said, he rose to ask a question respecting the appointment of five new magistrates for the borough of Newbury, and, as he intended to make some observations on the subject, he would move that the House at its rising adjourn till Monday next. The last ease of the sort he had the honour of bringing under the consideration of the House was that of Huntingdon, where six magistrates were appointed, all Tories. It appeared, however, that he had been wrong in one particular, he had stated that four of them were clergymen whereas only three of them were so. Another case had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive) where six magistrates also were appointed, all Tories; and he now had to bring forward the case of Newbury, where five Tories had been appointed magistrates. The peculiarity of this latter case was that it was worse than the others. The Home Secretary had candidly, frankly, and honestly stated that whenever these appointments were in the hands of an individual the party friends of that individual were, of course, appointed by him, whether he were the Lord Lieutenant of the county, or the Lord Chancellor; and certainly no Lord Chancellor had worked out this principle better than the present. In November the corporation of Newbury received a letter from the Lord Chancellor or his secretary, stating that very serious inconvenience was felt at Newbury from the want of resident magistrates. The municipal body immediately met, and came to a resolution assuring the Lord Chancellor that there was no want of resident magistrates, and they sent the noble and learned Lord a resolution to the effect that they did not think the addition of magistrates necessary. There was a division in the municipal council on that resolution of seven to three. Nevertheless, in a very short time after, the Lord Chancellor intimated that he had appointed five magistrates,—and who were they? In the first place, they were not all resident, though non-residence was the pretext for their being appointed. Two of them were medical gentlemen and non-resident, and the other three were retail shopkeepers, and—strange to say—were the very minority which voted against the majority of the municipal council. These three individuals the Lord Chancellor appointed, and they have the high qualification of being Tories and active partisans. He had no doubt that they would do their duty by their party at the ensuing election. After these appointments were made, a resolution was passed at a meeting of the municipal council, expressing their strong disapproval of the manner in which the recent appointments of magistrates had been made, such appointments being contrary to the wish of the council. No doubt the Lord Chancellor had this power, but if the whole country was to be overrun in this way by magistrates appointed solely on political grounds, what was to become of the impartial administration of justice? He should conclude by asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department the names of the person or persons who, contrary to the wish of the municipal body of Newbury, urged upon the Lord Chancellor the appointment of five additional magistrates for that borough.

said, he had given notice of his intention to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any subsequent information obtained by him will enable him to qualify his statement as to a public meeting alleged to have been held in Hereford previously to the recent appointment of Magistrates in that city; and if not, whether he will state his authority for the same; and to call the attention of the House thereto? That statement had caused astonishment and dissatisfaction in Hereford, though there was no person in that House who did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman was the last person who would willingly make a statement not consistent with the facts. It would be remembered that not long since his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Clive) presented a petition from the municipal authorities and other inhabitants of the city of Hereford, complaining of the appointment of six magistrates. The petitioners stated that there was no necessity for additional magistrates, that no application had been made for any, that they got no intimation of any intention to make the appointment, and that some of the gentlemen named were objectionable for special reasons, two being retail dealers, and one an un-certificated bankrupt. He was sorry to have to make a statement of a personal nature, but the petitioners made distinct mention of that matter, wishing it to be understood that their objections were made not merely on political grounds. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State answered that the appointments had been regularly made; that a public meeting had been held, and a communication made to the Lord Chancellor, which resulted in the appointments. It would be almost impossible for him strictly to prove a negative, but in this case he was prepared to do so as nearly as possible. Before he sat down he would be able, he thought, to show to the House that no such meeting had ever been held. He would first read a letter which he had received from the Mayor of Hereford, dated 12th of April, 1859:—

"Sir, I was greatly surprised to see it stated in The Times report of the proceedings in the House on Friday, that the nomination was the result of a public meeting held for that special purpose. I do not know how the Home Secretary came to be misinformed. I can say that no such meeting took place."

"Sir, I am directed by the Lord Chancellor to request that you will forward to the Crown office, through your London agent, the commission of peace for the borough of Hereford, in order that some new names may be added to it. As soon as they are finally decided on, the list will be sent to the mayor."

said, that in reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) he had to state that the person who, he would not say urged upon the Lord Chancellor the appointment of five additional magistrates for Newbury, but upon whose application that appointment took place, was no other than the Recorder of the borough. That gentleman wrote to the Lord Chancellor to say that there was such a deficiency of magistrates that very often a bench could not be formed, and he suggested that his Lordship should write to the town council and ask them to send up the names of competent gentlemen. The Lord Chancellor did so; but the town council could not agree upon the names, and so resolved that no additional magistrates were wanted. The Recorder afterwards wrote a second time to the Lord Chancellor, declaring more magistrates to be absolutely necessary, and upon that application five names were added to the commission, two Liberals, and three Conservatives, the Lord Chancellor consulting in the choice of those names the chairman of quarter sessions, and some of the neighbouring magistrates. With reference to the question put to him by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Clifford), he could not of course pretend to know anything of these matters himself, but upon the information furnished to him, he was sorry he could not comply with the request that he would modify the statement which had fallen from him a week ago. A letter signed "Philip Ralph," and dated from High Street, Hightown, Hereford, had been addressed to the secretary of the Lord Chancellor, in which the writer said:—

"I was present at a meeting of about twenty persons, of whom seven were town-councillors, held at Hereford early in April, 1858, for the purpose of considering who should be recommended to the Lord Chancellor as additional magistrates."

said, he might refer to a local newspaper of Radical or Liberal politics for a proof of the necessity for the appointment of additional magistrates in Hereford. It stated that on the 4th of March, 1858, two summonses for assault were returned, which could not be heard because only one magistrate was in attendance. On Monday, the 27th of the same month, no magistrate at all was in attendance, and the parties having business at the court were dismissed. They retired, making many observations on the value of time, and the necessity of having a stipendiary magistrate. When a Radical paper began to discuss the necessity of having a stipendiary magistrate it was a good proof that some additional magistrates were required, and that it was high time for the interference of the Lord Chancellor. The objection that all the six new magistrates were of the same political party came with a very had grace from the hon. Members for the borough, who were returned principally through the influence of a corporation which never nominated any but Whigs for the magistracy. It was true they once sent up the names of two Conservatives, but they took care to ascertain first that one would not serve, and that the Lord Chancellor would not appoint the other because he was a distiller.

said, the noble Lord had referred to what took place in March, 1858, to prove the necessity of the new appointments. But they were not made by the Lord Chancellor until ten months after, and at a time when it was evident, from the good attendance on the bench, that there was no necessity for any additional magistrates whatever. He believed it was not true that only two Conservative names had been sent up by the corporation. It was utterly untrue that they had any reason whatever to believe that Lord Chancellor Cranworth would not appoint the gentleman alluded to, who was a wine-merchant in large business, and a man of the highest respectability. On the contrary, their feeling was that the Lord Chancellor had been extremely hypercritical. He took it upon himself, therefore, to give the flattest contradiction consistent with the rules of the House and his respect for the noble Lord to the statements he had just made. The right hon. Gentleman had given no answer to the allegation that one of the gentlemen recently appointed had been a bankrupt. As to the meeting, the right hon. Gentleman might as well say that the meeting held the other day to decide who was to go to Dovor was a public meeting.

said, he had listened to numerous discussions that had been raised on the appointments to the magistracy made by the Lord Chancellor, When the Government sat on the opposite side of the House he did not recollect anything like this amount of interference; but hon. Gentlemen who now sat on the Opposition side were constantly objecting to the magisterial appointments of the Lord Chancellor, and complaining that they were tainted by political designs. He would ask what could tend more to the tainting of justice with political feeling than the course persevered in on the other side of the House? He could only say, as an independent Member, that if such a course were persevered in, it might be found that a similar course would be adopted with respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could conceive nothing more mischievous than the course that was being followed, and nothing more calculated to render necessary the appointment of stipendiary magistrates throughout England, which, along with other disadvantages, certainly would not increase public economy. He knew what the appointments of the Lord Chancellor were in his own part of the country, and believed his conduct had tended to balance political opinions on the bench, and was calculated to produce beneficial results.

said, that when the same proceedings took place on the part of other Lord Chancellors the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) would be justly entitled to complain. There could not be a breath of suspicion in reference to the way in which the late Lord Chancellor had exercised his patronage. He must altogether repudiate the theory just laid down by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire as to the justice of effecting a balance in the political views of the magistrates. It should be recollected that in most of the towns political feeling ran strongly in one direction, and the consequence was that if the leading gentlemen of those towns were put in the commission, the larger portion of them must necessarily be of one political opinion. If politics were to be regarded in this matter, which he did not think they ought to be, he could never concur in the doctrine of his hon. Friend, that however small a party might he in a borough, nevertheless that an equal number of gentlemen representing that party should be appointed magistrates, as had been appointed from the party of the great majority. In Scotland they never heard such complaints. In that country the appointments of the magistracy were in the hands of the Lord- Lieutenants, who were never influenced by any political feeling. He had heard with very great astonishment a statement made some time since by the hon. Member for Canterbury, that he had actually waited on the Lord Chancellor to ask him to appoint some political partisans to the bench in that city. If the present system of appointing magistrates went on, he thought that the House would feel itself called upon to take away the patronage from the Lord Chancellor, or any other Minister, for the purpose of placing it in the hands of some more impartial authority.

said, he must express his surprise at hearing it stated by the hon. Member for Hereford that one of the magistrates to whom the commission of the peace was given was an uncertificated bankrupt. If that statement were true, he thought no appointment could be more disgraceful, and that this House was bound to call upon Her Majesty's Ministers to institute an inquiry into the subject, and if it were proved that the appointment had been given under such circumstances, then such appointment should be revoked.

said, his simple answer to this charge was this:—The gentleman alluded to was a bankrupt some thirty-two years ago, in consequence of the failure of his brother. That gentleman had been carrying on business ever since, without the slightest stain having ever attached to his character.

said, the facts of the matter as regards Bristol were shortly these:—The Whig Administration had always made their appointments to the magistracy upon fair and equitable principles: whereas the Tory Administration, in making those appointments, were influenced by party feeling, and nothing else.

said, he would just express a hope that the Government intended to mark their sense of the transcendent services of Sir J. Lawrence by conferring upon him some higher reward than had yet been offered to him. He rose, however, to ask the Secretary of State for War by whose authority, and for what reasons, the detachment of the 41st Regiment at Trinidad, which had been moved out of barracks into camp on account of the mortality and disease which had occurred in the former, were subsequently ordered back into barracks, where the severe losses to which they had previously been exposed were renewed? When he called attention to this subject on a former occasion, the Secretary of State for War stated that an order had been issued to withdraw the troops, but they had since been sent back to the barracks where all the mortality occurred. The correspondence on the subject had been delivered that morning, and it appeared that five months had been occupied in correspondence. The detachment had been exposed to danger, he supposed on the ground of economy; but he could not help thinking that no worse mode of effecting a saving of expenditure could be adopted. Authority ought, in his opinion, to be invested in some person to incur the expense of building new barracks where those already in existence were so situated as to be prejudicial to the health of the troops. When Lord Metcalfe had had to deal with a similar state of things as that to which his question related in Jamaica, he had ordered new barracks to be built, and when reprimanded for having done so, replied that the money expended might be taken out of his private means if they were insisted upon, but that he had deemed it to be his duty to act as he had done. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department would do everything which was necessary to promote the health of the troops.

said, he rose according to notice to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, according to his promise, he has obtained the opinion of Mr. Attorney General respecting the legality of the Earl of Malmesbury refusing to pay the £200 Stamp Duty required by the Act 55 Geo. III., c. 184, to be paid on the patent of appointment to the office of Secretary of State? When he asked a question on this subject a few days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Earl of Malmesbury's reasons for not paying was that he held his office by the de- livery to him of the seals. Such was not the case, the Secretaries of State from the most distant times were constituted by letters patent under the great seal, and the duty was imposed on all officers of the Crown receiving £3,000 a year. Every member of the present Government had paid it except the Earl of Malmesbury, and all his predecessors in office had done so except one gentleman, who had been temporarily appointed to the office for a short time. It was a had example for a nobleman to set, in thus violating the law. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, who had no doubt paid the stamp duty himself, would be able to give the House some explanation of the subject.

said, he rose to answer the somewhat miscellaneous series of questions which had been put to him by various hon. Members during the course of the discussion. And first with regard to the delay of which the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) complained in the transmission and distribution of official papers from India: there were two reasons for that delay. In the first place it was in the nature of things that an official and authorized account of a transaction should generally arrive rather later than a private and unauthenticated account, because a private correspondent of any person in this country, or a correspondent of a public journal, generally took their facts from current rumour, not writing under the same sense of responsibility for absolute and entire accuracy; but as this sense did operate on the minds of those who were responsible for the transmission of official documents, more consideration was given to them. This was one cause of delay in the forwarding of those documents. Again, except in cases of great importance, it was not customary to transmit an official narrative of events from India until the local authorities had considered and given an opinion on them. This was another cause of that delay to which the hon. Member referred. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's statement as to what had taken place at Travancore, he (Lord Stanley) had heard various versions of those transactions not exactly tallying in details. When the hon. Gentleman, however, asked him to give a hypothetical pledge as to what he would do in the event of certain circumstances turning out to have occurred in this way or in that, he (Lord Stanley) must, with all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman and all respect to the House, say that he did not feel called upon to give any such pledge. When he received authentic information with respect to the facts, he would be prepared to acquaint the hon. Gentleman and the House with the intention of Her Majesty's Government in respect to the particular case with which they were called upon to deal. In reply to a question of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), he must say that he was not authorized to make any statement as to whether it was the intention of the Government to confer any further honours on persons who had distinguished themselves in India. As to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Kingscote) on the subject of retired field officers, he had to state it was not the intention of the Government to extend to retired field officers the privilege enjoyed by those of the Royal Artillery and Engineers, of not allowing them to be superseded in rank by their brother officers who remained on the effective strength of their corps. It was not the intention of the Government to take the course indicated in that question. The House could hardly expect that he would, within the limits to which it was ordinarily expected that replies on such matters were confined, enter into the reasons for this determination on the part of the Government. Those reasons were rather technical, but he could assure the House that the Government had given the matter attentive consideration, and had not arrived at a decision on it without great deliberation. The next question referred to the subject of the financial operations of the Indian Government. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Had-field) asked what duty the Government in India had placed upon hardware. The only copy which he (Lord Stanley) possessed of the Indian tariff was a draft which had been laid before the Legislative Council of Calcutta, but which had not passed through that Council, and was therefore still liable to alteration. But in that draft, which no doubt represented, in the main, the decision which the Indian Government would come to, the duty on hardware had been increased from 5 to 10 per cent. The noble Lord (Viscount Duncan), had asked whether the Indian Government had acted on their own responsibility in respect to that tariff. He (Lord Stanley) understood it was held that since the Act of 1853 the Legislative Council had been empowered to make alterations in the tariff without re- ference to this country. That rule of law was, he apprehended, that the Governor General of India in Council had power to amend all laws and regulations except such as affected the prerogative of the Crown; and the Customs duties had been altered before now on the order of the Governor General in Council. The Home Government were sending out to India—they had, indeed, sent out—instructions to deal with those duties, and the alterations directed by the Home Government concurred almost exactly with those introduced by the Indian Government on their own responsibility. It seemed that those financial difficulties came rather suddenly on the Indian Government. Viscount Canning had in fact communicated to him that it would be impossible for him to meet the pressure upon him unless on his own authority he took the step of levying this impost. He had, therefore, taken upon himself to follow that course, relying upon the Government to give him their support. That support he need hardly say the Government were prepared to extend to Viscount Canning, and the more readily because he found, on comparing the scale proposed here with the draft received from India, that the latter did not differ with it, but was, in fact, in almost absolute accordance with the opinion of the Government at home. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) had asked him whether the increased duty was intended to be an increase on British goods imported into India, so as to make the duty on those equal to that on imports from foreign countries. In reply he had to say that that was so.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War a question on the subject of the numerical force of troops to be retained in India during the next financial year; and as there appeared to exist some misundertanding as to what had been stated the other evening, perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the kindness to state distinctly to the House, so far as his memory would serve him, what was the present number of troops of all arms in India, and what reduction he contemplated making in the course of the year, inasmuch as the Estimates had no doubt been framed with a view to that prospective reduction. He would also ask whether there was any foundation for the statement which was made on a former evening as to the head of the Indian Government in India having been required from this side of the water to receive and maintain on the Indian establishment a greater number of troops in Her Majesty's service than was desired for the defence of India and for the preservation of peace during the present year. He thought that everybody must see that, in the present state of the finances of India, it was not desirable that any burden should be imposed on that country which was not necessary for its safety and welfare. He had not himself heard anything that would lead to the belief that such was intended, but an impression of the kind prevailed in certain quarters. It would also be advantageous if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would state whether if the Indian Government found that they would be able to return a greater number of men to this country than they previously thought would be possible, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to disembody the militia, or to make other arrangements to receive those additional regiments in this country, or whether it would be necessary to come to the House for further powers.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the report of the last competing examination for Cadetships in the Royal Academy at Woolwich was not published within the usual time after the conclusion of the examination; and why there has not been the usual public notice of the approaching examination? In his opinion one cause of the great success of the examinations at Woolwich was the great publicity connected with them. Of the seven previous examinations the reports had been published within a very short time; but of the examination which was held three months ago there had been no report.

said, he would first reply to the question of the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), with respect to the detachment of the 41st Regiment at Trinidad. The authority by which the troops had been moved from camp to barracks was the local authority on the spot. They were encamped in consequence of the outbreak of fever in September, and were probably sent back to barracks because the fever had ceased to rage. From information he had received that morning it appeared that the troops were now in camp, and therefore he did not know for certain that they had ever been sent back to bar- racks. He was sure that the hon. and gallant Member would be glad to hear that it appeared from the report which he had received that the fever had entirely ceased, and that the health of the troops was good; though it was thought advisable that they should still remain encamped whilst the barracks were cleansed and whitewashed. The hon. and gallant Member had also alluded to the removal of the detachments from Trinidad, and he could inform him that by the last mail he had sent out through the Colonial Office a discretionary power to the officer in command, if he thought it necessary, to remove the troops. The barracks were as well constructed as they could be; and the mortality during the last ten years had not been greater in Trinidad than might be expected, for the deaths among the Europeans were not more than 4 per cent, whilst in the black regiments the mortality was 3 per cent or more. The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Lewis) had asked what was the present number of troops upon the Indian establishment, and if any of them were to return home during the year. Speaking from memory, as he had had no notice of the question, he should say there were seventy-three regiments of infantry and twelve regiments of cavalry now in India. Before framing the Estimates for the year he had endeavoured to come to an understanding with the Secretary of State for India as to the number of troops that were likely to return home during this year. There was no desire to impose upon the Indian Government any number of troops, and he would have been glad to receive any regiments that could be sent home; but in consequence of the letters of Lord Clyde, in November, in which he said that seven regiments of infantry and one of cavalry were all that could be spared during the next year, the others were left upon the Indian establishment. So far from desiring to impose unnecessary burdens upon the Indian Government, the great difficulty had been to meet their demands. That Government, without any communication from home, had sent out vessels and taken regiments wherever they could get them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Lewis) had also asked him whether, in the event of any additional regiments coming home from India during the next financial year, over and above those which were expected, there would be any objection to receive them in this country, and whether they could be maintained here by means of disembodying some militia regiments or otherwise without exceeding our present military establishment. In answer to those questions, he could only say that there was not the slightest wish on the part of the Government here to impose upon that of India the necessity of keeping there a single regiment beyond those which they required, and that if they should deem it expedient to send to this country other regiments in addition to the seven which were already under orders for return home, Her Majesty's Ministers would not have the slightest objection, looking to the present state of Europe, to receive them. The Indian Government had sent a requisition to this country for twelve batteries of artillery, and not only had it been there resolved to raise that force, but they had determined to raise twelve European batteries of their own, so that in deciding to comply with their request on that point, Her Majesty's Ministers were only acting in accordance with what they deemed to be the requirements of the Indian service. The order to send out those twelve batteries had, however, since been rescinded. With respect to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), in reference to the examinations at Woolwich, he could only say that when he had come into office he had promised that two additional examinations should be held there exactly on similar terms as those on which they had previously taken place. In consequence of that promise the Rev. Canon Moseley had been allowed to adjudicate on those examinations as before. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that any greater delay existed in the publication of the reports of the last examination than had occurred on former occasions. In consequence of the illness of one of the examiners, indeed, the report had not been sent in as soon as otherwise would have been the case, but it would be published to-morrow, and a copy of it would be sent to each of those who had presented themselves for examination. The right hon. Gentleman had also asked why the usual public notice had not been given as to the time at which the approaching examination would be held. In reply to that question, he had simply to state that such notice had been duly given in The Gazette on the 15th of March last. It had not been inserted in the various public journals, as had previously been the case, because it would have been charged, for as an advertisement, and a considerable expense would thus be incurred. A circular had also been printed, and any person requiring a copy might have it.

said, in the absence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government assent has been given to the Jamaica Immigration Bill. Also, if the Papers on Immigration, which the Right hon. Baronet thought would be ready by the 31st of March, are yet ready. And, if the following Papers will be ready to be laid before Parliament previous to its Dissolution:—Returns of the number of Immigrants from India and China who have been introduced into the British East or West India Colonies since 1835; with a Statement of the mortality on the passage; the duration of the voyage; of the number who have left each Colony to return home; of those who died there; of those who have become chargeable as paupers or otherwise on the Colony; how those that remain are employed; and a Statement showing what proportion of the expenses on Immigration account has been paid out of the funds of each Colony, and how much out of the Imperial Exchequer?

said he wished to ask the Right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with respect to some recent purchases of paintings which have been made for the National Gallery. He perceived that three purchases of early Italian pictures had been recently made. One of them was said to be a picture of Marco Bassaiti, which he had carefully examined, and with respect to which he had consulted persons who had great experience in the purchase of pictures, who entirely agreed with him in the opinion that the whole surface of the picture had been restored, and that it had been so stippled over as to have been rendered worthless and worse than useless. In fact it was a disgrace to a national institution where none but models in art ought to be exhibited. There was also a picture by Cima de Conegliano which presented a most unfavourable specimen of restoration, and which he believed had been purchased for the National Gallery from some French dealer in Paris the third picture to which he would refer was one which was purchased from a gallery at Turin. It was formerly attributed to Moretto, but it was now said to be by Moroni. He must conclude, however, that it was not a genuine picture of that master, and that it was altogether a painting of an inferior character. Seeing that so large an expenditure of public money had been made in those purchases, he could not help calling the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the subject, for it amounted, in his opinion, almost to a malversation of the National Funds. The mistake which had been made in those purchases he could only attribute to an error in judgment; he should not even insinuate a graver charge. But that the public money had, in the instances to which he had just adverted, been improperly laid out, he was prepared to maintain, and he should, upon some future occasion, be prepared to bring the subject more at length under the notice of the House. Purchases such as those lowered and deteriorated our collection of pictures, and he therefore could not sit silent while paintings which he would not say might be referred to the class of mediocrity, but which were almost entirely worthless, were placed in the National Gallery.

Sir, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty will not find fault with me when I say that the question I am about to put to the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be decidedly of an electioneering character. All I wish to ask is this, whether Her Majesty's Government have come to any decision at present as to the day on which the dissolution is to take place, and whether the writs will be issued on that day; or, if not, on what other subsequent day they will be issued? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for making this inquiry, because it is a, matter in which great anxiety is felt by all parties, for it is exceedingly inconvenient to them, having regard to their various arrangements, to be kept in suspense as to the time when the elections will take place. Therefore, if Government will give us some positive information on this subject, I am sure they will be conferring a positive obligation.

said, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coning-ham), that inasmuch as he was unaware that it was his intention to bring the subject of the recent purchases made for the National Gallery under the notice of the House, he was at the present moment quite unprepared to enter into any criticism of the pictures which he had mentioned. The subject was, however, one which was of great importance, and he should endeavour to obtain that information with respect to it which would be expedient for the guidance of the Government as to the course which ought to be taken in reference to the National Gallery. In reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin), he had only to say that the Jamaica Immigration Act had been confirmed by Her Majesty in Council; that the papers which had been promised to be laid before Parliament by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies were so voluminous that he was afraid, although they were in progress, it would not be in the power of the Government to lay them before Parliament before the dissolution took place, and, lastly, that no Returns relating to the number of emigrants from China to the West Indies had reached the Colonial Office. The question which had been put to him by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was one which it was rather difficult to answer in so precise a manner as he could desire. All he could say in reply to it was, that the Government would advise Her Majesty to prorogue and dissolve Parliament during Passion week, and that, so far as he could form an opinion, the new Parliament might meet by the 31st of May. It was, however, impossible for him at present to fix on the precise day for either the prorogation or dissolution; but he should probably be in a position to speak more definitely on the subject on Monday next. It might be convenient for public reasons that the House should sit a day or two longer than he anticipated, and it would not be right that the issue of the writs should take place on Good Friday; but, generally speaking, Her Majesty would, as he had said before, be advised to prorogue and dissolve Parliament in the ensuing week, and, as far as he could calculate, the new Parliament would meet about the 31st of May. He had to state, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had thought that he was not bound to pay the stamp duties on his patent of appointment. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had submitted a case to the Attorney General, who agreed with him in thinking that Secretaries of State were liable for the fees in question, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given directions to enforce payment of them, not only from his noble Friend, but from some of his predecessors.