said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, in the event of the Election Law Amendment Bill passing, he intends to apply the 29th section to the City of Gloucester and the Borough of Wakefield?

Sir, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that the clause to which he refers is simply prospective in its operation. If passed in its present form it would not be retrospective in its effect. When the Bill comes into Committee it will be open to the hon. Gentleman to move an Amendment to make it retrospective; or, if the House should consider the question ought to be further considered, it would be open to any hon. Member to move for leave to bring in a Bill to apply the substance of that section to those two places.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any foundation for a statement in recent newspapers from China that a British ship of war has been stationed off the City of Nankin, notwithstanding the opposition of the Taeping Emperor, or whether, as is stated by the last mail from China, amicable relations have been established with the Taepings, and if so, on what footing; and whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has received further Papers on Chinese affairs, which he can lay before the House?

was understood to say that a despatch had been received from Admiral Hope to the effect that a ship of war had been sent up the Yang-tze-kiang to be in communication with Nankin, and that the relations then subsisting were of an amicable nature. The papers would shortly be laid on the Table of the House.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in consequence of the late period of the Session at which the designs for the Foreign and Indian Offices were exhibited last year having prevented many Members from seeing them, he will allow Mr. Scott's original designs for these Offices, both Gothic and Italian, to be exhibited at the same time with those approved of by the Government, in order that Members may be enabled to form a fair opinion on their respective merits?

said, these designs would be exhibited in a Committee Room of the House, to enable hon. Members to judge of the character of the building for which a Vote was to be proposed. That object, he thought, would not be promoted by placing with the drawings which were intended to be executed other drawings which were not so intended. That, he considered, would rather tend to confuse and divert the attention of hon. Members from the points to be brought before them. The latter set of drawings had, however, been made known far and wide, and if any hon. Member wished to see them he had abundant facilities for doing so.

brought up, and read by Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:— "VICTORIA R. Her Majesty, having agreed to a Marriage proposed between the Princess Alice and His Grand Ducal Highness Prince Louis of Hesse, has thought fit to communicate it to the House of Commons. The numerous proofs which the Queen has received of the loyalty of this House to Her Throne, and of their attachment to Her Person and Family, leave Her no room to doubt of their willingness to concur in making such a provision for Her daughter the Princess Alice, with a view to the proposed Marriage, as may be suitable to the dignity of the Crown. "V. R."

That Message having been received from Her Majesty, announcing to the House an event calculated to contribute to the happiness of Her Family, I am persuaded that this House will concur with me in thinking that it is becoming us, and in accordance with the feeling of the House, to take the earliest opportunity of thanking Her Majesty for the communication She has made, of congratulating Her Majesty upon the event which the communication announces, and of assuring Her Majesty that we shall take an early opportunity of taking into consideration the recommendation with which that Message concludes. Sir, it is needless to say that the Address which I propose now to submit to the House pledges no one as to any of the details of the arrangement which it will be my duty on a future day to submit in order to carry into effect the recommendation of Her Majesty's Message. But, Sir, it must, I am sure, be agreeable to the House to take the earliest opportunity of expressing to Her Majesty the pleasure and satisfaction we derive from the announcement of this intended marriage. Those who have had the good fortune to be allowed to approach Her Royal Highness the Princess Alice know, by their personal observation, that she inherits all those eminent qualities of head and heart which so greatly distinguish her illustrious parents; and the testimony which I may say those favoured persons have borne as to the result of their observation has, I am persuaded, spread wide over the land a conviction that this is a faithful representation of the case. Her Royal Highness has the good fortune of having made choice of a Prince who, I am persuaded, will prove in every respect worthy of her choice; and the strength of their mutual attachment affords the strongest expectation that in their future life they will enjoy that same domestic happiness of which Her Royal Highness has seen such a model under her maternal roof which has soothed and mitigated the cares and anxieties of Sovereign power, and served as an example and an object of admiration to the whole British nation. There is another topic which, under the circumstances, may recommend this Address to the House. This House and the nation take a deep interest in everything which concerns the feelings and the comfort of Her Majesty; and they cannot, I think, but view with great satisfaction the announcement of an event which tends to direct Her Majesty's thoughts to anticipations of joy and happiness in the future, and which may gently withdraw her mind from dwelling with too great an intensity on the more melancholy recollections of the past. Sir, I beg leave to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty.

Sir, the announcement which has just been made in the Royal Message is one which I am sure has given great gratification to the House. Any event which so deeply concerns the domestic happiness of Her Majesty must be to us always a source of great satisfaction; and I am quite sure that when the occasion arrives this House will be prepared in a becoming spirit properly to consider the subject which has been recommended to our attention by Her Majesty. Sir, I am quite sure that on this occasion, especially, the interest which this House takes in the domestic happiness of Her Majesty must be increased when we remember that it relates to the accomplished Princess whose good fortune it will be in another land to represent in a manner gratifying to all Englishmen the character of her country. That lady, as is well known to public opinion and by her private conduct to many—to the country generally, and to this House—has already shown a disposition so eminent for its good qualities, and an intelligence so bright and winning, that I am sure it will not be a mere formal ceremony on the part of the House of Commons when they express in the most cordial and unanimous manner the satisfaction they feel, and their readiness to consider in a manner becoming the occasion the recommendation brought to our notice in the Message from the Crown. Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to return Her Majesty the Thanks of this House for Her most gracious communication of the intended Marriage between Her Royal Highness the Princess Alice and His Grand Ducal Highness Prince louis of Hesse; to express their satisfaction at the proposal of an Alliance which they doubt not will contribute to the happiness of Her Majesty and of Her Royal Highness, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will immediately proceed to the consideration of Her Majesty's gracious Message in such a manner as shall demonstrate the zeal, duty, and affectionate attachment of this House to Her Majesty, a just sense of the virtues and merits of Her Royal Highness, and a due regard to the dignity of the Royal Family.

I rise to give notice that I propose on Monday next to ask the House to go into Committee to consider the Message from Her Majesty.

I rise, Sir, in pursuance of the notice which I have given, to move certain Resolutions arising out of the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the question of facilitating public business in this House. I ought, perhaps, in the first instance, to apologize for appearing to take out of the hands of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), the Chairman of the Committee, a duty which, under ordinary circumstances, would more properly devolve upon him. But I have only to say that the arrangement by which it falls to my lot to propose these Resolutions is one come to between my right hon. Friend and myself, that in the course I am now taking I have his full concurrence, and that I am also acting, I believe, entirely in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. In considering the question which was referred to the Committee, it must naturally strike everybody, who has at all turned his mind to the course of business in this House, that the great variety of Standing Orders and established usages which govern our proceedings are almost all founded upon some good and substantial ground. From time to time the condition of things varies, and those regulations which, under certain circumstances, may have been, not only contributory to good order, but also in no way obstructive to the easy despatch of public affairs, may, under a different set of circumstances, be no longer required for the protection of order, and may likewise be useless impediments to the progress of business. Relaxations and changes in our rules have, therefore, been occasionally made; none of them, however, without the most careful deliberation, and so judiciously, indeed, have those changes been adapted to the exigencies to which they were applied, that I believe, although they have been numerous, they have greatly tended to the furtherance of public affairs, and I am not aware that any one of them has upon experience worked ill or had to be retracted. That, I think, is a reason why we should not proceed too hastily to alter regulations of long standing and based on ancient usage. On the other hand, it is an encouragement for us carefully to weigh any changes that may be proposed, and if they are found such as may be made without any violent disturbance of existing arrangements, and with the hope of expediting the business of the House, then to adopt them. A great number of proposals were more or less submitted to the Committee, which acted on the principle I have just stated. They were unwilling to recommend anything which should effect a violent change in our established code of rules, or which should tend to narrow that ample scope for discussion and debate which is so essentially necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of the House of Commons. The Committee thought that many of the proposals laid before them would, no doubt, in their simple effect accelerate the despatch of business, while others, again, would have that result which is admitted to be a desideratum —namely, the attainment of certainty as to what business would come on on a given day or at a given hour. But many of these proposals were supposed on further consideration likely to trench inconveniently and injuriously on that latitude of discussion which it is so important to preserve unimpaired. The functions of the House of Commons are various. We meet here to pass laws, a (duty which requires for its due discharge great at time, great deliberation, and certainty as to when business will be brought on in prder that Members may be prepared to depate a given subject. That is a point which should not be overlooked. Another function of this House, not less important, is that or examining the Estimates, voting the Supplies for the year, and regulating the finances of the country. If these were the only duties of Parliament, many arrangements might be proposed and adopted which would tend to accelerate their performance. But this House has another function to discharge, and one highly conducive to the public interests—namely, that of being the mouthpiece of the nation; the organ by which all opinions, all complaints, all notions of grievances, all hopes and expectations, all wishes and suggestions which may arise among the people at large, may be brought to an expression here, may be discussed, examined, answered, rejected, or redressed. That I hold to be as important a function as either of the other two. There are many arrangements which might greatly facilitate the discharge of the first two duties, but which would interfere essentially with the full and complete performance of the third. Therefore, in making proposals for expediting public business, we have felt it incumbent on us to abstain carefully from anything which would tend, I may say, to gag the House of Commons, to prevent it from being the free and unfettered organ for the expression of all the feelings and opinions which on any subject, great or small, any part of the nation might wish to have laid before it. This last consideration, therefore, very much restricts the range of alteration which might otherwise have been suggested in our rules; and I think the House will see, on perusing the recommendations of the Committee—who, I must say in passing, have shown admirable ability and fairness in the drawing up of their Report—the House will see, on reading the Committee's recommendations, on which the Resolutions I have to move are based, that while, on the one hand, the Committee have proposed those alterations in our mode of proceeding which will tend materially to facilitate the fair and proper transaction of business, they have, on the other, studiously eschewed anything that would inconveniently restrain the freedom of discussion or deprive hon. Members of the opportunity they ought to possess for making the sentiments of any of their constituents known. Well, the first proposal that I have to make relates to the time for holding Committees of Supply. At present the House resolves itself into Committee of Supply on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, or on Thursday in substitution for Friday. Now, the Select Committee thought there might be an opening on other days which are properly notice days for a Committee of Supply if the notice business should not occupy the whole of the evening, and that there might be many occasions on which, the notices being concluded and the House free, the time thus obtained might be used for going into Committee of Supply on Tuesday, and also on Friday, should Friday remain a notice day. There would be this advantage in that arrangement, that in the first place an additional day, or fraction of a day, might be gained under many circumstances for Committees of Supply, or of Ways and Means, and that, too, without any encroachment on the time allotted to hon. Members for bringing on their Motions in accordance with these notices. It will, in fact, be an advantage to them, for we know that Tuesdays being devoted to notices of Motions, the Government and their supporters have sometimes no great inducement to remain in the House, and there are other attractions which call hon. Members away at certain periods of the evening, so that an hon. Member who had a Motion to make which is interesting to himself, and perhaps to other persons, is rendered liable to the arithmetical test, and before he has finished his speech or the question has been fully discussed the matter is brought to a close by its being discovered that there are not present the magical number of Members without whom the Speaker cannot remain in the chair. It will be a security for private Members when Committee of Supply is fixed that those who are interested in carrying on the business of the Government will be in their places, and there will be less chance of private Members being defeated by the scantiness and thinness of the House. We do not propose to take from private Members anything which they now have, but simply to give the Government a reversion to any unexpended portion of time which may remain after the notices of Motions have been disposed of. We propose to add to the number of days upon which orders shall take precedence of notices, and upon which Government orders shall have a priority. We propose that Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays shall be order days. At present Friday is not an order day, and it has been frequently suggested that Friday should be added as such. In fact, at a certain period of the Session Friday is made an order day, but not until the Session has gone through a part of its course. Now, the period when an additional order day would be most useful is at the commencement of the Session, when the Estimates and Supplies and other urgent measures are brought in, and which it is desirable to get through as speedily as possible, in order that in the latter part of the Session we may not be inconveniently encumbered by an accumulation of Bills and measures which must be disposed of, and which we have not time properly to consider. In proposing that these four days shall be order days we do not wish to trench upon Wednesdays, as a day upon which the Bills introduced by private Members can be considered, but we propose that on Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays orders shall have precedence of notices, and that Government orders should have priority over other orders. Much has been said about the practice which has prevailed, and of late has rapidly extended, of raising desultory discussions on Friday upon the Motion of adjournment. Many persons have wished that the adjournment until Monday should take place as a matter of course, in order to prevent these desultory and miscellaneous discussions, but I have not shared in that desire. I have always thought that, although we were sometimes kept until a comparatively late hour discussing the greatest variety of subjects mingled helter-skelter together, yet, nevertheless, that opportunity afforded hon. Members of raising questions and obtaining answers upon matters of interest to them and persons out of doors is one which it is desirable to retain for Members of this House. But there is no denying that the Motion upon which all these discussions arise does not justify them according to the orders of the House, and if the right hon. Gentleman in the chair was strictly to enforce those orders when the adjournment till Monday is moved no hon. Member could speak to anything but for or against the adjournment. The practice of the House, however, has been so different, and that practice has been so long sanctioned by acquiescence, that it would he vain to attempt to bring the House back strictly to the original order. But it occurred to the Committee that a middle course might be taken, and without depriving hon. Members on Fridays of the opportunity of raising these desultory discussions, yet might cause those discussions to be conducted upon principles in accordance with the Constitution, and also with the strict rules and orders of that House. The Committee recommended that there should be no Motion for the adjournment to Monday, but that the adjournment shall take place as a matter of course, by standing order, unless otherwise ordered, not precluding any Member, if so minded, from moving that the House do not adjourn until Monday. The Committee, however, thought that that alone would not afford private Members all the opportunities they now enjoy of raising discussions upon various questions to which they may think it right to call the attention of the House, and that those opportunities might be provided for in a manner more in accordance with the constitution and the orders of the House. They propose that a Committee of Supply or of Ways and Means should stand as the first order on every Friday, and upon the Motion "that the Speaker do leave the chair," when every hon. Member will have the same opportunity of doing what he now does upon the question of adjournment. That arrangement, without trenching upon the opportunities which Members have for free and ample discussion, would bring these discussions more within the regular proceeding of the House, and more in nnison with the fundamental principles of the Constitution, that when Supply is proposed it shall be open to every Member to discuss any subject. The suggestion was thrown out that there should be a limitation to those discussions upon going into Committee of Supply, but the Committee did not think it was expedient, and they propose to leave unrestricted in its amplest extent the opportunities which Members now enjoy. Then it is proposed to make a change in the mode of dealing with public Bills referred to a Select Committee. When a private Bill is referred to a Select Committee and comes down here, it does not go to a Committee of the Whole House, but the Report of the Select Committee is accepted. In a great number of cases where public Bills have been referred to a Select Committee this House might well adopt the recommendation and result of the labours of the Select Committee, and it will not be necessary for those Bills to be considered by a Committee of the Whole House. It is quite clear that considerable time would in many cases be saved by that alteration, and, therefore, the Committee recommend that all public Bills which have been referred to a Select Committee when they come down to this House shall not, as a matter of course, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, unless it be moved that the Bill or any particular part of it shall be so referred. That is, if a Bill should come back here containing some new clauses upon which a difference of opinion still remains, if it is thought necessary that those particular clauses shall be considered in Committee of the Whole House, it shall not be necessary for the Committee of the Whole House to go through all the other clauses of the Bill to which no objection is made, but it shall be competent for any hon. Member to move that those portions of the Bill upon which a difference of opinion prevails shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. There are cases now under consideration to which that recommendation could be usefully applied. There are the Bills for the consolidation of the law. They consist, in great measure, of consolidation and re-enactment of existing laws. When a Bill of this sort has been referred to a Committee upstairs, it is obvious that it would be a waste of time for the House to go through all the clauses, numerous as they may be, simply re-enacting the law as it stands. And all the purposes of discussion will have been sufficiently accomplished before the Committee as to all the clauses containing alterations, more or less important, of the law. These are the recommendations which it is my duty, on behalf of the Committee, to propose. At first sight those who thought that still larger alterations might have been made may be disappointed by the scantiness of the recommendations. But if hon. Gentlemen will only consider how important it is to go only step by step, and to try the ground by one foot, before taking any fresh step in advance, they will see that these recommendations will save to the House a great deal of valuable time; they will not consider that they go too far; and will think that what they do recommend are changes that may be of advantage in the transaction of business, without in any degree trenching on the perfect freedom of the House in the performance of its important functions. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Standing Order be repealed."

said, it appeared to him that the Committee and the noble Lord had treated the House with somewhat scanty courtesy in allowing them so short a time for the consideration of these proposals. He did not for a moment suppose it was the intention of the Committee or of the noble Lord to be wanting in courtesy, but he thought the Resolutions would be viewed very differently by the occupants of the Treasury bench and the front Opposition bench, and by Members who occupied an independent position. The noble Lord had chiefly dwelt on the convenience the proposed change would be to the Government. He had been much struck with the ingenuity of the concluding part of the noble Lord's speech. He had apologized to the House for the smallness of the change proposed, while, as far as he could ascertain, Members of the House were horror-struck by its magnitude. Instead of falling short of the expectations of the House, the Committee had gone far beyond them. Simple as the recommendations appeared, it was extremely difficult to foresee their effect. Now, there was this difference between the House and the Committee, that the House had not had any opportunity of considering the question. The noble Lord did not wish the House to proceed hastily in the matter, and that was just what he (Mr. Bentinck) wished them not to do. The noble Lord said he did not wish to narrow the field of discussion; but, virtually, the proposal would almost shut up that field altogether. The noble Lord said the House would be enabled to judge with more certainty what business would come on; he should like to hear from some member of the Committee how this greater certainty would be arrived at. If Supply stood on the Orders every night, the Government would be able to pass important Estimates when the House was comparatively empty, as had recently happened with respect to some Navy Estimates. Hon. Members would go to dinner—it was a habit, and nothing would break them of it. But if they would leave the House at an early hour, and not return till nine or ten o'clock, it would be in the power of the Government, if it could take Votes of Supply every night, to pass the Estimates at any time in almost empty Houses. That was a point on which the House ought to be extremely jealous. The noble Lord said the adoption of these Resolutions would enable them to calculate more closely when particular business would come on, while he (Mr. Bentinck) thought the uncertainty would be greater than ever. If the House allowed Supply to stand for every night, it would be in the power of the Government to do that which occurred on a very recent occasion with respect to the Navy Estimates—to sweep through the Estimates at a time from about seven to half-past nine, when a great number of Members were absent from the House. He would ask hon. Members who like himself did not owe political allegiance to any man, except to those who sent them to that House, whether they did not remember occasions innumerable when they had been prevented from addressing the House on important questions of policy through arrangements which had been come to between the two front benches as to when a debate was to terminate? That question had been raised on more than one occasion, and he had taken exception to that arrangement as most irregular and unconstitutional. The noble Lord's Resolutions were little more than an attempt to carry that system still further. It was difficult for a private Member to bring a question forward at present under these recommendations it would be almost impossible. They would thus place him in a very inconvenient position with his constituents, for they might wish him to bring a particular question before the House, and he might be willing to do so, and yet have no opportunity. Then the noble Lord proposed to take another day for Government during the week, that day being taken from private Members. On the third Resolution he was not inclined to agree with the noble Lord. The fourth Resolution was similar to the second, upon which he had already remarked. As to the fifth, the noble Lord said it would facilitate public business, but he (Mr. Bentinck) thought it a merit of the forms of the House that they prevented legislation from being hurried through it. Good legislation would find its way through; if objectionable it would be dangerous to facilitate it. It was said that facilities would be afforded by the Resolutions for the despatch of public business. But the delay which now occurred was owing to the neglect of Governments themselves, who did not introduce their measures sufficiently early, so that, generally speaking, a whole month was wasted every Session. In submitting his Amendment to the House he wished them to understand that he was by no means opposed to all changes that might be suggested with the view to improve the present arrangements regarding the conduct of public business. He was only desirous of expressing his decided objection to the Resolutions now proposed. He had two great reasons for resisting the Motion of the noble Lord. In the first place, he thought the proposal dangerous as regarded the rights and privileges of private Members, and in the second place, he thought that more time ought to be given to the House for the consideration of this question. It was his intention to take the sense of the House upon his Amendment in the spirit in which he made it. He did not, however, mean to bind any hon. Gentleman any more than himself to any declaration in respect to any change that might hereafter be deemed advisable to be submitted to them. He simply asked them not to sanction a proposal which he believed to be destructive of their rights, and to seriously affect the independence of the House of Commons. Amendment proposed,

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House, having considered the Proceedings and the Report of the Select Committee on Business of the House, does not deem it expedient to sanction the proposed alterations in the Standing Orders, and in the practice of the House,'" instead thereof.

, in seconding the Amendment, said, when he saw that out of twenty-one members of the Committee fourteen or fifteen were Ministers or ex-Ministers, he felt sure that the rights of independent Members would not be taken much care of. The simple question was—should the whole legislation of the country be practically concentrated on the Ministerial bench? At present private Mem- bers had great difficulties with which to contend Take, for instance, the Church Rate Abolition Bill, The hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) could not be accused of want of activity, and his Bill was brought in on the first day of the Session. Early in March it was read a second time; and then all the Wednesdays were so completely taken up that the hon. Baronet found it impossible to fix the third reading before some time in June. With such a case in point, was it desirable to place additional impediments in the way of private Members? True, it was not proposed to interfere with the order days, but hon. Gentlemen would be stopped at the very threshold—they would not be able even to introduce measures. The real impediment to public business was the interminably long speeches made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in the immediate neighbourhood of the table. No doubt these speeches might be extremely eloquent and very able, but still, in his humble opinion, they might be condensed with advantage. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were rarely in the habit of interrupting Ministers of the Crown by any of those euphonious noises which conveyed the belief of the House that the speaker was slightly tedious, and hon. Gentlemen opposite generally extended the same consideration to the leaders of Opposition. "When, however, right hon. Gentlemen on either side of the table found that they were not interrupted they seemed to imagine that the House was listening to them with rapt and breathless attention. Speaking for himself, he could only say that this was very far, indeed, from being the case. In his opinion these Resolutions would trench very much on the rights of independent Members, and he should, therefore, second the Amendment.

was understood to say that he merely wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he intended by the Resolutions to continue the practice which now existed of allowing Motions on going into Committee of Supply to be brought forward on Mondays and Thursdays as well as on Fridays, which was the present practice? At present great inconvenience was occasioned by that practice.

The proposals which I have made do not interfere with or restrict in the slightest degree the privilege now possessed of making any Motion, or calling the attention of the House to any subject on any day for which Committee of Supply is fixed.

was understood to express his strong objections to the recommendations of the Committee, and his determination to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norfolk. The proposition of the Government was, in effect, to restrict the Motions of private Members to one day in the week. Sent there, as they were, to represent the wants and wishes of their constituencies, he deprecated any attempt to interfere with their constitutional rights. He had never heard any objections made, on the part of independent Members, to giving every facility to the Government for bringing on their measures on any day they applied for, and, therefore, thought it was exceedingly unreasonable for the noble Viscount to ask them to adopt the Resolution. He ventured to think that the proposition, if adopted, would have the effect of occasioning surprises and great uncertainty as to when the business in Committee of Supply would be brought forward. Certain arrangements had been proposed by the late Speaker which he thought might be judiciously adopted. He hoped that his hon. Friend would divide the House on his Amendment.

Sir, I for one should have been disposed to place the greatest reliance in the Committee composed as it was, but the last recommendation, illustrated as it was by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, has completely concluded my mind against these Resolutions. With regard to the former Resolutions, we are, in point of fact, only asked to give up to the Government one day for the whole Session, which we were in the habit of giving them for half the Session. But when we come to the last, that a Bill which has gone through a Select Committee should not necessarily be discussed in Committee of the Whole House, I felt at the time great difficulty with regard to it, but the illustration of the noble Lord convinced me of the great danger of the proposition. He told us that a Bill for consolidating the criminal law had recently been sent to the Select Committee, and that it would be idle for us in Committee of the "Whole House to consider those parts which are merely re-enactments, and that we must confine ourselves to those parts which are Amendments and alterations. But, surely, some Members may think that parts of Bills which are merely re-enactments, and which have been passed by the Select Committee in that form, may contain such grave and important principles that they ought very properly to be considered in Committee of the Whole House. Yet, according to the noble Lord, under this Resolution they will be completely shut out. It is true that they will have the opportunity of making a Motion, but what chance will any Member have of carrying a Motion of that sort against the Government which has brought in the Bill, and the head of which has declared that the Bill ought not to be considered in Committee of the Whole House? For instance, in many cases the punishment of death is re-enacted, but do you suppose that there are not hon. Members in this House who may not wish to raise a discussion whether it ought to be re-enacted at all or in particular points? It might be very convenient for a Government, by the power of its majority, to prevent that question being discussed. Within the last few years a stop had been put to all dealing with clauses upon the third reading. I did not object to that; I think it has worked well; but I do object altogether to putting public Bills on the footing of private Bills, because, in practice, it will come entirely to that. You send a Bill to a Select Committee, but it is a chapter of accidents how that Committee is constituted, and a still greater chapter of accidents how many Members attend it. The public are not there; nothing is known of what is done; it may be put down for the Report next day; and, if it is a Bill of 100 or 150 clauses, who is to read it in that short time? It may have been wholly changed in Select Committee, and many details run so much into principles that you can hardly tell at first sight how much the alterations of details may affect great principles. Upon this ground alone I have the strongest possible objection to the Resolution, and I should have been glad to take the opinion of the House upon it by itself, but as my hon. Friend below has made his Motion I shall vote with him. In regard to the other part of the Resolutions, I do not believe that it will effect the object which the Committee intend. You may cry out, "Stop discussion," but if you stop up one hole it will gnaw through another. What is the real history of these discussions on Fridays? They spring from this reason—the Government took away a day from private Members. Those Members found their chances lessened, and they immediately availed themselves of this other opportunity to have desultory conversations. I believe the effect of the alteration will be what has been stated by my hon. Friend behind me—there will be so many discussions on going into Committee of Supply, that nobody will know when we shall get into it. The Government cannot complain of any hon. Member on any night raising any question. The noble Lord says he does not want to gag the House. Though he may not want to, he is taking a very good chance of doing it. I do not think that after we have adopted the Resolutions the discussions will be any more definite than at present. On the contrary, I believe they will be more desultory, and, therefore, will not facilitate public business.

It would not perhaps be respectful on my part, having had the honour to preside over the Committee, to remain altogether silent in this discussion. But I must beg to relieve the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Knightley), as, however I may have transgressed heretofore, I am now no longer able to address the House at an unreasonable length. This discussion has assumed the shape of seeking to give a general negative to the whole Resolutions by a preliminary Motion, and I think it necessary shortly to address the House in reference to some of the observations which have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) says that the Government and the members of the Committee generally have been wanting in courtesy to the independent Members. At the request of my noble Friend at the head of the Government I took the chair of this Committee unwillingly, but upon the ground that I was fitted for it because I had ceased to desire any official position, and had resumed the station whence long ago I first departed—the station of a private Member of this House. I am now rude donatus —no longer a combatant for office on the floor of the House—and all my sympathies, therefore, are with the independent Members, and I am the very last person who would be wanting in courtesy or consideration to them. The course which I took in the Committee was quite in accordance with the views stated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government—namely, that no course should be taken which would interfere with the fair op- portunity of independent Members for making Motions or expressing their opinions upon public questions. The hon. Member for Norfolk went on to say that the House was taken by surprise when it consented to the appointment of this Committee. The matter referred to us was that we were to consider whether any measures could be taken to expedite the transaction of public business; and, so far from the House being taken by surprise, if I mistake not, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department did on that occasion give a distinct outline of the propositions which he thought should be brought before the Committee, with a view of so expediting public business. In the main the recommendations which this Committee have adopted, though modified to a considerable extent, are the propositions which were stated by my right hon. Friend as the subject matter for us to consider.

My right hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I said the House was taken by surprise in being called upon so soon to decide on the course which they would adopt upon the Report of the Committee.

I thought my hon. Friend said the propositions were larger than those the Committee were to inquire into, and to that extent the House was taken by surprise. If I am accurate in what I have stated they are not larger, because in the main they are the identical propositions which were made when the Committee was appointed. As to surprise now, I think this Report has been in the hands of the House for some time—more than a week. It is not very voluminous, and the evidence is very short. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire says the language is verbose. I alone am responsible for the language employed, subject to the corrections of the Committee, and, although it is said to be verbose, I hope that the propositions are stated so elearly and so intelligibly that there can be no mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk says—and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Paull) makes the same observation—that greater certainty with respect to the time of going into Committee of Supply was the primary object. I admit that most distinctly. The Committee so regarded it, and in the first instance directed their inquiry with the hope of obtaining more certainty with respect to the time of going into Com- mittee of Supply, but what deterred us from giving greater effect to that object was that we found it could only be obtained by proposing greater changes than we thought desirable. And with those greater changes we must have introduced the novel principle that, with respect to debates on going into Committee of Supply, there must be a limit of time at the expiration of which the question is to be put from the chair, or we must have recommended to extended "progress" with regard to Supply as with regard to Committees on public Bills. The hon. Member for Norfolk says that if this Report be adopted no opportunity for making Motions will be given except on Tuesdays. My hon. Friend has misconceived the effect of the Resolution. As it now stands, when the question on Friday is that the House at its rising adjourn till Monday, no Motion can be made. There may be desultory discussions. The attention of the House may be called to different subjects, but no Motion can be made. If this recommendation of the Committee be adopted, and it be the invariable rule to move on Fridays that the Speaker leave the chair to go into Committee of Supply or Committee of Ways and Means, whereas now no Amendment on Friday can be put, on the substituted Motion an Amendment may be moved, and the sense of the House taken upon it, in addition to retaining every facility for calling attention to any special subject. These discussions, which are now irregular on the Motion for Adjournment, will then be conducted in a perfectly regular manner, and consistent with the rules and existing practice of the House of Commons. The next observation of my hon. Friend is that there is a great waste of time at the commencement of the Session. I entirely agree with my noble Friend at the head of the Government, that the great object at the commencement of the Session is that the business to be brought forward should be laid on the table at an early period; but at the natural apprehension of the Government is that in bringing forward Bills before Easter and putting down a number of Orders of the Day they may be driven into a strait, and not have sufficient time to take the Votes in the Army and Navy Estimates, which are necessarily preliminary to passing the Mutiny Bills. The Government very naturally press on Supply before Easter, and exclude the consideration of other business. I, therefore, entirely differ from the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) who has given Notice of a Motion that whatever enlargement of order days be granted should be order days after Easter, and I contend that the enlargement should be before much rather than after Easter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire has taken an objection to the fifth Resolution. If I could hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk will not press his Motion to a division, or, if he does press it, that the House will decide to enter upon a consideration of these Resolutions, then I think it would save time to discuss them seriatim. I think it is also more convenient to discuss these Resolutions seriatim, because, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire takes objection to the fifth Resolution, he may not have made up his mind to reject the whole, and not to give an opportunity of discussing the other four. If the House should not absolutely refuse to consider the Report from a Committee passed with singular unanimity I hope they will give a fair consideration to the recommendations of that Committee seriatim, but if they should decide that the consideration even of the Resolutions be not entertained it is a waste of time to discuss them.

said, he could assure the House that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had expressed the views of himself and the rest of the Committee. He never acted on a Committee in which there was more unanimity of opinion. The Committee took into consideration all the points which had been touched upon, and many others besides. There were times when he doubted whether they would be able to arrive at a unanimous concurrence of opinion; but he was bound to say that the Resolutions might be taken by the House to express truly and fairly the general sense of the Committee to whom the House was pleased to refer this matter. As he trusted that the House would deal with the matter in the businesslike matter suggested by the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), he would now trouble the House by referring to the particular points which had been urged against the Resolutions; but there was, he believed, a general impression on which he might take the liberty of saying a few words. That impression was that the Resolutions tended to deprive the indepen- dent Members of the House of certain facilities which they at present possessed. He, on the other hand, held that, if the House adopted the Resolutions, independent Members would be in a better condition than at present. Objection had been taken to the proposal to give the Government power to set down Supply on Tuesdays, but the effect of that would be that the Government would have an interest in keeping a House on those days, and he need hardly say that the greatest misfortune in a Parliamentary sense to which private Members were now exposed was that on the only day open to them for bringing forward Motions they ran the risk of finding their audience disappear from before their eyes. Under those circumstances, and seeing that Supply was to be placed at the end of the business on Tuesdays, he thought the proposal now made would tend to the advantage of private Members. Another objection was that the substitution of debates on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on Fridays for the desultory discussions which now took place on the Motion for the adjournment of the House would, in some way or other, encroach upon the privileges of private Members. The Resolutions would have no such effect, and after they were adopted it would be just as competent for private Members to make remarks, ask for explanations, and call the attention of the House to subjects on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply as it now was on the Motion for the adjournment of the House until Monday. As far as he was able to form a judgment the adoption of the Resolutions would lead to good order and facilitate the business of the Session, and at the same time it would in no way diminish the existing privileges of private Members.

said, that the question before the House was, whether a certain Standing Order should be repealed; and he desired to submit to the House whether it was wise or prudent to take Committees of Supply and Ways and Means upon those days on which Notices of Motions have precedence of Or- ders of the Day. Tuesday, to which he wished to confine his remarks, was a day reserved for Members' notices, and as he understood the object of the first Resolution, it was to take Committees of Supply and Ways and Means on Tuesday after the notices, with the view to prevent uncertainty as to when Supply and Ways and Means would be taken. But he believed that for that purpose the alteration proposed would fail entirely, because there were generally ten or twelve Motions on the Tuesday's paper, and if the Committees of Ways and Means appeared upon the Orders, there could be no certainty of their being taken. It was only the other week that a debate on the New Zealand question, which had arisen on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply, was adjourned to Friday. On that evening the usual desultory debate on the adjournment was concluded earlier than usual, several important Motions went off, and the New Zealand debate was resumed. An attempt, however, was made to count out the House, and he went away, thinking it impossible that they would go into Supply that night. They did so, however, and in the absence of most of those Gentlemen who took an interest in the matter the Estimates were disposed of in three-quarters of an hour. That was very annoying, and it was desirable that Members should be enabled to ascertain with greater certainty when the House was going into Supply; but that object would not be effected by the proposed change. He hoped that the noble Viscount would at least leave the Tuesday Motion day alone.

observed that the Resolutions before the House were very unequal in importance. The really material propositions were the second, third, and fourth. There were two others which had been proposed by the Committee because they thought these changes would, upon the whole, be beneficial, but which they did not consider would have any great practical effect, and these were the first and the fifth. With regard to the first, it appeared to him that the hon. Baronet altogether misunderstood the object with which it was proposed. At present the rule of the House was that the Committee of Supply should be fixed for Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, but it might not be fixed for Tuesday. Now, the object of the Resolution was to remove that single exception; and if that single exception were not re- moved the Resolution might as well be withdrawn, for the modification suggested would entirely destroy its effect. The rule with regard to Committee of Supply was this: that unless notice was given that particular business would be taken on the night for which it was fixed, it stood as a mere formal order on the paper, and no Votes were taken. There would be a few cases in the course of the Session when, for the sake of expediting business, it might be convenient to fix the Committee of Supply for Tuesday, and in such cases due notice would be given, that Members might not be taken by surprise. To enable the Government to do this was the whole scope of the Resolution, and he thought the House might agree to it without any alarm as to the consequences that might ensue from it. Nor would this change act as a limitation of the time at the disposal of independent Members, because, as Motions would still take precedence of Orders of the Day, Supply could not come on until all the Motions of which Notices had been given had been disposed of. It did not, however, appear that hon. Members prized very highly the night which was set apart for their Motions, for what had taken place on the three last Tuesday evenings? Last Tuesday evening there was no House, on the previous Tuesday the House was counted out at a quarter before eight, and on the Tuesday evening before that at a quarter past eight o'clock. A large portion of both Tuesday and Friday evenings was lost on account of the disinclination of Members to listen to the Motions which were brought forward upon those occasions. He trusted, therefore, that the first, which was in the nature of a mere formal Resolution, would not be debated at any length, but that the House would be inclined to proceed to the more important propositions comprised in the second, third, and fourth Resolutions.

said, hon. Gentlemen who sometimes called themselves "independent Members," but whose proper designation was "unofficial Members," frequently appealed in vain to Ministers to say which part of the business on the paper they intended to proceed with. A noble Viscount, who had attended the House forty years, when appealed to on one occasion told hon. Members that, if they sat in the House throughout the whole of the night, they would discover what the Government would do in the course of the evening. But all Members did not sit in the same exalted position as the noble Viscount, and they did not experience exactly the same pleasure which he did in sitting in the House throughout the whole of the night. Now, if the Government would undertake that if this Motion was agreed to they would on Tuesday evenings state before seven o'clock whether or not they intended to take Supply that night, he saw no objection to the Resolution; but if such an undertaking was withheld every hon. Member ought to vote against the change which was now proposed.

The hon. Member has asked me whether, if this order is passed, we shall be prepared to state distinctly on Tuesday evenings, before seven o'clock, whether it is the intention of the Government to go into Committee of Supply? I have no hesitation whatever in entering into that engagement; but the intentions of the Government will, of course, be subject to the permission of the House, and to the fact that Motions occupying an intermediate position on the paper may last too long to admit of our going into Committee of Supply as intended.

said, there was no safety in the Minister saying at seven o'clock what he intended to do, because that would simply keep every one waiting the whole night, and if they absented themselves, expecting intermediate business would occupy the House, but it failed to do so, Supply would be brought on in their absence, and important financial questions would be disposed of with the undue haste exhibited last year.

said, he would move to insert, with regard to Thursdays, the words "after Easter." When he first entered that House Thursdays belonged to non-official Members; some time ago every alternate Thursday was taken by the Government; latterly they had lost Thursday evenings altogether, Friday being given up to them instead; and the object contemplated by these Resolutions was to take from private Members Friday as well as Thursday. It was highly convenient that in the early part of the year non-official Members should have possession of these evenings, because, in the ordinary course of business, no important Government measure received a second reading before Easter, while with notices of Motion the case was very different. During the recess private Members took up some subject which they believed ought to engage the attention of the House, and familiarized themselves with it; but it often happened that the House, when the subject was brought before them, did not feel equally interested, and either bestowed little attention upon it, or got rid of it altogether. A great deal of business, consequently, was got rid of before Easter, and after that period Tuesdays and Thursdays were no longer in equal demand. He could not agree with hon. Members that, because the time of the House had not been fully occupied on two or three Tuesday evenings, a general rule ought to be adopted, the effect of which would be to confine non-official Members to a single day during the week. That was a process of induction which he felt sorry that his right hon. and historical Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department should have adopted. The only effect of depriving Members of the opportunities which they at present enjoyed would be to throw more notices of Motion on the paper for Supply nights, and to create difficulties in the way of discharging the business of the country. He also believed that, by doing away with what he regarded as a very useful debate on the Motion of adjournment, they would spread over all the other days the notices which were now given for Friday evenings.

said, the second Resolution should be read in connection with the third and fourth Resolutions, with which it was intimately associated. At first Sight the rule by which the miscellaneous debate on the Motion of adjournment was done away with appeared to have the effect of taking Friday nights from private Members, and giving them to the Government; but in practice a more regular and constitutional form of debate on going into Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means, was substituted for that now prevailing; and, as it was intended that one or other of these notices should always be put first upon the orders, two or three hours would be given to private Members for discussion under the system proposed. A Member giving a notice for Tuesday evening ran a great risk of being unable to bring it on. Under the proposed plan it was much more likely that he would have an opportunity of doing so, as the Government would have an interest in keeping the House.

suggested that the words "after Easter" should be inserted after Friday, which would have the effect of not disturbing the arrangement made last Session, and which had been found to work so satisfactorily.

This is, in fact, the most material of the propositions submitted to the consideration of the House; and, in order to arrive at a conclusion on the subject, let us look at the relative amount of time assigned to the Government and to independent Members from the beginning to the end of the Session. It would be a great mistake to suppose that this is any personal question between Members of the Government and independent Members of the House. The Government cannot make bricks without straw they cannot pass Bills if time for their discussion be not allowed them. It is no selfish desire that prompts us to propose this Resolution; in fact, it is a much less laborious task to watch the Motions of unofficial Members than to defend our own bills, and so far, therefore, as the self-regarding interests of the Government are concerned, I am not sure that it would not be advantageous to them if, instead of increasing the time at their disposal, the time allotted to them were diminished. It is solely a public question how much of the time of the House it is advantageous to devote to measures initiated by Members of the Government, and how much to those initiated by unofficial Members. The ordinary state of things is this—the Government have two nights in the week which are order nights, and on which Government orders have precedence of other orders. Those nights are Mondays and Thursdays. There are two nights upon which notices of Motions have precedence of orders. Those two nights are Tuesday and Friday, which may be considered as exclusively at the command of unofficial Members. Then there is Wednesday, which is exclusively assigned to Bills of unofficial Members. Three out of five nights are, therefore, according to the ordinary course of business, allotted to independent Members. I should think that that simple statement would be sufficient to answer the complaint made by the hon. Member for Norfolk that there exists any disposition on the part of the Government to gag independent Members. In addition to these two nights and one day of which unofficial Members have the control, they have, likewise, a very considerable share of the two nights belonging to the Government on the question of going into Committee of Supply. According to the present arrangement, a large portion of the time allotted to the Government before Easter is devoted to Committee of Supply. On every one of those nights it is competent to Members to bring on Motions on going into Committee of Supply, It sometimes occurred that these Motions occupied the whole night, and I should scarcely exaggerate were I to say that I do not think the Government before Easter had the exclusive use of more than one night in the week. The hon. Member for Norfolk said he thought the real cause of delay was that the Government did not bring forward their Bills early in the Session. A more unfounded complaint it is impossible to make. I myself brought in several Bills early in the Session in the vain hope that they might receive discussion; but, although certainly I have lost no opportunity of discussing them, I have only been able to postpone them from day to day. It was utterly impossible to find any time on which Government Bills, not of first-rate importance, could receive the attention of the House. One Government Bill of great importance—the Bankruptcy Bill—certainly occupied some time, but that was the only legislative business of the Government which it was possible to bring forward be- fore Easter. The result of the present arrangement of the business of the House is that, with regard to legislation, the initiative is wholly taken from the Government for the first half of the Session;—practically they initiate nothing, and the entire initiative of legislative measures is vested in private Members, who are able to bring forward on successive Wednesdays questions which might with advantage be postponed to measures of more general interest which the Government were prepared to bring forward. What is proposed is—and after the explanation of the noble Lord it does not appear a very far-reaching or dangerous innovation—to give the Government for the disposal of their orders the remnant of Friday. It is not proposed practically to abolish the miscellaneous discussions which now take place on the adjournment of the House. Friday being an order night, the Government will put the Committee of Supply as the first order, and that will give hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of making Motions and speeches, as now, on the question of adjournment till Monday. There were, in last Session, a good many days on which the debate upon these Motions did not terminate till past nine or ten o'clock, and I think on one or two occasions not till past eleven. I ask the House, then, to consider whether giving the Government the remnant of Friday for their orders would in practice amount to any great increase of the time at their command? That would enable us on some few Fridays in the early part of the Session to bring forward those Bills which it is now necessary to postpone, and so add to the general convenience of the House. The present system does not work conveniently to private Members, who complain of those frequent postponements of measures which are its inevitable consequence. I trust the proportion between the time assigned to the Government and that allotted to private members will not be thought to be unreasonably disturbed by the proposition, which, as far as it goes, will tend to the general convenience of the House; and, therefore, I shall be prepared to give my vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Pontefract, and in favour of the Resolution as it stands.

This Resolution and the two following Resolutions all relate to the arrangements for business on Fridays, and they ought, therefore, to be dealt with together. I am astonished that a friend of progress like the hon. Member for Pontefract should have moved an Amendment of so retrograde a character. A great improvement was effected last year by placing the Thursdays instead of the Fridays at the Government's disposal; but the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would throw the House back upon the old objectionable arrangement which deprived the Government of the Thursdays, and gave them the mere remnant of the Fridays, after the Motion for Adjournment till Monday had been agreed to, thereby retarding, instead of expediting the transaction of business. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the House will not entertain a proposal that virtually repeals the very beneficial change made last Session. With respect to the practice of introducing all sorts of desultory discussions on the Motion for Adjournment on Friday, it is now proposed to get rid of that acknowledged irregularity which has only been tolerated for the sake of its incidental convenience. It is important that, whatever decision we may arrive at on this point, we should not act under any misapprehension as to the real nature of the Resolution before us. Some hon. Gentlemen evidently take an erroneous view of the effect of the Committee's recommendation on the privileges of independent Members. It is quite true that, by our present rules, when one Motion has been made on the proposal that the Speaker leave the chair, preliminary to our going into Committee of Supply, no other Motion can be made or question decided. Still, after that Motion has been disposed of, and the Main Question has become the question, "that the Speaker leave the chair," the right remains to every hon. Gentleman to address the House upon that question, and it is perfectly open to hon. Members to bring forward in succession, just as they now do on Fridays, as many different subjects as they please. I hope, therefore, there will be no indisposition shown to the adoption of one of the mildest changes that could he proposed, and which, while it seeks to correct an admitted irregularity, does not diminish but, in one respect, increases the privileges of private Members. Is there anything unfair in asking for the Government the remainder of the Friday nights after the Notices of Motion are over? The little use now made by independent Members of their Tuesdays has been alluded to; but the reason for that is that those Gentlemen feel that if they avail themselves of that opportunity to bring forward any question in which they are interested they have the fear of that "arithmetical process" to which the noble Lord referred hanging over them, and rather than be counted out they forbear to exercise their privilege. As to this Resolution being an encroachment on the rights of independent Members, those Gentlemen should recollect that, however inclined they may be to take part in our proceedings in the earlier portion of the Session, their numbers fall off very considerably about the end of July, and fifty or sixty Members are left in the month of August to hurry through what remains of our Legislative duties in a manner that does not contribute much to the credit of this House. I think it is worth the while of independent Members, therefore, to make some small sacrifice, such as that now asked of them, in order to remove the stigma attaching to the mode in which public business is transacted under the circumstances I have described.

maintained that the change from the Friday to the Thursday as a Government night worked injuriously to non-official Members, and also denied that the adoption of the hon. Member for Ponte-fract's Amendment would be a retrograde movement.

said, it was alleged that, Supply being at the bottom of the list, Government would keep a House, but no one could persuade him that, in the face of two or three hostile Motions, or even of one inconvenient Motion, the Government would keep a House with a view to the chance of getting to the Government business. When observations were made about counting out, he would remind them that Mr. Canning held it to be the duty of Government to keep a House. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was justified in the remarks he had made in reference to counts out, inasmuch as the Government to which he belonged contributed very much to produce those very results with respect to which he had been so facetious. That such was the case he was in a position to state, for he had been in the House on each of the eventful occasions in question, and had been a witness of the movements by which on those, as on all other occasions, they were preceded. When a "count out" was in contemplation some of the subordinate Members of the Government come into the House, look about for a short time, then disappear, very soon afterwards come in again, get into conversation with hon. Members, with whom they retire into the lobby, and that process having been resorted to to a sufficient extent some mysterious personage, who had managed to get close to the Speaker, whispered into his ear that there were not forty Members present and immediately vanished, so that it frequently happened the House did not know to whom it was indebted for the speedy release from business which followed. Now, when the Government themselves were guilty of aiding and abetting in those cases, they had, in his opinion, scarcely so good a claim to ask hon. Members to assent to certain Resolutions with the view of facilitating the transaction of public business as they would have had, had they not to some extent assisted in creating the evils the existence of which they deprecated. On two occasions, lately, for example, a Notice of an important character had stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith); indeed the notice involved nothing more nor less than a vote of want of confidence in the Board of Admiralty, and one would naturally have supposed that the Members of the Government would have been in their places to meet the Motion; but, with the exception of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, none of them were there. The House was counted out, and two opportunities of bringing on the question were lost. His hon. and gallant Friend had, therefore, been obliged to fix his Notice for a night on which the House was to be asked to go into Committee of Supply, so that, in all probability, unnecessary delay in the progress of public business—the very thing which the Government said they wished to avoid—would, owing to the course which they had pursued, be created. He wished, before he sat down, to urge upon the Government, as a means of promoting the object which they sought to attain, the expediency of laying the Estimates on the table as soon as the House assembled for the Session. That course, he contended, there could be very little difficulty in adopting, inasmuch as in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament the words "I have directed the Estimates for the year to be laid before you," and "they have been prepared with a view to economy," almost invariably occurred. If, then, acting upon that announcement— which must be correct—for no Minister would put into the mouth of the Sovereign words which were not justified by the fact—the Government were to lay the Estimates on the table, and as soon as hon. Members had had an opportunity of examining them proceed to their consideration—great progress might be made in passing them before the busy period of the Session had arrived. He should simply add that, being convinced the Resolutions proposed could only produce one of two effects—that they would either fail to accomplish the objects of those who brought them forward, or practically place the entire command over the House in the hands of the occupants of the Treasury bench, he had deemed it to be his duty to go into the lobby with the minority in the division which had just taken place.

said, it was difficult to suppose that the scene described by the noble Lord could occur when there was any Motion of importance; that though the Motion was so important there were not forty Members who would support the proposer by keeping a House for him.

said, he believed it would still be in the power of the Government to prevent private Members from bringing on Motions which would he inconvenient to them. The substitution of Supply for the adjournment of the House would he ineffective to insure an opportunity to Members to bring on their Motions for discussion. If it was intended that the Motion to go into Supply should be a real one the Government would keep a House. If it was intended to he a sham the condition of private Members would be the same as at present. He thought the Government were doing wrong in attempting to draw too tightly the rules of business, as he believed that much of the good humour and gentlemanly character of the House arose from the freedom which it enjoyed, and if that freedom were taken away they would fall into the state which unhappily prevailed in some other deliberate Assemblies, where private animosities acting against public men operated injuriously to the character of the Assembly and to the country.

pointed out that if the Motion for going into Supply was a real one private Members were sure of an opportunity of bringing on their Motions, and if it was a sham they would be only in the same position as at present.

observed, that they ought to hesitate before they adopted the Resolution. At present the Motion for adjournment on Friday was made the occasion for putting questions accompanied by short explanations upon which no regular debate arose; but he feared that the change proposed would lead to regular debates on Friday, as experience taught them that a whole night was frequently occupied in a discussion which arose upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

observed, that the discussions upon various topics upon the Motion for adjournment were not always so brief as the hon. Member appeared to suppose, and he could not see what harm could be done by the change proposed.

pointed out that when no Committee of Ways and Means or of Supply was open hon. Members would have no opportunity of putting questions accompanied by explanations. He would suggest as an Amendment that the words "when any Committee of Ways and Means or of Supply be open" be added at the commencement of the Resolution. He hoped also that it would be understood that upon a Committee of Ways and Means it would be competent to discuss the same questions as upon going into Committee of Supply.

said, he must admit that there had been an abuse of the opportunity afforded by the Motion for Adjournment, but he did not believe that the House wished entirely to get rid of that opportunity. There was a difficulty which might arise under the proposed Resolution which he hoped the noble Viscount would consider. If upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on Thursday a Member introduced a subject which led to a protracted and adjourned debate, that adjourned discussion must be renewed on the Friday, and must be brought to a termination before any Member could make another Motion or suggest any other. He thought, therefore, that some step ought to he taken to prevent any adjourned debate having that priority on Friday. He also wished to call attention to the reference by the Committee to the subject of proceeding with opposed business after one o'clock. A few nights since a Resolution agreeing to the income tax was passed at two o'clock, which was not an hour at which so important a subject should be brought on. He hoped the noble Viscount would agree that no opposed business should be commenced after one o'clock if objection was made.

said, the hon. Member's objection referred to the case of a debate arising on the Thursday on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair, which was adjourned over until the Friday. No doubt, practically, such debate would take precedence on the Friday, and, therefore, in that single instance the proposal now made would curtail the latitude at present enjoyed. But when it was considered how very seldom that particular case arose, he thought it would be hardly worth while to make any exception to the Resolution on that account.

said, he believed that under the new rule an adjourned debate would not have precedence of a Motion for a Committee of Supply or Ways and Means.

said, that when a debate was being adjourned to the Friday some special arrangement might be made for the purpose of meeting the case to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had referred.

said, that the Committee of Supply was open on nearly every Friday throughout the Session. Therefore, he had no objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

said, he regretted the loss of the Friday, though the right of putting questions on the Motion of adjournment had been somewhat abused. He thought the Government had been to a great degree responsible for the delays caused by the abuses the Resolutions already passed had remedied. If a House were not made on Tuesdays, Motions accumulated on the nights of Supply.

said, he would now move, as an Amendment, to add to the Resolution the words of which he had given notice—

said, that the Resolution applied only to Friday nights, whereas the Amendment referred to all notices on going into Committee of Supply, and, therefore, the proper mode of proceeding would be for the bun. Member to submit bis proposition as a substantive Motion. If the House thought that the proposition would tend to the convenient despatch of business, be would, so far as he was concerned, offer no objection to it.

said, he was sure that the House would sympathize deeply in his feeling of regret that the Speaker was not present during the present important discussion, but be could state from communications with the right hon. Gentleman that the Speaker deprecated that the responsibility should be thrown on him of giving precedence to any hon. Member. The Speaker's power depended on his strict impartiality and the general goodwill thereby created, but a regulation such as that proposed would place him in a most invidious position.

said, it was quite impossible, after what has been just stated, that the House could agree to the Amendment, which, in its present state, would give to the Speaker the tremendous power of deciding whether a Motion on finance, or one on foreign policy, should first come on.

observed that under the present practice hon. Members could give positive notice of a Motion or question for the Friday on the Motion of Adjournment; but with respect to notices on the Motion of Supply, such notices were not given for any particular day, but for the first Supply night. He wished, therefore, to know whether the same practice which now prevailed in reference to the Motion of Adjournment on Friday would be made applicable to the Motion for the Committee of Supply on Friday.

said, he apprehended that, as the first order on Friday must be, under the Resolution, either "Supply" or "Ways and Means," it would be quite competent for gentlemen to give positive notice of bringing forward a question on going into Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means on Friday.

said, that a great principle was involved in this Resolution, to which he should be sorry to see the House give its consent. The House was now asked to hand over to a Committee of fifteen Gentlemen any Bill that the majority of the House might think it good so to hand over to them, and allow them to determine the character of the legislation with respect to it. Take, for example, the Parochial Assessments Bill. It had passed a second reading on the understanding that it was to go to a Select Committee. That Bill was likely to go undergo very important alterations in Committee, and was the House to have no opportunity of considering the, perhaps, altogether changed machinery of the measure? Take, again, the Wine Licensing Bill of last Session. With the majority at his back, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have selected fifteen Gentlemen to consider that Bill. The Committee might have sent it back without the alteration of a line, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the aid of his majority, might have prevented its recommitment. They might be told that public opinion would prevent such things, but he thought the forms of the House ought to prevent them, and that they ought not for the sake of saving a little time to make such an alteration in their practice. He would recommend the Government to postpone this Resolution, in order that it, might be seen whether some safeguard could not be introduced against inconsiderate legislation on the part of the majority, which would very often end in public inconvenience. There was another Bill before the House—the Highways Bill, and he hardly ever remembered a Session without one. If the Resolution had been in existence fourteen or fifteen years ago, and if a Highways Bill had been sent to a Committee upstairs, it would have been law long ago, although whether the public would have benefited was a more doubtful matter. Such measures ought not to be decided without full discussion in that House. If the Resolution were carried the Government would nominate eight Members on a Committee, and the Opposition seven; there would be no security for their attendance; any five might settle the clauses; and then the Bill would come down to the House and be adopted without further discussion.

said, he distrusted his own judgment when he differed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley), and certainly the objections he had stated to the Resolution were serious. The matter, however, specially referred to the Select Committee was how the despatch of public business could best be promoted; and he did not believe that all the recommendations of the Committee put together would be half so conducive to that end as the adoption of the Resolution now before the House. That was not his opinion only, but the opinion of the two highest authorities—one in that House and the other of the Speaker who had lately left it, they both had delivered a joint opinion in favour of this change. His right hon. Friend had referred to Consolidation Bills, and said a great principle was often in volved in them. He agreed in that opinion, and he was sorry not to see in their places the law officers of the Crown, especially his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, with whom he had been in communication on this subject. He should say that a pure Consolidation Bill might safely be intrusted to a Committee under the Resolution, when introduced upon the responsibility of the Government. The Consolidation Bill now upstairs, for example, had been introduced by the Solicitor General, who was presiding in a Committee which was considering the measure. He could not agree with his right hon. Friend that in a pure Consolidation Bill there would be any danger in continuing existing legal punishments. They had already received the sanction of the Legislature. Where an alteration was made in the punishment there was amendment, and without amendment consolidation was valueless. The Report from the Committee would specify all alterations of that description, and if they appeared to be so important that they ought to be considered in Committee of the whole House, a facility was given by the Resolution for recommitting these special clauses to a Committee of the whole House. A Bill had come down from the Upper House consisting of 800 pages. It was a most excellent measure of law reform, absolutely repealing all the statutes that had fallen into desuetude. A Committee of the whole House was not well suited for considering such a measure. But it should be sent upstairs, with an able lawyer connected with the Government responsible for its examination. Let him call before the Committee those who had framed the Bill, and let the Committee, after examining the statutes said to have fallen into desuetude, send the Bill down for a third reading. The course to be taken by the House was then easy. Nothing would be referred to a Committee of the whole House but doubtful points. It might be said that a principle was involved; but he could conceive no better safeguard than the discretion of the House as to the question whether a Bill should be referred partly or entirely to a Committee of the whole House. In cases where the principle was so interlaced with the details that you could not separate them—as, for example, in the Parochial Assessment Bill and the Highways Bill—the application of the rule was never contemplated. In all such doubtful cases the measure would be considered as at present in a Committee of the whole House. If it were thought desirable words might be introduced into the recommendation narrowing its application in the way he had pointed out, or the Resolution might be adjourned until the hon. and learned Attorney General could take part in the discussion.

said, he confessed that be partook a good deal of the jealousy expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) with regard to the proposition, which, in fact, substituted first the decision of a Select Committee, and then that a majority of the House for the consent of Parliament. Hon. Members might consent to refer a Bill to a Select Committee, in the hope that certain objectionable clauses might be expunged, and yet when it came out of the Committee it might still contain those objectionable provisions. In such a case were Members who voted for the second reading, being a minority, to be precluded from discussing the question in Committee of the whole House? His right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) said there was no danger in admitting the principle as regarded Consolidation Bills. But suppose a Bill for the consolidation of the criminal law, in which a penalty of death was inflicted for many offences, and an hon. Member wished to restrict the death penalty to one such offence, he would not be able to do so unless the Bill were considered in Committee of the whole House. Now, in the Select Committee very few Members might have attended, and then there might be a division of 105 votes to 100, by which small majority it would be decided that the Bill should not come before the Committee of the whole House. To the proposal as it stood he saw in principle great objections, and, for his own part, he should be inclined to allow even one Member, as in the case of the withdrawal of a Motion, the right of objecting to the exclusive consideration of any Bill by a Select Committee. If the measure had undergone the examination of a Select Committee and Members were convinced that it would be better to proceed at once to discuss the third reading, he did not think any single Member would be so vexatious as to oppose himself to the general feeling of the House. But he would give any single Member the power of objecting, because, it being the established mode of legislation to consider a Bill in Committee of the whole House no Member ought to be deprived of the right to require that that system should be adhered to. His right hon. Friend said that if the House wished for expedition they would agree to the proposal. Expedition, no doubt, was one of the chief qualities required in the Executive, but although desirable, it was not the most important feature of legislation. Above all, it was necessary to legislate well and cautiously, and, compared with that expedition was of subordinate importance.

said, he did not doubt that the change now proposed would be greater and more important than that effected by any of the other Resolutions; and he fully concurred therefore in the opinion that the House should have more time to consider it. But if they were not prepared to adopt, at any rate to a certain extent, some such means for expediting Parliamentary business, they might just as well put aside altogether and for ever all those plans so often talked of for consolidating the statute law. Consolidation meant the dealing with thirty or forty volumes of statutes, and reducing them to three or four. As the new consolidated laws would equal in bulk the legislation of three or four Sessions, it must be obvious that if each of these Bills was to go through the ordinary ordeal of a Committee of the whole House, the House would never have the time to take the work really in hand; particular subjects might be dealt with, but anything like consolidation of the law, as a whole, would be quite out of the question. As to the suggestion of the noble Lord, that one Member should have the power of compelling the reference of a Bill to a Committee of the whole House, he apprehended that it would render the Resolution wholly ineffectual. He could not help thinking, too, that, while there was some weight in his objections, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had overstated the case in declaring that it was proposed to assimilate the public to the private business of the House. There was, in fact, nothing analogous between the two cases. A private Bill was not generally considered, even upon the second reading. The Committee to which it was sent decided both upon its principle and its de- tails, and as to both it was the general rule of the House to abide by the decision of the Committee. Nothing of that kind was proposed in this case, and if the Resolution passed as it stood it would be in the power of any considerable number of Members to require that any part of a Bill should go to a Committee of the whole House; it would be utterly impossible for any majority, however strong their feelings might be, to refuse compliance with such a demand. For the last century the tendency of their practice had been to take out of the hands of the House the details of legislation and to confide them to Select Committees. There was a time when election petitions were tried by the whole House, and when private Bills were decided by larger Committees than at present, but as the pressure of business increased, the House had in practice delegated to certain of its Members powers which it had before exercised collectively. With regard to the present Resolution, there might be difficulties connected with it, but be believed that some such rule would be found requisite.

said, that he had already expressed his doubts as to the wisdom of the Resolution when it was before the Committee, as he believed its adoption might lead to great injustice. Subsequent reflection had only confirmed him in that opinion. For instance, when a Bill came down to the House from a Select Committee a hostile majority might object to a reconsideration before a Committee of the Whole House, and many essential parts of the Bill which the Member who introduced it desired to retain might be rejected. There was also another point that it was desirable to attain, to prevent the waste of time that occurred in certain cases in discnssing the clauses of the Bills which had come down from Select Committees; in cases where no objection was raised by any one it was advisable that the progress of a Bill should be facilitated. He did not wish to submit the precise words for the adoption of the House, but it had occurred to him that if the course were not adopted of postponing the Resolution the following Amendment would be desirable:—"That when a public Bill shall have been referred to a Select Committee and reported upon, and the Bill as amended has been appointed for consideration at a future day, then, unless any Member should require the Bill generally or especially with respect to any particular clause or clauses to be sent to a Committee of the Whole House, the House should at once proceed to the third reading," and so forth, following the words of the Resolution.

said, he thought that some such proposition as that made by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), and supported by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Deedes), would give sufficient security to the House against the evils apprehended from the Resolution as it now stood. Or, Bills that were not consolidating might be stated as not included in the clause. But perhaps the best course would be to withdraw the clause and postpone, in the meantime, the further consideration of the subject.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Government, in carrying out the provisions of the Post Office Savings Banks Bill, to keep the accounts of the Irish and Scotch depositors in the principal offices of Dublin and Edinburgh respectively, or to transfer them to London. He would remind the House that we had once a separate legislature sitting in Dublin, and that establishments formerly existing there, such as the Board of Customs, the Treasury Board, and many others, had, since the Union gradually been transferred to London; and from communications which he had received from his constituents he had been led to believe that it had even been in contemplation that the Accountant General's office would also be transferred to London. While the Bill was passing through the House he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the savings banks accounts in Ireland and Scotland would be kept in Dublin and Edinburgh, in the same manner as the Money Order Office. The right hon. Gentleman said they would, but it appeared that he was about to "keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to the hope," for it had been stated in "another place" that the accounts of the depositors were to be kept in London. But for that understanding he should have moved Amendments in the Bill while it was before the House, and he was very sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to abide by it. He hoped that he would reconsider the matter, for the proposed concentration would create the greatest dissatisfaction both in Dublin and Edinburgh.

said, that the Savings Banks Bill provided that the Postmaster General, with the consent of the Treasury, should make all the necessary arrangements, and as the Bill had not yet passed into law the hon. Gentleman's question was rather premature. But so far as he understood the proposition of the hon. Member, it would be one which, if adopted, would be attended with considerable inconvenience, and would prevent the efficient and economical carrying out of the proposed scheme. One of the principal objects of the Bill was to enable a depositor to receive back his deposit wherever he might happen to be. Suppose a person in Ireland wished to receive back a deposit be bad made in Manchester, he had only to write to the Postmaster General, and he would receive it back. But it separate accounts were kept in Ireland, England, and Scotland, this main object of the scheme would be defeated, because, before the Postmaster General could sanction the return of a deposit, he would have to carry on a correspondence with the authorities in the different countries, which would cause considerable delay, and it would complicate the accounts of the deposits if separate accounts had to be kept for each of the three countries. He did not see in what way the Bill affected the position of the Post Office in Dublin. That office, indeed, would have important duties to perform in connection with the Bill, as the channel of communication for the depositors between the Postmaster General and his officers in the country.

said his hon. Friend (Mr. Vance) had brought forward the subject on the ground that Dublin would be more convenient to the Irish people than London for their transactions under this Bill. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman, as he was of opinion that that was just the proper time to press the matter upon the attention of the Government, for when the Bill passed into law it would be too late. It was quite clear from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to abide by his implied promise in this matter. The more they attempted to denationalize Ireland the more they would increase the desire in Ireland to be separated from this country,

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the affairs of Poland said, that though the noble Lord had already declined to produce papers on the subject for motives which he could appreciate, he would probably not object to an opportunity of expressing his opinion on matters of such extreme European importance, and the more so as he could not entirely separate himself from these melancholy events. It was after the publication of the noble Lord's famous despatch to Sir James Hudson in October last, in which he laid it down that a people might at any time judge for themselves by whom they would be governed, and might throw off their allegiance whenever the majority thought fit, that these events took place. That appeal to nationalities and to the revolutionary instincts of Europe had led to most lamentable results on the Continent. It had led to the movement in Hungary, and would lead to movements in Greece. The last accounts he had received from that kingdom stated that it was not expected the King would be on his throne for two months. It had led to these melancholy events at Warsaw; and if there was a movement in the Ionian Islands, the noble Lord would only have himself to thank for it as it would be owing to his unfortunate despatch. He wished to refer to the conflict between the troops and the people at Warsaw, the result of which was the destruction of several persons. He believed that Prince Gortschak off the viceroy had expressed his deep regret that such events should have broken out, and that those distressing circumstances should have occurred which for some filled the columns of the journals on the Continent. There were, however, great discrepancies in the accounts which had appeared in the public journals, and it was for that reason that he wished to ask the noble Lord for some explanation. Some of the accounts represented that 400 persons had lost their lives, and others stated the number to be 40 or 50. He should wish to hear these discrepancies cleared up; but, whatever might have been the number of those who fell, this, at least, was certain that a most distressing state of things had occurred, and that the city was in a state of mourning. At the present moment there was a lull, and, as the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was so fond of interfering in the affairs of other countries, and giving the opinion of the English Government upon all the recent events on the Continent, he thought that lull was an occasion when he might fairly endeavour to bring the disputing parties to terms. On the part of the Poles there did not seem to be any demand for a separate kingdom. All they asked was that the Treaty of Vienna should he distinctly recognized and practically fulfilled. That treaty gave them a constitutional Government, and almost all the advantages of an independent existence. The noble Lord must have seen it stated that those disturbances had been brought about at the instigation of the French Government; and, undoubtedly, knowing as we did that every newspaper in France was under Ministerial control, it was difficult to resist the conclusion that the French Government had been cognizant of the events at Warsaw, and to some extent had incited them. He found in one of the French papers—the Journal des Dé bats —these comments—

"Those Treaties of 1815, which are invoked every day against the people, why should not the people invoke them also? As Austria invokes them, why should we not ask Austria what she has done with Cracow? As Russia invokes them, why should we not call Russia to account for the violation of rights guaranteed to Poland by those treaties. Is it, or is it not true that by the Treaties of 1815 Poland ought to form a separate kingdom, with a separate Constitution; a separate Government, a national representation and institutions, forming a distinct kingdom, although under the sceptre of the Emperor of Russia? Is it or is it not true that those engagements were guaranteed by all Europe? When, in 1831, the Emperor Alexander suppressed the Polish nationality, France and England were occupied, the one with her revolution, the other with her Reform Bill, and only protested. Well, then (it continued), she shall not die. She lives, she hopes, she believes; her generous blood shall follow; its incense shall mount to Heaven, while it fertilizes that land of soldiers of poets, of heroes, of martyrs."

When they found remarks such as those in the Dé bats, they might fairly suppose that the French Government, had to a certain extent, excited these occurrences in Poland. There were persons on the other hand who attributed these movements to the instigations of Russia, alleging that the object of that Power was to place an iron hand upon Poland, but he saw nothing in the correspondence on the subject that could lead him to such a conclusion; on the contrary, it appeared to him that the Poles who took part in those occurrences were acting upon what they considered to be a moral principle. Many of them took the sacrament on the morning of the day on which those disturbances took place, and they seemed to have been perfectly aware of what would occur. What would be the result of what had taken place? If they were to judge by some documents that had appeared, Poland would he thrown more than ever upon Russia. The Marquis Wieloysolski who was gone to St. Petersburg to negotiate, and who was sent to London on a special mission from the National party in 1831, published a letter from a Polish gentleman to Prince Metternich after the sad events in Galicia in 1846. In that letter he strongly counselled a union with Russia. Would such a union be desirable for the interests of Europe? In a debate which took place in the Russian Chamber of Representatives, on the 22nd instant, M. Niegolewski, a Pole, in the name of the Polish members, brought forward a motion to the following effect:—

"Considering that the contracting Powers at the Congress of Vienna could not come to an agreement respecting the re-establishment of Poland, which they had at first projected, but were nevertheless agreed upon this point, that the peace and tranquillity of Europe imperiously demanded that Poland should at least retain her existence as a separate member in the family of the peoples of Europe, and that the different parts of ancient Poland, despite their partition under three sceptres, should be recognised as forming one homogeneous whole, with the guarantee of their nationality, the author of the Motion proposes that it may please the Chamber of Representatives to decide that finally the territorial unity of the ancient Polish State of 1772, guaranteed by the formal right of peoples, as well as the national and political rights appertaining to the Poles within those limits, may at least hold good and be carried out, and that those rights may not henceforth be arbitrarily restricted by the signing Powers to whom, in virtue of the Treaties of Vienna, parts of Poland have been conceded under conditions previously stipulated."

The Dé bats contained the following observations:—

"In the midst of all these troubles we still hear of negotiations. The Government has made proposals to the men who possess the confidence of the country, and who were members of the Agricultural Society, so unfortunately dissolved. These gentlemen demand the independence of the country; the creation of a Council of State, the members of which should be chosen by the Government from a list of twice their number; the organization of the National Guard; and, lastly, the return of the Russian troops to the fortresses. Thi state of things would still he far inferior to that promised us in the Treaties of Vienna, which even guaranteed a Polish army and Parliamentary institutions; and those Treaties are, after all, the legal bases of our connection with Russia."

The present moment seemed a favourable opportunity for Her Majesty's Government to make use of their influence to bring those miseries to an end, for the Journal de St. Petersbourg, in a note published by way of answer to the accusations brought forward against the Russian authorities on the occasion of the events at Warsaw, contained this statement—

"We may mention that the painful impression produced by the first events of Warsaw have not in any way arrested the kind intentions of the Sovereign towards the kingdom of Poland. The Imperial Government will carefully watch that the institutions which have been granted are conscientiously carried out. All regular progress accomplished in that manner will be anxiously encouraged and aided. But, at the same time, any attempt at disturbance, under whatever pretext it may be concealed, will be repressed with inflexible firmness. If the kind intentions of the Sovereign are paralyzed, the responsibility of that circumstance can only fall on those who shall have rendered their realization impossible by resorting to violence when the Imperial Government only appealed to conciliation and to the intelligence and serious interests of the country."

The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had admitted the right of one country to invade another in alliance with it for the purpose of imposing on the people a Foreign Sovereign, upon the ground of nationality; and therefore the people of Poland had a fair right to demand the noble Lord's opinion and advice. He was quite aware that it was one thing to deal with the King of Naples and another thing to deal with the Emperor of Russia, and he had observed that the noble Lord was inclined to reverse the maxim, and to make it read Parcere superbis, et debellare subjectos. Still he would ask the noble Lord whether he could give them certain despatches which he presumed must have been received from that able and excellent man our Consul General at Warsaw?

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs, whether he had made any representations, and if any, what representations, to the Russian Government, relative to the recent destruction by the Imperial troops of unarmed people in Warsaw and other parts of Poland? It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken entirely misconceived the subject, for there were hardly any two things between which the divergence was more complete than between the Italian and Polish question. He (Mr. MacEvoy) deemed it the duty of this country and France to support the treaties upon which the nationality of Poland rested, and he believed that a combined protest by these two Powers against the existing state of things in Poland would be attended with beneficial results. There was no country in the world which deserved so much sympathy, admiration, and respect as the noble country of Poland. Since its first partition, now eighty-nine years ago, its history had been one long martyrdom, and the sufferings and patience of the people must have endeared them to all who were capable of generous feelings. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had expressed his strong disapprobation of those criminal Governments—Austria, Russia, and Prussia—who confederated together to destroy Poland, and he hoped to hear from the noble Lord a condemnation of the present proceedings of Russia in language as plain and as forcible. Poland had been much in the same state as that of a place in a state of siege ever since the repression of the insurrection in 1831 by the late Emperor of Russia. The people were ground down and oppressed. Neither life nor property was secure, and the inhabitants were subjected to a detestable system of espionage. The Russian Government wielded an unlimited power of taxation, and thought they had stamped out of the minds of the Poles all hopes of independence and nationality. An agricultural society was formed; but the Government, seeing the direction which the influence which it had obtained was taking, soon determined on its suppression. A number of the people collected together after the dissolution of the society to celebrate the anniversary of the insurrection of 1830, but the affair passed off quietly. On the 25th of February another celebration was determined on, and there was a collision with the authorities. On the 27th the Cossacks attacked a funeral procession, and trampled on the cross which was being carried in procession. This naturally caused great indignation; but Count Sa-moiski offered to calm the people if the Government would make some concessions. The Government pretended to listen to this advice, but they secretly collected a large body of troops in Warsaw. They tried also to divide the people by offering to coerce the nobles into giving up to the peasants the homesteads which they occupied; but he believed that that insidious attempt bad failed; and that the Minister of the Interior had been everywhere received with marks of disgust on account of his proposal. But from information published in The Times, it appeared that on the 8th of April the troops, without any provocation, fired upon the unarmed people, and that all subsequent testimony went to show that the massacre was prearranged. Some of the military officers, however, raised their voices against such a fell deed of blood. A correspondent of The Times wrote—

"It is said that General Liprandi, General-in-Chief of the corps d'armé e at present stationed in Poland, was strongly opposed to it, as also the military governor of the town, General Paniutine. The colonel of a regiment stationed in the Castle, when informed by the Prince on the Monday morning what would be required of him in the evening, refused to obey, and on retiring to his own quarters within the precincts of the Castle shot himself."

Whatever credit the Emperor of Russia had gained for his emancipation of the serfs had been forfeited by the countenance and approval which he had given to the massacre at Warsaw. The evidence which they possessed on this subject was ample and trustworthy, and he hoped that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would not fail to express the strongest condemnation of the conduct of the Russian Government.

said, he rose to address a question to the noble Lord on another subject; but he could not help saying that the question on which the hon. Gentleman had just addressed them was one in which Members of all parties fully sympathized, and that in any representations which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary might make on the subject he would be supported by the unanimous feeling of the House and the country. He, therefore, trusted that Her Majesty's Government would unite with the Government of France in an endeavour to obtain protection and relief for a people who had displayed such moderation and fortitude under their heavy sufferings. The question he had to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was, Whether, together with the Correspondence on the affairs of Schleswig and Holstein which he is about to lay upon the Table of the House, he has any objection to submit the Report made by John Ward, Esq., C. B., Her Majesty's Consul General at Hamburg, on the affairs of those Duchies, after a visit which he made there about five years ago? The subject to which his question related was one of very considerable importance, for unless some steps were taken to allay the excited feelings of the inhabitants of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, the probability was that the present state of things would end in war. There was no one that was likely to interfere with more effect than the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and if the French Government could be persuaded to adopt the same view as the noble Lord, he believed that the present agitation in these provinces might be subdued, and that, instead of being a source of weakness and vexation to Denmark, they might be converted into a means of strength. It had been alleged on high authority in "another place" that the Schleswig Holstein dispute originated in the desire of the German inhabitants of the Duchies—misled by the revolutionary feeling in Germany—to engage in a revolutionary crusade against the Danish Government. Now, the very reverse was the fact. The real truth was that there had always been a party in Copenhagen who wished to get rid of the German element in Schleswig, and to incorporate that province with Denmark. As far back as 1846 Christian III., the then reigning King of Denmark, issued letters patent decreeing the separation of Schleswig from Holstein, and its incorporation with Denmark. That decree excited the greatest indignation and ill-feeling in the provinces, and the inhabitants resisted it by every means short of war. In consequence the letters patent were revoked two months after they were issued. When Christian died in 1848 the new King Frederick VII. issued a Proclamation confirming the rights of the Duchies, but excited by the revolutionary feeling that spread over Europe in that year, the Eider-Dane party, as they were called, from the war-cry of "Denmark to the Eider," soon after made a great demonstration at Copenhagen, and compelled the King to issue a Proclamation incorporating Schleswig with Denmark, changing the laws of succession, and in fact repealing all the ancient privileges which the Duchies had enjoyed for four centuries. That was the cause of the war which then broke out, and in which the Schleswigers fought with a gallantry and determination that excited the admiration of all who wit- nessed it. The German Bund interfered, as they had a right to interfere, for Holstein was a member of the German Confederation. It was said that the war was carried on to make the Duchies subservient to Prussia. But that was never said in Germany, and never by the authorities of Schleswig Holstein. He believed it was an entire fabrication. Nor was it true that the inhabitants of either Schleswig or Holstein had manifested the slightest desire to be separated from Denmark and united to Germany. All that they demanded was their ancient constitutional rights, and he was sorry to say that from a letter which he had received a few days ago he learnt that the Danish Government was even now interfering with those rights, and persecuting those who sought to establish them. Schleswig had no representative in this country; all the information they obtained was from the Danish minister; and, therefore, the Ministry some few years ago sent out Mr. Ward, a meritorious public servant, whose opinion was entitled to great weight, to inquire into the real facts of the ease. He thought the House ought to have the Report of that gentleman before them. As to the causes of the dispute, he was willing to admit that the conduct of the Danish Government was good in the main, but it was harsh and unconciliatory towards the Duchies. He hoped the noble Lord would use his influence to reconcile the parties, and make the Duchies a source of strength, instead of, as they now were, a source of weakness to Denmark.

said, he had a good deal of connection with Denmark, and if the hon. Member (Sir Harry Verncy) had known as much of the conduct of Denmark towards the inhabitants of the Duchies as he did, he would certainly never have stated that the conduct of the Government was unconciliatory or unkind. He, unhesitatingly, stated that in no part of Germany was there as much liberty as there was in Schleswig and Holstein. If Prussia and the German professors would only leave the King of Denmark, as Duke of Holstein, to administer the affairs of the Duchies as he was inclined to do, there would be none of those interminable complaints with which Europe was troubled. Nothing could exceed the anxiety of the Government of Denmark to meet the question in a fair and liberal spirit. He was there during the past year, and took pains to make himself acquainted with the state of the case and the feelings of the inhabitants. The people of the Duchies were perfectly satisfied; but there was a party called the professorial or professor party which was continually intermeddling, and with which it was perfectly impossible for any Government which had a practical aim to agree. Although he differed so much from the hon. Baronet who had asked the question upon this subject on so many other points, he agreed with him in hoping that the noble Lord would do his best to settle the differences between Denmark and the Duchies, and he was satisfied that he would find the Government of Denmark prepared to meet him in a conciliatory spirit. All that was required there was that affairs in Denmark should be properly administered.

said, that before the noble Lord replied he would beg to repeat a question which he had put the last week, but to which he had received no answer, Whether he has received any Despatches from Mr. Elliot about the so called reactionary movement in Naples, and whether he will produce any Papers or give any account which will explain the telegrams which have appeared morning after morning to the effect that tranquillity was now restored?

It is a somewhat anxious task to have to give any opinion with regard to various countries of Europe and the merits of different parties upon imperfect information, and without going into the history of troubles which generally date from long years back. The hon Member for Bridport (Mr. Cochrane) began by saying that I had made an appeal to nationalities, and that that appeal, which was contained in a despatch of mine of October last had produced the occurrences at Warsaw, and those which are now taking place in Hungary. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that I made any appeal to nationalities. I stated what were then the views of the Government with regard to Italy, and especially with regard to Naples and Sicily; and I was induced to do so because Russia and Prussia had already pronounced their opinions, and because there must sooner or later arise a question, which has arisen, whether the Government which superseded that of the late King of Naples was such a Government that we could acknowledge it as a regular Government in Europe. It was on that account necessary to give some opinion with reference to what was taking place in Italy. I gave that opinion. I stated that, since the year 1821, the people in both the Roman and Neapolitan States had suffered misgovernment, which I believed was worse than that which existed in any other country in Europe—a good deal worse than that existing in Turkey—and that after suffering so long I could not wonder that they had joined the invaders who had overthrown the authorities who had misgoverned them. I think I should be attributing more to that despatch than it really deserves if I were to suppose that either Poland or Hungary had become discontented and disturbed in consequence of its contents. With regard to Poland every one in this country must feel great sympathy with a nation so distinguished in arms, with such a brilliant past history, and which has preserved its feelinga of nationality to this day. We cannot help feeling that she deserves a better fate, or regretting the partition of which she was made the victim eighty or ninety years ago. But I should be reluctant to say anything which could induce the Poles to suppose that their nationality would be restored by any efforts of this country in their favour. If I were to write a despatch on that subject to the Court of St. Petersburg, I entertain no doubt whatever as to the answer I should receive from that Court. I should be told that the Emperor of Russia had made most liberal concessions to his Polish subjects, and that all he required was that tranquillity should prevail in that country. On the one hand, he would not withdraw those concessions; and on the other, he would not go beyond the line which he considered necessary to the maintenance of his authority over that country. There would be the despatch and there would be the answer. But is any party in this country prepared—could any Government be formed to take up arms and to endeavour by force to restore the nationality of Poland? If not, although she may possess our sympathies, it is not a case in which diplomatic exertions can be effectual. What has happened lately is, no doubt, very lamentable; and I cannot, for my own part, understand why it was that the people of Warsaw had not the notice given to them to which they were entitled—that force would be used to disperse the crowds in the streets. It was quite competent for the Governor of War- saw, if those crowds were such as to disturb the public peace, to give public notice that those crowds would not be permitted, and would, if they assembled, be dispersed by force; and although notice, three times repeated, was actually given to the persons assembled before they were driven away, it seems to me that a wise, humane, and just Governor would have given notice at least a day or two previously that force would be used to scatter any assemblage of character likely to disturb the public peace. I do not feel justified in given the Reports for which I have been asked. It is obvious that by their production one party or the other would be very much offended, and the position of the person making them injured to a corresponding extent. Reports in themselves may be perfectly fair, but it would not be fair to endanger men in responsible positions by publishing everything which they may report. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) asked me a question with regard to what has taken place at Naples. The accounts which we have received are of this general complexion—tranquillity prevails at Naples, but the provinces are very much disturbed by the disbanded soldiers belonging to the army of the late King of Naples. On almost every occasion, at the end of a contest, when a large army is disbanded, men who have no profession but that of arms take to marauding practices, especially when they can easily find a safe refuge in the mountains. One may read in the last volume of Lord Macaulay's History, how after the Peace of Ryswick, when our troops were disbanded, the country was in a very disturbed state, and the road to Newmarket, and even the streets, were not safe. And Naples itself is peculiarly circumstanced, for, while the late King has been driven out of Gaeta and every stronghold in his former Kingdom of Naples, he has been allowed to remain at Rome, and from that city messages, arms, and money are despatched, and conspiracies are set on foot. These conspiracies have been discovered, and it is said that the object of one of them was to assassinate many of the leading Liberals in Naples. Several persons have been arrested, and are to be brought for trial for that offence. It is extremely natural that the ex-King of Naples should find a refuge at Rome, but it is greatly to be regretted that there should exist in that capital a focus of conspiracy against the existing authorities which tends to propagate disorder, and which leads to the very worst results.

Will the noble Lord lay on the table the papers and despatches from Mr. Elliot?

Mr. Elliot left Naples about six months ago, and has been some time in this country; therefore there can be no despatches from him on the subject There is an attaché of the mission to Turin, and likewise a Consul at Naples, from whom we receive accounts from time to time; but there are no despatches that I can produce. If I understood the hon. Gentleman, he wished to ask for Mr. Elliot's despatches, and the commercial papers. These were laid on the table this evening.

I did not ask for the commercial reports, but for any report which might have been received with regard to the reactionary movements in Naples.

Exactly. There are no despatches relating to reactionary movements in Naples, except that persons were conspiring and arrested. There have been trifling riots from time to time, but they were of very small account, and there have been no reactionary movements of any consequence. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) asked me a question with respect to Schleswig-Holstein. I shall decline to go into that very complicated subject, but I can assure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government are engaged with several of the European Powers in the endeavour to make propositions which will be effectual in arranging the difficulty between Denmark and the German States. I own it appears to me that the differences which have arisen are owing far more to the passions excited by the very large pretensions put forward at both sides than to any real difficulty regarding the merits of the question. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Morton Peto) has said, that the people of Holstein and Schleswig do not wish to change their Sovereign; but questions of much gravity have arisen with regard to constitutional usage and to the political connections of those States. I trust that by the communications in which we are now engaged with the different European Powers we may be enabled to propose terms which will put an end to the dispute; for nothing could be more dangerous than a contest arising between Germany and Denmark. Nobody could say how far it might spread. Standing, therefore, as we do in an attitude totally impartial, we trust that the representations of Her Majesty's Government may be attended with good effect. The report of Mr. Ward, to which allusion has been made, was written five years ago; and as things have very much changed since then it would be calculated rather to mislead the House were we now to present it. In a few days, however, I hope to lay on the table papers which will explain the present position of the Holstein question, and what is now passing with regard to it.

said, he rose to call attention to a departure from the established precedent in the Commission of the Peace recently issued for the county of Dublin, in which only one magistrate is named of the quorum, and to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether this is the form now usually adopted in the Commissions of the Peace for Irish counties; and, if so, whether the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown have been taken as to the effect which the issuing of the Commission in this form may have upon the validity of acts done at Quarter Sessions at which the magistrate so named may not be present? For a long period the names of all the magistrates of the quorum were mentioned in Commissions of the peace in Ireland. In December, 1858, however, a change was introduced into the form of Commissions. In November, 1860, Mr. M. Flanigan was placed in the Commission of the Peace for the County of Dublin, and in the quorum clause, instead of the names of all the justices being duly set forth, the name of that gentleman was alone given. The effect, beyond all doubt, was that Mr. Flanigan was the only justice of the quorum, and the acts of all Quarter Sessions at which he did not happen to be present were invalid. By Act of Parliament the assistant-barrister was empowered to sit alone, but even his name was not included in the Commission. It might probably be held that prisoners convicted since the Commission was issued were entitled to their discharge.

said, he must admit that the hon. and learned Member bad pointed out a real error. It was the custom in Ireland to insert the names of all the justices in the quorum clause. In 1858, however, a Commission was issued to inquire into the Chancery Offices, and the Commissioners reported that a great deal of time was uselessly occupied in copying the names of justices. Lord Chancellor Napier, in pursuance of their recommendation, issued an order to the effect that a more compendious form of filling up the quorum clause should be adopted. No particular mode was prescribed, and the mode adopted was that to which the hon. and learned Member had called attention—a very faulty mode, no doubt, and one which ought to be remedied. The present Lord Chancellor, in fact, had already given directions for its alteration. With regard to its legal consequences, however, he had already conferred with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who was of opinion that as justices both in Petty and Quarter Sessions were acting under the statute the mischief which the hon. and learned Member apprehended would not arise.

said, he rose to move for Returns connected with the Common Law Courts in Ireland. His attention had been called to the subject by a Motion made in "another place" by a noble Marquess, who was reported to have stated that nothing had been done for the improvement of the administration of justice in Ireland, and that the law was much cheaper in England—which, unfortunately for England, it was not—than in Ireland. The Returns for which he now proposed to move would show that the administration of the law was cheap and prompt in Ireland. In a number of instances, however, offices which had been consolidated, their occupants having being largely compensated, were revived on the Report of the Judges that there was not a sufficient number of officers to do the work, so that the public first lost efficient officers, who were superannuated, and then had to pay new officers who could not so well do the work. One officer thanked his Liberal friends for having given him £800 a year for reading his newspaper in his office, and thanked his Tory friends for giving it to enable him to read his newspaper at home. There was a great want of economy in the administration of the law in Ireland. It had cost the country something like £500,000 for compensations to cover a difference in the annual charge of offices of £364. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for the Returns.

said, he had not the least objection to the production of these Returns, and he entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend that the House ought to be extremely careful how it entered into the costly process of legal reforms. His own experience since he had sat in Parliament of the compensation incident to such reforms was quite sufficient to make him cautious. It had been communicated to the Government that, from the decrease of business in the Irish law courts, some reduction in the number of their officers might reasonably be expected to be made; but, in conjunction with the Secretary to the Treasury, he had adopted a course which could by no possibility lead to expense. The Treasury had the power by statute to determine, on any vacancy occurring in those courts, whether it should be filled up, and that power it was intended to exercise. He hoped that reasonable retrenchment might thus be effected, and an expenditure as wasteful as it was little creditable avoided in this case.

said, that the process of law reform in Ireland had been accompanied by an extravagant waste of public money. If there had been the same judicial statistics furnished in Ireland as in England much mischief would have been avoided.

said, he felt bound to oppose the Motion, which, he said, took the House quite by surprise. The Estimates had not yet been circulated; and, moreover, after what had fallen from the Home Secretary that evening, many hon. Members had left the House in the full belief that Supply would not come on.

said, he yesterday distinctly announced that the Government would take that opportunity of asking for this Vote, which was merely a Vote on account, the money being absolutely necessary to carry on services that had been repeatedly sanctioned by the House. The remark of the Home Secretary as to Supply being one of the formal orders for that night with which it was not intended to proceed was obviously made through inadvertence. Copies of these Estimates were obtainable that day in the Vote Office, and he trusted there would be no objection to their now going into Committee.

said, that as these Estimates included the Educational Vote for the United Kingdom, in which he intended to move a reduction of £500,000, he must oppose the taking of Supply at that hour (a quarter to twelve o'clock).

said, he thought that perhaps the House would not object to go into Committee, upon an understanding that no Vote should be taken which was opposed.

said, the Votes were Votes on account merely; they were really for the advantage of the public service, and he hoped the House would not object to allow them to be taken.

said, as the Govern- ment could propose the Votes on Monday night he hoped they would not press them at so late an hour.

said, he objected to proceeding with the Vote, so far as the item of £100,000 for the purposes of public education in Great Britain was concerned on the ground which he had stated, as well as because it had been announced from the Treasury bench early in the evening that the Vote would not be taken.

said, he hoped there would be some explanation why the money was required, with the amounts lately granted and the balance there must be in hand. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had resorted to the practice of asking the House to Vote large sums on account. That practice had been objected to year after year, because they knew when the Government got money on account they could keep the Estimates back till so late in the Session that they could not receive due consideration. He did not object to the one item of £80,000 for the expenses of the census, but he saw no pressing necessity for passing the other items, and proposed, therefore, the reduction of the amount of the Vote by £420,000.

said, there existed this difference between the Miscellaneous and the Naval and-Military Estimates, that the Government had not the power in the case of the former which they possessed in reference to the latter, of applying a surplus in any particular vote to making good the deficiency in another. He might add, that while in dealing with the Votes for the Army and the Navy, the money must be applied within the year, no such rule was applicable to the Miscellaneous Estimates; so that there was in general a balance remaining under that head which enabled the Government to carry on the civil service of the country until the usual time for asking Parliament to pass those Estimates arrived. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the balance on the 31st of December, but he (Mr. Peel) had an account showing the state of the balances at the present time, from which it appeared that upon the printing and stationery the balance was nil, and, in fact, £20,000 had been advanced for the Civil Contingencies. Upon the County Court Vote there was no balance, Upon the Constabulary Vote there was a debt of £5,000, upon the Education Votes for England and Ireland there were no balances; and, of course, upon the Census Vote there was none. It was clear, therefore, that if the public service was to be performed the House must make some provision.

said, he thought that the House ought to have been furnished with the information just given by the hon. Gentleman. He would not object to granting the Vote on account under the circumstances, but he hoped in future that no such demand would be made without previous information being given.

observed, that the Estimates on account of which the Vote was asked had been upon the table for a considerable time, and the paper to which his hon. Friend had referred was not one which was usually furnished to Members. In fact, the Secretary to the Treasury had done more than was the custom in giving the information he had just given, and he might have asked for the Vote on account relying upon the Estimates before the House. After what had been stated with regard to the necessities of the service, he trusted that the Committee would agree to the Vote. There would be so large a margin left on each as to leave sufficient room to move for any reduction. If they refused the Vote, the employé s of the Government would be left without the means of subsistence, and he trusted that those who were in the service of the English Government would not be left without their pay, like those in the employ of the Turkish Government, where the army was eighteen months in arrear and the civil servants were not paid.

said, he thought the noble Lord was in error in saying that it was not usual to furnish information before asking for Votes on account. The noble Lord was also wrong in principle in assuming that the House ought to Vote money on account without having an opportunity of investigating the Estimate. If this Vote was agreed to he hoped it would not be drawn into a precedent.

said, if the public servants were starving it was owing to the improvidence of the Government. He asserted that it was most unusual to ask a Vote in Supply without notice being given upon the paper to that effect. It was still more extraordinary that this demand should be made as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that evening had expressly stated that no Vote in Supply would be taken.

said, that the usual course was to ask for Votes on account, and what his right hon. Friend proposed to do was in accordance with the usual course. The paper which had just been printed was one which had never been given at all until last year; and there was due notice upon the paper that the Votes would be asked for.

contended that there was nothing contrary to the practice of the House in asking for Votes for the Estimates on account.

asked, whether a Cabinet Minister had not stated early in the evening that Supply would not be brought on to-night? A majority of the Members had left the House, in the belief that no Vote would be asked for. Was it consistent with the dignity of the Government to ask for the Vote after that declaration?

said, he thought the objection purely technical; the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, meant that no particular estimate would be taken in Committee.

denied that the error was technical merely. Most of the Members had left the House believing that no money would be asked for.

said, he thought that all his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department could have said was that the House would not go into Committee to discuss the Estimates. It was impossible he could have said that no Vote would be taken on account, when formal notice had been given. He was sorry so many hon. Members had left the House, because if a greater number had staid less countenance would have been given to the Motion that stopped the necessary Supplies for the public service. The House was as full as it generally was at that hour of the night; if it had been quite full a strong expression of feeling against the Motion would have prevented hon. Gentlemen from supporting it.

complained that the proposed course was an innovation which should not be countenanced; and, with every disposition to assist the Government to pay the public servants, he thought the Government were going too far in asking for so large a sum. Moreover, some of the items of the Civil Contingencies had not yet been laid before the House at all.

said, the whole of the Civil Contingency account had not been made out. Last year this portion of the Estimates was £125,000; this year it was only £75,000. It would only be a single line.

contended that no money ought to be applied to Votes that were not before the House.

said, that a Vote so asked for and given was for the purpose of carrying on the public service and did not commit any hon. Member to the details of the Vote. The course proposed was not the usual course, because there had been a reduction in the balances on former years which was a part of a great financial reform. The Votes for Civil Contingencies being just as necessary as for other services, he hoped the Committee would not persist in refusing to pass the vote.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had informed them that it was intended to take the Civil Services late in the Session, and he would also remind the Committee of a certain letter which had been written to the Premier, asking him to bring those Votes on early in the Session; if, therefore, they voted for the payment of this money on account, they would be stultifying themselves.

said, that an appeal having been made to them to pass the Resolution on the ground of urgent expediency, he advised his hon. Friend to consent.

objected that the Bill ought to have been brought in as a private and not as a public Bill.

expressed his opinion that the Bill had been introduced in the proper form, as it dealt with public property for public purposes.

then moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.