thought he might save a good deal of discussion on this vote by declaring that no portion of the money would be applied to anything that might prejudice the appeal now pending to the Queen in Council. No expenditure would be incurred except for urgent repairs.

said, that on that understanding he would not oppose the Vote.

inquired why this Vote had not been included in the Estimates for Royal Palaces?

said, that this embankment seemed to be some improvement of the town of Windsor, and it was not fair to impose the charge on the taxpayers of the country.

said, the work was one of great public convenience, and not at all in connection with the Palace.

said, that the wall was part of the Palace, and he confessed he did not see why it was not included in the Vote for the Royal Palaces.

said, it seemed that the expenditure would be £482,000, including the approaches on the west side of the bridge. He wished to know whether this included also the approaches on the other side, and if not, how much they would cost? The House gradually got entangled in heavy expenses by being merely the registrar of expenses over which it had no control. There appeared to be no reason why Middlesex and Surrey should not, like every other county, pay for their own bridges. However, he wished to obtain from the Government some pledge that the expense would not exceed the very large sum he had mentioned. The whole fee simple of the bridge estate, of the value of £172,000, the proceeds of which used to keep the bridge in repair, would now be gone, and deducting that sum from £482,000, the balance to be provided out of the public purse was £310,000. As he understood there remained £174,000 to be voted besides the votes of this year. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether £482,000 would complete the works?

said, he had come into office when the undertaking was nearly completed, and he was not responsible for the expenditure; but according to the solemn assurance of the engineer, he could state that the sum mentioned would cover the completion of the work, together with approaches on the west side. The £96,921 which remained un voted would, he believed, complete all the works. Of this £60,000 was now proposed to be voted, and there would remain to be voted next year £36,921. One cause of expense had been the dealing with the old foundation. He believed that one half of the bridge would be open in November. With regard to the suggestion that the counties of Middlesex and Surrey should provide the bridge, it would be found by reference to the Report of 1854 that Parliament had always exercised a control over Westminster Bridge.

said it was to be regretted that the new public bridge, and every improvement connected with it, were not submitted to proper estimates.

thought that the expenses of this bridge ought to be borne by the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, and not thrown upon the public funds. If those counties would not pay the expenses of its construction, they ought, at all events, to pay for its maintenance; and he would suggest that the Government, having completed the bridge, &c, should hand it over as a very handsome present to the counties; and, if they declined to accept it, then a very small toll on the bridge would soon repay the Government the expense which it had incurred.

said, that Parliament had taken the bridge estate, and it would be entirely out of the question for the two counties of Middlesex and Surrey to receive the bridge back minus the property.

inquired what had become of the bridge estate?

replied, that the Treasury, thinking the requirements of the public service might render it essential to buy that estate for public purposes, advanced its value, £110,000, for the purpose of the bridge, and directed the Office of Works to act as regarded that estate as trustees for the benefit of the public.

objected to the whole country being called on to pay for improvements in London. It was reported that part of the expenses was incurred in consequence of some mistakes in the plans or execution.

repeated, that the excess of expenditure arose from the difficulty of dealing with the foundation.

said, that the delay in the progress of the works was caused by the failure of the contractor, a circumstance over which the Board of Works could have no control.

said, the cost and delay of the bridge had arisen in a great degree from the constant dilettanti intermeddling of the House of Commons with metropolitan improvements. Those hon. Members who complained of the expense of metropolitan works had themselves alone to blame for it; for, instead of attempting to manage the affairs of the metropolis, they should allow the metropolis, like every other large town in England, to manage its own affairs. They were afraid, however, to give municipal institutions to the metropolis, lest the metropolis should overshadow the dignity of the House of Commons; and they managed to get a good deal out of the metropolis while complaining of its expense. The house-tax was so contrived that the inhabitants of the metropolis paid as much as all the other inhabitants of England, and the tax on hackney coaches, which wore out the metropolitan roads, went into the public Exchequer.

observed that he had done his best to give the metropolis a Metropolitan Board, but he thought it would be difficult for the Board to satisfy its constituents when a matter of taxation was concerned.

inquired whether £30,000 formed the cost of the building, or whether that was merely a sum on account?

said, the Committee would think themselves very fortunate indeed if they could flatter themselves that it would build the Foreign Office. He would take this opportunity of explaining what the present Vote was, and in what position the Government proposed to leave the general question, with respect to the erection of the new Foreign Office. The chief part of the present Vote would be required for the preparation of the ground. It was well known that the foundations of the buildings in that part of London, where the new Office was to be erected, were very bad, and in order to raise there a solid and durable structure it was necessary to prepare a bed of concrete on which the building should rest. That was a costly work, and it was for preparatory proceedings, and the one he had just mentioned chiefly that the present money was wanted. With respect to the expense of the building, he would state how the matter stood, and it was so far satisfactory as to be able to say that the Government were in the position, for the first time in the history of public edifices in this metropolis, to state to the House what the real and outside cost would he. The result might be that the Committee would be very much startled at the figures mentioned, because heretofore there had been (not, however, from any systematic design,) moderate sums exhibited in the first instance, and thus the House had been drawn on, and found itself inextricably pledged to go forward with charges without limit. The figures he was now going to mention might be relied upon. Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of the Office of Works, was called before the Committee which sat on the reconstruction of the Foreign Office; he saw the designs prepared, and he gave his opinion on the cost of all those designs. The sum Mr. Hunt mentioned for the erection of a building according to the design of Mr. Scott was £230,000. That did not include the whole expense, but everything comprised in the design. A true test of the value of that estimate of the Surveyor of Works was afforded by comparing it with tenders made by responsible parties. The tenders had been received within the last week or ten days, and a responsible builder was ready to undertake the erection of the building for £232,000. This result was very creditable to Mr. Hunt's judgment. There were additions for lighting, fixtures, for the preparation and finishing of the ground, and contingencies of a certain amount, always known to emerge from any design whatever. Mr. Hunt had made allowances for these, and the complete finishing of the building, supposing it was erected on Mr. Scott's designs, which included a set of reception rooms for any Minister and a residence for the Foreign Minister, would cost, making a proper charge for the architect's commission, &c, somewhere about £310,000. Adding to that the sum necessary for purchase of the site—namely, £100,000 or £120,000, the total amount would be £430,000. If it was the pleasure of the House to entertain the plan on that scale, they now knew the whole cost. It had to be considered, however, as that was a large sum, whether an economy of space could be effected in the Foreign Office, and whether it was necessary, prudent, or desirable that a residence should be supplied to the Foreign Minister within the Foreign Office. As it would form part of the building, the furnishing of it would necessarily he thrown upon the public, and the addition of such a building would entail no less a charge than £30,000. The residence was included in the estimate of Mr. Hunt. With regard to the reception-rooms, it was the opinion of the architect, that if a residence for the Foreign Minister was omitted from the plan, the Colonial Office as well as the Foreign Office might be included within the same building. As far as the Government were concerned, they would be glad to have the opinion of the Committee. Very great interest was felt with regard to the nature of the design. On that subject there was a material contest of opinion, and the Government were not prepared at this moment to propose a solution of the difficulty. He thought it was clear, from the evidence given before the Committee last year, that there was no very important difference in point of cost between the Italian and Gothic styles of architecture. The noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) had the other day asked that no steps might be taken by Her Majesty's Government during the recess to prejudge or foreclose the question as to the design and the style of architecture that should be adopted, and he believed that his noble Friend at the head of the Government was quite prepared to give such a pledge.

said, it appeared from the evidence which had been adduced before a Committee of that House, that the present Foreign Office was in such a state, that whenever receptions were given by the Foreign Minister it was found necessary to prop it up, and the Foreign Secretary sat in his room writing important despatches, with the chance that at any moment the roof might come down upon his head. They had been told that this Vote was merely for the purpose of establishing a solid concrete foundation for the proposed edifice, and that by assenting to it they were in no respect committed to the style of the building. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had, however, stated to a deputation which waited upon him the other day, that Mr. Scott's design was one of the most monstrous things he had ever seen—that it was more fitted for a monastery than anything else, and that as long as he held office he would never consent to the adoption of Mr. Scott's plans. The noble Lord evidently wished to have a building in a totally different style. Competition had been invited on this subject; designs had been sent in; premiums had been awarded; the responsible Minister at the Board of Works had selected a certain design; the architect had been directed to prepare plans and models, but it appeared that all this expenditure of money, time, and labour was to be thrown away, because upon the advent of a new Government the First Minister of the Crown declared, that so far as it depended upon himself, the plan which had been adopted should not be carried out. Now, the proceedings before Election Committees had already reduced the majority of his noble Friend from fourteen to six, and if those investigations continued with the same result, this majority of six might soon disappear. It might happen that at the commencement of the next Session, before the question of building a new Foreign Office could be brought before the House, a vote of want of confidence in the Ministry might be carried, and after the expense of preparing the new plans which he understood his noble Friend had directed Mr. Scott to prepare, had been incurred, the successor of his noble Friend in the Premiership might be in favour of an edifice in the Gothic style of architecture, and Mr. Scott's Italian design would in turn be discarded. Thus Government after Government might play at seesaw with the subject. He might remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) and the former President of the Board of Works (Sir Benjamin Hall) had complained that the late Government had acted unfairly towards the competitors in the selection they had made, inasmuch as, while three prizes had been awarded, the gentlemen who obtained the first and second prizes had been set aside, and the design of the gentleman who obtained the third premium had been selected. He must say that he thought the course pursued by his hon. Friend (Mr. Tite) in that House was somewhat inconsistent with his conduct in the Committee, for the hon. Gentleman had presented a sort of draught report to the Committee strongly advocating the claims of Mr. Pennethorne, the architect employed by the Board of Works. His hon. Friend now recommended that the designs of the competitors should be taken in order of precedence, but he represented to the Committee that if the erection of large public buildings were awarded to architects by competition, Mr. Pennethorne would be left without occupation and emolument, and he urged very strongly the claims of Mr. Pennethorne. He (Lord Elcho) proposed a resolution to the effect that the Committee, having considered the plans previously prepared by Mr. Pennethorne, were of opinion that in the erection of a new Foreign Office a reference should be given to the successful competitors. That Resolution was carried by eight "Ayes" to four "Noes," and he found at the head of the "Noes" the name of the hon. Member for Bath. The Committee came to the conclusion that, although it was desirable that the architect should be selected from the prizemen, there was nothing in the terms of the original agreement laid down by Sir Benjamin Hall that in any way bound the Government to adopt any of the designs which were sent in. It would manifestly have been contrary to the public interest that any such arrangement should have been made, for it was impossible to tell beforehand whether any architects of eminence would engage in the competition. It was thought, however, that there was such an amount of merit in the first three designs that the erection of a new Foreign Office might be intrusted to any of the gentlemen by whom they had been prepared. A selection was made and the design of Mr. Scott was adopted. He now came to the question of the architecture, which was connected more or less with the choice of the architect. Premiums were awarded to seven of the designs sent in, and of these designs four were Gothic. There was, of course, great difference of opinion on the subject of style, but he thought the objections which had been made to the Gothic style would not hold water. The objections made to that style were, that it was unsuitable for public offices, because, although gay without, it was not light and airy within; that it was costly; and that it would be incongruous with surrounding buildings. Now, it appeared from evidence given before the Committee that the windows of the building designed by Mr. Scott would on comparison with those of several public edifices which had been erected in London in the Italian style be much larger—in some cases 50 per cent larger. Mr. Scott stated in evidence that he had examined seventeen public buildings in London in the Italian style, and that he found the windows in the edifice he had designed exceeded in size those of any of them. The Committee had deemed it their duty to go narrowly into the evidence on these points, and they reported that with regard to cheapness, commodiousness of arrangement, and facilities for light and ventilation, they considered that no material preference existed on either side. With regard to the objection, that a Gothic edifice upon such a site would be incongruous with the buildings by which it was surrounded, he thought that would be rather an advantage than otherwise; for nothing was to his mind more disagreeable than rows of houses built in the same monotonous style. The new city of Edinburgh, and Berlin, and Paris had been deformed by too great congruity. The New Town of Edinburgh was built in an uniform style, but it was not to be admired, and the diversity of the Old Town was much more pleasing to the eye; Berlin was one of the most uniform cities of Europe, and was by far the most monotonous; and, in the magnificent and uniform Rue de Rivoli one's eyes rested with delight upon the tower of St. Jaques de la Boucherie, and upon the Gothic pile of the Sainte Chapelle. Again the appearance of the old city of Venice and other cities where Gothic buildings were interspersed with others, was much more grateful to the eye than a tiresome monotony of the same style, however beautiful the design, throughout. He would venture to say that internally Gothic buildings were far lighter than those built in the Italian style. He believed that one of the first buildings erected by the hon. Member for Bath—who was now the great advocate of the Italian style of architecture—and which established his professional reputation, was a church in the Gothic style. In his opinion, a Foreign office, in the style proposed by Mr. Scott, would be a great ornament to the metropolis, and he believed that internally it would be as convenient, or perhaps more so, than any Italian building that could be erected. He had himself no partiality for the one style or the other, but, after the matter had been fairly considered by competent authorities and a decision had been arrived at in favour of the Gothic style, he thought it was almost absurd that the whole question should be thrown over for another year. He might add that, although the noble Lord at the head of the Government had described Mr. Scott's model as a monstrous design, the Building News, the Architects' Journal and gentlemen who had devoted their lives to the study of architecture, bore the strongest testimony in favour of Mr. Scott's plan.

said, that the noble Lord who had just sat down had attacked him because he (Mr. Tite) had abandoned Gothic architecture and was opposed to it, though by means of it he had obtained his first professional success; but he begged to remind a noble Lord that the was a design for a church and not for a public office, nor was it Lombardo Veneto, but he was sorry to say that he thought that they were already committed to a very considerable extent to the architect, and to a particular design. They had been told that contracts had been offered for the execution of Mr. Scott's design for £232,000; but, in order to arrive at that conclusion, from £5,000 to £10,000 had already been spent, and what were called "extras" might very considerably increase the amount to be expended. One item had, however, been altogether omitted from consideration. The designs exhibited in the library showed that a frontage towards Parliament Street was contemplated, and the cost of the mass of buildings which must be pulled down in order to show the front of the new India Office was estimated at £150,000. He believed the House was embarking in a project which could not be completed at the outlay, one way or another, of less than £1,000,000. With regard to the Foreign Office, he had in the Committee defended Mr. Pennethorne's design, because it appeared to him to be very much the more economical one, and because it involved no encroachment upon the Park; but the gentlemen who had entered into this competition could not exercise any discretion, for the site for which they were required to design a building was chalked out. In his opinion, Mr. Pennethorne's design, which kept to the present line of buildings, was the best and cheapest, for he proposed to erect a Foreign Office for some £80,000 or £90,000. If they abandoned Mr. Pennethorne's design he thought they were bound to take the design which had obtained the first premium; but, as there was some difficulty about that, they should, in his opinion, have taken the second design that obtained a prize. The second prize plan had, however, been passed over, and the third design had been selected, no doubt because it was in the Gothic style. In his opinion, and that of a very large majority of professional architects, the Italian moderately applied, with sufficient amount of decoration, was better adapted for the purpose of such buildings as were required than the Gothic style. Although, in his opinion, the Gothic style was adapted to ecclesiastical and probably also to domestic buildings, he did not think it was suited to the ordinary purposes of a public office. No one would like to sit all day in a room lighted by heavy church windows. He wished to say that he had no personal feeling in this matter, for he knew as little of Mr. Banks as he did of Mr. Scott, whose eminence as an architect was unquestionable. It was said that the style of Mr. Scott's design was national; but it was derived from Louvain, Sienna, and Milan; while Sir Christopher Wren, Inigo Jones, Sir Charles Barry, and other architects knew very well what they were about, and had introduced a style of architecture which was convenient, suited to the climate, and congrous with surrounding buildings. He might observe that that the Committee had consulted Sir Charles Barry, who had himself sent in a design in the classical style of architecture, and he expressed his opinion that there were towers enough in this neighbourhood, and that the coup d' œil required a greater degree of repose. With regard to Mr. Scott's plan, he (Mr. Tite) admitted the great beauty of the drawings, and the architectural skill of the design, but it included two enormous towers, which, in his opinion, were objectional and incongruous in such a position. He believed that if the House adopted this plan, apart from the erection of an Indian Office, they would engage in a work requiring an outlay more nearly approaching £600,000, than £400,000; and he submitted that in times like the present they were not justified in incurring so serious an expenditure.

, as a member of the Committee on this subject, could not agree with the noble Lord that a large majority of that Committee were in favour of adopting the Gothic style of architecture, and he thought the matter ought to have received more mature consideration before the plan of Mr. Scott had been adopted. As to the case of Mr. Penne-thorne, he believed a strong opinion was entertained by the Committee that, as they advertised for designs, and as premiums had been awarded, the gentlemen who had engaged in the competition and had obtained prizes, were entitled to a preference over architects who had not competed. He thought—and he believed that was the impression of the Committee—that there was no necessity for providing in the new building a residence for the Foreign Minister, although it might be desirable to provide commodious rooms for official receptions. He apprehended that no one was likely to be appointed Foreign Secretary who had not already a private residence of his own in which he would prefer to live rather than to move, certainly suddenly, his family into the residence provided for him, and which he would in all probability have to quit at very short notice.

was of opinion that in erecting a national building of this kind they ought not to evince a niggardly spirit—they should have a building worthy of the country, and one which their descendants should not be ashamed to look at; and if such a building as was required could be erected for £250,000, or even £300,000, as he was led to suppose from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not think that was too large an amount to devote to such a purpose. He feared that with respect to these buildings they might be led into the same error which had been committed in the case of the Houses of Parliament, and that after an architect had been selected, instead of being left to attend to his own duty, he would be exposed to interference on the part of persons who proposed plans and schemes of their own. Without expressing any opinion as to the Gothic or classical styles of architecture, he thought that, having obtained a good architect, the best course would be to allow him to erect a handsome building on the condition that it should be suitable for the purposes required, and should not exceed in cost the amount of the estimate.

deemed it of great importance that in the new Foreign Office apartments should be provided which would enable the Minister of the Crown to receive foreigners in a maimer befitting the dignity of this country.

said, he hoped that whatever the style of architecture adopted the building would be worthy of the wealth and high character of the country. For himself he approved the design of Mr. Scott, who had the highest reputation as a Gothic architect. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) condemned the plan, but he retained the architect. Now he (Mr. Bruce) ventured to express a hope that if Mr. Scott were retained as the architect he would be permitted to carry out a design congenial to his own taste. They must take care not to fall into the mistake committed in regard to Sir Christopher Wren who, having great reputation as a Palladian architect had been employed to erect two Gothic towers to Westminster Abbey. Naturally he performed the work in the most unsuccessful manner, and his two cumbrous erections were a great disparagement to the beauty of that noble edifice. The Italian buildings in Oxford and Cambridge had been alluded to. He was willing to rest the decision of this question on a comparison of those buildings and the Gothic structures in their immediate neighbourhood.

observed, that after the architects, not only of this country, but of Europe, had been invited to compete, and had been put to considerable expense in furnishing designs for the new Foreign Office, the designs of the principal prizemen had been cast aside, and the decision of the judges had been reversed. It was evident that Mr. Scott had been selected as the architect because the building was to be in the Gothic style, but the moment that decision was set aside then the question of the appointment of the architect should be fully and fairly considered. He congratulated the noble Lord at the head of the Government on his spirited resistance to any further invasion of the Goths and Vandals. He trusted that the noble Lord would adhere to the answer he gave to the deputation, and not allow a whole street of Gothic architecture to be added to the over-decorated and overdone House in which they were now assembled. All the common sense of the House and of the country was against the adoption of the Gothic style for the new Foreign Office.

said, he was himself somewhat favourable to the Palladian style, but he thought they should not lose sight of the fact that the House had before it a design in most excellent taste, and he hoped the House would not throw away the chance of having such a handsome building raised, without knowing upon what they were likely to fall back after rejecting it. He trusted they would not recur to the plan which obtained the first premium, which he thought most objectionable. He understood that the noble Lord at the head of the Government on a former occasion instanced in favour of the Italian style a number of edifices raised in this metropolis. Was the National Gallery among those edifices? He referred to that building to show that they were not always sure of securing a good building by adopting the Italian style. He had noticed with great pleasure how much Mr. Scott's design had been improved from the first drawing by being rendered more simple. He was quite willing to agree to the present Vote on the condition that it was to be clearly understood that nothing would be done to commit the House or the Government to any particular design in place of that one.

said, that there was a strong feeling out of doors in favour of the design of Mr. Scott, and the objections which were urged against the plan in that House appeared, in his opinion, to arise from the ignorance of hon. Members respecting the character of Gothic architecture, which, he contended, was not so monotonous in its character as had been stated by some hon. Gentlemen.

calculated that the expenses already incurred for premiums for the designs, and other matters connected with them, could not be much under £10,000. The question then was whether, after having got a good thing of its kind at a very great expense to the country they were to throw it aside as altogether worthless, because the noble Lord at the head of the Government happened to have a prejudice in favour of the classic style of architecture. But did the House know as much about the probable cost of the building as it ought to know? He could not help thinking that the sum of £30,000 now proposed for a concrete foundation was a very large sum; but even with that the House did not know but what they were opening a bottomless pit, such as they had taken in hand when they commenced building the Houses of Parliament. He observed in the newspapers that a tabernacle was about to be erected for Mr. Spurgeon for £21,000, and the concrete foundation was to cost £500. According to this proportion between the costs of the foundation and of the structure, the new Foreign Office would occasion an expenditure of somewhat like £1,200,000. With regard to the question of style, he was fond of both styles of architecture. He knew that there was a very natural prejudice against Gothicism, and certainly anything more wearisome than that House, with its sacrifice of convenience to a constant repetition of insipid ornament, could not be conceived; but, as regards light, he thought that that House had been somewhat unfairly treated, and in the committee-rooms there was positively more light let in than was often wanted. With respect to Mr. Scott's design, it was shown distinctly in the last discussion that the windows in his buildings were larger and admitted more light than the windows in any other building in London. With respect to the cost of the particular design, a work written before the competition showed that from Mr. Scott's opinion as to the true character of Gothic architecture the House was not likely to be led into a waste of public money by useless ornamentation. Mr. Scott stated in his Remarks on Secular and Domestic Architecture:—

"In external character a noble simplicity is greatly to be preferred to extreme elaboration. I have never, in the domestic architecture of the best periods of mediseval art, seen what would be called rich external decoration otherwise than very sparingly used for a few special parts, A tissue of costly ornament over the entire building I have never seen, and I am certain that it is destructive of true dignity."

It appeared to him that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in announcing that he kept Mr. Scott as architect, but was going to make that architect produce a design in the classical style, had followed the worst course possible. It was like going to a French master to be taught German; or, to put another case, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, he believed, addressed the Legislature of Corfu in Italian, and his constituents at Oxford might ask the right hon. Gentleman to address them in his best Tuscan, but for his (Mr. Stirling's) part he would prefer to hear the right hon. Gentleman, not in the language over which he had obtained a mastery; but in that in which he appeared to have been born a master. If the noble Lord did not like Gothic architecture, he should not go to a Gothic architect. He thought that Mr. Scott ought to be allowed to employ the style to which he had given his particular attention.

expressed his opinion that Mr. Scott's design would form one of the most beautiful buildings in the country. Many gentlemen were under the impression that a want of light always accompanied Gothic architecture; but the windows in Mr. Scott's design were as large as any windows in London, and could be filled in with plate glass. In point of access it was not inferior to Banks and Barry's design, and rather admitted more light and air. There was no reason whatever why the Gothic style should not be employed for civil buildings. Abroad many civil buildings, and even private houses were built in the Gothic style; and in this metropolis there were Westminster Hall, the courts of law, the dining hall at Lincoln's Inn, and the Guildhall in the Gothic style, and no man held that they were incongruous with the buildings about or unadapted for the purposes for which they were required. The taste for Italian architecture was decaying in this country, and a taste for Gothic was assuming a sway over people's minds. In fact, the Italian style was becoming effete. He trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not allow his individual predilections to run counter to the national taste. At Manchester the Gothic style had recently been selected for a building at a meeting attended by many men of business, with a Quaker for the chairman; and in Australia the Gothic was being adopted in preference to the Italian style.

said, that nothing in the Vote now before the Committee in any way committed the House to the style or character of the building to be erected on the ground; and whatever his opinions might be—as strong they certainly were—with respect to the style best to be adopted, nothing would be done with respect to fixing on a plan until Parliament met again. In fact, before any building could be commenced, there must be another Vote for that express purpose sanctioned by the House. At the same time, the Committee had responded to the communication of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had taken advantage of this opportunity to express their opinions as to the much-mooted question of style. Some hon. Gentlemen had advocated an adherence to Mr. Scott's plan on two grounds—first, because he was chosen as the architect, and it was contended that they must take the plan with the man; and, secondly, because the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) lately at the head of the Department of Public Works had chosen to incur, without the sanction of the House, a considerable expense in plans and models, wherefore it was said that the House was committed to go on with the erection of the buildings. He did not think that reason at all valid, for supposing, for the sake of argument, that his opinion was right and that the building would be a great disfigurment to the metropolis, what satisfaction would it he to posterity a hundred years hence, who might lift up their hands with astonishment to think that the senators of 1859 could have sanctioned the erection of so frightful a building, to be told that the reason was because a noble Lord at the head of the Department of Works, who had a personal feeling for the architect, [Lord JOHN MANNERS: No!] or at any rate approved of a certain architect—did in order to induce the House of Commons to adopt the plan he liked, take on himself to order expenses not sanctioned by the House; and that then, out of a feeling to spare the self-love of the noble Lord, and the disappointment of the architect if the design were not carried out, the Legislature had permitted the erection of the building? He put aside that argument as having no weight in the balance, and he thought that the noble Lord was not justified in the course he pursued. His noble Friend (Lord Elcho) said that he was present at the last discussion on Gothic and non-Gothic architecture, and that it was unsatisfactory. He did not wonder that his noble Friend thought so, for as far as the opinion of the House could be expressed short of a division, by gentlemen on their legs, and by those who retained their seats, he never remembered a stronger expression of opinion elicited than was on that occasion manifested against Gothic and in favour of Italian architecture. Of course his noble Friend, with his opinions, could not be satisfied with such a result. This being the case, he thought that the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) should not have committed the country to an expense contrary to the opinion entertained by the House; and his doing so should not now be urged as a reason for going on with a plan which he (Viscount Palmerston) thought the majority of the House disapproved. With respect to what he (Viscount Palmerston) had stated to a deputation that had waited on him on this subject, it was entirely in accordance with what he had before stated in the discussion in that House—that the Gothic style was wholly unsuited to a public official building, and that, as far as his own opinion went, he should, whether in office or out of office, do all in his power to prevent its being adopted for that purpose. He also stated that though the Gothic style might be admirably suited for a monastic building, a monastery, or Jesuit college, it was not suited, either internally or externally, for the purpose to which it had now been proposed to apply it. His noble Friend (Lord Elcho) asked, what could be more monotonous than the new town of Edinburgh and the Rue de Rivoli at Paris? Certainly the new town of Edinburgh never could be quoted as an example of ornamental architecture; but the Rue de Rivoli was exceedingly handsome, and yet it was not Gothic. His idea as to what should be done in respect to the design of houses in a street was that there should be facies non omnibus una nec diversa tamen. There should be a variety in the same style to prevent its being monotonous, but there should not be blended together styles wholly different and incongruous one with another. In answer to the objection of the incongruity of such a structure with the surrounding buildings it was answered that it was contemplated to pull down everything between Great George Street and Westminster Hall, and raise up another block of buildings which should be in harmony with this, and then all would be congruous from Downing Street to Westminster Hall. That would simply be making had worse, and throwing good money after bad. A great argument in favour of Gothic architecture was that it was national, and they had just been told that it was very much rising in public estimation. He did not see any proof of that in this metropolis. If they went to the new parts of London they saw beautiful buildings in a style very different from those in the old parts of the town, but none of them Gothic. They did not see private buildings in the Gothic style. There were halls for guilds and corporations in the Gothic style, but not buildings for habitation. They had a specimen of a building in the Gothic style intended for habitation, in the house erected for the Speaker; and every gentleman who had had an opportunity, by partaking of the hospitality of the Speaker, of seeing the inside of that structure must have left with the conviction that it was a most unfortunate building. His noble Friend the Member for London, whom he met one day at the right hon. Gentleman's table, observed in reference to the style, "It was all very well for our ancestors to do these things, because they knew no better. But why should we do them?" If they looked to any town in this country where large buildings were erected they did not find a proof of the assertion of the hon. Gentleman. There were persons who liked Gothic houses for country residences, and he admitted that there was an increasing disposition to employ the Gothic style for ecclesiastical buildings, and he did not quarrel with it for those purposes. A Gothic window was by its necessary form dark and inconvenient; and though he admitted that our taste had greatly improved as far as the style of building our churches was concerned, nevertheless he had seen some such edifices which did not admit sufficient light to read the services. The real truth was that the Gothic was not an English style of architecture, but was imported from the Continent—from Belgium or the north of Italy. Was it, then, national by practice? He had just made out a list of public buildings in different towns, and among them he should have to mention that building criticized to-day—the National Gallery, certainly not one of the most favourable specimens of our public buildings. He did not defend that building: but how did it happen that it was so constructed? Lord Althorp, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, insisted that the building should not cost more than £70,000; and consequently the architect was restrained in the development he would have given to it. The expense was not adapted to the building, but the building was made to conform to the sum allotted. Part of the plan was that the columns from the front of Carlton House should be employed for the National Gallery. The building was made low for the purpose of suiting those columns, and when it was ready for the reception of the columns, it was found to be much too short for them, and fresh columns had to be provided. Taking London, he asked whether the building they had been speaking of that day would be in harmony with any public building in the metropolis. He put aside that House, in which they were assembled, and did not reckon ecclesiastical buildings. They had in London the following buildings in styles not Gothic:—The Bank of England, the Mansion House, the East India House, the Royal Exchange, Somerset House, the Custon House, the British Museum, the Banqueting House, the National Gallery, Greenwich Hospital, the University College, the Post Office, Chelsea Hospital, Buckingham Palace, and Stafford House, none of these were Gothic. In Edinburgh there were of buildings non-Gothic, Holyrood Palace, the Royal Academy, the Royal Institution on the Mound, the Register Office, the University, Heriot's Hospital, the Advocates' Library, and the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. There was scarcely anything Gothic there, except that unfortunate monument to Sir Walter Scott, to be respected on account of the character of the man to whose memory it was raised, Now, he would advert to Dublin, and hero he must appeal to the Irish Members. No city contained handsomer buildings for its size than Dublin, and no country produced abler architects than Ireland. In Dublin there was the Bank of Ireland, the Custom House, the Four Courts, Trinity College, the Post Office, and the Rotunda. These buildings were not in that monotonous style which his noble Friend advocated. They were none of them Gothic, though all different in their character, and were all extremely handsome. Cambridge had, not in the Gothic style, the Fitzwilliam Museum, the Observatory, and several colleges. Then let the House take the case of Manchaster. There was the Free Trade Hall, the Royal Institution, the Athenaeum, the Exchange, the Commercial Rooms, and the Museum, not in the Gothic style. At Liverpool there were of non-Gothic buildings, St. George's Hall—that beautiful structure—the Exchange, the Custom House, and the Town Hall—all classic in their design. At Oxford, which was supposed to be in favour of this Gothic style, the Queen's College, the Radcliffe Library, the Theatre, the Museum, the Printing House, and the Observatory, were not Gothic. It would be endless to go on quoting, and he thought he had stated enough to prove that it was not true to say that the Gothic style was natural here either by original invention or existing examples. Then, what was the testimony in favour of the Gothic style with respect to the particular building now in question? The opinion of those who belonged to the Foreign Office showed that much was to be said against the Gothic style as regarded the internal arrangements; and with respect to the external appearance, what was the opinion of the architects who were invited to the competition? He believed that of the plans sent in in competition there were 200 plans in styles not Gothic, and only thirty in the Gothic. That was a strong proof that the great majority of the architects were of opinion that the Gothic was not a style adapted for the purposes of the building. The model which Mr. Scott had exhibited was, no doubt, the result of very much labour, and if that labour should be thrown away it was only those who set Mr. Scott to work without any sufficient authority who would be to blame. He (Viscount Palmerston) regretted that that labour should be thrown away—it would be very unfortunate for him, but it was no fault of his (Viscount Palmers-ton). Nevertheless his opinion was that Mr. Scott, like any other clever architect, would be able to construct a different building for the ground plan, and he did not see that there was such a necessary connection between Mr. Scott and the Gothic style that the Government should be prevented from inviting him to endeavour to design his elevation on a different plan. He agreed in thinking that the expense calculated for this building was enormous. He was in Paris last summer, and Count Walewski showed him the Foreign Office there, which was a magnificent building, containing sumptuous rooms, and he was told that it cost, everything included, what he thought a very large sum—about £300,000, in English money. But this building of Mr. Scott's would cost more than that, and if the India Department was to form part of the same bulk, the House, by sanctioning the plan, would be embarking in an expenditure very little short of £1,000,000, and for the money they would have got a frightful and disagreeable looking building. The best course for the Government to pursue was to employ the time between this and the meeting of next Session in endeavouring to prepare some plan which he trusted would be les3 expensive, equally convenient, and which might probably provide accommodation for three departments instead of two—namely, the Colonial, Foreign, and Indian. Though there were reasons why a residence in the building for the Foreign Secretary would be desirable, still it was to be doubted whether those reasons were strong enough to induce the House to embark in this great expenditure. Reception-rooms there must be, and they would be available for other official purposes. If it were contrived to combine the three offices in one bulk of buildings, and if they were constructed on a scale of expenditure less than that which had been calculated for Mr. Scott's design, he thought the House of Commons would not regret the delay rendered necessary to attain that result. He repeated the assurance that no settlement would be made, because none could be made, with respect to the commencement of the erection of any building, until another Vote should be granted by Parliament.

said, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had impugned the conduct which he had thought it his duty to pursue, and he trusted, therefore, that the Committee would allow him to explain the reasons by which he had been actuated. Last autumn it became his duty to make up his mind on the subject and advise the Government. He invited the opinion of the Committee sitting on the subject as to the style and the architect; but they declined to give an opinion on either, holding that it was the duty of the Executive Government to adopt the responsibility. And he (Lord John Manners) acted accordingly. The noble Lord now said he did wrong, and had incurred an improper responsibility after the decision of the Committee.

NO; after the discussion in the House.

Why, the preliminary steps were taken before the discussion in the House; but when the noble Lord talked about the discussions in that House, he asked what he meant by "discussions in that House?" He remembered the noble Lord calling Mr. Scott a monomaniac, and making a dashing, rattling sort of speech, which the House cheered and laughed at. But he would remind the noble Lord that a subsequent discussion had taken place in the House, and he would ask the noble Lord whether on this second occasion the opinion of the House was expressed in anything like the same sense? He (Lord John Manners) ventured to say that those who advocated the Gothic style of architecture had really the best of it. But how could the noble Lord talk of the result of discussions in that House when no vote was taken and no decision was challenged? He (Lord John Manners) had stated openly and frankly that he intended in this case to act upon the suggestions which were thrown out last year by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) with respect to the Vote for the house of our Ambassador at Paris—namely, to invite tenders from builders of eminence, and the House having given a tacit sanction to that proposal, it was too late for the noble Lord now to come forward and say that he (Lord John Manners) had assumed undue responsibility in taking the steps which had brought the question into its present position. But if he had assumed an unwise responsibility in adopting a course that had been tacitly sanctioned by the House, what would be thought of the noble Lord, who, unless he was greatly belied by rumour, had actually given instructions to the architect to prepare new designs in a different stylo without having in any way whatever communicated his intentions to the House? If the noble Lord would inform the House that he had not directed Mr. Scott to prepare designs in a different style of architecture, he (Lord John Manners) would at once withdraw the statement; but if the noble Lord had given such instructions, what became of his accusations against him? The noble Lord had given the House a catalogue of buildings in different styles of architecture, not Gothic, which had been erected in this metropolis and in different towns throughout England during the last century and a half. Of many of those buildings he wished the noble Lord joy. Of the ridiculous failure in the case of the National Gallery, the noble Lord bad interpolated an explanation very suggestive on the present occasion. He attributed the failure of that building to the interference with the plans of the architect by a noble Lord who held high office, and he warned the House not to allow a noble Lord high in office to interfere with the plans now under discussion. They might depend upon it that such interference would only lead to a similarly ridiculous failure, and the noble Lord would go down to posterity not only as the approver of the bridge in St. James's Park, but as reponsible for the building of the new Foreign Office. The noble Lord who had said that Mr. Scott was a monomaniac, now said that he was very eminent in his profession, and he had no doubt could erect a building in the Italian style quite as well as in the Gothic. But if a man had obtained a world-wide reputation for his success in one style of architecture, would any one in his senses give that man a commission to execute a work in an entirely different style? Would any man in his senses commission Sir Edwin Landseer, who was renowned for his paintings of animals, to execute a picture of the Holy Family? He did not think it had been clearly stated whether the erection of the India Office was to stand over for future consideration. [Viscount PAL-MERSTON: Of course.] Then in that case he had no objection to the course proposed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord seemed to think that he could erect a Foreign Office, an India Office, and a Colonial Office in the Italian style of architecture for a less sum than the Foreign Office and the India Office, without the Colonial, would cost if they were erected in the Gothic style; but he believed that, upon reflection, the noble Lord would be disposed to modify his views in that respect. Having looked carefully into the subject, he (Lord John Manners) was not at all prepared to admit that there was any necessity for a new Colonial Office at all, for he believed that all the requirements of the Colonial Office might be provided for in Pembroke House, when it was vacated by the department of the War Office which now occupied it. Now, as to the expense, the noble Lord had referred to St. George's Hall at Liverpool; but that building cost between £300,000 and £400,000. Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of the Board of Works, estimated the cost of executing the first prize design at £208,000; and the expense of an official residence to be attached to the building was estimated by the architects at £154,000; together £362,000. The cost of carrying out the second prize design, without an official residence, was calculated by Mr. Hunt at £217,000, and the architects, Messrs. Banks and Barry, estimated the additional expense for an official residence at£100,000; together £317,000. He understood, from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the design of Mr. Scott for a Foreign Office, and an official residence would amount to about £285,000. It appeared, therefore, that either of the first two prize designs would cost far more than the amended, improved, and admirable design which was now the subject of discussion. The noble Lord had professed ignorance of the existence of any increasing feeling in the country in favour of the adoption of Gothic architecture for civil edifices. Well, he (Lord John Manners) had never heard that the gentlemen of Manchester were Mediaevalists or Jesuits, or that they were fond of spending money in unnecessary ornament; but he understood that in that city, out of seventy designs sent in for a building which was intended purely for civil and municipal purposes, the design selected for the first prize, and which he understood it was intended to carry out—was Gothic. He did not think, either, that the citizens of Hamburg—a very business-like community and very Protestant in its opinions—were disposed to spend money for unnecessary ornament; but all the architects of the world having been invited to send in plans for a great public building in that city, the design of Mr. Gilbert Scott—the architect whose plan was now under discussion—for an edifice in the Gothic style has obtained the first prize and was selected for execution. He entertained great respect for the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), but, after the speeches he had heard him deliver on this subject, he would be extremely sorry to obey his edicts in matters of taste. Hon. Gentlemen had had an opportunity of examining Mr. Scott's designs. The noble Lord said that, in his opinion, a building erected according to these designs would be a positive disfigurement to London, and he even applied to it the epithet "frightful." It would be "a frightful disfigure- ment" to this beautiful and glorious metropolis! After this dictum, and the unqualified praise lavished on the bridge in St. Jame's Park, he must appeal to hon. Gentlemen whether they would permit the noble Lord to become a Pope on this subject. He appealed to the common sense of the Committee to reject the authority of the noble Lord on this question. He was quite ready to admit the noble Lord's claim to supremacy in matters relating to great affairs of State, whether domestic or foreign; for, with respect to foreign affairs, he never by any accident got the country into a scrape; but he hoped the noble Lord would allow the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Works to settle the matters pertaining to his department in his own way, and that he would not of his own mere motion give orders which might lead to increased expenditure without the knowledge of the House of Commons, and, as far as he (Lord John Manners) knew, without the sanction of his responsible colleagues. He believed that the course adopted by the noble Lord could only lead to increased expenditure, to certain failure, and to great individual wrong. If the House of Commons were blindly to say that whatever the noble Lord advised, whether as to taste or expense, should be put in hand, the House might as well give up talking about science and art and the beantification of the metropolis; and they would have national galleries and public buildings erected to the disgust, sorrow, and astonishment of the nation. Upon the understanding that nothing would be done with respect either to the Foreign Office or the India Office before Parliament reassembled that would in any way compromise that House, he would offer no opposition to the Vote.

said, he was not about to enter into the vexed question as to whether the Gothic or any other style of architecture was best suited for public buildings, but, having examined Mr. Scott's plans in all their details, he must say that they appeared to him to carry out completely the intentions of the House. The noble Lord at the head of the Government first, and afterwards the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), had objected to a Gothic building on the ground that it did not afford the same facilities for lighting and ventilation as an edifice in the classical style. On this point he had examined the plan of Mr. Scott in detail; and he could assure the Committee that the system of ventilation proposed by Mr. Scott, and which he was perfectly able to carry out, was as perfect as for any building that he ever saw erected; and as for the light he thought it was rather overdone than otherwise. Mr. Scott was at the head of his art in Europe, and he (Sir Joseph Paxton) said, that the building he had designed was a beautiful building. He did not say that he would always prefer a large mass of buildings put up in the Gothic style; but in the spot proposed he thought the intended building would be beautiful. As we came down Parliament-street we had a variety of styles. There was the Board of Trade, then there would be this building of Mr. Scott's; he presumed there would be another building of a style analogous to the Board of Trade, and then we came to the Houses of Parliament. He thought Mr. Scott's design had been a little unfairly treated; and that before it was rejected a stronger opinion should be given in this House than had been hitherto expressed. As to the expense he thought the amount would be about the same one way or the other; and he thought the question would turn on the convenient adaptation of the offices to their intended purposes.

said they were going to vote £30,000, the greater part of which was to be laid out on the foundation of the building. He thought it very questionable whether they ought to lay out so much money on what was admitted to be a moveable peat bog. They ought also to decide on the general outline of the buildings that were to be erected before they laid out so much money on the foundation.

said, the discussion which had taken place had been so far satisfactory that they had ascertained that the architect of the new building was to be Mr. Scott, and he was glad that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton), who was himself one of the competitors and carried off a prize, had expressed himself so strongly in favour of Mr. Scott's design. With regard to the other main objection to the building that the style was unsuited in its architecture to the purposes of a public building, that had been met. The objection as to cost had also been met by the hon. Members for Coventry and Leicestershire. The former, a practical man, had told them that as regarded ventilation and light the proposed building was all that could be desired.

controverted the assertion that Gothic architecture was be- coming prevalent through the country. He thought on the contrary that the failure of the attempt at the revival of Gothic architecture had caused a reaction. He looked upon architecture as the expression of the ecclesiastical spirit, to which he for one was strongly opposed, and which he believed to be opposed to liberty and the true interests and prosperity of a Protestant country.

observed, that Dr. Newman had been called upon to decide upon the design for a new building in Dublin which was intended for the Jesuits, and he said that the Gothic style was not so much in accordance with the real Ultramontane spirit as the Italian style.

said, that on entering on his duties he found in the office a plan, prepared under the sanction of his predecessor, for cleansing the Serpentine; but it would have involved a large expenditure, and appeared to be based on an estimate not very accurate, and to contain a proposition which was not likely to be agreeable to public opinion. It proposed to form an island in the Serpentine, which he thought would destroy the beauty of that piece of water? But if this plan were set aside, what was the alternative? He felt personally anxious to carry into effect some plan for cleansing the Serpentine, and he obtained an estimate for such a system of cleansing as had been so successfully adopted with respect to the ornamental water in St. James's Park. He found, however, that it would be impossible to apply that system to the Serpentine at a less expense than between £50,000 and £60,000. Having consulted several competent persons on the subject, he obtained from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a small sum in order to obtain the professional assistance of eminent engineers. He had obtained the assistance of Mr. Hawksley, an engineer of established reputation, who had submitted to him a plan which had been approved by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir S. M. Peto) and Mr. Stephenson, the eminent engineer, as safe, practical, and economical. Mr. Hawksley said,—

"I propose to establish at the head of the Serpentine, in such manner as to be no detriment to its beauty, a proper filtering apparatus, similar in most particulars to those used by waterworks companies, and to draw from the lower end of the lake, by means of a small concealed steam-engine and pipe, about 2,000,000 gallons of water daily, which quantity of water, after passing through the filter-bed, would fall in a perfectly pellucid cascade into the lake at its head. By these means the whole volume of the water of the Serpentine would be passed through the apparatus once in every month, and be thereby rendered not merely perfectly free from all floating matter, but also perfectly clear and colourless. If small quantities of quick lime were also occasionally scattered along the shallow margins of the lake to destroy the conferva adhering to the pebbles of the beach, all grounds of just complaint against the condition of the water would be effectually removed."

It was computed, on a liberal estimate, that the expense of this plan would not exceed £16,500, for which amount it was believed that the proposed works could be successfully completed by the commencement of next May.

said, he should support the Vote. He thought, however, that the formation of the proposed island, according to his plan, would have added to the beauty of the river.

asked, whether the sewer was to be diverted from the river.

replied in the negative. To accomplish this would cause an extra expenditure of £24,000. The sewer would present no difficulty under the filtering plan.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government are prepared to carry into effect the recommen lations of the late board of Admiralty respecting the treatment of Catholic Sailors in the Royal Navy?

said, that strictly speaking no recommendation on the part of the late Board of Admiralty had been left with their successors. There existed a letter from the late First Lord (Sir John Pakington) to Lord Derby, in answer to a memorandum to which no signature was affixed. The memorandum asked for further facilities for Roman Catholic worship in the fleet, in the hospitals, and other establishments connected with the navy; and it had been answered by certain remarks of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) to Lord Derby in which it was distinctly stated that the opinion of the Board of Admiralty had not been taken on the question. Consequently the Government had no knowledge of any proceedings having been taken by their predecessors with the view of giving further facilities for Roman Catholic worship. He could therefore only state to the hon. Gentleman that the present Board of Admiralty were most anxious, wherever they could do so consistently with the discipline of the Navy, to afford proper facilities of that nature to Roman Catholics and members of other sects dissenting from the Church of England.

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the House a matter which affects their privileges—and I intend to finish the observations which I have to make with a Motion relating to that subject. Sir, it will be in the recollection of the House, that a Petition was presented against the return of the hon. Member for Bodmin. It will also be in the recollection of the House that that Petition has been withdrawn. Now, Sir, it has come to my knowledge, and I believe that what I am now about to state is perfectly accurate and true, that the hon. Member for Bodmin, having been charged with bribery, and corruption, and treating, has agreed to a compromise that he shall, at the end of the Session, in consideration of the withdrawal of that Petition, retire from the seat which he now holds in this House—that he shall thereupon apply for, and receive the Chiltern Hundreds—that that shall cause his retirement—that in consideration of his so doing, the persons presenting the Petition shall withdraw that Petition. Now, Sir, it seems to me that this is what I have been accustomed to call a corrupt compromise, that an hon. Gentleman having acquired by improper means the power of sitting in this House, that by improper means having acquired that power, he allows a Petition so charging him to be presented to the House, he enters into, all the requisite forms for the purpose of meeting that Petition, and at the last moment he retires because he is afraid that the statements contained in that Petition may be verified before a Committee of this House. Now, Sir, a person doing this, I say, does that which clearly impugns and weakens the privileges of this House. It weakens this House in its character before the people, and after the scenes which we have recently beheld of corruption sown broadcast over the country, not by one, not by two or by three, but I think by a dozen; after that, I say, it behoves this House to be careful what it does, so that it does not by its sanction lend authority and aid to persons pursuing these nefarious practices. And now, Sir, I appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. I told the noble Lord some nights ago that these practices would lead to the very consequences which I am now describing, namely, that Gentlemen who are charged with corruption would vacate their seats upon the understanding that they should apply to the Government for the Chiltern Hundreds; that they should receive the Chiltern Hundreds from the Government, and thus escape the punishment which is due to their misdeeds by this House. Sir, I appeal to the noble Lord now as I appealed to him then. I warned him of what was about to happen, I told him that such things would occur, and I believe that he agreed with me in thinking that such practices ought not to be sanctioned by this House. If this House would govern the country, they must uphold their character before the people. That character I am bound to say has been materially shaken by the abominal scenes which have of late been disclosed before the Election Committees of this House. The hon. Member for Bodmin by retiring in this manner would cast a veil over the misdeeds of which I have a right to assume that he has been guilty. But when a man has been guilty of such misdeeds, it behoves this House to punish them as they deserve to be punished, and to fix upon the back of that man the iron brand of this House, which would make him utterly unfit to sit in this House again. Sir, I took upon myself to say on a late occasion that the Committees of this House had dealt very tenderly with persons in this position; and, Sir, I may be met now with some apt adept in satire, who will accuseme of all sorts of misdeeds because I endeavour to lay bare the misdeeds of others; but I am not to be terrified by any such mode of proceeding. What I think for the honour and the dignity of this House I will do, and I think it for the honour and the dignity of this House that we should take precautions and throw obstacles in the way of men who make corrupt compromises. Therefore it is, Sir, and from no mistrust of the noble Lord, but rather to put an arm into his hands, that I now move that this House pass this Resolution.

I beg to second the Motion.

Sir, I know nothing of this case; I merely rise for the purpose of asking the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield whether he has given notice to the hon. Member for Bodmin of his intention to make this Motion?

I have.

Sir, I apprehend that there can be no difference of opinion between the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself in regard to the principle contained in the Motion which he has made; that is to say, I quite agree with him that if any Member of this House is charged in a distinct and substantive manner, with such practices as those to which the Motion relates it would be perfectly unbecoming in a Minister of the Crown to enable that Member to evade the investigation, and the necessary condemnation of a Committee of this House appointed to inquire into the matter by giving him the Chiltern Hundreds or any other office that would vacate his seat. Therefore, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that we are perfectly agreed as to the principle of the Motion which he has made. But with regard to the application of that principle and the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to apply it, I must beg to submit to the House that it does not appear to me that at present the hon. and learned Gentleman has laid any sufficient ground for calling upon the House to affirm a general Resolution such as he has proposed. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had intended to point this Resolution to the hon. Member for Bodmin, I apprehend that the course which he would naturally have pursued, and which he ought to have pursued, the common practice would have been to have informed the hon. Member for Bodmin that he intended to make this Motion.

I have done so.

Then it was the duty undoubtedly of the hon. Member for Bodmin to have attended in his place if he were aware and had received timely notice that it was the intention of any hon. Member to charge him publicly in this House with a corrupt compromise in regard to his election. I apprehend that if the hon. Member for Bodmin had been in his place the proper course would have been for the hon. and learned Gentleman to have asked him to have stated that he had good reason to believe that the hon. Member for Bodmin had made such a corrupt compromises and to have asked him whether he acknowledged or disavowed the charge; and thereupon, according to the answer of the hon. Member for Bodmin the House would have dealt with the matter. But I should conceive that in any case the course which the House would have followed would have been much the same course as that which was pursued some years ago in similar cases upon the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, that is to say, that a Committee would have been appointed to inquire into the case, to ascertain whether or not the Member charged had made a corrupt compromise for the withdrawal of the Petition against him; and undoubtedly, pending that inquiry, it would have been perfectly impossible for the Government to have assisted the Member who was so charged in evading the result of the inquiry by affording him the means of vacating his seat. I should, however, submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House, that in the present stage of the proceeding he has not laid with sufficient precision any ground for such a general Resolution as that which he now proposes, which indeed would leave the Government very much embarrassed as to its application, as to whom to apply it, how they were to ascertain that a Member had been charged, by whom he had been charged, and upon what ground he had been charged. And, therefore, I would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should to-morrow request the hon. Member for Bodmin to appear in his place in this House, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman should then distinctly ask the hon. Member for Bodmin whether he admitted or denied the charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman has no doubt distinct grounds for believing in the truth of the charge, and if it appeared to him that he had sufficient primâ facie ground for his belief, he would put it to the House whether they would appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter. I hope the hon. and learned Member will see the propriety of adopting the course which I have pointed out. Perhaps I might say that of course the Chiltern Hundreds are not given at this moment, and will not be given under the circumstances if the hon. Member for Bodmin should ask for them.

I do not apprehend, Sir, that this Motion is levelled against any individual; at least I should be unwilling, on whatever side of the House the hon. Member sat, to go into the subject upon any such ground. Important considerations are involved in this Motion, and I shall address myself to them, I trust, with a temper befitting their serious character, and totally independent of party feeling. Perhaps, however, I shall not be thought to go out of my way if I remind the House of the observations made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government on a former occasion with respect to some supposed levity of tone I had assumed, and warning me that before any long time elapsed I should have cause to change my tone. I can only say that whatever may happen as the result of the election petitions, I do not think they are of a character, at all events up to this time, to cause humiliation to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I am unwilling to dwell upon this subject further on the present occasion; but I think that it will become this House, for the sake of its own character, and the influence which it ought to have in the country, not in any way to attempt to evade these questions. I have no doubt that the Committees, to whom the duty of investigating these Election Petitions has been entrusted, have discharged their duties faithfully so far as the investigation of these questions is concerned, but I do think, and I am sure I speak the sentiments of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House with whom I have had opportunities of conferring, and they have been many, that it is of the utmost importance to allow no Petition of a serious nature presented to this House to escape investigation. No doubt some of these Petitions have been presented without due cause, and which, if they were inquired into, would be found to be frivolous and vexatious; but if this were to happen, if a Gentleman is petitioned against on account of corrupt practices, if we find that the Petition against him was withdrawn, if by a curious coincidence we find that the Member who has been so petitioned against, and the Petition against whom is so withdrawn shall afterwards apply to the Minister for either of these offices to which the Motion of the hon. and learned Member refers, then I think that the result of such a case not being inquired into will have the worst effects, and will produce upon the public mind an effect which all who are anxious for the honour of the House will severely deprecate. Now, Sir, I did not clearly understand the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, as to be able to decide how far it goes, as to whether it was a question of privilege, and of course we must be scrupulous in providing that a Resolution of this nature should meet the evils with which we have to cope. I agree, however, with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the spirit of his Resolution. I think it will be becoming in this House to adopt some such Resolution as that which has been proposed to us, and to act with the greatest decision in all cases of this kind, when they are brought before us. In my opinion we ought to pursue the investigation in many of the boroughs respecting which the Election Committees have already decided. Of course I am not at all questioning the justice of the decision of these Committees. I believe that their decisions were perfectly just as far as they were authorized by law to inquire into them; but in the exercise of its discretion this House, in concert with the other House of Parliament, has power to institute a further investigation in every case where it thinks such a proceeding necessary. I must confess that I voted for the issue of a new writ for the Borough of Dartmouth the other night with great hesitation, but after the Chairman of the Committee had risen in his place and stated with all that authority that belongs to him as Chairman of the Committee, that no evidence of general corruption had been offered, and that the evidence of bribery was of a partial character, I certainly felt that I was not justified in voting that the writ should be withheld. I look upon all these cases with the greatest suspicion, and I should be in favour of suspending the issue of the writ in all cases till an investigation takes place. Most of all, I think we ought to de- termine that no steps shall be taken to facilitate the carrying out of a corrupt compact between a Member and those who have petitioned against his return; that the Crown shall not be made a party to a corrupt contract, for it comes to that, but that in all cases of suspicion an investigation shall take place, and the matter shall be brought to a decision. For my part, I do not see that we can take any step that is better calculated to prevent corrupt practices at elections than by facilitating investigation as much as possible in Committees of this House, and by preventing any steps—by preventing by all means the possibility of evading this investigation, by the Crown granting applications for the Chiltern Hundreds. We have now the express assurance of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that in the present case he will not afford facilities for this mode of escape; but we require something more. The House has two modes of action. It can address the Crown to issue a Commission in flagrant cases where information has been withheld, and at the same time we can express our opinion that the Ministry should not open a door by which disclosures may be prevented. Sir, I am very glad that this subject has been brought before the House; it would have been to the disgrace of the House if it had been left unnoticed, and although the Session is waning fast, I hope that something will be done. I am not surprised that the subject should be brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, for I remember that in 1841 the hon. and learned Gentleman experienced no difficulty in a matter, which in no material respect differs from that with which he is at present dealing, and which he prosecuted to a successful issue. I apprehend that without any unnecessary delay the House ought to come to some such Resolution as that which has been proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in debating his Resolution whenever he may submit it. In my opinion such a course is absolutely necessary in order to sustain the character and honour of the case, and therefore I hope that the subject will be dealt with before the Prorogation.

Sir, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has adhered very successfully to the pledge which he gave the House at the commencement of his speech, that he would be very careful to avoid all party allusions; but I shall not enter into any criticism of that part of his speech, because with the general political principles of the right hon. Gentleman I can have no right to quarrel. But, Sir, I happen to be the person most immediately interested in the Resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, and therefore, I will venture to say one word on the question, inasmuch as the power at which the Resolution aims is immediately vested in my hands. Now the power of conferring the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and the other offices of the same class mentioned in the Resolution, constitutes the only patronage I may say that belongs to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but although it is the only patronage, I am bound at the same time to add that I do not in the slightest degree resent this attempt at interference with it on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because it is in fact a rather difficult office, it is a very delicate office which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to execute, inasmuch as the party making application for these appointments is not required to urge any reasons; nor have we any right to expect that when Members apply for the Chiltern Hundreds they should make any statement of the Motives or circumstances under which the application is made; so that if there is anything likely to create scandal in the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be held responsible for allowing him. But, Sir, I do not think that there is at the present moment any cause for a Resolution such as that which has been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman, because it happens, as far as there is a precedent upon this particular subject, that we have an undoubted precedent and a rule that in all future times will guide the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1842 the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, from the most patriotic motives, and likewise having a good cause, made a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into certain corrupt compromises, that were alleged to have taken place in the case of Election Petitions. After the appointment of that Committee one of the Gentlemen who was charged with corrupt practices made application to Mr. Goulburn, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the Chiltern Hundreds, and Mr. Goulburn replied by letter—and the letter, by the way, was moved for by my noble Friend now at the head of the Government, and laid before the House—that under ordinary circumstances he would have had no hesitation in granting his request, but that inasmuch as the House of Commons had appointed a Committee to inquire into the case of the compromises which were admitted to have been entered into, he could not, under these circumstance, accede to his request; that he should not feel justified in relying upon the discretion vested in him, and granting the application for the Chiltern Hundreds. Now the present case differs from that in two important particulars. In the first place there was the admission of the party himself, that he had entered into such a compromise, and in the second place the general question had been entertained by the House, and the House had adopted the Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into these corrupt compromises. It was an easy matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide under those circum stances that he could not grant the application; but with respect to my own idea of my duty in such a case, it goes undoubtedly a little beyond what was stated by Mr. Goulburn. I think that no Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to grant an application of this kind where there is primâ facie evidence, though it might be less than occurred in that case where there was a confession by the party who had some indirect or second interest in the application. If an hon. Gentleman—suppose the honourable and learned Gentleman himself—rises in his place and states that he has reason to know, or good reason to believe, that some corrupt compromise has been entered into, that there have been corrupt proceedings, I think it will be most improper that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be blind to the fact, and that he should give the Gentleman against whom these allegations are brought the means of evading them, but that he should postpone his application till the question is brought to an issue either one way or the other. Now, if the House chooses to lay down by its Resolution a distinct rule upon this question, it will undoubtedly be a great assistance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the discharge of his duties; but all I ask in that case is, that the rule should be very distinct, and that the terms of the rule should not be equivocal. It would not be enough to say that a person is charged with corrupt practices of some kind or other, but he must be distinctly charged in some responsible manner, so that there might be a fair primâ facie case—those charges must be made in a distinct and tangible form as the only ground for withholding the application.

I will tell the House exactly what I have done. Now, mark! A Petition—a very solemn proceeding—distinctly charges an hon. Member with corrupt practices for the purpose of securing his election. It charges him with bribery, corruption, and treating: that is the first step. The next is, that after steps have been taken to try that Petition, the Member so charged retires. Now, those are two things.

The Member has not retired.

The Petition is withdrawn ["No, no!"] Wait a moment. The Petition is withdrawn, and then a Member of this House gets up in his place and says, "I have good reason to believe that a corrupt compromise has been entered into between the sitting Member and the persons who presented that Petition." Sir, that is what I state now. I do believe that a corrupt compromise has been entered into between Dr. Michell and the persons who presented this Petition. Well, now, those are the steps. Well, now, if at the end of the Session the hon. Member for Bodmin comes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asks him to grant him the office of the Chiltern Hundreds, have we not here the nail driven right home? Can there be a man who can doubt that a corrupt compromise, which I say I believe to have been entered into, has been entered into? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer get up in his place and say that he believes that? Oh! I know he will say that he has no belief in the matter. But, Sir, I say that there is not one man in this House who when he goes home and talks over these matters with his friends will not say that he believes every word that I have said on the present occasion to be true. Well, then, Sir, I want to know whether it is not the duty of this House to throw every possible obstruction in the way of such a proceeding. What harm can happen if the matter is inquired into? Docs the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe that men go to the expense of getting up a Petition and afterwards withdraw it, and then that the Member applies for the Chiltern Hundreds without some consideration? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe that any innocent man would be placed in a position of difficulty by such a course of proceeding? But, Sir, it is like the rest of our proceedings; they are a sham; from the beginning to the end they are dust thrown in the eyes of the public. When we go home and talk the matter over among our friends we shall admit that all this is done with a view to deceive the public. Sir, I shall leave this matter in the hands of the House. I, for one, tell you that your proceedings in the matter are a sham. You are aiming at throwing dust in the eyes of the public, and I leave the case in the hands of the House.

Sir, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a right to assume that in this case there has been a corrupt compromise, and that our proceedings are a sham, because we do not happen to agree in his mode of treating the subject. All we want is, that the fact should be established before we either punish the delinquent or take measures which imply guilt. The hon. and learned Gentleman states it to be his belief that a corrupt compromise has been entered into in the case of Bodmin, and thereupon he proposes a resolution which assumes the whole case. He takes up the matter contained in the Petition, and then assumes that the charges which it contains are true. I trust that the House will look to the course that it took in 1842 on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member himself, and he sought to establish the facts of the case by means of a parliamentary inquiry. In that case also it must be remembered that the Members against whom the inquiries were directed were present in the House; the charges were stated to them; some declined to answer the interrogatories which were addressed to them, while others denied the charge; and upon these grounds it was, in a great measure, that the House proceeded to act, and a Committee of inquiry was appointed. Now, in the present case the hon. Gentleman who represents Bodmin is clearly not in the House, or he would have risen before this, and have taken part in the discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, that he gave the hon. Member for Bodmin notice that he would bring the matter forward today. Whether the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed him a letter saying that he intended to bring the matter forward to-day we do not know. No doubt if the hon. Member for Bodmin—[Mr. ROEBUCK: I wrote a letter to him.] Well, notwithstanding that, we cannot be aware that that letter was received. The hon. Gentleman may be out of town and may not have received the letter, but we have no evidence at this moment that the hon. Member has had notice of it. Your predecessor, Sir, laid down this rule, that if a Member of this House was charged with conduct amounting to a breach of privilege, the proper course to take, if he were not present, was that he should be ordered to attend in his place, and the charges being made in his presence, that he should have an opportunity of denying them. That is the course which I think we ought to adopt in this case, and it is a course the adoption of which common fairness would suggest. The delay of a day or two is all that is involved, and it is all important to the ends of justice that this course should be taken. Under these circumstances I hope therefore that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consent to withdraw his Motion. In addition to this, I think that much might be said against the Motion itself, because it imposes upon Her Majesty's Government a duty which they have no means of discharging. How is the Government to know the facts in each case? In the present case the hon. Member for Bodmin, it must be borne in mind, has made no application to the Government for the Chiltern Hundreds. All we know with respect to the matter is, that the petitioners in this place have availed themselves of the privilege which the law allows them, and to which it gives a direct sanction, namely, that of withdrawing their Petition, which, for all the Government know, may have been a very honest proceeding. The Petition has been withdrawn. That may have been done as part of the corrupt compact which is alleged; but how is any Government to know the fact? If the hon. Member for Bodmin were now to make an application to the Government for the Chiltern Hundreds, the House has the direct assurance of my noble Friend at the head of the Government, that it will not be granted. But suppose for a moment that no proceedings had been taken in this case, how is the Government to know that the Petition has been withdrawn in consequence of a corrupt agreement between the hon. Member and the petitioners. All we want is some proof of the facts, and that I submit to the House can only be ascertained by a Committee. It is quite clear that some proof of the real facts of the case should be furnished before further proceedings are taken. Sir, under these circumstances, if the hon. and learned Member do not withdraw his Motion, I shall move that the debate be adjourned.

I think, Sir, that the right hon. Baronet has somewhat misconceived the grounds on which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has brought forward this Motion. If the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman were directed against the hon. Member for Bodmin, then I apprehend that the House could not advance a single step in the matter until we were satisfied that the hon. Member had received due notice of the intention to bring forward such a charge. I, however, do not understand that that is really the question before the House. What I do understand is this: the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield says, that it is his belief that the hon. Member for Bodmin is about to apply to the Government for the Chiltern Hundreds in consequence of the withdrawal of a certain Petition before the House, and that it is necessary that the House, if it would not be baffled in its inquiry into such subjects, should lay down some general rule applicable to such cases as that to which he has adverted. Now, Sir, I confess that I was much struck with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in 1842 you had Members present in the House; a number of Gentlemen who in their places did not deny the charges that were brought against them, and that a Committee was appointed for the purpose of investigating the subject. That was of course a clear case, and it was one in which the Government could act. But then the right hon. Gentleman says, I am inclined to go further. Even if there be not a Committee granted, still if an hon. Member rises in his place, and makes a charge against another to the effect that the Petition has been presented and withdrawn, and that one of the parties implicated in that Petition is charged with asking for the Chiltern Hundreds, a primâ facie case for inquiry is made out, that if an hon. Member rises in his place and makes a charge against another, that ought to be enough to stay the hand of the Government till the charge has been investigated. Now, Sir, I ask the House whether it would not be possible to take a still further step, and one that would be still more unambiguous, and that would still more meet the case before the House. At present I do not say whether the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield will meet the case or not, but if you have got charges in a Petition of corrupt practices against a Member; if when you are proceeding to deal with that Petition it be withdrawn, and the Member afterwards make application for the Chiltern Hundreds, then I think that is a primâ facie for inquiry without anything more. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman talks of the Government having no power to institute inquiry. I quite agree with him. I apprehend that the House has no intention of delegating its power into the hands of the Government in such a case. But what we ask is, that pending the primâ facie case for inquiry the Government should not by any act of its own enable the Member to evade inquiry; and that it should not make any appointment which may be irrevocable, and I must say that when a Petition is withdrawn and the Member applies for the Chiltern Hundreds, the Government must wink very hard indeed if it does not say that that is a primâ facie case for inquiry. It may be explained; but it requires explanation, and what we ask is, that the Government shall hold its hand till the House decides whether or no an inquiry ought to be had. Sir, in conclusion I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should withdraw the Resolution which he has proposed, and bring forward, upon a future occasion a Resolution of the character which I have suggested.

My Resolution does not touch any particular seat.

No; it does not touch any particular seat.

Sir, I think that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield ought to be satisfied with the adjournment of the debate if he is not satisfied with the assurance which the House has received from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. and learned Gentleman has had all he could wish for in the assurance that in this and all similar cases the Chiltern Hundreds will not be granted. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated that this question is a general question. I agree that it is a general question, but in substance it is a personal question. The name of an hon. Member of this House has been stated. Notice has been sent to him that this mat- ter would be brought before the House, and it is but justice to that hon. Member that the House should be assured that that notice has been received by him. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has stated that that notice was sent by him to the hon. Member for Bodmin, but there is no proof that the hon. Member for Bodmin has received that notice; and I think it is but fair, under these circumstances, that we should not come to any resolution to-night upon the subject.

Sir, no hon. Gentleman in this House—not one—would suggest that we should proceed judicially; that is not the question raised, and I think that the hon. and gallant Member who has just resumed his scat has somewhat misconceived the scope of the debate. No one would suggest that we should proceed judicially against any person without giving him notice of the course which it is intended should be adopted. That is not the question which has been raised, but a question of considerable importance. I would suggest that to inquire into the return of a Member to this House is not like an ordinary lawsuit between A.B. and C.D., who if they choose may at any time enter into a compromise. There is a third party to be considered in the case, and that is the House of Commons, and more particularly that large class of Members who desire not a theoretical, but a practical reform of the House, and who think that there is a considerable difference between theoretical purity and practical corruption. By the merest accident I read this morning that a Gentleman who had been unseated upon one of the strongest cases of bribery, not by himself, but by his agents, which had recently come under the consideration of a Committee, had upon a former occasion delivered a most energetic speech in favour of Parliamentary purity and Parliamentary reform. I think that the House should remember that a case might arise in which a Petition against a return might be withdrawn because the Member did not like the aspect of the times, and dreaded the ordeal of a Parliamentary Committee, and because the petitioner was satisfied with the promised retirement of his competitor at the termination of the Session, and it surely is desirable that in such a case the House should strengthen the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the effort to baffle that corrupt compromise by refusing an application for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. But the readi- est means of obtaining that object will be to pass a Resolution to the effect that whenever a Petition directly charging corrupt practices is withdrawn, and the Member charged in that Petition afterwards applies for that office, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be interdicted from assenting to the application until there shall have been an inquiry by the House. Now, I think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield will allow the matter to stand over until it can be fully considered, I believe that the House will have no difficulty in adopting a Resolution of this character. It should be borne in mind that the Motion is not directed against any particular Member, but is really intended to prevent corrupt practices, in the desire to do which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is no doubt sincere.

Sir, I do not understand that there is any very material difference now between the two sides of the House; but I would beg leave to call attention to the fact, that as far as I know there are only two precedents by which we have to guide ourselves. There is first the precedent to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, which occurred in Mr. Goulburn's time. In that case there were, with regard to some hon. Members who were charged with corrupt practices, admissions; with regard to some there was admission, and with regard to none was there denial; and there was the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole of the circumstances. It was under these circumstances that Mr. Goulburn refused to grant the application for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. There was another case which occurred when I held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was the case of Mr. Sadleir, who represented a county in Ireland, and he was the subject of a criminal charge upon which a prosecution had been instituted. I remember being asked whether I would consent to grant him the Chiltern Hundreds during the pendency of that charge, and I stated in this House that I would not grant the Chiltern Hundreds while that prosecution was pending, In point of fact, no application was ever made in the case of Mr. Sadleir, but I have a distinct recollection of having made that statement. Now, with regard to this case, there is no investigation of any kind pending or ordered by this House. There is neither admission nor denial on the part of the Gentleman on whose case this Motion is stated to be founded, because, although the hon. and learned Member for Belfast said that other charges were referred to as the ground work to form the Resolution, I do not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to more than one case. And I would make this remark. He has brought it forward as a question of privilege; if it be a question of privilege, it must refer to one case, and this Resolution appears in a regular form. I would therefore submit to the judgment of the House whether we should be called upon, without notice and without seeing the Resolution in print, to come to a general decision of this sort upon the plea that we are called upon to consider a question of privilege. The Resolution is to this effect.

"That in the opinion of this House any Minister would be guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House, who should advise the Crown to confer the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, or of the Manor of East Hendred, or of the Manor of Northstead, or of the Manor of Hempholme; or of Escheator of Munster, upon any person charged with corrupt practices at an election, and who for the purpose of evading the jurisdiction of this House, has entered into an agreement to vacate his seat upon the withdrawal of the petition, charging him with such corrupt practices."

Well, now, with regard to the present case it may be said that although a Petition has charged the hon. Member for Bodmin, and although the petitioners have exercised their undoubted right in withdrawing that Petition, whatever we may think of their motives, what knowledge have we on the subject except the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which is not substantiated by any recital of facts? How do we know that for the purpose of evading the jurisdiction of this House the hon. Member for Bodmin has entered into an agreement to vacate his seat on the withdrawal of the Petition charging him with such corrupt practices? Even if we are to assume that he made an application to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I know of no ground on which we are to say that the hon. Member for Bodmin has entered into such an agreement. I only see an allegation, unsupported by any evidence, made by another Member in his seat in Parliament, upon which the House, if it thinks fit, can direct inquiry to be made. I therefore would submit to the House, that in the present state of the case it is utterly impossible to take any course before we have proceeded to investigate the accusation upon which this general Resolution is forwarded, and that if it is desirable to come to a general Resolution, it must be defined in more accurate language than that in which it is now couched.

Sir, I trust that the House will allow me to make one or two observations, as the subject of an Election Petition is now under its consideration. It has been thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, and is well known in this House, that Petitions, although they charge corruption, are often presented without any corruption being known to exist, and without any intention on the part of their authors of proceeding with them. This is precisely what has occurred in my own case. I am not going to trouble the House with my individual grievance, but I consider myself to have been very ill-used by the presentation of a Petition against my own return. That Petition was withdrawn without my knowledge, and without my having been in any way consulted on the subject. No compromise whatever was made by me. It was altogether the act of the petitioners themselves. Now, see in what position I should be placed if the rule suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast were adopted. One injury has been done me by the presentation of the Petition, and I should have a continuance of that grievance merely by the wrongful act of the Petition having been presented, and then there would be added the deprivation of a privilege enjoyed by other Members. I do not object to the principle of suspense in granting the application in every case of a Member against whom a Petition has been presented, and withdrawn, but there should be some limit to it. Do not let it be said that a man who has been unjustly stigmatized by the presentation of a Petition against his return on the ground of corrupt practices shall be further stigmatized by a Resolution of the House declaring that he shall not be allowed to accept certain office for which other Members might at any moment successfully apply. Sir, as I said before, I do not rise for the purpose of troubling the House with my individual grievance, but I am perfectly prepared to stand any inquiry into the proceedings at my election. An investigation into my own case would give me great satisfaction.

Sir, in many of the reasons which have been stated why the House should not agree to the Resolution I concur, but there is another of some importance. I should be unwilling to assume that every case of compromise is a case of corruption. I can conceive a case in which a Member would act precisely as the hon. Member for Bodmin is alleged to have acted although he had not been guilty of any corrupt practices. A man comes into this House—a great many men can hardly tell how they get here—but a man might come into this House and might find after his return that some friends of his, in the extravagance of their zeal, or in the fierceness of the contest, have done things which are very imprudent, and which a Parliamentary Committee would not sanction, although he himself knew of them at the time of their occurrence; and such a man might not be disposed to incur the expense of an investigation before a Parliamentary Committee; for be it remembered that while some Members of the House are rich, others possess but very moderate means. Of Dr. Michell I know nothing; but if he is a man to whom the expenditure of £1,000 is a serious matter, he might think it unadvisable, although he had not himself resorted to any corrupt practices, to defend his seat—and he might further agree to resign it at the termination of the Session. This may be done without any corruption whatever, and it would therefore be impossible for the House to adopt a Resolution which would assume that all these compromises were of a corrupt character. With regard to this particular case it is not a matter in which the question who is to have the seat is much concerned. The chief question is, what shall be done with the borough? In another case there was a rumour which I will mention to the House. There is another borough in a county in the north of England. It is stated with regard to that small borough in the north, which has not the best of characters, that an apprehension was entertained by the two contending parties that it might be disfranchised if an inquiry into the proceedings at the late election were conducted before an Election Committee, and that they had therefore agreed that a Petition which had been presented against the return should be withdrawn, and that the point in dispute should be left to the arbitration of an hon. Member sitting on the Opposition side of the House, with the view of saving the character, or rather the want of character, of the constituency, and preventing their total or partial disfranchisement. Now, the object in that case was not to save the borough from the terrors of the House of Commons, which certainly no one seems to be much afraid of in cases of that nature, but to save it from the danger of being disfranchised. I think it is not reasonable to say that every Member who resigns his seat to avoid expenses should be charged with corruption. I do not think it fair that a Gentleman should be charged with a breach of the privileges of the House, because upon doubting whether he could successfully defend his seat, he thinks proper to resign it. Now, Sir, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield will consent to an adjournment of this discussion, and will not now ask us to decide upon a case of which we cannot pretend to possess any certain knowledge. I submit to the House that in no case ought we to proceed with the debate in the absence of Dr. Michell.

Sir, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham that the proposal which is now before the House would operate harshly in those cases—cases undoubtedly not uncommon—in which a Member is returned by illegal means of which he had no knowledge. There is no doubt that if this Resolution, or any other resolution of a similar character were adopted, it would not be possible for such a Member by the abandonment of his seat to escape the ordeal of a Committee of this House. But if such a case were brought before a Committee, although the seat would be lost, and the Member himself would be subject to the inconvenience and expense of an inquiry, no personal stigma would fall upon him, because the Committee who inquired into the matter would carefully distinguish between his acts and the acts of an agent for which, although he would be politically responsible he would not be responsible personally. Now, we are all agreed, I believe, as to the object to be attained, and the only question is, as to which of two modes will enable us to attain it in the most satisfactory manner. The proposal recommended by the Government, as I understand it, is that in every case in which a Petition has been presented against a sitting Member, and has been subsequently with drawn, and in which the Member has afterwards applied for the Chiltern Hundreds, we are not to assume the existence of a corrupt compromise or an intention to defeat the ends of justice, but that we are to grant the application unless some hon. Member shall take upon himself the responsibility of saying that there is aprimâ facie case of corruption, which he is in a position to substantiate. If this principle were adopted, as recommended by the Government, 99 out of every 100 cases of corrupt compromises would pass without the slightest investigation, because it is a different thing to have a conviction that a certain illegal act has been done, and to know that you would be able to prove it by legal evidence. The mode recommended by the Government appears to require something in the nature of evidence that there was a corrupt object in the arrangement. On the other hand, it is proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield that you should, without going into the case at all, assume from a certain combination of circumstances, that there was primâ facie evidence of corruption. That combination of circumstances consists of the presentation of a Petition against the return of a Member—of its subsequent withdrawal, and immediately after that withdrawal of the retirement of the Member from the seat for which he had not six months before been expending his time and money; that such a combination of circumstances affords primâ facie evidence of an intention to effect a corrupt compromise. And the hon. and learned Gentleman moreover says, and this is a point deserving of the serious consideration of the House, that if we established some general rule for preventing corrupt compromises we can offend no individual susceptibilities, while if we require special evidence in each particular case we should find that in nine instances out of ten no such evidence would be brought before us. I am prepared, however, to admit that the words of the Resolution, as it at present stands, are not satisfactory. Instead of the words "any person charged with corrupt practices at an election, and who for the purposes of evading the jurisdiction of this House has entered into an agreement," I think it would be better to insert the following words, "any Member who has been engaged in a Petition with corrupt practices, and who upon the withdrawal of such Petition has applied for any of the said offices;" we do not want to assert the existence of corruption, we only want to say that circumstances have occurred which create such a suspicion of corruption as justify the House in interfering for the purpose of preventing anything being done until the necessary inquiry into the case shall have taken place.

I would take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that in the event of his again bringing forward his Motion he should include in it all cases in which Election Petitions have been presented to this House and subsequently withdrawn. I am of opinion that the House ought to consider the subject generally, and without any reference to individual cases.

Sir, I cannot help observing that the hon. Member for Bodmin has received but scant justice from the Gentlemen upon his own side of the House. I am far from being desirous of making this a party question, but I cannot help saying that I think there is much justice in the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham upon this subject. In considering the character of the House I think we should not forget the character of the individual Members of whom the House is composed; and if a Member is charged with corrupt practices, the House ought to take care that that Member has an opportunity of defending himself before they accept that charge. The House is asked to proceed only on an assumption that the hon. Member for Bodmin has been guilty of corrupt practices. It is only an allegation and nothing more. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, and wish that the same feeling of justice prevailed on this side of the House towards a Member who has always been associated with the Conservative party.

Sir, I think it will be impossible for the House to affirm the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, inasmuch as it calls upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint a Committee upon a matter as to which he has no information. The fact that the Resolution will throw upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he takes any proceedings with reference to the granting or non-granting of the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, the responsibility of making an inquiry which he has no possible means of making, seems to me a sufficient answer to the Resolution as it stands. Now, Sir, I think that the House ought to lake time to consider this question. Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman withdraws his Resolution I shall move the adjournment of the debate. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will put his Resolution upon the paper in order that this House may know what we really have to discuss. We are all pretty well agreed in substance, but care must be taken neither to impose upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer a duty that he cannot perform, nor to do anything which may be grossly unjust to any hon. Member.

I quite agree with several hon. Members as to the necessity of an adjournment, and I think that this discussion will do great good. I hope and trust that the noble Lord at the head of the Government will consent to the resumption of the debate at an early hour tomorrow.

I now move "That the hon. Member for Bodmin (Dr. Michell), be required to appear in his place in this House to-morrow."

said, that the Vote before the Committee having reference to the Serpentine he would, before making some remarks upon the subject, ask permission to read some extracts from the Report of Mr. Page addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Works, and printed with the Estimates relating to public works and buildings. That Gentleman stated that:—

"The Serpentine was fed by the stream called the Bayswater River, which, like the other streams and water courses of the Metropolis, was carefully protected from nuisance under the several commissions of sewers until the close of the last century, when the Metropolitan streams were converted into channels for sewage, a practice which has been acted upon and perpetuated by the Board of Health, and which has at length reduced the Thames itself in the summer season more to the character of a sewer than a river. I have found no records to show that this proceeding of the Commissioners of Sewers was approved by the Crown, but the gradual increase of the nuisance led to the passing of an Act in 1834 empowering the Commissioners of Sewers to construct a weir or tumbling bay across the sewer which discharged into the Serpentine, by which arragement it was (strangely enough) imagined that the principal part of the soil drainage would be diverted from the Serpentine, and passed into a tunnel sewer in the Uxbridge Road.

"The value of this arrangement may be judged of by the fact, that as soon as the water in the sewer rose to the level of the weir, and a very little rise would be sufficient for that height, all the soil would pass over the weir into the Serpentine; and a case was related to me by Mr. Mann, the Superintendant of Hyde Park, that when his men were employed in clearing the mud from that part of the Serpentine which lies within Kensington Gardens, and had left their work during the dinner hour, a sudden storm of rain brought such a quantity of night soil over the weir that the bed of the river was covered with night soil five inches thick to some distance from the weir."

The Serpentine had thus become an abomination and a source of disease, instead of what it ought to be, an ornament to the Park. The question of the purification of the Serpentine had been agitated for years. Eleven years ago the inhabitants of Brompton, Kensington, and the neighbourhood presented petitions upon the subject. Judging by the cost of cleansing the water in St. James's Park, the thorough cleansing of the Serpentine would cost between £40,000 and £50,000. He had no doubt that if the Government asked for that amount to render healthy a place that was visited for health and recreation by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and by none more than the poor, the House would willingly grant it. It certainly was very bad economy to spend £17,000 and only half do the work. At present, on certain occasions, not only did the drainage of the surrounding neighbourhood, but that also from the Kensall Green Cemetery, and the New Cemetery in the Harrow Road, find its way into the Serpentine. This was most disgusting. During the last fifteen years 3,963,689 persons had bathed in the Serpentine, being at the rate of more than 264,000 persons per annum. All the money they might expend upon the Serpentine would be thrown away unless they prevented the Ranelagh sewer from flowing into it at any time and under any circumstances. On the 20th of July a deputation waited upon the Chief Commissioner of Works upon this subject. Upon that deputation there were several medical men, all of whom concurred in the opinion that the water of the Serpentine was detrimental to the public health. The experiment tried in St. James's Park had completely answered, and he appealed to his right hon. Friend to have the moral courage which was shown by the present Lord Llanover in that case, and deal boldly and effectually with this serious nuisance.

said, that as all the Members of the House had not had the happy privilege which had been enjoyed by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Fins-bury (Sir S. M. Peto), of reading Mr. Hawksley's Report, he thought that this Vote ought to be postponed until that document had been printed and circulated. As far as he understood the plan proposed by Mr. Hawksley, which was entirely novel and had come quite suddenly upon them, it was that the water of the Serpentine, after running through the lake, should be pumped up to the top, filtered, and allowed to run through again, the same water being kept continually passing backwards and forwards. He could not at once condemn a plan which was sanctioned by so great an authority as Mr. Hawksley; but he certainly doubted the possibility of finding a filter bed at a sufficient height above the Serpentine, and he was sure that not one but two filters would be needed. The plan pursued in St. James's Park had, he believed, answered completely, and if this job was to be done at all it would be much better to do it properly. The bottom ought to be levelled; and a supply of water might be pumped from St. James's Park through the pipes which used to convey water from the Serpentine for the supply of the fountain in front of Buckingham Palace, and which still remained in the ground. It appeared to him far better to have a fresh supply of water, than that the same water should be pumped from time to time from the lower to the upper part of the Serpentine. Under all the circumstances, and as he was informed he could not move the postponement of the Vote, he should certainly negative it.

said, that the hon. Member had referred to the privilege which he had had of seeing Mr. Hawks-ley's Report. When the right hon. Gentleman, the First Commissioner of Works placed that Report in his hands, he asked him to give an opinion as to the practical working of the plan; and feeling the responsibility of so doing, and knowing that there was a variety of opinions upon the subject, he (Sir S. M. Peto) thought it right to consult the first engineering authority in this country—Mr. Robert Stephenson. Mr. Robert Stephenson devoted two days to the examination of the subject, including the analysis of the water, and he had his authority for stating that he would stake his reputation that the plan proposed by Mr. Hawksley was practical and could be carried out with perfect success. Mr. Hawksley's plan would cost £17,000, while any other that could be proposed would cost at least four times that amount, and as there were good grounds for believing it to be just as efficient, he thought the Committee ought to adopt it. It should be recollected that with regard to depth the Serpentine was very different from the water in St. James's Park—and that a plan which might do very well in one case would be wholly unsuitable in another. He would also state that the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works when carried out would completely remedy the inconvenience caused by the sower.

ventured to remind the Committee that the proposed improvement in the Serpentine would not separate the rain water from the sewage, which would still continue to find its way into and pollute that river, He was prepared to admit that the plan might be a palliative, but it would never be a remedy until the sewage matter was otherwise disposed of.

said, it seemed to him that the main point with the two hon. Baronets who had addressed the House, was to get a vote for a larger sum of public money; but if any money at all were voted for this object, he strongly approved of the plan of the Government, especially as one of the most eminent engineers of the day (Mr. Hawksley) had reported in favour of it.

said, the course which it was proposed to adopt with regard to the Serpentine was exactly the reverse of what any hon. Member would do in the case of ornamental water in his own grounds. There the first thing that would be thought of was, in case there was a sewer, to cut off the foul water and to increase the supply of pure water. Here, however, the sewer was to continue flowing into the Serpentine for years. It seemed strange to suppose that a sufficiency of pure water could not be obtained by pumping to obviate this disagreeable necessity.

felt that it was the duty of the Government to make a good and complete job of this matter, and thoroughly to cleanse the Serpentine, the water of which was at this moment perfectly pestiferous. It would be a disgrace to Parliament, when it voted such large sums for public offices, if it grudged the small sum required for the health of 200,000 bathers. If the Chief Commissioner failed to make a good job of it, and cholera or fever broke out, he would have to fly the country for failing to do that which common sense and common justice should have dictated long ago. What had been done in St. James's Park was well done, and answered thoroughly; and he should be ashamed of the right hon. Gentleman, and of the Government, and of the House of Commons, if a proper plan were not adopted.

said, that the arguments of certain hon. Members certainly appeared somewhat strange; for if the water of the Serpentine was in the pestiferous condition in which some hon. Members represented it to be, it was strange that they should refuse to adopt a plan which was proposed for purifying the water. He believed the plan of the Government was calculated to remedy the evil in the shortest possible time, and it had received the sanction of one of the most eminent engineers of the day. He had endeavoured to explain at a morning sitting, that the method of purification which had proved so successful in St. James's Park would be attended with very considerable difficulty when applied on so large a scale as a water surface of forty-two acres. It was not merely the time which must elapse in cleaning out so large an area which had to be considered, but the noxious exhalations which must arise from the mud when exposed to atmospheric influence, and the difficulty which would afterwards be experienced in obtaining a fresh supply of water. Mr. Hawksley, in one of his Reports, pronounced it to be almost impossible to refill the Serpentine, and expressed a very strong opinion against the policy of emptying a lake containing upwards of 60,000,000 gallons of water, which was incapable of being replaced except by constant pumping for a period of at least six months, and with the assistance of the water companies, or else by very expensive and tedious processes. In another Report, Mr. Hawksley stated that to obtain such a supply as would continue in any sensible stream the water of the Serpentine, after it had been once drained off, appeared to him, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, almost impossible. Any water in the vicinity, from having been corrupted by passing into sewers, or from being required and used for the purposes of canal companies, would be unsuitable for the ornamental water of the Serpentine; and the Thames, even if it were suitable for such a purpose, was at a lower level of fifty feet; and the water of the Thames was, as they knew by experience, in a very foul state. A well sunk in the tertiary or chalk formation would yield but a very small supply. Mr. Hawksley believed that the lake could not be replenished from any of these sources in a manner which would prevent its being filled with organic matter in warm weather. These reports would be sufficient to show the House that the point had not been overlooked. With regard to the sewer which was in the vicinity of the Serpentine, some misapprehension appeared to exist. Hon. Members argued as though the sewer was constantly discharging its contents into the Serpentine. But this was not so. There were two other sewers at the head of the Serpentine, which carried off all the contents of the Ranelagh sewer, excepting when there was an unusually great flood of water, which happened on an average about twice each year, and against which, until the new drainage scheme of the Board of Works was completed, there could be no effectual way of guarding. The very offensive discharge which took place on one occasion, and which had been referred to in the course of the debate, was altogether an exceptional occurrence. It was well known that prutrescent matter of the foulest nature can be neutralized and destroyed by passing through preparations of iron, or other chemical substances. Effectual remedies for purifying this water, under any circumstances, might therefore easily be devised. He had shown the deputation which waited on him some of the river water which had simply been passed through blotting paper, and they thought it had been distilled; it was therefore hardly a fair account to give of the occurrence to state that the water appeared to be "in tolerably good condition." He did not believe he should be justified in putting the country to £60,000 or £70,000 expense when he had had submitted to him a plan which high authorities had declared would be attended with most satisfactory results, and which would cost but one-fourth of the money. Having no professional knowledge himself, he was compelled to depend on the most eminent opinions that he could avail himself of; and, relying on these, he asked the House to sanction the plan now before it, which he hoped would be completed by next spring, and which he had every confidence would make the Serpentine as bright and beautiful a lake as anybody could desire.

said, that though he should have preferred the thing being thoroughly done even at a greater cost; yet, on the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread, he would accept the plan of the Chief Commissioner, hoping that it might turn out successful.

said, the Government plan had come upon him by surprise, and he thought that they should have more materials for forming an opinion before they voted the money. They were asked to vote the money upon the name of Mr. Hawksley without even seeing his opinion or consulting any other engineer. He thought the Vote should be postponed until the production of Mr. Hawksley's Report. Under these circumstances he should oppose the Vote.

considered that the Chief Commissioner was a little unfairly dealt with in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had consulted an eminent hydraulic engineer and had taken the best advice, and there was no reason for supposing that the scheme proposed would not be effectual. If it were postponed until the House were agreed as to the plan, considering the conflict of opinion that prevailed, the Serpentine would never be purified. He thought the matter might be safely left in the hands of the Chief Commissioner.

understood that Mr. Hawksley proposed to take the water from the lower end of the Serpentine and pump it up to the upper end, filtering it in its progress; but the right hon. Gentleman assumed that the sewage could be treated in the same manner, and with the same result, which he (Mr. Griffith) did not think Mr. Hawksley contemplated.

objected to the Vote. A good many people did not know what or where the Crinan Canal was. The Crinan Canal was a private speculation of the Campbell family; and in 1815 the then Duke of Argyll applied to the Treasury for £18,000 to complete the canal, and also for a further sum of £5,800 to pay off a debt then due on it. The Treasury sent an engineer down to examine the canal, who reported favourably; and these two sums of money were then advanced by the Treasury to the Duke of Argyll, on the condition that the profits should go to pay the interest of the money advanced. However, the concern had never yielded anything back to the Exchequer—in fact, had never paid it3 expenses; and considering we had spent £24,000 and £12,000 more were now required, would it not be better to hand it over to private parties; that was to say, if they could get anybody to take it. At the same time, he would not now oppose the Vote.

thought it was high time to make a stand against grants for the repair of this canal. The receipts of the work had for several years been less than the sum expended in repairing it. Last year, however, there had been a gain on it of £88 5s. 8d. The Caledonian Canal and the Crinan Canal had cost this country £1,400,000. The Caledonian Canal had been a still greater failure than the Crinan. Last year the receipts fell short of the expense of maintaining it by £1,800.

said, that an extraordinary flood had carried away the works of the canal, and the late Government, believing the restoration of those works to be urgently needed, allowed a sum of £12,000 for the purpose. A proposal had been made that the canal should be increased in size and adapted for large ships at an outlay of £80,000; but the Government thought that this would involve too large an expenditure of public money, and refused to sanction it.

regretted that the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) was not in his place, for he was fond of repeating that Scotland never got any of the public money; but this was a Vote exclusively for her benefit, and if, as the hon. Member had argued, the Thames ought to be purified by a rate on the metropolis, the cost of repairing the Crinan Canal ought equally to be defrayed by a rate on Scotland.

said, that he could not understand on what principle this Vote was demanded. Why should the Government continue an undertaking which was likely to continue a losing one, and from which the public as a whole derived no benefit?

said, that the principle on which the Vote was founded was simple. He could understand that hon. Gentlemen might criticise the practice of annual payments, which the House was called on to make, and be anxious to get some of these burdens off the public. But that was not the question now. The Crinan Canal did not require an annual Vote, but the present Vote was for the purpose of repairing the effect of a sudden accident; and the question was, whether the House would allow the traffic of the canal to be stopped, and the canal itself to go to ruin, for want of timely reparation. That would be irrational. The late Government would have been inexcusable if they had not ordered the repairs. It was true they had done so without the authority of the House, and very properly, for the case was one which did not admit of delay.

said, that the best reason for objecting to the Vote was to be found in the following lines of the Report of the engineer:—"It has been impossible to trace the failure to any more immediate cause than the original imperfection of the embankment. "The money now asked for might, therefore, be as well thrown into the canal at once.

owned that an extravagant sum had been laid out upon the Caledonian Canal, but that was before the reformed Parliament, when in return for their support of the Government a number of jobs were carried through by the Scotch Members, which now they were unable to perpetrate. If, however, hon. Gentlemen would compare in the present Estimates what was given to Scotland with the amount of public money voted to England and Ireland, they would see that Scotland would not get nearly an equal proportion. With regard to this canal, the Committee must remember that it was not the property of Scotland, but of the whole nation:—it was a public work. Would they, then be so foolish as to let it go to rack and ruin for want of the necessary repairs?

said, that the embankment referred to in the report was that of the reservoir and not of the canal. Mr. Walker, the engineer, stated that £12,000 would restore the reservoir and the canal as it was before The canal was a great convenience for a large district of Scotland; and although it was only adapted for small steamers, yet if it could be enlarged so as to admit the passage of large steamers, it would be a still greater convenience.

said, the canal was not only useful as a passage but as a harbour of refuge for small vessels, which would otherwise have to go round the Mull of Galloway, which was the uttermost point of Scotland.

hoped the House would not agree to the Vote. There was no analogy between this Vote and that for the Serpentine, which latter was a national object free to the enjoyment of the nation; whereas the Crinan Canal was neither more nor less than a public highway, the trustees of which had the power of levying and did levy high tolls on every ship and person passing through. These over-ruling accidents like the one on which the present Vote was sought, would be constantly occurring if companies were to look to public grants to repair them. The canal was a water highway which shortened the distance between Loch Fine and the Caledonian Canal, and you never heard of any Commissioners of Highways coming to the House for public grant.

, as Member for a neighbouring county to that represented by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, although generally agreeing with him in opposing public expenditure, should vote for this grant.

said, he would take this occasion to state the position in reference to the Vote which the present Government occupied. When the present Government assumed the reins of office they had found that arrangements had been entered into by their predecessors with a house in London for the manufacture of a cable 1,200 miles long, which was estimated to be sufficient to extend from Falmouth to Gibraltar. The actual cost of the cable was contracted for at £115,000; so that the Committee would see that the great bulk of the sum which was asked for the purpose in question was to meet a charge which had been incurred in the case of a contract which had been concluded before they came into office. He had touched upon the question when he proposed the nomination of the Committee on Packet and Telegraphic Contracts, and he was of opinion it was, upon the whole, convenient that it should be dealt with as a portion of that subject. As this contract had been entered into it was the obvious duty of Government to take the measures requisite to secure that the article now being manufactured was good, and likewise in order to prepare the way to make future use of it. For that purpose he asked for £20,000 at present, reckoning that that sum would defray any charge which would arise between the present time and the next meeting of Parliament; when, if necessary, he would have the opportunity of making another application. He proposed to apply the money, in the first instance, to make experiments with regard to the peculiar construction which had been recommended to the Government for the envelope of the cable. The Committee was aware of the difficulties in laying deep sea cables, and how much depended on the weight, and therefore on the materials of which the envelope was composed. Experiments would require to be made and the Government also desired to lay out a certain sum of money with a view to the protection of the cable, that the whole winter might not pass without commencing making the envelope. The Committee would understand two things; first, that in asking for this Vote there was no wish to keep the matter out of the jurisdiction of the Committee which had been appointed to consider all these questions, and secondly, that it was in no degree intended to foreclose the question whether it was more expedient to proceed to lay down cables by the agency of the Government on its own account, or to make arrangements with some competent and responsible company to undertake it. For his own part, he did not hesitate to say that he had the strongest prepossession against the operation being undertaken by Government, and in favour of others doing it. On the whole, he thought it would be found a very useful and important national enterprise, and he hoped the Committee would see that the field of discussion was not a very wide one, and would vote the sum which he now asked.

remarked that £135,000 was not a very small sum.

£115,000 has already been contracted for.

said, this was a reason why the whole question should be left to the Committee. He asked whether the Government and the House were responsible for the contract. He thought the Vote should be withdrawn till the Report of the Committee had been arrived at; and if the Government did not withdraw it he hoped the House would place on it their negative.

said, that every Member must recollect the extreme anxiety which prevailed in the last Parliament to have a telegraphic communication with Gibraltar. Considering our peculiar situation in the Mediterranean, and that it was of the utmost national importance in the event of a war with France, and considering that as a commercial speculation it never could pay, although he was unwilling to sanction any anticipation of the decision of the House with regard to the expenditure of money, he thought that if ever an exception could be made out it was in this case. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote.

said, he was afraid it would be necessary for him to make a short statement to the Committee on the subject, but it was one which he had great confidence would be satisfactory. He had the greatest pleasure in proposing this Vote, which he ought to tell the Committee would be £10,000 instead of £50,000. It was immaterial which sum it was, as the profit to be derived would more than cover the expense, and there was no real charge connected with it. The estimate was reduced, because at first it was thought that in order to carry on operations with energy and rapidity it was desirable to purchase presses and supply them to the contractors, which, on further inquiry, was found not to be necessary. The Committee had, without doubt, observed when they had occasion to handle the copper coin of the country that a great deal of it was in a very bad condition, and disfigured by advertising inscriptions stamped upon it. He had a specimen of one of Her Majesty's pennies, and there appeared round the edges "Lloyd's WeeklyNewspaper, post free," and on the other side some equally interesting announcement. A great deal of the copper coinage had been investigated, and the result was that a large portion of it was found to be very old. Rather more than one-fifth was of dates between 1797 and 1805. It varied in weight, and although the practical inconvenience was not great, because the public were familiar with it, yet if an old and a new penny were shown to persons unacquainted with them, no one would ever dream that they represented the same value. The old penny was worth nearly half as much again as the new one. The old penny was coined at the rate of sixteen to the pound, and the lightest of the new was twenty-six to the pound. Only 15 per cent of the copper coinage had been issued since 1852. The whole value of the copper coinage was £800,000, and the quantity of copper used in it was 3,530 tons. Taking the copper at £107 10s. per ton, the actual value was only £379,000; so that the copper coin was a pure token, the intrinsic value being less than one-half the nominal or apparent value. It was therefore evidently useless to speak of its value, and all that need be considered was the public convenience. In order to ascertain the state of the copper coinage a considerable quantity had been examined in the large towns. It was found that copper coinage of towns was better than that of the country, probably because old coins always lingered longer in the rural districts. The result of the investigation in London, Birmingham, and other large towns showed that about one-third of the whole was below its legal state, and ought to be withdrawn. A part of it was counterfeit, another part foreign coins, and another injured, battered, and inscribed, according to the fancy of individuals, as he had stated. The result was that one-third required renewal. If it were renewed such as it now was he should be obliged to ask for a Vote of £40,000, and that Vote would not be replaced, but would be an expenditure out and out. It would, of course, be submitted to cheerfully enough if the copper coinage did not admit of any improvement; but he believed it was capable of great improvement. It was exceedingly heavy and cumbersome, not durable, and the metal was not very agreeable handling; it communicated a smell. It was very easy to substitute a metal more convenient and agreeable. It would be an admirable practice to follow in the beat of our continental neighbours. Gentlemen would recollect what was the state of the old copper coinage of France. It was much the same as our own. The coins had almost lost all signs of any effigy, and were rudely shaped lumps of metal. Within the last few years it had been called in, and a bronze metal substituted. He held in his hand a French penny, which was very little larger than an English halfpenny. It was very convenient, very nice in appearance, and a most agreeable coin to handle; it was in every respect a much more desirable coin than ours; and the result of the operation, as he was informed, had been that the French had paid for the expense of converting the coin, and realized from the reduction of weight a profit not far short of £500,000. No such profit could be expected in this country, the quantity of copper coinage not being so great, but relative to its extent there was no reason why the operation should not leave a profit analogous to that obtained in France. The new copper coinage would not affect any question of the currency or computation; it would leave all such matters exactly as they were; nor would it have anything to do with the decimal system. The object to be gained by the substitution he proposed was to exchange for the present ugly and inconvenient coins pieces harder, more convenient, and more agreeable, and he did not doubt the public would have equal confidence in them. The effect of improving the copper coinage will be to produce a largely increased demand for it. In Paris the increase in the demand after the new coins were issued was 50 per cent. This experience was very encouraging, as a larger demand would be attended by increased profit. The metal proposed to be used for the new coins was bronze; it contained four parts of tin and one part of zinc to ninety-five parts of copper, which was increased in hardness by the alloy. In reference to this point he should mention that there was a Sill passing through the House, extending the penalties for forging the copper coinage to forging coins of the mixed metal. There was some doubt whether they were incurred by the offence, and as a precaution it had been thought better to introduce the Bill. The new coins would be much lighter than those in present use; the change of metal would enable them to be made much thinner in proportion to their superficies, and their intrinsic value would not be more than half that of the present coins. The quantity of copper now coined into twenty-six of the old pennies would make forty-five of the new ones. If the 3,500 tons of the old copper were called in and recoined, the profit would be about £92,000; but if there was an increased demand for the new coin, to the amount of 25 or 30 per cent, that would still leave a considerable profit on the operation. One great advantage of the new coin would be its superior durability. The use of bronze was not new to the Mint; the metal had been tried for coinage in Canada and Nova Scotia, and the new issue here would resemble the small coinage adopted in those colonies. The present Master of the Mint was perfectly acquainted with the whole subject, which he had explained in a very clear manner, which could not fail to be satisfactory to the Committee. He hoped the Committee would make no difficulty in agreeing to the Vote of the reduced sum required for the preliminary expenses of the change.

thought they were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought the question forward. There could be no doubt that the copper coinage was in a very bad state. An increase in the supply of copper coins was called for, and he hoped facilities would be given for extending the new coinage into every district in the kingdom. He believed that the profit realized would be even greater than that mentiened by the right hon. Gentleman.

wished to know whether the new coinage would be struck at the Mint or by private contractors. It might be more advisable to have it made at Birmingham than at the Mint. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having taken the matter up.

said, it was proposed to execute a certain portion of the work at the Mint, because the Government had there establishments, presses, and power. The great bulk of it, however, would be executed out of the Mint by contract, and he presumed a large share of it would be done at Birmingham.

asked whether the proposed arrangement implied the abandonment of any attempt to introduce a decimal coinage?

was of opinion that little life remained in the scheme of a decimal coinage after the operation which had been performed upon it by Lord Overstone, But his proposal did not interfere in the slightest degree with that question. The new penny would have precisely the same place in the coinage as the present penny, and the Legislature would be just as competent, if it so willed, to decimalize the coinage. It could be done as well with the new as with the present penny.

said, that if a new copper coinage were substituted for the old, and a decimal system were hereafter introduced, the whole of that copper must again be called in and passed through the Mint; and he did not think there were any possible means of avoiding that except resorting to the very awkward plan of stamping the coin by its new designation. If the House and the Government accepted the new copper coinage, they would in fact be accepting the entire condemnation of the decimal system, at all events during the existence of the present generation.

thought that, on the other hand, a lighter penny would facilitate the adoption of the decimal system: if it were otherwise he should exceedingly object to the change. He hoped that the size of the farthing would not be reduced below what it was at present, or it would be a great inconvenience to the people.

said, that if the larger plan recommended by the Commission of 1845 for the works at Dovor were carried out at the rate at which they were now going on, the cost to the country would be upwards of £6,000,000 sterling. A smaller plan, recommended by Mr. Walker, was now being carried out, and he would not object to the Vote, if the money was required for completing the existing contract. As far as the works had gone they were certainly useful to the public, and particularly for the landing and departure of passengers between France and England. He trusted that the Government, when they had finished off the pier, would not think of going on with the gigantic scheme of the Commission; for if they did they might rely upon it that the harbour of refuge would never be of value at all equivalent to the sum expended upon it. He wished to know if they meant Aldemey to be an harbour of refuge or a harbour of defence? Environed as it was with rocks and shoals, he contended that as a harbour of refuge it would be utterly worthless, whilst as a place of defence it was the opinion of military men that in the event of war we could not hold it with a less force than from 5,000 to 8,000 men. Well, what had Alderney been costing us? If we had gone on with the original plan it would have cost the country £2,500,000 before it could be completed: but he believed that that plan had been materially curtailed, and that it was now intended to limit the total expenditure to about £1,500,000. To expend that sum, however, upon the place as a harbour of refuge would be sheer waste of public money. Again, if it would require 8,000 men to hold Alderney, the consideration arose whether those 8,000 men would not be of more value somewhere else. He wished to know, then, what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the works at Dovor, and to what extent they meant to go in the expenditure of money at Alderney.

said, that with regard to Dovor, all that was contemplated was to complete the contract which was now going on for the Admiralty pier. There was not the least idea of constructing a harbour of refuge there at the present time; and if hereafter such an idea were entertained—which he did not anticipate—nothing would be done without giving the House of Commons the opportunity of first pronouncing an opinion. In reference to Alderney he could not pretend to give an opinion upon it, so far as the military part of the question was concerned. The real state of facts was that the harbour was more for the purpose of defence than a harbour of refuge with reference to commercial purposes. The estimate for constructing it was £1,300,000, and the amount already expended was £800,000.

said, that the late Duke of Wellington considered Alderney as of the highest value in a military point of view; and it was the opinion of competent military authorities that 2,500 men would be sufficient for its defence.

said, it had come to his knowledge that the plan of the works at Alderney had been altered no less than five times since the original contract was entered into, and the consequence was that the shape of the harbour next the sea, instead of being convex, was concave. There were rocks also so situated at its mouth that if a ship on attempting to enter made too much lee way she was sure to drift upon them.

said, that the alterations referred to were simply for ex- tending the pier and increasing the size of the harbour.

said, that the great value of Alderney was not so much as a harbour of refuge as a great military outwork that commanded naval motions at Cherbourg, where it was scarcely possible for a gun to be fired without its smoke being seen at Alderney. From what he had heard Sir John Burgoyne say, he could corroborate the statements of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) with regard to the number of men that would be sufficient for the garrison of Alderney. 2,500 men could garrison it completely, and when the works were finished it would be as difficult to take Alderney as Gibraltar itself.

supposed that this money was "loose cash" in the pockets of the Treasury. He wished to ask the Secretary of the Treasury if there was any prospect of the sum advanced to the Monte Videan Government being repaid, and also whether there was any chance of the £2,000 advanced in 1857 for the chapel at Paris being reimbursed. He complained of the large sums that were laid out upon diplomatic expenses and outfits. He saw the sum of £2,200 put down for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Mission to the Ionian Islands. The Committee ought to have some explanation as to the necessity for that Mission. At any rate he trusted some good had or would result from it. There was a sum put down for expenses connected with the settlement of the differences between Turkey and Persia, though similar charges had been made before. The truth was, the sums payable for these Civil Contingencies could not be understood unless the expenses for several years were collated. He saw £9,000 put down as the charge for Sir Henry Bulwer's mission to the Danubian Principalities, of the result of which the House had never been informed.

called upon the Attorney General to explain the necessity of expending £2,300 in ascertaining the claims for compensation under the Act for the Abolition of the Ecclesiastical Court.

was very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wise) for having noticed the expenditure for the late mission to the Ionian Islands. As to the amount charged he was not cognizant of all the particulars. All that had passed through his hands in connection with that mission, and defrayed all the expenses with which he was connected was £1,300. He was not cognizant of any other expenditure. The hon. Gentleman had said very kindly that he hoped good would result from that mission. As far as he was concerned, his great desire was to lay before the House all the information in his power with regard to the reasons that induced the late Government to send him on that mission and with regard to its operation. It would be a very welcome day to him when the reports that he transmitted to the Government could be printed and laid on the table of the House, because then he thought the whole nature of the transaction would be explained. But it had been the opinion of the present Lord High Commissioner that it was not for the public interest in the Ionian Islands that those reports should be published at present. No doubt they would be published as soon as the Lord High Commissioner thought they might be published without disadvantage to the public interests, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should be very contented to rest his defence on those reports. But in the meantime, if it was not too great presumption, he felt that his thanks were due to the Members both of the present and of the late Parliament for the very great forbearance they had exhibited with regard to the whole subject. The mission had been commented upon a great deal out of doors in a sense much more unfavourable than favourable, and he thought the silence of the House on the subject was a rare example of that indulgence and generosity for which the House of Commons was on all occasions so conspicuous. He trusted that his reports when published would show that the very kind indulgence of the House was de-served

said, he heartily wished that he could give information to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) as to the item for ascertaining those claims for compensation to which he had referred. The rules with regard to those claims were precisely laid down in the Act for the Abolition of the Ecclesiastical Court, and all that was required to be done by that Act was to obtain a return showing the amount of compensation that ought to be awarded. The Government of Lord Derby issued an unpaid Commission for the purpose of inquiring into that return, but he could not pretend to say what was done by that Commission. He had no more information on the subject than any Member of the House. He supposed that some of the agents and officers connected with the Commission had been paid salaries.

said, that although he was one of the three Commissioners, he was afraid he could not give the hon. Member for Gateshead very minute details as to the expenditure referred to. He must correct the hon. and learned Attorney General on one point. It was not the fact that the Commissioners were unpaid. Two of the three Commissioners—namely, Mr. Follettand himself, were paid. He was not a member of the House at the time of his appointment by the late Government. When his right hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray) undertook this inquiry he (Sir Stafford Northcote) was called from abroad to assist him. He certainly could not have undertaken that very laborious office, which involved remaining in town for several months and very close attendance, without receiving some compensation for his services. He could assure the hon. and learned Attorney General that far from being a simple matter, it was a most laborious operation, involving considerable research and occupying much time. It was far more than the mere simple process of referring to the returns of the Income Tax Commissioners. They had to separate the profits which both proctors and solicitors earned in the Ecclesiastical Court from those that they earned, for instance, in the Admiralty Court; and they had also to calculate the capital employed, and to separate the interest on that capital from the profits for which alone the claimants ought to be compensated. This was very far from being an easy work. It would have been if they had adopted the usual Treasury mode of doing the work—that is, to take the statements of the claimants, and to see that they in some tolerable degree corresponded with the evidence produced in support of them. Had the Commissioners taken that course, he had no hesitation in saying that the sum voted for compensation would have been half as much again as it was. As one instance of the manner in which they proceeded, he might state that a gentleman who claimed £3500 a year for compensation, went away satisfied that he ought only to receive £1500. He wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the circumstance that many items included in this vote, were continually appearing year after year, and did not properly partake of the character of civil contingencies—namely, expenses that occurred unexpectedly.

explained that he had been induced to look upon the task of the Commisioners as a simple one, because the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the House that reference would be made to the income tax returns.

wished to remind the Committee that when he introduced this subject to the House on a former occasion, he estimated, from the highest authority he could obtain on the question, that the country must be prepared to pay in the way of compensation the sum of £150,000; but, through the supervision of his hon. Friend the late Secretary for the Treasury (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the other Commissioners, that sum had been reduced to £120,000. He thought the Committee would admit that those could not be idle or superficial exertions that produced such a result. He felt it his duty to bear his testimony to the arduous labour which his hon. Friend and his colleagues had undergone; and he believed that there had been no occasion when men devoted themselves more assiduously to their duties, whether paid or unpaid.

expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the explanations offered by the hon. Gentleman opposite.

said, there was a good deal in the suggestion of his hon. predecessor (Sir Stafford Northcote), that many of the sums included in the Civil Contingencies were of annual recurrence, and ought to appear as estimates. He would see that that and the other suggestions thrown out in the course of the discussion were duly attended to if he should have any share in preparing the next Estimates.

complained of the continued appearance for several years of a charge—£2,000 this year—for settlement of disputes between Turkey and Persia, a matter in which we had no interest. Other items, too, were out of place in this Vote; such as a charge for fitting up St. James's Palace and Chapel on the occasion of the Princess Royal's marriage. The charge should have been included among the expenses of Royal Palaces. He saw a sum of £1,220 for the Commission appointed for the University of Cambridge, which he thought ought to be defrayed out of the income of the University and colleges. Then, fees were charged payable upon conferring their dignities upon the following Knights of the Garter:—The King of Portugal, £439; the Prince of Wales, £731; and Prince Frederick William of Prussia, £439. Why should fees be paid by the public under such circumstances? Then he saw a payment of £22 18s. 6d. for the pardon of Rudio; he did not know what this country had to do with that. There was a payment of £60, the cost of gold watches to two French officers who accompanied a gun presented to Her Majesty by the Emperor of the French. He saw Her Majesty's liberality extolled in the newspapers on this occasion, and he therefore never expected to see this item in the Votes. Another item was of £2,850 for cost of provisions supplied to the inhabitants of Madeira during the distress and destitution consequent upon the cholera epidemic. Madeira was a Portuguese colony, and he did not see what we had to do with such an outlay. Another item was £666 paid to Dr. Barth for fifty copies of the two remaining volumes of his work on Central Africa. He doubted whether the people of this country derived any advantage from that Vote. There was an item for expenses of the Royal Household not provided for in the Civil List, which was only £3,957 the year before last, but which amounted to £8,250 last year. This item seemed to be surreptitiously introduced—why was it not included in the usual Estimates? There were many other items in this vote which he considered most objectionable, but as the money had been paid there was no redress.

said, these were not Estimates for the ensuing year, but details of a sum of £100,000 actually expended before the present Government came into office, and which it was not, therefore, for him to explain. Whilst he (Mr. Laing) advocated economy quite as much as the hon. Gentleman, still he felt that there must always be a number of petty items such as these, which would be always occurring in the expenditure of a great nation. The outfit for Foreign Ministers had been considered for many years fair and equitable, and a great nation could hardly avoid defraying these and similar little expenses in a liberal way. The hon. Gentleman asked why the expenses of the Royal Household, not provided for in the Civil List, had not been put into the usual Estimates. Well, take the case of the ex- penses incurred in fitting up the Chapel Royal, St. James's, for the celebration of the marriage of the Princess Royal. Was such an event to be deferred until Parliament met, and until an estimate could be laid before it?

said, he would let the hon. Member off for this time, as the money was not of his spending; but he gave him warning that if his own Contingency Estimates were not in better order next year, he should hear more about them.

said, there was an item of £421 for fees on conferring the title of Baron of the United Kingdom upon Sir Colin Campbell. He thought that these titles of honour ought not to be the means of extorting money out of the pockets of the officers who had won such honourable distinctions.

wished to observe, that as these Votes extended over a period of twelve months, during the first ten of which he was unconnected with the office, he was in a worse situation than the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laing) with regard to explaining them.

said, that as many items as possible had been taken out of the Civil Contingencies and made matter of Estimate. If the House insisted on having unascertained charges placed in the Estimates, it would always be necessary to take a Vote large enough to cover the highest calculation of them; and the result would be that the House would never get any account. The present was the only mode in which such charges could be brought under the surveillance of the House.

could not but think, however, that some sort of an average of this branch of expenditure might be carried out.

was strongly of the same opinion.

said, that there was no objection to the clause on the part of the Government. As a matter of form there must be a Committee of the House upon it to-morrow before it could go into the Bill.

suggested that the probate duties required a general revision.