said, he wished to move that in the ease of the Westminster New Bridge Bill the examiner should have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.

said, he would take that opportunity of asking what was the position of the building and finance of Westminster Bridge. Figures which he had seen seemed to show that there was some danger of an excess of expenditure over the estimate. The sum which had already been spent was, in round numbers, £138,000, and the estimate of what would be necessary to complete the works, £178,000, making a total of £316,000. He wished to know from the noble Lord whether those sums were correct, and how the deficiency was to be supplied. In 1833 the Bridge Estate was transferred to the Woods and Forests, and he was afraid that if not gone already it would be swallowed up in the erection of this bridge, and he was therefore anxious to learn how the noble Lord proposed to obtain money to finish the works. He also desired to be informed who was the architect, builder, contractor, and surveyor, because he had been told that one person filled all these situations.

said, that as the hon. Baronet had not given him notice of his intention to put these questions, he was not prepared to give him complete and satisfactory replies. Speaking generally, the hon. Baronet would find in the estimate for the Vote taken last year an explanation of the financial condition of the bridge. He had no doubt that in time a further sum would have to be asked for from Parliament for the purpose of finishing the works. The Bridge Estate not having been disposed of, it was impossible to say how much it would produce; but he hoped that it would be a considerable sum. He was at a loss to imagine how the misapprehension that the engineer, contractor, and surveyor were all one person had arisen. The engineer for the bridge was that very eminent engineer, Mr. Page; the contractor was Mr. Cochrane; and the surveyor, appointed three years ago, was Mr. Hunt.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any renewal of the subsisting Mail Contracts to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for the West Indian and Brazilian Mail Service has been granted or promised to that Company without advertising for competitive tenders; whether Her Majesty's Government has had under their consideration any complaints of colonists or passengers or other persons respecting the irregularities, inconvenience, or mismanagement of the said services; and whether any investigation as to the convenience or management of the present service is contemplated previously to the renewal of such contracts; and whether it is intended that such renewals shall be opened to competition?

said in reply, that before the late Government went out of office application was made to them on the part of the Royal Mail Steam-packet Company, to extend for two years the existing contract for the West Indian and Brazilian Mail Service, on the ground that the Company proposed to increase the accommodation afforded with respect to the service to Brazil and the River Plate. The application was granted, as he found from the Treasury Minute, in conformity with the practice always followed in relation to other mail companies. No alteration was made in the terms of the contract, it was only extended from 1862 to 1864. He was not aware that any complaints had reached the Treasury such as those to which the hon. and learned Member referred. Complaints, he was told, had reached the Admiralty, but he was ignorant of their nature.

said, that as the House would have an opportunity of discussing the subject of these trials on a future occasion, he would, with the permission of the House, put the question of which he had given notice to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Secretary for War;—namely, under what circumstances Mr. Cunningham, who was appointed last year to an ensigncy in the 13th Regiment of Light Infantry, obtained his appointment. Perhaps the House would permit him to state the circumstances, so far as they had appeared. On Thursday week there appeared in the police Reports in The Times, an account of the proceedings against two men named Mortimer and Marshall, one of whom was described as a military tailor, who were charged with unlawfully conspiring to procure a Commission in the army. It was sufficient to say that a traffic, or a supposed traffic, in the sale of Commissions had been carried on by a firm known as Armstrong and Co., who had advertised in the newspapers for two years past, that they possessed peculiar facilities for procuring Commissions in the army. The House would at once see that a system under which mercantile firms pretended to have the power of obtaining Commissions in the army, either with or without purchase, must be attended with most pernicious consequences. There were peculiar circumstances connected with the case to which he was referring, which appeared to him to require the attention of the Government. One of the witnesses, named Pugh, examined before the magistrate described his interviews with Mortimer, and said he was informed that it would be necessary to deposit £400, in order to obtain a Commission. If the transaction had stopped there, it would not have been looked upon as extraordinary. Mr. Cunningham, in September, 1858, was, in fact, appointed to a Commission without purchase. Now, he (Captain Vivian) was not going to criticise the mode in which the patronage of the army was exercised; he thought that it was very fairly administered; but there was a general understanding with regard to Commissions given without purchase, that the recipients should either in their own persons or through their friends have some direct claim upon the country. What, then, were Mr. Cunningham's claims, and how were they brought under the notice of the authorities—because the House should understand, that to give a person a Commission was like giving him so much public money? This Gentleman's claims might have been very satisfactory, and might have been submitted to the authorities by very proper persons; but if that were the case, it was strange that Mr. Bridson, Mr. Cunningham's brother-in-law, should have gone to "Armstrong and Company" and have paid £400 for the purpose of obtaining a Commission. This system had existed for many years, and Commissions had been obtained entirely through the influence of "Armstrong and Company." He lately met a general officer who gave him authority to state, that some years ago, through "Burn and Company," he obtained an unattached company, for which he paid £900, although at that time unattached companies were difficult to procure, and he had never asked for the appointment.

said, he would confine himself strictly to the question put to him, as he thought the House would at once see the inconvenience of entering into statements upon a case which was about to undergo inquiry. The parties had not yet been committed, and it would be detrimental to the public service if he were to enter into explanations upon the subject. He had no objection, however, to state the grounds upon which a Commission without purchase was conferred on Mr. Cunningham. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had truly stated, that before a Commission was thus given, well-founded claims should be made out on the part of the individual seeking it. Now, Mr. Cunningham was the son of Colonel Cunningham, a very distinguished officer in the Bengal service; his grandfather and great-grandfather were also officers in the army, and served during the American war, and the testimonials upon which he received a Commission were signed by Sir S. Steel and Sir R. Vivian.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to remarks said to have been made by Mr. Baron Bram-well at Bala and other Assize Towns in the North Wales Circuit. The case to which he referred was one in which an indictment for embezzling his employers' money was preferred against a man named David Williams. A true Bill was found against him, and the accused on being brought up pleaded "Not Guilty." The case was gone into, and nine witnesses were called against the prisoner, and several others were called to speak to his character, the witnesses being highly respectable persons in the county of Merioneth and other counties in North Wales. He (Mr. Salisbury) admitted that the evidence was very strong against the prisoner, but there were points in it to which, he thought, the Judge ought to have called the attention of the jury as being favourable to the accused. But Baron Bramwell did not do so. The jury, however, retired and returned into Court with a verdict of acquittal. Now, he knew it was a very delicate thing to complain of the conduct of a Judge; but, on the other hand, it was a very delicate thing on the part of a Judge to interfere with the due administration of justice in the country. The case having been tried, the following proceedings were reported to have taken place: —

"The Clerk of the Court asked: Do you find the prisoner, David Williams, guilty or not guilty? —Foreman: Not guilty. (Great cheering, which was at once suppressed.) The Judge requested the officers of the court to bring any one before him whom they saw joining in the applause, and he would send him to prison. His Lordship then addressed the jury as follows:—Gentlemen,—You have said that you find the prisoner Not Guilty. Do you understand the case? Do you understand that it is your duty to say whether or not this man received his employers' moneys, and applied them to his own purposes? Do you say he is not guilty of so doing?—Foreman: Yes, Sir.—The Judge (emphatically): Then I am thankful it is your verdict, and not mine. Addressing Mr. Matthew, his Lordship said: Are you an Englishman, Sir?— Mr. Matthew: I am, my Lord.—Judge: And your firm is English, I suppose?—Mr. Matthew: Yes, my Lord. Judge: This should be a warning to an Englishmen not to invest their capital in Wales."

[Laughter.] This might be a very laughable matter, but before sitting down he thought he could satisfy the Court [Laughter]—he appealed to the House as a Court on that occasion—that, however laughable the subject might be here, it was of a very serious nature as regarded the administration of justice in Wales. He did complain of the remarks made by the learned Judge at the close of the trial, but when Mr. Baron Bramwell proceeded to Carnarvon he made the case rather worse. The prisoner Williams, having been acquitted by the jury, was in the eye of the law innocent of the crime imputed to him; yet at Carnarvon, after congratulating the grand jury on the state of the calendar, the learned Judge went on to say: —

"I believe one bill will be presented to you charging a person with an attempt to suborn perjury. Subornation of perjury.. is an offence the enormity of which is not so much felt here, I may say, as it ought to be… I am afraid it is at the bottom of more than one dishonest verdict which I have known to have been given, and for which it is impossible not to feel the deepest regret … I have been told that a jury found a grossly corrupt verdict because they wanted to screen a prisoner—a man holding some office in a Dissenting congregation. That is one of the most monstrous things in the world, and yet I am told it is true."

These remarks were made at a time when the prisoner could have no opportunity of replying to the charges made against him. He had received a letter from a highly respectable gentleman residing at Bala, who, in referring to the case, said it might appear unaccountable to many persons not acquainted with the circumstances how the jury could have given such a verdict as that which they returned. It ought, however, he went on to add, to be explained that a system prevailed in the slate quarries where David Williams had been employed, and which he was afraid would be described in no more favourable terms than that of "cooking" the accounts; and it was, therefore, not difficult to understand how a jury would be averse to seeing a poor man hunted to death for an offence, the commission of which they might be disposed to think was the fault not so much of the individual as the system. The Gentleman to whom he alluded further proceeded to say that if anything could warp the minds of the jury it was likely to be the intemperate conduct of the Judge, and that if such men went often into Wales the Welsh people would in all probability soon equal the Irish in their hatred of Englishmen. The learned Judge had left the impression upon the minds of the jury at Carnarvon that the prisoner had been acquitted be cause he was a Dissenter, and the fair inference from his observation on that point was that the members of the jury by whom he had been tried were Dissenters also. The gentleman from whose letter he had just quoted, however, said that he had been informed upon competent authority that there had been two Scotchmen on the jury, that the foreman was a Scotchman, and that it included only three Dissenters, the remaining members being Churchmen. Now, he could not help thinking that the learned Judge, in making the observations which he had made, had acted very improperly. He had complained of the finding of the jury at Beaumaris, and in every town in North Wales in which he had presided at the assizes; but when he arrived at Chester—perceiving, perhaps, that notice had been given that the attention of the House was about to be called to the subject—he had abstained from making further reference to the trial. It was not to be tolerated that a man who had been acquitted should be thus branded from the bench, and he therefore begged to conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department if he has any explanation to offer to the House on the conduct of the learned Judge.

begged to ask the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation of the recent dismissal of a gentleman who had been employed for two years and a half in the Emigration Office, and had subsequently passed a satisfactory examination before the Civil Service Commissioners.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken for removing the political establishment of the India Office to the neighbourhood of the other Public Offices of Government. Last Session he had been under the impression that a new India Office would be erected on the site immediately adjoining the Foreign Office, but it appeared from the discussion that had recently taken place upon this subject, that no steps had as yet been taken in the matter. It seemed quite clear that as the style of architecture to be adopted had not yet been fixed, three or four years must elapse before any new building was erected. The question was one, however, he would take occasion to observe, which was of considerable importance with the view of facilitating the transaction of the business connected with India, and it was, he believed, quite competent for the noble Lord to make the change to which he adverted, Lord Ellenborough had, he believed, before he left office, expressed himself favourable to such a transfer, and he trusted the noble Lord opposite would find no difficulty in the way of adopting his suggestion, particularly when he bore in mind that a sum of £300,000 or £400,000 might be obtained for the site of the existing premises in Leadenhall Street, and that the expense attendant on the change would thus in a great measure be defrayed. Before he sat down he should wish to say a few words on another subject. He meant the sending out a financial Minister to India, as a member of the Council in that country, which the noble Lord that evening announced to be in the contemplation of the Government. Now, he could not be surprised that the noble Lord should have come to the conclusion to adopt that course, which had received years ago the sanction of the Earl of Ellen-borough and other high authorities. There were, however, many Gentlemen conversant with Indian affairs who entertained grave doubts as to the expediency of its adoption. He thought, indeed, it was, in a legal point of view, doubtful whether the noble Lord was justified in acting as he proposed, inasmuch as the spirit of the clause in the Act of Parliament required that one member of the Council should be a member of the legal profession. The noble Lord would find that the legal ground would fail him, and there was also the substantial objection that any change in the financial system of India must originate in this country.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in consequence of the appointment of Mr. Peacock to the Chief Justiceship of Bengal, it is the intention of the Government to recommend that the vacancy thereby created in the Council of Calcutta should be filled up by a person competent, from experience and skill, to superintend and remodel the Finances of India.

said, he would take this opportunity of answering the various questions which had been addressed to him. The first related to the locality in which the Indian business in this country was to be carried on. He always listened with great respect to anything which fell from his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir E. Perry), but he thought that he rather exaggerated the importance of a change from the city to the West end, when he said that it would seriously influence the conduct of the Indian administration. No person was so much interested in this question as the Indian Minister for the time and his Parliamentary Secretary, to whom it was very inconvenient to be separated by about half an hour's journey from their colleagues and from that House. He had to consider this question in August last, and having found that all the political departments could not be accommodated in the building in Cannon-row, he thought, on a full consideration of the balance of inconvenience, that it was better to remove the whole department to Leadenhall Street, where it was now, than to have one part of the business carried on in Cannon Row and another in the city. The hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that accommodation might have been found by occupying the houses in Manchester-buildings. No doubt that might have been done by, though probably not without, the authority of an Act of Parliament, but those premises would have required refitting from foundation to roof, at an expense which it would have been unwise to incur for a merely temporary purpose. It had been determined that a new India Office should be erected upon the site in the neighbourhood of Downing Street which the Government was about to acquire, and the delay which had occurred in the commencement of the works had arisen solely from the legitimate and natural desire of that House to have an estimate of the expense, and to see the designs both for this and the Foreign Office before they were acted upon. The elevations and general designs were now ready, the preparation of the working drawings would be proceeded with, and as soon as the House had pronounced as to the style to be adopted they would be prepared to proceed with the erection of the India Office. The expense would, of course, fall upon the Indian revenue, and therefore there would be no occasion to wait for a Vote of that House; but as the India Office and the Foreign Office would form portions of the same plan, and were to be in the same block of buildings, a decision could not be come to on the style of one of these offices without involving a decision on the style of the other. He did not think, on the whole, that it would, under these circumstances, be desirable to go to expense in making additions to the building in Cannon Row. In the meantime, however, a telegraph had been laid down between Leadenhall Street and Cannon Row, and by this means a great saving of trouble had been effected. With regard to the other question, as to the appointment of a financial member of Council, he must observe, that when he said it was the intention of the Government to send out some person versed in finance to fill the vacant place in the Council at Calcutta; that intention was conditional on their being able to find a person fit for that duty, and willing to go out. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had expressed a doubt whether, according to the existing law, such an appointment could be made. For his own part, he did not think that it would be a violation of the spirit any more than it was of the letter of the Act. The spirit of the Act clearly was, that one member of the Council of the Governor General should be a man not connected with the civil service of India, not connected with the Indian administration, but sent out fresh from England, to introduce, as it were, an English element into the Council. There was no doubt that originally this provision was made in order that the Government might have the benefit of the services of a gentle man of the legal profession. There were, however, no words in the Act which rendered it necessary that the person to be appointed should be a lawyer, and as our present necessity was to have in the Council some one competent to deal with financial concerns he did not think that it was putting a strained construction upon the Act to comply in that manner with the requirements of the public service. As the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to doubt the legality of the appointment he would take an opinion upon the subject; but even if that doubt proved to be correct it would only affect the question as to whether the person sent out would have a seat in the Council; because it would be easy to send out a gentleman under the name of a commissioner and to pay his salary out of the saving which would be effected by not filling up the vacancy in the Legislative Council.

I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon a matter of great interest, which I trust it may not be inconvenient or inopportune for him to answer, though perhaps I ought to have given him a more formal notice. An impression has gone forth, founded apparently on the statement made by my right hon. Friend on Monday last, or on that made by the Earl of Derby elsewhere, that the Earl of Derby's Government have come to the resolution of altogether washing their hands of the question of Reform for the time to come, and that it is not their intention either this year or in any other year to bring in another Reform Bill. The question I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, whether he meant by his statement on Monday last to convey to the House and to the country that the Earl of Derby's Government, if then in office, had no intention of introducing a Reform Bill in the Session of 1860; and whether, on the other hand, it is not the intention of the Earl of Derby's Government to introduce another Reform Bill on the first practicable opportunity?

Sir, it will perhaps be more convenient that I should answer the question which has been put to me by my hon. Friend at once than that I should mix it up with those other subjects which have been brought under our notice this evening, and to which it will be my duty to allude before the Report of the Committee of Supply has been received. I am not quite sure whether I have succeeded in collecting exactly the precise nature of the inquiry which my hon. Friend has addressed to me, but I understood him to ask me whether, when I announced it to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Bill which we introduced for the Amendment of the Representation of the People, I made a statement to the effect that it was not the intention of the Government under any circumstances to bring forward again a measure of what is termed Parliamentary Reform? [Mr. CAYLEY: Hear, hear.] Now, I certainly never intended to make, and my impression is that I never did make, any such statement. And although on the occasion in question I was desirous of introducing no subject which could lead to controversy, I nevertheless asserted the right of hon. Members who sit on this side of the House, to deal, as a political party, with that question of Parliamentary Reform, which it seemed to me some persons would maintain to be the peculiar privilege of another party. I asserted then that I considered we had a perfect right to deal with that or any other public question, but that, having fulfilled the pledge which we had given to the House and to the country by bringing forward a Reform Bill, we did not wish to burden ourselves with any specific pledge to bring forward another measure of Reform at any particular time; that I reserved to ourselves the right to bring forward such a measure when we considered the interests of the country required it, if we had an opportunity of carrying it; but that I did not wish to bind ourselves specifically to bring forward any such measure at a particular time. That was the impression which I intended in my mind—and I thought I succeeded in doing so—to convey to the House. I spoke with reference to the meeting of the New Parliament in June or July next, and I did not wish to hold out to the House or to the country the erroneous impression that we intended to do then at once that which we did not intend to do. But on a future occasion, if the opportunity should be favourable, and we happen to be in power, I do consider we are perfectly at liberty to introduce a measure on the subject. I believe the Conservative party have peculiar advantages in dealing with the question of Reform. What has recently occurred has not changed my opinion upon that point, and I should certainly be very happy to be the instrument in bringing forward a measure which would have the object of settling, as far as we can expect it, for a considerable time the question of the Amendment of the Representation of the People.

Sir, I am anxious to make a few observations with respect to a question of some importance as to the course to be pursued in reference to which it is, I think, extremely desirable that we should obtain some information from Her Majesty's Government. On Monday last the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he and his colleagues had advised Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and he accompanied that statement by an announcement to the effect, that it was the intention of the Government that the dissolution should take place at the earliest possible moment, and be asked for the assistance of the House in enabling him to carry out that intention. That assistance has been liberally accorded. Hon. Members in whose name notices stood upon the paper of the House waved their claims to press them, and we agreed to a Resolution in accordance with which Government Orders of the day are to have precedence of other business during the remainder of the Session, The consequence has been, that the business of the House has proceeded so rapidly that the Votes in Committee of Supply have been closed, that the Report has been brought up, and that it is now competent for any hon. Gentleman to count the remaining days of the Session. Indeed, it may be safely predicted that, unless some unexpected source of delay should arise, the prorogation of Parliament may take place—if we should sit on Saturdays, which I believe is not intended—on the 16th instant; and, in any case, on the Monday following. It was understood that a dissolution would at once follow the prorogation, in accordance with the usual practice under similar circumstances. During the last twenty years Parliament has been dissolved on live different occasions, the dissolution, on four of those occasions, having taken place on the same day as, and on the fifth, on the day following, the prorogation. But not only has this been the usual practice, but it has always been felt that to allow a long interval to elapse between the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, when the latter was in contemplation, was productive of the greatest possible public as well as personal inconvenience, When, therefore, I first heard it mentioned by an hon. Member of this House that that which has of recent years been the course invariably pursued in this respect was about to be departed from in the present instance, I at once discredited the report; but since then, and within the last three or four days, I have heard, on authority to which I felt bound to attach weight, that it is proposed by the Government that the dissolution should not take place for some days after the prorogation. Now, if the dissolution were in accordance with the usual practice to take place on the same day, it is obvious that the elections for boroughs might be proceeded with in Easter week, and that the elections for counties might take place in the week following, while if a different course be pursued, and the dissolution be delayed for a week, the result will be, that the borough elections cannot be proceeded with until the week following Easter week, and that the county elections will be proportionately later. Now, every one who has experienced the inconvenience and expense attendant upon a contested election in counties and boroughs, must be aware how much both are increased by an additional canvass of four or five days. Every candidate must, therefore, be desirous of having his canvass brought to a termination at the earliest possible moment. Moreover, a general election gives rise to a state of excitement which it is desirable to bring to a close as soon as possible. I have been told, however, that the reason alleged to justify a departure from the ordinary course, on the present occasion, is that it is not deemed right that the writs for a new election should issue in Passion week. For my own part, I cannot understand the force of that objection. If, indeed, it were a question as to whether the elections should take place in Passion week, there might be some reason—although such a circumstance is by no means unprecedented—for the delay which I understand is contemplated. That, however, is not the question, and Easter week appears to me is about the best possible time at which the elections can be hold, because the early days of the week are holidays of the working classes, who, in those Cases in which they possess the right of exercising the franchise, would thus be enabled to vote for a borough without interference with their daily labour, or sacrificing any part of their earnings. I hope, under these circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be enabled to assure the House that it is the intention of the Government to adhere to what I am bound to say was the distinct understanding on the part of the House of Commons, namely, that the impending dissolution should take place at the earliest possible moment.

Sir, whatever information may have reached the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the subject of his observations I have only to inform him that such information rests on no foundation whatever, and I must beg to object to be called upon to answer inquiries which are founded on common rumour alone. What I told the House originally was this. I endeavoured to give the House some idea of what would be the course of public business, and I calculated, so far as we could then judge, that by using our best exertions we should be able to conclude the business of the country on the Monday or Tuesday of Passion week; and I then took occasion to inform the House that as soon as possible—certainly towards the end of the month—the dissolution would take place. I certainly do think it would be very objectionable to have the elections in Passion week. That has been represented to me very strongly by hon. Gen- tlemen sitting on both sides of the House. I cannot name the precise day of the dissolution, but as soon as convenient after the prorogration of Parliament the dissolution will of course take place. There is no reason for delay, and I should imagine that it is for the general convenience of hon. Members on every side of the House that it should take place as soon as possible. Perhaps, Sir, I may take this opportunity of adverting to another subject, to the inquiries of hon. Gentlemen in respect to which I have not hitherto been able to reply. If the House wishes to change the whole system upon which the contracts for the public service are issued by the Government, that is a very fair question to discuss, and I should, I trust, be found well prepared to give due consideration to any observations that may be made upon it. I will now merely observe that Her Majesty's Government in the course they have taken with respect to the Galway contract, have simply followed in the steps of previous administrations. It is for the House, if it disapproves the system under which those contracts are made, to come to some different Resolution with respect to them. If the Executive is not to be entrusted with the power of entering into a contract for a packet service, I should like to know with what functions it can he entrusted? But hitherto there has been no case in which Ministers have come down to the House in order to consult it in respect to entering into a contract. And when we came into office we found several important contracts subsisting which had never been brought before the House for its approval. Indeed I am perfectly astonished that any hon. Gentleman should maintain that it is desirable to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the propriety of any new contract relating to the packet service which the Executive Government may think to be advantageous for the public interests. It has been said that important principles are involved in this question, because we have decided in this case, not upon public tender or competition, but merely upon our own responsibility. Well, Sir, I apprehend we have the power to do that if we think fit. It is not the first time that such a thing has been done, and I find upon the very paper which stands for to-day that a question has been put down with respect to the renewal of the steam packet contract for the West Indies; and the Secretary for the Treasury was asked whether there was any intention to renew that contract— whether any complaints had been made about the performance of that service? and so on. I imagine, Sir, that we have a right, if we think ourselves so justified, to enter into any contract without putting it up to public competition. Now, what are really the facts of the case in regard to the Galway contract? Here are some enterprising persons who develope a means of communication which no one had previously thought of, and which it would be of immense advantage to establish. We investigate the circumstances. We find that they offer a rate of speed exceeding that of any other service at present attainable. They offer too that increased rate of speed at a very diminished cost. We gain, Sir, by the arrangement which they offer, two days in point of time in our communications between Ireland and America, and £400 on each voyage. They also offer advantages for the transport of troops between Athlone—a great military station—and America. They also offer the transmission of telegraphic intelligence across the Atlantic under peculiarly advantageous circumstances to the Government. We have to consider, when we receive offers of this kind of an enterprising character, whether they are to be encouraged and supported by the Government or not; and we also have to consider whether if that encouragement were not given such advantageous offers would ever be repeated. Believing, then, that it was for the very great advantage of the country that this enterprise should be established; finding that the rate of cost was very much lower than that of the Cunard line, to which such frequent reference has been made, and that the speed would be very much greater, we chose, on our own responsibility, and as, I believe, for the public good, to accept that offer. I shall be perfectly ready at any time, upon a proper opportunity, and not in this desultory manner, to vindicate that policy as one highly advantageous to the United Kingdom, and one which we were justified in adopting. I may say that it was our duty to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is anxious that there should be a proper Parliamentary control over these contracts by the Estimates being laid before the House. Why, Sir, of course the Estimate will be laid before the House? How are we to carry it into effect, except with the consent of Parliament?

Will the Estimate be in the Votes of this year?

The Estimate cannot be in the Votes of this year; but before the Government shall have paid one single shilling, the Estimate will be laid before Parliament. It must be recollected, that it was necessary to enter into this contract at once, because great preparations are requisite before it can be carried into effect; and a very considerable time must elapse before the money will be required. I repeat, however, that before a single shilling is advanced by the Government, the Estimate will be submitted to the House, and it will have the same opportunity which it has in the case of the Cunard Company of controlling the execution of the contract. If the House should not choose to vote the money, of course there will be an end to the matter. But the House will only have to do that with regard to this company which it does every year with regard to the Cunard Company; and if it disapproves of the manner in which the contract is carried out, it can put a stop to it by withholding the vote of money. I believe the Government have acted in this matter wisely, and for the public advantage. If, however, they have not acted wisely, nor for the public advantage, they have acted in conformity with precedent, and they have not taken a single step in which they were not justified by the course which has been repeatedly pursued by preceding Governments upon similar occasions. I trust, therefore, that the House will not think it necessary to interfere with the arrangement which the Government have made, and which, I believe, to be greatly for the public advantage.

Sir, I merely wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the answer he has given to the question of my right hon. Friend as to the period of dissolution. That answer was anything but satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman appears to intend that the dissolution should not take place until the end of the month.

Towards the end of the month.

Towards the end of the month. My right hon. Friend urged that in accordance with the declaration of the Government, the dissolution should take place as soon as possible; and he has informed us, that on all ordinary occasions the writs are issued the day after the prorogation. The dissolution can take place the day after the pro- rogation, and it is possible for it to take place on the same day. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine what purpose the Government have in view in postponing the dissolution apparently until "towards the end of the month." The House feels the great inconvenience of such a course. Hon. Gentlemen sitting behind the Treasury bench must feel it to be as inconvenient to them as it is to hon. Gentlemen upon this side, and therefore I entreat the Government to reconsider their intentions upon this point. The dissolution might take place with perfect convenience upon the very day of the prorogation, or the day after; the elections could take place in Easter week, and Parliament could meet at the earliest possible period. But we were told just now that the Government would not undertake to bring in a Reform Bill in June or July, and are we to understand that Parliament will not meet until June or July? When the Government with which I had the honour of being connected dissolved Parliament in 1857, the right hon. Gentleman reproached us with endeavouring to waste a year. I am sure we vindicated ourselves from that reproach, because when Parliament met at the earliest possible moment, measures of a very important character were considered and carried. But if the dissolution is to be postponed in the manner indicated by what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and that the meeting of the new Parliament is not to take place until late in June or the beginning of July, the reproach of wasting a year may, I think, be justly applied to the present Government, than that of which I had the honour to be the head.

The House will allow me a word of explanation. I did not speak of Parliament meeting at the end of June or the beginning of July; I talked of introducing a measure of great importance at that period. I could not suppose that a Reform Bill would be introduced on the very day that the new Parliament meets. I will say this, that with regard to the dissolution we lost a day this week—not from the fault of any person, but it was a loss which the Government endeavoured to prevent. I can only repeat that we have no intention whatever of delaying the dissolution; and I cannot, I confess, see how it could be at all to the advantage of the Government to delay the dissolution; neither would such a delay be conducive to the convenience of any of our friends. But I say again, I do not think it would be convenient to pledge myself to a particular day for Parliament to be dissolved. I still think, as well as we can calculate, that all the business will be concluded about Tuesday week—the 19th. That, I think, is getting "towards the end of the month." The noble Lord is somewhat hypercritical upon that point. It is very true that the convenience of hon. Members is to be considered; but still there are other considerations, besides the convenience of hon. Members which the Government must not omit to take into account. I repeat that, as soon after the business of the House has concluded, and as myself and my colleagues think it consistent with the public interests, a prorogation and dissolution will take place. In point of fact, however, a prorogation may not take place till towards the end of the month.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, cannot at this moment pledge himself to any particular day upon which Parliament will be dissolved, because there might be business which may take a longer time than is at present calculated upon, although I believe that pretty generally hon. Members of this House can estimate that the business will not occupy us later than Monday week. But the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly able to answer the question of my right hon. Friend whether the dissolution will immediately follow the prorogation. There can be no difficulty about that. We have repeated precedents in which the Crown having thought fit to dissolve Parliament asked the assistance of the House of Commons, and that assistance has been readily given, as I am sure it has been now; but a dissolution has always followed, if not on the same day at latest upon the day after the prorogation. I cannot imagine what difficulty the right hon. Gentleman can experience in assuring the House that as soon as the Crown is able to prorogue Parliament Her Majesty will be advised to do so. My noble Friend is quite justified in commenting upon the phrase of introducing a Reform Bill in June or July. I believe that upon the 19th or the 20th of this month Parliament may be dissolved, and then the new House can meet about the end of May. The right hon. Gentleman the other day rather taunted my noble Friend and myself with a want of patriotism, for asking, as Sir Robert Peel asked me in 1841, that if the existing Parliament should be dissolved the new one should meet as soon as consti- tutional precedents, and the requirements I of the law would permit. Since that time a law has been passed, known as Lord Brougham's Act, by which Parliaments may meet sooner than they could. The new Parliament might meet by the end of May. What is the meaning then, of talking about a Reform Bill in July? There can be no difficulty, if a Reform Bill is really in contemplation, in introducing it as was done in 1831, ten days after the assembling of the new Parliament, and if Parliament meet by the end of May a Reform Bill might be introduced by the middle of June. I cannot help thinking that there is something strange in the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject; but as the House has behaved with the utmost courtesy to the Ministers of the Crown, I trust that we shall not be left in doubt with respect to the dissolution.

Sir, if there has been any ambiguity in the language of the Government with respect to the dissolution I have un doubt that we shall have it speedily cleared up, because there can be no difference of opinion as to the course which both duty and convenience dictate with regard to the time of that event. It is desirable upon every ground that the dissolution should take place at the earliest possible moment—which may be qualified on the present occasion, however, to the extent of a day or two, by the intervention of Passion week—and that the meeting of Parliament should also take place at as early a period as possible. I am quite certain, therefore, that that can never become a matter of argument. With respect to the other subject, which, owing to the accident of the discussion, has become mixed with the question of the dissolution, I would venture to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not understand that any imputation is sought to be cast upon the Government with regard to the Galway contract. This matter of the packet service, is, after all, a young subject. It has been growing up of late years and it may be that during its progress the House has been more anxious to witness its growth than to maintain with strictness the exercise of its own constitutional control over the public expenditure. But upon this occasion an important contract with a new company happens to have come before the House when the contract; is as yet uncompleted. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if rigidly interpreted, might be construed to mean that it is positively better that there should be no control by this House over such contracts until they are completed, and until the money of private persons has been laid out upon the faith of those contracts. Then at last an estimate is proposed—not for future expenses, as from the nature of an estimate is implied—hut for the payment of expenses already incurred; so that in point of fact no option then remains to the House, but to keep faith with the public. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer must know as well as anybody, when he speaks of the control of the House of Commons in such a case, that it really means no control at all. There is no blame to the Government if they have proceeded in this matter as former Governments have done. When I had the honour to hold the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer I was anxious that rules should be adopted with regard to contracts of this kind, and I submitted certain rules on the subject, which, however, have never been acted on. But I will say that if it be desirable, for the sake of a due control over the expenditure, that an estimate of the ordinary expenses of a single year should be placed distinctly before the House before the expenses are incurred, much more is it desirable that this House should exercise a prior, and not a posterior judgment on a contract which is essentially of a somewhat delicate character, and "which is to bind the public faith for a very large sum and over a considerable period of time. Without blaming the Government I would point out that this matter comes before us at a time when the public faith is not pledged, and when we can without imputation vindicate to ourselves the right of considering it, and of trying the reasons which have approved themselves to the minds of the Government. I would, therefore, respectfully submit to the Government, that, under these circumstances, they would do well and wisely to recognize the constitutional jurisdiction and control of the House of Commons over the public expenditure, and to afford to it a full opportunity of considering the contract which they purpose to complete before it is completed, and before private persons have laid out their money upon the faith of it.

said, that although the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had disclaimed any intention of blaming the Government for what they had done in the matter of this contract, the Government had twice been attacked, without much consideration, on account of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had fairly thrown down the gauntlet, and had stated that he was ready to justify the contract, and to show that it was for the benefit of the public. If the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford doubted that, let him take up the gauntlet in a straightforward way, instead of attacking the proceeding by a side wind.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had shown that the only control which the House had over the contract was by stopping the Supplies after the contract had been completed. If the Government had put this contract up to public competition they would have had parties offering any port they thought best, instead of Galway alone. This was a larger question than the selection of Galway. Why was it concluded that Galway was the only good port for the purpose in view? It was the duty of the Government to suspend the completion of this contract till the new Parliament could take the whole question into consideration. There was no urgency whatever in the matter.

said, he had no interest in any one port over another, but any one who looked at the map of Ireland could see that Galway was the direct route to America. He must claim for Ireland the benefit of a direct communication with America. Two thirds of the letters from America were for Ireland, and why should they go to London before they were delivered at their place of destination? Ireland therefore ought to have a packet station of her own. Cork and Limerick grasping for the shadow might end in Galway losing the substance.

said, he rose to answer one or two questions which had been asked some time ago, and which the House had very likely forgotten, owing to the varied character of the discussion which had taken place since they had been put. The hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Salisbury) had called the attention of the House to some remarks said to have been made by Mr. Baron Bramwell at Bala, on the North Wales circuit, and, speaking as a private individual, had ex- ercised the right—which he (Mr. Estcourt) would not contest—of expressing an opinion upon the discretion of the remarks attributed to the learned Judge. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that some of those remarks not only impugned the verdict of the jury, but that they seemed to depreciate the Principality of Wales in point of honesty, as compared with England. As a private individual perhaps he might join with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that although nothing was said by the learned Judge which could be made the subject of complaint, still, as a matter of discretion, a comparison between one part of the country and another might have been avoided. But he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) would beg the House to observe that he was called to speak on this matter as a Minister of the Crown, and that there were considerations connected with it of far higher importance than that immediately referred to in the notice on the paper. The question was really one which seriously trenched on the independence of the Judges of the land. He should be 1oth to take any step, or to use any expression which might in the smallest degree disparage that independence of the Judges, which was one of the last qualities which that House ought to surrender. So strongly had Parliament always felt the necessity of maintaining that independence of the Judges, that they were not reckoned as officers over whom the Home Secretary had any control. The Judges of the land, in addressing juries from time to time, had frequently made use of remarks intended as warnings or reprehensions, or as guides to public opinion on matters not immediately before them, but which incidentally arose out of the circumstances they were trying. That liberty of remark had been felt to be a great preservative against innovations, misconduct, and a number of practices deserving of reprobation, in checking which no such opportunities were afforded as those which came within the province of the Judges in the administration of justice. That being so he had to state that he did not think it consistent with the duties of his office to offer any explanation by way of apology for the learned Judge who was said to have made the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman had called the attention of the House. He tinned now to the recent appointment of magistrates for Hereford, which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clive) who represented that city had brought under consideration in an earlier part of the evening. That was a different matter, and he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) had felt bound to direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the notice which the hon. Member had placed upon the paper, in order that the noble and learned Lord might have an opportunity of affording any explanation he might wish to make in reference to the subject. It was impossible for him (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) to divine beforehand the nature of the speech with which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clive) would preface his question; but what he understood the hon. Member to complain of was, that six gentlemen should have been added to the commission of the peace for the city of Here-ford, all of whom were supposed to hold Conservative opinions, and two of whom the hon. Gentleman rather insinuated were scarcely fit for the office by reason of being tradesmen and carrying on business in that city. He also understood the hon. Gentleman to impugn the course pursued by the Lord Chancellor in having made the appointments in question without communication with the authorities of the city of Hereford. First, with regard to those six gentlemen, he understood that about this time last year, from which the commencement of this transaction dated, there were altogether, including the Recorder, the Mayor, and the ex-Mayor, ten gentlemen in the commission of the peace for that city. One, a medical gentleman, had never acted; and of all that body of gentlemen one alone was supposed to hold Conservative opinions, and eight of them had been appointed by former Lord Chancellors holding Liberal opinions. That being the state of the case, he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) thought no one would wonder that gentlemen living in the city of Hereford and holding the same opinions as Her Majesty's present Government were dissatisfied, and that they considered an opportunity had fairly arisen when there ought to be an infusion into the magistracy of gentlemen holding similar opinions with themselves. The course which had been pursued was this. They held a public meeting, at which the names of certain gentlemen were canvassed, and after several transactions had taken place consequent upon some of those gentlemen declining to be put in nomination, the names sent up were: — Mr. J. H. Griffith, a barrister, a county justice of the peace, the son of a county justice of the peace, residing within five miles of the city of Hereford; Mr. John Prince, a gentleman of large property residing one mile from the city; Mr. Charles Price, a lieutenant in the navy, whose lately deceased brother was an active borough magistrate; Mr. William Bullock, a private gentleman residing in his own house, where his father and family had resided above fifty years; he was in the law, and his father a prebendary of the cathedral; Mr. Ambery Court, a respectable grocer in a large way of business; and Mr. John Parker, a respectable bookseller. Those names were agreed on at a public meeting, and afterwards submitted to the Lord Chancellor for consideration. What was the Lord Chancellor to do? Did he appoint them at once? No such thing. He communicated with the town clerk on the subject, informing him that an addition was about to be made to the bench, and requesting that the names of the existing magistrates might be sent up to him. That certainly was notice sufficient to the municipal authorities. They did not not, how over, recommend any names, and no communication, he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) believed, was made by them to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor then made inquiries into the character of the gentlemen whose names had been sent up to him from the public meeting, and, finding they occupied the respectable positions which he (Mr. Estcourt) had described, the noble and learned Lord placed them upon the commission of the peace. Those were the circumstances of the case, and he had only further to say that he could not consent to the production of any correspondence on the subject, seeing that it had passed between the Lord Chancellor and gentlemen acting in behalf of a public meeting.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that of the gentlemen in the commission of the peace at the time the six in question were appointed, one was a Conservative, and one alone. Would he mention the name of that gentleman?

Mr. Thomas Evans, an attorney (as we understood).

said, in that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken.

said, that with reference to the question of the bon. Member for Chester (Mr. Clive) and with regard to which an explanation had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, he was sure that the House would cordially agree in the constitutional principles propounded by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the independence of the Judges. He (Mr. James) thought that it was only a gross case of misconduct on the part of a learned Judge that ought to be made the subject of discussion in the House of Commons. Every one admitted the constitutional principle of the independence of the Judges; but the independence of the liberty of the subject depended upon the independence of juries, and he thought it a reprehensible practice for Judges to make remarks on the verdicts of juries. It was a practice from which our greatest Judges had always abstained. It was the duty of a Judge to expound the law to a jury, and the jury, moving in their orbit, were responsible for the verdict. A verdict so given our most distinguished Judges invariably respected, though they might not always approve. He had had the honour of being on the same circuit as the learned Judge whose conduct was impugned on this occasion. That learned Judge was elevated to the bench entirely on his own merits, and he (Mr. E. James) believed him to be a man incapable either of giving offence to a jury or of interfering with the due and impartial administration of justice. He trusted after what had taken place the discussion would be allowed to drop.

said, with reference to the magistrates of Hereford, he was glad to hear that the Lord Chancellor had adopted a different course to that which he had followed in other cases. In the borough which he (Mr. Dillwyn) represented, five gentlemen had been appointed magistrates without any communication with him or any one connected with the borough.

said, he wished to say one word in explanation with respect to what the right hon. Gentleman had said about one of the magistrates of Hereford being a Conservative. Last year the body corporate sent to Lord Cranworth the names of six gentlemen, four of whom were Liberals and two Conservatives, and Lord Cranworth appointed one from each side, but the name of the Conservative gentleman who was appointed was not Thomas Evans.

said, he rose to bring under the consideration of the House the fact that Sergeant Carmichael and Corporal Burgess or Burgess Grierson, of the Bengal Sappers and Miners, sacrificed their own lives in the blowing in of the Cashmere Gate at Delhi, in September, 1857, in the same service when the heroic and lamented Lieutenant Salkeld fell. The blowing up of that gate was the point on which the whole of our successes in India rested. From the testimony of Colonel Baird Smith it appeared that it was Grier-son who completed the work of the demolition of the gate by taking the lighted match from the hand of Lieutenant Salkeld when he was shot down, Grierson, who at the time of his death was a. very young man, was the son of a constituent of his— a very respectable man, but who was at present in reduced circumstances; and he wished to ask the hon. and gallant General at the head of the War Office whether he did not think it fair and reasonable that the father of the man who had so gloriously lost his life in the service of his country, should possess some testimonial of his exploits. For this purpose he would suggest the Victoria Cross might be granted to him. He was afraid that the answer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary at War would be that there was no precedent for such rewards; but if there was an appearance of a want of royal or national sympathy with such cases as these he thought it would have the effect of preventing others from enlisting. The claim that he had submitted to the gallant Gentleman had been for some pension to the father of Grierson, who was an old man and badly off. In answer to that, however, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had no funds. He had then applied to one of the members of the Indian Council, but though the hardship of the case was admitted, all that he got was a contribution of £10, which would not amount to more than an annuity of 15s. or 20s. a year for the indigent father. For his own part, he should never regret that he was a Member of the Select Committee which had been the means of doing tardy justice to the Land Transport Corps. He hoped that the next Parliament would apply themselves to reduce the national expenditure, but he was sure no Parliament would over grudge rewards to those who counted not their lives dear to them in the defence of their country. He had to thank the gallant General and every Member of the Government for the great courtesy and attention which they had shown to him. He did not regard the vote which he recently gave as a vote of censure. He should certainly never have concurred in a vote of censure on the Government. No one wished more than he did that they should continue in the prosecution of the various branches of legislation in which they had been so honourably and successfully engaged, and, in addressing the last words which probably he should ever utter in that House, he could assure them that it was his most earnest wish that the new Parliament should apply themselves to the promotion of such objects both at home and abroad as would conduce to the honour and prosperity of the country.

said, it was with extreme regret that he found it was out of his power to take any steps for the purpose of procuring the Victoria Cross for the families of the gallant men to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred. It was not customary to grant such a reward on behalf of men who had been killed in the service by which they would otherwise have become justly entitled to the distinction. It was true that the Victoria. Cross had been handed over to the families of the two officers who had been engaged in the same exploit; but the fact was, that although severely wounded, they had survived for some time, and as they had during that period been recommended by Sir A. Wilson, the commanding officer on the occasion, for the distinction, Her Majesty thought that every possible effect ought to be given to that recommendation. That was the sole ground of the difference made between the cases of the two commissioned and the two non-commissioned officers who had so nobly sacrificed themselves in that service. If those gallant soldiers had survived, however short a time, no doubt the same course "would have been pursued with respect to them. With regard to the grant of some special pension to the families of those men, he had to state that they had at the time been in the service of the East India Company, and it would, therefore, be impossible for him to recommend Her Majesty to take such a step. He had no hesitation, however, in adding that he would not have withheld the grant if it had been in his power to make it.