said, he rose to move that the Bill be rejected. The Bill, although standing on the private paper, was a public measure, and ought to have been brought in by the Government. It contained most extraordinary provisions, and gave the Directors of the South Sea Company power to deal with more than 3,000,000l. of their stock, in a manner which the House would know nothing of for some time to come. One of its objects appeared to be to convert the South Sea Company into a corporation for the administration of trusts. Another of its objects was to give the Directors of the Company and the Chancellor of the Exchequer a power to make any agreement they might think fit as to the conditions on which a large amount of South Sea Stock should be commuted, without consulting the persons interested, and without coming to Parliament for its consent. The Standing Orders had been suspended in favour of the Bill, and although it was a measure of vast importance, they had heard no statement whatever about it. True, it was referred to incidentally by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent statement on the subject of the South Sea Annuities; but he could not gather from that or anything in the Bill itself, that every member of the Company, or at least so large a proportion of them as to justify the House in passing the Bill, had received notice of the purport and intention of this Bill. The South Sea Company, although a chartered company, was, nevertheless, a partnership, and therefore, in law, a measure of this nature to divert the capital of the Company from the object for which it was subscribed, could not be made legal without the sanction of all the partners. He should move that the Bill be read a Third Time that day three months.

said, the hon. Gentleman had complained that this was a public Bill, introduced under the cover of a private Bill. He begged, however, to inform the hon. Gentleman that this was nothing else but a private Bill. If it had been introduced as a public Bill, Mr. Speaker would immediately have objected to its introduction in that way, on account of its being a private Bill. It was a private Bill, because it was promoted by a private company. He believed that great good would be done to the country if such a corporation as that proposed by the Bill were established. It proposed to perform for executors and trus- tees the difficult duties cast upon them by testators.

said, he thought the Bill of such importance that it ought to receive further deliberation, and be considered more at length than it could be at that period of the Session. The effect of this Bill would be to make the South Sea Company a great trading company, carrying on business as trustees for other parties; and,; although that change might be advantageous to the proprietors, he contended that, without the sanction of all the proprietors, it would be neither more nor less than an act of spoliation to pass this Bill. The real operation of the Bill would be this—parties who had invested their money in South Sea Stock, under the impression that it was for a particular purpose, would be paid off without ceremony, if they did; not consent to the terms of the Bill. In; point of fact, the South Sea Company was a copartnership, and the object of this Bill was to compel the parties to dissolve the partnership. If the assent of all the proprietors had been obtained to it, of course his objections to the Bill would cease; but without that consent the Bill was nothing more nor less than an act of spoliation, and the House ought, therefore, to reject it. They were told, indeed, that the Bill was founded upon a resolution passed by the Company; but they had no information as to how the resolution was discussed or carried. They did not know whether all the proprietors entitled to vote agreed to it; if they did, of course there would be an end to his opposition, but upon these points the House was, as yet, entirely uninformed.

said, he would suggest that the Bill should be sent back to the Select Committee, with instructions especially to report the proportions of proprietors who assented to this Bill. The Bill created new powers and new objects, which the Company were to carry out; and before such a change as that could be made in the constitution of the Company, the House ought to be satisfied that it had been sanctioned by the great majority of the proprietors. The Bill was, however, objectionable on other grounds; for instance, it extended the principle of limited liability, while some of the clauses were so framed that the Company could hold lands to any extent—a power which Parliament had always refused to confer upon joint-stock companies.

said, that it was a fallacy to suppose that this Bill could not pass without the consent of very individual proprietor. The object for which the Company was originally established had been accomplished, and the Company was now virtually dissolved. It was only fair, therefore, that the Company should have the power of applying their funds to uses of present public advantage; and considering that the assent of the proprietors had been given to the Bill in the usual manner, he thought the opposition was quite uncalled-for.

said, he had examined the provisions of this Bill, and he had no doubt whatever as to its expediency, or as to the necessity for passing it. The policy which the Bill enunciated was approved of by the majority of the Company; and the reason it was not investigated by a public Committee was simply that the forms of the House required that it should be a private Bill. Being unopposed, it was referred to the Chairman of Committees, who thoroughly examined its provisions, and reported it as unobjectionable. Whence, then, arose this opposition? The Bill had been approved of by the Company in public meeting assembled; and since the supposed absence of the consent of the Proprietors was the present ground of opposition, he thought the House ought to experience no difficulty in passing the measure.

said, he must now state his reason why he thought the House ought not to proceed further with this Bill. In the first place, the statements which he had made on a former occasion had not been refuted. He had said that the marketable value of these three new stocks were 93l. 91l. and 90l., and no more. The result of the transaction was, that the holders of these stocks were losers by the conversion to which they had submitted, of about 7, 9, and 10 per cent on their capital, to say nothing of their loss of interest. The amount of these stocks was about 2,500,000l., and, therefore, the result of the operation was, that the unfortunate holders had been losers of upwards of 200,000l. by the bargain. These state- meets he now ventured to make to the House, upon the highest authority—upon the authority of more than one person connected with the money market in the City of London, and who were well acquainted with it in all its parts and branches. If such be the result, then the question arises, will this House enable the Government to continue and repeat those proposals to the remaining portion of the public, having been accepted by some upon whom their acceptance had entailed a very serious loss—a loss of not less than 200,000l.—and a loss, too, which they must now endure? It might, indeed, be said that those unfortunate persons had not been compelled to accept these stocks; that under the Act of Parliament they had an option either to be paid off in 100l. money, or to accept the proposed amount of the new 3 per cent stock. Such persons, he was quite willing to admit, had not any great claim to the consideration of the House. It might be no valid argument on their parts to say, We believed in the different representations made by the various Members of the Government, that in proposing these three stocks they gave so many equivalents for 100l. It might also be said, that it was the business of those persons to have calculated better, and that they should not have listened to the representations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that, in short, they had only themselves to blame if the equivalents for 100l., in the shape of new stock, turned out to be only worth 90l., 91l.,and 93l. But yet it might be fairly urged that, such being the result of those operations, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not warranted in proposing the renewal of such terms, nor Parliament in sanctioning such a proposal; for how did the matter really stand? They were to pay off some 9,000,000l. or 10,000,000l. of South Sea and other stocks; and they proposed to the holders of 3 per cent Consols and Reduced to convert 90,000,000l. more into any of these three new stocks. Accordingly the Act passed for that purpose. The proposal was made, but it now appeared that instead of 100.000,000l., of which the Act authorised the conversion into one or other of these new stocks, and of which the Government spoke in so confident a manner, the whole quantity taken was only between 2,000,000l. and 3,000,000l., and there was no reason for anticipating that any greater amount of these new stocks would be demanded, seeing that the holders of those stocks would lose the very large sum which be had just mentioned to the House. If the Bill had merely enabled the Government to propose to the other holders of South Sea Stocks, who were supposed to have no opportunity of converting their property, the option of converting it into any of these new stocks, that Bill would be objectionable upon the grounds urged against the former Bill when before the House; and in the present state of the money market it would be nugatory, unless to some who had peculiar occasion for these particular stocks. No man would, he believed, be found to accept any one of those three alternatives. He thought, therefore, that as it was holding out an inducement to the public, or to some amongst the public, to accept a proposal, which might bring upon them a very serious loss, that it ought not, under its present conditions, to be sanctioned by Parliament. It had been observed that the failure of the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was caused by the weather and the seasons, and such adventitious circumstances as it was impossible to foresee when the scheme was before the House. But he (Sir F. Kelly) must take leave to call the attention of the House to the unquestionable fact, that, with regard to the expediency and the justice of the conversion from any old stock to any one of these new stocks, the failure had occurred entirely uninfluenced by those causes, which had no effect upon the question whatever. If any one having 100l. 3 per cents when the Bill passed, had commuted it into 110l. of the 2½, which was the best of the three new stocks, let them see how they stood in consequence of the fall in the public securities. He had exchanged 100l. 3 per cent consols against 110l. new 2½ consols which had been at 100l., but were now at 981., or a little less; but a fall in the price of consols, whether occasioned by the payment of dividends, or by the events which had been alluded to, and which occasioned the fall in public securities generally, was not greater than the fall which had taken place in the 2½ per cents. The only difference was, that if the funds had varied in the same state they were in when the Bill passed through Parliament, 100l. then would be 100l. still, but these new two-and-a-halfs, instead of being 93, would now be 95. If there were a fall of 2 per cent in the one stock, there would be a fall of 2 per cent in the other stock, and no more. Therefore, with respect to this scheme, the case stood as it did when Bill was first before Parliament. None these new stocks had anything like an equivalent for 100l. 3 per cent stock, and therefore any Act of Parliament which held out to the public the idea that, by accepting any one of those three stock they would be accepting an equivalent that which they abandoned, was a delusion to which the House of Commons ought not to be a party, seeing how the case stood The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the public would sustain no loss by this transaction. He (Sir F. Kelly) did not charge upon the Government the loss which ha occurred; but it certainly was incorrect to say that the public had sustained no loss. If the Government had, warned by events paused before they proceeded further with the Bill, and deferred until more settled times the paying off of South Sea Stock they would have been savers, and therefore gainers of at least 2 per cent on the whole 9,000,000l. or 10,000,000. paid off. He repeated, he did not bring any charge against the Government, further than that they held out delusive hopes. But what he complained of was, that, in the repeated warnings which had been given whet the Bill was before the House, the Govern went should have persisted in holding out those delusive expectations. The scheme was ably devised, but it failed in its ma chinery—it failed entirely in the mode in which it was attempted to be worked out. The object of the Bill was to remove from the stock market a cluster of small stocks which disturbed the financial operations of the Government, and by which the fund were affected; and they wished, in lieu thereof, to bring into existence three kinds of stock of a still minor amount and description, and which were to be suffered to disturb the money market for the next forty years, for without a breach of public faith they could not be extinguished before that period. There was, in his opinion, on, way of remedying the Act. The mischief, as he had already said, was not in the original conception of the scheme, but in its machinery—if accompanied with suitable machinery, the creation of those three new stocks would, in his opinion, have been productive of great advantages to the public and to the Exchequer. But the misfortune was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer having conceived the idea of the creation of those three new stocks, undertook a task which was beyond human capacity He believed that if any one could have been successful in such an operation, it would have been the right hon. Gentleman, had he not endeavoured to achieve what no man could effect, namely, to ascertain the future value in the market of three new and untried stocks. The right hon. Gentleman had on more than one occasion appealed to former measures of Finance Ministers, and particularly to a measure proposed in 1844; but he begged to point out to the House that the two cases were not analogous. In former cases, the value of the new stock proposed to be created was accurately known, while in the present instance that was not the case. As matters now stood, there was only one way in which the evil could be remedied or corrected, and that was by the results of experience as to what those newly created stocks were worth. They might yet, if they would do justice to the stockholders, offer those who had dealt in those new stocks a sufficient addition to their amount to make them really worth 100l. They might make an equivalent increase in the capital of the amount of 2½ and 3¼ per cent stock, so as to be a real and true equivalent to 100l.; and even still 30,000,000l., 60,000,000l., or even 90,000,000l., might be converted into these stocks. He admitted this step would immensely add to the capital of the national debt; but that again might be provided for by a measure similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman had consented to adopt when last the Bill was before Parliament. In its present shape, he objected to the Bill, and he would take the sense of the House upon it. By the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that any of the holders of those stocks might convert them either into the new stocks, or 3¼ per cent, or guaranteed 3 per cent stock. He objected altogether to that proposal. Having found that the money stocks fell 8 or 10 per cent, or at least were that much less than they expected they now would be, the Government now came forward with a clause, saying, "Accept one of those three new stocks; you can, though we know you will not, accept them, but you can have instead the 3¼ per cents." He thought that the House would act most wisely by at once frankly admitting that this scheme of treating these three new stocks as equivalent to one another, or as equivalent to 100l., had proved to be founded on a not unnatural misapprehension, and that, therefore, the evil should be allowed to stop where it was, and that Parliament should be applied to for its authority to charge upon the Consolidated Fund the sums which had been paid off in money. So strong a sense had he of the injustice and impolicy of the Government's project with respect to these stocks, that he should feel it to be his duty to take the sense of the House upon the question of going into Committee on the Bill.

said, that his answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman was this. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated a particular opinion in regard to the present Value of certain stocks; but, in the first place, that was a matter entirely of opinion, and, in the second place, even if the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentlemen were correct, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think it had the slightest bearing on the question whether the House should go into Committee on this Bill.

said, that he took a very grave view of the probable effect of this Bill in case it should pass into law. It seemed to him calculated to strike at the very root of our national credit.

said, he considered that, the South Sea Company having assented to the right hon. Gentleman's first proposition to accept a money payment, it was a very bad precedent in the Government to depart from the first proposition and to proceed to the second. The first proposition, having been deliberately made and deliberately accepted, should have been adhered to,

said, he should support the Bill, simply on the ground that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be enabled to meet the engagements he had been authorised to contract.

said, he wished to know whether the South Sea Company, as a Company, having refused to accept the offer which had been made to them, were to have the offer repeated?

said, that the parties embraced by the first clause were several classes of proprietors who were disabled by the Charter of the South Sea Company from taking part in the proceedings of the Company. These classes were three in number: first, the class of corporations, or public bodies; secondly, the class of private trustees; and, thirdly, the class of smaller proprietors, who, not holding 500l. of the Company's stock, were not entitled to vote at the Company's meetings. "With regard to the corporations, there were from a dozen to twenty of these bodies which held some 100,000l. of South Sea Stock; and the amount held by the class of private trustees was from 1,700,000l. to 1,800,000l. The total amount of South Sea Stock held by the three classes was between 2,200,000l. and 2,400,000l., or about two-thirds of the whole capital or trading stock of the Company. All these parties being disabled from taking any part in the debates of the Company son the question of whether they should accept the commutation or not, the commutation must be taken to have been declined—as the law stood—as far as these parties were concerned; but without their having, in reality, given any vote in the matter, although they held by far the larger portion of the stock of the Company.

said, that supposing he was a trustee holding 500l. of South Sea Stock, he wished to know why he should not be able himself to commute at once without the intervention of the Company? Why should the Company be made the medium for effecting the operation?

said, that the South Sea Company was a corporation possessed by law of a certain indivisible trading stock, although the interests of individuals in that stock was made saleable and transferable from one party to another. The consequence was, that when the Government made the offer to the Company to commute its stock, the effect of the commutation not being accepted made it absolutely necessary for the Company to come to Parliament for powers to divide this trading stock, which was otherwise indivisible. It was necessary that that should be dealt with by a private Bill, and the House had passed a private Bill, which amounted to the practical resuscitation of the Company; but that was a matter entirely distinct from the one they were now discussing. He had thought the most convenient course to pursue was to deal with the South Sea Company as a public body, and he proposed to give the trustees the same power, as far as regarded their portion of the stock, as the whole body had possessed by their votes. This clause must therefore be considered in conjunction with certain other clauses in the private Bill of the South Sea Company, which had been read a third time that day.

said, that this clause grew entirely out of the view which the South Sea Company took of its own interest, and had no connexion whatever with the operation which had lately been going on. The Company desired to be constituted a trust Company, and Parliament had assented to its being made so. One condition to the carrying out of that arrangement was, that the Company should have a guarantee fund of 300,000l. in the public securities; and it was now proposed that that guarantee should be formed out of the Company's present stock, so as to obviate the roundabout and lefthanded operation of the Company's being compelled to sell their stock to-day in order that they might reinvest it again to-morrow.

said, it was plain to everybody that the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been a total failure; but the bargain ought to be adhered to, and the dissentient holders of the stock should be paid off. If the right hon. Gentleman had not sufficient balances in the Exchequer for the purpose, let him come to Parliament and ask for the necessary means.

said, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would place himself in a very disadvantageous position if this clause were passed; for if, on the 25th of December, the Treasury offered a commutation, and the parties had eleven days to consider whether they should accept it, operations might take place in the money market which would embarrass the right hon. Gentleman in his arrangements. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain what course he proposed to adopt in the event of the stockholders refusing to accept the alternatives held out to them under this clause, which he much feared was a probable event.

said, he must decline giving any explanation on the point, whatever might be its interest. He protested against the public discussion of remotely possible contingencies by Gentlemen, some of whom, he was hound to say, seemed to speak as if they had no other object than that of ex- aggerating the difficulties under which the public was placed, as likely to have very mischievous effects. He did not subscribe to the doleful and melancholy vaticinations in which some had indulged, nor was he prepared to accept the liberal and munificent offers which had been held out to him, of means for raising a loan to get out of the serape. This might be a short and easy mode of proceeding for him; but it would not be advantageous for the public, of whose interests they were bound to act as stewards. He was quite ready to admit that he was placed in a disadvantageous position with regard to some of his arrangements; but he regretted that the public were also subjected to the same disadvantage. It was quite impossible, however, in the present state of uncertainty, that he could enter into any details as to the mode of proceeding it might be most prudent to adopt in making arrangements under this measure.

said, he thought this Bill was very obscurely drawn, and regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not condescended to inform the Committee what was the amount of money to which the clause now under consideration would apply. In his opinion, the measure proposed to the Committee would tend very greatly to destroy the public credit.

said, he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down stated that he had not condescended to inform the Committee of the amount proposed to be commuted. He had already informed the Committee that the amount would probably exceed 2,000,000l.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be placed in a very difficult position by the passing of this measure. If, on the 1st of November, he should be called upon to fix the price, and the 3¼ per cents were at par, the Government must, in any case, be losers. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman fixed the price at 99l.; then, if the stock rose, persons would accept the new stock, and if it fell they would accept the 100l., so that in either case there would be a loss of the public money.

said, he protested against the proposal, for he was of opinion that any difficulty which existed the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought upon himself.

said, he must beg to renew his annual protest against these Votes of public money for London embellishments. Why was London, which was so rich, to be beautified at the expense of provincial taxpayers? London could afford to embellish herself, and should do it without coming on the country.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would consider the immense population that was to be benefited.

said, he could see nothing in this matter but a local improvement, which ought to be paid for, as in the country it would be paid for, out of local rates. They ought to be the more cautions in adopting this Vote, because he believed it was but the commencement of other embankments, which ought to be continued from Vauxhall down to London bridge, but which ought to be paid for the inhabitants, and not by the Unite Kingdom.

said, he thought this Vote involved a principle of the utmost importance. The various counties through out the country supported their own bridges, and therefore the cost of the Chelsea, bridge should fall not on the country at large, but upon the county of Middlesex He had been very much surprised, there fore, at the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), win had stated, some two years ago, in bringing forward a Motion on the subject of reform, that he had always found the population and property went together. If that proposition were a true one, it was clear that the large population of the metropolis was no reason for requiring that its bridges should be paid for by the united contributions of all the counties in the country. He really thought a stand ought to be made against the system of taking from the public purse for the use of the metropolis sums which must be supplied by the whole country. When he and his hon. Friends had complained of the excessive weight of local taxation which pressed especially upon the rural districts of this country, they had always been told that that system of taxation had its peculiar advantages. All those advantages, whether real or assumed, had, however, been withdrawn of late, and he thought it was the duty of hon. Gentlemen, when such Votes as that now before the Committee were proposed, to scrutinise them very closely, and ascertain whether they were founded upon just principles or not. It did not seem to hint a sound principle that the various counties of this country should be called upon, besides paying for their own bridges, to contribute to the expense of the bridges of the county of Middlesex, and that, too, on the plea that the county of Middlesex contained the richest city in the world. He thought they ought to oppose this Vote, fur he believed that by doing so they might be able to lay the foundation of a much more salutary system than was now pursued with regard to the distribution of Votes for public works.

said, he concurred with very much that. Had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He cordially agreed with him that henceforth some plan should be adopted whereby the metropolis should be made to contribute the means for carrying out its own public works. But at present there was this difficulty—that they had no municipal machinery under which the funds could be raised. That power implied the principle of representation. The Government, however, had under its consideration the whole subject of metropolitan improvements, and t he trusted the result would be the adoption of a sounder system. But with regard to this Vote—it was part and parcel of the scheme for the new park at Battersea, founded upon the Report of the Metropolitan Improvement Commission of f 1845. In consequence of that Report, two Acts of Parliament had been introduced, one to authorise the formation of the park, s and the other the construction of the bridge and the embankment, and the amount authorised to be raised under those two Acts was 200.000l. for the park, and 120,000l. for the bridge and the embankment—the arrangement being that the money should be advanced by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners on the security of the ground rents, tolls from the bridge, and other receipts, arising from the property. The works were commenced and some of the money was borrowed for the purpose; but the system of raising the money by means of advances from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, instead of direct Votes of the House of Commons, was objected to by the right hon. Gentleman, and it was to carry out the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman himself that these Votes were proposed. When he (Sir W. Molesworth) came into office he obtained estimates of what would be the cost of completing the works, and as to the time within which they might be finished. If they gave up the embankment, the bridge would be comparatively useless; and if they had not the bridge, the park would be of little benefit to the population of London. It was necessary, therefore, to consider the scheme as a whole. If the works had not been commenced, the case would be different; but the fact was that they were commenced, and a considerable portion of the money had been expended, and the question was, whether the works should be stopped and the money already paid should be lost, or whether they should be carried out and made productive for the purposes for which they were intended. The park would, according to the estimate, cost 308,000l., the bridge 70,000l., and the embankment and the new streets 147,000l., or 525,000l. altogether. Of that sum 280,000l. had already been advanced by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners and expended, and the amount still required was 245,000l. He calculated that by the year 1862–3, supposing the park to be completed in 1855, as was expected, they would get back in ground rents and compensation 326,000l. from the park, and 62,000l. from the embankment, making together 388,000l.; and the tolls of the bridge were estimated at 6,600l. a year. The right hon. Gentleman said they ought not to make a bridge for the metropolis at the public expense. For that very reason it had been determined to charge a toll. He believed by carrying out the scheme now as proposed they would ob- tain back a very considerable portion of the money that had been expended for the park.

said, it was in consequence of the plan for making a park at Battersea that he particularly opposed this Vote. They were told by the right hon. Baronet that the plan of asking for Votes was adopted in consequence of the objection which he (Mr. Disraeli), on the part of the late Government, had made to the system of advances by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners for carving out this project. The right hon. Baronet had not stated, however, that the Commissioners had ceased to make these or similar advances, for at present the machinery for such advances still existed, although these Votes were proposed in Committee of Supply. His (Mr. Disraeli's) objection to the advances by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners was, that very considerable expenditure was thus incurred without any proper control on the part of Parliament, for purposes of a local and partial character, which had really nothing to do with the general convenience and interests of the country. The right hon. Baronet said, in effect, "We intend to continue the same pernicious system, but, in consequence of the statements you made, we shall continue it by other means." Now, he (Mr. Disraeli) considered that Battersea Park ought never to have been made. He objected to the expenditure of so large a sum of money as 500,000l. upon the formation of such a park. He wished to stop the system, for having constructed that park, why should they not be called upon to-morrow to make a park at Finsbury? He considered that every Vote granted in Committee of Supply for these objects was an additional argument in favour of analogous appeals to the Legislature. Such objects ought, in his opinion, to be accomplished by local funds; and if the Committee entertained the same view they would resist this Vote. He thought the time had come when they must put an end to these grants of public money for local objects, for it was most unjust to continue such a system. He therefore earnestly recommended the Committee to oppose the Vote; and, if they succeeded in resisting it, he believed they would put an end to one of the most flagrant systems of expenditure that had ever existed.

said, he cordially concurred in the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman; but he must observe that, when the present Government came into office, last December, they found the works for which this Vote was now required very far advanced; and, although the; late Government had not commenced those works, yet they had not stopped them. It was complained that the works were not sufficiently under the control of Parliament; but he had stated to the Committee at an early period of the Session that they would be carried on, but that, as Votes would be applied for in Supply, they would be continued with the full cognisance of Parliament.

said, the hon. Member for Westbury was mistaken in supposing that no attempt had been made by the late Government to stop these works. The subject had been brought before him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it appeared to him of the greatest importance to the public interests that measures should be adopted for stopping all works of the kind. He took the earliest steps in his power to discontinue advances, and he had entirely opposed all grants for the establishment of a park in Finsbury, which was proposed to the late Government. It was represented to him by a very large deputation which did him the honour to wait upon him from that populous and wealthy district, that it was of the utmost importance that such a park should be made, and he told them he would consider the proposition if they would inform him what sum the district would contribute to the object. He was sorry to say, however, that the very wealthy community of Finsbury were apparently not prepared to advance a single pound sterling for the purpose. The late Government, therefore, had given no encouragement whatever to such projects.

said, he found an Act of Parliament of the last Session, the object of which was, by amending the previous Act, to hasten the completion of the embankment of the Thames. According to the first Act the embankment could not be commenced until certain agreements were entered into with the landed proprietors, the object of which was to make those gentlemen contribute a certain sum of money towards the construction of the embankment. An Act—the 15 & 16 Vic. chap. 71—was therefore passed, of course with the assent of the late noble Chief Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners), and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to empower the Commissioners of Works to pro- ceed with the embankments before such agreements were made.

said, he considered the work a national work. It was strange that hon. Gentlemen opposite should object to this Vote on the ground that public money ought not to be granted for local objects, when the very next Vote was for a harbour in Ireland.

begged to state, for the information of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) that counties could not be, and were not, liable to build bridges, although they were bound to maintain them. His object was to get this bridge built, and then the expenses of it would be thrown on the counties of Surrey and Middlesex.

said, that the real question was whether distant counties ought to be called upon to pay for the luxuries of other parts of the country.

said, he objected to a toll being placed on the bridge; but, in the hope that eventually the Government would not impose any such toll, he was prepared to vote for the grant.

said, he had objected to the commencement of these works; but now that they were actually in progress, it would be, in his opinion, not by any means a wise proceeding, to discontinue them.

said, with respect to this Vote he would state in explanation that a convention had been agreed upon between certain foreign countries for the establishment of electric communication throughout the whole continent of Europe. This country was invited to join the convention, but the Government of the day did not accept the invitation, because they had no power of establishing a communication with the wires upon the Continent. That communication had, however, since been effected, and he thought it most important that the Government of this country should avail itself of the advantages of the convention. The advantages of joining the convention, so far as the diplomatic service was concerned, were the right to priority of intelligence, to send messages in cipher, and to the continuous transmission of messages which might be sent through several countries without any delay. Then the advantage with regard to commercial messages was this—at present the English language was not allowed to be used in the transmission of English messages across the Continent. If the Government of this country joined the convention, messages in the English language might, however, be sent to all the Continental countries, the Governments of which had agreed to the convention. The estimate now proposed included the sum required for laying down six independent lines of wire from London to Dover, and thence to the opposite coast. This was the estimate of the whole, cost Parliament would be called upon to incur. He had been informed by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary that, even if this arrangement were confined to the transmission of diplomatic messages, it would be attended with great advantage. He (Mr. Cardwell) had, however, to deal with the commercial bearing of the question, and he was most desirous that, if any just and fair arrangement could be made, the benefits of this mode of communication should be available for the interests of British commerce. He might observe that it was not intended that any of the lines of this telegraph should extend beyond London, or interfere with the perfectly free competition which now existed between the Electric Telegraph Companies whose lines were established in this country. The States which had already joined the convention were France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Hanover, Wurtemberg, the German States, Prussia, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, Switzerland, and Sardinia.

said, he entertained a very great suspicion indeed of Her Majesty's Government, and of this new system which they were about to inaugurate. He was slow to regard anybody with suspicion, but he would not conceal from the country the folly of England being thus placed at the feet of the foreigner. He was there to protest against confidence being reposed directly or indirectly in the foreigner, be he the Russian, the Frenchman, or the American, for the game of all was to undermine England, and attain an ascendancy over her. There was that Crystal Palace, had he not told them that the Sovereigns would laugh at them for it; and that they were only be- fooling themselves in their eyes? [Laughter, and "Question, question!"] They might laugh at him and cry Question as they would, but be would tell them that by this scheme the Government was only encouraging the intrigues of the foreigner, and rendering this country subservient to him. His opinion was that the Vote was most absurd, unmeaning, and ridiculous, as it was aiding the foreigner at the expense of his own countrymen, towards whom he professed still to entertain an unshaken attachment.

said, he thought it would be better to endeavour to effect an arrangement with the existing companies before applying to Parliament for money to create a rival set of wires.

said, that the Government had had objects in view which were wholly distinct. The one was, the advantage of our diplomatic communication, and the other was, that British commerce should enjoy the full benefit of the advantages which the convention gave to those nations who joined in it. It was highly desirable that this country should not be wholly dependent upon the Electric Telegraph Companies in foreign countries.

said, he objected to our Government interfering with enterprises which ought to be left to the action of private competition; and he wished to know if all the objects which the right hon. Gentleman had in view might not be secured from the lines at present in existence?

said, if we wanted to enter into this convention, we must do so as a Government. The Imperial Government of France had given the monopoly of the supply of electric telegraphs along the whole coast of France to a single commercial company, and in like manner the Belgian Government had given a monopoly of their coast to an English telegraph company. The only way of preventing monopolies was for this country to accede to the convention through its Government.

said, that having gone through the evidence which had been taken before the Commissioners, he should not offer any opposition to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, that no new writ be issued during the present Session. He wished, however, to know whether the noble Lord intended early next Session to deal with these boroughs, or whether he proposed that they should remain—be their population more or less—disfranchised, with a view of considering them in connexion with a general measure of Parliamentary reform? The matter was one of considerable importance, as it involved a great constitutional principle. They had issued this Session six Commissions affecting no less than eleven Members; and before that the borough of St. Albans and the borough of Sudbury had been disfranchised; therefore no less than fifteen Members were excluded from seats in that House. It was for the House to consider whether they would proceed to legislate on so great a question as that of a change in the constitution of the House, with these vacancies continuing. He thought it was very desirable that the noble Lord should give some information as to what the intentions of the Government were upon that point.

could only so far state what the intention of the Government was as to say that when all the Reports of the several Commissioners should be printed, the Government would consider what measures ought to be adopted with regard to the different places which were affected by them. As to whether it would be advisable to include them in any general measure, or to deal with them by a separate one, was a question which must be left open for consideration. As to the discussion of any great measure of reform, he did not think any advantage would arise by the House issuing writs for the election of new Members by those corrupt boroughs. Certainly, such a course would not afford any advantage to the House in the consideration of any great measure of Parliamentary reform.