said, that although he thought it was quite proper, if such measures were necessary, to enact laws to prevent money being advanced to hostile Governments, yet he conceived they ought to be of a general nature. It was not the way in which they ought to legislate on a subject affecting trade, to introduce special measures as the circumstances arose, nor ought they to be influenced by hostility or spite against a particular country in the enactment of such laws. But this was a special measure applicable to Russia alone. If it was desirable to pass such a measure at all, it ought, in his opinion, to be introduced by the law officers of the Crown. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord D. Stuart) seemed to think that if this country and France enacted such a law as this, Russia would be unable to obtain money at all; but he (Mr. Baring) thought he very much underrated the money power of the rest of the world in coming to that conclusion. As far as he saw, there was no disposition whatever on the part of any Englishman, or, indeed, any individual in this country, to take any interest or part in a Russian loan, subsequent to the declaration of war and for the purpose of carrying on that war. The credit of Russia, however, was not so confined, nor was it possible to crumple up the resources of Russia as easily as some hon. Members supposed. By this measure you proclaimed to the world that but for public opinion there would be a disposition to invest English capital in Russian securities. He was satisfied that the good feeling of Englishmen would induce them to abstain from lending money to Russia without the prohibition of an Act of Parliament. He also thought it was not expedient, from any principle of petty spite, to make a special demonstration against Russia. By passing this Bill they were proclaiming to the world that, but for it, English capitalists would buy Russian securities. He objected to the Bill as unnecessary, as a crude measure, and because any Bill of this character ought to be general, not special.

said, he would have been glad if the Government had taken up the Bill. But, at all events, it had been supported by one Cabinet Minister, and would be supported by him again, and he believed that it would also be supported by the noble Lord the President of the Council; for he had communicated with that noble Lord, who stated himself to be in favour of it, but that he would consult the law officers with regard to it, and since that the noble Lord had stated that he would support the Bill. Therefore he supposed he should have the support of the Government, notwithstanding that the hon. Secretary to the Treasury had risen after a Cabinet Minister who supported it, and contemptuously opposed it; but he supposed that, being the Bill of a private Member, the hon. Gentleman thought that he was at liberty to take any course he chose with regard to it. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) said it was unhandsome to aim this Bill at Russia alone, she by-the-bye, being the only country with which we were at war. He (Lord D. Stuart) did not know if the hon. Gentleman's sympathies were with Russia, but they appeared to be so when his objection to the Bill was that it was aimed at Russia only, she being the only Power with which we are actually at war. The Bill was not aimed at the holders of Russian securities which now existed. He (Lord D. Stuart) maintained that if the Bill became law it would throw difficulties in the way of Russia in carrying on the war. He had been told that the Emperor of Russia held a large amount of stock, and could dispose of it when he chose; and therefore, that a Bill for preventing new loans would be of no use. But he (Lord D. Stuart) said that if the Bill passed, the value of any new Russian securities anywhere would be depreciated, and that would be an advantage. As to what had been said about its causing the existing Russian securities to fall, that argument was equally applicable against the continuance of the war itself, which of course caused a great depreciation in all trade connected with Russia. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to have an extraordinary tenderness for Russia, a country which was our enemy; and he was told when he brought in a Bill to cripple her resources, that it was unhandsome, and only to gratify spite. He would contend that there was nothing unmanly in doing anything which would prevent Russia from carrying on the war against this country. He should not have objected to have made the Bill a general measure if any Amendment to that effect had been moved. With regard to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Baring) about the assets of bankrupts, a clause had been prepared which would provide for that. It was said by some hon. Members that this Bill was open to objection, on the ground that it might render that simply a misdemeanor which was now high treason. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) had, however, prepared a proviso to meet the objection, which would be proposed in Committee.

said, that having lately expressed his opinion of this Bill he was not now about to discuss its general merits. The noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) had made some remarks upon the observations he made with regard to this Bill the other night. He did not complain of that, though he apprehended he was at liberty to make what comments on it he thought proper, but with referents to one point he might say, he believed if it were once understood what the financial position of Russia was at this moment and what its operations were, it would have more effect in preventing a Russian loan than any laws which could be passed. At the time this country was engaged in war, from 1800 to 1815, when bank-notes were inconvertible, our currency became depreciated; but when the House of Commons passed a Bill on the subject in 1819, in redeeming the securities, they determined to pay all their debts honestly without depreciation, and at the full value, instead of paying them with the depreciated currency. What did Russia do on a similar occasion? Russia commenced a long war with the issue of a rouble note of the value of thirty-eight pence, which was made inconvertible for a lengthened period of years, but, owing to frequent issues, the rouble note was depreciated step by step, until, instead of being worth thirty-eight pence, it was only worth 10½d. Now, what did Russia do? The whole of these securities were paid by the Russian Government at 10½d. The value of the rouble was restored to thirty-eight pence, but all the old notes which the Russian Government had issued were paid at 10½d. Russia was now doing precisely the same thing again, and was declaring the rouble notes issued at thirty-eight pence to be inconvertible; those notes had already fallen to thirty-two pence, and if the present war continued, it would soon be found that the excessive issues would lead to a depreciation equal to that which took place during the war to which he had referred. The creditors of Russia and the holders of Russian securities would then find that their securities were reduced to one-third of their original value. He thought, if these facts were known, that capitalists would be placed upon their guard against such uncertain investments, and that the object of the noble Member for Marylebone would be secured much more easily and completely than by any legislative measure.

said, he thought this measure ought to have originated with the Government. As the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had spoken in favour of the Bill, he should be happy to divide with him. Besides, he had as yet heard nothing substantial urged against the Bill. The one question with him was, would this measure affect the resources of Russia? No hon. Gentleman, he presumed, would say, if Russian securities were made unsaleable in England, that this would not cripple Russia. His opinion was, that as we prohibited the building of steam-boats for Russia, we ought also to prohibit furnishing Russia with the means of carrying on hostilities. The plain meaning of the argument of those hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill was, that wherever Englishmen could turn a penny, they must be left at liberty to do so, even at the expense of their country. He should vote for the Bill, on the principle that, if you made Russian securities unmarketable, you affected the power of Russia materially by crippling her resources. There was nothing to prevent Dutchmen from buying Russian securities and selling them to Englishmen; and he wanted to know why that should be high treason on the part of Englishmen which foreigners might do with impunity and profit in English markets. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Baring) said, by this Bill you were proclaiming that Englishmen would take Russian securities if not for the Bill. But he rather said, by the Bill we were proclaiming strongly to Europe that it was a matter of doubt whether Englishmen hated Russian ambition and Russian designs. It was for the House to decide the question, whether it was right for Englishmen to lend money to Russia to make war on us? He would urge his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart) to divide the House on the measure.

said, he considered that, upon grounds of justice and propriety, the House was bound to assent to this Bill.

said, it had been stated by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury that, in 1819, this country honestly paid its debts; but he wished it to be understood that he (Mr. Spooner) did not concur in that opinion. He thought that the law officers of the Crown ought to have been present to explain the provisions of the measure now under consideration. He believed that, by the existing law, English subjects were precluded from making in any way direct advances of money to States with which this country was at war. Now, the present Bill, as he understood, was intended to carry the principle further, and to prevent any dealings on the part of English subjects in securities created by States with which we were at war through the medium of other nations. The object of the Bill seemed, in fact, to be to prevent that from being done indirectly which could not be done directly. He wished to know, however, why the Bill, instead of being confined to Russia, did not apply generally to foreign States? He would vote for going into Committee, but he hoped that in Committee the Bill would be rendered applicable to any States with which this country might be at war.

Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly give my support to this Bill, because it appears to me to be founded on a general principle, which it is exceedingly important to maintain. That general principle is, that subjects of this realm shall not in time of war be allowed to furnish the enemy with the means of carrying on war against us. No doubt, the common and established law of the land, which has been acknowledged by all, and which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has communicated to all our foreign Consuls, that it might be made known to all—is, that to furnish the enemy directly with money, in time of war, is the highest of all crimes—is, in fact, high treason. But what a puerile distinction is that which is attempted to be drawn between furnishing money directly and furnishing it indirectly. This Bill does not apply, as many hon. Gentlemen are endeavouring to represent, to the established Dutch stock, which has been matter of bargain and sale, of bequest and inheritance, in times gone by; but it applies merely to stock created for the purpose of making war on this country. The object of the Bill is simply this—that if the Emperor of Russia endeavours to negotiate a loan in Europe, to kill our soldiers and sailors, to destroy our commerce, and to frustrate our national policy, at least Englishmen shall not contribute to the resources of the enemy. The argument of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury goes to this—that you ought to remodel your law of high treason, and permit your merchants and manufacturers to supply the Emperor of Russia with powder and balls, ships of war, and all the implements of destruction. Now, Sir, I consider that it is sheer nonsense to say that we should do so. Such an argument is founded on the principle on which we know the Dutch Admiral proceeded, who, in an interval or lull during a naval action, sold powder to the enemy, in order that the engagement might be renewed in the afternoon. I am as desirous as any man can be of encouraging the commercial enterprise of this country, but, for Heaven's sake, do not let us yield to this peddling system, which places pocket against honour, which turns a balance-sheet against national interests, and which lowers down the best feelings of the country into a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence. I say that that principle is disgraceful and fatal to a country. If we mean to maintain our national independence, we must have a regard for the generous and great principles on which nations act, and by which alone national independence and honour can be maintained. It is said by some hon. Members that the Bill will be nugatory; but it cannot be nugatory in so far as it establishes a principle. You may say that it may be evaded; but there are men who will evade a law, however high the sanctions may be which the law is calculated to enforce. You cannot guard against the bad and evil passions of men, and the way in which they may be induced by motives of private interest to deal with general principles. All you can do is to lay down the rule, to which honest men will conform, while those who choose to evade it must settle the matter between themselves and their own conscience. I therefore shall strongly recommend the House to adopt this Bill. I think the rejection of it would really be to encourage Russia, and to make a general advertisement to all British subjects that they were at liberty to assist the enemy with their money as much as they pleased. I think it would have a very lowering effect on the national character, not only in this country, but in Europe, if it were found that the British House of Commons, guided by simple greed of private emolument, rejected a Bill which was founded on the principle of your established law, which does not carry that law to the extent to which it exists in reference to other transactions, but which simply affirms a principle that every honourable man will endeavour, in his own dealings, as much as possible to observe. Let it be also remembered that the Bill is simply applicable to debts contracted for the purpose of giving the Russian Government pecuniary means to carry on the war against this country. As I have previously said, I see no difference in principle between allowing British subjects to furnish the Russian Government with money and allowing them to furnish it with money's worth. Money is only useful to them as supplying them with the implements of war, and you may just as well say that you will leave off your blockades, and allow everybody to send everything they please by which they may make a few pounds profit to Russia, for the purpose of carrying on the war, because it is against our commercial principles to interfere with private enterprise. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I shall certainly give this Bill my very hearty support.

observed, that every one must have admired and appreciated the spirit in which the noble Lord had spoken, but that as the noble Lord appeared to attach great national importance to this Bill, he thought the noble Lord should have explained how it was that such a measure had been introduced by an independent Member, and not by Her Majesty's Government. He (Sir J. Pakington) agreed that the object at which the noble Member for Marylebone aimed was a most desirable one; but, so far as he could collect the opinions of hon. Gentlemen who were most competent to form a judgment on the subject, the question was not so much as to the desirableness of the end sought to be attained as to the practicability of accomplishing it by such a Bill as that now before the House. He would not enter into the question which had been raised by the noble Home Secretary as to whether or not the objections urged against the Bill by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury were—as they had been termed by the noble Lord—"sheer nonsense." He would leave that matter to be decided between the two Members of the Administration who were sitting upon the same bench. He could only say that, looking to the position of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), considering the length of time during which he had been officially conversant with subjects of this kind, and having heard the noble Lord's declaration of the importance which he attached to this Bill, his (Sir J. Pakington's) vote would be guided on this occasion by the opinion of that noble Lord. If, therefore, a division took place, he (Sir J. Pakington) would vote for going into Committee upon the Bill. He hoped, however, after what had been said by hon. Gentlemen most competent to form a judgment upon this subject—after the objections raised by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson), and after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring)—that at a future stage of the Bill the law officers of the Crown would give the House their opinion as to whether the clauses were framed in such a manner that they were likely to effect the desirable object which the noble Member for Marylebone sought to attain.

said, he thought the Government were not open to blame for not having taken up this question, and he must protest against the growing and prevalent feeling that the Government ought to do everything in that House. He considered that it was the duty of private Members to bring forward any measures which they thought it right to propose, instead of relying altogether upon the Government. He considered that they were much indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone for bringing in the Bill.

said, if the principle of the Bill were to be carried out, it must do great injury to the mercantile community, who would be prevented from obtaining supplies of hemp, flax, tallow, and other articles. He believed that since the declaration of war not less than 250,000l. had been sent from his own district into the coffers of Russia—a fact altogether contrary to the doctrine of the noble Lord. As the Bill would have a tendency to injure the interests of his constituents, he must vote against its going into Committee.

said, he thought that the question the House had to decide, with reference to this Bill, was simply whether it was right and proper that persons should be allowed to engage indirectly in transactions which, if they were conducted directly, were, by the law of the land, treasonable. The Bill provided that persons who were indirectly engaged in these treasonable transactions should only be liable to two or three months' imprisonment, but he thought, if the noble Home Secretary had taken a correct view of this subject, that alterations should be made in Committee which would not allow persons guilty indirectly of high treason to escape with such paltry penalties. He did not think this was an ordinary measure of legislation, and considered that a Bill which dealt with the crime of high treason should be taken up by Her Majesty's Government. In his opinion, also, such a Bill ought not to be limited to one country only, but should be a general measure, applicable to all nations.

said, he feared that the Bill would form a very dangerous precedent, for it had always been considered the sound policy of this country, whether during peace or war, to allow money negotiations to proceed in London without restriction. He conceived that the hon. Secretary to the Treasury had established a very strong case in favour of not taking such action as was suggested by this Bill, and be thought it was desirable that the House should have an opportunity of hearing the sentiments of the President of the Council and other Members of the Cabinet upon the measure before it was further proceeded with. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 24: Majority 53. Main Question put, and agreed to. House in Committee; Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.

said, he had voted for the Bill going into Committee, because the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had made so strong a speech in its favour. He confessed, however, that he had heard that speech with considerable surprise, because it appeared to him that if resisting this Bill were anything so grievous in its nature or treasonable in character as selling gunpowder to the enemy, the measure ought to have been introduced by the Government. They had done everything at the outset of the war to mitigate its horrors, so that it might interfere as little as possible with the commercial interests of the country, but this Bill proceeded on a totally different principle. He would not say whether the principle were right or not, but he thought, before they proceeded further, they should be informed by the law officers of the Crown as to its probable bearing on our relations with other foreign countries. He thought it desirable, therefore, under these circumstances, that the Chairman should now report progress, and he begged to move to that effect accordingly.

said, he could not assent to this proposal. The Bill was a very short one, and its principle obvious and easy of comprehension by every one. There would be ample time to have the opinion of the law officers on the third reading.

said, he must express his hope that the Committee would adopt the proposal made by the noble Lord the Member for Totness. The measure affected international questions of very great magnitude, and they would not be in a position to discuss the clauses in Committee without having the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.

said, no one was more desirous than he was to prevent succour being given to Russia, but if this Bill were agreed-to, the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) could not stop here, but must insert a clause prohibiting dealing in hemp and tallow the produce of Russia.

said, he could not agree with the argument of the hon. Member who had just spoken. Advancing money to the Russian Government was one thing, and paying money for Russian produce, whether belonging to Russians or to subjects of neutral States, was quite a different thing. One went directly to furnish the resources of war; the other might operate indirectly and circuitously for the benefit of the Russians, whilst it also benefited ourselves. If there were any general desire on the part of the House, before going through Committee, to have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, he would ask his noble Friend to agree to the postponement of the Bill. He should himself vote for going on; and there was this to be considered, that in the present state of business more turned on the question of delay than the mere loss of a few days.

said, he hoped they should not carry this Bill, merely because it bore on the face of it hostility to Russia. He was very much astonished that the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), having made so inflammatory a speech in favour of the Bill, had not thought it necessary to bring in a Bill on the subject himself. The noble Lord told them they would be doing something very like high treason in voting against the Bill, and he (Mr. V. Smith) had voted for going into Committee. But he must say, if they were to carry out the principle of this Bill, if they were bound to injure Russia in every possible way, the same principle would apply to dealings with the old securities. He thought his noble Friend had pushed the principle much too high, if he intended to content himself with this Bill. He thought they ought to have the assistance of the law officers of the Crown, and, therefore, he hoped his noble Friend would consent to the Chairman's reporting progress.

said, that the words of the clause were so plain, that he considered that every person in the House was as capable of understanding them as the Attorney General. If it were necessary to bring up any other clause, it could be done on the consideration of the Report.

said, at the risk of being called by the noble Lord a traitor, he must express his wish that the Bill had been taken up by the Government. He thought that if any change in the present law was necessary in order to prevent the Russian Government, with which we were at war, from getting the money of British subjects, it ought to be adopted; but the measure for this purpose ought to be maturely and deliberately considered, and introduced in such a shape as might give it practical efficiency. He would suggest that Government might frame the Bill so as to make it applicable to every country with which we were at war as much as Russia. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone was known, whether in time of war or peace, as a permanent enemy of the Russian Government, and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department shared that reputation and sympathised with his opinions. But it would be scarcely becoming them as a legislative assembly to decide any question of foreign policy and international relations by considerations affecting only one particular Government.

said, it undoubtedly might be a matter for consideration whether they would not hereafter extend the principle of this Bill to all the cases to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. At the same time he did not think that that was a reason for not carrying this measure. There were two principles upon which Governments and nations acted—the one was to provide for the immediate case before them, the other was to provide for all futurity. Now we were at war with Russia, and he did not think it was open to any hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of peculiar animosity to Russia, because measures were taken to carry on the war, and to give us all the advantage which skill or arrangement could give us in the contest. When they were at war with a country, they endeavoured to do that country all the damage they could for the purpose of bringing about peace, and that which was necessary for their future security, and therefore he did not admit the accusation of the hon. Gentleman, that there was any personal feeling or ally peculiar animosity to Russia as Russia. He hoped we should not be at war with any other country but Russia, and he did not at present anticipate that we should. He hoped that when this war was brought to a conclusion we should enjoy a long period of peace, and therefore he did not see any urgent necessity to generalise this measure. He should have no objection on principle to do so, but the arguments that had been used rather seemed to him to be against generalising it now. It was said, the measure was ineffective. Well, let them try it in the present case, and if it succeeded in this case, they might extend it to other cases. Let them try what effect it would have in the war in which they were engaged; and if it was found to be a measure that was applicable to all cases in which they might be at war with a foreign Power, he had no doubt that it might then be properly made a general measure. With regard to the absence of the law officers, every one knew that the law officers were very much engaged in the morning, but it would be perfectly competent for the House to have their presence upon the report, and if any change should be thought necessary, in order to carry the measure properly into effect, the House could make that change upon the report as well as in Committee, and therefore nothing would be lost by this very short Bill passing through Committee now."

said, if the noble Lord thought this Bill was urgent in the ease of Russia, all he could say was, that to the best of his belief and knowledge there had not been a single individual in this country who had taken any interest in the last loan made with Russia, nor did he think that public opinion would sanction such a proceeding; and this he would also say, that he believed the Committee of the Stock Exchange would forbid the currency of that loan. He thought public opinion was much stronger than the noble Lord's Bill.

said, the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) had talked of the inflammable speech of the noble Lord the Home Secretary (Lord Palmerston). He (Sir J. V. Shelley), whatever the right hon. Gentleman might think of it, believed that that speech would be re-echoed out of doors, and that the noble Lord would gain great credit by it. He should certainly vote for going on with the Bill.

said, that it was something extraordinary that in this Bill they were running counter to the principles of commerce, seeing that, according to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, the Committee of the Stock Exchange would forbid transactions in any new loan with Russia.

said, in reference to the desire expressed by hon. Members for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, he could state, that although the hon. and learned Solicitor General had at first expressed a strong objection to the Bill, yet when he had read it he quite concurred in its object. In like manner the Attorney General, after perusing the measure, had said that he saw no legal objection to it, but that it was a question of general policy. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again." The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 78: Majority 46. Clause 1.

said, that an Amendment to this clause would be desirable. If a person subscribed to a foreign stock with the view of affording pecuniary aid to the enemies of the country, there was no doubt that he would be guilty of high treason. The same might also be said of a person who colourably purchased stock from a neutral, with a real intent of subscribing to the loan. By the Bill, it was intended to make the bonâ fide dealing in Russian bonds already paid up a misdemeanor punishable by three months imprisonment; but he had some doubt, however, whether the clause, as it stood, might not likewise render the second case to which he bad alluded, and which was clearly treason, a mere misdemeanor; and he should therefore propose words reserving to the Government the power of proceeding against a party either for treason at common law, or for a misdemeanor under the Statute.

said, the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was an illustration of how much the Committee needed the assistance of the law officers.

said, he would suggest that the clause had better pass as it stood, leaving the point raised by the hon, and learned Gentleman to be considered between that time and the bringing up of the report

said, the object of the Bill—and it was a very desirable one—was to prevent any person in this country lending money to the Russian Government for the purpose of carrying on the war; but why, on an important question like that, did not the Government themselves bring in a Bill? The loan, as he understood it, was already contracted, and this Bill now declared that the transfer of any portion of that security from the 28th of March, 1854, should constitute the offence of misdemeanor; but unless they made the transfer of other Russian stock than that a misdemeanor, what security had they that money might not be advanced to the enemy by persons in this country.

said, he thought there was considerable difference between prohibiting transactions of the kind in question in stock created prior to the war, and prohibiting them in regard to loans created for the special purpose of carrying on war against this country. It appeared to him that the date inscribed in the clause was a very proper one, since it was on that day that the Russian Government attempted to raise the loan for the purposes of the war against England and France.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), as Attorney General ad interim, whether the acceptance of Russian bonds as a security for a debt or claim would render a person liable for a misdemeanor? By the accident of commerce a person might come into possession of Russian bonds as a security; would a man, under those circumstances, be liable to three months imprisonment unless he immediately repudiated those bonds?

Unquestionably. Although some cases of hardship might occur, it was necessary to go to that extent in order to prevent the law from being evaded.

said, he doubted the policy of the measure. The Czar might retort by refusing to pay the interest on his former bonds to English holders.

said, that if a foreigner offered the prohibited bonds as a security, the creditor would not take them. It would just be the same as if a man offered a person a bad bank. note.

said, the noble Lord had misunderstood the point of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. V. Smith's) question. The right hon. Gentleman was not speaking of cases in which Russian bonds were tendered to a merchant who might accept or reject them at his pleasure, but of cases in which by the accidents of commerce this foreign stock might fall into the hands of a merchant who would have no other means of realising his claim.

said, he apprehended that in every case in which a security of that nature was tendered in payment of debt, it would be for the creditor to consider whether he should accept it or not, or whether he should not treat it as a bad bank-note. He thought the principle on which the creditor should act in such a case was caveat merchant.

said, he had understood this Bill was not to have any retrospective effect; but it was to operate against the loan raised in March last, and therefore it would have a retrospective effect. He admitted it was desirable that the Russian Government should be deprived of all facilities whatever for raising money in this country for the purposes of the war, but he must contend we had no right to give the Bill which was meant to attain that object a retrospective effect.

said, there were many of his constituents engaged in shipping, who might have received payments in March or April last for freights which they had taken out in February, among which payments Russian securities might be found, and lie thought it unworthy of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) to say that such securities would have to be treated as bad debts by the holders of them.

said, if one merchant dealt with another whose circumstances were doubtful, the only course for him was to take care that the security tendered to him by his debtor was good, and it was an additional reason why he should not accept a bad security if the solvency of his debtor was a matter of doubt. With reference to the objection taken by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe), he might say that the Bill affected Russian stock created on the 28th of March, 1854, but only affected transactions in that stock subsequent to the passing of the Bill. His own impression was, that there would be no great hardship in such an enactment as that.

said, the noble Lord had certainly a pleasant way of disposing of the question of commercial relations. He was afraid, however, that the noble Lord's views wore by no means favourable to the creditor. It sometimes happened that merchants in this country were connected with foreign firms, with respect to whose solvency they might entertain some doubts. Under these circumstances, security for the payment of his demand would be asked for by the creditor; but the debtor might say, in answer to that request, "I have got nothing but Russian bonds; but these are of some use to me, while they would be valueless to you." The creditor would thus fail to obtain the liquidation of his demand, and he would ask if that was a wise principle by which such a state of things would be sanctioned?

said, that all these arguments might very simply reduce themselves into a much more ele- mentary form. No doubt war was a great inconvenience and a great interruption of all the commercial relations between man and man, and between nation and nation. Nobody disputed that. War ought never, therefore, to be undertaken except for some great and adequate reason; but when they had that reason they must make up their minds to suffer the inconvenience and the interruption of the ordinary relations of commerce. He did not know that there would be any great advantage in making a state of war too easy. War ought to be felt to be, what it was, a great calamity, because it would then make Governments less rash to enter into a state of hostility. In the present case the opinion of the whole nation would be that this war was inevitable, and that a measure, the object of which was to prevent English subjects from rendering pecuniary aid to the enemies of the country, was deserving of the consideration and support of Parliament.

said, he must maintain that the question under their consideration was by no means one of an elementary character. It was simply whether the operation of the Bill would or would not be retrospective—a matter upon which, as it involved an important principle of law, he thought it was extremely desirable that they should have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.

said, he was of opinion that if the Bill were to pass into a law, it was advisable that it should be passed in as perfect a manner as possible. There was in the Bill, as it stood, a defect, which required only to be stated in order to show that it went further than the measure purported to go, and would influence a class of securities which it was not meant to affect. The Bill made it a misdemeanor for any person to buy, or offer to buy or sell, securities of the Russian Government, which should be, or should be reputed to be, issued after a certain date. Now, it was well known that the Russian Government held in their own hands a considerable proportion of their old securities. Let him suppose that they should issue a large amount of those securities to their agents, Messrs. Hope of Amsterdam, and that a London merchant should purchase those securities. Well, the person making the purchase would come under the operation of the Bill; but how, he would ask, was such individual to become acquainted with that fact? He should therefore suggest to his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart), that it was desirable that the application of the Bill should be limited to those securities which purported to have been created after the declaration of the war.

said, he remembered a saying of Mr. Windham's, that the truly wise were always in the minority. He could not help thinking that that saying was correct as applied to those who were in the minority in the division which had lately taken place. The Committee must perceive that it was by no means desirable that they should proceed further with the Bill until they had the advantage of the assistance of the law officers of the Crown. He should, therefore, move that the Chairman should report progress.

said, when the Bill was in Committee that was the proper time for discussing the details. It was extremely doubtful at present whether the Bill would not have a retrospective effect, and whether it would not involve innocent persons in its penalties. Besides, it involved questions of property. He was willing to assist in crippling the resources of Russia, but they ought also to take care that in doing that they did not ruin the property of their own countrymen. He thought the House ought not to commit itself to a course of precipitate legislation on this subject.

said, he thought that, as such a loan had not yet been contracted, in the discussion which had ensued on this Bill they had been simply fighting with shadows.

said, as the Committee thought it desirable to have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the construction of the Bill, he would not oppose the Motion for reporting progress.

said, he hoped the Government would take care that the law officers of the Crown should give the House the benefit of their advice, so that there might be no unnecessary delay. House resumed. Committee report progress.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, what regulations had been made for the payment of the wages due to the representatives of the officers and seamen of Her Majesty's ships Erebus and Terror? He understood that, although the engagement with respect to double pay had been adhered to, the representatives of the officers who had been promoted to higher ranks, after the ships left England, were only to receive the pay of the ranks which they respectively held at the time of their going out. He thought that the wages of those officers should be those of the ranks to which they had been raised, and he could not avoid expressing an opinion that there had been something like sharp practice in reference to the time to which the wages were to be paid—the 31st of March.

said, he was quite sure that the House and the country would be most anxious that the case of the representatives of the officers and seamen who had been lost in the Erebus and Terror should be dealt with with every consideration for their just claims; and he had been somewhat grieved to hear the hon. and gallant Officer say that he thought there had been some sharp practice. [Sir G. PECHELL: I said with reference to the 31st of March.] Well, with reference to the 31st of March. What were the facts of the case? The officers and crews of the Erebus and Terror were last heard of in July, 1845; and for nine years from that time double pay bad been allowed to their representatives—that was to say, from July, 1845, to March, 1854, those representatives had been entitled, upon producing, on the part of commissioned officers, letters of probate or of administration, to double pay up to that time, subject only, in their case, to the single condition that they should give a bond of indemnity to the public. This bond had been drawn by Mr. Justice Crowder when the Admiralty had the advantage of his assistance as their law officer, and which was intended to indemnify the public in case those officers should appear; for, however distant the time might be, in case they should ever return, the money, of course, would be due to them. The representatives of the petty officers and seamen had also received double pay up to the same time, but without being put to the expense of probate, and without entering into a bond. The number of commissioned officers in the two ships was twenty- four, and of the other classes 102; and of these, nineteen representatives of commissioned officers, and eighty-three representatives of petty officers and seamen, had already received the full amount which was due to those whom they represented. A question had been raised respecting the effects of such of the officers as had been promoted during the period of their absence, and whether the pay of their higher rank might be claimed by the representatives. They were few in number, and their case was strictly regulated by the 9th article, chap. 10, of the Queen's Regulations, which stated that,—

"If an officer should be promoted by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty while serving, but not appointed to a ship in commission, he should from the date of his promotion be allowed the half-pay of the higher rank whenever it exceeded the full pay of the lower rank."

The payments had been calculated in conformity with that article, and he thought they had been properly so calculated, especially when it was considered that they were dealing, not with the officers themselves who had been promoted, and who had rendered the service for which that promotion had been given; and if they should happily ever return, it might be open to consideration whether in their favour the strict rule should not be relaxed; but in the meantime, and as between the public and their representatives, the Admiralty had not hesitated to apply the rule as they found it.

said, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir G. Pechell) could not do better than leave the matter in the hands of the Admiralty; but he trusted that the right hon. Baronet would reconsider the claims of the representatives of that class of the officers to which he had last referred, for he could not believe that the regulation he had read could have been intended to apply to the case of ships locked up in the ice, as these had been, so as to render it impossible for the officers promoted to come home and claim the benefit of their promotion.

said, it was his conviction that the right hon. Baronet would not stint the representatives of these gallant officers and seamen of their fair remuneration, and that they might rely on the indulgent consideration of the House of Commons for any appeal that might be made on behalf of persons who had been exposed to such great sacrifices.

said, he must complain of the deficiency of evidence which still existed as to who were really to blame for not having looked after the late defaulting officer. This Vote had been postponed in consequence of his requiring the production of the Report of the three gentlemen who had been appointed by the Treasury to investigate the case of Mr. Swabey's defalcations, and the liability of the Treasury arising therefrom. If the Treasury were liable for the defalcations of this public officer, how was it that they had no control over him? The Commissioners stated that they thought the liabilities might be 19,000l. But so far from there being only that amount, he believed it was nearly 66,000l. There must be monstrous negligence somewhere, when a man could be a defaulter to that amount. If the Vote had been brought forward earlier, he should certainly have moved for a Committee to inquire under what responsibility this officer exercised his duty. He hoped that the example would act as a useful warning hereafter.

said, the circumstances of this case were very peculiar, and certainly ought to convey a salutary warning to the House of Commons. Mr. Swabey, the defaulting registrar, was originally one of the deputies of Lord Arden, when that nobleman held the sinecure office of Registrar of the High Court of Admiralty, and he so demeaned himself in that situation that lie acquired very general confidence. On the abatement of the great sinecure, at the death of Lord Arden, Parliament took on itself, not only to regulate the office prospectively, but also to appoint a successor to Lord Arden. The Parliament appointed Mr. Swabey to the office, as a person entitled to more than usual confidence; and, because he was so trusted by Parliament, he was released from the necessity of providing those ordinary securities required from an officer receiving a public appointment of such a nature. He was not subjected to any control, either on the part of the Admiralty or of the Treasury. Mr. Swabey retained his office for a long time without his credit being shaken, but on one fine morning he was found to be a defaulter to the amount of some 65,000. He (Sir James Graham) believed that, in strict law, the suitors in the Court of Admiralty, to whom the money for which Mr. Swabey was a defaulter was due, were not entitled to relief from the public; but, as it appeared hard that through the laches of Parliament the loss should fall on them, he, on behalf of the Judge of the Court of Admiralty, made a strong appeal to the Treasury, in order that the suitors in the Court might be held harmless. Every endeavour had been made to obtain from Mr. Swabey the repayment of the money, but in consequence of Mr. Swabey's shattered circumstances, 25,000l. out of 65,000l. might be taken as the amount, which there was not the slightest hope of recovering. He trusted that the circumstances of this case would teach the House the danger of encroaching upon the Executive Government, more especially with regard to the question of patronage, and that in future the Registrar of the Court of Admiralty, as well as other public officers, would be placed under the strictest supervision on the part of some public board. He had recently sent up to the House of Lords a Bill for the regulation of the Admiralty Court, and one of the provisions of that measure was, that henceforth the registrar should not receive fees, but should, in lieu of them, receive stamps, which would have the effect of reducing the sum of public money in the hands of the officer at any given time, and of preventing the recurrence of such a case as that of Mr. Swabey.

said, that this was one of those unfortunate circumstances which proved the truth of the saying, "that after the steed was stolen the stable door was closed." He thought the House ought to have further information on the subject, because they were left in ignorance as to the conditions under which this great sinecure held by Lord Arden had been abolished. If, previous to the abolition, the person appointed to the office had been in the habit of giving securities, then it would seem that there had been some negligence on the part of the Court of Admiralty in not requiring securities from Mr. Swabey.

said, he was sorry to say that be had been so long in that House that he remembered many prolonged arguments in defence of sinecures of the description held by Lord Arden. It was urged that, considering the immense sums intrusted to the Registrar, it was most desirable to have in that office Peers of Parliament—men of spotless honour and of large property—because any money security that could be obtained was not half so valuable as the security afforded by persons of exalted character. When Lord Arden held the office nothing could exceed the regularity with which the accounts were kept. Such was the case when the office was held by great sinecurists, who were responsible for their deputies. But the House of Commons, on the abolition of the sinecure, lulled into a false security on account of the regular and admirable conduct of the business of Lord Arden, thought it might transfer to the deputy, when appointed to the office, the same exemption from providing securities. However, experience had taught a wholesome lesson, and, in respect to the new appointment, the Government had made arrangements not only that securities should be taken, but that not so large a balance should again be left in the hands of the registrar.

said, he thought that some blame attached to the Admiralty for having allowed such large sums of public money to remain in the hands of the registrar. The right hon. Baronet had referred to a measure which he had sent to the House of Lords for the regulation of the Admiralty Court in this country; but he had not said how he proposed to deal with the Admiralty Courts in Sierra Leone, Ceylon, and other colonies, where reform was much needed. Loud complaints were made of the extravagant expenses charged in the Colonial Admiralty Courts, and he had heard of malpractices on the part of officers who, unlike Mr. Swabey, were under the control of the Admiralty. He believed that Mr. Swabey would never have been able to make away with 65,000l. of public money had there not been some great omission on the part of one or other of the Government departments.

said, this was an extremely awkward case. Here was a public functionary who had contrived to carry off 65,000l., and nobody could say how. The money seemed to have been got hold of under three heads, and if they analysed the case carefully they would find that the responsibility rested with different parties, but in no respect with the Admiralty. Upon a former occasion the right hon. Baronet gave him complete satisfaction with respect to the fee fund; but he wished to call the attention of the Committee to two other cases—that of the Crown fund, and that of the suitors' fund. With respect to the latter, he maintained that the office of Registrar of the High Court of Admiralty was distinctly regulated by an Act passed in the reign of Geo. III., whose provisions referred to the suitors' fund; and what he complained of was, that that Statute had not been duly carried into effect. In that Act the Judge of the Admiralty Court was required to make such regulations as he might consider necessary for the safe keeping of the suitors' fund, and he found there was to be an account kept in the Bank of England, that schedules were to be made from time to time of all the moneys deposited on behalf of the suitors in the Admiralty Court, and that in no case should the sum in the hands of the registrar amount to more than 10,000l. If the provisions of that Statute had been carried out, the public might have suffered to the extent of 10,000l.; but Mr. Swabey could not have misappropriated the large sum of 65,000l. He did not charge the Admiralty with having anything to do with this part of the case; on the contrary, he thought that the persons responsible, so far as the suitors' fund was concerned, was the Judge of the Admiralty Court, who ought to have obeyed the requisitions of the Act of Geo. III. In the case of the Crown fund the Commissioners of the Treasury were responsible, for it was admitted on all sides that, so far as the Crown fund was concerned, Mr. Swabey was the mere agent of the Commissioners. How came it, then, that they had not looked after that fund, and why had a public account not been kept? His own opinion was that the Committee should not grant the 25,000l. asked for until they had some clear explanation of how the loss had occurred. At all events there should have been a Committee to inquire into the transactions.

said, that when this case was before the House upon a former occasion the hon. Secretary of the Treasury stated that the assets of Mr. Swabey would, in all probability, cover the whole amount of the loss. The First Lord of the Admiralty had since informed the Committee that in his opinion there would be a deficiency of at least 25,000l. He thought the Committee ought not to vote any sum until they ascertained the exact amount of the loss. It was admitted that there was no legal obligation on the part of the public to pay this money; and yet, upon all occasions when such robberies—for that was their proper name—took place, the public was called upon to make up the deficiency. He hoped the House of Commons would set its face against the continuance of such a system.

said, bethought it would answer no useful purpose to advert to the past; it was, however, extremely important to determine what security should be taken in future. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had explained that the Lords of the Admiralty had not the appointment of the Registrar of the High Court of Admiralty, nor had they the appointment of the Judge of that Court, by whom the registrar was appointed; nor did it appear that the registrar was in any degree subject to the control of their Lordships. As to the future, it was recommended that with regard to the Crown fund, the moneys should not pass into the hands of the registrar at all, but that they should remain with the Paymaster General, the registrar being informed of the amounts from time to time. With regard to the suitors' fund, the arrangement hitherto had been for the Judge of the Court, who was the officer who ought to have the surveillance of that fund, to take ample security from the gentleman whom he appointed to manage that fund. Regulations were laid down requiring the registrar to render an account every month, which was audited, and the registrar was restrained from holding in his hand any balance exceeding 5,000l. at any one time. The whole defalcation in the accounts of Mr. Swabey was 65,000l.; the sum expected to be recovered was 40,000l., so that the actual defalcation would be 25,000l., This was the amount now proposed to be voted exclusively for the suitors' fund.

said, he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman in saying that it was of no use to revert to the past, for he was of opinion that the very best results might be arrived at if they could find out how these frauds had been committed. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had thrown all the responsibility on Parliament; his argument was, that the Registrar of the Court of Admiralty was appointed by Parliament, and therefore the Admiralty had nothing whatever to do with the misconduct of the party so appointed. He (Mr. Otway) could not admit the soundness of that reasoning. It seemed to him that when the First Lord of the Admiralty knew that the registrar had been appointed by Act of Parliament without being required to give securities, it was his bounden duty to have come down to the House and have taken the earliest steps to remedy that defect. He had been informed that the learned Judge of the Admiralty Court had distinctly proposed that security should be taken from the registrar, and that no attention was paid to the suggestion.

said, he must explain that the appointment of registrar was by special Act of Parliament, and that Mr. Swabey's appointment took place in 1840. It had been supposed that this officer was placed under the control of the Board of Admiralty, but, in point of fact, he was placed exclusively under the control of the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty. If Dr. Lushington did not take any security from the registrar, it might be supposed that it was because he placed great confidence in the man who had been specially appointed by Act of Parliament, and that misplaced confidence might have given rise to the fraud which had been committed. It was supposed that he (Sir J. Graham) had been guilty of negligence in not asking for a security, especially in a time of war; but what was the fact? The defalcation of Mr. Swabey took place at the end of December last year; war was declared in the month of March of this year.

said, that by the Report of the Committee on this subject, it appeared that several of the clerks in the office of the registrar were aware of the irregularities in the accounts. He wished to know whether those clerks were continued in their situations, and if so whether they had been reprimanded?

said, that it was impossible to suppose that by the Act of the 3 & 4 Vict., under which the registrar was appointed, any responsibility attached to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and he considered that the same observation applied to the learned Judge of the High Court of Admiralty. It would have been impossible for him to have exacted any security from a person so appointed by the Legislature itself. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) took an active part in passing that measure, which was the Bill by which Dr. Lushington was excluded from the House of Commons. Whatever blame, therefore, existed, attached to the Legislature, and to the Legislature alone. With respect to Mr. Swabey, the unfortunate person who had been guilty of this robbery was nevertheless a man who had the highest possible character, and whose connections were such as would induce any one to place confidence in him, and he (Mr. Phillimore) believed that, with this exception, nothing had ever been said against Isis character. He had, however, committed a grave offence, the blame of which attached quite as much to Parliament as to any individual whatever.

said, the Committee would make a great mistake in endeavouring to attach any responsibility to the First Lord of the Admiralty; but he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last addressed them in throwing the blame on Parliament. If the Judge of the Court of Admiralty had carried out the provisions of the Act of the 53rd of Geo. III. c. 151, by which the registrar was originally appointed, and which prescribed what were his duties, this fraud would not have been committed. In reply to a question from Mr. HENLEY,

said, he could not undertake to say whether the Judge of the Admiralty Court had power to take security from Mr. Swabey when he was not empowered to do so by the Act of Parliament making the appointment. That was a legal question, which it was not for him to decide.

said, he would not divide the Committee upon the Vote, believing that it was the intention of an hon. Member, upon the bringing up of the report, to move for a Committee of Inquiry. Vote agreed to. (2.) 45,000l., Orange River Territory.

said, that the Vote was intended to facilitate the carrying out of the mission intrusted to Sir George Clerk in connection with the abandonment of the Orange River Sovereignty. A portion of the Vote—about 7,000—was required to pay the salary and travelling expenses of Sir George Clerk himself. Another and a very large portion was required to compensate the Dutch farmers who assisted the British authorities during their quarrel with the natives. Another item was required to compensate the Boers, whose property had been taken possession of while they themselves were acting against Government in 1848 under their leader Prætorius. Sir George Clerk thought it better to make an arrangement with these tribes—the Trans-Vaal Boers—by offering them a compensation for the loss of their property, which had been seized by other tribes during their absence when fighting against us, than to allow them to return and enter into conflict with those who had become possessed of that property. That was the way in which this money was to be spent. He did not know whether 45,000l. would be sufficient. It might amount to 50,000l. But if it amounted even to 60,000l., it would be a very economical disbursement, because the maintenance of troops in time of peace would cost 6,000l. a year, with now and then the probability of a war requiring the presence of an army and an enormous expenditure. On the whole he thought the abandonment of this territory, even if it cost 60,000l., would be a very economical arrangement.

said, he must complain of the public money being appropriated to all sorts of claims of this sort. He wished to know whether the territory was now in the possession of these Dutch Boers, and whether they stood between the British colonists and the black population.

said, he wanted to know why they had not an estimate of the entire amount required, and how much more it was supposed would be wanting to pay off these claims?

said, about 15,000l. more would, he thought, settle all the claims; but it was impossible as yet to state the amount with accuracy. In answer to the hon. Member for Lambeth he begged to say that these Boers stood between them and the Kafir population.

said, he could not understand why it was because the loyal part of the population was compensated, they must also compensate the disloyal portion? Vote agreed to, Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a sum, not exceeding 2,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1855, in aid of the subscriptions raised for the erection of a building at Nottingham, in which to deposit the valuable astronomical, &c., instruments presented to the country by Mr. Lawson."

said, this was a Vote which required sonic explanation. As far as he was at present informed, he thought it very doubtful whether the Committee ought to agree to it. He had received some information respecting it, and he had seen the subscription-list which was referred to in the Vote, and he saw the name of no man of science who vouched for the value of the instruments presented by Mr. Lawson. It was stated that the instruments cost 10,000l., 8,000l. of which (including 1,000l. given by Mr. Lawson) was raised by subscription; but he had been told that their real value was not anything equal to that sum. How was it that Mr. Hyde, the well-known astronomer, who was a native of Nottingham, did not lend his name to support this proposal? And, he would ask, who was to appoint the astronomer at this observatory? If this had been an application for a Vote in aid of the instruction of the people or for the promotion of science, he would not have objected to it; but he believed that, under the pretext of aiding science, the money would be appropriated to the private advantage of certain individuals. Should the Vote pass, it would be taken as a precedent; and if the House were to give money on these pretences, there would be no end to the claims that would be made upon them from the various towns in the kingdom. He, therefore, wished to know on what ground it was they were called upon to make this grant, and whether there was any real feeling in favour of it on the part of the people of the county of Nottingham?

said, he felt himself hound, having some local connection with the district to which the Vote referred, to give the Committee all the information he possessed on the subject. Something less than two years ago the gentlemen of the town and county of Nottingham were invited to assemble for the purpose of raising a subscription in aid of a proposal which had been made—namely, that a set of astronomical instruments of the value of 10,000l. would be presented to Nottingham by Mr. Lawson, if the gentlemen of the county would raise a sum equal to that amount to build and maintain a public institution. A meeting was held to see what could be done, and it appearing that the whole of the money could not be obtained from Nottingham, the assistance of the surrounding localities was sought. In the first place, it was considered necessary to ascertain whether any public advantage would be obtained by the purchase of the collection, and he (Mr. E. Denison) wrote to Sir John Herschel and Professor Airy, the Astronomer Royal, to ask their opinion whether astronomy and science in general would be advanced by the formation of such an institution. The answer of these gentlemen was in the negative. Since then two incidents had occurred, one favourable and the other unfavourable to the undertaking. The favourable incident was the intelligence that Government were going to be so good as to assist the local subscription by a grant of 2,000l. The unfavourable circumstance was the discovery that the astronomical instruments were worth many thousands of pounds less than had been represented. It was thought, however, Government would make inquiry before they proposed any grant from the public money to assist in the purchase, and the local inquiries which had been commenced were consequently suspended. It was considered the instruments might be useful for meteorological researches, but it should not be forgotten that they were astronomical and not meteorological instruments. This was the state of the case, and he was bound to say that if the question came over again he did not think there would be the same disposition on the part of the gentlemen of the locality to come forward with subscriptions. But the collection of private subscriptions was one thing, while the voting of public money was another, and he could not feel justified in voting the money of his constituents without a much stronger case being shown than could, as far as he was aware, be advanced in favour of this Vote, especially as there were such great doubts as to the value of the instruments.

said, he must explain to the Committee that the Government had understood that the value of the instruments had been ascertained by those locally interested. The proposition was, that as these instruments, which were said to be exceedingly valuable in a national point of view, had been offered for 10,000l., and that as the locality had already subscribed 8,000l. towards it, the Government ought to come forward to assist with the remaining 2,000l. Not being prepared to make such a grant on local grounds, the Government endeavoured to ascertain whether there were any public grounds for making such a proposition. To determine that point they referred to the Astronomer Royal and Sir John Herschel, who said that no public advantage would be gained by establishing an astronomical observatory on the site indicated, but that considerable public benefit would result from the establishment there of a meteorological observatory. This being the case, and assurance having been given that, in addition to instruments worth 10,000l., private subscriptions to the amount of nearly 8,000l. had been raised, the Government resolved on recommending the Committee to grant 2,000l. to carry out the object. It now appeared, however, that the instruments, which were the basis of the whole arrangement, were worth much less than had been represented; and under these circumstances he begged leave to withdraw the Vote.

said, he could not help observing that this Vote afforded a pretty fair instance of the careless way in which the public money was wasted. Had it not been for the exposé made by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. E. Denison), this job would doubtless have been perpetrated. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding 140,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, for the purchase of Burlington House, Piccadilly.

said, with regard to this Vote, the Committee must be aware of the great difficulty experienced of late years in regard to the increasing demand for buildings for public purposes. A suns of not less than 11,000l. or 12,000l. was paid annually for the accommodation of public offices of various descriptions. The sale of the Excise Office in Old Broad Street, for which 120,000l. was realised, had tended to increase the difficulty of providing accommodation. The object in getting rid of that building was to concentrate the Excise department and other departments now combined with it in Somerset House. In Somerset House space was afforded to various learned societies, and the obtaining that space for the greater concentration of the public offices would be attended with great economy. It seemed to be the general opinion that these learned societies should depend for the most part on voluntary subscriptions, but that the provision of rooms in which to carry on their business was a fair and suitable contribution on the part of the State, and ought to be extended to certain bodies which had not hitherto enjoyed it. A small Vote had this year, he believed, been taken to provide rooms for the Geographical Society, but it was understood that was only an interim arrangement until the Government had space at their disposal. It was very possible in that event that accommodation would be extended to one or more bodies of the same description as the Geographical Society. There were, therefore, these two demands—first, a considerable and likely to be a growing demand from the multiplication of all the public departments; and secondly, a demand on the part of these learned societies. It might be supposed that the great purchase at Kensington would stand in the place of this Vote, but that view was more plausible than solid. The truth was, distance was all-important, and all these societies had recently expressed their unanimous conviction that, if accommodation for their meetings and ordinary business were offered at so great a distance as Kensington, they would be compelled to reject it. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government thought it a fortunate event when they had the power to secure so large a site, amounting to nearly three acres and a half, in so admirable and convenient a situation as Burlington House. They thought it an opportunity that might not readily recur, while the necessity was pressing. He would also remind the Committee that at present Marlborough House was occupied by leave of the Crown for the advantage of the public, but the time would shortly come when it must be devoted to its proper purpose. Having, therefore, examined into the value of the site of Burlington House, they determined to offer a suns of 140,000l. That sum was at first refused. The Government stated that they would not deviate from terms which they thought just, and it was finally accepted. When the offer was first made, the Government were not involved so deeply in other demands of an extraordinary character; but a portion of the site, if thought fit, might be applied in a manner directly remunerative, being adapted for the frontage of shops. It would be impossible to retain the mansion as it stood; but the great bulk of the building erected on its site would be applicable to either one of the two great objects—the concentration of public offices, or the affording learned societies accommodation of which they were in need, and which it was clear should be given from the public resources.

said, he believed that, at such a distance from Downing Street, Burlington House would not be very well adapted for public offices. With regard to these learned societies, he hoped his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very careful how he admitted these bodies, and let it be dis- tinctly understood that the accommodation was only temporary, and revocable at the pleasure of the Crown. They all knew what inconvenience had been experienced in the building of the National Gallery in consequence of a portion of it having been devoted to the Royal Academy, and they having thought proper to consider the occupation permanent. Before proceeding to destroy the beautiful mansion, he hoped some estimate would be submitted, and some plan of the structure to be raised in its place would be laid before the House.

said, the building would be very applicable to the various public commissions scattered about the metropolis, as well as those societies which possessed rooms at the expense of the Government. With regard to pulling down Burlington House, plans were in preparation in the office of the Board of Works, which would be submitted to the Government, and when approved by the Government, would be brought under the consideration of Parliament to obtain a Vote upon them. The right hon. Gentleman might rest perfectly assured nothing would be done until those plans had been carefully prepared and submitted to the Government.

said, that already Parliament had granted 200,000l. for the purchase of ground at Kensington, and the strongest argument for that grant was, that the building would be applicable to these very learned societies, who now thought it too distant. That Vote was proposed by Lord Derby's Government, and objected to by him as strongly as he now objected to this Vote. And it being a quarter before Six of the clock, the Chairman reported progress, and Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair:—Committee to sit again To-morrow. The House adjourned at twelve minutes before Six o'clock.