opposed the clause, on the ground that he would not consent to fritter away the property of the Church. He considered that the leaseholders and copyholders had already obtained a very great boon by the system of enfranchisement. The Church Estates Commissioners had behaved in the most fair and equitable manner, and he would venture to say that every man who had enfranchised his estates under the Commissioners had found that their value had been increased from 10 to 20 per cent. There was no evi- dente to show that any interference with the property of the Church was necessary, and he asked the Committee whether they were prepared to give millions of money in the form of compensation to individuals who were not entitled to it? If any claims to compensation were set up, let those claims be decided by the courts of common law, but he for one could not consent to see the property of the Church frittered away in the manner in which it would be dissipated if the clause of the hon. Member for North Yorkshire should be adopted. The Bill was at present a permissive measure, and he objected to the proposed clause because it would render the Bill a compulsory measure.

said, He should support the proviso on the ground that Parliament had already altered the relative position of lessors and lessees greatly to the disadvantage of the latter, unless some further consideration were shown them. The object of the clause was to define the manner in which the rights of lessees should be considered, and to afford clearer instructions to the Commissioners with regard to the mode of maintaining those rights. The great question was, whether the Commissioners had really and fairly carried out the intentions of Parliament? He contended that they had not. He complained that the Commissioners had adopted a scale of tables which was decidedly unfavourable to the annuitants, instead of basing their arrangements upon tables which bad been adopted by the Government in other cases, and which were much more fair to both parties. He considered that it was for the interest of the Church that the lessees should be fairly dealt with, and should receive a fair compensation. There was an existing right on the part of the lessees arising from a practice of renewal which had existed for three centuries, and that right ought to be recognised and fairly valued in the arrangements which were made for renewals. He must say that he thought the Church Commissioners had mistaken the duty which Parliament had imposed upon them. It appeared to him that they considered that they were only Commissioners for the Church, whereas Parliament intended them to act for both parties. He thought the Commissioners had acted upon a wrong principle, and he hoped that to prevent their proceeding in the same course the Committee would assent to this clause.

said, it was proposed to revert to the recommendations of the Commission which had been embodied in a Bill that was brought forward in the other House of Parliament, and referred to a Select Committee. The parties who then opposed the Bill were the lessees themselves, who objected to it as imposing a permanent charge on their estates; but on the fullest consideration the House of Lords came to a different conclusion, and adopted the system at present in force, and under which in three years property to the value of several millions had been enfranchised. If they were prepared to go back to the system of having a large rent-charge imposed instead of permanent enfranchisement, they must enter into some more detailed regulations than could possibly be effected under a Bill which there remained but a short time to dispose of. He thought, therefore, they should not hesitate on the present occasion to reject the proviso.

contended that the right hon. Gentleman had not said anything to destroy the force of the principle for which the hon. Member for Yorkshire contended. He was sure that every Member of that House was willing to give the Church its due; but he thought the tenant was entitled to consideration also, and he was of opinion that his claims had not been treated upon a fair principle.

said, that no doubt these lessees were under Act of Parliament; but it was quite competent for the Legislature to say, even at this great distance of time, that, having regard to the value of lives, great errors had been made in the manner of conferring those leases, and that those errors should now be corrected. The hon. Member for Yorkshire now contended that the lessees had not been fairly treated in this matter. That was a question which had been very much discussed, and be could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) should think that the Report of the Lords' Committee should be exclusively followed, and that no other terms than those specified in their Report should be adopted. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cayley) said that due regard had not been paid to lessees, and that their terms should be allowed. He should be sorry to make this Bill other than a voluntary Bill, and thought that the hon. Member would improve the clause by striking out the word "shall," and inserting words giving the Commissioners a discretion as to whether they should follow the recommendations in the Report of the Commission.

was most grateful to the hon. Member for Yorkshire for his proposition, which he trusted would be heartily accepted by the House. As to the system, the real nature of which he should be sorry to characterise as he regarded it, which the Church had formerly pursued, of valuing their own interest at 3 per cent and charging the lessees 5 per cent, it had received its deathblow under the evidence of the late Bishop of Lincoln.

said, he was quite ready to adopt the noble Lord's suggestion, and to substitute for the term "Shall," the words "may, at the discretion and with the approval of the Church Estates Commissioners."

then moved the following proviso—

"Provided always, that in all computations in any way dependent on the duration of lives, the expectation of life shall be calculated at the rate of 3l. Cs. 8d. per centum; and, so far as such rate can be applied, according to the data on which the life tables are founded which were appended to and published in the 12th annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, and such computation shall be made thereby at a uniform rate of interest."

objected to the framing of any computations of this important nature upon any other than the most authoritative tables; as to the tables proposed, there were no means before him of estimating their value, for they were not in the library of the House.

supported the clause.

assured the Committee that he had been actuated by no other motive in selecting the Registrar General's tables than that the statistics in that department afforded, in his opinion, the fairest data for all parties concerned as to the general life of the country. In point of fact, Mr. Farr's were rather more favourable to the Church than to the lessees.

said, that, as to the general propriety of the principle, that the exploded Carlisle tables should not be acted upon for these computations, that was clearly expedient; but, on the other hand, he was of opinion that the proviso now under consideration would not furnish anything like a workable rule. It was very difficult to decide what tables would be most applicable for the purpose, and he conceived that the best course would be for the hon. Gentleman to leave this point for further consideration, and to bring up an amended clause on the Report. He should himself be most ready to afford his best assistance to the hon. Gentleman in devising a rule on the subject.

would gladly avail himself of the hon. and learned Gentleman's offer, and postpone the proviso accordingly.

remarked that it was important that the same set of tables should be taken for basis which had been used by the parties themselves in entering into existing contracts, otherwise they would run the risk of selling a life on one valuation, and buying it on another.

then moved clauses relative to the investment and application of the moneys which are to be paid into the Bank of England under the 6th section of the Act; also in respect of purchases and exchanges; also in respect to the apportionment of moneys between the Church Estates Commissioners and Ecclesiastical Corporations and to the application thereof, which were agreed to without discussion.

also moved the following clause—

"The proviso contained in the first section of the said recited Act, with reference to the sale or exchange of tithes or tithe rent-charges, or land or hereditaments allotted or assigned in lieu of tithes, shall be and the same is hereby repealed; and all the moneys so paid or to be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England under the foregoing provision which may have been produced by the sale, purchase, or exchange of tithes or tithe rent-charges, or land or hereditaments assigned or allotted in lieu of tithes, which formed part of the endowment of any ecclesiastical corporation prior to the passing of the said Act, shall be subject to the provisions relating to local claims which are contained in the 67th section of the Act passed in the third and fourth years of Her Majesty's reign, chap. 113. And in every case in which any money shall as aforesaid be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England in respect of surplus, the last-mentioned Commissioners shall, in the annual Report to be next thereafter made by them to the Secretary of State, specify the period at which at the time of the settlement of the terms of the sale, purchase, or exchange in respect of which such payment was made, it was estimated that any and every previously subsisting lease or grant of the tithes or land thereby dealt with would have expired."

proposed, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "exchange of," and insert—

"Any lands, tithes, or hereditaments whatso- ever which formed part of the endowment of any ecclesiastical corporation prior to the passing of the said Act shall be subject to the following proviso—that in any application and expenditure of the said moneys due consideration shall be had of the spiritual wants and circumstances of the places in which such lands or hereditaments shall be situated, or such tithes shall have theretofore arisen, anything in any Act contained to the contrary notwithstanding."

The hon. Gentleman observed that it was calculated that within ten years after the passing of the Act of 1840 not less than 200,000l. had been subtracted from the diocese of Durham, and applied to the purposes of the Act in other parts of England. He knew it had been said that the spiritual wants of the diocese of Durham were not so pressing as those of other dioceses, and on this ground the appropriation of the revenues of the see of Durham to which he had alluded had been justified; but he thought it could be easily shown that the spiritual necessities of that diocese fully equalled those of any other district. Even if that were not the case, however, he thought it was only a matter of justice that revenues arising within a particular diocese should be applied to the purposes of that diocese, so far as they were needed. During the ten years subsequent to 1840 the increase of population within the diocese of Durham had been double the increase that had taken place in any other similar district throughout England and Wales. The want of church accommodation in five of the principal towns of the diocese—Gateshead, Newcastle, South Shields, Sunderland, and Tynemouth—was so great that independently of the sittings provided by all the religious bodies in those towns, no less than 38,000 additional sittings were required. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would take into consideration the operation of the Act of 1840, and that the alienation of the revenues of the diocese of Durham would not be continued.

said, he must object to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, because its adoption would subvert all the principles established by the various Acts with respect to the Ecclesiastical Commission. When the Commission first reported, in 1835, it was proposed that attention should be paid to the spiritual wants of various parts of the country, and the West Riding of Yorkshire and other extensive districts were pointed out, where the number of churches was utterly disproportioned to the population. But, beyond this, the first proposal of the Commissioners was, that sums should be contributed from the revenues of certain sees, and especially from that of Durham, to furnish an addition to the revenues of other sees, which were then only eked out by preferments held in commendam. They had proceeded upon the general principle that the superfluous funds of one district should be taken to supply the wants of other districts, and in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in Cheshire, and in Lancashire, where there was not sufficient provision for the spiritual wants of the people, funds had thus been provided for the establishment of new districts. The hon. Member now proposed to subvert that principle in regard to Durham; but if subverted in one case it must be subverted in all. In 1840, in accordance with the Report of the Commission, an exception was made with respect to tithes, and it was provided that regard should be had, in the appropriation of the funds, to the wants of the districts in which the tithes arose. He thought it might fairly be said that those tithes were given for the especial purposes of the parishes in which they were collected; but the same could not be said in respect to certain lands, the property of the Church, the produce of which might be applied to ecclesiastical purposes in other districts. It had, therefore, been laid down in the first Report that the property of the Church in one district might properly be applied to relieve the spiritual wants of another district. He could not agree to the Amendment; but he thought that the attention of Parliament should be directed more closely than had hitherto been the case to the appropriation of these funds. He considered that they should have a more specific account than had hitherto been afforded of the appropriation of the funds, and ascertain that they were really applied for the advantage of populous places where considerable spiritual destitution existed. He did not think that the diocese of Durham had bad much reason to complain, for he found that 19,000l. had been appropriated to that diocese for the augmentation of livings, 7,500l. for the endowment of new parishes, and 2,300l. for the building of parsonage houses, besides donations to the Durham University. He did not think the diocese of Durham had been neglected, but he conceived that the House should have returns placed before it which would show the general disposition of the funds.

considered that the attention of Parliament must speedily be called to the necessity of providing for the spiritual wants of the diocese of Durham from the funds which were now drawn from that diocese and applied to other districts.

moved—

"That so much of the 11th section of the said recited Act as excepts the dean and canons of the cathedral church of Christ in Oxford from the operation thereof shall be repealed."

explained that, if the dean and canons of Christ Church were subjected to the operation of the Act, they would be invested with powers in direct violation of the trusts upon which they held certain property, and on that account they had been exempted from its operation.

said, he would not oppose this Vote, but he hoped that the future President of the Board, whoever he might be, would try to reduce the expenditure. He did not think that both a secretary and an assistant secretary would be required, if the business of the Board was limited to a general supervision. The inspectors, it appeared, had 5,350l. It was said that nearly the whole of that would be repaid by the local boards; but as far as the Members of that House were concerned, that was no sufficient answer. The people had repudiated these expensive processes. First, they had an inquiry forced upon them, to which they objected; next, there were the expenses of the survey, which they were called upon to repay. He would not, however, oppose the Vote, as it was only temporary.

said, that he approved of the constitution of the Board of Health on the ground that it would relieve the House of a great deal of private business. He wished to see that Board placed on a right principle, but he objected to the men who composed it, and he was sure that by an alteration there, the interests of the department would be materially promoted. With respect to Mr. Chadwick, he did not wish to throw any slur on the past services of that gentleman. He knew him to be a man of great talent, and he believed that he would be found useful in some other departments of the public service, but he certainly did not approve of his remaining any longer in connection with a Board, in the management of whose business he had undoubtedly displayed want of judgment. He did not wish to see him any longer in the Board of Health, but he hoped that the Government would find employment for him in some other department, where his great powers of inquiry and grasping research might be made available for the interests of the country. In what he said on a former occasion he had no intention of depreciating the former services of Mr. Chadwick.

thought that the Vote was excessive, and that the office expenses were unreasonably large. The whole system should be remodelled, and inquiry was inevitable. He admitted the great talents and the important public services of Mr. Chadwick—in particular his exertions in connection with the Poor Laws—but he was of opinion, with the hon. Member for Montrose, that his connection with the Board of Health should no longer be continued, for he had unfortunately contributed to the unpopularity of that Board, and so impaired in some degree its usefulness. He complained that the Board of Health seemed to spend a good deal of time in circulating the pamphlets of Dr. Southwood Smith.

as a friend of Dr. Southwood Smith, could not but regret that that gentleman, a man of urbane manners and fine abilities, should have fallen a victim to the great unpopularity of Mr. Chadwick. Provision had been made, or was going to be made, for giving Mr. Chadwick a retiring allowance, and he thought that a similar measure of justice should be awarded to Dr. Smith.

said, that the Estimate was altogether a temporary and experimental Estimate; it would be for the new President to consider what ought to be the composition of the Board, and he was sure that the arrangements would be on the most economical scale compatable with efficiency. As to an assistant secretary, it was his opinion that such an officer was essential to the working of the business of the Board, but this, as well as other points, would be for the decision of the President.

hoped that the Government would take care to find some suitable employment for Mr. Chadwick, who, though at present in ill health, had before him the prospect of many years in which he might do good service to the public.

said, it was an invariable rule with the Government in all cases where Parliament gave the discretion of granting pensions to public officers, to avail itself of any opportunity for finding active employment for such pensioners as should be capable of fulfilling it; and this rule would not be lost sight of in the case of Mr. Chadwick, confessedly a gentleman well adapted, when in health, for performing valuable public service.

Sir, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) has given notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which Her Majesty has been pleased to appoint the hon. Francis Lawley to the office of Governor of South Australia. Circumstances, Sir, have come to my knowledge within the last few days which induced me, not long ago, to address a note to the right hon. Baronet to say that I was anxious before he addressed the House in pur suance of that notice to make a statement to the House, which with its permission I will now proceed to do. Of course, after I have made that statement it will be for the right hon. Baronet or any other hon. Member to adopt such course as his sense of public duty may lead him to think fitting. I am desirous in the first place—as I am responsible for submitting to Her Majesty the name of Mr. Lawley for appointment to the governorship of South Australia—to state frankly and unreservedly at once the circumstances under which I submitted that advice to Her Majesty. When I was intrusted with the seals of the Colonial Department, but a day or two before I had actually received them from Her Majesty, I had several conferences with the Duke of Newcastle, my immediate predecessor, in which was stated the various matters of business then pending in that department, over which he had presided. Among other things he communicated to me the arrangements which he had recently made with respect to filling up various important colonial governments which were becoming in course of time vacant. He stated to me the arrangements he had made with respect to the governments of Canada, of New Brunswick, and of Norfolk Island. He stated that Sir Charles Fitzroy's term of service having expired some time ago, it had been intimated to him that he would be released from his duties in the course of the present year, and he had submitted to Her Majesty the name of Sir William Denison, the present Governor of Van Diemen's Land, as the successor to Sir Charles Fitzroy, in New South Wales. The noble Duke told me also that he had submitted to Her Majesty the name of Sir Henry Young, the present Governor of South Australia, for the governorship of New Zealand, which had become vacant by the appointment of the Governor of New Zealand to be the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. He then informed me that, being of opinion that among gentlemen administering the government of other colonies of less importance there was no one who had particular claims on the grounds of public service or public conduct, upon the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he had offered the governorship of South Australia to Mr. Lawley. He stated to me that his acquaintance with Mr. Lawley was not of above six months duration, but that from the acquaintance which he had had, and the opinion which he had received of Mr. Lawley's character from those in whom he could place confidence, he was of opinion that it was desirable that a gentleman in his position, of his character, and with his abilities, should accept colonial service under the Crown. He stated to me that he had been anxious to obtain the services of Mr. Lawley as Governor of South Australia, but that, as he was then on the point of surrendering the seals of the Colonial Office, he had requested Mr. Lawley to give him an immediate decision with respect to whether he was, or was not, willing to accept the governorship of South Australia. Mr. Lawley was inclined to accept the governorship, but was anxious, as a man must naturally be under such circumstances, to hold some communication with his family and his friends before he gave a decision which might affect the whole course of his future life. He asked, therefore, that a delay of a few days might be given him for deliberation. The Duke of Newcastle informed me that he had stated, in answer to that request, to Mr. Lawley, that, as he only held the seals of the Colonial Department till I had received those seals, as I should do on the next or following day, and as he should merely transact the business of the department while I was absent from London during my re-election, he did not feel that he could give the three days for deliberation which Mr. Lawley had asked for, but that he must give an affirmative or negative decision at once. He undertook, however, if the decision were a negative one, to mention the name of Mr. Lawley to me, to state all that had passed with respect to his appointment, and to inform me that had he remained Secretary of State for the Colonies he should have submitted the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty for appointment to the governorship of South Australia, if Mr. Lawley, after the few days' deliberation he desired, had been disposed to accept that appointment. I am anxious to state frankly and unreservedly to the House—and I have the Duke of Newcastle's full permission to do so—what passed between us on the occasion to which I refer. Mr. Lawley was wholly unknown to me. I have seen him engaged within this House, and have sat on the same side of the House with him during the last year and a half; but certainly I have never been thrown into his society, nor been upon such terms with him as could authorise me to claim him as the most common acquaintance. The Duke of Newcastle informed me that he thought it right to state the only drawback which in his opinion might be alleged against the appointment of Mr. Lawley arose from a fact which, under the circumstances, he did not consider to be a sufficient bar to his appointment. The Duke of Newcastle told me that, like many young men, I fear, in his position in society, he had early in life been addicted to—I hardly know hew to describe it in ordinary language, but all will understand what I mean—had been unfortunately "on the turf." He had, in early life, been inclined to horse-racing, a habit adopted in common with many other men of high rank and society in this country; but he submitted to me that, so far from thinking this circumstance a bar to the appointment of Mr. Lawley, or as constituting an objection to his appointment, it was, on the contrary, a recommendation under the circumstances which I am about to state. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but I certainly should not have expected theta party which recognised the late lamented Lord George Bentinck as their leader in this House, and who have served under the Government of Lord Derby, would have considered this as an objection. I certainly should not have thought to have heard them sneer at the employment of a person who had been so engaged, or consider that it was an absolute disqualification for office that a man had been so engaged. I pass that by, however, because if hon. Gentlemen will wait till they hear the whole facts, perhaps they will find that their sneers might have been spared. The Duke of Newcastle told me that Mr. Lawley had become deeply impressed with the conviction that the course was one which could not be abandoned too early; and he had stated that his earnest desire was to break off from those habits in which, unfortunately, I say, and say it honestly, he had been employed. Mr. Lawley stated that he had accepted the office of private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to engage himself in higher and more useful pursuits, and that his desire for colonial government was partly prompted by a wish that he might be removed absolutely beyond the reach of temptation, and a recurrence to those habits which it had been his anxious desire to break off. The Duke of Newcastle further informed me that he did not con- sider I was bound by what had passed between himself and Mr. Lawley. He gave me his opinion, as I have already stated, that Mr. Lawley was well qualified for the appointment in question, and that it would conduce to the public service if he were so appointed. When I accepted the seals of the Colonial Office, I found that the governorship of South Australia was vacant by Her Majesty having approved of the appointment of Sir Henry Young, the then Governor of that colony, to another important government. I had not, as I said before, the slightest personal acquaintance with Mr. Lawley; and under these circumstances I did not feel myself bound, after what had passed between the Duke of Newcastle and myself, to renew the offer of that appointment to Mr. Lawley. I understood that I was perfectly free; and wishing to shrink from no responsibility in this matter, I wish to state explicitly to the House that I considered myself perfectly free to submit to Her Majesty the name of any gentleman for the appointment of Governor of South Australia. So much was I under that conviction, that I had actually made inquiries with respect to another gentleman, in order to ascertain his qualifications and his willingness to undertake that office, and I intended to have made the offer to that other gentleman, if, under all the circumstances, he, had been willing to accept it. But before any decisive steps were taken with respect to filling up this government—about three weeks ago, or less—I received a communication through my private secretary from Mr. Lawley, which, I confess, gave a very different aspect to the case from that in which I had before viewed it. I was then informed, for the first time, that Mr. Lawley was under a different impression from that under which the Duke of Newcastle was, and what he had communicated to me as his impression, and which, in justice to the Duke of Newcastle, I am bound to say, he has since most explicitly confirmed. Mr. Lawley stated that he conceived, from what bad passed between the Duke of Newcastle and himself, that he was not to be considered as having declined the appointment—that the time for which he asked had been allowed him, in order to consider the subject—and that for a period, during the continuance of the present Session, he had understood that it was at his option either to decline or accept the appointment. He stated that he had made up his mind, upon full consideration and com- munication with those with whom be had previously desired to consult, to accept the governorship of South Australia, and he expressed some surprise that he had not received any communication from me on the subject. I received this information, certainly, with some surprise, because it was contrary to the impressions which, as I have already said, I had formed from the statement of the Duke of Newcastle. I spoke to a right hon. Friend of mine, a relative of Mr. Lawley, in this House, and I found that he was under the same impression as Mr. Lawley, and that not only Mr. Lawley, but that his family and friends were under the impression that the governorship of the colony had been offered to him, and that it was in his power to decline or accept the office. I stated this fact to the Duke of Newcastle; and, again, I am bound to say, in justification of the noble Duke, he stated that the impression existing in the mind of Mr. Lawley, and of his friends, was not that which they were warranted in entertaining; that Mr. Lawley had not, it was true, declined the appointment, and that the Duke of Newcastle had undertaken to mention it to me; but that I was as free to deal with the appointment as if, instead of being a colleague of the noble Duke's, I had succeeded him as a political opponent. With me, therefore, must rest the responsibility of having submitted the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty, for the appointment to the governorship of the colony of South Australia. I had to consider what my public duty required of me. I knew nothing whatever of Mr. Lawley—nothing I may say against him, not even a whisper of suspicion with respect to any transactions in which he had been engaged; and, as honourable men as any that live in this country are engaged on the turf and in horse-racing, I did not think the circumstance of Mr. Lawley having been so concerned constituted a sufficient reason why I, in the position in which I stood, should reverse the decision to which the Duke of Newcastle had come to with respect to the person to be appointed to the governorship of an important colony. Upon the other hand, I knew nothing of Mr. Lawley, and not having known anything of him, I did not, as I have said before, feel justified in making any renewed offer to him. He certainly is not a gentleman to whom—entirely front the absence of all knowledge of him, whether positive or negative, as regards his character—to whom I should have offered the government, nor was his a name which I should have submitted to Her Majesty for the Governor of an important colony. But when I found that he had been for some weeks under the impression that he was to succeed Sir Henry Young in the government of South Australia—when I found from inquiries among his friends, and when, from contemporaries at the University—who certainly cannot be considered as inferior judges of a man's abilities, where he obtained high distinction—I received the highest testimonials as to the ability and character of Mr. Lawley—I felt that I was in this position—I must either submit his name to Her Majesty, confiding in the assurances of those who had the means of knowing him, and all whose opinions would lead me to suppose that he was admirably qualified for the post which he desired to occupy; or, upon the other hand, without a breath of suspicion having reached me against Mr. Lawley, that I should be acting contrary to their opinions by pronouncing his unfitness for the appointment, in refusing to submit his name to Her Majesty, and thus have cast a stigma upon him which was wholly unmerited. Having obtained all the information I could from every quarter with respect to the ability of Mr. Lawley, I told my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that although I knew nothing of that gentleman, and should not have chosen him myself, still that under all the circumstances of the case I was prepared, in accordance with his opinion, with that of the Duke of Newcastle, and of others who knew Mr. Lawley, and had had opportunities of judging of his character which I did not possess, rather than do any injury or wrong to him, and believing from all that I had heard that he would make an efficient Governor of South Australia, to submit his name to Her Majesty for that appointment. I did so submit the name to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty approved the appointment. For that recommendation I am responsible to Her Majesty, and for Her Majesty's approval of Mr. Lawley's appointment I alone am responsible. Immediately after that appointment was known—and it was known, I think, on the very day on which I received Her Majesty's approval of the appointment—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich placed upon the notice paper of the House a question to be addressed to me on the following day, asking whether Mr. Lawley had been appointed, and whether it was the intention of the Government to submit the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty for appointment as Governor of South Australia, or any other colony. When I saw that notice, I can assure the House I had not even a suspicion of any circumstances connected with Mr. Lawley to which that notice could point. I came down to the House prepared to have heard from the right hon. Baronet the grounds which would have justified his putting a question which certainly was one of an unusual character. The right hon. Baronet stated no grounds for putting his question, and I need not say I do not complain of this, because the right hon. Baronet is a political opponent, and was not bound to communicate to me any public or private information which he possessed. From that day to this I have received not the slightest information with respect to the grounds upon which that question was put. I answered the question, therefore, in the only way in which I could answer it in accordance with the strictest truth, namely, that Her Majesty had been advised to appoint Mr. Lawley to the government of South Australia, and that I had advised the appointment. That question was put to me this day week, and I stated, in private to Members of this House, that I was utterly at a loss to know what that question pointed at, and that I should be thankful to be informed, in order that any valid objection to Mr. Lawley might have been investigated fairly and fully, but I was unable to take the slightest movement towards instituting such an inquiry. I should state that immediately before I submitted the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Recorder of London (Mr. Stuart Wortley), in order to ascertain what his impressions were with respect to the effect of what had passed between the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Lawley with respect to this appointment. He, as I should have expected from him, fairly told me what the Duke of Newcastle had told me before, namely, that Mr. Lawley had been "upon the turf," and he felt that that might be an objection; but he stated at the same time, in the most explicit terms which I could desire, that there was not a single debt or liability outstanding to which Mr. Lawley was now subject, or in order to evade which he might be desirous of leaving this country on receiving the appointment. The facts, therefore, as they were known to me were—that Mr. Lawley, as I have said has been the case with too many young men to their loss, and it may be to their ultimate ruin, had been early engaged in transactions on "the turf;" but that not one whisper of dishonourable conduct in connection with that pursuit had then reached or has yet reached me; and that there was no outstanding debt or liability to which Mr. Lawley was subject on that account. If there had been, I should have felt that I was departing widely from my duty as a Minister of the Crown in submitting to Her Majesty the name of a gentleman with whom it might be an object to remove himself from the reach of those means which might be used against him in order to enforce the settlement of his liabilities. Upon this point the statement made to me by my right hon. Friend the Recorder of London was clear and unambiguous. On Friday last, after the morning sitting of the House, I returned to my office, and shortly before six o'clock, when about to return to the House, the Duke of Newcastle came to my room, and told me that he felt it his duty to come to me and inform me at the earliest moment he could, that from two separate quarters, in the course of that day, he had received information of rumours being in circulation highly injurious to the character of Mr. Lawley. He did not tell me from whom the information was derived, but stated that it was received in one instance from a Peer, and in the other from a right hon. Gentleman well known to himself as well as to me, but whose name he did not state. He told me the nature of those rumours, and as I am anxious that the House should be in full possession of all the circumstances connected with the case, hon. Members will think, perhaps, that I am only doing my duty if I state what was the nature of those rumours which were stated to me in the course of conversation. The communication was made in conversation, and I have no record of it, but I believe I shall be able to state the purport. The Duke of Newcastle stated that he had been informed that very recently Mr. Lawley had become subject to heavy liabilities and debts in connection with transactions on the turf. He told me besides that there were rumours of a much more serious character as affecting the conduct, position, and character of Mr. Lawley—namely, that Mr. Lawley had availed himself of the official knowlege ac- quired as private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to engage in extensive speculations in the funds. The Duke of Newcastle was on his way to the House of Lords, and was obliged to leave me almost immediately. I believe that I stated to him the course I should pursue under these circumstances, but at all events the purport of what the noble Duke stated to me I have now stated to the House, and there could be no doubt as to the course which I ought immediately to adopt. I immediately put aside the business on which I was engaged, and addressed a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Mr. Lawley then being out of town—and I told him the extreme surprise and concern with which I had just received this information from the Duke of Newcastle. I told him that I was assured of his entire concurrence in what I said, and that it would likewise meet with the concurrence of the Duke of Newcastle, that if there was any foundation of truth in these rumours it would be impossible that the appointment of Mr. Lawley could proceed. I stated my most earnest hope that he would be able to disprove the truth of these rumours, and that they would be found to be destitute of foundation, and that until the receipt of satisfactory information I should suspend all further proceedings with respect to the appointment of Mr. Lawley; and that in justice to him, in justice to myself, in justice to the Government, and in justice to the colony to which he was to be appointed, these reports should be communicated to Mr. Lawley at the earliest opportunity in order that he might have the means and opportunity which every man was justly entitled to, of knowing what had been said in regard to him, and having every opportunity of explaining or refuting the charges. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately came to me. He told me that Mr. Lawley was out of town, that he would be in London on the following night, and I asked him what course it would be best to take with the view of bringing these facts and rumours under the notice of Mr. Lawley. He said that Mr. Lawley was to be in town the next day, and asked my opinion as to whether it was desirable that he should transmit by the post of that evening my letter to him to Mr. Lawley. As Mr. Lawley was to be in town the following day, we thought that, by sending the letter, we might incur the risk of his not only receiving it, and I thought the best way was, that my right hon. Friend should write to Mr. Lawley to say that he had received such a letter, in order to ensure his early arrival in town. On Monday morning the House sat at twelve o'clock. I was present, and asked my right hon. Friend the Recorder of London (Mr. Stuart Wortley) whether he had seen Mr. Lawley, and I was informed by him that Mr. Lawley had gone to my office in Downing-street with a view to see me there. I was in this House at the time, and my private secretary, who is also a Member of this House, was likewise here. Very shortly after that communication was made to me, after I had been informed of Mr. Lawley's desire to see me, with the view of completely denying the truth of these reports, I received through my private secretary a letter addressed to him, which he put into my hands in this House, and which contained, as it appeared to me, a clear, satisfactory, and conclusive denial of by far the most serious charge and imputation which had been brought against Mr. Lawley, namely, the fact of his having speculated in the funds upon his official information as the private secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I transmitted that letter immediately to the Duke of Newcastle, because, as it was through his Grace alone that these reports had reached me, I was desirous that he should see the terms in which the charges had been met, and I was anxious not to rely wholly on my own judgment, though I fairly avow that in writing to his Grace, I stated my belief that the terms in which Mr. Lawley's denial was expressed were quite conclusive in regard to by far the most serious of these imputations. The Duke of Newcastle concurred with me in that view. Subsequently, on meeting the Recorder of London, he renewed to me, as he was empowered to do, the direct denial of there being any liability or debt existing to which Mr. Lawley could be subject, and with a view to avoid which he was desirous of leaving this country. And with reference to that matter, I am anxious to state that in the only interview which I had with Mr. Lawley—the only opportunity which I had of speaking to him on the subject of his appointment—he appeared desirous to fix a time for his departure from this country which I thought too remote, and I told him that if he accepted the appointment I should hold him liable to proceed to the colony whenever I required him to do so, without suiting his own convenience by waiting till a more distant period. I mention that circumstance, because I think it shows that in the only conversation which I had with Mr. Lawley, there was clearly in his mind no desire to leave this country, so as to avoid any liability to which he might be subject, and that, in truth, in accepting the appointment he contemplated a longer residence here than I thought consistent with the public interests to sanction. So matters stood until this day. The right hon. Baronet opposite, in the mean time, gave notice that he would call the attention of the House to the appointment; and I then thought that I should have the opportunity of making this statement to the House, in order that it might be known precisely under what circumstances this appointment had been made, and that I might have an opportunity of referring to the testimonials, certainly of the most satisfactory kind, so far as any man's judgment can be formed from such documents, which I had received as to the ability, the honour, and the integrity of Mr. Lawley. But in the course of this morning I received from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a communication which he made, no doubt, with the deepest regret and concern, and which I need not say I received with the same feelings. From that communication it appeared that Mr. Lawley had been engaged in transactions in the funds within the last few months which, to a certain extent, justified those rumours which had been stated to me, and with regard to which I had expressed my opinion—an opinion in which my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle entirely concurred—that if there was any foundation of truth in them the appointment of Mr. Lawley could not proceed. It is due, in justice to Mr. Lawley, to state—and it is within the knowledge of my right hon. Friend that I am able to state with certainty—that the information with regard to these transactions is derived exclusively from Mr. Lawley himself. I am informed that late last night he felt it his duty to communicate to my right hon. Friend the facts, the purport of which was communicated to me to-day. I have stated before that the charge which I understood to have been made against Mr. Lawley was this: that he had availed himself of his official knowledge as private secretary to my right hon. Friend to engage in these speculations in the funds. I have no reason to believe that that is the case. I am informed that the speculations in which Mr. Lawley engaged were losing speculations and not gaining speculations. Mr. Lawley is entitled to the benefit of that statement; but, however he may be affected by it, I am bound to say that in my opinion it did not in the least affect my duty to the Crown, to this country, and to the colony, and I immediately addressed a letter to Her Majesty, expressing my great regret and concern that I had recently submitted for the approval of Her Majesty an appointment which I now felt it my imperative duty, under circumstances which had just come to my knowledge, humbly to advise Her Majesty to revoke. I believe I have now submitted the whole of this painful case. Painful I may say to me it has been to make this statement. Though I have thought it right to state what passed between the Duke of Newcastle and myself before I accepted the seals of the Colonial Office in correction of the impression which existed in the mind of Mr. Lawley and that of his Friends, yet I feel that the responsibility of submitting the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty devolves no doubt on myself; and any censure which the House may feel is due to that act I will humbly and patiently submit to, though, as I have already said, the motives which influenced me were such as I venture to think would have influenced any other man in my position. In the absence of the slightest shadow of suspicion which had been suggested to me as attaching to the integrity and honour of Mr. Lawley, and with the strong testimonials I had in my hand to his ability and qualifications from those in whom I had confidence, I think I could not have acted otherwise than I did. I believe I have now stated, fully, frankly, and unreservedly to the House all the circumstances of this transaction. Having done so, it is for the right hon. Baronet opposite to take any course which his sense of public duty may lead him to take with regard to this subject. I am at this moment absolutely in ignorance of the grounds upon which the right hon. Baronet placed his notice upon the paper. I am told that an application was made to him, before the facts I have stated were known, to ascertain whether he intended to impugn the appointment of Mr. Lawley upon public or private grounds, but that the right hon. Gentleman, in the exercise of a discretion which I do not question, declined to give any such information. If it had not been for Mr. Lawley's own act —if he had not stated fully, freely, and unreservedly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the whole circumstances of his transactions in the funds—I should have come down to this House to-night ignorant of the grounds upon which the right hon. Baronet meant to impugn the appointment, and I might thereby have been led to make statements which I might afterwards deeply have regretted, but which Mr. Lawley has now prevented me from being induced to make by the statement which he has himself made. The appointment, as I said before, Her Majesty has been advised to revoke; and I may state here that, when Mr. Lawley made his statement last night, he felt that he was making a statement which would prove fatal to his prospects in the Colonies, and at once declared that he considered his appointment altogether at an end. I have only to add that if, after the statement I have made, the House wishes for further information upon the subject, or thinks that an investigation into all the circumstances of the case should take place, Her Majesty's Government is in the hands of the House and is ready and willing to agree to whatever may be considered necessary.

notwithstanding the observations with which the right hon. Baronet has closed his speech, I beg to state that I am deeply sensible of the perfect candour with which the right hon. Gentleman has now addressed the House, and that I am no less sensible of the honourable feeling which has distinguished that speech. I can assure the right hon. Baronet that, whatever political differences may divide us, I do not believe that he is a man who would recommend to the Sovereign the appointment of any person to exercise the high and responsible duties of a Colonial Governor, unless he was satisfied of the fitness of that individual; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do me equal justice, and will believe that I have approached this painful subject solely and exclusively from a strong and paramount sense of public duty, arising from the deep interest which I naturally take in the welfare of our colonial dependencies. I had no desire to impede the fair advancement of a gentleman towards whom I did not feel, or could not feel, a shadow of personal enmity; nor could I have any desire to wound the feelings of the friends of that gentleman, many of whom are personal friends of my own. But I am unable to agree altogether in the opinion which appears to have been entertained by the Duke of Newcastle, and which the right hon. Baronet, as I understood him, has himself avowed of the personal fitness. irrespective of these painful rumours and transactions, of Mr. Lawley for the situation to which he was appointed. The right hon. Baronet has stated that I gave him no grounds for the question which I put to him this day week. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he thought I was deficient in courtesy in the course I then took, or wanting in fairness in not having held communication with him, with regard to the course which I intended to take to-day, no such discourtesy was meant by me. I deeply felt the difficulty and delicacy of the duty which I had undertaken. I was desirous not to say a word more upon this painful subject than I could possibly help; and I can assure the right hon. Baronet, in consequence of the reference which he has made to me, that it was not till within the last few hours that I could conclusively make up my mind as to the course which my public duty required me to take. I have said that I could not concur in the opinion of the Duke of Newcastle with regard to the personal fitness of Mr. Lawley for this appointment; but I think the right hon. Baronet will agree with me, that among the patronage of the Crown, which is exercised by the advisers of the Crown, there is scarcely any which ought to be exercised with greater care and with a more anxious and single-minded reference to the public interests than the appointment of governors for our colonies. Those appointments ought to be made in such a manner as not only to secure the satisfaction and confidence of this country, but what is still more important, to satisfy the colonists over whom the gentlemen so chosen are to preside, that these appointments have been made solely with reference to the interests and welfare of the colonies. If this is true generally, it is especially and peculiarly so with reference to the Australian Colonies at the present moment. The discoveries of gold have put these colonies in a most critical position. They require the anxious care and attention of the Imperial and of the Colonial Governments. The Colony of Victoria at a very recent period, I may without exaggeration say, was almost disorganised. The Colony of South Australia, immediately contiguous to Victoria, although no discoveries of gold have been made within it, has undergone a period of great social and commercial disturbance; and it was desirable for the interests of that colony, and, indeed, of all the Australian Colonies, that any gentleman selected to be governor should possess statesman-like qualities and known abilities. He ought to be a man of great experience in public affairs, of great firmness, and of great judgment. He ought to be a man whose character should at once inspire confidence in his qualifications, and enable him to give a healthy moral tone to that society of which he is to be the head, and ought to be the leader and the guide. Now, sir, I do not think that I at all disparage the claims of Mr. Lawley—I think I say nothing to which the friends of Mr. Lawley can take any fair exception—when I state that, considering his age and position, and his limited experience in public affairs, the appointment of Mr. Lawley, under any circumstances, as governor of one of the Australian colonies at this moment, was one that was but too likely to excite feelings of dissatisfaction in the colony, and was one not likely to conduce to the advantage of those rising communities. But, irrespective of this consideration, when I gave notice of my intended Motion two days ago, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London (Mr. Stuart Wortley) adverted to what he spoke of as calumnious rumours, and expressed very naturally his anxiety for an opportunity to meet and dispose of those rumours. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies has now again referred to these rumours. He has given fresh proof of their extended currency. They have been commented upon by the public press. [Sir GEORGE GREY: I had not seen them.] They have become the subject of remark in society; and under these circumstances I did feel that my public duty required that I should call the attention of the House and of the Government to this appointment, in order that, before Mr. Lawley left this country to undertake the government of the important colony of South Australia, these rumours, which had become current in every circle, might be set at rest one way or the other. I did feel that it was due to Mr. Lawley himself, that it was due to the Government who appointed him, but, above all, that it was due to the colony, that Mr. Lawley should not commence his career under the dis- advantage of having these rumours preceding his arrival in the colony, and therefore under circumstances which could not but be disadvantageous to him as well as to those whom he was appointed to govern. It was, therefore, really as a matter of public duty, and in a spirit of fairness to all parties, that I did venture to give my opinion, that before Mr. Lawley commenced the important duties which the Government has assigned to him, these rumours should be disposed of one way or the other. After the speech which the right hon. Baronet has made, and after the distressing conclusion of that speech, I think it is hardly necessary for me to say that I should certainly not have considered that the mere fact of having been connected with the sport of horse-racing was of itself a disqualification for holding the office of Governor of South Australia or any other high appointment. I believe, without reference to party considerations, without regard to one side of the House or the other, I may affirm that noblemen rind gentlemen of as high and unimpeachable honour as ever adorned society in this country have taken an interest in the sport of horse-racing; and that it would be an absurdity to contend that a mere taste for that sport was of itself a disqualification for holding office under the Crown; this, however, must be a question of degree, but I will not further press that subject. The right hon. Baronet has asked me what course I intend to take. To that I can return but one answer—the course taken by the right hon. Baronet himself has spared me from a painful duty. I think that, under the circumstances which have occurred, Mr. Lawley has acted as a gentleman in his position ought to have acted, and so far as I am concerned, nothing further will fall from me upon this subject. The subject must now be considered to be at an end. I cannot but think that the information which has been communicated to us justifies me in the course which I thought it my duty to take. I shall say no more upon that point, but shall conclude by expressing the hope, which I trust may be considered almost as superfluous, that the House will believe that nothing but a paramount sense of public duty has induced me to take any part at all in this transaction.

I need not say that I rise upon the present occasion with feelings of the most painful nature, not on account of the explanation which I feel to be due to the House with respect to what took place upon a former evening, but because I feel that I have in my hands the interests of one who must ever be dear to me, and because I am apprehensive that any imprudent expression on my part would be dangerous to a reputation which hitherto has been untarnished. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies has expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has up to the present moment never intimated, either to the minister who was responsible for the appointment, or to the friends of Mr. Lawley, the nature of the charge which he intended to make—whether it was upon public grounds as to the fitness of the individual selected, or whether it was upon such private grounds as those which have been referred to this evening. Under these circumstances, there was nothing for Mr. Lawley and his friends to do but to collect from public rumour what it was that the right hon. Gentleman opposite meant, and that public rumour undoubtedly embodied the charges which have been already referred to. By far the gravest and most important of these charges was this, that Mr. Lawley had availed himself of his official knowledge as private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to speculate in the funds. The moment that I heard that imputation I utterly disbelieved it. But before entering upon that subject, allow me to confirm some of the statements which have been made by the Colonial Secretary in justification of Mr. Lawley. I must tell the House, in the first place, that this appointment was obtained by Mr. Lawley solely by his own exertions. No person applied for it in his behalf; no influence was used by his relatives or others at the Colonial Office to obtain it for him; it was his merits, and his merits alone—his services in the last eighteen months, during which he has been a most able, efficient, and faithful servant of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which recommended him to official men for that appointment. I myself heard of the appointment with surprise. At first I was informed that the appointment was to the governorship of West Australia, and as a relative of Mr. Lawley I more than once remonstrated, and expressed my regret that so able and so promising a man should thus place himself in exile. I found I was mistaken, and that the appointment was to South Australia. But even then it was with great reluctance that the friends of Mr. Lawley could approve of his leaving this country. When, however, we were told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recommended him to accept the appointment, and that it would afford him an opportunity of withdrawing from that unhappy connection which has been the unfortunate cause of all this mischief, we rejoiced that an opportunity, which I knew he was himself anxious to obtain, had been placed within his reach. A connection with the turf, as it is called, is unfortunately one from which a man cannot withdraw himself in a minute. He has contracted obligations to which he must be attentive in order to avert great losses at a future time, and it is impossible to withdraw himself from such a connection suddenly. I was consequently aware that prior to the time when this appointment was offered to him Mr. Lawley had not been able entirely to extricate himself; but I knew at the same time that he was anxiously desirous to do so as soon as possible, and it was upon that ground that his family were prepared to recommend him to accept the governorship of South Australia, though they certainly were of opinion that the acceptance of such an appointment on the part of a man with his connections, with his fortune, with his abilities, and his determination to devote them to the public service, and above all, with a seat in Parliament, would certainly involve some sacrifice. Not that I mean to depreciate so high and important an office as the governorship of South Australia; I merely state what our views were; but at all events Mr. Lawley was advised to accept the appointment. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies, as he has already stated to the House, came to me and asked me what was the understanding of Mr. Lawley's family with reference to what had passed between him and the Duke of Newcastle. My answer was, that we had all understood that the office was placed at Mr. Lawley's disposal, but that he had asked and obtained time to consider the subject. The right hon. Baronet, in the handsomest and kindest manner, immediately said that there was an end to all further question in regard to the appointment, and that he was willing to take the whole responsibility of Mr. Lawley's nomination. I then thought it my duty to state to the right hon. Baronet that Mr. Lawley had not only been on the turf, but had also incurred losses and embarrassments—that he had made a full statement of all his difficulties to his friends, and that care would be taken, he having considerable expectations, that by the time he left this country he should not be a single farthing in debt. Under these circumstances, I was much astonished when a question was put by the right hon. Baronet opposite on the subject. I should not have been astonished if the right hon. Baronet had at once stated his objection to the appointment to be on political grounds, for, when I considered Mr. Lawley's youth, I had no right to be surprised that some objection would be entertained. I applied to the right hon. Baronet, and asked him if it was his intention to follow his question by taking any other step. The right hon. Gentleman declined giving any information on the subject. I then asked him whether he would found his objections on public or private grounds. The right hon. Baronet again declined giving any information.

I did not decline giving information, but what I said was, that I was unable at that time to give an answer, but that I would let the right hon. Gentleman know my intention as soon as I possibly could.

You said that you would give me an answer on the following Thursday, which was the day on which you were to bring forward your question. This was by word of mouth; but I had received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman stating that he could not tell me what his intentions were. Mr. Lawley was out of town at that time. I wrote to him immediately that it was necessary he should come to London. He came. I saw him the moment he arrived. He told me that he had seen attacks against him in the newspapers, not on private, but on public grounds, and frankly admitted that the appointment of so young a man to an office of such importance might very fairly be made the subject of comment and animadversion in the press. I told him that there were charges affecting his personal honour, which he must be prepared to meet if he intended to hold the appointment. I said I was unable to ascertain the grounds or purport of the Motion which the right hon. Baronet intended to make in this House, but I added it was rumoured, and that the rumour had reached the Duke of Newcastle and Sir George Grey, that he had availed himself of the official information which he obtained as private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of speculating in the funds. He denied that charge in the strongest and most indignant terms. I rejoiced that he did so, and advised him to write immediately to Sir George Grey to that effect. Such were the circumstances which led me upon a former occasion to refer to what I called the "calumnious rumours" which were afloat concerning Mr. Lawley. To this moment I believe I have Mr. Lawley's authority for saying that he never has used his official knowledge as private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of speculating in the funds; and, indeed, it is clear and manifest that he has never done so, for, as has been already stated, his speculations have been losing speculations, and have only increased his difficulties. Subsequently, however, he thought it right—having up to that time concealed the fact, under the false impression that he was bound not to disclose the names of others—to state to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had been engaged in speculating in the funds, but that those speculations had been wholly unconnected with any official information which he might have possessed. Under these circumstances, Mr. Lawley does not complain in the slightest degree of the step which has been taken by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies; on the contrary, he has no doubt that the public service required it, and that, after such a great indiscretion as he had been guilty of, it was of course utterly impossible that his appointment could proceed. I have stated that it was by his own merits alone that he obtained this appointment. I do not rely upon my own opinion upon that point. It might be biassed by partiality. Nor do I rely upon the opinion of his friends merely, but upon that of public men having the greatest opportunities of judging of Mr. Lawley, his capacity and qualifications. I hold in my hand a letter from one of the most distinguished public servants in the country—a gentleman unconnected with Mr. Lawley in politics—Mr. John Wood, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. He had frequently spoken to me about this appointment, and had referred in the highest terms to the ability and fitness of Mr. Lawley for the office. I asked him if he would have any objection to put his opinion upon paper. His words are these—

"I wish I had the opportunity to give my public testimony to his fitness for the appoint- ment. I could refer to my knowledge of him for very many years, and more particularly to my experience during the two Sessions he has acted as private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Seldom has a day passed during that period in which I have not had communication with him, and this is by no means the first occasion on which I have expressed my admiration of his talents, his indefatigable industry, and his singular aptitude for business. These qualities are enhanced by a most amiable temper and an earnest sincerity, which are peculiarly valuable in official life. I am well aware that he has long entertained a partiality for colonial government, and has been desirous to qualify himself for it; and, much as I wish that he had remained in this country, I am in some degree reconciled to his going, believing that an honourable career of distinguished usefulness is before him."

That is the opinion of a disinterested and certainly most capable witness. But I have another testimony—not from a gentleman belonging to the same political party as Mr. Lawley—not from an old friend—but from a distinguished man, holding a high and important office. It is to the following effect—

"I shall much regret your departure from Downing Street, whoever may be your successor, and you have my hearty good wishes for your success in your government, of which I cannot have a doubt, for you will bring to the discharge of your duties talents, activity, and honesty of purpose, and every quality requisite to ensure succes."

That is the opinion of the Chairman of the Board of Customs, Sir Thomas Free-mantle. I feel it due to the Government who made this appointment to bring before the House these testimonies to the fitness of Mr. Lawley; and I do so also for the purpose of confirming what I have already said, that he obtained the appointment, not by the influence of friends, but by his own merits, and of showing that it was an honourable ambition which prompted him to accept it. I likewise wish to state that until a late hour last night neither his own family nor any Member of the Government could have been at all aware of his transactions in the funds. I can only repeat most emphatically that I believe on no occasion has Mr. Lawley used his official information for the purpose of assisting in these speculations. They are the unfortunate consequence of a habit acquired in former years, when he kept the society of men who indulged in gambling transactions of this description, but in no instance has he availed himself of his official position. If there be the slightest doubt of that, Mr. Lawley is willing to lay bare his breast, and submit to any inquiry or examination, either by a Committee or any other tribunal the House of Commons may think necessary. I have again to assert that, though there may be, as I deeply regret there are, reflections on his prudence, on his honour there are none—that though there may have been a connection with transactions of the kind referred to, yet that that connection was not of a nature that could in any way detract from his usefulness as a public servant; and I trust he will survive to resume, at some future time, the career from which he is at present displaced, with better hopes and under better auspices.

said, although he had not the honour of Mr. Lawley's acquaintance, and although it might seem strange that, sitting on the same side of the House, he did not even know that gentleman by sight, he was exceedingly desirous of having one question answered by the right hon. Gentleman the secretary for the Colonies, for the sake of Mr. Lawley himself, and he earnestly wished and expected the answer would be favourable to him. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had received information which satisfied him that Mr. Lawley, during the time he had filled the office of secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had not speculated in the funds. The right hon. Gentleman also stated, that subsequently he had received from Mr. Lawley himself a letter, acknowledging that unfortunately he had during that time fallen into the error of speculating in the funds, or entering into some transactions connected with the funds, although he had not availed himself of his official information in any way for the purpose of conducting those speculations. Many hon. Gentlemen near him understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had received a letter from Mr. Lawley, at first stating that he had not during the period he held the office of secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer speculated in the funds. He wished to know whether that impression was correct? Whether, what Mr. Lawley stated was—that he had not used his official information in speculating in the funds; or was it, that he had not speculated in the funds during the time he was secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

had stated before, that, in consequence of rumours which reached the Duke of Newcastle, which the Duke of Newcastle communicated to him, and which he immediately communicated in writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were that Mr. Lawley had made use of his official knowledge, as private secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to speculate in the funds, on Monday he received a communication, not addressed directly to himself, but a communication which he thought, and had a right to think, was satisfactory and conclusive on these grounds. He certainly understood the purport of that communication to cover the denial of any speculation in the funds during the time Mr. Lawley was private secretary to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, as he had distinctly stated, a reply was required directly to the point, had he made use of his official knowledge for the purpose of speculating in the funds? and he was bound to believe that the denial, whatever the terms, had reference to the charge which was communicated in writing to his right hon. Friend.

When the conduct of an individual is under discussion, it is not agreeable to interfere, especially after the painful conclusion which has taken place to-day; but there were some observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London, differing in some degree from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with respect to the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) which I do not think I ought to pass over unnoticed. Those right hon. Gentlemen seem to charge my right hon. Friend with want of straightforwardness and candour, because, after he felt it his duty to give notice that he should bring this subject of the appointment of Mr. Lawley as Governor of South Australia before the consideration of the House, he did not state explicitly what were the grounds upon which he was about to challenge the propriety of that appointment. I think the House will feel, after what it has heard this evening, that my right hon. Friend was placed in a situation of extreme difficulty, and that it was impossible for him definitely and precisely to state what were the charges he had to make against Mr. Lawley, or on what particular grounds he would challenge the propriety of that appointment. I am myself individually aware of the extreme pain which my right bon. Friend felt during the few days which have elapsed with regard to this question. On more than one occasion he did me the honour of consulting me, and certainly the opinion I gave him was not one which at all encouraged him in any precipitate conduct in the affair. My right hon. Friend was actuated by as pure a sense of public duty as would influence any gentleman. I am sure if the letter referred to by the learned Recorder were read to the House, it would show that my right hon. Friend was influenced by feelings of the utmost courtesy and cordiality, and I feel it my duty, after the observations which have been made, to express my own opinion (and I hope and believe it is the opinion of a majority of this House, of Gentlemen on both sides) that the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich has been perfectly justified by all that has passed.

I think the House will be disposed to pass from the consideration of a case, certainly the most painful that has occurred since I have had the honour to be a Member of it, and I should not say a syllable with regard to a gentleman who, possibly without intending anything wrong, is placed in a position which must give great pain to himself and his friends. But there is another point involved in this notice which has been very much concealed, or rather pressed out of sight by the urgency of the personal case, and that is the fact of the appointment of a gentleman to an office of high responsibility under circumstances, apart from all private character, which, I think, deserves the attention of the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary partly, if not entirely, admitted that when this appointment was brought under his notice, he himself had some doubt as to the propriety of it, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of the City of London said that he heard of the appointment with astonishment. I may say, I believe that feeling of astonishment was almost universal among Members of this House; and if a feeling of astonishment was created here, I should like to ask what must we expect to be the feeling in the Colony over which this appointment was made? I am not one of those who think that colonial appointments of this kind are unimportant; for let the House bear in mind, almost the only tie which connects our Colonies with the mother country is the tie of the colonial government, and probably nothing in the whole colonial system is more important than the appointment of the individuals who in those Colonies shall represent the Crown. My opinion is, that it is indispensable that in appointments of this character you should have, not men who have shown great proficiency at Oxford or great abilities as private secretaries here, but men, if possible, known to the public, whose conduct has been approved before the country, and in whom the Colony itself should have good reason for placing great confidence. Now, in this case it is admitted that this gentleman was almost unknown. There are not a few Members, I will undertake to say, on this side of the House, who actually have no knowledge of his personal appearance. It is admitted that he had been in this House for nearly two years, and taken no part whatever, that I have heard of, in its deliberations; and without saying one single syllable against him, but allowing everything which has been said in his favour, I put it to the House whether it be desirable, having regard to our position in connection with the Colonies, that appointments of men, however excellent or admirable, who are unknown, should be thus made. And I hope what has taken place to-night will have an influence on the Colonial Secretary with regard to other appointments which are before long to be made. I have heard also rumours of appointments which are looming in the not distant future, and although I have no expectation that we shall ever have such another scene as we have had to-night, yet I can quite conceive it possible that vast interests may be jeopardised—I will not say the peace, but the satisfaction and good-will of colonies may be jeopardised—by appointments for which there are no solid foundations. I think the Duke of Newcastle was wrong in the course he took in this particular matter, and that the present Colonial Secretary, out of deference and delicacy to what was done, was not sufficiently alive to the interests of the country and the wants of the Colony, in the appointment of its Governor. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), I cannot conceive that any one can say for a moment he has not performed precisely his duty in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman knew what rumours were afloat. He did not want to make a parade of these things, and to bring them unnecessarily before the House. He asked a question which was sufficient to create inquiry in the mind of the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich may have been in hopes that if any of these charges, the rumour of which was confined to himself, were true, that then, without any exposure such as has taken place, the appointment might have been rescinded, and the whole matter terminated without any unpleasant discussion such as has taken place to-night. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman, performing clearly his public duty with that knowledge which had come to him, performed it not only in a manner due to the public service, but also with the greatest possible delicacy towards individuals concerned. For myself, though extremely sorry that this question has come before the House as it has done, I hope it may be a warning to the present Colonial Secretary and his successors that the men to be appointed to these onerous and responsible offices—to be sent to the other side of the globe to represent the Monarch of these realms, and to carry out the behests of the Imperial Parliament—should at least be men to whom no one here can point a finger, and men who can at least deserve, if not obtain, the full confidence of the population they are intended to govern.

thought that everybody must allow that the appointment of Mr. Lawley was a most unfortunate one, and more especially unfortunate for that gentleman himself, though, after all, he had not been guilty of anything dishonourable. He was known as a young man of very first-rate abilities, and he believed that there was no reflection cast on his honour, the only charge to which he could be held liable being want of discretion in his private station. But he had been sacrificed by a still greater want of discretion on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers in making such an appointment. It seemed, from the statement of the Secretary of the Colonies himself, that he did not approve of it. The hon. Member for Manchester was perfectly justified in saying that this was not an appointment in times like the present for the improvement of our colonies in Australia. The colonies at this moment were very sensitive on these points. They had a suspicion that these appointments were made more with a view to the interests of those at home than to the interests of those who were on the spot, and, at all events, it must be admitted that the appointment of this gentleman had shown that such a suspicion was well founded. It should be borne in mind, too, that this was in sequence of the recent appointment of Mr. Stonor, as Judge in Victoria, which was another of these questionable appointments, and he thought that an appointment of so kindred a character occurring so immediately after was most unfortunate. In both cases the interests of the Colonies were not considered with that deliberation they should have been, and in both cases the unfortunate men had been sacrificed for want of discretion on the part of the Government who made the appointments. By those who thought that the loss of her Colonies would cause England to sink in the scale of nations, any want of discretion on the part of the Government must be considered as a matter of most serious concern. What did the colonists say? They said, "You give us constitutions, you want us to manage our own affairs, and if you want good governors and cannot find them at home we can supply them." The Colonies had furnished such men. Washington, as all knew, was one of the very first men in history. There was one observation used by the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London to which he must call attention. That right hon. Gentleman said that, when he heard of this appointment, he gave Mr. Lawley advice, and told him not to exile himself by accepting such an appointment. It might be, certainly, a great condescension on the part of a young gentleman to give up his prospects in this country and become an exile, although a governor in the Colonies; but, if that was the feeling of English gentlemen, the colonists themselves might seek to be raised to such positions of influence and dignity in the administration of their affairs which they best understood, and in which they were most deeply concerned.

I do not think it necessary for me to enter on the personal and more painful part of this subject, except only that as I still feel a warm and affectionate interest in the future of Mr. Lawley, I cannot refrain from tendering my thanks to the House, and to those who have spoken in this debate, for the fair and considerate spirit in which they have approached this question. And I think it only justice to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) to tender him my thanks, particularly as I am one who might question the discretion in the exercise he has used of his undoubted right to bring this subject forward, and to say that the speech he has made to-night has entirely convinced me that he is not only governed in these proceedings by a sense of public duty, but that he is sincerely desirous to unite the performance of that duty with every consideration and tenderness towards the gentleman who is the subject of discussion. It is not altogether usual, perhaps, for colleagues to endeavour to do justice to one another in this House, or to offer explanations on one another's behalf, when they are challenged as to the mode in which they exercise their particular functions; but, at the same time, in the intimate relations I have stood to Mr. Lawley—first, as a private connection, and secondly, in my official capacity—and bearing in mind the peculiar circumstances under which my right hon. Friend near me (Sir G. Grey) has become, as he manfully says, responsible for this appointment—I feel that something is due to him, also, from me. But a few weeks have elapsed since my right hon. Friend assumed his present office, having immediately before occupied the position of an independent Member of this House; and I think the House will feel that although my right hon. Friend has challenged that responsibility, yet the greater part of it, in fact, belongs to those who, not ostensibly, were the authors of the appointment; and I am quite certain my noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle), who recently presided over the Colonial Departments, is the very last man to desire that any one should relieve him of one grain or tittle of any responsibility which attaches to him in the discharge of his official duties. Sir, undoubtedly the origin of that appointment, as I believe, lay in suggestions made to the Duke of Newcastle, not by my hon. Friend (Mr. Lawley), or any of his family, but by those who made the suggestions upon personal knowledge and public grounds, on the distinct conviction the appointment would be one beneficial to the interests of the Colony. I will not conceal the fact that my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle did not determine to recommend Mr. Lawley for that appointment without reference to me. He naturally looked to me to supply him with information, and to give distinctly an answer to the question, whether in my judgment Mr. Lawley was or was not a fit person for that appointment. Between the Duke of Newcastle and myself the principal part of the responsibility of the appointment is shared—the Duke of Newcastle, in the first instance, being the official author of the proposal, and I being the principal witness to whom he referred. I cannot consent—(and that is the main reason why I rose)—I cannot consent to leave this question on the footing on which it is placed by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I agree with him in all he has said with respect to colonial government. I may agree with him, though, perhaps, few will accompany us, that, if it were the desire of the people of South Australia to recommend their own governor, it would be a wise act of the Government of this country to gratify that desire. But when it is said on this occasion, "Why not let the people of South Australia choose a governor themselves," it is enough for me to point out that the people of South Australia had expressed no such wish, and my belief, I am bound to say, is this, that it is the desire of the people of the Colonies at this moment to receive governors selected, as best they can, by Ministers from among qualified persons known to them in this country. Can it be said that Mr. Lawley's was, on public grounds, a questionable appointment, and discreditable to the Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester says he was totally unknown in this House. I think he said he did not know him by sight. Why was Mr. Lawley unknown to this House? It may be perfectly true he was not well known, for as long as he held the office of private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it was impossible for Mr. Lawley to acquire that distinction in this House which his abilities and knowledge fairly entitled him to. There was something in the nature of the duties of secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would prevent an individual from doing justice to himself. My right hon. Friend near me (Sir C. Wood), who has filled the office, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), if he had not left the House, would bear me out when I say that the duties of private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not analogous to those of private secretaries to other Ministers, but are in a great degree official and departmental duties. In the anomalous position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is placed more outside the Treasury than inside it, and who has important communications with the Board of Inland Revenue, with the Customs, with the Bank of England, with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, in the discharge of almost all the important functions of his office, he uses his private secretary as the medium, and calls on him to discharge duties more usually discharged by officials in departments. I do not scruple to tell the hon. Member for Manchester that in my judgment, although my friend Mr. Lawley has not had an opportunity of acquiring distinction in this house so as to make himself well known, yet he has done more labour for the public during the last Session and the present, and acquired more experience in public business of an important and difficult character, than falls to the lot of most of those who sit here for, I do not say one or two, but who have sat five, six, or it may be ten, Sessions in this House. That I say on the strength of my own official knowledge. It is very well to say that you ought not to appoint unknown men to be governors of colonies. That is very sound doctrine, but those who call upon the Government to adopt it as an invariable rule should consider what we offer the governor of a colony, and what we have to expect from him. You have to ask that he should expatriate himself, that he should place himself in a society often comparatively rude, in a climate frequently insalubrious, with a great risk of not maintaining his popularity for any lengthened period; and, therefore, almost with the certainty of his term of office being short, and also with the liability of being recalled at any time through the caprice of a Colonial Secretary, without, perhaps, any reason being assigned. With this prospect, I do not hesitate to say the remuneration in most instances is miserably low. Therefore it is vain to come forward, like the hon. Member for Manchester, and say, "It is the duty of the Government to select only well-known men." You may ask well-known men, and they will not go. No man who is well and favourably known in this country will have such an appointment. Those who have had to make these appointments know the extreme difficulty of finding competent persons who will accept them, and the only resource is to fall back upon men not well known, but who, having had some opportunities of estimating their qualifications, you feel assured will hereafter be well known, and fit for the duties which you propose to impose upon them. That is no new doctrine. I should like to know who are the men who are now most distinguished in the government of colonies. There may be rare exceptions in which they were known to the public before their appointment, as in the case of Lord Metcalfe, who was sent out by Lord Derby to Canada. Lord Metcalfe being one of the most heroic and munificent spirits that ever entered the public service—one who disregarded personal advantage, but went straight to the performance of public duty after he had indeed become well known. I shall have to refer to another appointment of Lord Derby in terms of commendation. That appointment of Lord Metcalfe was a happy selection; but I should like to know how many other well-known men were well known when appointed. I need only mention the gentleman who has just been promoted to the governorship of New South Wales—Sir William Denison. Did the hon. Member for Manchester know him by sight? Had he been in this House? Had he ever been in political life? Had he ever discharged any political duties? No, nothing of the sort. He was an able engineer; and I am the person who selected him. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Hear, hear!] I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that cheer, but I think I am justified in referring to the case when it is made a charge against the Government that they have appointed a governor of a colony who was totally inexperienced in public affairs. Sir William Denison was then perfectly inexperienced. He is now well known, honourably known, and has well earned the promotion he has received. That is one case; but in point of fact, that case represents the general rule. But now we are told that no Government ought to appoint anybody but a man of distinguished abilities, and that Mr. Lawley's youth and inexperience unfitted him for this appointment. I will support the appointment of my hon. Friend by reference to an appointment which, I think, no man will question. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) condemns the appointment of Mr. Lawley because he is inexperienced and young, I want to know what he will say to the appointment of Lord Elgin. I refer to Lord Elgin as one of the most distinguished, and one of the most successful of colonial governors, and who has been recently engaged in political negotiations of the most difficult description. What was the age of Lord Elgin when he was appointed? I believe precisely the same age as Mr. Lawley. What was the post to which Lord Elgin was appointed as compared with that of Mr. Lawley's? Mr. Lawley was appointed Governor of South Australia, with a popu- lation of 40,000 or 50,000 persons. Lord Elgin was appointed Governor of Jamaica when the Colony was in the agonising struggles which followed emancipation, and with a population of 400,000 or 500,000 persons. Mr. Lawley was appointed after two years' arduous service as secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—after two Sessions in this House. Lord Elgin had been six weeks in this House, during which he had the opportunity of proving his ability by a speech which he made. But it must be recollected that the ability of Mr. Lawley is not called in question; it is only his inexperience in public affairs which is objected to. Lord Elgin had no opportunity of acquiring experience in public affairs. That appointment was made by Lord Derby? Does it reflect discredit on Lord Derby? Does not every one feel that it can only reflect honour upon Lord Derby, and that it supports the proposition that we must look in some degree to the responsibility of the Minister who makes these appointments. It is vain to appoint old men and distinguished men, who have served their time in this House, to posts of such a character as that of colonial governor. My right hon. Friend near me reminds me of another case, almost precisely similar, the appointment of Lord Harris. Is there a name more honoured than the name of Lord Harris? It was my lot to make that appointment, and I remember the circumstances. A gentleman wrote to me on behalf of his son, and speaking of Lord Harris, admitted that he was an amiable Peer, but of infirm health, totally without experience, and unknown. It was true Lord Harris was an amiable man in indifferent health, for he had gone to the West Indies on account of his health, and totally inexperienced; but, from my knowledge of the man, I thought he was qualified to serve his country, and offered him the appointment. He accepted it, and a most efficient servant he made. These are really considerations with respect to the appointment of colonial governors, which I feel bound to lay before the House, as they not only affect the present but every Government, and I am free to say, with the appearances which were before the Duke of Newcastle and my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey), that until within the last twenty-four hours I did not repent having borne testimony to them that Mr. Lawley was a qualified man, and in many respects an eminently and admirably qualified man, for this appointment. I again thank the House for the kind manner in which the question has been dealt with, and I earnestly trust that, inasmuch as Mr. Lawley is chargeable only with grave imprudence, and as it does not involve the smallest stain of pecuniary corruption, the door of hope will not be barred against him, and that his future career will not be stopped. I am confident the kindness of this House, and the forbearance and tenderness with which it has approached this question, will be an encouragement to him to repair his error by the sedulous performance of his duty, and that at some future period he will re-establish his character not for honour, but for judgment, which must be the desire, I am sure, of every Member of this House.

agreed in opinion with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) and the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), that the question of the appointment of colonial governors was one of the most important to which that House could address itself. Totally independent of Mr. Lawley's character was the question whether he was a proper person to appoint at all. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he ought not to be disqualified upon the mere ground of age; but he considered that the fact of his being of so early an age made it a duty incumbent upon those who gave him the appointment to inform themselves thoroughly and especially with respect to steadiness of character. It was in that respect that the utmost investigation was essential, and he thought that it was in reference to this that great blame rested upon those who recommended Mr. Lawley, and not upon his right hon. Friend the present Secretary for the Colonies, although he had so honourably taken the responsibility upon himself. He agreed to some extent with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the difficulty of finding good colonial governors, and he thought that the measure of Lord Howick, by which the salaries of those officers had been cut down, was an impolitic and injudicious one, as the qualities required in a colonial governor were rare, and therefore they ought to be adequately paid for; but he also agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire, that the field was not so limited as had been represented, and that the Colonies themselves contained men whom it might be most proper to appoint. There could be no objection to the selection of men of known ability, to fill, in the first instance, the appointments of secretaries in the Colonies, and to be afterwards promoted as they might prove themselves deserving, and as opportunity might occur. The circumstances of this very Colony pointed out, in fact, the course which ought to have been pursued, for Sir Henry Young had filled the office of colonial secretary in British Guiana before he had been appointed a colonial governor. He had always understood that there was a rule in the Colonial Office that, instead of sending men long distances upon small stipends, there should be a regular rule of promotion, and that men who had distinguished themselves in the Colonies in subordinate positions should be promoted to superior positions. He thought that the salaries were too small, and that promotion should be substituted for salary; and he felt assured that if that course were adopted there would not be the same difficulty in finding proper governors hereafter. Parliamentary experience in this country might be valuable, but the right hon. Gentleman had deprived himself of this argument in the case of Mr. Lawley, for he had stated that his official duties as secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been so heavy as to prevent his attendance in Parliament, or gaining Parliamentary experience. He thought the moral to be learnt from all this was, that the appointment of a governor of a colony was a duty involving the most serious responsibility upon those who had to make it, and that Secretaries of State ought therefore to take great pains in investigating both the public and the private character of those who might be recommended to them to go out.

moved the following Resolutions:—

"1. That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of 500,000l., a part of the sum in the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or remaining to be raised on the 5th day of July, 1854, to complete the Aids granted by Parliament for the service of the years 1852 and 1853, be applied to the service of the year 1854.

"2. That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of 22,322,743l 9s. 11d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

"3. That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty there be issued and applied to the service of the year 1854, the sum of 149,342l. 15s. 1d., being the Surplus of Ways and Means granted for the service of preceding years."

said, he had collected from the very able speech of the noble Lord the President of the Council, in proposing the Vote of Credit, that of the sum of 3,000,000l. intrusted to Her Majesty for the purposes of the war, it was possible that some portion might be applied as a subsidy, and he only rose for the purpose of expressing his opinion, grounded upon experience, that such a course would be imprudent, as it had in former instances proved disastrous. He should be prepared, if it were necessary, to show that subsidies had in every instance counteracted, rather than forwarded, the object for which they had been granted. He deprecated the idea of paying troops belonging to the Sultan, because he believed that if they paid them one month, they would have discontent, and perhaps still more unpleasant consequences, in the next. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would consider this subject well. He believed that the war was necessary. The House had placed cheerfully at the disposal of the Government all the resources which were necessary for carrying it on with effect, but it had a right to look to them, in return, to apply those resources in the best possible manner, and not to waste a single shilling. He thought that anything like a subsidy would tend to this result, and he rose to enter his caveat against anything of that kind being done without the gravest consideration.

had not understood the noble Lord to shadow forth anything like a subsidy, but he confessed that, looking at the expense of transport, and at the difficulties of climate with which our troops in the East had to contend, he thought it was an admirable suggestion that we should endeavour to embody the natives of some of the countries in which the war was being carried on, placing over them officers of our own, Far from appearing to him to be at all objectionable, he confessed he should be very much pleased that such an attempt, even on a small scale, should be made, and he trusted that the Government would not he seduced, by what had fallen from his hon. Friend, from, at all events, trying this plan.

said, the returns which he should move for to-morrow, when they were laid upon the table of the House, would prove that in case after case these subsidies had failed in their object; and he protested against any money being paid to any foreign troops while we had our own troops to rely on, since it was on these that the maintenance and vindication of the honour of this country must depend.

concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird). They were engaged in a most important war. Did they intend to prosecute it to any efficient purpose? If they did, they must be prepared to make some sacrifices; and he thought that the best, the cheapest, and the most expeditious course they could take would be to take into their pay some of the natives of the countries in which the war was carried on. They all knew that the native troops in India, when officered by British commanders, gave as good an account of the enemy as any men that could be brought into the field, and he believed that no men fought better than the Portuguese, when under British officers, during the last war. He was convinced that some energetic measures must be taken if the present war were to be brought to a satisfactory result. Were we to increase our Army, then, to an enormous extent? He did not think the hon. Member for Montrose would like that. We had already a very large army for this country to have sent abroad, but it was a very small army when compared with those of foreign Powers. If we wanted to increase its numbers, would it not be a good plan to employ the natives, who would make excellent soldiers, and other foreigners who would be at our disposal, and who might be got at an infinitely less cost than must be incurred by an equal augmentation of our own troops?

rose to move the Amendment of which he had given no- tice; but said that it was not his intention to go into any details on the question of Maynooth, as it was a question he had argued fully before. His views were already well known, but he thought it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on the Amendment of which he had given notice. He would first beg to state that he objected altogether to the grant to Maynooth, and if he did not now go into the subject, it was not because he had in any way altered his opinions. He conscientiously objected to any grant for the education of the people of Ireland, or the education of any of Her Majesty's subjects in the Roman Catholic religion. He objected to it conscientiously, believing it to be a great national sin, and that it was the duty of all the Members in that House to put an end to it. He merely wished to show that his opinions were unchanged and unaltered, and he now objected to leaving the grant to Maynooth as a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said this was a question of form, but he differed very much from him. It was not a question of form, but a great constitutional one. The alterations in this measure in another place had been so great that the House of Commons could not agree with them, and they were obliged to bring the Bill in again. The question had thus been reopened, and that gave him an opportunity of protesting against the Maynooth grant being taken away from the control of Parliament. Formerly it had been every year subject to the control of Parliament, but in 1845 Sir Robert Peel thought fit to remove it from that control, and fix it on the Consolidated Fund. He had objected to that course at the time, and, consistently with his objection then, he now proposed an Amendment which, if it should be successful, would bring it under the control of Parliament again. The feeling against this grant was daily and hourly increasing, and the majority against it in that House had gone on year by year increasing. It was evident that the Government shrunk from placing it under the control of Parliament, while the country was decidedly against the continuance of the grant. He hoped the practical economists would support his Motion for bringing the practical control of the House to bear upon the expenditure of the country. He called upon the hon. Member for Montrose to support his proposition, as it was in accordance with the opinions he had always expressed with respect to the control that Parliament ought to exercise over that expenditure. If there had been any bargain or contract he would not interpose—if the Vote was in the nature of a pension or reward for services, be would be shy in bringing it under the annual revision of the House. That was not the case here; it was a free gift, granted with the view of conciliating the Roman Catholics, and of putting a stop to the angry discussions in that house. That object had, however, utterly failed; the discussions still continued. The Roman Catholics believed the grant to be their right—they took the money, but it did net conciliate them. They believed that they ought to be the Established Church of Ireland, and they took this money to carry out their own system of education. They did not thank the House for the Vote, and it had not induced them to alter a single opinion. Nothing in the world would satisfy them until they became the supreme Established Church in that country. If hon. Members viewed the question in any other light, they were only blinding and deceiving themselves. If the Government thought they were right in continuing this grant, let them prove their sincerity by bringing it before Parliament annually. The Government might resist the Motion this year or next year, but the Maynooth grant was doomed, its abolition was only a question of time. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that—

"In case the House shall sanction the principle of removing any charge from the Consolidated Fund now placed upon it by Act of Parliament, to add to Schedule B—'the president, vice-president, and students of Maynooth College, and the expenses of the establishment, enacted by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 25.'"

said, his hon. Friend had stated at the outset of his speech that he would not enter into this question, but he had been more liberal than he had proposed. [Mr. SPOONER: A quarter of an hour.] He had watched the clock more accurately than his hon. Friend, and he could assure him that his observations had extended—not to too great a length, for the observations of his hon. Friend were always pleasant to listen to—but they had extended to about the length of an ordinary sermon. He would repeat the promise of his hon. Friend to be very brief, and he would endeavour to be more successful in keeping it than his hon. Friend had been. He did not feel it at all necessary to enter into the merits of the question which had been raised as to whether the grant to Maynooth ought to remain on the Consolidated Fund or to be placed in the annual Votes. He had a very decided opinion upon that point; but he thought there were reasons applicable to the Motion of his hon. Friend which were sufficient to govern, and which ought to govern, the decision of that Committee. They ought to recollect their position in reference to this Bill. Nothing could be more important and proper than the legitimate and reasonable vindication of the position of the House of Commons in reference to financial measures in the face of the House of Lords. There could not be a more satisfactory vindication of the privileges of the House as regarded financial measures than the Bill now before it; and when the House of Lords altered any financial Bill, it was most important that the House of Commons, when they agreed in the spirit of those alterations, should send up the Bill again in the same form as they received it. Another reason against the Motion was this—it was a most important question whether the grant to Maynooth should be put into the Estimates or remain on the Consolidated Fund; it was also important that when they discussed that weighty question they should do it in a manner and under circumstances which would show a due respect for the people of Ireland. But what had his hon. Friend done? There were grants from the Consolidated Fund in which other religions were interested. There were grants in which the Church of England was interested, and grants in which the Church of Scotland was interested, and he put it to the House that this question of the Maynooth grant was at least entitled to a serious discussion as a substantive proposition; that it ought to be considered upon general grounds, in connection with the other grants to which he had alluded; or that, at all events, it ought to be considered deliberately, upon a measure distinctly submitted to the House for altering the position in which it was at present placed. It ought not to be dealt with by a by-blow in a financial measure, which had been carefully restricted to its character as a financial measure, and from which the Government in framing it had carefully excluded everything upon which a political question could be raised. He hoped that for these reasons the House would summarily reject the Motion of his hon. Friend; but be must add one word with reference to the opinions and inten- tions of the Government. He believed it was the opinion of the House that this Bill contained most important and valuable provisions; but he must say, on the part of the Government, that it would be entirely at variance with their convictions of their duty to promote the further progress of this Bill, or its passing into a law, if it were to carry with it, under circumstances so extraordinary, the Vote which his hon. Friend proposed. It was a measure of fiscal reform; they proposed it as a measure of fiscal reform; and as a measure of fiscal reform he hoped the House would pass it. It would be easy for his hon. Friend, if he thought fit, to raise the question of the Maynooth grant, and to take the opinion of the House upon it; but he trusted that this Bill would be allowed to stand upon the ground upon which it bad been placed. With these observations, he would commit it to the decision of the House.

I confess, Sir, I do not agree with many of the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed both with regard to this Bill, and with regard to the more important issue that has been somewhat unexpectedly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire. Summary legislation, at this period of the year, may be very desirable, but I am not of opinion that it will prove easy of attainment. I certainly did not intend to discuss the question which my hon. Friend has raised, for I did not know that it would come on to-day. I, however, had placed on the paper certain Amendments to the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has now brought before us, and it is my fault certainly that I was not present to move them, but the transaction of business at this moment is carried on with such remarkable rapidity, that it is not always possible to vindicate those Resolutions which you wish the House to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, has laid down a principle the justice of which I must question—namely, that when a Bill has passed through the ordeal of the House of Lords similar to the present, all that the House of Commons has to do, is simply to reproduce the Bill which the House of Lords has virtually sanctioned, or vindicate its privileges by the introduction of a new Bill, but to exempt itself from the privilege of moving Amendments upon it. I very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able in an argument to substantiate that position. I have placed certain Amend- ments upon the paper with respect to the Second Consolidated Fund Bill; and I beg the Committee, after what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, to condescend to look to the nature of those Amendments. As my name has been mentioned in this House, and in another place, with regard to the object of the measure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced, I beg to state, to prevent any misconception, that this is not a Bill to carry into effect that which the late Government expressed their intention to do. What the late Government intended to do was a very simple, and, I think, a very admirable thing; it was to introduce a Bill which should ensure that the gross revenue of the country should be paid into the Exchequer. We should have proposed that the course of raising that revenue should have become a matter of estimate, and with regard to those charges which formerly, and I believe now, legally press upon the revenue, we should have proposed that some of them should have been placed on the Consolidated Fund, and that the rest should have been brought before the consideration of the House by way of estimate. We did not in any way propose that any charges upon the Consolidated Fund should be transferred to what is now popularly called Schedule B, and become the subject of an annual Vote. It was not at all from the opinion that the charges at present on the Consolidated Fund are not liable, or should not be subject to criticism, for had it been necessary that the charges at present existing on the Consolidated Fund should be subject to Parliamentary criticism, it was our opinion that the best course to have pursued would have been to ask for the institution of a Parliamentary Committee, in order that the whole question of the charges on the Consolidated Fund should have been examined. Now, the fault which I find with the Bill of the Government which has led to the Amendments I have put on the paper is—that, in the first place, it is not a Bill which brings the gross revenue really into the Exchequer. It certainly does provide that there should be an estimate for the cost of the collection, which should be subjected to Parliament, and it also provides that the amount of drawbacks and of bounties—that is, of repayments—should be deducted at the time of collection; but it still leaves a considerable amount of public money, under the name of charges, and so on, to the discretion of the Treasury, and it still leaves the Treasury the power of making considerable payments without the control of Parliament—without the revenue being on the Votes. I think that a great objection, but there is another great objection that I have to this Bill. The reason for taking the course to which I have adverted, and for proposing that Amendment in the preamble, is, that we should have an opportunity of examining the many things that are left out now, that we should state exactly what Parliament means, and what the Government ought to mean—namely, the declaration that it is expedient that the gross revenue of the departments of the Customs, the Inland Revenue, and the Post Office, should be paid into the Exchequer, with the exception of such sums as may be necessary to be retained in order to defray the charges of drawbacks, pensions, and superannuations heretofore charged and paid out of the said branches of the public revenue. Now, the House will observe that the Bill before us has no recital of the kind. If you look at the preamble of the Bill which is in your hands, you would not for a moment guess that that is the object and intention of the Government, for it merely refers to particular charges, divided in a particular manner, and the great object and scope of this financial reform appear to be altogether lost. I have, also, in another clause, or, rather, a proviso added to the clause, proposed that this amount of 4,000,000l., which will now be voted in Parliament as an estimate for the cost of collecting the revenue, should be subject to the same restriction, as far as appropriation is concerned, as the rest of the revenue. I don't think that any hon. Gentleman can doubt the wisdom or the expediency of such a provision. What reason is there that the 4,000,000l. which we are now going, for the first time, to vote as the cost of the collection of the revenue—what reason is there that this 4,000,000l. should not be subject, as respects the issue, to the provisions of the Act of the 4 & 5 Will. IV., the Act which regulates the charges on the Exchequer, in the same manner as all other sums issued for the public service? I think the Government made a very great omission when they did not introduce a provision to that effect, and I cannot understand why there should be any question of the expediency or the importance of such a provision, or why we are to be estopped from now considering it by any idea that we are acting in a manner contrary to our usual course when a Bill has been thrown out of the House of Commons and a second Bill has been sent from the House of Lords in compliance with their suggestions. There is also on the paper a proposal, on my part, that there should be a clause which would place before Parliament the charges on the Consolidated Fund, and when the right hon. Gentleman first introduced this measure of financial reform, he said that Parliament ought to have a due acquaintance, and, I think he said, control with respect to the charges on the Consolidated Fund; but the right hon. Gentleman has made no preparations in this Bill for that purpose. What I propose is a simple matter, perfectly in unison with all other regulations in regard to the revenue—namely, that the quarterly warrants of the Treasury for certain payments out of the Consolidated Fund should be laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament in ten days after the issue of the last warrant; and, of course, if Parliament be not then sitting, taking the first opportunity of doing so. The three Amendments I propose are—first of all, to carry into effect the purpose, which I believe the House has at heart—namely, that the gross revenue shall really be paid into the Exchequer; secondly, that the 4,000,000l., which we now vote by way of estimate should be subjected to the same restriction as the rest of the revenue of the country; and thirdly, that every three months the House should have, not the power of control, but the power of inspection, as regards the charges on the Consolidated Fund. Those are the three Amendments which I have made, and, in my opinion, it is most important that the House should adopt them, and by adopting them, so far as I can learn, being influenced, in my opinion, by the highest authorities, they will not at all interfere as regards the position of this Bill with the other House of Parliament. Now, I felt it my duty to make these observations on a subject of great interest before us, and, as my name has been mentioned with respect to this measure, both by the right hon. Gentleman on another occasion, and also in another places I hope it is no great intrusion on my part to have made them. I must now touch on another topic—and, I think, a much more important topic—that has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, he hopes the House will sum- marily dispose of this question. I don't say I wish the same; and, with great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, I don't think the tone that he has taken on the subject and the language in which he has expressed himself are at all fitted to the occasion or the subject, and I was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have expressed himself in such a manner and adopted such a tone on one of the most important questions which can possibly interest Parliament. I do not know what hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House feel on the subject; but I am of opinion that none of us have been inattentive observers of what has taken place in the present Session of Parliament, and in the Session of Parliament which preceded this, if not on other occasions. Why, Sir, this Motion of the hon. Gentleman is a repeated Motion; it is made for the second time. I gave a silent vote on the previous occasion when it was introduced to our attention; but I will confess I am not prepared to give a silent vote, and to continue to give silent votes on questions of this nature. Why, Sir, we must have all seen that questions of this character have been repeatedly introduced to our notice in the present and the preceding Sessions of Parliament. One day we have had a discussion whether there should be an endowment for Roman Catholic education; then there has been a question raised as to the inspection of conventual establishments; again, there has been a question regarding the Roman Catholic oath—as to what it really means—what is its main purpose and import; that is hardly noticed before we have some other question respecting the establishment of Roman Catholic chaplains in gaols. All these questions are brought forward by what are called independent Members of Parliament; not Members associated in the same particular connection, but sitting on different sides of the House, and influenced generally by different political opinions. Is it possible to be blind to circumstances so strange as these? Is it a wise thing for a Minister of the Crown to get up and treat a question of this kind by saying, "This must be summarily disposed of? It is August—Parliament won't be sitting for six months; the country will have no means, therefore, of expressing its opinion, and we really cannot listen to these questions, which in a thousand forms have already worried and perplexed us." I, Sir, come to quite a different conclusion from that of the right hon. Gentleman. I think these are perplexing questions; they are very serious questions, and I do not think it is at all desirable that we should evade this discussion or endeavour to evade coming to some conclusion on them; I think it a most unfortunate thing that in the first instance, when the hon. Member for Warwickshire made his Motion, from causes which I need not now dwell upon, but which are numerous, the House and the country were baulked of any decision on that question. Now, Sir, what are these various Motions, all of an analogous character? What are they symbolical of? What are the consequences to which they will lead? Surely they are questions not unworthy of the closest attention of statesmen. I think they are significant of this, that the people of this country are dissatisfied with the political status, if I may use such an expression, which our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects occupy with respect to the Protestant constitution of this country. In whatever form the question presents itself I find that at the bottom; and what, I ask, will be the probable consequence of this uneasiness expressing itself in all these various modes of inquiries as to the expediency of the endowment of Roman Catholic colleges, of the inspection of Roman Catholic convents, of the interpretation of Roman Catholic oaths, or of the establishment of Roman Catholic chaplains? What must be the necessary consequence of such questions being left in perpetual controversy without any one coming forward with authority to lead or to inform public opinion on the subject? What must be the consequence? It denotes, in my mind, internal dissensions, perhaps violence and disorder, and as I sincerely believe, great injury to the principles of civil and religious liberty. Well, Sir, I confess, as this question is brought before us in a summary way, and, as we are told, in a manner which does not at all take away from its importance, I think we are bound, particularly as it has been so often repeated, finally to meet it. I don't want at all to dwell on my individual feelings on this subject. I am rather placing the question on broader considerations, and I will not say in vindication, but in explanation of my vote with respect to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman which I gave some weeks ago, and which I shall give to-night, that it is the same I gave originally on the Motion of Sir R. Peel, with regard to the endowment of Maynooth. I shall not go into the reasons which influenced me then, and which influence me now, on the subject, not wishing to introduce individual feelings into the question; but what I want to press on the House is, that it cannot be permitted—it cannot be tolerated with any regard to the public safety—that Session after Session, an important question with respect to the relations, I may say, which exist between our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects and the Protestant constitution of this country should be left in doubt, matter of public controversy, so that every Member of Parliament, whatever may be his general political opinions, may rise and excite the public mind, interrupting by such discussions the whole course of public business. I think this question has come to such a pass that it is the duty of the Government to come forward to meet and solve this difficulty, and so to determine this controversy which breaks out in so many forms and from so many sides. Have we or have we not a Protestant constitution? If we have a Protestant constitution, what does it mean? Let Government come forward—let it declare by legislation what are the functions, what the attributes, what the influence, and what is the bearing of that Protestant constitution. Let every man, whether he be a Protestant or a Roman Catholic, clearly understand what are the rights and privileges which he enjoys under that constitution—what he may do and what he may not do. I think that this is a question which ought to be solved, that these are matters which do demand the consideration of statesmen, which ought to be met without reserve, and settled in a manner which shall satisfy the public mind—I say, without the slightest reserve, for I know no public man of the times in which we live, who I think is placed, and has been placed, in a more happy position to attempt the solution of this question than the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council. The noble Lord has associated his name through a long career with his successful labours in favour of religious liberty; he is, therefore, entitled, and justly entitled to, and I believe he possesses the confidence of a large body of his countrymen, who look up to him with respect and reverence. The noble Lord is an eminent Member of a party which half a century ago offered him power in order to secure the political privileges of their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and that is a claim to the confidence of the Roman Catholics of this country which may be forgotten in moments of passion, but which, on the whole, I think, must last in the grateful feelings of a nation. Well then, if the noble Lord, both as regards the question of religious liberty and as regards the question of the political franchise of the Roman Catholics, can come forward on a matter of this imperial importance, with circumstances of great advantage, when he addresses the public mind and attempts to lead it to a result which he desires, it cannot be forgotten that the noble Lord is the individual who, when he was Prime Minister of this country, felt it to be his duty, in the name of his Sovereign, in the Parliament of England, to denounce the Ultramontane conspiracy against the liberties of Europe. The noble Lord has never for a moment shrunk, and I am sure never will shrink, from that most solemn expression of his, which, during the existence of the present Government, in conjunction with a similar expression of his opinion, led to such a misconception and misunderstanding, that some of the subordinate Members of the Government even resigned their posts, were only induced to return to their position by an assurance from the First Minister of the Crown that the Protestant opinions of the noble Lord were not shared by his colleagues. I only refer to that to show that the noble Lord has on this subject been influenced by strong predilections, and I think it is due from the noble Lord to come forward—not now—not in a summary manner, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, but after due reflection and study of this question—after examining it in all its bearings and during the recess—I think it is the duty of the noble Lord, and the duty of the existing Government, that they should come forward and lay down some principle of regulation which shall precisely define the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's subjects, whether they are Protestants or whether they are members of the Roman Catholic Church, and that it should not become a subject of controversy every night almost of the Session whether the Roman Catholics should enjoy the privilege of conventual establishments, whether colleges should be endowed by the State in order to educate the priesthood who are not the priesthood of the State, whether there is any meaning in the oath that is taken by Roman Catholic Members, or whether all these regulations with re- spect to our prisons or other establishments involve or do not involve a breach of the Protestant constitution of the country? Sir, I hold that—and I know not whether I agree with the opinions on this side of the House or that—in saying you are prepared to maintain the Protestant constitution of this country, you are advocating the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty as well as her Protestant subjects. I look upon the Protestant constitution to be the guarantee of the civil and religious liberty of the people of this country, and because I am of this opinion, I feel that if the Government neglect their duty, and if these fragmentary parts of the question are, under its various shapes and aspects, brought under public discussion and Parliamentary debate, the result will be a heavy blow and great discouragement to civil and religious liberty. It is because I see the danger ahead, and because we cannot avoid it, that I call upon the Government, not in haste, or prematurely—not in a "summary manner"—not to tell us in August what they will do, but I call upon the noble Lord, in whom I have great confidence, upon this question to come forward and say, on the part of the Administration, that he will at the earliest period, notwithstanding the smiles and whispers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, come forward on the part of the Government and propose a measure that will be satisfactory to the public mind, and attempt to solve these difficulties, and not leave any gentleman to agitate the public mind on questions of this importance, but that he will be prepared on the part of the Government to bring forward such pleasures as will vindicate the Protestant constitution, and prove that the enduring existence of that constitution is not only consistent with civil and religious liberty, but is the only security also, and the guarantee, that we have for these unspeakable blessings.

I confess I was certainly somewhat alarmed until the right hon. Gentleman arrived towards the end of his speech, because, until the right hon. Gentleman said that this was not a question to be considered in the month of August, I thought he proposed that in the month of August the Government should introduce a Bill to define the whole bearings of the Protestant constitution, how far Roman Catholic endowments were compatible with, and how far the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains might be reconciled with that constitution, how far, in all respects, the limits of this Protestant constitution might be extended, and how far it might be reconciled with the general principles of civil and religious liberty. That was the task which I thought the right hon. Gentleman was about to enforce upon the Government at the beginning of August. But I rejoiced to find that the right hon. Gentleman gives us some months of respite before that task is to be performed. I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman, nor can I hold out a prospect, that so gigantic a task will be undertaken by the Government. At all events, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner), who brought forward this discussion, proposed a different course, because his proposal was that the Vote to Maynooth should be an annual Vote, in order that he may have the opportunity of making a speech annually upon Maynooth, and that after ten years of agitation the question may be brought to a conclusion. But if he were triumphant in this proposal, and if he were the slayer of Maynooth, we should still have those other questions of the Roman Catholic chaplains and the Protestant constitution unsettled. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have not had great encouragement this Session to undertake questions of this kind, because, with regard to one of them, I proposed that we should have civil equality among Members of this House, and that when hon. Members came to the table we should not inquire into their religious opinions and persuasions, and that we should all take one civil oath. I found a very strong opponent in the right hon. Gentleman, and it discouraged me so much that I am not disposed to bring in a code beginning with the rights of man, and ending with the privileges and limits of each religious persuasion, defining the bearing of the constitution on each of the different sects. I own that the discouragement that I have received from the right hon. Gentleman will prevent me from bringing in any such measure.

said, that Parliament bad placed the property of the University of Oxford in a Commission, and it would in that form come under the consideration of Parliament, and what was claimed with regard to Maynooth was, that, as in the case of Oxford, Parliament had based its proceedings on the Report of a Commission, and as a Commission had been issued to inquire into Maynooth, the House of Commons should, preparatory to the Report of that Commission, place the Vote to Maynooth upon the footing of an annual payment within the command of Parliament, so that the whole subject might be fairly considered when the Report of the Commission was in the hands of hon. Members next Session. It was quite certain that the public would have an investigation into the education given at Maynooth and its tendency, and they would consider the opposition to the present Motion as an attempt to evade that which could not long be successfully evaded.

said, that his proviso to be added to Clause 1 would now stand as a separate clause. It was as follows—

"That all Sums voted for the charges and payments set forth in Schedule B shall be subject, as respects their issues, to the provisions of the Act of 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 15, intituled 'An Act to regulate the Office of the Receipt of the Exchequer at Westminster,' in the same manner as all other Sums voted for any specified branch of the Public Service."

The object of the clause was, that all sums brought into the Exchequer under this new Act should be subject to the same restrictions as regarded appropriation as the rest of the revenue, and he therefore could not understand that there could be any objection to the clause.

said, it was quite impossible that he could accede to any part of any one of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was only surprised that he should have made them. He did not know whether the person who had drawn the present clause for the right hon. Gentleman had accurately fulfilled the intentions he was supposed to entertain, but the clause was entirely and absolutely useless. It would produce no legislative effect, except an effect which was already secured by the present law, because the present law provided, in terms most explicit, that all sums of money voted by that House must uniformly go through the forms of the Exchequer issue and payment. The object with which the clause was drawn seemed to him one of which the right hon. Gentleman was probably not aware. It was to create a new Parliamentary title for the present Exchequer system, the utility of which was, to his mind, somewhat less than doubtful. He had not yet been enabled to discover any useful purpose that the Amendment would serve, but it would be very easy to show much mischief that it would do. The effect of the clause would be a new recognition by Parliament of the propriety of adopting provisions with regard to money which now passed through the Exchequer, and he hoped the House would not be induced to frame a system in respect of which it was more than doubtful whether it would be beneficial for the public service or not. He protested against any new recognition of the principles upon which repayment of money into the Exchequer now rested.

said, the right hon. Gentleman never gave hint credit either for drawing clauses or anything else; but he gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for being too clever by half. The clause of the 4& 5 Will. IV. had been submitted to men of good reputation as lawyers, who had very grave doubts whether its, provisions would apply to the 4,000,000l. which had been referred to. He had, therefore, proposed a new clause, in order to bring this 4,000,000l. under the same restrictions as the rest of the revenue. He granted that it might not be necessary, but every one would agree that it was a surplusage in the right direction. In his opinion, in order to have the same restrictions upon the appropriation of the 4,000,000l. which were placed upon the rest of the revenue, it was necessary that they should have the clause he proposed.

opposed the Amendment, and thought the regulations ought to remain as they were at present until the whole subject could be considered and decided upon. He thought the time had arrived for dealing with the question of bringing the whole gross revenue under the eye of Parliament.

saw no reason why, because it was desirable to have a full and ample inquiry, that he should be supposed to agree in crude measures. It was for the Committee to decide whether this sum of 4,000,000l. of new Estimates, now brought for the first time under the control of Parliament, should be subjected to the same restrictions as the rest of the revenue with regard to its issue and appropriation. If the financial reformers were not disposed to support him in this he should not press his proposal to a division.

reminded the House that the exist- ing law contained words to the effect that any new sums of money granted hereafter should pass through the same channel as the rest of the revenue.

thought it satisfactory that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had called the attention of the House to the importance, of the gross revenue of the country passing through the Exchequer. It was said that there was 5,000,000l. or 6,000,000l. of money which never found its way into the Exchequer at all, but which was disposed of by different departments without being ever voted by Parliament. He thought the system of auditing the public accounts required reconsideration, with a view to the reconstruction of that branch of the public service.

proposed the addition of a clause, to the effect that nothing in the Act contained should have the effect of facilitating any changes in the existing establishments of any of the superior courts of law in Ireland, without a certificate from the Judges to the Treasury having first set forth the circumstances rendering such changes necessary. If the clause was not carried, he should give notice of Amendments to place the English courts on the same footing as the Irish courts. He should also move to put in the English Court of Chancery, which was entirely omitted in the Act, but he trusted his clause would be so received as to render his Amendments unnecessary.

would not complain that the hon. Gentleman had brought forward this clause without notice, because he felt it was desirable that all Amendments should be brought forward now rather than on the third reading. It was, however, impossible for him to agree with this clause. The purpose of the clause referred to by the hon. Gentleman was to impose restrictions upon an increase of salaries. The purpose of the clause, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman, was to fetter the discretion of Parliament, whether in the increase or in the diminution of salaries. The only argument used by the hon. Gentleman which was of any weight was, that the Bill, as it at present stood, dealt unequally with the English and the Irish courts. The fact, however, was, that owing to the difference of circumstances, it was necessary to create a nominal inequality in order to do substantial justice. In Ireland they had proceeded further in the abolition of fees than they had done in England; and, therefore, the clause was accommodated to that altered state of things. When the fees in the English courts were dealt with in the same manner as the fees in the Irish courts, they would be put upon the same footing also with regard to this Bill.

said, that he did not mean to increase, but to diminish, the charges, and his clause would have no other effect.

proposed the clause of which he had given notice—

"Copies of each of the Quarterly Warrants of the Treasury, issued under the Act 57 Geo. III. c. 84, and the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 15, to the Controller General of the Receipt and Issue of Her Majesty's Exchequer, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within ten days after such Warrants shall be issued, if Parliament shall then be sitting, otherwise within ten days after the commencement of the next Session, together with a Copy or statement of the disbursements actually made in virtue of the Treasury Warrant during the antecedent quarter."

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this measure he impressed the importance of a periodical inspection or supervision, on the part of the House of Commons, with regard to the charges on the Consolidated Fund. That was a feature of this measure of financial reform. Now, the Committee would observe that in the Bill before them there was no provision at all to effect this object. The object of the clause he proposed was, that quarterly warrants of the Treasury should be laid upon the table of the House, so that they might know every three months what were the charges on the Consolidated Fund. This was the only mode he could see by which they could attain the object in view, and he was sure the House of Commons must wish to exercise the power and the supervision to which he had alluded.

said, it was a very invidious task to oppose proposals of this kind, but he must say he entirely objected to this proposal. Before he proceeded further, however, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman under what section or sections of the Acts of the 57 Geo. III. and the 4 & 5 Will. IV. he referred when he spoke of these quarterly warrants as being, issued under these Acts?

said, he had not those Acts then by him.

Here they are, at the service of the right hon. Gentleman. I took care to have them at hand for him; for I am rather curious to learn under what sections the right hon. Gentleman finds the authority for the issue of those warrants.

asked, whether it was not the fact that these warrants were issued under the authority of those Acts of Parliament?

declined to be the interpreter of the law as stated by others, but wished to know the authority for the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that these quarterly warrants were issued under the Acts in question?

referred to the 12th section of the 4 & 5 Will. IV.

would assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was entirely misinformed as to the application of the Act. The section quoted by the right hon. Gentleman referred to ordinary Treasury warrants, which in every case were required before an issue of money could take place. But these quarterly Treasury warrants which the right hon. Gentleman said were issued under the Act 4 & 5 Will. IV. were warrants of an entirely different description, and did not, in point of fact, cause the issue of any money whatever. He therefore again asked the right hon. Gentleman under what portion of the Act referred to so authoritatively by him it was that he considered these quarterly warrants of the Treasury were either authorised or required? As at present informed, he demurred altogether to the recital of the right hon. Gentleman that these quarterly Treasury warrants were issued under the authority of these Acts. His opinion was, that these warrants were not required by the law. They were certainly issued in principle; and he would go further, and admit that the form of the warrants and the words of the warrants might certainly be construed in favour of the position that they were issued under the authority of the law; but he knew of no ground for stating that they were either required or authorised by the law. What he said was this—that these were documents of a description the most complex, the most antiquated, the most absurd, the most calculated to maintain deception and mystification in matters of public accounts that this House could possibly conceive; and he did not hesitate to state—whether it were the object of this clause or not to do so he did not know, but its effect would be to give a legal sanction and authority to these Treasury warrants, which, in his judgment, at the present moment, they did not possess.

would withdraw his clause, as it was wrong in point of form; but this he clearly saw, from every observation which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the right hon. Gentleman was determined to put an end to the restriction which at present existed as to the issue of public money from the Exchequer, which restriction he believed to be of the greatest importance, and which he applied to these 4,000,000l. of new revenue which was to be brought under the control of the Exchequer. Of course, it was useless to attempt to come to any decision now upon any particular point, but he begged the Committee to bear this in mind—that the principles of the right hon. Gentleman would render it impossible for him to go on for another year without bringing forward some Bill, the object of which would be to diminish the restriction upon the issue of public money which at present existed.

had now to allude to another point of great importance. They were all agreed that the object of the great change which, he might observe, he had had the honour of first bringing forward, was, that the gross revenue of the country should be brought into the Exchequer. The fault he found with this Bill was, that it evaded this great object. It certainly brought into the annual statement of public accounts a large amount which hitherto had not found its way there, but it still left a great portion of the public revenue under the name of charges, pensions, and superannuations, at the disposition of the Treasury, free from the control and cognisance of Parliament, and which amount of public money was still under the immediate control of the Treasury alone. Now, he proposed that the preamble of this Bill should express the meaning of Parliament upon this subject, and therefore he had placed upon the paper a preamble which should state that—

"It is expedient that the gross revenue of the Departments of Customs, Inland Revenue, and Post Office should be paid into the Exchequer, with the exception of such sums as may be necessary to be retained in order to defray the charges of drawbacks, repayments, pensions, and superannuations heretofore charged upon and paid out of the said branches of the public revenue."

Now, this was a simple and clear declaration. He proposed to have a public expression of the opinion of Parliament on the subject. He wanted, and he understood the House of Commons wanted, that the gross revenue of the Departments of Customs, Inland Revenue, and Post-office should be paid into the Exchequer. He had been informed since he entered the House that the preamble of the Bill was couched, if not in identical, in similar language to his own. He begged the Committee would observe the remarkable difference between the language in the preamble of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he had proposed. The preamble of the Bill said—

"And whereas it is expedient, in order to bring the gross income and expenditure of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man under the more immediate view and control of Parliament."

Now, he said, that the object of the House of Commons was not that the gross income and expenditure of the United Kingdom should be brought" under the more immediate view and control of Parliament;" their object was that the gross national income should be brought into the Exchequer. Such words as "the more immediate view and control of Parliament," might bring a large amount of that revenue under their control, but it would leave a very large portion beyond their control. The words which the Committee ought to adopt were the simple and plain words, that they would bring the gross income of the country into Her Majesty's Exchequer. The words in the preamble of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were so essentially evasive and equivocal that you might really draw almost any meaning you pleased from them, and he thought it would be much better to adopt the plain, straightforward language he had placed on the paper. He, therefore, begged to propose the alteration in the preamble of which he had given notice.

said, he felt bound to take the same course with this as with the right hon. Gentleman's previous Amendment. There were two important points, which, so far as a declaration of law was concerned, were raised by this Amendment. The preamble which the right hon. Gentleman proposed enunciated the principle that pensions and superannuations upon the reve- nue departments—that was to say, the great bulk of all the pensions and superannuations paid throughout the kingdom—something like five-sixths of the whole amount—should not be brought under the control of Parliament. Now, he demurred altogether to that object of the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have stated it, and to have made the House acquainted with the omissions which were included in his Amendment. In stating what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not before aware of, that the right hon. Gentleman was the first to bring forward a change like that now proposed, the right hon. Gentleman should have declared that his object was to remove from the control of Parliament pensions and superannuations chargeable upon the revenue departments, and which amounted, he believed, to something like 500,000l. or 700,000l. a year. On this ground he objected to the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee of the House of Lords had made in this Bill a most injudicious change, founded upon most insufficient grounds, for they reported that they had not sufficient information before them in order to enable them to determine whether it was proper that these pensions and superannuations should remain upon the gross revenue, or whether they should be voted in the Estimates; and, instead of sending to the Treasury for the information they required, they struck out of the Bill these clauses altogether. Now, he must say, that unless his anxiety had been so great to carry out what remained of this Bill, nothing would have induced him to acquiesce in such a change introduced into a money Bill, not by the House of Lords, but by a Committee of the House of Lords. This change certainly left the Bill incomplete. These pensions and superannuations would be left chargeable on the gross revenue. On another occasion it would be necessary to attempt to make clearer work upon this point, but the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman would tie the House, as a matter of principle, to that which the House of Lords had forced upon them as a matter of fact. But another point was involved in the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman. When this Act was introduced it was met by this objection on the part of those who wished to adhere to the present system. Those persons always said it would be most inconvenient to have all the money received at the various outports sent up to London, and then to send back again that part of it which was necessary for the maintenance of the establishments at those outports. Thus, at Liverpool, something like 70,000l. was required to pay the charges of the establishments there, and this amount, it was said, would be most irrational to send up to London from Liverpool and then back again. Now, nobody had ever said it was rational to do so. All they wanted was the control of Parliament over this money. That being settled, they left the money received at the outports to be dealt with in the most economical manner in which it could be dealt with. It might be paid where it was received, but it would have to be accounted for, and a balance struck between the local and the central fund. That was the principle on which his Bill was framed. Lord Monteagle, who had always been a steady opponent of this change, had stated before a Commission, which was appointed to investigate the subject, this very objection, and urged the absurdity and expense of sending more work forward in this way. It was to avoid this absurdity and expense that he had framed the Bill in the way he had done. The inconvenience of the plan objected to by the noble Lord would be very great, and nobody—he was going to say—was foolish enough to propose it; but as the right hon. Gentleman had now proposed that very plan, he must withdraw the word "foolish," though he hoped the House would not adopt the Amendment.

said, he had seen a report published by some persons who were anxious for a reform in the Customs in which credit was given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposing to transfer the whole gross revenue of the country to the Exchequer which formerly has not been so paid into the public Treasury. The Commissioners of Public Accounts, in 1831, laid it down as a principle that the whole of the public revenue ought to be paid into the Exchequer, and then paid out of the Exchequer for the public service. No doubt there might be particular instances where it might be convenient that small local payments should be made on the spot; but the general principle ought to be that the whole of the receipts should be paid into the Exchequer. It would be satisfactory to know whether it was intended that this should be the case.

thought he had already explained in distinct terms that the expense of collection was to be defrayed at the ports, leaving the balance to be settled as a matter of account, while the authority of Parliament was applied to the expenditure through the machinery of the Votes.

suggested that every accountant, and every other person who had any public money in his possession, should render his accounts regularly, in order that they might be settled. If this had been done, the country would not have lost so much by Mr. Swaby. He ought also to be called upon to give security, and that the securities ought to be revised from time to time. He submitted that it was the duty of the Government to have all public charges, whether fees, prize-money, or other payments, brought into the Exchequer.

said, he was not surprised to hear his hon. Friend advert to this subject, and in reference to which he hoped the Committee would bear in mind that that case was one of the consequences of the mode of dealing with public money which had been fashionable in past years—that of disposing of it either by placing the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, or by some permanent Act of Parliament which effectually removed it from the control of the House of Commons. That was a lesson which he hoped would not be forgotten. It also illustrated another dangerous practice which the House ought to correct—that of entrusting the management of public money to persons who were appointed for other purposes. It was not fair to cause large sums of money to be held under the responsibility of the Judges of courts of law. Their duty was to administer the law—a duty difficult enough for any man; and they ought not in any way to be responsible for the control and management of public money. With regard to the immediate question, the case did not admit of being dealt with upon a general rule. In some instances the amounts were too large to be dealt with by way of security, and other modes must be adopted; but certainly he thought there ought to be some review of the securities under which public money was held.

said, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had charge of this Bill (Colonel Dunne), considering the late period of the Session and the nature of the measure itself, would allow it to drop. Her Majesty's Government intended to take up the general question at the commencement of the next Session, when he thought either a Commission or a Committee ought to be appointed, consisting in either case of gentlemen not belonging to the medical profession; and on the result of their inquiries some general measure might be framed, satisfactory to the wants of the profession and the interests of the community at large. The House, therefore, would agree with him that it would be scarcely advisable to lose time in discussing a Bill which had no chance of passing this Session.

said, he had, of course, at this period of the Session, no alternative but to comply with the request of the noble Lord. He was glad to hear that the Government meant to take up the subject, for he felt sure that if it were left to medical men it would be a long time before it was settled. His (Colonel Dunne's) object was to place the Irish and Scotch Universities on the same footing, with respect to medical degrees, as the University of London.

entreated the noble Lord the Home Secretary not to consider the passing of the Medical Graduates (University of London) Bill as a pledge on the part of Parliament, that in considering the question the University of London was to have the power of conferring degrees with the consequential licence that followed from those degrees. That question was left open.

considered the object of the Bill referred to was simply to place the degrees of the University of London upon the same footing as those of Oxford and Cambridge. Parliament dis- tinctly understood that the whole question was left open.

moved the addition of the following clause—

"That in all dealings between the Church Estate Committee acting in behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, as to lands now vested or which shall hereafter become vested in the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the holders of such lands, the said Church Estate Committee shall pay due regard to the just and reasonable claims of such holders of land under lease or otherwise arising from the long-continued practice of renewal, and in every case where a treaty has been entered into between the said Church Estate Committee and the said holders of land, it shall be lawful on the application of either of the said parties to such treaty to the other of them, to refer to arbitration the finding of the annual value and of the value of the fee simple thereof, subject to the exceptions and reservations, if any, to be excepted and reserved there out, and such finding shall be adopted in computing the terms of the sale, purchase, or exchange of such lands, or of any interest therein, and the said last-mentioned parties shall for the purpose of such arbitration, be subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained as to the appointment of arbitrators and the payment of costs. That the provision in the hereinbefore recited Act as to information being required respecting the proceedings under it, shall extend and be held to apply to all proceedings respecting land vested, or which may become vested in the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners."

The object of this was, that all ecclesiastical property, whether held by bishops and chapters, or by the Commissioners, might be brought under the same management. It had been supposed by the House that a clause to this effect was in the former Act; but the Commissioners had held that it did not apply to the property which they held. A further object of the clause was to give the power of arbitration to the Commissioners in certain cases.

opposed the clause, which he said was irrelevant to the object of the present Bill, and should have formed the subject of a separate enactment. The hon. Member who proposed the clause seemed to assume that it went no further than the one which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Shields (Mr. Ingham). That, however, was not so. For this clause made arbitration compulsory at the will of either party, and would apply not only to lands held by Church lessees, but also to those which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners held at rack rent. If it were agreed to, every one of their tenants might claim to have their lands valued and enfranchised. The question of arbitration, as proposed in this clause, was a compulsory dealing with property, which every person said should be voluntarily dealt with.

did not read it as a compulsory clause, but at all events the words could be altered to prevent such a construction being put upon them as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped that the noble Lord the President of the Council would sanction the clause, and he would take care, before the third reading, words should be introduced to make the arbitration permissive.

supported the clause, and did not consider that the objections urged by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, were well founded.

said, that the clause was one to which he could not ask the House to assent. He did not know whether, if it were agreed to, it would act harmoniously with other Acts upon the same subject, but he objected to the practice of taking occasion, when a Bill was introduced upon one subject, to introduce a clause that had reference to quite a distinct subject. It was not fit that they should introduce in the Bill a rule with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commission more stringent than that which was applied to the Church Estate Commission. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Member for Malton to postpone his clause until the subject of the Ecclesiastical Commission came properly before the House.

supported the clause, and trusted his hon. Friend would press it to a division, as he would rather see the Bill lost than that the clause should be rejected.

opposed the clause, on the ground that it gave too large a power to the lessees and was a departure from the intention of the Bill, which had worked beneficially hitherto, but which he considered it would be unwise to extend to the whole of the property under the management of the Church Estate Commission.

moved the following Resolutions—

"That from and after the 1st day of August, the Duties of Customs chargeable on the Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, hereafter mentioned, imported into the United Kingdom, shall cease and determine, viz., Sulphate of Potash.

"That from and after the 1st day of August, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on the articles under-mentioned, imported into the United Kingdom, the following duties of Customs shall be charged, viz.: Arms, Swords, Cutlasses, Matchetts, Bayonets, Gun Locks, Cannon, or Mortars of Iron, not mounted nor accompanied with carriages, 2s. 6d. the cwt., Cannon or Mortars of brass, not mounted nor accompanied with carriages, 10s. the cwt., Cannon or Mortars, mounted or accompanied with carriages and other fire arms, viz., Muskets, Rifles, Carbines, Fowling pieces, or Guns of any other sorts not enumerated, and Pistols, for every 100l. value thereof, 10l. Ammunition, &c. namely, Shot, large and small, of lead, 2s. the cwt.; of Iron, 2s. 6d. the cwt. Rockets, and other combustibles for purposes of war, and not otherwise enumerated or described, for every 100l. value thereof, 10l. Hops, until the 1st August, 1855, 1l. the cwt.; from and after that date, 2l. 5s. Iron and Steel, wrought or manufactured, except Arms and Ammunition, viz., Machinery, Wrought Castings, Tools, Cutlery, and other manufactures of iron or steel, not enumerated, 2s. 6d. the cwt.; Fancy ornamental articles of iron and steel, 15s. the cwt."

asked upon what principle the proposed hop duty of 1l. per cent until the 1st of August, 1855, and 2l. 5s. per cent after that date had been framed?

said, that there had been reason to anticipate a great scarcity and high price of hops. This would have an injurious effect upon those interested in the growth and sale of barley, as well as upon the consumption of malt, and the large revenue which depended upon that consumption. A scarcity being anticipated, Parliament had been invited to do that which in cases of scarcity it generally did, sometimes by immediate reference to the House, and sometimes by the discretion of the Government, with the subsequent approval of Parliament, to remit for a time a portion of the duty, in order to facilitate in times of exigency the supply of a necessary article to the consumer. He had seen three Gentlemen representing the county of Kent upon this subject, and at that period the proposition was, that the duty should be reduced until the 1st of November, 1855. They represented, however, that that would be going beyond the occasion, and he had yielded to their representations, and had altered the date to the let of August, 1855, so as, he thought, completely to remove their objections. He believed that those Gentlemen were satisfied with the alteration.

said that, some years ago, the Customs duty upon hops had been 12l. 10s. per cent. It had then been reduced to 8l. 11s., then to 4l. 10s., and it now stood at 2l. 5s. The Excise duty, during the same periods, had remained the same, and he believed that it was the only tax which had been never either mitigated or repealed since 1805. In 1834 the appearance of the hops was much worse than at present; and, although it was expected that not more than 3 cwt. or 4 cwt. an acre would be produced in Sussex, some of the plantations there had produced more than a ton an acre. There was always much speculation as to what the duty on hops would be, and at that period the old duty had been put down at less than 60,000l., whereas it produced nearly 190,000l., and the old and new duty together produced 329,941l. He disapproved of the lowering of the Customs' duty, unless the Government agreed to a corresponding lowering of the Excise duty to four-ninths of its present amount. A reduction of the duty on foreign hops would be unjust towards the English planter, unless accompanied by such a reduction. From information he had received from the hop plantations in all parts of the kingdom, and from the great improvement which had taken place during the last ten days, he believed that the crop would turn out very different from what had been expected a fortnight ago. He had not brought forward his usual Motion for a repeal of the excise duty on hops this year, in consequence of the war, but his opinion with respect to it remained unchanged. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that hops be omitted from the Resolution.

denied that he had expressed himself satisfied with the explanation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given him, as he had pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of also lowering the excise duty if he reduced the import duty on foreign hops. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had no intention of making a permanent alteration in the duty this year, and he supposed be would not have departed from that determination had he not been justified by some extraordinary circumstances. It was not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other person at the present moment, to form a judgment upon the probable crop of hops until a very advanced period of the year. In 1849 the duty paid was only 75,000l., but no interference was then thought necessary. He had this morning received a letter from a person in Kent well acquainted with hop plantations, who said that a very great improvement had taken place in them within the last few days, and that, in his opinion, a duty of from 80,000l. to 100,000l. would be paid if this weather continued. He, therefore, contended that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in calling for the alteration he now proposed. Supposing it were necessary that something should be done, were the grounds of the right hon. Gentleman fair and just towards all parties? Why was the relief to be given entirely at the cost of the home grower, and the advantage, if any, that attended the measure, be put into the hands of the foreign grower? The consumer would get nothing by the proposed change. The foreign grower would be the only gainer. If, however, the state of the crops justified the change, the right hon. Gentleman might carry it into effect by means of an Order in Council.

contended that all the advantage of the proposed reduction of duty would benefit the holders in bond, and that neither the revenue nor the country would derive any benefit from it. The lowering of the duty had caused great dismay throughout the hop districts, and would, if sanctioned, have the effect of throwing the hop grounds of the country out of cultivation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought not, without great deliberation, to come to any decisive determination on this subject. When the Excise and Customs duties were combined he considered it was a wise arrangement; and that was the opinion of those hop-growers whom he represented. As to the Customs duty, it had from time to time been lessened to a great extent, whilst nothing was taken from the Excise duty. They were now about to inflict a blow on an interest in a state of panic. They were, in fact, about to take a crutch from a falling man. It took two years to prepare a hop ground, and the hop-growers were now in great doubt, owing to the measures of the Government, as to what course they ought to pursue. [The hon. Gentleman read several letters, detailing great improvements that had taken place this year in the growth of hops all over the country.] He would leave the matter in the hands of the Government, but hoped the measure would be modified.

felt satisfaction at seeing that the county of Kent thought the hop duty was a bad one, as evidenced by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; for that was what it proved, if it proved anything. He would support the proposal of the Government, because, at length, he saw some prospect of the duty being done away with altogether. The hop duty had no beneficial effect whatever in any district except the county of Kent. He was a hop-grower in the county of Sussex, and he felt sure that the Sussex hop-growers generally would feel grateful to the Government for the reduction.

said, this was not a Kentish question alone. He was connected with the county of Worcester, and there the feelings of the hop-growers coincided with those in Kent, and felt it was most injurious to them to have these tamperings and sudden changes made at the end of a Session, by which the whole trade was affected. There was a strong suspicion current that although the consumer would not benefit by this change, there were a large number of persons who were holders of foreign hops, and who would benefit largely by the alteration; amongst whom he supposed, was the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), having observed him to be in close communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury, but hoped those Members of the Government would not be carried away by the blandishments of the hon. Member for Derby. He thought there was no adequate ground for the reduction, and he hoped either that he would reconsider the question, or if a reduction in the foreign duty was necessary, that he would answer that other proposition they had to make to him, namely, a similar modification of the Excise as of the Customs.

said, that the measure had been introduced at the instance of the officers of the Inland Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman said the reason for the measure had been removed by the improvement which had taken place in the probable yield of the crop. In 1852 the duty was 244,000l., and the price was 4l. 5s. per cwt. In 1853 the duty fell to 150,000l., and the price rose to 11l. 11 s. What then would be the effect if it fell again to 80,000l., or 100,000l., which was the most flattering estimate that had been made. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the hop-growers were losers by bad crops. On the contrary they were large gainers by a deficient yield in consequence of the enormous increase of price. The reduction of the duty, however, 1l. 5s. would just render it possible to introduce the fine Bavarian qualities. The effect of the proposal would only be to place hops for a single year on exactly the same footing as every other article of home production, and surely such a modest proposal ought to receive the support of the House.

said, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take the responsibility of reducing this duty as the crop progressed, it was asking a great deal of the House to expect them to relieve him from the responsibility. He would be no party to a reduction of the Customs duty upon hops unless there was, at the same time, a reduction on the Excise duty.

admitted that there was not that scarcity of the crop that was anticipated. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not listened to the suggestion of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Deedes) to carry out the change by an Order in Council. The House at present were not in a position to legislate. If the crop should turn out as had been anticipated, and the right hon. Gentleman advised an Order in Council, he would have the support of all the hop growers.

thought it would be unsafe for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wait, because the duty was not declared until the end of November, and as foreign hops came earlier than this, the opportunity would be lost of purchasing these hops. Seeing that hops were only grown upon 50,000 acres, while barley was grown upon 2,000,000 acres, he did not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to oppose the proposal of the Government to increase the quantity of hops available for the consumer.

was a representative of barley growers, and wished to see hops cheap. He was willing to vote for the reduction of duty on foreign hops, if the Government would only reduce the Excise duty.

asked the hon. Member for Derby if he had not betted that the duty would this year exceed 150.000l., and if he had not made that bet within the last few days? [Mr. BASS: Certainly not.] He believed the hon. Member fur Derby had betted upon this duty on former occasions, for the hon. Member had told him so himself.