appeared at the bar with the answer of Her Majesty to the Address of the House on the subject of Manning the Navy.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether the principle just put forth by Dr. Odling, the officer of health for Lambeth, that the perpetual agitation of the water of the Thames, and the flux and reflux of the tide, affects the oxidization of decomposing matters to that extent, "that he had never been able to detect sulphuretted hydrogen in Thames water," may not be well worthy of further investigation, as offering possibly the means of escaping the hazardous and expensive drainage engineering undertakings that have been under consideration?

said, that a Select Committee had already been appointed to inquire into the subject of the Metropolitan Drainage, and that the subject to which the hon. Gentleman had referred would be properly considered by them. In the meantime he would suggest to the hon. Member to inquire from Dr. Odling whether, if he had been unable to discover sulphuretted hydrogen in the Thames water, he had been equally unable to do so in the Thames air.

said, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that he had felt himself compelled a few days ago to bring under the notice of the House an article in a newspaper call the Carlisle Examiner and North Western Advertiser, imputing to him as Chairman of a Committee upstairs almost every crime that it was possible to charge upon a person filling that judicial situation. Not only had he (Mr. Clive) and other members of the Committee been charged with partiality in the room and out of the room, but a direct imputation of corruption had been launched at him individually. He had read the article on a former occasion to the House, and he would not trouble them by reading it again. At that time he believed the writer to be labouring under some sort of delusion, that the facts were the suggestions of interested persons, and that the writer would upon inquiry see and acknowledge how totally false were the imputations in which he had indulged. If there were a single word of truth in these imputations he should not only be wholly unworthy of a seat in that House, but should deserve to be visited with the indignation of every honest man in the country. For himself he had on a former occasion met the charges with a distinct denial, expressing at the same time, as he now did again, his perfect willingness to submit to any inquiry into his conduct that might be suggested. He was so averse to these attacks upon the press that he had hoped that the necessity for any further proceedings in this case would be put an end to, and that the proprietor of this newspaper would retract what he had said, in which case he should have moved when he was called to the Bar of the House that he be permitted to withdraw. But no such retractation had appeared, and in an article written subsequently, and which he held in his hand, the writer had persevered in the course he had originally adopted. He, no doubt, felt that he was able to protect himself in a court of law, but several hon. Members of that House had assured him that it was impossible for him, as a Member of that House, to overlook the charges made against him. He had subsequently submitted the article to the highest authorities in that House—to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewes and the Speaker, who both thought it wholly impossible to pass the matter over. That which convinced him there was no disposition to retract these charges was a subsequent article, in which the writer said he knew the House of Commons was an assembly of honest Gentlemen, and was not inclined to cover the spotted reputation of any of its Members with the shield of its collective responsibility. This could only be applicable to himself. In another article it was said that the editor believed, from information he had received, that there was a strong presumption against Mr. Clive, that it was his duty to make public the result of that information; that he should not, however, at present, disclose the nature of that evidence; and that it would be for counsel to consider whether it amounted to legal evidence, and for him (the editor) to consider whether he should go into an inquiry with unwilling witnesses. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to read from the article in question, when—

rose to order. He said that two persons had been ordered to appear at the Bar of the House to explain certain articles which had appeared in a newspaper. It appeared to him that the hon. Member was trying to aggravate the offence by reading another article in another and subsequent newspaper. They knew nothing of that article; it formed no part of the offence for which they were to be brought to the Bar. They were in attendance, and it would be only fair to hear what they had got to say before he read another article which was not before the House. He (Mr. Duncombe) would therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to aggravate the offence by reading that article; he would put it to Mr. Speaker whether by so doing he was not out of order?

said, that it was not possible for him to say that the hon. Member was out of order. He did not know that he might not conclude his address by another Motion on the subject of the paragraph he was reading. So far as the hon. Member had proceeded in stating his case he was not out of order.

said, he could assure the hon. Member for Finsbury that he had no intention to aggravate the offence which these persons had committed. He merely meant to show that he could not take the course of leniency to which he should otherwise have been inclined. After reading an extract from another article published in the paper of the 25th inst., in which it was asked if our liberty was to be at the mercy of stockjobbers, the hon. Gentleman said, he would conclude by moving that the proprietor and printer of the Carlisle Examiner and North Western Advertiser should be called in.

Order for the attendance of Hudson Scott and Washington Wilks read.

Hudson Scott and Washington Wilks called in and examined in relation to the article complained of in the Carlisle Examiner and North Western Advertiser Newspaper of Saturday, 15th May, 1858.

addressing the former, said—Are you the proprietor of the Carlisle Examiner and North-Western Advertiser?—I am.

Are you also the publisher of that paper?—I am.

Did you publish, or cause to be published, the paper of the 15th May?—I did.

Were you cognizant of the substance of the article of that date, under the heading "Hawick and Carlisle Railway?"—I was.

Are you aware that that article reflects on the character of a Member of this House who was Chairman of the Committee on that Railway?—I was aware that it made certain imputations upon, and addressed certain inquiries to, the Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive), who was the Chairman of that Committee.

Have you any explanation of those imputations to offer?—I beg to offer this explanation. There was in my neighbourhood a very strong feeling regarding the conduct of the Committee en the Carlisle and Hawick Railway Bill. Gentlemen of eminence in the neighbourhood who had attended the Committee, informed me, partly in conversation and partly in correspondence, that, they had doubts with respect to the impartiality of the Chairman. There were strong doubts expressed as to the impartiality of the Committee, and I thought it but justice to Mr. Clive that the matter should be further investigated, in order that this matter might be explained and the charges refuted, if they were unfounded.

Are you prepared to state to the House who was the author of that article?—With all respect, I am not.

Are you prepared to state from whom you received the information on which you made those charges?—I am not. The great part of my information was confidential.

I now ask you, are you prepared to withdraw them?—I am very sorry to say I cannot. I can only state, that if I heard before that article was printed, that any hon. Member had stood up in his place and stated that those charges were untrue, I would not have written the article, or I would have withdrawn it.

Are you prepared to withdraw the article?—I cannot withdraw it.

Are you prepared to prove it?—I believe I could show that I was justified morally in putting it in.

Are you prepared to state to the House any proofs of the charges made in the article?—They are of such a nature that I scarcely could state them, for the statements were communicated to me by two or three friends, and communicated to me in good faith.

You are asked will you withdraw the article?—I can only state that I will so far withdraw it as cheerfully to publish to the world Mr. Clive's contradiction.

You have said that statements were made to you by two or three friends. What were those statements?— One of the statements was that Mr. Clive was actively engaged in operations on the Stock Exchange, at the time this inquiry was going forward; that he was in communication with stockbrokers during this inquiry. In some mysterious manner information of the nature of the Committee's decision had reached the Stock Exchange before that decision was pronounced; and I was informed that Mr. Clive had himself visited a stockbroker. I am willing to publish his denial of that.

Can you give us the name of the stockbroker?—I cannot at this moment. I heard that from a second or third party.

Can you give us the name of the second or third party?—No. The communications were made to me confidentially.

Can you give a clue such as—you yourself as an honest man might desire to have, which would enable Mr. Clive to discover the author of those statements?—I shall be happy to inform Mr. Clive, in private, of the gentleman who gave me the information. I believe that gentleman would be willing to repeat his statement before a Committee of this House.

Were your informants interested in this railway?—I believe they were to some extent.

Did they tell you that they were?—Oh, it was a matter of report. It was a matter perfectly notorious in Carlisle that the gentleman who gave me the information was concerned in the line that was thrown out. I fully believe that, were he called on by a Committee of the House, he would state to such Committee all he stated to me.

Were you not aware that this publication might bring you under those rules of this House which apply to breaches of privilege?—That did not occur to me.

I think that you have said that if the gentleman who gave the information to you were called on, he would repeat his statement to the Committee of this House?—Yes.

Now, how can the House call on him to attend before a Committee if you do not give his name?—He would rather attend before a Committe, I think.

Are you the printer of this paper?—No, I am not. I was at one time.

Were you the printer at the time this article was published?—I was not.

I am the printer and publisher.

Were you the printer of the article that appeared in the paper of the 25th?

That is not before the House. Mr. W. Wilks and Mr. H. Scott were then directed to withdraw.

said—It appears that the proprietor and publisher of this article has neither withdrawn the imputation, nor expressed his readiness to substantiate it. Therefore, Sir, I do not see any other course which we can take in justice to the hon. Member for Hereford, and also, I must say, in justice to every Member of this House than to declare "that the said article is a false and scandalous libel upon the Chairman and other members of the Committee on group No. 13 of railway bills."

Resolved, That the said article is a false and scandalous libel upon the Chairman and other Members of the Committee on Group 13 of Railway Bills.

Resolved, That Washington Wilks, the proprietor and publisher of the said newspaper, in publishing the said article, has been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House.

Ordered,—

That Washington Wilks, having been guilty or a breach of the Privileges of this House, be for his said offence committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.

Ought not something to be done about the other person?

He does not seem to have been in any way concerned in the matter. I will move that the order for the attendance of Hudson Scott be discharged.

(who was very indistinctly heard)—Sir, I should not be disposed on the present occasion to call attention to our foreign relations, were it not from reports in the newspapers of what appeared to me to be a most extraordinary speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This speech purports to have been made at Slough, and I hold in my hand a copy of a newspaper which contains a report of it, and there are various points of it to which I think it necessary to call the attention of the House. Sir, if that speech had been merely a speech of passing exultation at the result of a late debate in this House on the Resolution introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), certainly neither I nor any one would find fault with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for even excessive expressions of exultation on that account. But there are other matters which deeply concern the relations of this House to the Government, and the relations of this Government to the Governments of other countries. Now, Sir, in the first place, with regard to the relations of this House to the Government, we are informed in that speech that when the Earl of Derby was called upon by Her Majesty to form a Government, that he stated that not above a third of the Members of this House were attached to the party of which that noble Earl was the head, and therefore, that that was the only certain support on which he could rely. I know there are many who at the time, founding their opinion upon this fact—which it is now stated has been communicated to Her Majesty,—thought that the House of Commons ought not to consent to the existence of a Government commanding only that unit of support. Those who thought so might have moved to address Her Majesty, as has often been done, praying that an efficient Administration should be appointed representing the majority in this House. But that was not the course pursued, and I remember the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty told his constituents some time ago that he believed there were a great number of independent Members in this House who were not attached to any particular party, and he said that although the present Ministers might not possess the confidence of a majority of the House upon their formation, yet their measures might be such as would conciliate the support of those independent Members, and thereby place them in the constitutional position of having the command of a majority of the House. When I read that statement I thought it was the best defence which could be put forward for the situation of the Ministers, and I thought it was a position which might be constitutionally defended by those who had taken office. But the House will observe that in that defence everything depends upon the conduct of the Ministers. It was for them so to shape the measures which they brought forward in accordance with the opinions of the majority of this House as to conquer the adverse feeling that existed in regard to them and thus establish a solid claim to the support of this branch of the Legislature. The great majority of this House, I think, accepted that view of affairs, and, so far from having to complain of attacks, I think, the Government have experienced the utmost forbearance. Differing as they do in opinion on many subjects from Her Majesty's Ministers, it would have been in the power of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to array themselves in active opposition to the Government. They have not done so, but have allowed Her Majesty's Ministers to carry on the Government of the country without disturbance. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman's speech appears to me to proceed on an endeavour to show that during the three months which have elapsed since the present Government took office they have brought forward such measures, and pursued such a course in relation to foreign affairs, and likewise to India, as deserved and commanded the confidence of this House, and if not of this House, certainly of the country. This proposition, I think, ought to be examined into a little closely. We cannot do this without examining, in the first place, into the relations of the Government with the Governments of foreign countries, for almost the very first statement that I find in the right hon. Gentleman's speech is the following:—

"It is well now for us to think lightly of the perils we have passed through—even to forget them; but when I tell you, and tell you seriously, that the question of peace or war when we acceded to office was not a question of weeks or days, but of hours, I am sure you will remember that peace has been preserved, while the honour of the country has been vindicated."

How is it, I ask, that our relations with France were in such a condition when the present Government came into office, that the question of peace or war was not one of weeks but of Hours? I cannot find from any member of the late Government —and I took the opportunity of asking the Earl of Clarendon in particular—that when they resigned office there was any apprehension of an imminent war. The only question, as far as I am aware, on which it was supposed that any misunderstanding could have arisen between this country and that great empire with which we are in alliance—an alliance which I hope will be long maintained—was one which grew out of the residence here of persons who had conspired against the life of the Sovereign of that country, and the Conspiracy Bill which had been introduced into this House. I cannot believe that a Prince of such great sagacity as the Emperor Napoleon, who has been so firm to the English alliance, who has been one of the best, if not the very best, ally to us of any French Sovereign, would have taken any step which should raise apprehensions of war, simply because we refused to alter our laws, and to change the ancient spirit of our domestic legislation at the desire of a foreign Government. If the right hon. Gentleman means to imply that, then I should have much less reliance on the security and stability of peace than I have at the present moment. If this is his meaning, I should not rely so firmly on the justice and on the pacific policy of the French Government as I am disposed to do. But above all, I can hardly believe any such apprehensions existed, because we are even now going into Committee to consider the Army Estimates —the plan of which is, that 20,000 militiamen, well armed and well disciplined, are to be disbanded, and we are to rely solely upon our recruits and newly-raised troops, the greater part of our effective force, and our veterans having been sent to India. I cannot imagine than any such plan would be proposed by a Government which was of opinion that peace hung upon a thread, and that we were in such danger that when the late Ministers went out and the present Ministers came in, peace or war was a question not of weeks, but of hours. There is another part of this question which, in my opinion, is of great importance, but to which the right hon. Gentleman has not called attention. Every one will recollect that when the Conspiracy Bill was brought into this House the right hon. Gentleman, in this House, and the Earl of Derby, in the other House, expressed their approbation of it. We who voted against that Bill —ninety-nine in number—were supposed to be very bad patriots, and certainly I for one had no hope that we should be able to defeat it. But afterwards, when we came to the second reading, the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, who swelled the majority of 299 on its introduction, came round and embraced most readily the proposition of the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson), the obvious effect of which was to throw that Bill over altogether. It was rumoured that the then Ambassador of France complained that he had reason to expect that the hon. Gentlemen opposite would have supported the Bill when they came into office,—that it would have been carried through both Houses, and that his expectations had been disappointed. I can conceive that there might have been a great deal of irritation existing if that were the case, not against this country, but against the present Administration. The French Government might have felt aggrieved at the conduct of our Government; but that is very different from the two countries being on the brink of war. And I will take this occasion to express my belief that the people of this country, and the people of France, taking them in the mass, are cordially disposed to keep up relations of peace. They both see that peace is necessary to commercial prosperity and to the progress of civilization, and they both are aware that the breaking out of a war must be attended with great evils, and must impose burdens on their resources which would be deeply felt by both. I repeat, Sir, that I believe that the two nations are both inclined to peace, and that the difficulty would be either in France or in England to induce the people to take up arms upon any petty matter, or, in fact, without some serious cause of quarrel. The Emperor of the French, in one of his despatches, desired his Minister to say that peace could only be maintained if the honour of both nations were kept intact—a sentiment worthy of him, which we ought always to hold in respect. I should be glad to hear, therefore, from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation of the passage which I have quoted from his speech, and I hope he will tell us, too, how it is that if we were within a few hours of war greater preparations have not been made for the defence of the country than are proposed in these Army Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman went on to make another statement in reference to the question of peace or war which is of the greatest importance. In another part of his speech he says:—

"A war between Naples and Sardinia, which would have been a war that would have set the whole world in flames, was nearly precipitated in order to inconvenience, and, perhaps, upset a Government which was the choice, after due reflection, of the Queen of this country, and which was honoured by her confidence, not formally, but sincerely and cordially, because they were the only party who would come forward and incur the responsibility of carrying on the Government."

Now, that is another subject, with respect to which I ask for explanation. I say there has been great forbearance in this House on that subject. Those who sit on this side of the House were anxious that we should not betray, or desert, or abandon Sardinia. An hon. Member gave notice of a Motion to the effect, "that this House trusts that in the difficulties which had supervened between Sardinia and Naples, this Government will act in concurrence with that of Sardinia." I think that was a Motion which it was perfectly competent to an hon. Member to make, and in which, unless an explanation had been given, he should have persevered. But as soon as this House understood that a proposal had been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Sardinia which that Government had accepted, and that negotiations consequent on that proposal and acceptance had begun, there was no indiscreet interference with the Government. There was, above all, no wish whatever to commit or goad on Naples and Sardinia to hostilities. On the contrary, there was every disposition to wait the result of those negotiations. I might, if I should say anything on that subject, say that the House has shown over much patience upon it, because, although we profess to support Sardinia, we do not find that that concurrence has produced that which we might naturally expect it would have produced— an immediate concession on the part of Naples, at least of the ship and the crew that were seized; but that, on the con- trary, there is every danger that the crew of the Cagliari—notwithstanding that, according to the statement of the Earl of Malmesbury, the law officers of the Crown are of opinion that the capture was illegal, or at least a great part of the crew may have to suffer in the pestilential dungeons of Naples during the most unhealthy part of the year. So far, therefore, from being impatient on that subject, or showing a disposition to destroy the Government, this House has been willing to accept any intimation, however brief or incomplete, which Her Majesty's Government might make upon it. Then there is another subject upon which the right hon. Gentleman prefers a charge against a large portion of this House. I read with great surprise the statement which he made upon our policy in India. The right hon. Gentleman says that the question was whether or not we should pursue in India a policy of extermination—whether we should maintain there a force of Europeans four times greater than ever was maintained before—whether there should be no mercy shown to the inhabitants of India, and we should attempt to rule by force alone—or whether there should be a discriminating amnesty with the view of affording us a chance of restoring peace in that country. Now, I wish to know who has ever proposed that policy of extermination? Let us know where it was proposed. Did the late Government send out instructions that no mercy should be shown, that all persons who were taken should be put to death without exception, that there should be a general massacre of those who had been our subjects because they had rebelled? Or was it Viscount Canning who issued such instructions? Has Viscount Canning, contrary to all that we have seen of his policy, written home to propose a policy of extermination, believing that we call rule in India only by force? Where is the information? I conceive that there is no statesman, whether here or in India, who has proposed such a policy. But I must admit—and I admit it with sorrow—that, great and cruel outrages having been perpetrated upon the mutineers at the commencement of the mutiny, and indeed for some months, not only upon unarmed men, but upon women and children, a spirit of resentment and revenge took possession of those who had arms in their hands, and that in many cases more persons were put to death than the vanquishing of the mutineers necessitated. I be- lieve that Viscount Canning in India in a despatch to the Government in this country and which reached the hands of the late or of the present Ministers—deplored that there should be any excess of revenge, and expressed his anxiety that at the first moment possible, when resistance had been put down, to act in a spirit of mercy, and to show to the races of India that we wished to govern with them and for them, for their benefit and welfare, and not to govern by force the many million inhabitants of India. That was, I believe, the policy of the late Government; and yet the right hon. Gentleman, who expected to be believed by his constituents, and who, I dare say, was believed by them, said to them that there are now in this country men who are bent upon a massacre of all the Native races in India, and who are determined that we ought to govern them by force; and the right hon. Gentleman took great credit for the Government for having sent the orders of the 24th of March—orders founded, doubtless, upon humanity and good policy; but I have not the smallest reason for believing that any Government would not have adopted a policy of a similar character. These are the observations which I have thought it my duty to make with respect to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman upon foreign affairs and the affairs of India. I cannot but think that, in these respects, of the right hon. Gentleman, who has great powers of description and of eloquence, in representing to the people of Buckinghamshire that terrific scene for which he was indebted to his own imagination rather than to fact, it may most appropriately be said, as was said of the greatest poet of our country,—

"Existence saw him spurn her bounded reign, And panting time toiled after him in vain."

That, no doubt, to a poet is great praise, but it is not precisely the praise which a statesman ought to receive. He ought rather to confine himself within the limits of that which actually exists, and ought not to put time so much out of breath as a poet may. Such being his statement with regard to these affairs, I think the right hon. Gentleman is bound to explain what he really meant. But there is another matter upon which he made a statement to his constituents which appears to me to have been highly objectionable—I allude to that statement of his which involved a very serious question—one not to be discussed in this House, but one at the same time upon which the constitution of this country very much depends. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman told his constituents that if a majority of this House had voted a censure upon Her Majesty's Government they would have to defend their opinions upon the hustings. Now, I beg leave to remind the House what have been the maxims on this subject of other statesmen while possessing the confidence of the Crown. They have thought, when there was a great question depending, upon which no satisfactory conclusion could be obtained in this House—when the House and the Ministers of the Crown were decidedly at variance, such as was the case upon the great India Bill of 1784, upon the Reform Bill of 1831, upon the question of Free Trade in 1841—that the solution of any such question should be sought in an appeal to the electors of the United Kingdom. But it is quite another matter when the question is whether a particular Prime Minister or a particular party should remain in office. And when Sir R. Peel, in 1846, explained his conduct in this House on resigning office, he stated that he had declined to propose to, or to advise Her Majesty to dissolve this House, because it was his opinion that that was a most delicate and sacred prerogative of the Crown, and ought not to be exercised for the purpose of any individual who might be at the head of affairs, or for the purpose of any party. Now, that entirely agrees with my opinion. And when I offered my resignation to Her Majesty in 1852 I declined to offer any advice to Her Majesty to dissolve the then Parliament. But there seems to be an opinion acquiring weight, which I am sorry to observe, that upon any occasion when the Minister has not a majority he may have recourse to that which Burke called, and I think truly called, a penal dissolution—that is to say, he may not only put the Members of this House to the great trouble and expense of an election, but may expose them to the dangers of any misrepresentation to which they may be subject in the performance of their duty. Now, that I think ought not to be the relation between the Crown and the Members of the House of Commons. You, Sir, and your predecessors, when you have gone up to the other House of Parliament to ask for the approbation of the Crown, have always asked that the most favourable construction should be placed upon the motives and proceedings of this House. That prayer may have alluded originally to the personal will of the Sovereign. That personal will, as we all know, is now represented by the advisers of the Crown, and the advisers of the Crown are bound not lightly or needlessly to attribute to unjust, unpatriotic, or dishonest motives the proceedings of the majority of this House. I lament very much that it was thought necessary by the late Government to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament in the spring of last year. I believe that dissolution was not justified under the then existing circumstances. My opinion is, that my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton ought then to have tendered his resignation and have advised Her Majesty to call the Earl of Derby to her councils. I cannot think, Sir, that the evil to which I have referred will be remedied by the Earl of Derby saying that whenever he is thwarted in Parliament—that whenever any view which he may advance does not meet with the approbation of Parliament, he will at once advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and using that threat as a means of coercing the actions of Members of this House. I can conceive nothing more likely to damage the constitution of the country—nothing more likely to bring on that question which is a question which might, I believe, be entertained, but which could not be entertained without considerable discussion, and without considerable difference of opinion—I mean the question of shortening the duration of Parliaments so as to limit the prerogative of the Crown. That is a very serious question, and if we have repeated threats of dissolution in order to compel Members of this House contrary to their own opinions to vote according to the behests of a Minister, I can only say that this House will stand ill with the Crown and will stand ill with the country, because the country which sends us here does so in order that we may act for the public welfare, and not for the benefit of any individual. These are general considerations, and although the threat of a dissolution has not been used in this House it has been used very commonly in society. I am sure that I have heard it stated seveal times, and it is confirmed by what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman. [An Hon. MEMBER: Where?] The right hon. Gentleman in his speech at Slough said, that if the vote of this House had been adverse to the Government, Members of this House would have had to defend their opinions to the country. Now, that could point to nothing but a dissolution of Parliament; and I say that, before Friday last, it appeared from conversations on all sides, that in case of an adverse vote Her Majesty's Government were determined to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament. They may contradict it if they can, and i they can I hope they will say that they had no such intention. After all, let me say again I think that, even after the result of the late Motion, the position of this House towards Her Majesty's Government, is the same as the position which it held when the Administration was first formed. I think that putting aside the vauntings of the right hon. Gentleman it remains still to be seen whether the present Government can obtain and retain the support of that which is called a Liberal House of Commons, by which I mean a House of Commons bound to support measures of reform. If they can do so, then this House, which has already waited with great patience, will support, them as soon as they have gained that confidence. The solution of the question has not yet been arrived at. There are various questions which have to be brought forward upon which the Government will have to produce measures and to defend their opinions. I do not wish to anticipate any of them, but we shall have several of them in the course of the next fortnight or three weeks, and, if the Government succeed in gaining the majority of the House, those who agree with them will of course rejoice, while those who do not will have to bow to the decision. I am willing to accept that position, for I think it a constitutional position for a Minister of the Crown; but I do not think that any Government which does not obtain confidence, which does not establish itself in the opinion of this House, ought by threats of a dissolution, or by any such unworthy means of that kind, to endeavour to obtain strength at the expense of the independence of Members of this House.

Sir, I can hardly flatter myself that hon. Gentlemen have all read the observations which I recently had the opportunity of addressing to some of my constituents whom I had the honour of meeting; but of this I am quite sure, that the noble Lord has assumed that hon. Gentlemen present could not have read them, because the noble Lord has endeavoured to convey to the House during the recess that I went down into the county of which I have the honour of being one of the representatives, to abuse the House of Commons, complain of its conduct, and to declare that Her Majesty's Ministers had not received a fair and equitable treatment at its hands. Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to remind him, for he has read those observations—indeed, I see that he is still reading them, and I must say that, in my opinion, he would have done much better to study them beforehand— perhaps, I say, the noble Lord will permit me to remind him that there is not in that speech a single phrase which authorizes the statement which he has made. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Not a single sentence, I repeat, which authorizes that statement, or a single phrase which justifies the impression which he wished to convey. Nay, more, I say that if hon. Gentlemen will read that speech they will not find any statements or phrases which do not convey a directly contrary meaning. I am speaking from memory, but I think that I have a very fair recollection of what took place, and I felt it my duty to say in reference to some observations of an hon. Gentleman, that I, for one—and from my position I might be considered a candid and impartial judge—had no reason to complain of the present House of Commons. Considering that it was elected under the auspices of our rivals, considering that the late election took place under very peculiar circumstances by which a large majority of Members had been returned who were supposed to be hostile to the principles we generally profess; I was bound to say that the Government had, during their brief tenure of office, received from the House of Commons, as a body, a generous courtesy, and that on more that one occasion the sense and spirit of the House of Commons had baffled the unceasing intrigues and the restless machinations by which, from the first moment of our entering office the Government of the Queen had been assailed. Was that an attack upon the House of Commons? If so, I can only say that it was not received as such by those to whom it was addressed, and I am sure that all who listen to me, when they recall what I have stated to their recollection, will absolve me from the charge which the noble Lord has wished, by inuendo, to convey to the House. Mine was a dinner, the noble Lord has furnished a desert, and although it has taken more preparation I do not think that the entertainment of the noble Lord has been happier than that which I enjoyed. The noble Lord says that he thinks himself entitled to make the observations which he has addressed to the House in consequence of the grave character of certain statements which I made in relation to foreign affairs. He seems astounded at my having stated that when we acceded to office the question of peace or war with France was of an imminent character. The noble Lord says that, after hearing that for the first time, he went to the House of Lords and consulted the Earl of Clarendon upon the subject, and that noble Earl had informed him that he had no knowledge of the immediate danger of such an event as war with France. Now, why did not the noble Lord consult some Member of the late Government in the House of Commons? Why did he not go to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton? There is not, I believe, existing at present such an estrangement between the noble Lord and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton as to prevent a frank and candid communication between them upon the subject. If he had consulted the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, perhaps he might have found that that noble Lord, as far as his own judgment and public experience went, would not have agreed with the Earl of Clarendon as to the impression upon his mind. Why, what happened only two days before the break up of the late Government? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes (Mr. Griffith) rose and put a question to the noble Lord then at the head of the Government, having reference to our relations with France; and what said the noble Lord? Why, Sir, he rose and said—

"What does the hon. Gentleman and those who persist in asking these questions intend? Do they wish, or do they not, to maintain peace with France?"

And the noble Lord declined to answer the question. Now, that was, I believe, only forty-eight hours before the break up of the late Government, and the noble Lord conveyed to the House, when he declined to answer the question, that asking such questions might alone decide the issue of peace or war. Allow me, therefore, to recommend the noble Lord, who professes such extraordinary astonishment at hearing that three months ago our relations with France were of a character so delicate, to consult the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton upon the subject. Well, Sir, at about the same period the noble Lord will remember that the Ambassador of France quitted the Court to which he was accredited and returned to his own country; and such a step is only taken, as the noble Lord must know, and as every one knows, in a critical state of affairs. The noble Lord is astonished that I should have referred to that critical nature of our relations with France. Why, Sir, three months have passed away since that state of things existed, and what has occurred during that period has considerably— I may say entirely changed, the feeling which existed in the Cabinet and Court of the Tuileries. I make that statement without fear of being contradicted by any person of authority. [Mr. RICH: Oh, oh!] Is the hon. Gentleman who cries "Oh, oh!" prepared to contradict it? [Mr. RICH: Yes.] Well, then, upon so grave a subject I hope that he will come forward with those proofs which the House has a right to expect. In the meantime, I say, Sir, the relations which existed between England and France three months ago are very much changed, I may say entirely changed; and there subsists at this moment, as is shown by the accord which now prevails between them in the management of great transactions, a closer approximation to that entire good feeling which was prevalent a year ago, and for a long time prior to that date, and which at present forms a marked contrast to the tone and temper that pervaded the two countries when we acceded to office. But, says the noble Lord, it is not merely the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to France that requires explanation; a similar explanation is required as to his statement respecting Sardinia. And following the ingenious but not very candid tactics which have characterized the whole construction of this not very terrible attack, the noble Lord sought again to convey to the House of Commons that in what I had said in Buckinghamshire with regard to Naples and Sardinia, I represented that an attempt had been made in this House to upset Her Majesty's Government by encouraging a war between those two countries. Now, that is not true. I do not, of course, use that word in an offensive sense; I only mean to say that the noble Lord has got up his charges without sufficient care and reflection. The fact is exactly the reverse of what he alleges. I did not assert that the House of Commons had endeavoured, by exciting a war between Sardinia and Naples, to overturn or inconvenience the Government. What I said was, that there are persons who did this and who are trying to do it at this moment. I entirely avoided, because I felt it would be unjust to lay this to the charge of the House of Commons. On the contrary, when the attempt is made, as I have no doubt it will be, and when the influence of these arch intriguers may to a certain degree be felt in this assembly, I shall again appeal on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers to the sense and spirit of the House of Commons, and even of those who are opposed to our general policy, for their support to enable the Government to prevent the breaking out of hostilities between those two Italian States. The noble Lord represents that I have gone down to the country to attack and malign the House of Commons. Now, is it not true that when I alluded to the late great debate, on which the fate of the Ministry seemed to hang, I called the attention of the people of England to the extraordinary fact that, while the vote of censure upon the Government was undergoing full discussion, and when that vote had expanded under the marvellous and felicitous handling of the learned Knight the Member for Aylesbury on the last evening of debate into one of general want of confidence, night after night this "weak Government," this "Government on sufferance" when placed upon its trial, was defended by the first men in this assembly, the first men in authority, in intellect, and in eloquence, not connected with them in polities, not bound to them by any ties of political co-operation or association, by men speaking from their earnest convictions and lending their high authority, unbiassed and uninfluenced, to the maintenance of truth and the defeat of a cabal? Was that an attack upon the honour or upon the conduct of the House of Commons? Was it not a public declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government that they had full confidence in the generous justice of the House of Commons—that confidence which they still retain? And it is in the spirit of that confidence that I trust I shall be able, with my colleagues, to baffle those intrigues which I know are already recommenced to inconvenience Her Majesty's Government, and if possible destroy it. But the noble Lord tells us he was extremely surprised—and this also demanded explanation—at the observations I made respecting our policy towards the people of India. He says I stated that we had prevented a policy of extermination in India, that we ourselves were opposed to that policy, and that I had attempted to convey to the country that those who are our competitors for power were in favour of extermination. Now Sir, neither in this House, nor in the county of Buckingham, nor in any other place, have I ever heard the word "extermination" uttered. But with that ingenious spirit of perversion and that dexterous tone of exaggeration which have to-night distinguished the somewhat penurious invective of the noble Lord, and which have led him to state that I went into the country to vilify the House of Commons, when in truth I offered it the sincere homage of my respect, he has here again distorted what was a mere declaration of our hostility to a policy of "confiscation" into an accusation that our opponents were in favour of a policy of "extermination." I said in Buckinghamshire what I have said in this House more than once, and what I am at all times prepared to uphold; that we are opposed to a policy of "confiscation—that we are in favour of a policy of discriminative amnesty, of a policy that will respect the religion, respect the property, and treat with a decent and due regard the rights and customs of the different races among the natives of India. I regret to have again to reiterate these sentiments, but it is forced upon me by the unseemly attack of the noble Lord, which prevents us from going into Committee of Supply. But, continued the noble Lord, all these unauthorised observations on foreign affairs and Indian policy subside into nothing compared with the unconstitutional declaration of the Minister to his constituents that if Parliament had not supported the Government, a dissolution would have been the consequence. Now, the noble Lord may read my speech again, and perhaps he will favour me with the passage in which that statement is made. He began by boldly declaring that I had informed my constituents that if on a division the majority had gone against the Ministry there would have been a dissolution of Parliament. At the end of his address he told us it was very unconstitutional, because I had intimated that if the Government had not been successful "there probably would have been" a dissolution. Well, that second version of my statement makes the matter not quite so unconstitutional as the first. All I can say is that I made no such declaration as the noble Lord has described, and that what I did say on that subject was so guarded that it did not transgress the right of any gentleman to allude to such a contingency as not impossible or even improbable. No position, however responsible, which any individual may occupy, can possibly deprive him of the privilege of making such a reference in becoming terms. What I stated was, I believe, literally this— "If, as might have been the case, we had found ourselves upon the hustings, I should have appealed with confidence again to your support, and I have no doubt the verdict of the country would have been given in our favour." But the noble Lord went into many precedents against the policy of a dissolution, and he told us that in 1852 he had never counselled the Queen when he was in a minority to dissolve Parliament. Well, it would have been a very bold thing if he had, for the noble Lord had then, I think, been six years in office, and he had received several intimations that the House of Commons wanted to get rid of him. Moreover, he had resigned a year before, and the Parliament fruitlessly had been elected under his own auspices. That a Minister who has enjoyed the high privilege of having a Parliament elected under his own auspices, who finds that Parliament so docile that it supports him for five years, and though, when its patience at last is quite exhausted, it compels him to resign, yet by the most fortunate combination of luck in the world that ever fell to the lot of a Minister, it is willing to give him a renewal of his lease for another twelve months—that a Minister in such a position should at the end of six years claim the applause of the House of Commons and the approbation of the country because he did not take upon himself to advise her Majesty to dissolve Parliament appears to me one of the most remarkable instances of self-complacency which the annals of this nation can produce. But though the noble Lord was evidently very sore on this subject of a dissolution, and though he had exhausted his ingenuity by the previous adroit perversions in which he had indulged, yet as his theme advanced he could not, from the natural candour of his disposition, resist making the admission, that neither in this nor in the other House had there been any declaration of a kind which could unconstitutionally influence the debate or the division. And here the noble Lord spoke only the truth. Neither in the House of Lords nor in the House of Com- mons can it be alleged that before the division was expected to take place at the close of the late debate any intimation was made of the Royal will, or any indication given of the policy which the Government would recommend to the Sovereign in respect to a dissolution. But, observed the noble Lord—and this is a point on which he and his friends are very sensitive—this event was talked about everywhere—in drawing-rooms, in the clubs, in the lobby of this House, I suppose, and certainly also with remarkable frankness here by several hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. The word dissolution, said the noble Lord, was spoken of everywhere; the practice of so speaking it is most inconvenient, and I must, in a high constitutional manner, gravely deprecate and denounce it. Well, I believe the noble Lord is quite correct as to the fact. You really could not enter any House in England in which it was not said, "It must end in a dissolution." Why did they say so? What made people everywhere say "This must end in a dissolution." Why, Sir, it was the conduct of certain individuals in this House, who so behaved towards Her Majesty's Government that people began to see and to feel that there was no alternative but getting rid of the House. The people who said it everywhere felt that the Earl of Derby had been called upon by Her Majesty most unexpectedly to form a Government. The Earl of Derby told Her Majesty that he had not of declared followers in the popular House, sufficient to give him anything approaching to a majority, and in a commendable spirit, and not eager for office, he humbly counselled Her Majesty to reconsider her appeal to him, at the same time rightly assuring her that, whatever might be her decision, he was entirely devoted to her service. Her Majesty graciously condescended to reconsider her appeal, These are not State Secrets. The noble Lord seemed to intimate to the House and to the country that I had been divulging State secrets in Buckinghamshire; but these are the statements which, by Her Majesty's permission, the Earl of Derby made in the House of Lords when he announced his accession to office. Well, the people of this country knowing all this, knowing that the Earl of Derby and his friends had not been eager to seize the spoils of office, but had acted very differently from the conduct of others recently—knowing that it was after the due repre- sentation of these difficulties to Her Majesty that she repeated her wish, and that it was in deference to her commands, and from a paramount sense of duty, that we took this responsibility,—knowing, as they did, that we had sedulously, honestly, and not altogether without success administered affairs during our brief tenure of office, the great body of the people, whether Whigs, Tories, or Radicals, when they saw a cabal organized, when they saw the sense and spirit of the House of Commons exhibited by some of its most eminent Members opposed to the Government generally, but yet not condescending to take part with that cabal,—when they saw all these circumstances, felt, as every man of spirit, whatever his political opinions, must have felt, that a Government which had acceded to power under such circumstances and encountered such opposition could not in duty recede from its position without humbly counselling Her Majesty to exert her constitutional privileges. It wanted no Minister to menace Parliament,—it wanted not even the private intimations of people in office to influence votes. The fear of a dissolution, the announcement of a dissolution, came from the opposite benches—from the opposite party. It was the general opinion of the country, which felt that the Government of the Earl of Derby, encountering such opposition, ought not to, and could not, fall without appealing to the popular sense. That was the general feeling. It required no unconstitutional, no undue exercise of our position and authority to influence the public voice and the division of this House. Public opinion was in our favour, because public opinion was outraged by the conduct of certain individuals; to that public opinion we appeal, and I believe that it will support us, notwithstanding such sorry attacks as I have met this evening at the hands of the noble Lord.

said, that he would in one or two sentences dispose of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as to his statement, that when the present Government acceded to power we were within a few hours of a war with France. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would prove that assertion, and taunted his noble Friend with not consulting the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton before referring to this subject. His noble Friend (Lord John Russell) consulted that noble Lord's colleague the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—there could be no higher authority—and received from him the answer which he had quoted. But the right hon. Gentleman promised to prove his assertion, and how did he fulfil that promise? He said, "Did not the hon. Member for Devizes ask the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton some question to which the noble Lord replied, 'He wants us to go to war with France?'" And the right hon. Gentleman actually had the boldness to give that answer, neither more nor less, as a proof that we were within a few hours of a war with France. That was proof No. 1. Proof No. 2 was worthy of it. It was this —"Did not the French Minister very suddenly quit this country at the time referred to?" Now, can or will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the French Minister left this country for a few days only, and that, for special reasons connected with affairs of his own Government, that he returned before the change of Government took place here; and that some week or ten days later, when he was exchanged for another Ambassador, that this change arose in no degree from differences with the late, although, if rumour be true, it was not disconnected from differences with the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had not a shadow of a shade of a reason for the assertion which he made. When a Cabinet Minister rises in his place and repeats a declaration in the face of the country that two great nations like France and England, living in all apparent amity, were within a few hours of rushing into war with each other it was a most unjustifiable attack upon the Governments of both countries, and it was most unbecoming for that House to allow such an attack to be made, and to be satisfied with such flimsy and irrelevant reasons as had been given for it by the right hon. Gentleman. As to the right hon. Gentleman's praise of that House, it consisted merely of praise of those who supported him, and it would have been most extraordinary if he had blamed them; but when he applied the word "Cabal" to those who censured Lord Ellenborough's despatch, let him (Mr. Rich) ask if he had recommended Her Majesty to reinstate the Earl of Ellenborough in office. If he had not, he must have committed a gross injustice to that noble Lord. Did that noble Lord resign for any reason, or did he not? He presumed that he resigned because he had been guilty of the publication of a despatch which was so improper that the noble Lord at the head of the Government could not defend it; and if the late debate had gone on it would have been proved that the right hon. Gentleman was himself much more guilty of that publication than even the Earl of Ellenborough who had been made its victim; for the right hon. Gentleman, on a previous occasion, speaking from his place, declared in so many words what was the nature of that despatch, and thereby rendered its publication inevitable. This he had done apparently without the Earl of Ellenborough's knowledge or consent. But he was more guilty still; for the Earl of Ellenborough had the discretion, before laying the despatch on the table of the Lords, to suppress that portion which referred to Oude and was in a constitutional sense its most damaging element; but the right hon. Gentleman had no such discretion; he placed the whole despatch on our table. Therefore, what he called the Cabal would have brought more guilt home to him than to the Earl of Ellenborough; and if he had acted with a due and manly generosity he would have tendered the like resignation which the Earl of Ellenborough so magnanimously sent to Her Majesty; but if the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman was more questionable, it certainly was more profitable, for it accepted and took advantage of that very resignation for an offence in which he himself was something more than an accomplice. He appealed to the House to say whether the right hon. Gentleman had not made a most unjustifiable attack upon France and England, and had not supported his statement by flimsy and irrelevant reasons.

It is with the greatest reluctance that I rise to say a few words on this question, and thus for a short period to prolong the debate; but being the only Member of Her Majesty's late Government who is now in his place, I feel that I should not be doing my duty to the House if I allowed all the statements of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to pass without notice. As far as I could follow the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the observations of my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), it consisted mainly of a denial of the accuracy of the report of his speech which appeared in the public newspapers, because the general purport of that speech, as it was reported, was, according to my recollection, rendered with perfect fidelity, by my noble Friend; and upon each point the right hon. Gentleman said that the language which he had used was not the language attributed to him, but was language altogether different.

What I said was that the language I used was not that attributed to me by the noble Lord—the word "extermination," for instance. I did not at all question the accuracy of the report.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to deny the accuracy of the representation made by my noble Friend, and to say that it was not the language which he used to his constituents. I have not a copy of the speech to refer to, but my recollection of his speech as reported in the newspapers agrees with the version of it as given by my noble Friend, and does not agree in any respect with the version given of it by the right hon. Gentleman himself. That is the deliberate statement which I make to this House. I am unable to substantiate it by reference to words, but my memory is quite distinct. I will refer particularly to his version of what he said with respect to the policy which had been adopted towards India. He said that he claimed for the Government the honour of disapproving a policy of confiscation, but he did not go further. My recollection is distinct that he attributed either to the late Government, or to some persons whose policy he was condemning, the adherence to a policy of massacre and confiscation. I have a distinct recollection that the word "massacre" was used in his speech. Now, I claim most distinctly for the late Government a consistent adherence from the very commencement of the outbreak to a policy of clemency and mercy, as far as justice to our own countrymen would permit. It will be in the recollection of the house that the popular objections to the policy of Lord Canning, which policy had received the approbation of the late Government, was that it was a weak policy, that it erred too much on the side of lenity, and that the administration of justice was not sufficiently severe. Upon what, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer founds the panegyric which he has pronounced upon himself for having repudiated an imaginary policy of proscription and extermination I am utterly at a loss to conceive. Again, I thought the right hon. Gentleman met in a very unsatisfactory manner the extract which my noble Friend read from his speech with respect to this country having been within a few hours of war. I repeat in the most distinct manner, what has been already stated, that when the late Government left office they were wholly ignorant of the dangers with which the right hon. Gentleman says this country was menaced. The division by which the late Government were put out of office took them by surprise. They were not aware that our relations with France were of a menacing kind. Undoubtedly there was a strong feeling in this country with respect to certain expressions which had been used by officers of the French army, which had been inserted in the Moniteur, and which it was thought had not been sufficiently disavowed; but to say that there was any such misunderstanding between the Government of France and the Government of England as threatened this country with imminent war is, in my opinion, one of the greatest misrepresentations which any responsible Minister ever attempted to impose upon the credulity of this House and the public at large. I deny it in the most positive manner, and I feel satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself utterly unable to produce any evidence in support of his assertion. The only attempt at proof which he is able to produce is an answer which my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton made to an hon. Gentleman who asked him what I must be allowed to consider— though, perhaps, I have no right to comment upon his expressions—a somewhat indiscreet question. My noble Friend declined to answer that question, and said that if questions pointing personally to the Emperor of the French, and throwing doubt upon his veracity and good faith, were to be put from day to day in this House, they were likely to lead to a misunderstanding—and he may have added, to a war—between the two countries. But that reply did not relate to any negotiations which were in progress, or to anything which had passed between the Government of this country and the Government of the Emperor of the French. Now, with respect to the question of India, which appears to me to be in a very grave state, I am perfectly contented to take whatever share of responsibility may attach to me for having supported the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell). I believe that Motion was founded upon perfectly just and defensible principles. Notwithstanding all that has passed, I retain my opinion that the composition of the despatch of the Earl of Ellenborough and the publication of that secret document in the way in which it was effected was a grave offence, which justly deserved the unfavourable notice of this House. I cannot regret that Motion, inasmuch as the announcement of it had at least this one good effect — it produced the resignation of the late President of the Board of Control. He, by withdrawing from his office, and the Prime Minister, by advising that his resignation should be accepted, so far acknowledged the justice of the censure which this House was invited to pass upon his conduct. But I am not going to revive the discussion upon that question. I shall only say, that in my opinion the subsequent publication of the secret correspondence between the Governor General and Sir James Outram—rendered necessary, I admit, by the previous improper publication of the Earl of Ellenborough's despatch— added to the great inconvenience which had already arisen, inasmuch as it was a correspondence of a nature such as on no previous occasion had ever been submitted to Parliament. One of the letters contained in it distinctly charged Sir James Outram carefully to suppress all the copies of the Proclamation in his possession, which identical Proclamation, in its original form, has now been laid on the table of this House, and will be made public to the whole of India. I think that the necessity of producing that additional correspondence was an aggravation of the original offence, and I am prepared to reassert the impropriety of the course adopted by the Government; but, even if I did not think that the course adopted by the Government was objectionable, and certain, upon mature reflection, to be condemned by the impartial judgment of the country, I should protest against the language now used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those with whom he is acting, in attributing any Motion which may be inconvenient to them, and of which they wish to get rid, to the influence of faction, in saying that it originates in the intrigues of some unnamed persons, of which intrigues they are unable to produce the smallest evidence, and in denouncing it as the result of some unknown cabal. In order to make these high-sounding and invidious terms the more important, and to have the greater weight with the country, the right hon. Gentleman insinuated in his speech to his constituents that this cabal was in some way or other connected with foreign intriguers. I am sorry that my noble Friend the Member for London, when speaking of foreign affairs, did not ask for an explana- tion of this very mysterious passage. To me it is wholly unintelligible. I have not the smallest notion to what the right hon. Gentleman referred; but it seems that this Motion, which so much alarmed the Government, and which they thought it necessary to meet with threats of a dissolution, said that it was connected with some unknown, indescribable, and mysterious foreign influence. In conclusion, I wish only to say that I recognize fully with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the gravity of our present position in India. I trust that not only the Resolution which we are about to consider, but the relations of the Governor General with the territory of Oude, will be treated in a calm, dispassionate, and impartial manner. I therefore abstain from making any remarks upon that subject at present; but I may be permitted to say, that in my opinion the question was not left in a satisfactory state by the observations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on the last night of our sitting before the recess. I had hoped that the Government would announce the appointment of a responsible Minister to preside over the Board of Control. The expectations which we naturally entertained have not been satisfied by any announcement made even this evening. The Earl of Ellenborough, I presume, holds his office only until his successor is appointed. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to criticise his conduct, or to ask for any explanation of policy from him. Nor need we inquire from the Government what their intentions with respect to India are until the office of President of the Board of Control is filled by a responsible Minister. But I trust that as soon as the Government have announced their new President of the Board of Control they will inform us in the most distinct manner, without any rhetorical exaggeration about massacre and extermination, without panegyrizing themselves for some supposed policy of clemency and mercy, whereas they impute a barbarous, savage, and sanguinary policy to their antagonists—without, I say, these somewhat puerile flowers of rhetoric, what it is they intend to do with the territory of Oude. I trust they will tell us whether they intend that the Proclamation which has been issued should be revoked. If it is not to be revoked, what is it they have instructed Viscount Canning to do; whether it is their intention to give him their cordial support and confidence, and, if not, whe- ther they Mean to recall him, and whom they propose to appoint in his place? These are plain questions, having nothing to do with flowery orations to constituents at Slough. They are questions, however, upon which this House is entitled to have a distinct explanation, and that explanation, I trust, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly be prepared to give in a manner deserving the careful consideration of Parliament and the country.

We seem to be in a somewhat unsettled state, and I shall, not venture to intrude my opinion upon the House as to the cause of the uneasiness which exists; but I may be permitted to notice the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last with respect to the publication of the correspondence between the Governor General and Sir James Outram. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the production of that correspondence. I hold an entirely different opinion. I believe that the House of Commons has suffered far more from suppression and secrecy than from publicity. I will not be one to complain of a Government, whether Conservative or Liberal, who think it consistent with their public duty to communicate information to the House of Commons; and I must say that I think that those hon. Gentlemen who brought forward the late Motion in reference to the Earl of Ellenborough's despatch have no right whatever to complain of the production of the correspondence as respects their own interests, for it furnished them with a creditable mode of escaping from a very difficult position. I believe that that Motion was from the beginning based on a false issue, and that it would have ended in any case in a defeat; but the being able to say that further information had put the matter in a different position was, in point of fact, being able to take advantage of a mode of escape somewhat more creditable than otherwise would have been the case. I was not prepared to-night for a discussion on the state of the nation, and I think that some notice ought to have been given of the intention to raise such a discussion; but, with respect to some observations which have been made in reference to the Conspiracy Bill, I will take leave to say that I did not collect from the public statements of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that he approved the Conspiracy Bill itself as proposed by the late Government, but that he would not be a party to object to the introduction of a measure in deference to the wishes of the French Government. I really, when I brought forward my Amendment, framed it with the feeling on my mind that hon. Gentlemen were not committed to the merits of the particular measure, and, without knowing what course hon. Gentlemen would take, I felt that there was nothing in the public speeches which had been made that precluded Members from opposing the Conspiracy Bill on its merits on the second reading; there was no inconsistency in a Member voting for the first reading of the Bill, and afterwards voting against the principle of the Bill on the second reading. With respect to the question of Sardinia and Naples, I should be very sorry to see the Government of the day urged into an unnecessarily hostile course in reference to this matter, as if it were an evil that the question between Sardinia and Naples should be settled without fighting. The protocols and Resolution come to at the Conference at Paris point out a mode of settling differences that may arise between the Powers of Europe; and the representatives of the great Powers at that Conference all pledged themselves to the principle that, previously to having recourse to arras, it is desirable to settle such disputes as might occur by arbitration or mediation. That having been the deliberate Resolution of the parties to the Conference, and it having been so recently agreed to, I certainly cannot complain if the Government did appear desirous of bringing into action the principle of that Resolution, and of endeavouring by every means in their power to bring about a settlement of this question between Sardinia and Naples by arbitration or mediation. I, therefore, could not have been a party to support any Motion made in this House with a view to prevent, as it were, the peaceable settlement of the question. I am extremely glad to find that, on the question of India, both sides of the House are willing to support, or to avow their support of, the principles of humanity and mercy. I remember reading, not long since, a remarkable passage in a leading journal to this effect,—that in the affairs of India humanity and justice were secondary considerations. Well, I am glad to find that we are not now ashamed to be thought capable of acting in the spirit of humanity, justice, and mercy to the people of India, notwithstanding the great atrocities which have undoubtedly been committed towards our own fellow-countrymen. I, therefore, am glad that this discussion has arisen, in order that the world may see that, as passions have become subdued, all parties are favourable to a policy of humanity and mercy. If there be astonishment felt that a great party like the Liberal party, being superior, no doubt, in numbers both in the country and in this House to what is called the Conservative party, should nevertheless find itself on the Opposition benches, I think that that state of affairs can only be explained by this simple circumstance—that the party has been badly led and badly handled; that those who have conceived the policy which it should adopt and support have been mistaken, and we have unfortunately by those mistakes been led to the "cold shade" of Opposition, when otherwise hon. Gentlemen near me would still have been on the Treasury benches. I am firmly myself of this opinion, and I see no chance whatever of the restoration to power of the Liberal party, unless that party brings forward its own measures, founded on its own principles, and carries its measures through into practical effect, and shows to the country that it is not merely the Liberal party in name, but that it is earnest in the cause of Reform, and will use power, when it has it, to carry its principles into practical legislation.

said, he did not intend to protract the present discussion; but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had imputed to the noble Lord the Member for London grave misrepresentations of what the right hon. Gentleman said at Slough, and as the right hon. Gentleman admitted the accuracy of the reports, he would read a short passage from the speech as given in The Times. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here intimated that the report in The Times was perfectly correct, as well as the reports in other newspapers.] The noble Lord the Member for London said that the right hon. Gentleman had accused certain parties of being the advocates of a policy of cruelty, vengeance, and extermination, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he had done no more than allude to confiscation. Now, lie would give the House an opportunity of judging between the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord's expression of "extermination" was not correct certainly, but the House would be able to say whether the noble Lord's description did not equally apply to the words used. The right hon. Gentleman said at Slough:—

"We had to decide—for it was the turning point of our Indian empire—the character of the policy which ought to be pursued; whether it should be a policy of unmitigated vengeance, or whether the time had arrived when we should attempt to rebuild our grand empire in the East on principles of a very different character, and leading, as we believed, to a very different result. Was it to be military occupation," the right hon. Gentleman continued, "by an army four times greater in amount than any army of Europeans that ever entered that country? Was it to be military occupation attended by enormous taxation, by a draining of Her Majesty's subjects from this country, and by a perpetual exhaustion of our resources? or were we to recognize that vengeance had done its duty?"

The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say:—

"Was it always to be massacre and confiscation? or, on the other hand, was it to be discriminating amnesty?"

[Cheers.] The hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered very loudly, and he must do them the justice to say that they had lately given the most efficient support to the Government by their lungs at least; but the question was, whether the right hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that he had referred to nothing but "confiscation?" The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have used the words "massacre" and "vengeance," though not "extermination;" and therefore the noble Lord the Member for London was substantially accurate in his statement.

Considering the industry which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Collier) has shown in conning over may right hon. Friend's speech for the last half hour, I do not think he has made much of it. The right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) says this is a discussion on the state of the nation; I would rather say it is a discussion on the state of nations, for the affairs of all the nations of Europe have been brought in review. What my right hon. Friend said was this, that there were two policies which might be pursued towards India—a policy of vengeance and confiscation, and a policy which would be consistent with an enlightened amnesty. I uphold that sentiment, and abide by it; it is a sentiment founded on humanity and reason; it is consonant with the feelings of the country; and I am surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen, who were so confident in the justice of their opinions, but who shrank from bringing the question to a division last week, now come forward again and reiterate their old assertions. The right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis) says he abides by all he said and all he did—that he is affected by no argument, changed by no fact; he is unchangeable, and to be convinced by nothing; and then he says that my right hon. Friend was disrespectful to the House of Commons. Why, the greatest possible disrespect is shown to the House by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who says that notwithstanding the strange scene which was witnessed here on Friday last—in which the opinion of the House was most unequivocally manifested, though we on this side took no part in it—that notwithstanding all this, he still maintains the justice of the Resolution, he defends its propriety, he is not altered by the decision of the House, he maintains that all the world is wrong and that he alone is right. The right hon. Gentleman says he never heard of anything showing that this country was in danger of a collision with France. Why, the right hon. Gentleman must have been perfectly ignorant of what was in every person's thoughts at the time; he must have been living in the Republic of Plato, and not in the ordinary world. Then he asks for proofs of the fact. It would certainly be a strange thing if a Minister of the Crown were to stand up and state seriatim to the House all the matters which would justify such a statement to his constituents. That statement might be substantially true, but it might not be capable of logical proof. Does the right hon. Gentleman, however, mean to tell this House that there was no language used by French military men, none published by the journals, none employed in high quarters, which offended, and justly offended, the people of this country? Does he mean to say that there were no facts patent to everybody which justified the apprehension of a collision between the two countries? I think the right hon. Gentleman might have remembered these facts in his calmer moments—yes, he has been unusually lively to night, while the noble Lord has been more than usually tranquil; but I cannot say that, though the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has been lively, he has been at the same time philosophical—he has shown too much spleen for that. I must say that I think the noble Lord opposite did not fairly hit the question in relation to the displacement of the late Government. The Motion of the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) was made to censure Her Majesty's Ministers for having deserted their duty to the country, because they did not reply to the despatch of the French Minister, and thus failed to maintain the national honour. The Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman was not that the law of conspiracy might not be considered at a fit and proper time. In pausing that Resolution and inflicting that censure, the House of Commons decided that the late Government had neglected their duty, but the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. C. Lewis) tells us that the House of Commons is wrong again; in fact the House of Commons is always wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman is always right. The noble Lord then referred to the dispute between the Governments of Naples and Sardinia. Now, let me say to the noble Lord that this Government is friendly to the Government of Sardinia, and will stand by Sardinia, because we admire a country that is governed on constitutional principles similar to our own, that rejects Mazzini-ism, that refuses to be ruled either by the soldier or the priest. That is a valuable fact. But then we can only support any country when that country is in the right; and it does not follow that we are bound to support her at all times without reference to the question whether she is right or wrong. I read over the papers connected with that question with the utmost care, because I expected that we should have had a discussion of them in this House, and I am ready to maintain that the noble Lord at the head of our Foreign Affairs, though he has no critics in the newspapers to write him up, discharged his duty to his country, throughout the whole of this affair, with prudence, with spirit, with judgment, with discretion, with wisdom. Then the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman appear to be somewhat excited on the subject of India. What is your policy? asks the right hon. Gentleman — with perfect sincerity no doubt,—What do you mean to do? The right hon. Gentleman says he has read all the papers, but he certainly does not appear to have made himself master of them. If the right hon. Gentleman would sit down to those papers in the same spirit of fairness with which he sits down to comment on a book, he would be at no loss to understand our policy, which has been approved of by this House, and which I am not afraid will be disapproved of by the country. The noble Lord closed his speech with his accustomed homily upon the constitution. He says it is a most unconstitutional thing to threaten the House with a dissolution. I suppose, then, he will allow it is a much more unconstitutional thing to carry that threat into execution. To be sure the noble Lord feeling what would be said on that subject, did to-night administer a gentle and temperate rebuke to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton for having dissolved Parliament in consequence of the vote on the Chinese question, But why did not the noble Lord take the first opportunity when the House met of telling his noble Friend that he had done an unconstitutional thing? It is marvellous that he has omitted until the present moment to notice that when the House of Commons voted against the policy of the Chinese war the late First Lord of the Treasury, "the most popular Minister the country ever had," dissolved Parliament, spite of all the constitutional arguments to the contrary which he must have imbibed from association with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and sent hon. Members about their business. [Lord J. RUSSELL: I did remonstrate with my noble Friend.] But why should the noble Lord be so sensitive at the prospect of a dissolution? Was not every patriotic mind glad of an opportunity to meet his constituents? What fear could the noble Lord entertain of facing his constituents on the hustings again? It was true the noble Lord in his speech drew a very just distinction, that a Member might often be obliged, in performing the highest services for his constituents, to vote against their wishes; but certainly the noble Lord had shown a very lively fear of the prospect of having to meet his constituents on the hustings. On the whole, then, though this discussion had been unexpectedly raised, I do not see that it has been at all prejudicial either to the conduct of the Government or to the speech of my right hon. Friend.

said, he wished to explain his use of the word "extermination." He had no wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and desired to quote the exact words employed, but had been unable at the moment to find the passage. It now appeared that the words were "unmitigated vengeance" and "massacre." He thought the sense implied by these words was not very different from that which he had conveyed; but the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have spoken of "extermination."

said, he rose to explain how he came to put the question which had been so frequently referred to in the course of the discussion. The House would remember that when the Conspiracy Bill was introduced a very strong impression was made in favour of the Government by the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir. G. Grey) reading at the close of the debate the despatch of Count Walewski, apologizing for the language which had been used towards this country. But, he (Mr. Griffith) from his acquaintance with France, and his knowledge that no Government, whatever might be its name, gave real liberty to the people, suspected that that despatch would not be published as the offensive articles had been in the Moniteur. He waited for some days, and finding that his anticipations were correct, and the despatch did not appear, be put a question respecting it in the House, when the noble Lord gave him an answer which certainly betrayed an apprehension that such questions would produce a war with France. He had put the question referred to entirely on his own account, and had not consulted any one with regard to it. No doubt the answer of the noble Lord had some effect on the independent Members of the House.

said, he rose to express his hope that the assistant chaplains in the Army, who had rendered most valuable services during the war in the Crimea, would be placed upon the same footing as regarded half-pay and retirement with the same class of officers in the navy. He believed that if the whole of the military chaplains were commissioned the increased annual charge to the country would only be £850.

intimated to the hon. and gallant Member that he was out of order in bringing the question forward upon the Vote before the Committee.

said, he the wished to know when the Survey Report would be laid on the Table. He hoped no supplementary Estimate with respect to it would be taken until they had had an opportunity of considering the Report.

said, that he had received the Report just after the adjourn- ment of the House for the holidays; he had forwarded it on the same day to Her Majesty, and should lay it on the Table as soon as he got it back. He had given orders that no alterations should be made in the terms laid down by the Treasury in the matter.

said, that last year skeleton maps were appended to the Report, in order to show the progress of the survey. He understood there were no such maps this year.

said, he believed that they would be produced.

said, as the Vote had reference to the establishment at Carshalton he thought he was in order in calling attention to the case of the chaplains of the army. He could confirm all that had been said as to their services both in the Crimea and in Bulgaria, in the midst of fever and cholera.

informed the hon. and gallant Member that he was out of order in alluding to the subject on that occasion.

asked if he would be at liberty to bring the case of the chaplains forward on the bringing up of the Report?

replied in the affirmative.

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the various rates imposed upon the students at Woolwich and Sandhurst. Those establishments cost the country nothing, but it was right to inquire out of whose pockets came the funds for maintaining them. The sons of private gentlemen at Woolwich paid £125, while the sons of general officers having regiments paid only £80, the sons of those who had not regiments £70, and so on in the lower ranks of officers. It must be clear, then, that the cost of maintaining the establishment came from the pockets of private gentlemen, who were required to pay £125 per annum. He did not mean to say that the sons of officers were not entitled to some advantage, but he thought that advantage should be paid for by the public, and not by private persons.

reminded the hon. Gentleman that Sandhurst College was originally intended for the sons of officers only, and the first class thought of by the Duke of York was the orphan class, which existed for some time, until that House thought fit to withdraw the allowance, thereby inflicting great dishonour upon the country. When he (Colonel North) was a cadet at Sandhurst he met there a brother of an hon. Baronet, now a clerk of that House, who was the son of a gallant officer, the founder of the institution, who fell in one of the most brilliant charges of the Peninsular war. The orphan class, however, was no longer considered by the public. In 1815, at the close of the great war, there were 412 cadets at Sandhurst, all the sons of military or naval men, and of whom 156 were orphans, who paid nothing, but towards whose education the country paid £21,300 a year. He quite agreed that one class should not he unduly taxed for the education of another class, but thought it was the duty of the country to provide any funds that might be required.

said, he thought it desirable that a statement should be laid before the House of the amount received as well as of the amount paid for such an establishment.

said, he concurred in the opinion that it was unjust to tax one class for the benefit of another. It was monstrous that a civilian should have to pay £125 per annum for his son, when a man of property, who might also happen to be a general, had to pay only £70 or £80 for his.

said, he was anxious to call the attention of the Committee to the subject of Military Rewards. Those rewards were of two classes—pecuniary, which were met out of the Vote now proposed, and the highest military reward which an officer could receive, the Order of the Bath. It might be supposed that when the latter decoration had been conferred upon an officer for distinguished services, he would be permitted to wear it during his life, and upon his decease to bequeath it as an honourable heirloom to his family. That was not the case; for the decoration was conferred only for life, and immediately upon an officer's death an official demand from the Herald's Office, which was signed by His Royal Highness the Prince Consort as the head of the Order, was made upon his representatives for the return of the mark of distinction which had been conferred upon their gallant relative. Again, the decoration which was delivered to an officer when at home by the hand of his Sovereign, or transmitted to him when abroad, was of so mean and miserable a description that no officer could wear it in the state in which it was handed over to him, and that the very first thing he did after the investiture was to go to his own jeweller and get him to furnish him with a silver decoration, devoid of which he was almost ashamed to be seen in public. The practice, indeed, had been found so objectionable that it could not be carried into effect with reference to those foreign officers on whom the Order of the Bath had been conferred. At the conclusion of the Crimean war, when many French and Sardinian officers, along with several British officers, were decorated with the Order of the Bath, the English officers were placed in this disgraceful position — that while they saw the foreign officers receive the decoration in silver it was given to them, the English officers, in tinsel and pasteboard. He took the liberty of mentioning this subject to the House last year, and on that occasion he received from the noble Viscount then at the head of the Government an intimation that that part of his complaint was reasonable, and should be redressed. Since then, however, nothing had been done, and it was his (Lord Hotham's) intention, on the meeting of Parliament this year, to have made this the subject of a distinct Motion for an Address to the Crown; but he would now leave it in the hands of the Minister for War, hoping the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would take it into his consideration and give such advice to his Royal Mistress as would lead to a removal of this just cause of complaint, which would be received as a matter of grace and favour on the part of the military and naval professions.

said, he could confirm the statement of the noble Lord as to the distinction made in the decoration given to our own officers and that conferred on foreign officers, and as to the pain with which that distinction was regarded by the former. He thought, however, the matter could not be in better hands than those of the present Minister for War.

said, he wished, on the part of the 64th Regiment, to make some remarks on the statement made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the present Sir Henry Havelock having been singled out to receive the Victoria Cress, given on account of the gallant attach which that regiment made on a battery during the first siege of Cawnpore. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman had said that Sir Henry, then aide-de-camp to his father, had, without orders, placed himself at the head of the regiment, and had ridden in front until the battery was taken. Now, a gallant relative of his (General Buckley) had commanded that regiment, and had written to him to say that the whole regiment was extremely surprised and displeased on finding that an aide-de-camp had been so rewarded for doing that which they could have done without his assistance. He reminded the Committee that the 64th Regiment had behaved with the greatest gallantry during the campaign; that not the slightest imputation rested upon it, and that, on the contrary, it had received the thanks of its commanding officer for its services in the field. He must say, in justice to the present Sir Henry Havelock, that he was highly averse to having the order conferred upon him under the circumstances.

concurred in the objections expressed by the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire, with respect to the mode in which the decoration of the Bath was at present bestowed.

explained that in some remarks he had made to the House on a previous occasion his intention was merely to state circumstances which he thought redounded to the credit of Sir Henry Havelock, and not to cast the slightest reflection on the commanding officer of the 64th Regiment, or on the regiment itself, which he had no doubt behaved on the occasion in question with the utmost gallantry and propriety.

said, he was obliged to the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) for calling his attention to the subject which he had brought under the notice of the Committee; and with regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Salisbury (General Buckley), he would only say that he could not believe that there was a more gallant regiment, or one more gallantly led, than the 64th, as would be seen, when the letters of Sir Colin Campbell were published.

said, he should be glad to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at the head of the War Office, express some positive opinion with respect to the mode in which the decoration of the Bath was at present conferred. He (Mr. Monsell) believed that the House was unanimous in disapproving of the existing practice in that matter.

said, there were two points involved in the present mode of conferring the Order of the Bath. There was, first, the tinsel star, which he believed was a subject of general condemnation. He had himself given a silver star to the French officers in the Crimea, who had been admitted to the Order, because it had been found impossible to confer the decoration upon them in the mode in which it was given to English officers. The other point to be considered in the matter was the size of the decoration. Considering the limited number of cases in which the Grand Cross of the Bath, and the Knights Commandership of that Order were conferred, he thought the decoration might be made smaller, if expense were grudged; for it was not the value of the thing which caused it to be prized, but the honour denoted by it, and the decoration would be much enhanced in value if it could be transmitted to the children and relatives of those who were fortunate enough to obtain it. Moreover, it was at present inconveniently large, and an unnecessary expenditure was thus imposed on officers who had to supply themselves with a valuable imitation of the mean material which they received from the State.

said, he believed there could be no doubt but that convenience and economy would be promoted by reducing the size of the decoration. It was at present so heavy that it could only be held on by being very tightly sewn, and even then frequently tore itself off by its own own weight when the officer was on horseback.

said, he did not wish to object to the conferment of rewards for distinguished military services, but he was surprised to find upon the Estimates a grant of £2,240,000 for half-pay and pensions—a vote exceeding that of last year by £18,000. The Russian war having terminated, he should rather have expected a diminution than an increase upon these items.

complained that the charges for the maintenance and repair of the several offices were not given in detail. There was a charge of £24,000 a year for a number of small houses all over the town for the use of the Government. This was a most extravagant system, and it would be much more economical to have all these offices concentrated in one place. There was a very large sum for a great variety of small articles, including rates and taxes, coals, soap, &c., and he only referred to them to express the hope that there was some supervision over such outlay, as the charges were year after year gradually increasing.

said, it had been thought better to put the charge for the maintenance of the Government offices down in one sum, but the charges for what were not, strictly speaking, Government offices were given in detail, even to as small an amount as £16. No doubt the sum paid in rent was very great, but there was no avoiding it without the expenditure of a large sum of money for the concentration of the offices, and on a scheme of that kind the House was not at present prepared to enter. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that every necessary supervision over the expenditure was exercised.

complained that no less than twelve houses, at a rent of £6,381, were occupied by the War Department, and in the next Vote there was an item of £7,073 for furniture for them. He believed it would be much more economical to build now offices. He found in this Vote a number of items for Scotland for repairs of abbeys and churches. The Abbey Church, Haddington, £230; Arbroath Abbey, £95; Dunfermline Abbey, and several others: these were items that ought not to be charged to this country.

said, these buildings in Scotland belonged to the country, and, if kept up, must be so at the country's expense; and he did not think the hon. Gentleman himself would stand up and propose to allow these ancient relics to fall into decay. He assured the Committee that a proper system of supervision over the firing and the like was maintained, and that a saving would be effected by it. As for the War Department, and the expenses attending it, an opportunity would be given the hon. Gentleman of expressing his opinion as to the centralization of that department under one roof.

said, he must still ask why these Scotch abbeys and cathedrals —Arbroath Abbey, Dunfermline Abbey, Dunblane Cathedral, and others — should be said to belong to the country, and be maintained at the public expense, at the same time that none of the many abbeys and cathedrals of England were chargeable to the country? They belonged to Scotland; let Scotland support them. Why should this country do so?

said, he begged to remind his hon. Friend that this country had an Episcopalian establishment, but that Scotland had no endowment for the maintenance of cathedrals and abbeys, and that if they were to be maintained, they must appear in the Votes. He rose to make an observation or two upon the sums of money payable as rents for public offices. It was said that this was an extravagant system, and that it would be more economical for the nation to build public offices, so as to render unnecessary the hiring of buildings for temporary purposes. The subject had been considered by Select Committees and by successive Governments, and he trusted that the Government would continue to entertain the plans for building a new Foreign Office, and some others that were more immediately needed. But he should be sorry to see them take steps for clearing a large portion of Westminster, at a cost of a million of money, and then come to that House for double or treble that sum, in order to cover an enormous area with concentrated and centralized public offices. The benefit of such a scheme would be much less than was expected, because many of these public offices had very little connection with each other. They had certain limited duties to perform, and those duties could be as well discharged where they now were as if they were removed to Downing Street, or the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. An enormous outlay would be required for such a central building, and it would be more economical to hire houses for the im- mediate exigency. Many of these departments had duties to perform for two or three years, when their functions ceased. He trusted that the House would not rush into an enormous centralized system of public offices, under a notion that it would lead to economy. This demand arose partly from those who wished to give a more imposing character to the Civil Service, and partly from others who desired to embellish the metropolis at the public expense, which might be a laudable design, but was one which could not be effected except by a great pecuniary sacrifice, and ought not to be carried out under cover of the economy arising from a centralization of the public offices.

said, he must remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) that many of the abbeys and ecclesiastical edifices of Scotland included in this Vote were once private property, and had been handed over to the country on condition that the nation would undertake their maintenance and repair.

said, that many of the buildings referred to in the Vote afforded considerable instruction and amusement to the public, and he thought it would be much to be regretted, if from considerations of a small economy they should be allowed to fall into a state of complete decay.

said, he found that there had been voted under that head during the last seven years a sum of £187,000. Now it appeared to him that that was an extravagant charge to incur in the case of an article so durable as furniture.

said, that every possible care was taken by the present holders of office not to incur, in that matter, any unnecessary expenditure.

said, he was glad to find, at all events, that the sum required under that head for the present year was less by £9000 than that which had been expended last year, although there was generally a large increase when a new Ministry came in.

complained that the items in the Vote were not set out sufficiently in detail. He supposed that the largest portion of the item of £5,705 for Science and Art was required for the Museum at Kensington, but he should like to know how much was for that in Jermyn Street, and for the Female School of Art in Gower Street. He was moreover perfectly ignorant of the nature of the last institution.

said, that £5705 certainly would be a large sum if it was entirely for furniture, but the fact was that it included the money paid for cases and other miscellaneous articles at Kensington. The Female School of Art in Gower Street was the only one of the kind in the metropolis. Of course it would be easy to have the items separated, if necessary.

said, he considered the money excellently expended; he only wanted an explanation of the amount of the different items.

said, that it was very difficult to distinguish what was furniture, in the precise sense of the word, in a museum, and it was therefore thought better to include the fittings and furniture in one item. This however, was the last year those items would appear in the Vote for furniture, to which they did not strictly belong. They would in future appear under the more proper head of "fine arts." With regard to the respective amounts, £500 was required for the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street; £500 for the College of Chemistry; £600 for various articles at South Kensington Museum, and about £4,000 for extraordinary purposes at that establishment.

said, as so many thousands of persons resorted, with advantage, to the museum at Kensington, he considered the money laid out upon it very well applied.

said, it must be highly satisfactory that the Museum of Science and Art at South Kensington should be restored to by the general public. No man, however uncultivated he might be, could visit it without carrying away some idea of advantage to him intellectually. He feared however, that in discussing the expenditure under the head of furniture they were losing their time; for there was a statement connected with the Vote to the effect that the amounts could not be supplied with accuracy. How that could be the case when the furniture was bought and paid for he could not understand. He must say that the furniture in the public buildings ought to last ten years at least; none of themselves would like their furniture to be worn out in less time than that.

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member did not quite understand the real state of the case. The Estimate for furniture for the year 1857–8 was £36,069. That was the sum voted; but the hon. and gallant Member would find that the amount actually expended was £31,519. The present Estimate was founded on the actual expenditure of last year.

said, that observation implied that the furniture of last year would require renewal.

said, the expenditure was chiefly on account of wear and tear, not for providing new furniture.

said, he wished to call attention to the large expenditure for Kew Botanical Gardens, as it had been suggested to him that they might be rendered profitable to some extent by the sale of those plants for which no room could be found. He understood that in the course of a year an enormous number of plants were produced, which would be disposable, and many of them were extremely valuable. The enormous expenditure of £25,000 for St. James's, Green, and Hyde Parks was, to him, quite unaccountable. He thought that the money hitherto voted had been sufficient for all alterations hitherto, and that this year a moderate sum only would be required for the current expenditure necessary to keep those parks in good condition.

said, he would suggest to the First Commissioner of Works the propriety of providing some additional accommodation for the greenhouse plants at the Botanical Gardens at Kew, for want of which, he believed, great loss had already been sustained. He looked upon those gardens as one of the most healthful places of recreation and instruction of which the nation could boast, and their popularity was attested by the fact that during the past year the Botanic Gardens at Kew had been visited by no less than 400,000 persons, while, to their credit be it spoken, not the slightest injury had been done. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he would remind him that Kew Gardens were made available at the present moment for the purpose of stocking the Royal parks, for he believed it was the fact that it had supplied some thousands of young trees to Battersea, Victoria, and other new parks, the whole of which would otherwise have had to be paid for out of the public purse. He thought that 400 acres of ground having been gener- ously granted by the Royal Family to the people for the establishment of the Botanie Gardens, the least that Parliament could do would be to vote enough to keep them in an effective condition.

expressed his opinion that no public money was better spent than that laid out in parks and pleasure-grounds for the people at large, and no one could grudge the money which was required for their maintenance and improvement. He suggested that pleasure-houses should be crected in the Regent's Park and on Primrose Hill, so as to enable generously-disposed people to give treats to schools or poor persons. Such places of shelter would be crected by voluntary subscription, and when built they might be placed entirely under the control of Government. Their erection, he considered, would be a public boon highly appreciated by the working classes. He would also call the attention of the noble Lord to the condition of Victoria Park. He had visited that park lately, and there were very few seats or benches for the accommodation of the people. He was happy to bear testimony to the excellent way in which the late Minister of Public Works had conducted the affairs of his office. He also called attention to the want of additional seats in Victoria Park.

said, he could confirm the opinion that had been expressed as to the admirable administration of the late Commissioner of Works. He would also observe that for 1857–58 the Vote for the Parks was £24,000, whereas for the forthcoming year it would be only £23,000.

said, he wished to know whether a vote was to be taken annually for Battersea Park, as he had understood last year that that would be the last occasion on which it would appear in the Estimates. No doubt, it was very desirable that parks should be provided for the people of London, but it must be remembered that the inhabitants of all other large towes either paid for their own parks or were indebted for them to the generosity of some public-spirited neighbour. There was a very general feeling that the House of Commons had been somewhat too lavish in granting away public money for these metropolitan parks.

said, he was afraid that Battersea Park would, like the other parks, have to be maintained in future by means of an annual Vote. For the future, all public improvements in the metropolis of this sort would be carried out at the instance of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and would therefore be paid for either by the localities interested or the general metroplitan district; but this park had been commenced before the establishment of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and it must be maintained by that body which had authorized its formation in the first instance. As regarded the complaint of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) with respect to the Estimate for St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park, he must remind him that it was much smaller than the amount asked for last year. It must be remembered that the very completion of new works involved an increased outlay in order to keep them in proper condition. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Adams), he would observe that during a visit which he paid to Kew Gardens on the previous day, Sir W. Hooker pointed out to him the site on which he proposed that a new conservatory should be erected; and if he (Lord John Manners) understood that the object had the sanction of the Committee, he should next year, if he were then in office, endeavour to provide for the requirements of the case. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the whole of the arrangements and management of those magnificent gardens.

said, he highly approved of the proposal to make a new conservatory at Kew, which would become a school of science for botanists, and enable the eight individuals whose names were mentioned in the Report to give the public the result of their scientific researches in all parts of the world.

said, that since this Vote had been in print it had come to his knowledge that this sum did not entirely cover the estimated cost of these works. Two items of rather a serious amount had been omitted. One was a sum of £4,000 for expenses connected with recasting the bell and fixing it in its proper position; and the other was also a sum of £4,000 for finishing the unfinished face of the lower part of the clock tower. This additional sum of £8,000 would have to be added to that of £160,793; but this, he believed was the last Estimate that would have to he submitted for completing the unfinished works which had been already commenced.

begged to ask the noble Lord when it was likely that the works would be finally completed?

said, he would bee, to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the hands of the new clock. It was rather a trifling subject, perhaps; but if it was intended that the clock should be visible at a great distance, he thought the present hands would not accomplish that object. Perhaps the way in which they were painted made all the difference.

said, it was satisfactory to know that this was the last Vote which would be required for the houses of Parliament. He thought, however, that something should be done to give a finish to the unsightly arch of brickwork that was visible in Palace Yard, as it seemed to suggest that the works ought to go further. That eyesore should be removed. He also thought that the beautiful outside decorations and sculptures of the building were likely to be very much injured by the smoke from the two kitchen chimneys, and he thought they might be furnished with apparatus for consuming their own smoke. It added also, in all probability, to the corrosion of the roofs. He should also like to know when the works were likely to be completed?

said, he thought he had better not say positively when they would be completed, but he believed that every single item of expenditure was included in this Vote. The works were progressing most rapidly, and no one was more anxious than Sir C. Barry himself that they should be completed in the shortest practicable period. The official residences included in the present Estimate were in a state of great forwardness, and he had every reason to hope that in a comparatively very short time the new Palace would be completely finished.

said, he wished to call attention to the very large sum expended for the repairs of a building not yet finished. He believed that since the commencement of the works no less a sum than £6,890 had been spent in repairing the completed portions. There was an item especially £1,500 for covering the iron roof with anti-oxide composition, which appeared to him a very large sum. Whatever the noble Lord might be led to believe, he (Mr. Spooner) must express his doubt whether we had yet seen the last of the bill for the construction of the Houses of Parliament. As long as they had the architects about them they might rest assured that occasion would be found to make alterations and additions.

said, he would remind the hon. Member that much of the sum expended in repairs had been devoted to the effective maintenance of the Committee-rooms, which had been much used, and also the House itself. Of course, in an enormous building like the new Palace of Westminster, a large sum must be annually spent in repairs. Some time ago it was discovered that the iron roof had got very much out of repair, and at a comparatively small cost—namely, £1,500—it had been made permanently secure.

asked whether any arrangements had been made for the consumption of smoke in the New Houses of Parliament?

said, he believed that none had been made, but the attention of Sir C. Barry should be directed to the matter.

said, he wished to ask whether any specification for work to be done had been sent in by Sir C. Barry to the noble Lord? He understood that it had been sent in, and as everything must depend upon the nature of that specification, he thought it would be advisable that it should be laid on the table as soon as possible. He should be glad to know whether the noble Lord had been advised that the specification comprised all the work to be executed, and whether it was in sufficient detail to enable the noble Lord to test whether the money now required would be all that would be necessary for the completion of the building. When in office, he (Sir B. Hall) was told no more would be required, and the same thing was told to his predecessor (the late Sir W. Molesworth).

said, he would now lay the specification on the table, and he regretted he could not do so before the recess. He had been advised that the specification was the usual professional one, and showed everything which was required to be done and the cost of the same.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord to lay before the House an account of all the sums expended upon the Houses of Parliament up to this time. It would be also desirable to know what amount had been expended for furniture and other things.

said, that there would be no objection to place an account on the table of all the expenditure since the last return in 1854.

said, the Embassy at Madrid was in want of repair, and he did not find any Estimate on the paper.

said, he had thought it better to have some conversation with Lord Howden, who was on his return home, before any sum was asked for.

said, there existed out of doors a wish that the House of Commons would look more closely into the question of the utility of those harbours. He should like to know what the works at Dovor bad already cost, and what further sum they were likely to cost. As to the £60,000 for the harbour at Alderney, he was told that that harbour would never be of any great advantage to the commerce of this country. He wished to elicit the views of the Government as to harbours of refuge, for he had heard a great deal said as to the extravagance of which the House of Commons had been guilty in reference to this matter. Beyond this he had heard it stated that there was a great deal of jobbery in reference to the subject, and that schemes were being hatched which it would become them to keep a jealous eye on. He thought that it would ill become them at this time to sanction any new Vote on this subject, which would involve considerable expenditure, and which expenditure he thought would be attended with no commensurate benefit. He had heard it said that it would be a great thing to have harbours of refuge on the north coast of England, the north-east coast of Ireland, and also on the coast of Scotland, but what he wished to call attention to was this, that it was doubtful whether the advantages would be so great as to justify their expending a million, or a half, or a quarter of a million on these harbours. A Committee was now sitting upon this subject and should they take any course committing the country to begin other works as extensive as those at Dovor, Holyhead, Portland, and Alderney, it would be the duty of the House of Commons to step in and prevent what he thought would be a profuse and wasteful expenditure of the public money. He admitted that when the finances were in an easy condition the taxes might be legitimately applied to improving commercial harbours, but he believed that it would be better to grant small sums in aid of harbours already in existence, and which might be converted into harbours of refuge for all practicable purposes, instead of expending half or a quarter of a million in one particular place. Half-a-dozen grants of £10,000 or £20,000 would more promote commerce than the expenditure of an enormous sum of money at one particular place.

was surprised that his hon. Friend had taken this opportunity of saying what he had said, when he knew that there was a Committee still sitting, and on the eve of making a Report, which would be on the table in a few days. He was surprised that his hon. Friend should endeavour to prejudge that question when the Committee upstairs had been sitting so long, and without seeing the evidence which had been laid before them. He thought it a most unfair mode of proceeding, and he would not follow the example of his hon. Friend by discussing the matter. He was convinced that the evidence would disclose a state of things which could not be allowed to continue. He was quite aware that hon. Gentlemen who had in their minds particular localities, or a particular class of works, might wish to forestall the Report of the Committee; but that was one of the inconveniences which must attend a matter of this kind. He could only say that he believed it was the intention of the Committee to report in a very few days, and, as at present advised, he had no doubt that a Motion would be submitted to the House during the present Session based on that Report. His hon. Friend would have ample opportunity, with full materials, for judging of the Report on that occasion. He might, however, remark that these were harbours for defence, not for commerce. He now wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury for some explanation regarding the details of this Vote. The present Vote was for £170,000, which showed a decrease on the Vote of last year of £54,000, and it was stated that "this sum, with the balance remaining unissued of last year's Vote, will be sufficient for the service of 1858–9." The Vote, therefore, did not represent the expenditure of the year. A mere reduction of the amount of the Vote would not lead to reduced expenditure, and he wished to know how much the expenditure for the ensuing year would be.

said, if the hon. Gentleman supposed that the information conveyed to the House by this Vote, as it appeared in page 9, was all the information which they could obtain on the subject, it was not to be wondered at that he should ask for further details. But the hon. Gentleman would see at the foot of the Vote a reference made to a Parliamentary paper, a copy of which he (Mr. Hamilton) then held in his hand. By referring to that paper, the hon. Gentleman would find set forth the progress of the works, the sums already voted, the sums already expended on them, and the sum to be expended on them. The first column of the paper stated that the whole of the original Estimates amounted to £650,000. The total amount of the Votes come to up to the present time was £346,000. The Vote for 1858–59 was £34,000, and the subsequent Votes required amounted to £208,000. In the first page the hon. Member would find all the particulars fully stated, the number of men employed, seven of one class, seventeen of another, a millwright and so on. In reference to those three harbours of refuge, it was thought more convenient to present those details separately. With regard to the question of his hon. Friend, he had to inform him that the sum appropriated last year on the works of Dover was £34,000, the sum expended was £34,000, and the sum necessary for the next year was £34,000. For Alderney the sum authorised was £100,000, the sum expended was only £87,000, and the sum required for the ensuing year was estimated at £67,000. For Portland the sum authorised was £90,000, the sum expended £88,000, and the sum to be proposed £76,000; and a further sum, if required, might be expended upon these works.

said, perhaps it would have been better for his hon. Friend to have waited for the harbour of refuge Report; but for his part he wanted to advert to the harbour at Dovor. He never had been able to find out the use of it. In 1842 and 1843 he had resisted the Vote, and showed that to take Dovor as the site for such a work would be totally and entirely useless for trading vessels going from east to west, for they could not get into the harbour. He thought that the sooner a stop was put to the matter the better, for the cost was just so much money thrown away. This was on the supposition that the harbour was for commercial purposes, but if the Government would show that it was for the defence of the country, he, for one, would vote any amount they liked. As to the Alderney harbour, would any hon. Gentleman tell him the use of it as a harbour of refuge? It would be indeed useful for French vessels, but not for English. Even if it was for defence, what was the use of it? Originally the use of Alderney was that you could from thence look into Cherbourg, but now you could not do so. In the present condition of the French army and navy he thought that Portland, which was situate opposite to Cherbourg, should be kept in a proper state of defence. The other night he had called attention to the defences of this country, and he trusted that no delay would occur in nominating the Commission he had moved for. He did not think that the Government should lose a single day about it.

remarked, that he really did not know any way in which the money of the country could be better expended than in making a few national deep water harbours of refuge for the commercial navy, and also for defence. He hoped, however, that the Government would not neglect the suggestion of the host. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) as to expending small sums on other harbours.

observed, that he did not think that the papers referred to by the hon. Secretary for the Treasury were calculated to decrease their desire to know a little more as to the harbour at Alderney. The statement of the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) was that the harbour would be of no use.—[Sir C. NAPIER: Hear, hear!]—and what was to be the cost of it? Why, something more than £1,300,000. There had been expended already £600,000 odd, and there remained to be expended £700,000, though the original Estimate was only £600,000. It appeared to him to be not too late to inquire whether they could not limit their expenditure to the original plan, that which was to have cost £600,000.

said, he wished to inquire whether thirty-eight feet represented the entire progress made with the pier at Dovor by means of an outlay of £34,000.

explained that the thirty-eight feet was the work done in a single quarter.

said, that they had elicited some important information that night, namely, that these were not harbours of refuge, but of defence. He should, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that the Vote for Alderney works be reduced by the sum of £30,000.

asked, whether any part of the Vote for Alderney was intended for works of national defence.

said, that Alderney was important both as a harbour of refuge and defence. He could not say what portion of the expenditure on that harbour appertained to the purpose of defence and what to that of refuge, but they were essentially and necessarily connected. The Votes on the Army Estimates appertained more particularly to the purposes of defence, and those at present before the Committee related especially to those of defence.

said, he wished to suggest to the Secretary of the Treasury to calculate the cost of the pier at Dovor. At the rate at which it was now progressing—120 feet per annum — it would cost £6,000,000 of money instead of £600,000, and would not be finished in the present generation.

said, that from the first he had had doubts as to the propriety of the expenditure at Alderney; but after so very large a sum had been expended it naturally suggested itself to his mind that it might not be wise to begin the work and not to complete it. He wanted to know, however, from the hon. Member for Montrose what he meant by the precise amount of the reduction which he proposed? If it were intended merely as an expression of an adverse opinion to the expenditure which was going on, he Would vote with him. He knew well why the works were undertaken. They were not intended as a harbour of refuge for merchant vessels, and were not for anything else than a place where vessels of war might rendezvous. He believed that the harbour and fortifications of Alderney would be a source of weakness to England, for they would serve to keep large bodies of troops there, who would be better employed in taking care of the coasts of this country. Before sitting down he would make a remark to his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) who was chairman of the Committee on harbours of refuge. It appeared that evidence had been admitted from various private quarters on the subject; and he wished to suggest that, if that was so, evidence from all who were interested should be admitted, so that the Committee should be impartial. He for one did not object to spending public money on harbours of refuge. if it were made out that they were useful for the public interests, he thought that the expenditure of public money was a good one.

hoped that, after what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson), the hon. Member for Montrose would not divide the Committee upon his Amendment. The harbour at Alderney could not be looked upon as strictly a harbour of refuge. The works there had, beyond all doubt, a millitary object. And for a long period it had been the opinion of high military authorities, including the Duke of Wellington, that it was important to construct a harbour at Alderney for the reception of Her Majesty's ships. Upon that opinion many successive Governments had acted, and large sums had been laid out. There were several plans for the completion of the harbour of Alderney varying very much in scale. But the sum included in the Vote for the present year would be required, whatever plan might be carried out. It would be expended in the construction of the mole, the foundations of which were laid. By voting this money to be expended during the present year, the House would not be committed on the ultimate expenditure, or as to the ultimate size of the harbour. They would only be voting the sum required to complete what was already begun. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. Before the Government came to the House for a Vote next year they would be prepared to announce a definite opinion as to the course which should be adopted at Alderney, and as to the scale upon which the works there should be carried out.

said, he concurred in the recommendation to the hon. Member for Montrose not to divide the Committee upon this Vote.

said, that if the hon. Member for Montrose divided he should certainly support the Amendment. This was called a harbour of defence; but, as he understood that it would require 5,000 troops to protect the fortifications, he was convinced that it would be a source of weakness rather than of strength.

said, he would rather suggest the expediency of withdrawing the Amendment, in consequence of the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

said, his object in moving the reduction was simply to give the Government a hint that the House of Commons was tired of the expenditure at Alderney; but after the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty he could not press the Amendment.

said, he hoped it would not go forth to the world that England was unable to defend its Channel Islands. The late Duke of Wellington asked, with reference to this very point, where would this nation find allies if she could not defend her own frontiers?

called attention to the state of the western coast, which he said was unprovided with a single harbour of refuge.

said, he wished to ask when the new packet pier at Holyhead would be commenced. Would it be completed so as to be ready for the accommodation of the new and larger packets about to be placed on the station, and to run between Holyhead and Dublin?

stated, that it would be completed in a year and a half, in ample time to be ready for the accommodation of the new and larger packets which were about to be placed on the station.

suggested, that it was worth while to consider the possibility of rendering Holyhead available for the accommo- dation of the American traffic. Time would be saved both in the conveyance of the mails and passengers if they could be landed there instead of being carried on to Liverpool.

said the feared that in the present state of the harbour of Holyhead it would not be possible to land the American mails there. He would, however, cause inquiry to be made into the subject.

remarked, that the works now going on at Holyhead were being carried out with a view of making the harbour available for the landing of the American mails, so as to save as much time as possible in the conveyance of the mails and passengers intended for the metropolis and the south of England. He wished to know, as the amount of the present vote was so small, whether there was any balance applicable to the works at Holyhead.

replied, that there was a considerable sum applicable to Holyhead, in addition to the Vote before the Committee.

said, that the original Estimate for this harbour was £600,000, and now the total Estimate was put at £1,920,000. He had no doubt but that the harbour would be a work of great national importance; but these original Estimates were perfect delusions.

said, that there could be no doubt that the work when completed would cost more than the amount originally estimated by Mr. Rendell; but Mr. Hawkshaw had examined the harbour last year, and made calculations which there was every reason to believe would not be exceeded.

said, that in justice to Mr. Rendell, it should be mentioned that the original Estimate of that gentleman was for a much more limited undertaking than that to which those works at Holyhead had spread to. Repeated extensions had taken place while the works had been going on, in consequence of it becoming manifest that greater harbour accommodation would be required.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken. The Estimate was made by Mr. Rendell at £628,000 for the same plan which Mr. Rennie and other engineers estimated at £1,700,000.

observed, that fourteen years ago an assurance was given to the House that no further sum would be required for this harbour. The superintendent, who, he understood, had nothing to do, received a salary of £120, and he was also informed that it was contemplated to bring a railway to the harbour, which, after an immense expenditure made on it, would not be of any use.

inquired, whether it was proposed to have a covered way from the terminus of the Dublin and Kingstown railway to the pier from which the Kingstown and Holyhead boats started.

replied, that it was intended to bring the railway down to the new pier.

said, that with that portion of the Vote which related to the House of Commons he was entirely satisfied, for there were two pages of detailed information given, and no one could say that any of the officers of that House were overpaid. But with reference to the House of Lords, the amount required in aid of the fee-fund was £18,000 in the present year, while in the last year it was £15,000; and he should like to know why the same detailed information was not given with reference to the House of Lords as was given in the case of the House of Commons?

said, he was not aware of any objection to the production of the information, if it should be thought desirable. He believed, however, that the Estimate had always been drawn up in the present form. He would, however, make inquiry as to whether the details asked for could be obtained.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had made a very imprudent promise; for there was more difficulty in the way than the hon. Gentleman was aware of. The matter stood thus:— The House of Lords was in the habit of sending to the Treasury every year the amount of the expenditure of the preceding year; but for the current year they only sent a general Estimate, and the Treasury had no power to require the House of Lords to give information on the subject, and the Treasury could only lay the statement before the House of Com- mons in the form in which it was received. If the House of Commons wished to have the details of the Estimate which the House of Lords would require next year, there was no means of obtaining that information except by a Motion being made to that effect, and a message sent to the House of Lords asking them to give the information.

said, that the attention of the House had often been called to this matter, and the late Mr. Hume proposed to divide the House against any Vote for the House of Lords unless a proper Estimate should be furnished.

inquired, why the Vote in the present year was increased by upwards of £9,000.

replied, that there was a deficiency last year in consequence of the increased number of Queen's messengers and extra couriers whom the Foreign Office were obliged to employ. The amount paid by the Government for telegrams was so large as £8,000, in consequence of the many messages which had passed between this country and India.

said, that having given notice of a Motion with reference to this office, it would be inconsistent in him if he were not now to make one or two remarks upon the subject. In 1850 a Select Committee of this House was appointed to consider the question of official salaries, and they recommended that provision should be made for transferring the duties of this office to some other department of the Government, and that the salary should be discontinued. A great deal of evidence was taken, which tended to show that the office was useless and ought to be abolished. It had been said that the post was of great antiquity as well as dignity; but the same argument might be used respecting the Master of the Hawks or of the Buckhounds. The office seemed, indeed, to be "a great sham." It had been held by absentees, by Lord Lieutenants of Ire- land, by Lord Durham while ambassador at St. Petersburgh, and by Lord Minto when he went on his roving commission through Italy. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) stated to the Committee—

"The Lord Privy Seal has no great duties belonging to his department. He is employed on various matters which arise from time to time and attending Committees of the House of Lords."

Lord Minto, observed:—

"The duties connected with the office are extremely slight—I may say next to nothing. They are merely ministerial, in applying the seal once or twice a week to a number of patents. They are such as to occupy no time at all. I have no doubt that arrangements might be made by which all the ministerial duties of the office would be just as well performed in other hands. It could be held in commision, or it could, as far as regards the duties of the office, probably be combined with another office of slight labour, and entirely dispensed with as a separate office."

Being asked whether the office was not a sinecure, he replied:—

"I should say as completely a sinecure as an office can be which has certain ministerial duties of a very trifling description. The Lord Privy Seal is responsible that the seal is not attached to any instrument improperly, but that is practically a very slight responsibility."

It was not (he added) an office in which a man was likely to be worn out in the service; there was no labour of any sort. Evidence to the same effect was given by Lord Durham. He (Mr. Wise) stated this in order to show that the office was of no use. In the spring, when he gave his notice of Motion, he did so as an administrative reformer, and as the present Government professed to be administrative reformers he wished them to be assured that he was not making a double-shotted Motion; but he hoped that if the Government found that the duties of the office could be transferred to souse other department they would make some arrangement with that view, and consider whether it would not be more creditable to our governing system if they had persons in the Cabinet out of office, but as Privy Councillors, with salaries from £2,000 to £3,000 a year, and not continue a sham office like this, which must be given to a Peer. He did not make these observations simply as an economist, but because he thought that sinecures of all kinds ought to be abolished. [Cries of "Move."] Several hon. Members said, "Move," but looking to the state of the House he did not know whether he should be justified in moving the omission of the Vote. He considered the office useless, and if he was supported he was bound to move the rejection of the Vote, and if it was rejected the Government could, out of the civil contingencies in their hands, pay the salary due to the noble Lord who now held the office. He begged to move the rejection or he Vote.

said, he rose to complain of the unsatisfactory manner in which that department was managed. As a proof that such was the case, he might mention that from papers which had some time ago been laid on the table of the House, it appeared that, although several architects had been induced to compete in furnishing a design for the erection of public offices, yet the whole scheme had subsequently been set aside by the overruling authority of the Treasury.

said, that to the House of Commons, and not to the Treasury, the blame of that proceeding attached, inasmuch as, although the right hon. Baronet the late First Commissioner of Works had introduced a Bill for the purpose of carrying out the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he had been obliged to withdraw it in deference to the wishes of the Members of that House.

observed, that the Bill in question related to the general scheme for building public offices upon a large scale, and that, although that measure had not been sanctioned by the House, yet ample powers had been given for the purchase of ground for the erection of a Foreign Office, the proposal for the construction of which had been arbitrarily set aside by the Treasury in favour of a plan which had beca produced by the Government architect of a former Administration and rejected.

denied that the House had sanctioned the purchase of any ground whatever, and maintained that when Par- liament refused to purchase the ground required for the selected plans, it was obviously the duty of the Treasury to revert to a plan which had been originally approved of by Sir W. Molesworth, but when had been kept in abeyance, abiding the decision of Parliament upon the plans selected from among those sent in for competition.

said, he believed the question of the construction of those offices would require more consideration than it had yet received. He did not understand that the Government was committed by any pledge or understanding to employ the successful architect in the construction of the building; but he believed the present Chief Commissioner of Works was disposed to grant a Committee to inquire into the whole subject, and he hoped the hon. Member for Maidstone would make that Motion. With respect to the Vote before the House, it was, he considered, a moderate one, for he found that the office was right well officered.

said, he would in proper time move for the appointment of the Committee as suggested by the hon. Member for Bath.

complained that the salary of the Private Secretary to the Chief Commissioner had been raised from £150 to £313, and the reason assigned was, that the Chief Commissioner was a Cabinet Minister. He could not understand how that made any difference. There was the solicitor, Mr. Gardiner, who had a salary of £1,800, and it appeared he had also a salary from the office of Woods and Forests, though there was another solicitor there with a salary of £1,000 a year.

explained, that there was nothing new in the principle of the increase of the Private Secretary's salary. The duties of a Secretary to a Cabinet Minister were always more varied and extensive than those of a secretary to a Minister who was not in the Cabinet, and his salary was always fixed at £300 a year.

said, he must repeat his objections. The duties of a Private Secretary, he contended, must be confined to the department, and had therefore nothing to do with the question whether his chief was or was not in the Cabinet.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that was not so. A Commission appointed by the Treasury some years ago, to inquire into all official salaries, laid down the rule to which his right hon. Friend alluded, and on that ground he stated that the Private Secretary of a Cabinet Minister should always have £300 a year. As to the solicitor, he believe that arrangement was made at the express instance of Lord Seymour when he was in the department, on the ground of Mr. Gardiner's familiarity with the details of the office of Woods and Forests.

said, he should propose to reduce this vote by £30,000, the item included in it for the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses of Poor Law unions. He reminded the Committee that on the repeal of the Corn Laws the charge, among others, for the salaries of that class of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses was transferred, at the suggestion of Sir R. Peel, from the local rates to the Consolidated Fund, with the view to enable the agricultural interest to adapt itself the more readily to the altered state of things; but, inasmuch as the result of the repeal had been beneficial rather than detrimental to that interest and to the whole community, he thought it but fair that the charge should be again borne by the local rates. The case was peculiarly hard as respected Ireland, where the people had not only to bear their own local rates, which were exceedingly high, and where an additional tax had been recently imposed upon the sale of spirits, but to contribute, in common with England, to the fund out of which that £30,000, from which they derived no benefit, was defrayed.

supported the Amendment, and cited other instances of expense borne by the local rates in Ireland, but paid out of the general charges in England. When these differences were made he admitted the taxation of Ireland was not equal to that of England, but as so much had been done of late to equalize the taxation between the two countries he thought the exemptions ought to be equalized too.

said, he would submit to the Committee that it would be dangerous interfere with the settlement made in l846, because the same arrangement exonerated Ireland to a great extent from the maintenance of the constabulary force.

said, the Irish people would be prepared to take on themselves the burden of maintaining their police if they were given, as in England, the control over that force, but not so long as their constabulary was placed on the footing of an army and employed by the Government in the collection of the Excise duties.

said, he should oppose the reduction of the vote, as he believed the £30,000 for the Poor Law schoolmasters and mistresses was well spent.

contended that the poor would not suffer from the transfer of the sum in question from the Consolidated Fund to the English ratepayers, and he would support the reduction.

said, no money was better laid out than that sum of £30,000 for schoolmasters and mistresses, and it was a mistake of the hon. Member (Mr. White) to suppose that the education given to the poor would be equal to what it now was if the expense were to be borne by the ratepayers. In most districts there was a desire to obtain the services of the children so educated, and thus they disappeared from the class of paupers.

said, he should not support the Motion as he thought the education of pauper children should be a national, and not a local burden.

suggested that it would be better to raise the question not on the ground of the salary of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, but on the item of £100,000 for the salaries, of medical officers. He thought that, as a general principle, local expenditure ought to be met by local rates.

said, he should acquiesce in that suggestion, and should withdraw his Amendment.

then moved that the sum be reduced by £100,000, the sum charged for one-half of the salaries of the medical officers of poor law unions in England. The objection raised to the reduc- tion of the educational Vote did not apply to this; and he did not see why England should not bear on her local rates the same expense which was so borne by Ireland. With regard to the police, if they had the control in Ireland of the police and had to use them only for police and not for revenue purposes, they could maintain them for one-sixth of the present cost.

said, he objected to dealing with this question in a piecemeal way. The Vote included part of the arrangement made by Sir R. Peel on the repeal of the Corn Laws, and a question so important ought not to be raised on a single item of this nature. He did not think they could take one item without going into the whole of them. With regard to the medical officers there was great complaint that their remuneration was too small. If this Amendment were agreed to it would probably be less. There was some force in the argument that the landed interest had not suffered so much from the Repeal of the Corn Laws as was anticipated, but, on the contrary, had gained by it, and the question might arise how far they were entitled to the compensation then granted them, or any compensation. He thought it would be highly objectionable, however, to deal with the question in the partial way now proposed, and he should like to hear the views of the Government on the subject.

denied that Sir Robert Peel had taken off the local charges referred to as a compensation for the Repeal of the Corn Laws. These local charges were taken off because the landed interest bore much heavier burdens than the rest of the community, and many of them were removed before the Corn Laws were repealed. Before hon. Members took up these questions hap-hazard it would be well if they would reflect how the agricultural interest had been burdened in proportion to the other interests of the country. The prognostications of ruin to the agricultural interest from the repeal of the Corn Laws had not been borne out, but during the first three or four years after that event many thousand respectable, but poor farmers had either been converted into labourers or into poor settlers in other countries. Let the House consider the question of local burdens if it would, but not upon an isolated Vote.

said, he could not see any distinction between the charges for medical officers and the charges for schoolmasters, and he was not aware of any reason why the medical officer, any more than the schoolmaster, should depend for his remuneration upon the liberality of the poor-law guardians. With regard to the other and most important point, it was not reasonable to suppose that the transfer of these trifling charges to the Consolidated Fund had been proposed by the late Sir Robert Peel as a compensation for the repeal of the Corn Laws, but, complaints having been made of the unequal manner in which such burdens had been borne, that was deemed to be the equitable moment for a fairer distribution of those burdens. If, however, these remissions were offered and accepted, as some believed, in the light of compensation for the repeal of the Corn Laws, it would be most unwise for Parliament suddenly to disturb a settlement of so serious a character. The experience of the Corn Laws had been extensive, but did not spread over so wide a period as to justify the House in coming to the conclusion that the transfer of these charges to the Consolidated Fund was unnecessary. If a period of sharp distress overtook the agricultural community, would not the House be in an awkward position if they represented that when the Corn Laws were repealed certain arrangements were made for the relief of the agricultural interest, but that after they had enjoyed a short period of prosperity the House of Commons broke the contract? There might come such a period of distress. If it prevailed in Ireland the House would hear of it, and they would be in a false position if they took advantage of what might turn out to be a transient prosperity in order to recede from a solemn compact. It was impossible to deal piecemeal with the arrangements of 1846. It must come before the House in its entirety, and it was only by a general and dispassionate review of all the facts that justice could be done. He must, therefore, resist the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he thought that there was some ground for the impression which prevailed that the contract into which Sir Robert Peel entered with regard to Ireland had not been carried out. Sir Robert Peel was desirous to do something to mitigate the evils which were thought likely to attend the repeal of the Corn Laws, although the measures which he proposed could not be considered as amounting to compensation. He (Mr. Wilson) did not think that the question should be raised in the present form, and he should therefore not support the hon. and learned Member.

said, that he had not heard a word in justification of the course which was pursued towards Ireland. It was neither just nor honest to call upon the people of Ireland to pay one-fourth of the expenses of medical officers in England, and at the same time to pay the whole of those expenses in Ireland. The question they really had to determine was, whether, having adopted a certain mode of payment with regard to England, they should not apply the same rule to Ireland. The alteration of taxation in Ireland justified them in saying it ought to be done; and unless the Government were prepared to give them a pledge for placing Ireland on the same footing as England, he should vote for the Motion.

said, that the number of constabulary in Ireland was fixed by the Irish Government. If the counties required any more they must pay for it.

was glad to hear Irish Members say that they were prepared to submit to equal taxation with England, but he was afraid that they only adopted this high ground for the purposes of this particular question. He was disposed to support any proposition for transferring local burdens to the general taxation of the country, because there was a feeling on the part of the rich to escape from taxation, and to throw the burden on the poor.

said, he deemed the vote so unjustifiable that he must mark his sense of it by dividing the Committee.

said, there was no reason in the world why this Commission should be permanent. The local authorities might be intrusted to carry out the provisions of the law without this supervision. Lord Althorp had given a solemn pledge when first the Commission was established, that when its original purpose was served it should not be continued. It was only by striking at Commissions of this sort that the expenses of the Civil Service of the country would be reduced.

complained of the largeness of the amount required for Civil Contingencies this year. The usual Vote for that purpose was £100,000, and he wished to know whether £128,000 had been really spent last year. If it had, several items of expenditure, which appeared in the paper just published, ought to have been brought specifically before the money was spent.

said, the excess of this year was caused by exceptional circumstances. There had been a great many special missions and diplomatic expenses of various kinds. For instance, there was the mission of Lord Elgin, and the expenses of the Paris Conferences. There was no money in the Treasury to meet this expenditure, and he therefore hoped that the Committee would allow a Vote on account to be taken.

said, he must object to the growing practice of taking large sums on account, and move that the Chairman should report progress.

said, the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly reasonable and usual. Hon. Gentlemen would have a full opportunity of discussing the items when the remainder of the Vote came to be proposed towards the end of the Session.