, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, suggested that there should be no discussion upon it at present. What he proposed was, that it should be read a second time, with the view of its being committed pro formâ tomorrow, in order to insert various Amendments, which would, he believed, remove many of the objections entertained to the Bill.

said, he had no objection to the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman. He could not himself have voted for the Bill in its present form, but he had been in communication with the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, who had expressed his assent to the introduction of certain Amendments which appeared to him to be very desirable.

then moved a verbal Amendment in the preamble.

said, he would take the opportunity of saying that such was the railway speed at which this Bill had been passed through Committee, that he had had no opportunity of moving an Amendment to a clause which had passed without discussion. He should take the first opportunity of endeavouring to rescind that decision.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War, the reason of sending only 140 men to the East Indies, as the complement of a Troop of Horse Artillery, when the War complement of such a troop is 253 men?

said, he apprehended that his hon. and gallant Friend was aware that the force of Artillery had been put under the orders of the East India Company in the same way as all other troops sent to India, in compliance with the requisition made to the Government by the Company. That requisition specified the number of the forces, and the number of each troop and company had been so arranged as to bring the total number within the requisition made, and that was the reason why that particular number had been decided upon.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House and of the Home Secretary to the deviation from the constant practice and acknowledged rule of the House, that on Wednesdays all measures brought on by private Members should be disposed of before any Government Order was taken. He did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of going into Supply, but thought it right to point out that such a practice as was now attempted to be pursued was fraught with evil, and might, in fact, enable the Ministers of the day to stop any measure, however important it might be, which was brought in by an independent Member. Seeing that they had the command of all the other days of the week, they could, if priority of Orders on Wednesday were given them, use that power to stifle such Bills as they were opposed to. Wednesday had always been considered a day upon which private Members could bring forward their Bills, and, although an attempt of this kind was made a few years ago, the Secretary of State on that occasion had the good sense to see the impropriety of persisting in it. To-day there were two important measures on the paper, the Election Petitions Bill, and the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Bill, which, if not brought on, could not be passed at all this Session. In the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), who had charge of the latter Bill, he would move as an Amendment that the House proceed to Order No. 12 on the paper.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that the practice of taking supply on a Wednesday ought not to be countenanced. The Government were not treating the House with due deference. They had seized upon every day in the week, both at the morning and evening sittings, except Wednesday, and now, for the first time, they were attempting to take away that day, and thus deprive private Members of the opportunity of bringing forward their Bills. He should second the Amendment.

replied, that the instance referred to by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in which the Government had deferred to the House, and had not persevered in taking precedence on Wednesday, occurred much earlier in the Session than the present time. There was no rule of the House which gave precedence to private Members on Wednesdays, and it was usual, in the month of August, to take the orders of the Government in that order in which they were set down in the paper. [Mr. SPOONER: It was never done before.] It was done on the 2nd of August, 1854. However, it was desirable that no discussion should take place on the subject, which would end in the day being wasted without anything at all being done, and he had therefore no objection that the Supply, which would probably last all day, should be postponed till all the Orders had been gone through.

said, he hoped that the late period of the Session, now so often alluded to, would operate upon the Government and prevent them from pressing forward important Measures, some of which had not even been read a first time.

said, he had no objection to the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Baronet, but still protested against the principle of giving precedence to Government Orders on Wednesdays. Under the circumstances he should withdraw his Motion.

said, that it was impossible that the Bill could pass as it at present stood. The fourth clause of the Bill was absolute nonsense, for by it a particular form of affidavit was required, which was to be provided in a schedule to the Bill, but as the Bill stood there was no schedule to it at all. He thought it would be a disgrace on their legislation to send the Bill in its present shape to the House of Lords. Besides, if the Bill were passed, the effect of it would be to bring nil those individual cases involving the withdrawal of election petitions for consideration before the full House, which would be very inexpedient. He did not know what reasons there might be in the background for urging the Bill forward; but if there was a suspicion that any election petitions had been improperly withdrawn, or that petitions had been presented to the House with the view of extorting money, those were subjects which the House ought to take seriously into consideration. If such cases had occurred, it was surely desirable to proceed in the first instance by inquiry, so as to ascertain the most effectual manner of dealing with the evils, and not by guessing at the remedy to attempt to meet them in so crude and unsatisfactory a mode as was proposed by this Bill. At all events it was impossible that the Bill could proceed in its present state without bringing their legislation into degradation, and he should therefore move as an Amendment that it be recommitted, in order to be read a third time that day three months.

said, as he had taken a very active part in supporting the general object of the Bill, and believed it to be a very important one, he was glad to see that the sense of the House was obviously in favour of giving some additional protection to its Members with reference to the system of presenting and withdrawing election petitions. It was certainly undesirable to sanction crude and ill-digested legislation on any subject; but when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) pointed out that by the 4th clause of the Bill an affidavit was to be made in the form prescribed by the schedule, and that there was no schedule to the Bill, he ought to remember that that was clearly the result of the great pressure placed upon private Members at this period of the Session. The question, however, was whether they should continue to press on a Bill of this important kind in its present shape, the principle of which they had already affirmed, or stop to cure the omission which the right hon. Baronet had pointed out. What he (Mr. Malins) would recommend was that, as after such delay there would be little chance of carrying the Bill through this Session, his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) should withdraw his Motion for the third reading of the Bill, on the understanding that the Government would on a future occasion assist his hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) in his endeavour to amend the law in this respect. ["Hear, hear!" from Sir G. GREY.]

(who had charge of the Bill in the absence of Mr. Addlerley) said, that he would adopt the suggestion on that understanding.

said, the Bill dealt with a great evil, but one which it was very easy to desire to have remedied, though extremely difficult to discover what the proper remedy should be. He was glad, however, that the Bill had been withdrawn, for in its present shape it would have been wholly inoperative.

said, that the measure had been brought into a state of confusion, owing to the manner in which the Government monopolised every moment of the public time, and the consequence was that the object which his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) had in view, was quite defeated. In its present state he did not object to the Bill being withdrawn.

said, he hoped the House would not for one moment entertain the Motion for the second reading of this Bill. It had been brought in for the purpose of reading certain clauses in an Act of Parliament passed so recently as last year, and which had the effect of precluding Sir T. Wilson from building on Hampstead Heath. That was an Act which, as originally introduced, instead of compelling persons who wished to procure an alteration in the settlement of entailed property to have a special Act of Parliament for that purpose, enabled the Court of Chancery to deal with such settlements, and thus gave a present tenant power to grant leases and powers of sale, which he would not otherwise have been able to do without the sanction of an Act of Parliament. That Bill was first brought in 1855, and it being a great novelty in legislation, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, who, after duly considering its provisions, thought it would be dangerous transfer such a power to the Court of Chancery, without accompanying it with certain safeguards in the interest of the public, and the very clauses which it was now sought to strike out were inserted in the Bill for that purpose. That Bill, however, was, in consequence of the advanced state of the Session, withdrawn. In 1856 it was again brought forward, and it then contained clauses which gave the public protection against the Court of Chancery dealing with settled property with closed doors, and before subordinate officers of the Lord Chancellor. The House agreed to the Bill in the shape in which it was eventually passed into a law. But the House of Lords by a small majority rejected the particular clause which prevented the Court of Chancery reviewing the decisions of Parliament. The Bill was then returned to the House of Commons, and that House, for reasons urged by the hon. and learned Attorney General, insisted on the reinsertion of the clause which the Lords had rejected. The Lords afterwards, in consideration of the reasons given by the hon. and learned Attorney General, assented to the restoration of the clause in question, and the Bill was passed at the end of the last Session. Now, however, almost before that Act had come into operation, there came down to that House not a country gentleman, but a lawyer from Enniskillen and a distinguished Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), and, acting in concert with the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), actually proposed to the House to give up the safeguards in question, and to repeal the clauses enacting them when the ink with which they were written was barely dry. He (Lord R. Grosvenor) hoped the House would not be guilty of stultifying its proceedings in that way, and he should therefore move, in the absence of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox), who had given notice of a similar Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He might add, that he had always argued this subject on the broad ground of public justice, and without reference to the case of Sir Thomas Wilson, whose interests were said to be involved in it, but which he submittted were in nowise prejudiced by the Act of last year.

said, he was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. White-side) who had charge of the Bill, was not present, as he would have defended the Bill in a more able manner than he (Mr. Spooner) could do. His hon. and learned Friend's absence was probably owing to the irregular course which had been taken in altering the usual mode of proceeding. The noble Lord had put a gloss on this affair which he was not justified in doing. The clause in the Act to which the noble Lord had alluded was an extraordinary one, and operated most unjustly towards individuals, for that clause absolutely enacted that no person should take any benefit under the Act of 1856 who had at any time—there being no limit to the time—applied to Parliament for additional powers of dealing with his settled estates. That clause would never be acted on except with reference to the individual case of Sir Thomas Wilson, because—and he had the authority of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) for saying so—there was no similar case. Even if there were, it was most unjust to deprive a man of the right of applying to the Court of Chancery, when his case had in any form been before Parliament. The notion that the heath would be encroached upon was absurd; it was copyhold, and could not be enclosed for the purpose without an Act of Parliament. The land to which the Bill applied was not on the heath, and was land in which Sir T. Wilson had a life estate. The Attorney General supported the Bill.

said, that as the only Member present of the Select Committee who recommended the insertion of the clause in the original Bill, he wished to observe that this Bill was an attempt to unsettle without due consideration what had been settled on mature deliberation, and by agreement between both Houses. The facts of Sir T. Wilson's case were these: he had made many applications to the House of Lords with the same object in view, and it was a mistake to say that that House had uniformly reported in favour of these private Acts. He believed, on the contrary, that on every occasion but one [Lord R. GROSVENOR: On every occasion], the Judges reported against them, and on every occasion the House of Lords refused to pass them. Immediately on the rejection of the last private Bill the present measure was brought in, obviously for the purpose of meeting this gentleman's case. He thought that the decision of the Committee which had considered this question, of the House of Commons which had affirmed that decision, and the House of Lords, which, after a solemn conference, had acquiesced in it, ought not to be passed over as nothing; and he should therefore strenuously oppose this Bill. If, however, Sir T. Wilson wanted relief, let him come for it by a private Bill, and his case would be considered fairly.

said, he thought the name of Sir T. Wilson ought not to be mixed up with the question, which ought to be settled on general principles. The name had been introduced because an impression prevailed that it was an attempt to do by a general measure what had failed when attempted by a private Bill. The clause certainly only applied in cases in which the House had decided on, in cases in which the Judges had reported against a measure; but did his hon. Friend think that in no other case had the House of Lords rejected an application for extended power of leasing by a private Bill. He put the matter upon this footing, that when the Legislature had decided upon a question, its decision ought not to be liable to be overruled be the decision of a single Judge. Upon that ground—the ground of public policy—he should vote against the Bill.

said, he thought it was extremely unjust to preclude persons from taking advantage of the Act of last year on the mere ground of their having previously made an unsuccessful application to the Legislature. What would the House think, if, under the new Divorce Bill, a person was to be told that he should not have the opportunity of taking his case before the improved tribunal which was to be set up, because he had previously applied for a divorce before another Court? Would any one say that the introduction of this clause was not for the purpose of affecting Sir Thomas Wilson's case? If the Lord Chancellor had any prejudice at ill, it would be against the application. Why should not the first Judge in the kingdom be trusted with such applications is well as others? He should, therefore, support the Bill, because he considered that, as far as possible, the rights of Owners of property should be made absolute. In that way only could society obtain that advantage from property to which it, as well as the owners, was entitled.

said, he thought that to exclude the name of Sir T. Wilson from this discussion would be to act the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out. In fact, the whole opposition to the Bill arose from Sir T. Wilson's case, against whom the whole power of Parliament had been brought to bear, merely because he had a property which the London public coveted and hoped to have upon their own terms. In order to stop the Bill, the Metropolitan Members had been subjected to the most cogent pressure from their constituents: and, if it did not pass, it would be absurd on the part of Sir T. Wilson to attempt to bring in a private Bill to relieve himself from the position in which his property stood, for there would be such an excitement in the metropolis that hon. Members would not be safe in walking about London, And if it were likely to pass, the noble Lord (Lord Robert Grosvenor) would fraternize with his old Hyde Park mobs, the Members for Marylebone would bring down their vestries, and the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Hanbury) would bring down his brewers to coerce the House. The opposition to the Bill was based on the grossest injustice.

said, that all which the clause sought to be repealed did, was to prohibit a lower tribunal revising the decisions of a higher tribunal, from which certain judicial matters had been remitted.

said, he thought it very impolitic for the Metropolitan Members to press so hard on Sir T. Wilson. He wished that some arrangement could be made to secure Hampstead Heath as a place of recreation, because there would be nothing to prevent the successor of Sir T. Wilson covering the ground with buildings.

said, the Metropolitan Board of Works were anxious to make an arrangement with Sir T. Wilson; but if this Bill passed, there would be an end of all hopes that any arrangement would be made.

said, that, up to the time of passing the Act last year, whenever a will was drawn defectively, so that the tenant for life had no power of granting leases, it became necessary to apply to Parliament for an Estate Bill, which cost from £300 to £500, and sometimes a larger amount. The Bill which passed last year was the second introduced by the Government with the same object, namely, to transfer the power thus exercised by Parliament to the Court of Chancery. He gave his cordial support to that Bill; but he warned the hon. and learned Attorney General against the clause which it was now sought to repeal. The hon. and learned Attorney General persevered, and the clause became part of the law. A short time ago the hon. and learned Attorney General told him that his object in supporting the clause last year was to give the Metropolitan Board of Works an opportunity of making an arrangement with Sir T. Wilson for the purchase of Hampstead Heath, and that, as the Board did not seem inclined to make any arrangement, he would support the present Bill, which would repeal that clause. The Act of last year enabled the Court of Chancery to confer powers of leasing for agricultural, mining, and building purposes upon tenants for life, and enabled trustees to sell and exchange property, and so forth. It had been in operation a year. He had anticipated that the applications to the Court would be numerous, and the result had proved his accuracy. He did not mean to represent that there had been shoals of applications, but the applications had been very numerous, and, as far as his experience went, in every instance they had been acceded to. But a clause in the Act provided that the Act should not apply to persons who had before made application to Parliament unsuccessfully for these powers. He believed there was no other instance of the rejection of an Estate Bill, except that of Sir T. Wilson; and therefore, at the time the original clause was passed, he invited the Attorney General to have the manliness to insert Sir T. Wilson's name, and say in words that which every one knew was meant—that the Act should not apply to Sir T. Wilson. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) supported the clause lest the Court of Chancery should over-ride the House of Commons. Now, it was not that House which decided on Estate Bills, but the House of Lords, and therefore, if any decision were over-ridden, it would be the decision of the House of Lords; and yet, last year, the House of Lords rejected the clause; and, unless an arrangement had been made, the Bill would have been lost because it contained that clause. It was true that, fifteen years ago, Sir T. Wilson unsuccessfully made application to Parliament for these powers; but lapse of time altered circumstances, and what was inexpedient in 1842 might be expedient in 1857. It did not, however, rest on that argument. The application of Sir T. Wilson was rejected because it was intermixed with the idea that Sir T. Wilson was going to build on Hampstead Heath. It was as ridiculous an idea as ever entered into the mind of man. Hampstead Heath was a common. Persons in the neighbourhood had rights of common upon it, and no lord of a manor could unrestrictedly enclose or build on a common without the consent of every commoner. It would have been prejudicial to Sir T. Wilson's interest to do so, and the law as it stood prevented his doing it. The whole value of the clause in the Act last year was, that it applied to Sir T. Wilson; and the whole value of this Bill was, that it would relieve Sir T. Wilson from restrictions which could not be justified. He showed last night that the proposed buildings were not in sight of Hampstead Heath or near it, and that, if the whole space were covered with a solid mass of buildings, Hampstead Heath would be just as beautiful and just as available for riding and walking as it was at present. An unprecedented and unwarrantable exception had been introduced into a general law, which would last only during the life of a man more than 60 years of age. He therefore hoped the House would support this Bill, and redeem Parliament from the stigma of such an act of injustice.

said, he had supported the introduction of the clause in the Bill last year upon general principles. He knew nothing of Sir T. Wilson, and very little of Hampstead Heath; but he did hold that it would be outrageous to authorize the Court of Chancery to over-ride the decisions of Parliament. If Parliament had decided against any person, and that person wished to appeal against the decision, he might appeal to Parliament; but he ought not to be allowed to obtain the reversal of a decision of Parliament, by appealing to an inferior tribunal.

said, he must call upon every hon. Gentleman who had property, and every hon. Gentleman who respected the law which gave security to property, to reflect before giving his vote against this Bill. The Bill was intended to repeal a clause in a general law passed last year; a clause which he could not but consider as a deliberate and barefaced invasion of the rights of property. When that clause was originally introduced the Bill was thrown out because it had the clause in it, and the hon. and learned Attorney General, who had been induced to consent to its being put in on the second occasion (upon the representation of the metropolitan Members that it was intended to buy the property) was now ready to support the Bill for its repeal. When an important Act of Parliament passed it was usual for some member of the bar to write a little treatise upon it. A member of the bar had written a treatise on the Leases and Sales of Settled Estate Act of last Session, and in it was to be found this commentary upon Clause 21, which this Bill sought to repeal:

"The simple truth is, that this section, though couched in general terms, was intended to meet a single case, and had no other object than to prevent Sir T. Wilson granting leases of certain lands near Hampstead Heath, of which he is tenant for life under his father's will. The arguments by which it was endeavoured to establish the distinction between the case of Sir T. Wilson and most other applicants for similar powers appear frivolous to any unbiassed person, and would assuredly not be listened to if the property stood in North Wales instead of Hampstead."

If the public wanted the property they ought to buy it, but not attempt to compel the owner to receive Jess than its value. The Metropolitan Board of Works had behaved very well in the matter. They entered into the consideration of the purchase of Hampstead Heath, and passed a Resolution that it was not their intention at present to deal for it. The Metropolitan Board had turned their attention to a park elsewhere, for which they probably thought it would be easier to raise money than for Hampstead Heath, which was already open to the public, and which it was the interest of the proprietor to keep open to the public. The able and learned person who had written the treatise on the Act, after giving an account of the transactions, went on to say:—

"Such is the history of this prolonged struggle of Sir T. Wilson. With respect to the assertion that by the Bill introduced attempts were made to enclose Hampstead Heath, though often repeated out of doors, it is impossible any one can maintain it who professes to have read those Bills."

Sir T. Wilson complained that statements the exact contrary of the truth should be repeated. He neither wished to build nor enclose Hampstead Heath. The law prevented his meddling with it; and all the alteration of the law which he wanted was to be allowed to lay his case before the Lord Chancellor, which every one else might do except himself. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) said the treaty for the purchase might be interrupted if this Bill passed. There was no treaty. The Metropolitan Board of Works had had the opportunity to purchase the property, and they declined purchasing it, except at a preposterous price. What more could be done? He had postponed the Bill to see whether any public body would purchase the property. They would not, and there was an end of it. Did they mean by vexatious delays to force the acceptance of ruinous terms? Was that the justice of a British House of Commons? The noble Lord at the head of the Government said last night that he was of a cheerful spirit, and not easily discomfited. He was happy to say he had the same cheerful spirit, and if the Bill were lost now and he (Mr. Whiteside) should survive this Session, which he feared was doubtful, he should persevere in demanding a hearing in the next.

said, that it was precisely on the principle of allowing the case of Sir T. Wilson to be reconsidered that the clause was carried last year by a considerable majority, and these very grounds were alleged by the Attorney General as the grounds for not agreeing in the decision of the House of Lords as to the clause. There had never been any wavering of the House on the question, and he trusted the House would adhere to its own repeated decisions.

said, that this question had been repeatedly under the consideration of the House, and upon every occasion, in his humble judgment, injustice had been done to Sir T. Wilson. Whatever form the question had taken, his opinion as to the abstract question of justice had never wavered. He had not the slightest personal acquaintance with Sir T. Wilson, but that gentleman appeared to be in the unhappy position of Naboth, and possessed property which the public coveted. He had tried to obtain by private Bill the right of dealing with that property in the manner in which all other tenants for life were now entitled by general enactments to deal with their property; but, in consequence of his land being coveted by the public that privilege had been refused to him. Now, what the public desired was free access to Hampstead Heath, and it was important that their wishes in that respect should be gratified. But Sir T. Wilson had not an unqualified right to Hampstead Heath. There were other commoners, and before he could interfere with the enjoyment of the public he must obtain either the concurrence of all the commoners, which was highly improbable, or the sanction of Parliament to an enlargement of his powers for building purposes. The truth was, however, that what he desired to deal with was, not Hampstead Heath, but other property adjacent to it, where he was restrained from exercising the usual rights of a proprietor. Last year, or the year before, a general enactment was passed extending leasing powers most advantageously to tenants for life, but a special prohibition was inserted against Sir T. Wilson. A relaxation of that prohibition was now sought, and that relaxation was to be denied because, incidentally, Sir T. Wilson would be included. Whether, therefore, he endeavoured to obtain justice through the medium of a private Bill, or whether he claimed to be put in the same position as all other tenants for life, it seemed that the House was determined to treat Sir Thomas Wilson with injustice. But the public were not to be so served. He was satisfied that if the question were put to the inhabitants of the metropolis they would say, "By all means keep Hampstead Heath open as a great source of enjoyment to us, but do not on that account commit a gross act of injustice to an individual." He had felt bound in justice to Sir T. Wilson to state his views on the question, and for the same reason he should support the Bill.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of the Treasury to explain the special circumstances which had induced the Government to propose this measure. Great advantage had been found to result to the public from placing unrestricted confidence in the discretion exercised by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners; and in all the instances in which Parliament had intervened to obtain a loan for the applicants, the result had been unfavourable. He would instance the Thames Tunnel. The trustees of the Dunbar Harbour had made an application to the Commissioners for an advance for the repair of the harbour, which advance, according to the general rule established by the Commissioners, had been refused. It was now proposed by Parliamentary interference to set aside that decision of the Commissioners, and by an enlargement of their powers to enable them to make an advance which, in the exercise of their discretion under the existing Act, they had refused. There might be special circumstances justifying that interference, but they should be brought directly under the notice of the House, by a statement on the part of the Government. He would state why he looked upon this transaction with more than ordinary jealousy. When ho was at the Admiralty he felt that a harbour of refuge between the Humber and the Forth was absolutely necessary for the safely of the coasting trade, and, guided in his opinion by the highest authority, he thought that Hartlepool afforded the greatest facilities for making at least cost the best harbour of refuge. During the present Session the trustees of the Hartlepool Harbour made an application to the Exchequer Loan Commissioners for an advance, and upon his own recommendation they also laid their case before the Treasury. The Treasury declined to interfere, and in the absence of such interference the Exchequer Loan Commissioners refused to make the advance. He did not quarrel with the decision either of the Treasury or of the Commissioners; but the consequence of that refusal had been to retard, if not frustrate, a work of great importance, which might be carried into execution at little cost and with no inconsiderable prospects of public advantage. Under these circumstances he confessed he was surprised to see a proposal made to Parliament, in defiance of the general rule, with respect to the small harbour of Dunbar, which could not be compared for a moment with that of Hartlepool. He had no doubt, however, that the reasons which had induced the Treasury to depart from the established rule were very strong, and he was quite willing to yield to their force; but at any rate, he thought they ought to be stated to the House.

said, he likewise thought that some explanation was due as to the circumstances under which the Bill was brought forward. The peculiar circumstances of the Bill were embodied in a Report which was issued by the Commissioners of the Fishing Board of Scotland in November last. The Report stated that the harbour works were of importance to the fishermen, and that a portion of them had been swept away by a storm last winter. Now, the value of Dunbar as a port must, he thought, be extremely small, for on looking over the returns he could not find that it had a single boat of its own engaged either in the herring or any other fishery. He did not deny, however, that the harbour was resorted to by fishing boats belonging to other ports. That it stood in need of repair he had no doubt, but for the dilapidated state into which it had been allowed to fall the trustees were to blame, as the dues ought to have been applied to their repair. It further appeared by the Report that a long correspondence had been going on on the subject between the trustees and the Government, and he felt that this correspondence ought to be produced before they came to any conclusion. He would, therefore, ask the Secretary to the Treasury why this Bill was introduced as a public and not a private Bill, and why it was brought in so late in the Session, and why so large a sum as £20,000 was to be guaranteed, when the Report stated that £6,000 would be sufficient? Besides which the trustees of the harbour had it in their own power to raise the money. He could not see any necessity of passing this Bill. If this assistance was to be given to Dunbar, there were innumerable other cases which would be stronger, and which could not be refused. If a satisfactory explanation were not given, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

said, he fully agreed in all that the right hon. Baronet had stated as to the constitution of the Exchequer Loan Commission, and as to the danger of Parliamentary interference with their proceedings. But the present Bill did not in the slightest degree vary the conditions upon which advances were made by the Commissioners. It was purely an enabling Bill, and did not touch the discretion exerercised by the Commissioners under the existing general Act. The special circumstances which had induced the Government to introduce the Bill might be shortly stated. By the Exchequer Loan Act the Commissioners were prohibited from making advances, whatever the security might be, in eases where the applicants had not Parliamentary power to borrow from them. In the Dunbar Harbour Act the borrowing power of the trustees was limited to £5,000, but a sum of £20,000 was required to repair the harbour. The Exchequer Loan Commissioners were satisfied with the security and were ready to lend the money, but in consequence of the technical difficulty which he had mentioned they were not at liberty to advance £20,000 to a body which Parliament had not empowered to borrow to that extent. Hence the present Bill. He knew the strong necessity which existed for the construction of a harbour of refuge either at Hartlepool or at some other point upon that coast. An application had been made to the Exchequer Loan Commissioners for the purpose, and under the circumstances stated by the right hon. Baronet, and one of his objects in moving for the Committee which was now sitting on harbours of refuge was to determine what ought to be done with that and similar applications. It was for this reason that the Treasury and the Exchequer Loan Commission had held back and not from any hostility to the application. As to Dunbar, there were two harbours, one of which had been constructed by the Fishery Board, and very badly constructed. In. consequence of the faulty construction the sea last winter broke down one-half of the pier, and unless something was done during the present autumn to secure and strengthen the walls there was a risk that the whole would be broken next winter, and 400 or 500 fishermen would be thrown out of employment. The corporation applied to the Government to authorise them to ask for a Bill for the purpose of raising the money. This the Government refused, and referred the corporation to the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, and the loan would have been granted but for the single defect in the title. The harbour had originally only cost £14,000—it was a pity that it had not cost more—it would have been now in a very different condition. It was only last week that they were aware of the technical defects of the title, and therefore it became necessary to apply to Parliament for a Bill to remove them. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Smith) said that this application would bring in many others. But there was daily application of this sort, and it was the special object of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners to supply them. The Commission was satisfied as to the security. The Bill was drawn by its own solicitor, and all they wanted was to remove the technical objection. He hoped the urgency of the case would be an excuse for the late introduction of the Bill.

said, that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was not at all satisfactory. It appeared that an accident had happened at Dunbar, and on the representations of parties, who pretend to represent the inhabitants, and without their opinion having been taken on the subject, the Bill was brought in to remedy the private Act, which only permitted a loan of £5,000 on the security of the rates, so as to enlarge this borrowing power. Now, if they were to take upon themselves to enlarge all the borrowing powers of railway and private Acts, there was no knowing where they were to stop. The effect of the Bill would be to increase the rates and taxes of the place until the larger sum was provided for. It was laying down a dangerous course of proceeding, and ought not to be done as a public Bill. The matter could not now be properly investigated. The private parties on whom the rates are levied might reasonably complain, and might come next year and ask for a revision of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he almost felt inclined to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

said, as he understood the matter, the corporation of Dunbar had power under the Act to borrow £5,000 and an additional or general power under their Act of Incorporation to borrow money to be secured upon the rates. If the corporation had been able to find any insurance company to advance them money at the same rate of interest as was charged by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners they might have borrowed the money of them, which would in effect lead to a perpetuation of the rates. However, not being able to find any private persons to advance the money, they came to the Commissioners, and he could not see that in so doing the objection which the right hon. Gentleman had raised would apply.

said, it appeared to him that they were asked to advance £20,000 upon very doubtful security. He had visited Dunbar and knew that there was very little trade attached to the place, and the only security would be the dues levied upon herrings and lobsters. Moreover, he understood the rates were already mortgaged to the extent of £5000. He would like to know the amount of the charges upon the corporation funds and also the amount of those funds themselves.

said, he thought a very important question had been raised by the observation of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby). If the tolls were already charged the effect of passing this Bill would be to create a prior mortgage to the extent of £20,000, and that, he thought, ought not to be done in the absence of the parties who would be affected by it.

remarked, that he wished for an explanation of an apparent discrepancy. It had been stated that the Commissioners had declared Dunbar Harbour to be in a state of dilapidation, and that the sum of £6,000 would be required for its repair. The sum in the Bill was £20,000, and he wanted to know the reason for the increase in the amount? If the Bill were passed the Exchequer Loan Commissioners would offer no opposition to advancing the money, for they would regard the application, not as coming from private parties, but as made with the sanction of Parliament.

begged to be allowed to say a few words in answer to the various objections that had been raised. The observation that the Exchequer Loan Commissioners would view an application made under this Bill as one sanctioned by Parliament would apply to every case, for the Commissioners would not lend money unless Parliament had previously given power to charge it upon the rates. With respect to Dunbar itself, as far as his information went, he believed there was not a single mortgage upon the harbour; but he would undertake before the Bill passed to make inquiries, and if it should appear that there was a single existing charge he could assure the House he would be no party to proceeding with the measure. With regard to the difference between the original estimate of £6,000 and the sum now asked for, he would remind the House that the first estimate was made by Commissioners who were not engineers, but since then further dilapidation had taken place which would render the larger sum necessary according to the opinion of Mr. Stephenson and the Fishery Board of Scotland. He could only add that, as to the security of the loan, the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had already investigated that matter for themselves.

expressed a hope that hon. Members who had notices of Motions upon the paper as Amendments upon the Motion for going into Committee, would postpone them until some future opportunity, of which there would be many. The Order for Supply stood high in the list, but in deference to the wish of the House, the Government had permitted the other Orders to be disposed of first, and therefore he trusted the House would now proceed at once to consider the remaining Estimates.

inquired whether the Insurance Companies Bill would come on after supply?

No.

When will be the next Supply day?

I believe Monday.

said, that he had given notice of a Motion on going into Committee of Supply, for an Address praying for an inquiry on the subject of the site and plans for the proposed new public offices. This was a matter of great importance, and especially to the Government. He hoped that if he waived his right upon this occasion, some night would be fixed when the subject could be fully discussed.

said, he would take that opportunity of expressing his great surprise at the answer which had been given to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Greenwich (General Codrington) relative to the horse artillery proceeding to India. He understood that answer to be that only 140 men per troop were to be sent out to India, instead of 253 men, which was the full complement; and that was in consequence of the requisition of the East India Company being limited to a certain number of men. Now, he could not help thinking it was the duty of the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, in answer to that application, to have said, "You shall have any sufficient quantity of horse artillery that you may require, but I will not reduce a troop by a single man if it tends to impair its efficiency." He should like to know what were the number of guns to be attached to each troop in the field? Were they to be six, four, or three? for he wished to warn the Government that the most expensive force that could possibly be maintained in war was an undermanned artillery. The noble Lord the Secretary for the War Department ought to be the Guardian of the honour and reputation of the officers of the army. Well, but would he say that the honour and reputation of officers were not at stake when they went into action at the head of inefficient troops? Did he suppose, for example, that Colonel Maude, whose personal gallantry and the efficiency of whose troop of horse artillery in the Crimea had so attracted the admiration, not alone of our own army, but of our gallant allies, if he were to proceed to India under such circumstances would he not be endangering his great reputation? He had no doubt it either behaved the Minister at War to require that the troops should be sent out in an efficient manner or to refuse them altogether. He must also ask whether it was the intention of the Government, considering that two additional cavalry regiments were under orders for India, to reinstate the cavalry regiments at eight troops per regiment. That step would be a most proper one, as it would recruit the strength of that arm, and at the same time, amongst its other advantages, an opportunity would be afforded to the Government of doing justice to the officers who had been reduced to half-pay upon the termination of the late war.

said, that in the answer which he had given to the question of the hon. and gallant Member, he had stated the reason why the particular number of men had been ordered to India; but he must add that since that arrangement had been made, a further requisition had been received from the East India Company, but he was not able to say whether the requisition would interfere with the arrangement previously effected. He believed, however, although he could not undertake to speak positively, that the strength of the Horse Artillery would be increased in consequence of that requisition.

observed, that he begged to give notice, that unless each troop of horse artillery was strengthened according to the requirements of the crisis, he should again direct the attention of the House to the question.

thought, before going into Committee of Supply, the Government ought to inform the House when a statement would be made of the measures which had been taken to meet the existing crisis in India. He had inquired several weeks back what preparations were being made, but received no satisfactory reply, and what he had heard that day strengthened his conviction that further information should be given by the Government. The House had just heard that a troop of the Royal Horse Artillery was about to be sent to India 100 men short of its proper complement, because the East India Company objected to the expense. Then, again, about three weeks ago the noble Lord at the head of the Government said he saw no necessity for calling out the militia, and yet a night or two since a Bill had been introduced in another place which was intended, as had been truly observed by a noble Lord, to enable the Government to do now what they said was unnecessary a fortnight before. The country knew nothing of the measures which were contemplated nor of the arrangements that had been made to insure a proper and harmonious working of the complicated system of departments. Complaints were made during the Russian war of the division of authority in this country, but upon the present occasion matters were still worse. It was true the Ordnance Department had been abolished, but there remained the War Department, the civil branch of the War Department, the Board of Control, and the Court of Directors. He also wished to know what steps were being taken to recruit the army; whether additional bounty was to be given, as there was at present a difficulty in obtaining recruits in consequence of the treatment the soldiers received at the close of the late war, and whether it was intended to provide the troops in India with clothing fitted for so hot a climate, or were the men to wear the same dress there as they had been accustomed to wear at home? Those were important questions, which the country was anxious should be answered, and he hoped the Government would not decline to give the requisite information.

on behalf of the Court of Directors of the East India Company, said, that he could assure the House they would not spare any expense to put down the revolt in India, and to restore peace to that important territory.

said, he had intended to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, but as he was not in his place, perhaps some other member of the Government could give an answer. The question was a very simple one, nevertheless, relating as it did to India, it was important. He wished to know whether any steps had been taken to send out troops to the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras to replace the regiments which had been so properly sent from those Presidencies by the Governors to Bengal and the North Western Provinces. If no answer was given, he should repeat the question on the Motion for the adjournment of the House on Friday.

said, he thought there was no reason for complaint on the part of the Government if hon. Members should persist in bringing on Motions which appeared on the paper, because the Order for Supply had been put down with scarcely any previous notice.

asked when the militia Estimates would be taken?

said, he regretted that he was unable to give an exact answer at present, as much would depend upon the progress made in Supply that day. There would be, probably, a Committee of Supply on Monday, but he could not say positively. He might add that the Divorce Bill would be the first order to-morrow.

suggested that the Probate Bill should not come on until Friday.

observed, that he understood that to be the arrangement of the Attorney General.

in the Chair.

said, he thought it his duty to insist upon receiving an answer to the question which he had addressed to the Government relative to the clothing of the troops sent out to India. He should move that the Chairman report progress unless his question was answered.

pronounced the noble Lord to be out of order.

said, he wished to inquire what amount was in hand of the £12,000 granted last year? He understood £2,000 of that Vote, only, had been spent.

said, that not having had notice of the question, he was sorry that he was not able to answer it. Moreover, the matter more particularly belonged to the Foreign Department. The present Vote was the estimate for the current year.

observed, that he thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have been prepared with the necessary information to reply to the question which had been asked. The discussion which took place a few nights since might have been satisfactory to new Members, who believed in the virtue of an Address to the Crown, but it had not been so to himself. He had no faith in any good result being obtained from the remonstrances of our ambassadors at Madrid, unless they were followed up by stringent measures for the suppression of the slave trade. If it was true that only £2,000 had been expended in bounties, last year, it showed how little had been done, and how utterly insufficient our naval force in those seas was to check the traffic. He could not understand why it was, but the Government always seemed afraid to deal with the strong hand in this matter, although it was obvious that no other mode would be effectual. Could the hon. Gentleman say for how many slaves bounty had been paid upon during the year?

said, the House appeared to pass their Votes rather blindly. In 1855 and 1856. £12,000 was voted each year, and now £10,000 was asked for. He would beg to inquire how much of the money voted in the last two years had been drawn out of the Exchequer, how much had been expended, and, if the whole had not been expended, where the balance now was? He believed there was enough money now in hand to render the present Vote unnecessary.

said, he would have made the inquiry if notice had been given him, but he was not able to answer off-hand. He would lay on the table a statement of the details for which the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had asked, and that would show the amount which had been paid. The money could only be applied to the purpose for which it was voted.

remarked, that he was not sure of that, and would like to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that it had been applied to no other purpose.

replied, that he was certainly not aware of any appropriation of the money to any other purpose than that for which it had been voted.

said, he had to make the same statement on this Vote that he made some nine or ten times before. He protested against the expense incurred on account of corn returns which were utterly valueless. A quarter of corn was sold at one place, put down at one price; taken to another place, not ten miles off, perhaps, and there put down at a different price. The result was, that, as a criterion of prices, the returns made by these inspectors, which originated under the Corn Laws, were notoriously fallacious, and nobody engaged in agriculture believed in them. It was perfectly well known that they gave no information whatever as to vast quantities of corn that wore sold throughout the country, and, therefore, the expense incurred was literally thrown away. Time after time, this had been admitted, and the Secretary to the Treasury had promised that something should be done in the matter; but here the old Vote was again proposed.

said, the system was first introduced with reference to the Corn Laws, and the object of the returns was to regulate the intercourse between this and foreign countries, with respect to the important article of food. At that time these returns were an object of great national importance, but the repeal of those laws rendered them unnecessary for their original purposes, and they were now kept up only with a view to the regulation of the tithe averages. That object was attained with sufficient accuracy under the system, though, certainly, the returns did not give anything like complete information as to all the purchases and sales of corn effected in the kingdom. So far, however, as regarded the average price of corn, they were sufficient to secure an accurate result.

said, it was admitted the returns were fallacious. Somebody, therefore, must be cheated. Whether was it the parson or the landlord?

rejoined, that he had stated that the present system did not give a complete return of the sales of corn throughout the kingdom, but that it answered the purpose for which the returns were now obtained. It gave sufficiently accurate information as to the average price of corn to form a standard for the regulation of tithe averages.

said, that this was an increased and increasing Vote. Having made an outlay of £177,320 on the embassy house, the Committee was required to assent to an annual expenditure of £5,675 for repairs, ordinary works, and rates and taxes. The French Government had proposed that the English Government should provide an embassy house in London for the French representative, and that the French Government should provide a residence in Paris for the English Ambassador, and considering that the embassy house and gardens at Paris were worth from £20,000 to £130,000, and that it cost some £3,000 a year to keep it, he thought it bore the aspect of a beneficial proposition. Notwithstanding, that £8,320 in 1843. £3,892 in 1844, £9,213 in 1853, and £5,078 in 1856, had been expended on the Ambassador's house, and that pound;2,725 was now required, he had been informed that the building was in such a state that £18,000 or £20,000 might be spent upon it now with propriety. He wished to know why this large sum was required, and what prospect there was of this expenditure being reduced? It would be better to sell this property and give the Ambassador a round sum, say £3,000 a year, to provide a residence for himself, than to keep up the present expensive house at Paris. At St. Petersburgh we allowed £1,000 a year, and at Vienna £900 a year to our Envoys for residences, and he thought the same system might be followed at Paris. At Constantinople it was no doubt necessary to have a house, for it differed from Paris, but still there was great room for economy. The embassy house at Constantinople cost £90,000. In 1855 the amount voted for its maintenance was £1,183; in 1856, £1,020; and this year there was a sum of £2,950 put down for ordinary works, repairs, &c. He hoped some explanation would be given on this head, and that the Chief Commissioner of Works, who he was aware looked to these things himself, would be able to effect a reduction for the future. Knowing what embassy houses cost at Paris and Constantinople there was one item in the present Vote that he confessed considerably alarmed him. He observed that the Government contemplated, or at least had been making inquiries relative to the purchase of a house as a residence for the Embassy at Madrid. Now, he would be most unwilling to encourage in any way the purchase or erection of an embassy house at Madrid. It would be much better to make a handsome allowance to the Ambassador for a house than to encumber ourselves with another expensive establishment of that kind. There was an item of £289 for remuneration to an architect who was employed at Madrid to survey and report on two offers—one having reference to a house and the other to a site for an embassy, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to say that, this was some old arrear, and that there was no intention to proceed to the erection of any embassy house at Madrid.

said, he would answer his hon. Friend's question with reference to Madrid first. As to the item of £289, he had to state that a committee was appointed to inquire into the expenditure at Madrid and into the charges of M. Albano, the architect employed at Madrid. During the sitting of the Committee last year, he (Sir B. Hall) stated that in consequence of the staff of the Office of Works having been remodelled he did not think it would be necessary to require the services of M. Albano again. There was not any charge on his account subsequent to that period, the sum of £289 having been incurred antecedently to the sitting of the Committee. With regard to the apprehensions of his hon. Friend as to the erection of an embassy house at Madrid he had to state that he had no intention of advising the Government to build such a house at Madrid. He was quite aware of the expenditure that had been incurred at Constantinople in purchasing a house, and also at Paris, where the house was in a very unsatisfactory state, and therefore he would not be very ready to advise the Treasury or Parliament to take the same course at Madrid. With regard to the embassy house at Paris he had looked into that matter himself, he went to Paris and examined the house, and found it very much out of repair. He also desired the Surveyor of Works to go to Paris and look into the condition of the house. When his hon. Friend (Mr. Wise) said £18,000 or £20,000 might be expended upon the building he was not far from the truth, for after a careful survey it was found that it would require £18,000 to put it properly in repair. The call made upon the House, however, was for a sum of £2,300, and that was not all for repairs, a portion being allotted to the payment of insurance, water rates, and other items. With regard to Constantinople, he would only say that he had done all he could to keep down the expense, but the Committee must see that from a variety of circumstances the expenditure in that city must necessarily be considerable.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to purchase a house at Madrid?

said, he was not aware of any intention at present to propose the erection of an embassy house at Madrid. It was very probable that during the recess he might send an officer from his department to inquire into the state of the case.

said, he did not think the explanation given at ail satisfactory, and he should therefore vote for the rejection of the Vote on the ground that the ambassadors should pay for their own houses.

said, he could assure the Committee that everything in the power of the Government would be done to reduce these Estimates. They were aware that the salary of our Ambassador at Paris was arranged on the understanding that his house and office should be maintained at the public expense, and that the charges for insurance and local taxes should also be paid by the public. The expenses of the ambassadorial establishment at Constantinople was likewise paid by a Vote of that House, and if these expenses were thrown on ambassadors a necessity would arise for revising their salaries and allowances. In that case it would be necessary to ask the House to vote in another form the sums which were now proposed in the Estimates. Under all the circumstances, he thought the present the most direct mode of proceeding.

said, he had stated to the House that he could not at present advise the purchase of an embassy house at Madrid, but that during the recess he should send an officer to inquire into the state of the case. Of course, nothing could be done till the matter came before the Treasury and that House.

had reason to know that the salaries of our ambassadors both at Vienna and St. Petersburg were very much below what they should be; and the public interests suffered from that circumstance.

remarked that he did not discredit the statement made as to the unsatisfactory condition of the embassy house at Paris, for when he was in the office now held by the right hon. Baronet his attention had been drawn to it, and the wonder was that the house had remained above ground so long. A great expenditure had been incurred to put it in a creditable state of repair; but he was only afraid that every year such repairs would be declared necessary, and a large expense incurred.

said, he wished to know if he correctly understood the right hon. Baronet to say that no contract would be entered into for the purpose of an embassy house at Madrid without reference being first made to the Treasury and to Parliament. Ought not the reference to Parliament to come first?

Of course nothing could be done without reference to Parliament; but if anything was to be proposed, the proposition must be made in the first instance to the Treasury before it could be submitted to Parliament.

said, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that this would not be the first time that an arrangement implying outlay had been come to by the Treasury without applying to Parliament. He might specify the recent improvements in the Park, where the money was spent first, and Parliament applied to afterwards.

said, he wished to ask for an explanation of this Vote.

said, this sum had been spent by the Governor of the Cape Colony, Sir G. Grey, according to a scheme which would be found in a paper printed with the Estimates of 1855. The objects on which it had been spent were numerous—the employment of natives on public works, the payment of magistrates to administer English law among the native tribes, gratuities to native chiefs who were willing to co-operate with the Governor in maintaining order among their people, maintaining hospitals for the native sick, and the establishment of industrial schools. The Governor had been most successful in accomplishing the ends for which he had asked this Vote. He had averted a Kaffir war, he had maintained peace on the frontier, and he had brought the colony to such a secure condition that it was confidently anticipated that he would be able to spare troops from the Cape to reinforce our army in India in the present moment of necessity.

wished to know whether any despatch had been received showing in detail the manner in which the Vote had been spent?

said, he had not received any such account at present, but he had written to the Governor desiring him to forward an account to the Home Government, and he had no doubt that it would be sent in due course. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the condition of the Cape at the present moment, and it was due to that distinguished man who was now the Governor, to say that this state of things was owing almost altogether to the energy and ability with which he had administered the affairs of the colony. He had confronted and baffled the danger of an impending Kaffir war, and he had succeeded in keeping the natives in such a peaceable condition that a very considerable portion of the large military force which had been collected for the defence of the colony was available for the purpose of reinforcing our Indian establishment. He had just received the following despatch from Sir G. Grey:—

"Cape Town, June 8, 1857.

"Sir,—A good opportunity offering of communication with England, I think it may interest you to hear that affairs upon the frontier and in Caffraria continue in the most satisfactory state, mid that I have no doubt that, if the measures in progress are consistently persevered in, it may now be said that our way to the final settlement of the difficulties which so long prevailed in this country can be distinctly seen. The Colonial Parliament is still sitting; but the Session is now drawing near its close. The several measures brought forward by the Government have all been passed, either as proposed or with flight modifications; and ample supplies have been most cheerfully voted for the public service, including a vote of £50,000 to be expended in the current and ensuing year in introducing European immigrants into this colony. I think I am justified in saying that the colony of the Cape of Good Hope and British Caffraria are, at the present moment, as flourishing and contented as any part of Her Majesty's dominions.

"I have, &c., G. GREY.

"The Right Hon. H. Labouchere, M.P., &c."

By means of this Vote Sir G. Grey had been able to effect a great deal of good. He had kept the natives quiet, and by giving them employment he had saved many of them from starving when the murrain destroyed their cattle in such great numbers.

said, that this grant appeared to him to be an extraordinary one. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had received any answer to his despatch of January last, inquiring of the Governor General how this money was expended? He (Sir H. Willoughby) also asked whether the Government were prepared to tax the country year after year for money to civilize the tribes? He would not grudge the money if he thought that it would do any substantial good. But if it were intended to saddle the country permanently with this Vote he should certainly oppose it.

said, he was afraid from the words read by the Colonial Secretary from the Governor's despatch—"if the measures now in progress are consistently persevered in" that it was intended to continue these Votes, and he hoped some assurance would be given that that was not the case. He for one protested against being drawn into the payment of black mail to the amount of £40,000 a year to keep the peace at the Cape.

had such a strong objection to the Vote that he should divide the Committee against it.

said, he also was afraid that the Governor's despatch did not hold out much hope of a diminution of the Vote.

said, that the Governor did not at all contemplate that this would be a permanent Vote. He had expressed a hope in a late despatch that the revenue of the colony would be speedily in such a flourishing condition that some portion of this Imperial Vote at least might be dispensed with, and he had pointed out various accidental and extraordinary causes which had led to a temporary impoverishment of the revenue.

asked whether any portion of this Vote had been devoted to missionary purposes?

said, that part of this Vote had been applied to the establishment of industrial schools, in which good work the missionaries had co-operated, and the only capacity in which the missionaries, so far as he knew, could have received any of this Vote would be as managers of industrial schools.

said, that though he intended to vote in favour of this Vote, it was upon the distinct understanding that he was not pledged to support any similar proposal next year. When the grant was first proposed it was stated that it would be asked for three successive years, and this was the third year. He had the utmost confidence in the abilities and prudence of Sir G. Grey, and he thought the country was under infinite obligations to him for the manner in which he had surmounted the difficulties with which he had to deal both in New Zealand and the Cape Colony; but at the same time it could not be denied that payments of this kind, though they might be more peaceful means of keeping the natives quiet than the use of arms, were yet of a very questionable nature. As a Borderer he had a sort of hereditary right to know the nature of these payments, and they were after all nothing better than black mail paid to purchase peace. That was not a system which ought to be countenanced by this country. The Governor himself had stated that there was no colony which was in a more satisfactory state, and under these circumstances he could see no pretext for continuing a Vote of this description in future years. He was not exactly satisfied with a passage in the right hon. Gentleman's despatch to Governor Grey on this subject, where he said,

"This liberal assistance having been readily voted by Parliament, I hope it will be in your power to report that a smaller sum will suffice in the next ensuing year."

That clearly showed that the right hon. Gentleman did not contemplate the discontinuance of this grant, but merely its reduction.

said, he had a lively recollection of the large amount of money which we had to pay for putting an end to the Kaffir war. If then by continuing the Vote for another year or two they could ensure the permanent peace and contentment of the colony, he should not certainly be one to discourage such an experiment.

said, he bad no wish to consider any hon. Member who supported this Vote this year pledged to support it next year. At the same time a system of this kind could not be suddenly stopped. He should be glad to refrain from asking for a similar Vote to this next year if he found such a course consistent with his sense of duty. At the same time there might be events—a rising of the Kaffirs for instance—which might render it necessary to give assistance to Kaffraria which the rest of the colony did not need, and therefore he must hold the Government entirely free to propose a Vote next year of a similar description, though it might be of a smaller amount, if it should seem necessary to them in the exercise of their discretion. It would be seen by a reference to Sir G. Grey's despatch that it was not originally contemplated that the grant would be discontinued after three years, but that it would be reduced from the amount of £40,000 at the end of that time, and afterwards annually diminished.

said, he should oppose the Vote. He wished to know what missionary societies received assistance from this Vote? He believed that the reception of Government assistance was a sure move to ruin any such society.

said, he was not able to furnish any precise answer on the point. He believed that the only assistance given to the missionaries was by appointing them to superintend the industrial schools which Sir George Grey bad thought it desirable to establish throughout the country.

remarked that he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) that it was much better to spend £40,000 a year in raising a barrier of civilization against the incursions of the Kaffirs, than to have to pay £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 now and then for the expenses of a Kaffir war. At the same time he thought the Vote should be gradually reduced.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the expense in Scotland was about £1,000 more than in Ireland. He recommended the application to Scotland of the system of collecting these statistics by means of the constabulary, which obtained in Ireland.

said, he would remind the hon. Member that in Scotland the police at present received no payment from the Government. The country was greatly indebted to the Highland Society for the trouble which they took in collecting these statistics.

said, he would be glad to see a similar Vote for England. He hoped that the time was not far distant when the farmers, less mystified than they were at present, would see that the collection of these statistics was as much for their interest as for that of the public.

said, he did not think that much reliance could be placed on the Scotch Agricultural returns collected by the Highland Society. They did not give more than a general idea of the produce of the country.

said, that in the infancy of inquiry they could not obtain perfection, but as they proceeded the results would improve.

thought that it was not the fanner, but the British public, which was mystified. These were not agricultural statistics, they were agricultural deceptions, and not of any use to a single man, woman, or child.

said, that so far as his experience went, the farmers were greatly opposed to the collection of these statistics.

thought that although the Irish statistics were collected cheaply they were not collected well.

said, that some of this money was conveyed by Her Majesty's ships of war, and the parties in those ships were no more justified in charging for the conveyance of this money than a gentleman's coachman was to charge for carrying parcels to his master's house.

said, he rose to oppose the Vote, not because he objected to the formation of a gallery of portraits of distinguished persons, but because he objected to the establishment of such a gallery with a separate staff in a building in Great George Street, Westminster, instead of allowing it to form part of the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. Sir Charles Eastlake, the director of that Gallery, was a great pluralist. He had £1,000 a year for that office, £500 as Secretary to the Fine Arts Commission, and £300 as President of the Royal Academy. With all these duties to perform he could not have much time to devote to the National Gallery, He had a clerk at a salary of £750 a year, whose duties could be as well performed, under efficient superintendence, by an ordinary clerk receiving only £150 per annum.

thought that he was quite in order. It was very desirable that the Committee should ascertain whether it was necessary to set up a new establishment in Great George Street when they had ample machinery for the formation and management of this gallery in Trafalgar Square. The system of having a body of irresponsible trustees, which had been abandoned with regard to the National Gallery, was proposed to be restored in the case of this gallery of portraits, and among the list of names was that of Sir Charles Eastlake and of a noble Marquess who was one of the principal delinquents in the purchase of the Holbein portrait. No responsible officer was appointed, and the inevitable result would be that pictures of the most worthless description would be foisted upon the public as original and valuable gems. Already there had been admitted a portrait given by the late Lord Ellesmere, which he would stake his reputation as a judge of works of art would not by competent judges be estimated at £10. He objected to the gradual dotting over of the West of London with archæological collections, collections of pictures, collections of crockery, of furniture, and of all sorts of rococo, and he was sure that if the House did not make a stand against a system which was pursued with a view to create places for foreigners and Englishmen, but principally the former, there would be a general outcry in the country against it. If he received any encouragement he should divide the Committee against this Vote, and he should certainly next Session take some very decisive steps to put a stop to this extravagant system of expenditure, which was attended with very small results, and was calculated rather to deteriorate than to improve the public taste.

said, he was ignorant of what decisive steps the hon. Member was going to take to put an end to the expenditure of which he disapproved, but he apprehended that no such steps would be of any avail unless the hon. Gentleman could induce the majority of that House, by whose decision he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was prepared to abide, to support him. He was sorry to have heard a renewal of the attacks upon Sir C. Eastlake in which the hon. Gentleman had indulged on a former occasion, for it was his opinion that Sir C. Eastlake was a most accomplished man, and had performed his duties to the public with great ability and with great assiduity. The gallery to which this Vote was to be appropriated originated in an Address to the Crown which was agreed to last Session by the House of Lords. Its object was different from that of the National Gallery, because while the latter was a collection of pictures valuable as works of art, this was to be a gallery of portraits which might throw light upon the history of the country, and which would be chosen on that I ground, and not with reference to their artistic excellence. He was at a loss to understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to the number of institutions in the west of London. The collections which used to be at Marlborough House having been removed, he knew of nothing to which the remark could apply except the National Gallery of Pictures.

said, he should certainly divide the Committee against the Vote. This was an object for which he did not think it fair to tax the labouring classes from one end of the country to the other. The hon. Member was addressing the House at a quarter to six o'clock, when the debate was, owing to the Standing Order, suspended, and the House resumed.