manner, those Roman Catholic charities should be brought within the operation of the law. I believe myself that the greater part of the Roman Catholic body desire that there should be some public Act requiring an examination and supervision of those charities, in order to prevent the abuses which, in Roman Catholic charities as well as in all other charities, are apt to occur; but, for the present, certainly, I cannot think it safe for Roman Catholics to be subjected to the provisions of this Act; and though their claim has been made very lately, it has been made upon the authority of a gentleman of great weight and intelligence. The hon. and learned gentleman who made this representation to me is a Roman Catholic barrister, with whose character the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is very well acquainted. I need not mention the name of that hon. and learned gentleman; but he is entitled to credit, both from his knowledge of the law and on account of his high character; and it is his opinion that it is not safe for the Roman Catholics to be included in this law. For these reasons I must defend the proviso which I have moved.

said, that the noble Lord seemed to think, if there was any danger to be apprehended to Roman Catholic charities, that he (Mr. Newdegate) was the most likely person to cause it. Now, he thought if any danger were to occur it must, come from the Government, because it was impossible any proceedings could be taken without their sanction. And as it was clear they would not be out of office before next Session, they could give a guarantee that there should be nothing done in derogation of the just claims of the Roman Catholic community, which would afford a valid security; meanwhile they might forego their present intentions as to the positive exemption of Roman Catholic charities from the guardianship of the law against abuse, which they proposed to extend to all other similar property. The proposal of the noble Lord to exempt all roman Catholic charities from the operation of the ordinary law of the country, was to allow them to fall under the absolute control of a foreign Power, which was attempting to enforce its tyrannical authority in this country against the will of the Legislature, the Sovereign, and the people. Evidence had been given before the Mortmain Committee by Roman Catholic priests and laymen, which showed that the only security which Roman Catholics had for their trusts being carried out according to the intention of the donors, and the rights and wishes of the recipients, was the protection extended to them by the law of England. He could not conceive a more inopportune moment for the intended withdrawal of the protection of the law of England from all trust property held by English Roman Catholics, for charitable and religious purposes; it was notorious that Cardinal Wiseman, the temporal as well as spiritual plenipotentiary and representative of the Pope, had been intruded upon this country, contrary to the law of his country and of Europe, and that this foreign agent was using at this moment his plenary powers to grasp for his master, the Pope, and to appropriate according to the decrees of the Roman Propaganda, the whole of the property held in trust by the English Roman Catholics; while a similar process was being carried out by the Car- dinal's fellow agent, Legate Cullen, in Ireland. He hoped that House would not consent to open the door wider for the Cardinal or the Propaganda to interfere in the affairs of the people of this country. He thought this proposed exemption from the action and protection of English law within England involved a most dangerous principle: as a Protestant he looked on it with the utmost jealousy. So far from wishing to injure Roman Catholic charities, he had come down prepared with a proposal to secure them against any proceedings under the Acts relating to superstitious uses, on account of any facts that might be ascertained by the Commissioners under the Bill pending the proceedings of the Commission, and provided that the trusts were eventually made conformable to the law of England. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) would take the sense of the House on the question.

said, he begged to express the gratification with which he had heard the concluding sentences of the noble Lord's (Lord J. Russell's) speech, for while he thought it would be unjust at once to include Roman Catholic charities within the operation of this Act, he was convinced that it would be extremely undesirable to exempt them for ever from participating in so beneficial a measure. Now that the noble Lord had made this concession, he strongly impressed upon the House the expediency of at once accepting it.

said, he willingly joined in the desire which had been professed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to protect from confiscation the charities of Roman Catholics; but he must say he infinitely preferred the practical remedy proposed by the Government. He asked for that remedy, and he accepted the Amendment, not because he desired exceptional legislation, but because these Roman Catholic charities being already the subject of exceptional legislation, it was necessary that they should be protected in the manner now proposed.

said, he could not accept the new Amendment, because it appeared to be a violation of principle, and an admission that a different system of legislation was to be applied to Roman Catholic charities to that which was applied to others.

said, that in desiring to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee with respect to the Office of Speaker, he should wish to act in conformity with the doctrine of his right hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gladstone) that the man who at this period of the Session made a long speech was an enemy of his country; he would therefore trespass but a short time on the patience of the House. He was the more induced to conform to that rule, inasmuch as, having repeatedly brought the subject incidentally before the House, having brought it before the House in a somewhat more formal manner on the 17th of last November, having on that occasion received encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman who then led the House (Mr. Disraeli) and having, at the same time, received encouragement from the noble Lord who now led the House, he was induced, in the month of February, to introduce a Motion for a Committee, and that Committee having been granted by the House without any division, and that Committee having met and agreed to the Report which had been presented, he considered that he was in a position to call the attention of the House to the subject as one on which there had been no opposition. The House itself had admitted the evil, and the necessity for a remedy. Nor had he heard of any objection to the Report of the Committee, except one in which individually he concurred—namely, that it did not go far enough in providing a remedy. When he found that the Committee could not unanimously and cordially concur in the larger measure of relief which he desired, but were ready to adopt a plan which met a great many of the existing evils, he should ask nothing more of the House than that it should adopt the Report of that Committee. His own opinion was that the best plan would be to place in the Chair, in the event of their being at any time unhappily deprived of the services of Mr. Speaker, some one to discharge all the legal functions of that office; but the Committee had judged otherwise, and had agreed to recommend the House to place in the Chair a gentleman who might discharge all its duties within the House, but not exercise any of the other functions belonging to the office of Speaker. While they ought to be thankful, on the one hand, for the long continuance with them of the right hon. Gentleman, the tax on his time and strength might be carried to a length at which any human being's time and strength might fail. Last month the House sat twenty-two days; they were 228 hours in session, giving an average of more than ten hours to each day of public service. The right hon. Gentleman had taken the Chair at noon as well as at the second meeting of the House. He had sat in that House several days for more than 14 hours. In the first week of July he sat on Monday 10 hours, on Tuesday 15¾ hours—Wednesday was excepted—and on Thursday and on Friday 15¼ hours, and 13¼ hours; in the second week he sat 11¾, 8¾, 14, and 14¼ hours. It was needless to trouble the House with all the details. It was enough to state that the attendance given by Mr. Speaker was such as very few other human beings, such as very few other Members of that House, afforded; and it was not in regard to himself alone, deeply and justly as the House valued his services, that a measure was required; but the most selfish of them all would desire any measure which should tend to secure the continuance of his presence. Remembering the warning addressed to them by his right hon. Friend and Colleague, he had not said another word more than he had deemed necesssary in submitting that the House should concur in the Resolution of the Committee:—

"That, whenever the House shall be informed of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means do take the Chair for that day only:

"And, in the event of Mr. Speaker's absence continuing for more than one day, do, if the House shall think fit, and shall so order it, take the Chair in like manner on any subsequent day during such absence."

said, that in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend, he would not make this a personal question, because he believed there was only one opinion in that House as to the value of the services of Mr. Speaker; but, considering it as a general question affecting the performance of the functions of that House, he thought they would be blind to the consequences of the very great labour imposed upon the occupant of the Chair if they did not adopt the recommendation contained in the Report of the Select Committee. It was of the utmost importance that, in case of the absence of Mr. Speaker, supposing the business of the House to be of great and urgent interest, they should be able to proceed without delay, and should not have merely to address the Clerk, but some person who should be able to preside over their deliberations. The opinion of the Select Committee, in which he entirely concurred, was, that they should only carry the remedy as far as it was absolutely necessary, and should avoid any measure which would at all fetter the discretion and choice of the Honse in case of a vacancy in the office of Speaker. They were anxious that the House should not, by any previous resolution or decision, be at all committed to any particular candidate for the office, but should choose that person who, at the time, should appear best qualified to fulfil the important functions which belonged to the Speaker of that House. He thought the Committee had been successful in their proposal. They proposed that only for one day should any person assume the Chair in the absence of Mr. Speaker—that afterwards it should be entirely in the choice of the House whom they should place there—and that the person whom they should appoint to supply this temporary vacancy, should be one who, as Chairman of Ways and Means, had already an official and recognised position in that House, and who, upon the return of Mr. Speaker, or upon the election of a new Speaker, would fall back upon his former situation. He had great pleasure in seconding and supporting the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and trusted it would meet with the concurrence of the House.

said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was not desirable to carry the remedy further than was absolutely necessary; but he was not sure that the Committee in the present instance were not doing so; at least, although he had been in the House about ten years, he had not known any occasion—certainly not more than one—in which the House had not been able to sit in consequence of the absence of Mr. Speaker. That might have been a hardship to the right hon. Gentleman, however, and so far might be cited as an argument in favour of a change. But his object in rising was for the purpose of saying that, if the Chairman of Ways and Means was to have a new dignity, it would be desirable to have him appointed in a different manner from that which had hitherto prevailed. When the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) was appointed to the office of Chairman of Ways and Means, very few Members of the House knew anything about it; for he was nominated by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London without previous notice, and in an inaudible tone of voice. He spoke thus freely, not out of any discourtesy towards the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, whose intimate acquaintance with the forms of the House they all knew; and who, if he were to be again appointed, would have his cordial support, but because he desired to call attention to the subject now, in connexion with the Report of the Select Committee upon the office of Speaker.

said, he had felt it to be his duty, having been a Member of the Select Committee, to express the opinion that the Resolutions now before the House were expedient, and that this proposition was, of all, the best which the Committee could submit to the House. Almost every combination of circumstances that could occur with reference to the subject of these Resolutions was well considered by the Committee before the Resolutions were adopted. They provided for the occurrence of circumstances which all whom he addressed sincerely hoped might not be in their experience. With respect to the objection of the hon. Member for Manchester, it did not appear to be valid; nor was he (Mr. Disraeli) aware that it was unknown to any party of Gentlemen in that House, that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock would be proposed by the Minister as Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. It had always been the practice on the first Committee of Supply to propose that the Member who was to act in that capacity should take the Chair. It had been his (Mr. Disraeli's) duty when he had the honour of a seat on the Treasury bench, to propose a Gentleman, and he followed the precedents. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was perfectly aware of his intention on that occasion, and approved the name he brought for- ward, as it had been put to Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side with himself, to approve the proposal which the noble Lord made on the appointment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. But there was ample opportunity of expressing disapproval. There were occasions on which divisions had taken place on the appointment of a person to that office, and no other notice had been given than that given by the noble Lord and others who had held the same office. It was not, in his opinion, expedient to alter the customary arrangements of that House when they answered the purpose which they were desired to serve. The mode of electing the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means was the ancient mode; and if the hon. Member for Manchester wished to have an opportunity of differing from the Minister on that subject, he might depend upon it that, however low the tone of voice in which the Minister might propose the name, he would not lose an opportunity of expressing an opinion. He had only, in the observations which he had offered to the House, expressed the general feeling of all those hon. Members with whom he had conferred on the subject.

said, he was one of those who had objected to the appointment of the Committee, and he had done so on the ground that for such a long period so few instances of absence of the Speaker had occurred when his services were required. He was also of opinion that in all cases where a deputy was appointed, the principal was apt to take a little licence. He did not rise on the present occasion to oppose the measure before the House, but to express a hope that during the next Session there would be more time to get through the business without converting night into day. He could not think that it was advantageous that Members of that House should return home daily between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, and have to leave again to be at the morning sitting at 12 o'clock. He strongly objected to these midnight sittings, and should, if he were in the House next Session, when he knew he would get a majority, put a stop to the sitting at 12 o'clock. It was not right that, as at present, at the close of the Session Bills of importance should be brought forward in a hurried manner, and adopted without discussion.

said, he did not rise to make any exception to what had fallen from his right hon. Friend near him. He was glad that the Committee had been appointed, and completely concurred in the Resolutions to which they had come, and which were now before the House. It was, perhaps, wise to adopt such a course at a time when no danger was to be apprehended, and when Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the extreme labour of the Session, seemed to be not in the least affected in health, but as competent as ever to discharge his duties. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that it seemed an extraordinary thing that in 200 years there had been so few instances of the House being deprived of the services of the Speaker. He could only draw the inference that the office of Speaker was a particularly healthy office. It could not be healthy on account of the hours which were kept, so that he supposed it must be from early dining. But, whatever might be the cause, he hoped that Mr. Speaker might long remain in perfect health. His object however, in rising was not so much to express his concurrence with the Resolutions as, on an opportunity like the present, when the rules of the House were, in a measure, under consideration, to submit to the noble Lord the leader of the House whether he might not think it advisable during the approaching recess to consider the propriety of renewing that Committee upon the forms of the House which had sat some years ago, and which had made several recommendations, some of which were adopted, with great advantage, by the House. He could not help thinking that the House would be of opinion that they had outgrown some of the more ancient forms of conducting business, and that the business of the House had so increased that it had become time to take some step to alter the present state of things. Business of great importance was brought on night after night at an hour when a large portion of the most able and influential Members of the House, worn out with fatigue, had left their places, and the remainder were discharging their duties at a sacrifice of convenience, to which he thought it most unwise and unnecessary that hon. Members of that House should be subjected. It was the duty of those who conducted the affairs of this country to see that the forms of transacting business were not such as to deter competent men from endeavouring to obtain a seat in that House. The noble Lord the Member for London would agree with him that the Committee to which he had referred had had the advantage of the best evidence. Mr. Speaker himself had given evidence, and had offered several suggestions, which had been discussed, and those adopted which were deemed advisable, and which would not encroach too much on the established forms of the House. He thought that since the time of the sitting of that Committee, circumstances tended to show that other alterations would be advisable, in order to shorten the progress of business, and put an end to the inconvenience to which he had adverted. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had touched upon the subject on a previous occasion, and, although he did not wish to pledge himself to all that had been urged by that hon. Member in favour of an autumn sitting, he still thought that if, instead of meeting in the first week of February, Parliament were to meet in the second week of January, it would be beneficial as regarded the despatch of public business. He thought that it would be very desirable that a Committee should consider the desirability of abridging some of the forms of the House, and thus shorten the transaction of public business.

Sir, before I move that you should leave the Chair, in order that the House might resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, I wish to state the intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers with respect to the government of the island of Jamaica. I am not going to enter into a history of those dissensions between the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council of Jamaica, which have led to the suspension of the whole legislative functions in that colony. I will only state, upon that subject, that the House of Assembly passed Bills in reference to the revenue and to the finances of the island, and for carrying on the public service, which appeared to the Legislative Council to be of so objectionable a character, that they refused to them their concurrence. The consequence was, that the Governor in Council then felt obliged himself to suspend the meetings of the Assembly; and the whole machinery of legislation in the island has thus been arrested. Now, in looking at any question relating to the condition of the West India Colonies, we must, no doubt, always bear in mind that during the last twenty years two very great changes have taken place in those colonies; changes which were enforced by Acts of the Imperial Parliament, and which were generally repugnant to the feelings of the proprietors in the West Indies. One of those changes was the total abolition of slavery, without, as the colonists thought, any compensation having been made to them adequate to the loss they had sustained from that measure; and the other was the adoption of that commercial policy under which foreign sugar has been allowed to compete with colonial sugar in the markets of this country. These two great changes led to much objection and complaint on the part of the colonists. They led, likewise, I must say, to some loss to them at the time the changes were effected, although I think that they were founded on sound principles, and that the Legislature did well to adopt them. But, in any case in which discontent has arisen in any of the Assemblies of the West Indies, I do not think it is advisable to push to an extreme the rights of the Imperial authority. With respect, however, to the last of the two changes to which I have adverted, I beg leave to point out the difference which exists between the three most important West India Colonies, British Guiana, Trinidad, and Jamaica. The colonies of British Guiana and of Trinidad have listened to the advice and the opinions of the Government at home, and many of the evils which they suffered at first have been redressed, as far as the export of their sugar and the state f their industry are concerned. This result is shown by the official statements of the exports of sugar from Guiana and Trinidad in the year 1852, as compared with their exports of sugar in the year 1840. There were exported in the year 1840, from Guiana, 579,000 cwt. of sugar; and in the year 1852, there were exported from that island, 838,000 cwt. of sugar. There were exported in the year 1840, from Trinidad, 245,000 cwt. of sugar; and in the year 1852, the exports of sugar from that island, amounted to 483,000 cwt. Taking these two colonies together, it appears that their exports of sugar, which had amounted in the year 1840 to 824,000 cwt., had amounted in the year 1852 to 1,321,000 cwt.—being an increase of 497,000 cwt.; or considerably more than 50 per cent in the exports of 1852, as compared with those of the year 1840. But a very different result is apparent in Jamaica. The exports of sugar from that island amounted to 517,000 cwt. in 1840, and amounted to only 511,000 cwt. in 1852. There is a similar difference observable in the number of immigrants into the three islands. It has been the policy of this country, in compliance with the desire of the colonists, to encourage the importation of immigrants into our West Indian possessions, in order to supply the want of labour occasioned by the abolition of slavery. I find that the number of immigrants imported into Guiana from 1840 to 1852, was 49,000; and that the number of immigrants imported into Trinidad during the same period was 24,000, making in the whole 73,000; while the total number of immigrants imported into Jamaica during the same period of twelve years, was only 14,000. There is, therefore, a very obvious difference between the state of those colonies, although there has been no difference whatever in the Imperial legislation by which they are affected. If slavery was abolished in Jamaica, it was likewise abolished in Guiana and Trinidad; and if foreign sugar was admitted into competition with the sugar of Jamaica, it was likewise admitted into competition with the sugar of Guiana and Trinidad. But there are some circumstances connected with the constitution of Jamaica which have at all times been a source of difficulty, and have in these latter years been a source of very great embarrassment, and which have finally ended in that total stoppage of legislation to which I have already called the attention of the House. I have said that I do not mean to enter into a history of those disputes, or to say that at a particular time the Council was right, and the Assembly was wrong, or to question the particular acts of the Governor, on the one side, or of the Assembly on the other. But I must observe that there are certain—I will not call them laws or provisions of the constitution of Jamaica, so much as established practices of that constitution, which have operated very injuriously in that colony. We have from time to time to take into consideration the want in our various colonies of any representative institutions such as we think, and very justly think, tend to the benefit of the colonies, as well as to the benefit of the mother country. But in Jamaica, what we have to complain of is, not the absence of representative institutions, so much as the perversion of representative institutions to purposes which are not consistent with the welfare of the colony at large. We all know that in this country, according to the practice of this House, no vote of money is made except on the proposal of some Minister of the Crown, and that the Crown, has, in fact, the initiative in all money grants. Those grants are here made to the Crown, and officers appointed by the Crown have the collection and the management of the expenditure of the grants, subject to the control and, if necessary, to the censure of this House. But in Jamaica, these wholesome rules have been departed from. Not only have the House of Assembly in that colony the general raising and the appropriation of the supplies, but they have for a very long period of time taken into their own hands the management of those sums, and the general disbursement of the expenditure. Now, this practice has led to very great abuses. It has led to what I think very lavish expenditure at particular times, and to grants of money far in excess of the means of the colony; and it has led, at other times, to attempts at economy not consistent with justice after the expectations which the Assembly itself had held out. That leads me to the notice of another error which has been committed, and that is, that while there have been laws in Jamaica providing for the permanence of certain offices, the holders of those offices have only been paid by votes from year to year. The consequence has been that after persons had accepted high judicial and other offices on the faith of what were supposed to be permanent acts of the Legislature of Jamaica, their just expectations were disappointed by the votes of money falling far short of those expectations, and not allowing them to obtain the salaries which had been promised to them in accordance with the permanent Acts which had been passed. I do not, as I have already said, wish to enter into the merits of those votes. It is perhaps natural for an Assembly having the entire control of these matters from year to year, to act as the House of Assembly in Jamaica has acted. But it is obvious that no servants of the Crown can be expected to accept those situations on the faith of their permanence, and afterwards submit to have their salaries taken away or reduced very considerably. Latterly the great subject of dispute in that colony has been the proposal to take away 25 per cent from the salaries of these officers. Amidst the difficulties which arose, it, of course, became a question what was the course which should be taken by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the state of the island of Jamaica; and in referring to that subject, I must beg to call the attention of the House to an extract from a message of the late Governor of Jamaica, Sir Charles Grey, to the Assembly in May last, in which he points out the evils of the existing system, and suggests a remedy for their removal. His Excellency says—

"With the prospects which are before us, it is perhaps of little present use to say what might be done by a single-minded effort for the peace and welfare of the island; but as all this ruinous distraction, by the frequent recurrence of which Jamaica has been throughout its annals so unhappily distinguished, appears to me to be the direct and unavoidable result of some perversions of the model institutions of England, so I believe that the main and immediate mischief would be remedied at once by reverting in those few particulars to English rules, and by the honourable House of Assembly being contented with a power as perfectly analogous to that of the British House of Commons as it might be possible to make it, which, after all perhaps, would be found to be as great a power for every good purpose as that which it possesses at present, or even supposes itself to possess. Therefore, whensoever and in whatsoever manner, opportunity and leisure may be found or created, I recommend that your attention should be given, first, to a regulation of the civil and ecclesiastical establishments, by reductions which shall either be prospective or shall be made upon the basis of a fair and moderate compensation for existing interests; secondly, to the provision of a permanent fund for the payment of the reduced establishments; thirdly, to the enabling of the governor for the time being to employ Ministerial officers holding seats in the Assembly to bring forward Government measures in that House."

These are the recommendations of the late Governor of Jamaica—recommendations founded, as I think, on sound principles, but which, owing to the excitement produced by the contest then existing between the House of Assembly and the Executive, were not listened to or adopted by the House of Assembly. Some years ago there was a proposal made in Jamaica, and I believe it was brought before the Assembly, to the effect that they should endeavour to have their institutions assimilated to those of Upper Canada. Lord Grey, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, declared his readiness to adopt that proposal, and at the same time pointed out the difference which existed between the institutions of Canada and those of Jamaica; for in Canada there is a permanent provision by means of a civil list, passed by an Act of the Provincial Parliament, by which certain offices are permanently provided for; and there is also there that rule to which I have previously alluded, that all grants to the Crown should be proposed by officers of the Crown. That proposal like- wise fell to the ground—it was not adopted by the Legislature of Jamaica. Her Majesty's Government now propose to act generally on the basis of that proposal. They do not propose what was in contemplation by some persons connected with the island of Jamaica; they do not propose to suspend the representative constitution of Jamaica. It is urged, I am aware, that the present Assembly being elected by only 3,000 electors out of a population of about 400,000 inhabitants of the island, affords but a very incomplete representative body. But setting aside that consideration, at least for the present, what the Government wish to do is, if possible, to induce the Assembly and the Council to agree to terms which may form the basis for their harmonious action in future. They propose, in the first place, that there should be permanent Acts continuing the grants for those offices for which it is fit that permanent salaries should be provided. I mean, of course, judicial offices and others of a permanent character. In the next place, they propose that in the Assembly of Jamaica, as in the House of Commons, no grant of money should be made except on the proposal of some person representing the Crown. It is further intended that the Crown should have some persons—I will not now attempt to point out any particular mode in which the object may be accomplished—it is intended that the Crown should have some persons who would represent it and speak its sentiments in the House of Assembly. That is effected, as the House is well aware, in Canada, by a system of what is called representative government—namely, by confiding certain offices under the Crown to persons having the confidence of the majority of the Assembly. It might not be possible, or it might not be wise, to adopt a similar provision in the island of Jamaica. But we are of opinion that there should be some person representing the Crown to propose grants of money to the House of Assembly in Jamaica, and that officers of the Crown should be the parties responsible for the expenditure of the money. It is a source of the greatest abuses that Members of the Assembly should themselves expend the money they may have voted, and the practice leads, as might be expected, to the screening of those abuses. These are the three points which we propose for the future government of the Colony: First, that there should be a permanent revenue for those officers for whom permanent salaries are required; secondly, that the initiative of money grants should always be left to the representatives of the Crown; and, thirdly, that certain Members of the House of Assembly, or persons entitled to appear before the House of Assembly, should, according to an arrangement lately adopted in another Colony, be responsible, under the Crown, for the expenditure of the public money. On the other hand, we propose to endeavour to place the finances of the island on a more sound footing than that on which they stand at present. There is a public debt in Jamaica, besides the debt which is due to this country, amounting to not less than 500,000l., and upon which an interest of about 6 per cent, I think, on the average, is paid. We propose that the Imperial Parliament shall, on the recommendation of Government, give a guarantee for the payment of the interest due upon that debt, while at the same time a sinking fund shall be provided for its reduction. These two provisions, one of a guarantee, and the other of a sinking fund, would enable the Assembly of Jamaica very greatly to reduce the interest of that debt—would probably enable them to reduce it to 3½ per cent—

The debt amounts altogether to 700,000l.?

We propose to deal with the sum of only 500,000l. But there is another sum which we propose should be raised, and the payment of the interest on which we mean to guarantee. The difficulties which have occurred of late years in Jamaica have arisen very much on the subject of the salaries of certain official persons. Now, it is contended by the House of Assembly, standing on their fair right, that they are entitled, as Tax Bills cease every year, in proposing and carrying Tax Bills, to make any arrangement they may think fit for the reduction of salaries. It is contended, however, on the other hand, by the Legislative Council, that it would be a very violent breach of faith, that after persons accepted certain permanent offices, very large reductions, or complete abolitions, should take place in the salaries attached to those offices. Now, it appears to us that that quarrel may be settled by a proposition to the effect that to the holders of those offices, the salaries of which it is proposed to reduce, that compensation should be granted, amounting to a few years' salary; so that they might be induced to give up the prospect which had been held out to them, while the offices might be filled at once by per- sons who should receive such reduced salaries which the Assembly might think a sufficient reward for their services. In order to carry out that arrangement, however, it would be necessary that the Assembly should grant a certain sum for the purpose; and we do not think that that sum could be calculated at less than 50,000l. It is proposed, therefore, by the Government, that a loan of a further amount of 50,000l. in addition to the present debt of 500,000l.—making altogether 550,000l.—should be guaranteed by this House. There is another measure which we propose in connexion with this whole subject, and that is a measure which is absolutely necessary in order to give a fair chance of success to the policy which we recommend. This House is well aware that Sir Charles Grey had already discharged the office of Governor of Jamaica during the full time for which offices of the kind are held. He has fulfilled the duties of that office with very signal ability, and he was able up to the present year to prevent those faults and errors which I say exist in the constitution of Jamaica from being productive of the lamentable consequences which we see that they have at length decidedly created. My noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, in considering, among the persons holding official situations in the Colonies, who it was that might with the greatest success be able from his knowledge, his experience, and his talents to bring the different parts of the Legislature in Jamaica into harmony, and restore the constitution of that Colony to a sound state, came to the conclusion that Sir Henry Barkly, who had for several years been Governor of the Colony of Guiana, and who certainly had had as great difficulties to deal with when he first went there as one can well conceive, would be the best person to be appointed to the office of Governor of Jamaica. My noble Friend accordingly recommended Her Majesty to appoint Sir Henry Barkly to that important office; and Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that no person could be better qualified for the post. A question naturally arises with respect to the salary which he is to receive; and it would be most unfortunate if the amount of that salary should be the occasion of a dispute immediately on his appointment. But, on time other hand, it would be a very great misfortune if the office of Governor of Jamaica were, by a reduction of the salary, made of less importance than it ought to be. The salary for that office has hitherto been 6,000l. a year; and we are of opinion that it ought not to be reduced below 5,000l. a year. We do not propose that any permanent settlement should be made with regard to that salary; but there being 1,500l. a year now attached by a permanent enactment to the office of Governor of Jamaica, we propose to ask in Committee of Supply for 3,500l. a year, to make up the salary to the amount I have stated. We propose that those grants should be made for three years. At the end of those three years, it would be a question whether that salary should be permanently fixed by the Assembly and Council of Jamaica, or whether, in conformity with the opinion of persons of considerable experience and authority in these matters, the salaries of the Governors of these Colonies should all be provided by Votes of Parliament. I am not now prepared to give any opinion upon that subject. In the present state of affairs, we certainly do not wish to ask Parliament for any law in the nature of a compulsory Act to change or to suspend the constitution of Jamaica. We only ask for a vote of 3,500l. a year, for three years, to enable the Governor of Jamaica to submit our proposals to the Assembly and Council of Jamaica. If those proposals should be accepted, it is fair to say that the Government would then be prepared to give the guarantee I have mentioned, with the view of extricating the island of Jamaica from its present difficulties, and enabling it to proceed for the future with such retrenchments as might be thought advisable, and to establish such taxes as might be found least burdensome to the people, and enable it in future to adopt measures which I trust may lead to its permanent prosperity. The Colony of Jamaica is, as the House is well aware, a very magnificent Colony in point of soil and productiveness. I cannot myself but believe that if these unfortunate dissensions should be healed, and if we could have no such source of dispute in future—that is to say, no source of dispute which should create, as this quarrel has created, such embarrassment that the whole machinery of the Government was stopped, I believe we should see the Colony of Jamaica succeed at least as well as Guiana and Trinidad have succeeded in recovering from the depression which events that occurred some years ago have occasioned. Having thus laid before the House of Commons a statement which it was, perhaps, necessary that I should make before the close of the Session, I have only to conclude by expressing a hope that the House will agree to our proposals.

said, he had listened with great attention to the interesting statement of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who, he thought, had done very right in giving this explanation before the conclusion of the present Session. He (Sir J. Pakington) wished to say that it was on no personal ground, and for no private reasons, that he had addressed questions on this subject to the noble Lord, but because, considering the great and dangerous crisis which had lately arisen in the affairs of Jamaica, he thought it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to state to the House the view they took of that crisis, and the nature of the measures it was their intention to recommend. The noble Lord had commenced his observations by drawing a comparison between the three great West Indian Colonies of Guiana, Trinidad, and Jamaica, and stated the difference between the quantity of sugar exported from those colonies in 1840 and 1852. The noble Lord had also adverted to another most important element in the question—the supplies of labour which those colonies had respectively obtained. The noble Lord had not, however, alluded to another equally important consideration—the comparative price at which these sugars had been sold, and the comparative profit which had been derived by the exporters. It was not his (Sir J. Pakington's) intention to follow the noble Lord at any length in his observations on this part of the subject, for it would be impossible to do so without entering, to an extent which he thought unnecessary and unbecoming on this occasion, into the whole of what was called the West India question; neither would he avail himself of this opportunity to enter into that long-agitated question to which the noble Lord had alluded—namely, the policy of the noble Lord's Government in 1846. He (Sir J. Pakington) had repeatedly declared his opinion upon that subject, and it was well known to the noble Lord, who had to-night expressed his belief that the policy adopted in 1846 was a wise policy. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought it therefore his duty to say that he had in no degree changed the opinion he had before avowed, that the policy of 1846 was most unwise, and had proved most disastrous. If this were the fitting time to do so, he would argue the imprudence of that policy from the admissions of the noble Lord that his Government were now obliged to come to Parliament and state the remedies they proposed for wrongs and evils which, in his opinion, the noble Lord's policy had mainly caused. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought he might refer to the present ruined and depressed state of Jamaica as a fulfilment of those anticipations which he had again and again expressed with regard to what he belived would be the inevitable result of the policy pursued by the noble Lord's Government in 1846. He would not, however, go further on that subject, for it was far more agreeable to him to be enabled to say that, great and perilous crisis having arisen in the affairs of Jamaica, and the Government of the day—of whatever party that. Government might be constituted—being compelled to deal with that crisis, and to devise remedies for the state of things existing in the colony, he thought the proposals which had been made by the noble Lord on behalf of Her Majesty's Government were of a nature to which no possible exception could be taken on that (the Opposition) side of the House. He considered it the more desirable that in fairness and candour he should make this statement, because one most important, and as he thought a most indispensable, part of the Government plan, was that which related to the alterations in those financial powers which had, for a long period, been exercised by the House of Assembly in Jamaica. He had on former occasions indicated the opinions he entertained on this subject; but as the plan of the Government proposed a change in the practice of the Assembly of Jamaica with regard to matters of finance, which undoubtedly involved an invasion of those rights which a popular assembly had hitherto exercised, he thought it desirable that the noble Lord opposite and Her Majesty's Government should be fortified—as far as his declaration could have any effect—by the statement that, had the late Government remained in office, and had it fallen to his (Sir J. Pakington's) lot to deal with the crisis which happened in Jamaica—whatever concessions the late Government might have thought it their duty to make to the colony, and whatever means they might have recommended for correcting the serious evils which had arisen in the colony—they would have required, as an indispensable preliminary to those concessions and measures—not with any vindictive feeling, but for the sake of Jamaica itself, and of the future good government of the colony—a reform of this portion of the colonial constitution. He had before him two most important despatches, written by Sir Charles Grey, the one addressed to Lord Grey at the close of 1851, and the other sent to himself (Sir J. Pakington) about this time last year, when he had the honour to hold the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies. The House, perhaps, would allow him to read the clear and emphatic language in which Sir Charles Grey expressed his view of the working of this part of the constitution of Jamaica. In the former despatch Sir Charles Grey said—

"Your Lordship is aware that the whole course of fixing, raising, and managing the public revenue in Jamaica is exceedingly faulty and perverted. The Government is in no way represented in the House of Assembly, nor has it any organ there by which any tax can be proposed, or any estimates of expenditure, or of ways and means, can be laid before the Legislature. All advice by way of message from the Governor as to particular measures is regarded as dictation, and resented as breach of privilege. No Member has more right or authority than any other to recommend the sort of taxes that are to be imposed, or the rate of duration of them; and so jealously careful is the Assembly of its privileges, that the revenues for the most part are voted only from year to year. Every Member has the right also to propose a grant or appropriation of public money, and in the course of each Session a number of miscellaneous grants, though of much less amount now than formerly, are successively authorised, without much reference to estimates, or to the ability of the revenue to bear them, and towards the end of the Session are included in one enactment, each individual Member who has a grant to propose being naturally inclined to reconcile other Members to his own measure by consenting to support theirs. Upon the whole, it may be truly said that there is no system or consistency whatever in the conduct of the financial affairs of the colony, nor any recognised organ of government or legislation which has the power to bring about effectual and comprehensive improvements."

That passage, in his (Sir J. Pakington's) opinion, gave an accurate representation of the most inconvenient and objectionable state of things which the Government of the noble Lord wisely sought to correct. He was sorry to see, however, that the House of Assembly of Jamaica seemed to cling to the present system, for, in a despatch of Sir Charles Grey, written last year, and alluding to the proceedings of the Colonial Assembly during the sittings of its last Session but one, Sir Charles Grey said—

"The Sesssion of the local Legislature was brought to a close on the 26th of February, as reported in my despatch No. 16, March 1, 1852. It had been chiefly remarkable for the renewed pertinacity with which the Government here is entirely excluded, not only from those functions in the body of the Legislature which the Crown exercises through its Ministers in both Houses of the English Parliament, but from all guidance, even by advice, of the proceedings of the Assembly."

Under these circumstances, he (Sir J. Pakington) was afraid the House of Assembly would not willingly abandon their financial functions, even under the able administration of Sir Henry Barkly. He hoped, however, that it would strengthen the hands of the Government, and of Sir Henry Barkly, when it was known that the opinion on this subject was not confined to one side of the House alone, but that the late Government would have felt it their imperative duty, as the present Government had done, to require that the abandonment of these objectionable and anomalous functions should be the condition upon which any concessions would be made. He must also add, that, under the present state of the law with regard to the sugar duties, he doubted much, looking to the distress under which the colony of Jamaica suffered, and considering that the difficulties of the island had been and were now, to a very great degree, of a financial character, whether Her Majesty's Government could have decided upon any more effectual mode of giving relief to the colony than that which they proposed. At all events, he thought they had adopted one, of the most effectual modes of relieving the colony, and he considered that, although the relief proposed to be given might appear large in amount, no danger whatever would result from it to the finances of this country. If Her Majesty's Government guaranteed the public debt of Jamaica, he believed the consequence would be to reduce the interest paid by the colony from 6 per cent to 3½ per cent, thus materially reducing the charge upon the colonial revenue. He had expected that the noble Lord would have gone more at length into the state of the finances of Jamaica, which was most disastrous. In 1847, the public debt of Jamaica, including the debt due to this country, did not amount to more than 5080,000l., but he believed the whole liabilities of the island were now at least 750,000l. In both those items, however, was included the debt due to this country, which, with arrears of interest, could not be less than 200,000l., and he imagined from what the noble Lord had said, that the guarantee of the Government would not extend to that debt. Now, he did not understand why this distinction was drawn. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Because the interest is low.] The reason of the distinction was then at once apparent and satisfactory. He understood the noble Lord to say that the amount proposed to be guaranteed was 550,000l. The whole revenue of the island was now only 180,000l. In 1817, it was about 240,000l., but since that time it had been gradually failing, and year after year it had been considerably below the expenditure. The plan of the Government, by greatly reducing the interest paid upon the debt, would materially relieve the finances of the colony, and, he had no doubt, would be accepted as a valuable boon, which would reconcile the colonists to the proposal of the noble Lord. He might observe, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's late Government to send out a Commission to Jamaica to inquire on the spot into the working of the colonial constitution, and to report their opinion as to the best mode of remedying the grievances of which the colonists complained. He was still disposed to think that that might have been the more prudent mode of proceeding. He certainly felt some doubt whether, by the action of al Governor with full instructions, the noble Lord would be able to carry out his views, and to provide that remedy for the colonial grievances which was so imperatively required, without having recourse to Imperial legislation. Perhaps, however, the noble Lord might be and a Governor, with full and ample instructions, might be able to effect as much as a Commission would have done. Although he (Sir J. Pakington) might feel a doubt on this subject, he felt no doubt whatever—Her Majesty's Government having decided upon sending out a Governor instead of a Commission—as to the wisdom of their choice in selecting for the office so able and energetic a man as Sir Henry Barkly. He thought the Government had only done justice to that gentleman, after the services he had rendered to the country, and the abilities he had displayed in the government of Guiana, in recommending him to the Crown for the honours he had lately received. When he (Sir J. Pakington) had the honour of holding the seals of the Colonial Office, Sir Henvy Barkly was Governor of Guiana, and he could confirm—so far as his experience went—all that had been said of that gentleman by the noble Lord. Sir Henry Barkly went out to Guiana at a time when serious difficulties had occurred in that Colony, and be left it in a condition of comparative prosperity. That gentleman had, indeed, the rare fortune of having not only gained the confidence and esteem of the Crown, and of the confidential servants of the Crown, but on leaving Guiana he received proofs of regard of the most gratifying nature from the inhabitants of the Colony. He thought, therefore, the Government could not have taken a wiser course than they had done, in intrusting to Sir Henry Barkly the difficult duty which had been assigned to him. He (Sir J. Pakington) could not, however, agree with the Government in the decision they had arrived at with regard to the future salary of the Governor, except in their determination to charge the portion of the salary which was not fixed, under peculiar circumstances in Jamaica, upon the funds of this country, at all events for three years. This was, he thought, a wise regulation; but he would exercise the same caution which the noble Lord had shown with regard to expressing a definite opinion as to the mode in which this and other Government salaries should be paid. He certainly considered that there were strong reasons in favour of the opinion entertained by many competent judges that it would be better if the salaries of Colonial Governors were altogether paid from the funds of the mother country. He feared that, upon this particular point, he had the misfortune to differ from those with whom he generally acted. He must say that he thought the Government were not acting wisely in permanently lowering the salary of the Governor of Jamaica. He doubted generally the policy and wisdom of lowering the salaries of public officers. He considered that there were no cases in which the maxim that "the labourer is worthy of his hire" ought to be more rigidly adhered to than in the cases of persons holding important public offices. He had regretted the appointment of the Committee which had inquired into public salaries in this country, because he thought it was most impolitic and unwise on the part of a great country to underpay its public servants; and nothing was more strongly impressed upon his mind by the experience he had had in the Colonial Office than the importance of having able and competent men as Governors of Colonies, and, consequently, of holding out such an adequate compensation as would induce men of ability to undertake those offices. It could not be denied that the interests of this country required that the Governors of our Colonies should be, in all respects, men of statesmanlike abilities and high qualities. If they wished men possessing such qualifications to abandon the advantages open to them in this country, to expatriate themselves, and to serve the Crown in trying climates and under difficult circumstances, he thought they were bound to give such salaries as would induce men of high qualities to accept these appointments. He must be allowed to express his opinion that the whole system under which Colonial Governors were appointed might be greatly improved; and he thought that in this respect Lord Grey had set a very good example, which he (Sir J. Pakington) when in office had very humbly endeavoured to follow. He considered that there should be a more distinct understanding than now existed that the system of promotion should be regularly carried out with regard to Colonial Governors. Nothing could be more uncertain than the present mode of proceeding. A gentleman, for instance, was appointed the Governor of a Colony, his tenure of office being only for six years; but he had no security whatever that at the end of that period he would remain in the service of the Crown. He might have been long enough away from this country to destroy any chance of success in his profession—if he was a member of a profession—and, at the termination of his period of office, he found himself without any public employment, without any income upon which he could fall back, and without any pursuit to which he could betake himself. He (Sir J. Pakington) would therefore suggest whether the regular adoption of the system of promotion with regard to the governorships of Colonies might not be worthy the consideration of the Government, and whether men who had rendered long service to their country in trying climates and tinder difficult circumstances should not, on their return, be rewarded by such pensions as might enable them to maintain their position after they had retired from public employment. He must confess he should not be sorry to see the system commenced in the person of his right hon. friend Sir Charles Grey, who was now about to retire into private life, after so many years devoted to the public service. Having so far expressed his concurrence with the course pursued by the Government, he was sorry to add that there was one point in which he dissented from that course, and in which he thought them open to considerable censure. He adverted to the fact that, notwithstanding the well-known state of Jamaica for a very long period past, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had not explained to the House the course be proposed to take until this 4th of August, 1653, and that the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Department did not state the views of the Government on this vital subject to the House of Peers until July. Now, it appeared to him that at the time the present Government acceded to office, there was no feature of our colonial administration so pressing for immediate and energetic attention as the critical state of Jamaica. The crisis which had now arisen in that island had been anticipated a long time ago. The dissensions between the Governor and the House of Assembly had put a stop to all revenue; and, agreeing fully with the noble Lord as to the general merits of Sir Charles Grey, and of whom he did not wish to speak with the slightest disrespect, he must clearly express the opinion that in the proceedings of the Governor towards the House of Assembly there had been a good deal that was indiscreet. At all events, it must be admitted that when the threat was made, and partly acted upon, that the prisons should be thrown open, and the convicts let loose upon society, such a threat and such a course must of necessity involve the island in social disorganisation of the most alarming and the most detrimental character; and in his humble opinion, this disorganisation and this danger might have been averted had the Government done in January or February that which they had only now announced their intention of doing in July and August. When the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson) made, last September, his speech on the Act of 1846, the perilous state of Jamaica was fully manifested to the House in the debate which ensued, and the cited despatches of Sir Charles Grey, in 1851 and 1852, gave ample warning of the state of things that was impending in the island. The dissensions between the Governor and the House of Assembly had been going on, more or less, for a number of years past. The Government, moreover, was bound to recollect that in July, 1854, the nominal equalisation of the sugar duties would take place—a circumstance adverted to most emphatically by Sir Charles Grey in his despatches, and which should have presented to the Government another strong reason why no time should be lost in dealing with the case of Jamaica. The noble Lord had alluded to the fact that Sir Charles Grey's period of office expired in February last. In anticipation of that event, and of the necessity of dealing with the affairs of Jamaica, he (Sir J. Pakington) had, in September last, intimated to Sir Charles Grey that he would be relieved at the close of his period of office. At about the time the new Ministry came into office the period of Sir Charles Grey's service expired, and the Government should have felt that the long dissensions between that Governor and the House of Assembly rendered it altogether improbable that his continuance in office would be advantageous to the State, and should have provided that no such continuance, even for the shortest period, should have taken place. He was of opinion that, from not having seen to this point—from not having at once dealt with the affairs of Jamaica—the Government was responsible for much of the unhappy results which had since occurred. The noble Lord was, of course, aware that a deputation from Jamaica came to this country at the close of last year to urge most strongly the very dangerous state of things in Jamaica, and to enforce the absolute necessity of providing a supply of labour. This was a point worthy of the most serious consideration of the Government. The West India question had, in fact, become, in a great degree, a labour question, and, as much as had been done for Guiana and Trinidad in that respect, every care should be taken to increase the supply of labour to Jamaica, so long as this could be done with prudence in a financial point of view. There could be no better preliminary to this most expedient course than the step now announced by the Government, of guaranteeing the island debt. There was one other point to which he would briefly advert. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his financial statement, had included the question of the refinement of colonial sugars in bond, and it had been with great regret that he had heard the subsequent announcement of the right hon. Gentleman on this point, which had so disappointed the rising hopes of the West India colonists. He (Sir J. Pakington had urged this question on the House at the close of the Session before last, or in the preceding year, and when he came into office last year he announced the intention of the new Government to confer this desired boon on our West India Colonies. It was with great regret, therefore, that he heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce that this boon was not to be conferred, and his regret was increased when he heard no reason assigned for this alteration of views. He did not overrate the value that this concession would represent to the colonists, when he said that it would be equivalent to a differential duty of 1s. 6d. or 2s. per cwt.—a concession which, in the arduous and almost hopeless struggle in which the colonists were engaged with slave-grown sugar, would be of the greatest importance. On the other hand, when 1854 should arrive, with its nominal equalisation of duties, the refusal of this concession would give a positive advantage to the slave-grown sugar in the market to the same extent of 1s. 6d. or 2s. per cwt.—a disadvantage to our colonial sugars of a most disastrous character. There would be then no real equalisation, but the competition against our planters would continue under most unfavourable circumstances—circumstances certainly not contemplated by the Legislature or by the people of England. He was quite aware that the sugar refiners of London, and other persons interested in the present system, had raised the bugbear cry of danger to the revenue from any change; but he would contend that, as a matter alike of justice and of policy, it was essential to grant this boon to our West India growers, the dangers to whom, and especially to those of Jamaica, from its refusal, was far more manifest than the alleged danger from concession to the revenue. He earnestly trusted that, before the period of nominal equalisation arrived, the Government would concede this power of refining in bond to the West India colonists. He had made these observations in a most friendly spirit towards the proposition of the Government, which he considered upon the whole a wise measure, well adapted to the circumstances of the Colony.

said, he did not wish to enter into any of the details of the question, but having on a former occasion found fault with the appointment of Sir Henry Barkly to the governorship of British Guiana, he was bound now to admit that he had left the colony in a most satisfactory state, and in possession of an excellent Government. Looking at the present position of Jamaica, Sir Henry Barkly must indeed be a bold man to undertake the difficult situation of Governor, and if it was on no other account than that, they ought to give him every possible support. The discretion which be displayed while in his former situation was highly creditable to himself, and the Government had certainly acted most wisely in making the proposed experiment for a term of three years, thus giving him ample time and opportunity to perfect those changes which he was authorised to undertake. The root of the whole evil in Jamaica, however, was its system of finance; for no nation or colony could stand for any length of time where the principle prevailed that the parties who voted the money should also have charge of its expenditure; and he hoped the common sense of the colonists would induce them to abandon a system so ruinous and pernicious in its character. The time, however, was not far distant when Ministers would have to bring before the House the whole question of colonial government, with the view to deciding the link which should be kept up between the Crown and the Colonies. He would not say positively what that link should be; but for his own part he thought, that if the Governor, as the representative of the Sovereign, could be left without unnecessary control, and allowed to make arrangements for his government according to the circumstances of the Colony, the colonists themselves would become more prosperous and contented. He had every hope, however, that before long, under the wise and discreet course that might be expected on the part of the new Governor, the same unanimity and good feeling would be effected among the various ruling and other classes in Jamaica that had been so happily created in Guiana.

said, that as the representative of a class of the community who were largely interested in Jamaica, he was anxious to express his full concurrence in the proposals of the Government. Never had a Colony been so much abused and neglected as Jamaica; but he hoped her evil days had passed away, though before she could be made thoroughly prosperous and contented, her constitution must be assimilated to that of the Canadas. With respect to the guarantee, he was in general opposed to the system; but in the present instance, considering the injurious legislation which was applied to the Colony previous to 1846, he thought they would be only doing an act of justice in acceding to the proposal of the noble Lord. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) who had recently addressed them, that it would be found necessary next year to alter the law, so as to enable East India as well as West India sugar to be refined in bond. He had been unwilling to come to that conclusion; but having closely examined the matter, he was now convinced, that if they did not make this change in the law, the Dutch sugar refiners would have a considerable advantage over the refiners of sugars imported into this country. He hoped, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the question into his serious consideration during the recess, and see if some plan could not be devised, by which both East and West India sugars might be allowed to be refined in bond.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Government to a subject of some importance to the country. It could not have escaped the notice of the Government that a large number of petitions had been presented from different parts of the United Kingdom, and also from the Colonies, from Canada, the West Indies, and other of our various colonial possessions, in favour of the establishment of a cheap and uniform system of colonial and international postage. He undertook, and in fact was under promise, to bring this subject under the consideration of Parliament, and he gave notice for a Committee on the subject, thinking that a Committee was the best mode of proceeding for the purpose of inquiring into the present state of foreign and colonial postage, and to ascertain how far it was practicable to make a uniform charge of a penny for the transmission of letter from any part of the United Kingdom to parts beyond the sea where British mail packets touched. He submitted the proposal of this Committee to the Government; but the Session was far advanced at the time, and considering that the Government had themselves submitted a proposal to the Colonies for reducing materially the rate of colonial postage, and rendering it more uniform, he thought he should be exercising a wise discretion in not pressing his Motion during the present Session. His object, therefore, in rising on the present occasion, was to explain why he did not bring forward the Motion, and to explain that at an early period next Session he should renew the Motion, when be hoped the Government would see no objection to appoint a Committee for inquiring into the whole question of foreign and colonial postage. The right hon. Baronet, the late Secretary for the Colonies, took a deep interest in this question, so much so, indeed, that he wrote a very handsome letter to a society of which he (Mr. M. Gibson) was a member on the subject; and if the right hon. Baronet did not become a member of the society, he at all events forwarded them a donation. The right hon. Baronet felt the importance of the question whilst holding office, and he pledged himself, if he got the opportunity, to bring about a cheap and uniform system of colonial postage—

No, it was the Postmaster General.

said, that might have been so. His object was not simply confined to the question of postage rates between this country and the colonies, but involved also the question of foreign postage. Nothing could be more anomalous or unsatisfactory in that respect than the present state of things. In the United States a letter was carried 3,000 miles for three halfpence, while at home a letter was carried to any part of the United Kingdom for a penny; but the transmission of a letter across the narrow sea to Calais cost no less a sum than 9½d. Now, he proposed that the transmission of letters across the sea should be limited to a penny also. Tine present Prime Minister, on a recent occasion, when a deputation waited upon him on the subject, said, if the shipowners were prepared to undertake the carrying of letters at the uniform rate of a penny, he believed the objection to the proposal would cease. Well, now, he was prepared to state that an offer had been made by the Glasgow and New York Steam Shipping Company to carry letters from England to the United States, and vice versâ, at the rate of a penny per letter. They were prepared to run fortnightly steam boats, making as rapid a passage as possible between the United Kingdom and the United States; and he understood they were ready to undertake the same service to the Australian Colonies. With regard to foreign postage, he knew that there were a variety of complicated arrangements respecting postal communications; but all of these were fit subjects for a Committee to inquire into, and he should therefore propose next Session that they be referred to a Select Committee, together with the general subject of ocean postage. He would not then enter into details beyond mentioning this single fact, that the emigration which had taken place had rendered the correspondence between the working classes of this country and their relatives in foreign lands very extensive. Their relatives in the United States, Australia, and the Canadas, frequently sent letters to this country containing money for the poorer portions of their families whom they left behind; and it was stated by Mrs. Chisholm, that in one case a letter arrived from Australia addressed to a poor woman then in a workhouse in this country. The postage on the letter came to 3s., and the party to whom it was addressed being in a workhouse, and having no means to pay the postage, the letter was returned to the colony. Now, it actually contained 25l. for the maintenance of the poor woman, who was then in the workhouse, and unable to pay the postage. This was only one of many cases of a similar kind where letters had been returned in this way, and he might therefore be excused from mentioning this simple fact, carrying as it did a volume in itself. He hoped, then, that they would be permitted to have a Committee at an early period next Session to inquire into this question; and having now given his explanation of why he did not feel it to be his duty to bring the matter forward this Session, he trusted it would be deemed satisfactory there as elsewhere.

said, he regretted that the subject had not been taken into consideration at once. He had had the honour of presenting many petitions from Sheffield and other places, praying that increased facility for postal communication with the Colonies might be provided, and the subject was one in which he took great interest. Before the reduction of the rate of postage in this country took place, the annual number of letters conveyed through the post-office amounted to about 75,000,000, while this year the number was expected to amount to 400,000,000; and the gross annual revenue at present was greater than it had been before the reduction was made. He most cordially agreed with the principle that the postal arrangements of the country ought not to be made mere matter of revenue, but that in a great commercial country like this the utmost facility should be afforded for postal communication.

said, he must complain of the vast expense of this establishment, and also of the great delay and expense in the printing of the catalogue. The catalogue already consisted of 1,200 folio volumes, and had cost 100,000l. It would, according to the present calculation, take forty years to complete, and would then consist of 13,000 volumes. He regretted he did not see either the noble Lord the Member for London or the Chancellor of the Exchequer present on this occasion, to explain why the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners with regard to the Museum had not been attended to. The Commissioners had recommended, for instance, the abolition of the offices of principal librarian and secretary as they now existed; the establishment of a responsible executive council instead of twenty or thirty irresponsible trustees; the appointment of one person as the responsible head of the whole establishment; and the adoption of an improved mode of keeping the accounts. None of those recommendations had been agreed to, and he wished to know the reason why. He wished the Government would turn their attention to the subject during the recess, and consider what could be done to place the establishment on a better footing than at present. He objected to the ridiculous expenditure of the public money in gilding the iron railing and destroying the English simplicity of the building, Ire also wished to know how there came to be such a balance as 11,000l. allowed to stand over. He would suggest that all purchases should be suspended until additional space was provided. He was unwilling to oppose the grant, but he wanted some responsibility, and hoped the First Commissioner of Works would be able to give the Committee some information on the subject.

said, the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that none of the recommendations of the Commission had been carried into effect. Immediately after their Report was made, a meeting of the trustees was held, which was attended by the late Sir Robert Peel, for the purpose of considering the various recommendations made, and adopting such of them as fell within the competency of the trustees, and met their approval. He considered the present board of trustees inferior to no fixed board of management which could be appointed. Amongst those who attended regularly during the past year he found the names of the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Rosse, the Bishop of London, Mr. Macaulay, and Sir David Dundas. As to the floating balance alluded to by the hon. Member, it was lodged not in the hands of the trustees but in those of the Treasury, and was merely nominal in its character, arising from one quarter of the year falling into one account, and another quarter into a different one. He had yet to learn that the authority of the Commissioners was so much superior to that of the trustees as to make it absolutely clear and indisputable that where the two differed in opinion the latter must necessarily be in the wrong. The hon. Member had recommended that no more purchases should be made until those which were already in possession of the trustees should be accommodated. With respect to this question, he had to state, that in the course of the three years which had elapsed since the Commissioners had reported, accommodation had been provided for a large portion of the collection which was before unarranged; but be confessed that there was one great department which was still imperfectly provided for—he referred to that of printed books. So great was the deficiency of accommodation for this department that the trustees had actually been obliged to decline the vote of 10,000l. a year, for which they had formerly asked, and to take 5,000l. instead; and he believed they would even take much less now; for at present they were hardly able to find room for all the books it was their imperative duty to take in, such as copyright books, presents, and the like. The plan which the trustees had urged upon the Government five or six years ago was to expend the sum of 250,000l. in building a new quadrangle to the east of the existing Museum. The Duke of Bedford (the lord of the soil and landlord of the houses there) was willing to make the necessary arrangements with the trustees if the Government would grant them authority to act in the matter; and, as no one could know what the disposition of another Duke of Bedford ten or twenty years hence might be, he thought it extremely important that the transaction should be entered into so long as they had the consent of the Duke. By laying out 50,000l. a year for five years they would obtain all that they desired, and provide, for at least 100 years to come, adequate accommodation both for the printed books and the natural history collection, besides supplying more adequate reading rooms. But up to this moment the plan had not been adopted. With regard to the vexed question of a catalogue, he begged to say, that no public library in Europe had a catalogue of such extent and variety as the British Museum.

said, that various plans for providing increased accommodation for the Museum were some time ago referred to the Board of Works, in order that they might report upon them to the Treasury. That Board had lately given in their Report, which was now under the consideration of the Government, and he hoped that before next meeting of Parliament steps would be taken in order to provide increased accommodation for the British Museum.

said, he must express his surprise at the statement which he found in the printed return of the number of persons admitted to the British Museum from Christmas, 1846, to 1852—namely, that while in 1850–51 the number of visitors amounted to 2,527,216, it fell in 1851–52 to 507,973. He thought there must be some mistake.

said, he believed there had been a great diminution in the number of visitors to other institutions in 1851–52, as compared with 1850–51, the time of the great Exhibition, as well as to the Museum; but he begged to inform the Committee that during the last six months the increase of visitors to the Museum had been very perceptible, as compared with last year.

believed the cause of the diminution of visitors to arise from the fact that the doors of the Museum were not left open all the working days of the week. When visitors arrived from the country, one of their first visits was to the British Museum; but knowing nothing of the days when it was open, they often went on days when it was shut, and getting disgusted, they refused to go back. He wished the authorities would arrange that the Museum should be open for six days in the week.

said, there were two classes of visitors to the Museum—those who came from motives of curiosity, and those who visited it in pursuit of science. The Tuesdays and Thursdays were reserved for scientific visitors and for foreigners of distinction—Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, for the general public—and Saturdays were reserved for cleaning.

said, he wished to have some explanation in regard to this vote. He observed that one of the items of the vote as a charge for fitting up the dining-room a chapel for public service for English visitors and residents at Paris. Now, the fact was, that there were already six or seven Protestant chapels at Paris, where the English people might not only worship according to the faith of the Church of England, but might also improve themselves in the French language. The explanation he wished to have was, what portion of this sum of 5,820l. was proposed to be appropriated for the fitting-up of this chapel? The House was aware that in 1816 the nation had purchased the hotel at Paris from the Princess Borghese for 30,000l., and had since that time allowed annually sums varying from 800l. to 1,100l. for keeping up the building. It appeared to him that a vote of this character implied some malappropriation of the public money, as he was informed that n architect made an annual survey and report, and superintended the work required to be done. He wished to know why so large a sum as 9,000l., of which 5,820l. was to be now voted, should be required? He observed that one of the items of the vote was a charge for fitting up the dining-room as a chapel for public service for English visitors and residents in Paris, and he wished to know what portion of this sum of 5,820l. was proposed to be appropriated for the fitting-up of this chapel. He could not see the necessity for his arrangement, because for several years the service of the Church had been discontinued at the Embassy, and the English ambassador had attended the Episcopal Chapel built by Dr. Luscombe, at a cost of 9,000l., adjacent to the Embassy. There was also the Chapelle de Marbœuf, endowed and erected by the late Mr. Lewis Way, where the service of the Church of England was regularly performed throughout the year. There were also many other Protestant chapels at Paris, such as the Oratoire, and the chapels where Monod and Coqueral officiated. Since 1815 there had been no chapel at the British Embassy beyond that of the dining or drawing-rooms, which he certainly thought was not desirable; but considering the proposed expenditure was simply to accommodate a few fashionable visitors of the élite, he objected to any outlay for such a purpose.

explained that the dilapidated condition of the mansion, as reported by Mr. Burton, the architect, confirmed by Mr. Albano, who had been sent to Paris for the especial purpose, rendered these repairs absolutely necessary. The estimates had been formed on the report of the latter gentleman. With regard to the fitting-up of the dining-room as a chapel, he must state that previously to this representation of the condition of the embassy, the ball-room was used and fitted up as a chapel. But it was considered that to appropriate a room in which a ball was held to-night for the performance of divine service to-morrow was most indecent; therefore it was thought proper that the dining-room should be fitted up for religious worship at the British Embassy.

With reference to the fitting up of the dining-room as a chapel, he could not see that it was more decent to use that room than a ball-room. There was an English church close to the Embassy which met the wants of the public.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who had been the inspecting architect in Paris, on whose reports to the Board of Works the sum annually required to be voted in the estimates was granted? He also begged to ask, whether any new architect had been appointed to make those annual reports, and whether any special report had been made that the former architect had generally neglected his duty? If an annual report was made, it must have been either a fabrication, or have been made without any proper inquiry as to the state of the building, and what vote was necessary for its repair.

said, that the gentleman who was now appointed the architect was Mr. Albano, and upon whose second report this estimate was founded. The person who was the architect in Paris, and who had made the reports, was Mr. Burton.

said, that some of those reports were made to him when he was at the head of the Board of Works, and some of them to the noble Lord who preceded him in that office. He thought there ought to be an inquiry made by the Government, whether those reports were false or not. All that the person who was at the head of the Board of Works could do was to send a competent person to make a detailed report to him as to the state of the building; and, having received that report, he proceeded to prepare his estimate. Of course, if the report was entirely wrong, the architect who made it ought to be visited with the censure of the House.

said, the report made to the noble Lord was made by Mr. Burton. A representation having been made to the Board of Works from another quarter, Mr. Albano was sent to Paris, and it was on the report of that gentleman that the present vote was framed.

said, he considered this be an important matter. He perfectly recollected the circumstances under which this case was brought before the Treasury during the last Administration. A representation was made to the Government as the state of the British Ambassador's residence at Paris. The representation was, fact, made by no other person than Lord Cowley himself. The expressions in the letter of Lord Cowley were, that such was the state of the residence of the English Ambassador at Paris that it would require to be immediately looked into. It was under this state of circumstances that his noble Friend then at the head of the Board of Works (Lord J. Manners), called his attention to the subject, and the then Government thought it their duty to send a professional gentleman—he believed Mr. Albano—to make a report on the matter. But no report was ever received by the late Government from that gentleman. The late Government certainly objected to the great expenses which were considered requisite for the Ambassador's residence at Paris; at the same time it was not for them to say that the expenses were not necessary. But he must say that Ministerial responsibility appeared, in this case, to be very seriously involved. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (of course he was not bringing this against the right hon. Gentleman himself as a charge) his unprecedented state of a public building, which be was sure could not be equal- led in any capital in Europe or in the world, had been brought about in consequence of a false expenditure of the public money; for a series of years there had been an estimate made by a professional man—not an English professional man—on the faith of whose estimate the House of Commons had annually voted a sum of money, in order to support and maintain the residence of the English Ambassador at Paris. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated to the Committee that for a series of years the sum so voted had never been expended; and that the consequence of that neglect had been such a state of a public structure as he did not suppose had ever been paralleled in the experience of man. Now, what he wanted to know was, who was living in the house at that time? Was the representative of Her Majesty living in the house during that series of years? Did he permit year after year a sum of money to be voted by the House of Commons for maintaining that structure, and yet suffer it to fall into an unprecedented state of dilapidation? That was the first thing he wanted to know. The second was, what was their security against such laches in future? Last year the House withheld a similar vote with regard to the residence of the Ambassador at Constantinople. The item was far from inconsiderable; but what was the case of Constantinople, and what the consequences of that item as compared with the present? This scene of outrage had taken place, not at Constantinople, but in a city which could be visited in less than twenty-four hours, and that at the house occupied by the English Ambassador. What he wanted was, for the satisfaction of the Committee, a security for the better management of this department of the public service. How had it happened, that during all these years, when an adequate sum of money had been voted for the maintenance of the residence of her Majesty's representative at Paris, the Ambassador resident in that house had permitted the sums of money so voted not to be expended for the public service?

said, he thought the character of that House required that more money should not be granted until some account was given of the money which had already been voted. The better course, therefore, would be to postpone the vote.

said, the Treasury was responsible for the Vote. He must admit that the whole matter was involved in con- siderable mystery; and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) that inquiry was absolutely necessary. The Committee would be acting quite right in requiring the report of Mr. Albano to be laid upon the table; and to that he (Mr. Wilson) had no objection. At the same time no good end would be answered by postponing the Vote, inasmuch as the money had already been expended—expended under circumstances which he was sure the Committee would concur in saying had justified the Government in ordering it to be done. The papers should be laid on the table, if possible, to-morrow.

said, he thought they ought to be furnished not merely with the Report of Mr. Albano, but also with the Reports which had been made in past years.

said, he thought it unnecessary to postpone the Vote; but he was of opinion that the Committee should not only be furnished with the Report of Mr. Albano, but with the previous Reports of Mr. Burton, that they might see whether he had stated the house to be then in a good state of repair. They should also have a return of the sums which had been expended on this building for the last eight or ten years, and they would then be in possession of the whole facts of the case, and would be able to guard against the recurrence of what had taken place.

said, he did not see any necessity for postponing the Vote, but thought that they should be furnished not only with the reports of the architects in past years, but also with a detailed statement of the manner in which the money voted was said to have been expended.

said, there was a clerk of the works at Paris in charge of the mansion, and an English architect was sent over once a year to inspect the building, and report what repairs were necessary.

said, it appeared that a sum had been annually voted for the repair of this building, and that it had never been expended upon it. He wished, therefore, to know whether the money had been spent at all, or to whom it had been paid? The case was not merely one of flagrant neglect, but it was also involved in much mystery. He did not think the Committee would be furnished with the information required unless the Vote was postponed.

said, he must oppose the postponement of the Vote. Mr. Albano had reported that, in order to put the mansion in good repair, an expenditure of 9,913l. would be requisite. Out of this, in reply to a question from the Treasury, he had stated that it was necessary that 5,820l., the amount asked for by the present vote, should be expended in the present year. The Treasury had therefore authorised the expenditure of that sum during the present financial year; and, in fact, part of it had already been laid out. The remainder of the sum requisite for the completion of the repairs would come before the House next year, when they would have an opportunity to call for further inquiry if they were not satisfied with the explanation contained in the papers that would be laid on the table.

said, he wished to know the scale on which these rewards were to be paid. It seemed strange to have this Vote at all, as there was a special provision to pay for slaves liberated on the Coast under an Act of Parliament. By what authority, might he ask, was the money voted? Did the Admiral on the station come in for any share in the case of the slaves rescued by the Alert on shore? He hoped the officers and seamen would have all the benefit of the rewards.

said, he did not think they could extirpate slavery as long as they encouraged slave-grown sugar. Was there any prospect of putting an end to it? He thought not. He believed the old slaveowners were much kinder to their slaves than we were to the natives for whom we exerted ourselves.

said, the circumstances to which the Vote referred took place in the years 1848, 1849, and 1850, when Captain Dunlop, having discovered that certain slavedealers belonging to Sierra Leone had a number of slaves in the interior of the country, succeeded in liberating a large number of them. He liberated 700 slaves, and saved from mas- sacre 200 more, and he (Mr. Wilson) thought the Committee would feel that for services of that kind a reward should be given.

said, he begged it to be understood that he did not object to the reward, but quite the contrary.

said, the only instance of a similar Vote was in the case of Captain Denman, when he burned some barracoons on the Coast. The law gave to every sailor and to every man a premium for taking slaves afloat, but on shore there was no law to justify the seizure of slaves. He saw by the public papers that Major Hill, the Governor of the Gold Coast, had presided at a court-martial which resulted in the execution of two chiefs of the Fantees within the British lines. He thought that the circumstances attending the execution of those chiefs were highly disgraceful to the country. A letter had been written by Mr. Cruikshank, the Acting Governor, to the Duke of Newcastle, on the subject; and the Duke in his reply expressed a hope that there would be no repetition of those scenes. He wished the production of the papers connected with the whole subject, because it seemed to him that naval men were inclined to go out of their way for the purpose of entering upon duties that did not properly come within their province. Captain Dunlop went thirty miles into the country to capture slaves. He protested against this system of making war upon native chiefs. He wished to have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to the legality of this proceeding, and he would, therefore, move that the Vote be postponed until that opinion be laid before them.

said, that if his hon. Friend would move that the papers should be laid on the table, he should have great pleasure in laying them before the House.

said, the Act of Parliament directed that the compensation should be given for services rendered afloat, and the Vote now proposed was contrary to the course usually adopted. Nothing could be more disadvantageous than to reward men for going on marauding expeditions, many of which were of no service either to the negroes or to the country.

said, the Vote had been printed with the others, and had been before the House for three months, and it was quite competent for any Gentleman who required further information, to ask to have the papers laid upon the table; but he objected to the postponement of the Vote at that period of the Session.

said, he must protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman. The practice was when a new Vote was proposed to give information at the same time in respect to it.

said, that all he asked was to be informed under what authority this money was paid to the officers and crew of the ship in question?

said, it was stated that the payment, if made, would not be legal, and no answer had been given to that statement. If it were not shown to be a legal payment, the House of Commons could scarcely be asked to vote the money.

said, he presumed these slaves were slaves on shore, in a barracoon belonging to some slave merchant, the rest of the cargo being on board ship. As rewards were given as inducements for the capture of slaves, they should adopt a liberal principle, and give the same bounty for slaves rescued from slave merchants on shore as for slaves rescued from slave ships afloat.

said, that by treaties with civilised nations they acquired the right to take ships and liberate slaves, and by Act of Parliament rewards were given after certain proofs of the fact. Did the noble Lord mean to say it was the same thing when men from the Queen's ships interfered with savage tribes on the coast of Africa—war, slavery, and plunder being their natural condition—and when they broke up barracoons and created as many disorders as they professed to repress? If they once admitted the principle, it would be easy to get up cases of the kind and come every year for Votes of that House. Let them settle the matter by Act of Parliament, and then the Votes would be taken on a recognised principle. But he really thought the noble Lord had in this instance presumed on the credulity of the Committee to induce them to pass this Vote.

said, there were two kinds of treaties—the one class was with civilised nations, by which they established mixed Commissions and Courts of adjudicature; the other was with Native Chiefs of Africa, giving officers of Her Majesty's Navy the right of entering and seizing any slaves in their territories. The policy of the Government had been to multiply those treaties with Native Chiefs, and they now extended through the whole west coast of Africa. He had no doubt, though he had no knowledge on the subject, there was such a treaty in this case.

said, with regard to the execution of the two chiefs, the facts were, the King of Ashantee marched a large army into the territory of a chief under our protection. The natives organised themselves for their own defence, and the Ashantees were anxious to precipitate a collision, and it was entirely owing to the tact and judgment of Major Hill that a war was avoided. The two chiefs who were executed were tried by the chiefs in their own territory, and no British officer was present; and Major Hill only was there, at the request of the chiefs themselves, to see justice done.

said, he did not wish to find fault with the Estimate, but he desired to ascertain what precautions were taken against undue charges under this head. There had been five or six Commissions—Hull, Cambridge, Canterbury, Barnstaple, and Tynemouth. It was found in the case of revising barristers that they were in the habit of spinning out the number of days when paid by the day. If they were about to pay these Commissioners by the day, he was apprehensive, unless there was some check, these charges would run up to a considerable amount. What he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government was, whether any instructions had been given to these Commissioners at the time of their appointment as to the way in which they were to be paid—whether they were to be paid by the day, or a certain sum for the duties which they had to discharge? There was another circumstance to which he wished to call the noble Lord's attention. He mentioned neither names nor places, but he had reason to apprehend that in one case at any rate an immense number of witnesses had already been examined; and, as he had been informed, a similar number was likely still to be examined; whereas if the inquiry had been prosecuted by examining One or two persons, to prove a vast class of cases, he would not say dozens but hundreds of witnessess need not have been called. He hoped the Government would turn its attention to this subject.

said, a more gross and wasteful expenditure could not be conceived than those Commissions. He had always set his face against Commissions. The Commissions that had already been issued, and were still to be issued, were nothing less than gross jobs and gross frauds on the public. A Commission was issued to put an end to corrupt practices. He had yet to learn what corrupt practices were. Whatever might have been done in the City of London—and what was done was wrapt up in mystery—he defied the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to prove that bribery or corruption had taken place in the constituency he (Colonel Sibthorp) represented. These Commissions were established for party purposes to give employment to hangers-on. They were to give employment to briefless barristers until those barristers could find a client to entrust them with their affairs. The Government had projected five or six Commissions which had done nothing, or nothing that was of any real public value. Five or six more Commissions were to be appointed, and they would also do nothing. What were those Commissions for? They were not really to put an end to corrupt practices, they were only to give employment to hangers-on. Were they to go on for ever in such a course? If he were to move the suspension of this Vote, he should be told the money was paid, therefore it would be useless to do so. He wanted to know what had really been done? Bills of all sorts were projected. A Bill was to be brought in by one hon. Member, and then they were told that the noble Lord was at work, and another Bill might be expected. This Bill manufactory appeared to be at work as vigorously as the chicken-hatching establishment in Leicester-square. He hoped the Committee would see an end of this wasteful and useless expenditure of public money.

said, he would not say anything on the subject of remuneration, but with respect to the manner the Commissioners performed their duties he would offer a few remarks, The Committee were aware that the selection was left to the persons who moved for those Commissions. They chose lawyers because their character and ability best fitted them for the duty. These lawyers were circuit-going lawyers, and the Committee could hardly call upon them to forego their pro- fessional pursuits for the purpose of attending to the duties of a temporary Commission without giving remuneration. These lawyers had been required to pursue these inquiries without intermission, except where an adjournment was necessary in order to complete the requirements of the law of evidence; and as this was so, it was right the parties should be paid.

said, that no allegation of corruption had been made against Irish constituencies. These expenses, therefore, and no part of them, could be charged to the account of Ireland. It was perfectly true that the Commissioners had been appointed by the Chairman of the Committee before which the case had been heard; but he would ask whether there was a single man prepared to say that the greatest injustice had not been done to individuals in the present Session by Election Committees? In six cases out of seven, he was convinced that their decisions ought to be reversed; for he could put his hand upon some where gentlemen had been unseated without the shadow of a cause. These cases could not, probably, now be remedied; but there ought to be some security against a repetition of such decisions, for really no man's scat was secure under such a system.

said, he could not believe there was any justice in the accusation which the hon. Gentleman made against the Select Committees of that House appointed to try Election Petitions. They were appointed under an Act of Parliament—the Chairman, especially; were appointed by a selected number of Members; generally they were eminent for their experience; and many of them possessed great knowledge of the law. He believed they had conscientiously discharged their duties, and that the House had every reason to be satisfied with the conduct of their Committees. At all events, having made these Committees judicial bodies, it was not becoming in that House, without very grave proof indeed, to attempt to disparage their authority. As to the particular question put by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), he had only a few words to say. He must be well aware, although the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) appeared not to be, that the Commissioners were appointed according to Act of Parliament, and upon the nomination of persons of various political opinions. He believed, too, that the gentlemen appointed had been persons of various political opinions, and that they had been chosen not from any particular political bias or from party objects. There was, he readily agreed, some danger that the expenses of the Commissioners might be excessive. It would therefore be the duty of the Home Office to watch the conduct of the Commissioners; and, if they found the mode of remuneration proposed likely to lead to abuse, to alter that mode, and to endeavour to incur no further charges than were absolutely necessary for the purpose, for it was certainly desirable to place a check upon expenditure as far as possible.

said, the noble Lord talked about Acts of Parliament as if he believed that Acts of Parliament had never done anything unjust. He believed they had very often; and, for one, he should be very sorry to have his property secured to him only by the justice to be found in Acts of Parliament.

begged to explain that in his previous observations he had implied no doubt upon the impartiality or the honour of the Commissioners. He had simply called attention to the fact of there being a danger of the expenses becoming excessive, and suggested that they should be paid a certain fixed amount, instead of by a given sum per diem.

said, he hoped the Committee would call for an explanation of the various items in this Vote. The fees paid to the law officers of the Crown were stated at 12,000l. a year, while the expenses of the patent offices, where the business, was really done, did not amount to more than 4,000l.

said, the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware that the fees payable to the law officers had been reduced one-half since the passing of the Patent Law Amendment Act. They were now under the supervision of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, who were empowered to reduce them whenever they thought proper. It was fair to recollect that a very large amount of work and very great responsibility now attached to the law officers of the Crown in connexion with the patent business of the country. The rate before the Committee was really a nominal amount, and not a charge upon the country, inasmuch as it was much exceeded by the revenue derivable from the sale of patents.

said, he wished to know whether the 12,000l. a year paid to the law officers of the Crown was based upon any calculation of their receipts in preceding years? There was a very general impression abroad that these Gentlemen were extravagantly paid for the services they rendered to the Government and the country. Sir John Jervis stated before the Committee on Official Salaries, that the emoluments of the Attorney General amounted to 10,000l., and those of the Solicitor General to 7,000l. per annum. Now, as the law officers of the Crown carried on their own private professional business, in addition to their public duties, he did not suppose they could give their whole time to the Government, even for the large sum they received in the shape of fees. He had no doubt, moreover, that most of the business connected with patents was done, not by the Attorney or Solicitor General, but by subordinate officials.

said, the 12,000l. included in the vote was founded upon a computation of what the fees would amount to according to the new scale of rates as fixed by the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls. The charge, owing to the reduction which had been made in the fees, was 5,000l. less than what it used to be.

said, that, in considering this Vote, the Committee would bear in mind that the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General were devoid of salary, the only emoluments attached to them being the fees derived from patents. When it was thought desirable to alter the patent law, and to reduce the fees payable from patents, the law officers of the Crown at once placed themselves in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls; but before the Amendment Act was passed they went out of office, and the new scale of fees was fixed, not during the time he had the honour to hold office, but while the late Government was in power. Since then two reductions had been made in the fees, owing to the increase of business under the Amendment Act, the first being a reduction of one-quarter, and the other of one-half of the scale formerly in use. At the same time a great change had taken place in another respect; for whereas under the old system the law officers of the Crown received the fees from patents in lieu of salary, for really doing nothing but signing their names, under the new law they had to perform a large amount of very responsible and arduous work, the result of which was a considerable accession to the public revenue. But the whole thing was in a state of transition, and it must not be supposed that the patent business would continue to increase as it did immediately after the passing of the Amendment Act. If it aid continue, and if the fees of the law officers of the Crown should increase in the same proportion, and become larger than they fairly ought to be entitled to—they were in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, who were empowered to deal with them as they might think fit.

said, he hoped the Committee would adopt the rcommendation of the Committee on Official Salaries, and resolve to remunerate the law officers of the Crown by a fixed salary out of the Consolidated Fund, instead of the present fluctuating and precarious system—precarious, he meant, as regarded the public—of payment by fees.

said, that before agreeing to this Vote, he would like to have an account of all the money which had already been expended upon the Houses of Parliament, and an estimate of what more would be required to complete the works. He thought the time had now arrived when that House should come to some determination as to what additional sum was to be expended. Upwards of two years ago he asked for an estimate of the work which then remained to be done, and was told that such an estimate could not be prepared. Five years ago he declared that as long as the present system continued—as long as Sir Charles Barry lived—the new houses of Parliament would never be finished. He was convinced that there would be constant alterations going on, not for any beneficial purpose, but merely to please some middle-aged taste. Why, the very locks and bolts on the doors appeared as if they belonged to the age of Tubal Cain. They were proceeding, in short, in a very reckless way, and the affair altogether was most discreditable to the parties concerned.

said, that the sums voted by Parliament since 1835, exclusive of the 70,000l. now asked for, amounted to 1,539,000l. He could not at present produce an estimate of what further sum would be required to complete the works, but would endeavour to procure one without unnecessary delay. He might state that, in future, the Votes would be founded upon an estimate of the works to be completed within the year for which they were required, and at the same time plans would be produced of the works to be done in each financial year.

said, the original estimate for the new Houses of Parliament was 700,000l., while some time since, when he obtained some returns for which he had moved, the expenditure had reached nearly 1,500,000. In 1850 the question was, what sum would be requisite to finish those Houses of Parliament? Sir Charles Barry was examined on that point, and was pressed very much as to what would be the final outlay on those works. His answer was that it was impossible to say. Since that time an enormous sum had been expended upon them, irrespective of the present Vote. The truth, he believed, was, that the Government knew nothing whatever of the expenditure that was being incurred; and the question for the Committee now to consider was, how Parliament was to effect some control over it for the future? What they wanted to know was, in whom was vested the power of incurring all this expenditure? He firmly believed that the expenditure would be more than 2,000,000l. in the end, and he wanted to know from the Chief Commissioner of Works what check he imposed on the running up of future debts?

said, he must explain that there had been a large amount of outstanding accounts for works which had not been measured and valued, and the Votes for the Houses of 'Parliament had hitherto been based on the probable amount of expenditure, and not upon the amount of works executed in the financial year. The Votes, therefore, had been less than the cost of the works which had been executed in the financial year. Similar errors, however, could not happen again, because the arrears of measurement had been got rid of, and in future the Votes for the Houses of Parliament would be based on an estimate of the expenditure in the financial year.

said it would be in the highest degree desirable to obtain from Sir Charles Barry an account of the total sum required to carry out his fancies in connexion with the Houses of Parliament, and to divide that sum over a certain number of years. Unless they could bring Sir Charles Barry to make some statement of that kind, be (Mr. Macartney) could see no end to the expenditure. He also should like to know the amount of the existing contracts in the hands of Messrs. Grissell and Peto, Mr. Jay, and others. Again, the lighting of the House was a matter to which he wished to refer. In the course of it debate the other night he had the curiosity to go up to the top of the building to inspect the mode of lighting now in use, and perhaps hon. Members would scarcely believe that the atmosphere between the roof of the building and the transparent ceiling ranged from 132 to 140 degrees; and two individuals were obliged to live in that atmosphere constantly, whilst the House was sitting at night, to see that the building was not set on fire. If anything, should occur to prevent the surveillance of those two persons, at any moment of time the whole feline might be destroyed by fire.

said, it was satisfactory to hear from the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) that there were hereafter to be no unmeasured works to pay for, that there were no balances left, and no liabilities for the future. The Committee would in future have an estimate laid before it of what was to be done, and would thus have it in its power to question such expenditure before it was incurred. There was one point which remained fur consideration, and that was—the remuneration of the architect. He wished to know if anything had been clone by the Government to settle the amount of that remuneration.

said, the question of the remuneration of the architect was brought before him during the month of May, and it had been quite impossible for him in the state of legislation in that House to undertake the settlement of that question; but he agreed with his noble Friend that a much longer time had elapsed than was desirable with respect to the matter, and he hoped to be able to proceed with it immediately after the termination of the Session. He confessed he sympathised with many of the complaints made with regard to the expenditure for those Houses; but his hon. Friend (Sir W. Molesworth) had made every exertion that man could make to bring this difficult and complicated mater into a satisfactory state; and he could assure the Committee that the Government would use their best endeavours in the course of the recess to procure a bonâ fide reliable estimate of the entire expense of the works remaining to be executed.

said, he had great fault to find with the lighting and ventilation of the House. He was sure any hon. Member who had come into the House just before the morning sitting, when it was empty, must have felt that the place was like a vault; and the reason was that the free air of heaven never blew through it. His notion of ventilating the House was, that the windows, which were ornamented with those strange beasts—he did not know for what reason—should be made to open, so as to admit the air to blow thoroughly through the House. If that were so, there would not be, as now, a residium of foul air in the chamber in which they sat. The windows might be handsome enough as specimens of medieval art; but no one would pretend that, with those beasts daubed over them, they admitted light; and they certainly did not admit air, because they did not open. So far as ventilation was concerned, they had better close them up together, both to the light and the air, and use gaslight all the year round.

said, that the Committee would feel some satisfaction at what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting this huge job. His (Mr. Bright's) objection to the architect of that House was, that he always overlooked the question of expense, and while earning a name for himself, he was destroying their credit as guardians of the national finances. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see to the preparation of a plan as well as of estimates, and that Sir Charles Barry should not be allowed to go beyond it.

said, that even in the chamber in which they were then sitting there was not an existing arrangement that formed part of the original plan. Everything had been changed and altered, and he believed that the cost of the alterations could not be less than 15,000l. [An Hon. MEMBER: And a great deal more than that.] Very likely so; and that was the thing he wished to have explained. Would the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, lay before the House all estimate of the expenses which had been incurred in this chamber alone, for the alterations which had been rendered imperatively necessary by the extreme want of foresight of the persons who made the original plan? In asking this question, it was only due to the right hon. Gentleman to say, that if all his predecessors at the Board of Works had shown the same zeal and determination that he had clone in checking such expenses, a question like this would have been altogether superfluous.

believed it was impossible to furnish an estimate of the sort.

said, he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen to say whether it was possible to have a worse ventilated building than that in which they were then assembled. He had been informed by Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney that by the expenditure of a very few hundreds of pounds he could make the ventilation of that House as complete as the one in which they formerly sat, and no one could desire a better ventilated room than that was. He wished to know if Mr. Gurney's opinion had been taken upon the subject?

said, on a former occasion a Committee was appointed to attend to the ventilation and lighting of the House, and upon it were Mr. Locke, Mr. Stephenson, and other Gentlemen. He understood, however, that that Committee had never yet been consulted. He wished to know, therefore, now that Dr. Reid was dismissed, who had charge of the ventilation of the House?

said, that the recent alteration in the lighting of the House had been effected under the direction of Mr. Gurney, after consultation with Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Locke, and that nothing had been done in that respect without the approval of those Gentlemen.

said, that he had lately visited the lower regions, for the purpose of seeing how the ventilation of the House was managed, and he had found a large fan there worked by two steam engines, which pumped up the air through the floor. The exhalations from the river hung in a cloud about the towers of the House, and he believed that these were brought down with the soot and smoke into the House by the working of the fan, which occasioned a vacuum.

wished to know whether the Chief Commissioner of Works was prepared to open the windows; and if he was not, he should wish to ask Mr. Speaker whether hon. Members would be guilty of any breach of the rules if they broke the windows, and destroyed the extraordinary beasts which disfigured them and astonished naturalists?

said, he believed from his own experience that a better ventilated or more comfortable room than that House could not be found anywhere.

said, he conceived that no subject could be more interesting than the present, inasmuch as it concerned the health and the comfort of those who, night after night, were obliged to sit in the same impure atmosphere. The Chief Commissioner of Works must have been mistaken when he said that nothing had been done without consulting the Lighting Committee, because Members of the Committee had informed him (Mr. Osborne) that thirty-four lights had been placed behind the back benches contrary to their opinion, and without consulting the Committee. It was impossible that those lights should not greatly alter the ventilation. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke) had also told him that the intensity of the lights, and the extreme heat they produced, would absolutely char the roof of the House in a very short period. He (Mr. Osborne) was convinced that unless the ventilation and lighting of the House were put upon a better footing, the lives of many valuable Members would be sacrificed.

said, that the lights below the gallery had been placed there at the express wish of Mr. Speaker, who could not see hon. Members on the back benches when they required to be called to order, which, he regretted to say was the case occasionally.

moved that the Bill should be divided into two parts, so that the clauses which enabled grand juries in Ireland to borrow money from private sources should form a separate measure. He could offer no opposition to such a measure; but he objected to those portions of the Bill which would give the commissioners of Works a power of imposing on the grand juries in Ireland the cost of maintaining all the piers along the coast of that country. These clauses of the Bill were of a most important character; they imposed upon the counties an amount of taxation perfectly indefinite, and to which it was most unjust to subject them. It made the maritime counties liable to the cost of maintaining the piers that had been or existed at any time round the coast of Ireland, without any aid from public money, in any case in which the Board of Works might think fit to put upon them that liability. He would, in a few words, satisfy those Irish Members who had censured him for stopping the progress of the Bill the other night, that this measure was not the boon to Ireland they had described it; he would satisfy the Secretary for Ireland that he (Sir J. Young) was perfectly incorrect in saying that this Bill imposed no new liability upon counties. [Sir J. YOUNG: Not the least.] He would prove that it did put upon the overburdened ratepayers of the maritime counties a weight of taxation that was most unjust. The denial of the right hon. Gentleman made it necessary that he should explain to the House how the matter now stood. Previous to 1831, grants had been made from time to time in aid of small piers and harbours round the Irish coast; a very considerable number had been erected, either wholly or in part, with public money, but no provision was made for their maintenance. In 1831, an Act was passed appointing the Commissioners of Public Works, and authorising them to distribute a large sum in aid of public works, among others of these small piers; they were erected for local purposes after, at the instance of individual proprietors—sometimes wisely, very often unwisely, but without any check on the part of the ratepayers upon that expenditure, and without any liability resulting from it. Under such circumstances, a larger number of piers were built. In 1846 a further grant was authorised, and the Board of Works were then empowered to lend money upon the security of the counties, if the works were of general utility, upon the security of districts, when it was of local advantage, or—he entreated the attention of the House to this—upon the security of individual proprietors, where it was only a personal benefit. Well, this Bill proposed to vest all these piers, no matter how constructed, or where—no matter whether built at the expense of the county, the district, or the proprietors—all were vested in the county. Why, a property in a pier meant nothing more or less than the obligation to keep it in repair. This was the obligation the Bill cast upon the maritime counties of Ireland; it did not leave it to influence. It expressly enacted, that the counties must keep them in repair; and if they did not, the Board of Works were to do it for them, and charge the expense upon the county rates. The counties had no such liability now. In 1847 an Act was passed, giving the Board of Works a power of determining which of the piers so erected should be considered public piers, and of obliging the counties to maintain them. This was arbitrary enough, but the power was guarded by some checks. They were obliged to give notice of their intention to declare any pier a public one. They were to receive the objections of any party, and they were to determine whether the pier was properly a public one—to be supported by the county. The Commissioners had exercised this power; they had in execution of that Act selected the piers which were to be considered as public works. Notices had been published in the Dublin Gazette of the 16th of February, 1849, declaring fifty-four piers to be public works, the maintenance of which was chargeable upon the counties, and for the maintenance of these piers alone the counties were now responsible. Then there was an adjudication upon the question what piers ought to be supported as county works. All others were left in their former state. He (Mr. Butt) by no means admitted that even that charge was properly placed upon the counties; but to this, rightly or wrongly, they were now liable by law. But this Bill enabled the Board of Public Works, not, as in the former Act, upon consideration of the character of the work—not after notice and opportunity of objection, to place on the counties the burden of maintaining every pier of every kind to which public money had ever been granted—and this on the faith of the decision, after investigation, that only fifty-four should be so charged. He did not know the number that remained, but he believed there were hundreds; and it was perfectly certain that in every case in which a storm swept away the works of one of those piers, there would be no one to repair it. The Board of Works would instantly vest it in the county, and oblige the ratepayers to be at the cost of repairing it. Then he (Mr. Butt) was told there was a boon to the counties. "See, (said a friend near him, the other night) what you are doing, you are stopping a Bill that is actually vesting in the counties property that has cost hundreds of thousands." He (Mr. Butt) would be glad to know whether any Gentleman in the House would feel very grateful if to-morrow morning he found that the Legislature had bestowed upon him a magnificent estate by vesting in him the property in Westminster Bridge, with the obligation that he must leave it free to the public, and the burden of maintaining, and if necessary rebuilding, it out of his own private purse. This was just the magnificent gift they made to the Irish maritime counties. He (Mr. Butt) was bound to bear testimony to the willingness with which the right hon. Gentleman listened to suggestions, and his desire to do right; but he (Mr. Butt) asked him, why should be tack these provisions in one Bill? He believed him perfectly incapable of saying to the gentry of Ireland, "There is a measure which you wish for, which it is right and proper to pass; but you shall not have it, unless you will agree to enact at the same time another and a wholly distinct measure of a most objectionable character." Upon what other principle could he refuse to separate the two portions of this Bill, and allow the first part, to which no one objected, to pass without discussion? He (Mr. Butt) was very far from thinking that some legislation was not desirable to provide for the maintenance of these small piers. If the right hon. Baronet were content to limit the operation of the Bill to the fifty-four piers which, under the existing law, the counties were liable to maintain, then, although he was by no means satisfied that the proposed arrangement was the best, he would not offer any further obstruction to the measure. If it were not so limited, but gave powers to the Board of Works indefinitely to tax the maritime counties of Ireland, he would press his Motion to a division; and if that were rejected, would offer the most strenuous opposition to the further progress of this Bill.

said, he was ready to accede to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to limit the operation of the measure to the fifty-four piers in question. It was not the intention of the Bill to impose any new burden upon the counties. He admitted that, as the Bill was rendered at present, it would have the effect of empowering the Board of Works, if they thought fit, to place the cost of maintaining all piers upon the county rates. But this was not the object of its introduction; and if the Bill went into Committee, he would alter the clause so as to prevent the counties from being held to anything to which they were not liable under the existing law.

said, that he must admit that the hon. Member for Youghal had fairly stated what would be the effect of the Bill, if it passed in its present shape. But it would be very easy to alter it in Committee, so as to limit it to what was its real object, the making better arrangements for the maintenance of the piers which the counties were at present liable to repair.