said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland Whether his attention has been called to the published Address of the Chairman of the County of Tipperary (Mr. Sergeant Howley, Q.C.) to the Grand Jury at the recent Quarter Sessions of Cashel, with reference to a Document directing that cases of Faction Fighting shall no longer be tried at the Quarter Sessions, but sent to the Assizes; and whether he will state the nature of that Document, and the grounds for it?

rose to order. He did not think that any question asked ought to contain an insinuation which could not be answered. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) was asked to state the grounds on which a certain document had been issued. Now, if those grounds were wrong the House had no opportunity of expressing an opinion on them.

I rise to order.

The hon. Member is in order.

thought he was quite right. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to be called upon to state the grounds upon which the document was issued unless an opportunity were given to the House to state its opinions upon them. He asked whether the question was in order?

I totally repudiate that I intend to cast any insinuation whatever.

As a question of order the hon. Member has a right to put his question. In what manner the right hon. Gentleman may think fit to reply is another matter. But I cannot say that there is anything in the question to prevent its being put. It is impossible for me to interpose on the present occasion on a point of order.

said, the document, referred to was a Circular which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, acting upon the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, had forwarded to the Justices of Quarter Sessions. There was no intention of showing the slightest disrespect to the Justices of Quarter Sessions; but it was thought better, for the interests of justice, that persons concerned in faction fighting should be tried by a Jury selected from a wider area at the Assizes than by one drawn from the narrower area of the district in which the occurrence took place.

said, he had now, with the permission of the hon. Member for Sheffield, to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to propose any Inquiry, either through a Royal Commission or Select Committee of the House of Commons, into the Recent Evictions from the lands of Derryveagh, in the County of Donegal, or as to the Statements published by Mr. John George Adair, J.P., attributing a guilty knowledge of murder and other crimes to the evicted Inhabitants; also as to the several allegations made in Parliament on Monday, the 24th day of June, that Ribbonism exists in that district; or, if indisposed to originate an Inquiry, will the Chief Secretary be prepared, on the part of the Government, to support or sanction a Motion for an Inquiry proposed by an independent Member?

said, it was not the intention of the Government to propose either a Commission or a Committee on this subject. With respect to the course that the Government might take on any Motion made by an independent Member, he thought he should be acting more in conformity with the wishes of the House if he declined to state what course the Government would pursue under certain circumstances until a specific Motion were submitted to them.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If it his intention to introduce a Bill to remedy the defects in the Law relating to Owners and Salvors of Vessels?

said, that some portion of the defects of the Law relating to Salvage had been remedied by an Act passed this Session called the Admiralty Courts Act; and if the hon. Baronet would look at the Ninth Clause of the Act, he would find that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act with regard to the Salvage of life within a limited distance from the coast had been extended to the Salvage of life wherever it occurred, so far as related to British shipping. As far as related to Foreign vessels there was no authority to interfere except under the provisions of an International Treaty. A Bill had been prepared on the subject to which the hon. Member referred; but he (Mr. Milner Gibson) feared there would not be time to introduce it this Session. He hoped to lay it on the Table early next Session.

said, he wished to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman will give his support to a Bill embodying the principles of which he has already expressed approval, in case he (Sir Henry Stracey) introduced it?

said, it was impossible for him to answer the question without having first seen the proposition of the hon. Baronet.

said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether he intends to introudce, during the present Session, a Bill to amend the Lunacy Act in Scotland?

said, it was the intention of the Government to bring in such a Bill in the course of the present Session.

said, he would appeal to Mr. Speaker whether, in the course of his experience, he had ever witnessed a Bill so changed in its passage through the House as the Bill then under consideration? It was to all intents and purposes a new Bill. The Bill as it stood had never been read a second time, and had never passed through Committee. It proposed to give four Members to the West Riding of the country of York. The original Reform Bill only gave two Members to the country of York; the original Appropriation of Seats Bill, as introduced by the Government, proposed to give an additional Member; but they were now asked to cut up the West Riding into two divisions, and to give two Members to each. The Bill was only popular at all because it proposed to give an additional seat to the metropolitan district entitled from its wealth, intelligence, and population to the addition. But the Government were defeated upon that proposition, and after their defeat they ought not to have condescended to proceed with a Bill so completely altered—he would not say mutilated. At all events, if the change now proposed was to be made, it should not be done upon the Report, but the Bill should be recommitted. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House—a period of thirty-five years—he had never before seen a new Bill brought in upon the Report in that manner. Why, the borough of Wakefield, which had been convicted of corruption, would have its share in this distribution, for they were going to give two additional Members to the very district in which that corrupt borough stood. Let them, if they chose, take away a seat from Wakefield, and give it to the West Riding; but let them not refuse a seat to Chelsea, and afterwards to Middlesex, and then carry it to the West Riding, and place it at the very door of the seat of corruption. He understood a Motion had been made by a gallant Officer the other night to issue a new writ for Wakefield, and that that Gentlemen could not understand why he had withdrawn from the question. After he found that he could not bring forward his Motion as a matter of privilege at the commencement of business he considered that it would have been a perfect act of folly to bring forward the question on constitutional grounds, which were the grounds he took. He maintained that if they were not prepared to approach the question constitutionally, and if they were not prepared to extend the limits of the borough, so as to bring in a greater number of electors, they ought not to issue the writ. But that was a question of too great magnitude to be discussed after twelve o'clock at night; not that he meant to say that the hon. and gallant Officer might not succeed where he might fail, but he certainly did consider that it would be an act of folly to introduce the question at a late hour, and the hon. Gentleman could speak from experience whether he was far wrong in that opinion. With regard to the particular question before the House, he thought the Bill at all events should be recommitted if it were proceeded with. The Government intended to introduce six new clauses to give effect to their Amendments with regard to the West Riding, and to make twenty of thirty Amendments besides. Such alteration had never before been proposed upon bringing up of a Report, and if they were afraid to recommit the Bill he recommended that it should be given up altogether, for it was unworthy of a Government. They were beginning, too, at the wrong end. They first of all brought in a Bill early in March to amend the law of election, and to do away with the corrupt practices that prevailed, and yet they were now going to give away four new seats without any alteration in the election law being made—to bring new seats into the very corruption of which they complained. Let them do what they could to stop corruption, and then, if they liked, they might give away the four new seats with an opportunity for the electors to act honestly. For the reasons he had stated he thought he was justified in moving that the order of the day for the Amendments to the Bill should be postponed for three months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

said, he rose to second the Motion. The present Government called upon the Irish Members to assist in putting out the Government of the Earl of Derby, in order that they might bring in a more comprehensive measure of Reform than they had proposed, and that the interests of Ireland might be better attended to. They had a pretty specimen in this Bill of the way in which those interests were cared for by Her Majesty's Ministers. The Dublin Evening Mail, an lrish paper which knew very well what was going on here, made some comments on this Bill, which he would read to the House. It stated the case as well as he could do it himself. The extract was not a long one. [The hon. and learned Member read a paragraph from The Dublin Evening Mail, in which it was inferred that the Government had been "jockeyed" with regard to the proposed re-distribution of seats, as the House had sanctioned an arrangement under which it was probable that three, if not four, would eventually fall into the hands of the Conservative party.] At a recent meeting in Rochdale the hon. Member for that borough and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) expressed their opinion that there should be a measure of Reform. The hon. Member for Birmingham said, "A comprehensive measure of Reform." Was the Bill before them, he would ask, a comprehensive measure of Reform? In his opinion it was a measure not of progressive but retrogressive Reform.

said, he should certainly give his support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. Anything less satisfactory than the mode in which the Government had dealt with the question it would be difficult to conceive. They had not only acted in a way very little to promote the interests of the Liberal party, but very little calculated to strengthen their position. He believed that the working classes were quite able to obtain an extension of the franchise if they wished, and that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) could best promote the interests of the Liberal party by changing the distribution of seats. The Bill before the House was altogether for that purpose, and it dealt with it in a manner most unfavourable for the Liberal party. Three of the seats were given to the counties, and, so far as they could judge, to the Conservative party. It was a scheme which ought to receive no support from that side of the House.

said, he could not agree in the view taken of this question by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham). The question was not whether the Liberal or any other party should be strengthened, but what was best for the good of the country generally in regard to the distribution of the four seats at the disposal of Parliament. He thought the measure, on the whole, a satisfactory one.

said, that the North Riding of Yorkshire had 224,000 inhabitants, and the East Riding 281,000, making together 525,000; whereas the West Riding contained 1,570,000 inhabitants. The southern division of the West Riding contained about 400,000 inhabitants, and the only borough representation for that immense population was Sheffield. The rateable value of the property of the West Riding was no less than £3,126,669, and, therefore, it was entitled to two additional Members. He did not approve, however, of making so corrupt a borough as Wakefield the place of election and nomination for the whole of the West Riding, and he trusted that an Amendment would be made in the Bill, so that the southern division would be entitled to have its election conducted at a place where purity of election had never been questioned or doubted.

observed, that the hon. Member for Finsbury had urged no satisfactory objection to their proceeding with this Bill. The House, in considering a Bill as amended could take the whole of that Bill into consideration; and when it was argued by the hon. Member that there ought to be a new Bill, they had to consider whether or not it had been totally altered in its provisions, and whether it was a different Bill from that which had been originally introduced? The Bill when it was introduced, proposed to give an additional Member to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and one to South Lancashire, and also to give one Member to Birkenhead and one to Chelsea and Kensington. The three first propositions were assented to by the Committee, but the proposal relative to Chelsea and Kensington was rejected. He did not wish to argue that question again. A Motion was made by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield) that the county of Middlesex should have an additional Member, but that was, likewise, rejected by the Committee. His noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston), with the view of bringing about a settlement of the question stated that he would make or support a proposition that the West Riding of Yorkshire should be divided, and that two Members should be given to each division. That was the only seat now in dispute, and the question was—would they further consider the Bill and say whether it was expedient to divide the West Riding and give it, not one but two additional Members. He thought the original proposition of the Government was a preferable one; but, at the same time, they all knew that the West Riding of Yorkshire, both in point of population, wealth, and the number of electors, very considerably indeed went beyond other counties. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Coningham) said "Oh! but Wakefield, which was in the West Riding, was a corrupt borough." He quite agreed with the hon. Member, and he would be shocked to see a proposition carried for the issue of a writ in the case of that borough; but that was not the question before the House. The question was whether because the borough of Wakefield stood in the West Riding, the latter should be disqualified from having an additional Member? He could not see that that was a just and reasonable proposition. The case was this—a Bill had been introduced to appropriate four seats; three of these had been appropriated, and they had to decide as to the fourth. As to there being anything radically wrong in the proposal, he would remind the House that in many cases which from time to time had been brought before Parliament, including such places as Shoreham, Grampound, and East Retford, Parliament, when it disqualified a borough from returning Members, made a provision for the substitution of some other place. But in the case of St. Albans and Sudbury that course was not followed, because these places were intended to be dealt with and were dealt with in every general Bill that for some years had been introduced for the disposal of seats by successive Governments. No general Bill was introduced this Session, and it only seemed reasonable that Parliament should proceed with regard to St. Albans and Sudbury as it had done in other instances. He saw no force in the objection which had been taken by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and hoped the House would proceed with the consideration of the Bill.

said, he did not think the proposition of the Government so very clear as the noble Lord had endeavoured to make it. On the contrary, it appeared to him that the Bill proposed in effect to alter the Reform Bill—one of the most noble and distinguished acts of the noble Lord's political life. The noble Lord had observed that the House had already agreed to the disposal of three seats, and that, therefore, there was only one now to dispose of. If, however, they dealt with the seat in the manner proposed by the Government, they would give the preponderance of representation as regarded the four seats to the agricultural districts. The original proposition of Government was to divide the seats between the urban and the rural districts, two and two. He went further, and said if the House wished to keep up the proportion established by the Reform Bill, they ought to give the whole of the four seats to the urban population. But the Government, as he had said, proposed to divide the seats two and two, and the proposition had in it and appearance of fairness; but in the course of the debate the Government was beaten, and the whole principle of the Bill was reversed. But if there was any question on which the present Government ought to have a fixed principle, and ought to stick to it too, it was on the question of Parliamentary Reform. The Government, however, had been beaten, and the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, then said it was a small affair, "it was only a little one," and he would be content with one urban representative. But what was the borough that had been struck out? The very best in the list. Metropolitan representatives were, he knew, at a discount in that House. He did not admit that that was right. He would, however, not go into the question. The fact remained that a borough with its tens of thousands of people of education and wealth were bowled out from the Bill, and it was proposed to substitute for it an agricultural constituency. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had been in the habit of saying that Government ought to be a Government of party, but in that case the Government had abandoned all their principles to subserve the convenience of the moment. It was because the Government had not the manliness to stand up as against a majority of the House. Yes; a majority got together on different principles and with different objects. It was because the Government had not the manliness to appeal to the people of England, and ask them who was right, that there was that abandonment of principle, and that Liberal Members felt called on to come down to the House and endeavour to defeat the passing of the Bill. He meant to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and for this simple reason—that he would rather see no Bill at all than to see the Bill before the House pass in its present shape. He would rather see it put off; he would rather see it deferred till the people of England could decide on the question whether they would have anything like a radical reform in the representation of the people. It was a question that would have to be sent to the country to be tried before long; and he thought those who sat on the ministerial side below the gangway would be abandoning their duty to the people if they consented to see such a Bill passed without offering it every opposition in their power.

:^* Sir, I have proposed the omission of South Lancashire from this Bill, because I believe the House has already expressed, so far as it can be expressed by individual speeches, an opinion unfavourable to what are called unicorn constituencies. Members of great authority have stated strong objections to constituencies of this kind; none, I believe, have said a word in their favour. Were a more comprehensive measure to be introduced and passed, I think it is probable that constituencies would be so divided that triple seats would cease to exist. I see no reason why we should now extend an anomaly which we all disapprove. Nor do I see why South Lancashire is better entitled to return three Members than several other of our great constituencies which equal or surpass that important county in the number of their electors. The chief reason, however, why I seek to amend this Bill at all, is, that I find in this measure for the redistribution of seats, no provision for a great and important interest which is at present wholly unrepresented. The Universities of England and Ireland have a fair and influential direct representation in this House. Deprive them of their Members and still they would be represented here by a large body of graduates and old university men, well-informed as to their interests, and well-disposed to defend them. In the same manner you might deprive any city or county of its Members, and yet the interests of that city or country would be sure to be efficiently, though indirectly, represented by the Members for places similarly circumstanced as regards agriculture, or manufacture, or trade. But this remark is not applicable to our Scotch Universities. These institutions differ so materially from the Universities of England and Ireland, that the Members for those Universities, however kindly they may feel towards the northern sisters of Cambridge and Oxford, cannot fairly be said even indirectly to represent them. Of the Scotch Members who are Scotchmen by birth, only a small number have received their education at their native Universities. Yet, although the attractions of the great English seats of learning may have drawn many of the sons of the wealthier classes of Scotland from their native seminaries, it by no means follows that these are of minor importance as places of national education. Indeed, I may venture to assert that they have a stronger hold upon the affections, and exercise a larger influence on the character of the people of Scotland, than even the great English Universities possess and exercise on this side the Tweed. In England twenty millions of people maintain less than 3,000 students at Cambridge and Oxford. In Scotland a population under three millions maintain upwards of 3,500 students at our four Universities. On the history of these Universities I need not, and I shall not, dwell. Three of them are very ancient. St. Andrews founded in 1411, Glasgow in 1450, Aberdeen in 1494, have papal bulls among their earlier charters, and belong to the days of the revival of arts and letters. Edinburgh, the youngest of the four, was founded by Royal charter in 1582. Slenderly endowed from the resources of the poor and a rude country, these Universities have ever held an honourable place in the commonwealth of letters. Early in their career they furnished teachers to the universities of fairer and wealthier lands, and in their venerable yet vigorous age they are the survivors of many prouder seats of learning. If in some important branches of scholarship they cannot pretend to a foremost place, they have been the means, for many generations, of diffusing sound knowledge, at a cheap rate, over an entire people. They have been open, not in theory merely, but in practice, to the poorest of our countrymen. Long before England began to think of sending the schoolmaster abroad, these Universities had sent a schoolmaster of considerable erudition to almost every parish in Scotland. English literature has inscribed on its own bright roll the names of many of their professors, especially of those who have cultivated philosophy and political science. To England herself these Northern Universities for long supplied a want—for which she herself has only lately made provision—a place of sound intellectual culture, apart from all sectarian influence. These facts I think justify me in claiming for the Scotch Universities the character of national institutions, in the British and imperial sense, and in asking the House of Commons to consider their claims to representation in Parliament. The argument that England and Ireland have six University Members, while Scotland has none, is, in my opinion, a strong one; but it depends, of course, for its strength on my power to show that Scotland possesses a University constituency worthy of being ranked with the other University constituencies of the kingdom. The question, therefore, naturally arises, how is this University constituency composed? I must admit, at once, that it differs from those of England and Ireland, inasmuch as it is not wholly composed of graduates. The General Councils of our Universities, created by the University Act of 1858, may be held as strictly analogous in their constitution and power to the Senate of Cambridge and the Convocation of Oxford. In these great English bodies certain degrees have always entitled members of the Universities to sit and vote on the affairs of each University; but in Scotland, until 1858, graduates had no powers of corporate action at all; and degrees were, in fact, mere honorary certificates, of no use or benefit, except as conferring a certain title, and in some cases giving a prefix to the name. There being no great motive for taking them, degrees, except those in medicine, had fallen into general disuse. Degrees in Arts were taken in some of the Universities to the number of perhaps two or three in a year. For the purpose, therefore, of securing to our Universities a really popular element, the Act of 1858 provided that the General Councils of each University should be open not only to graduates, but to all persons who could show that they had previously studied there for four years, or had studied there for three years, and one year in one of the others. Those persons who had not graduated, but who might have done so, were for a time to be entitled to claim seats in the General Council. This time was limited to three years from the passing of the Act, and it expires on the 2nd of August next. From and after the 2nd of August in the present year, graduation will be essential to a place in our General Councils, and these Councils will be completely assimilated in character to the Senate and Convocation of the great English Universities. Meanwhile, the number of graduates in arts has for some years been steadily increasing. In St. Andrews, in 1800, two persons took the degree of Master of Arts. From 1839 to 1859, the average number was about eight. In 1860, after the institution of General Councils, the number was twelve. At Glasgow the average number, from 1851 to 1859, has been about twenty-five. In 1860 the number was forty-five, and 1861, sixty-four. I am, therefore, justified in asserting that the privileges already conferred by the Act have been highly valued, and eagerly and increasingly claimed. As regards the composition of these Councils, I believe they represent a far wider social field than the corresponding bodies on this side of the Tweed. In Scotland, University education being much cheaper, has long been more eagerly sought after by all classes. Even allowing that a considerable number of our 3,500 University students in Scotland are strangers, our Scotch students are (proportionally to our population) far more numerous than the undergraduates of the English Universities. The body of graduates annually recruited from this large number of students, will therefore represent all classes of the community. It will embrace nearly all the members of the learned professions, the clergy of all denominations, and the most intelligent persons connected with all branches of trade and industry, commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural. No means at present exists enabling me to offer any precise information as to the relative numbers of the respective classes. I have heard some persons express an apprehension that the clerical profession would be unduly represented, and would, in fact, form the majority of the constituency. I may say that I do not share that apprehension. From an examination of the Edinburgh University Calendar, and the information—conjectural I admit—which I have received from persons likely to be well informed, I do not think the number of clergy of all denominations would exceed one-third of the whole. At Cambridge and Oxford the proportion of the clerical element is far higher than this. At Trinity College, Cambridge, of 1,534 masters of Art, 752 are clergymen, and 784 are laymen. At Christ Church, Oxford, of 315 Masters of Art, 209 are clergymen, and only 106 laymen. It must also be remembered that in Scotland the clerical element is divided into three parts with conflicting views and interests, and that this division will deprive it of much of the power which it might otherwise exercise, and will in a great measure neutralize its influence. So much for the character and composition of these General Councils. I must now beg the House to turn its attention to their numbers. According to the last Return which I have received, dating from the 5th of June, I find they are as follows:—Edinburgh, 1,980; Glasgow, 842; Aberdeen, 775; St. Andrew's, 322: Total, 3,919; a number already larger than that of the Convocation of the University of Oxford. Nor is this all. I think I can also show good ground for believing that, in this Scotch University constituency, there is a fair prospect of a very large and speedy increase. Look at the numbers of our students:—Edinburgh, has 1,530; Glasgow, 1,182; Aberdeen, 653; St. Andrew's, 143; 3,508 in all. Cambridge I find has 1,529 under-graduates, out of which is recruited an electoral body of 4,889. Oxford has about 1,283 undergraduates, who recruit an electoral body of 3,786. In round numbers, therefore, in the English Universities the proportion of under-graduates to electors may be stated as about one to three. Can any reason be alleged why this proportion may not soon be reached in Scotland? With equal inducements to graduation, I believe it would be found that Scotchmen of all classes would graduate in still greater numbers. But accepting the proportion of England, one student to three electors, the constituency of the Scotch Universities is likely are long to be, not 3,900, but 10,500, a body larger than all the existing University constituencies put together, larger than the constituencies of Leeds or Sheffield; twice as large as those of Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire, and Fifeshire; larger than that of Edinburgh, or any other in Scotland, except that of the City of Glasgow. It may be also urged that Parliament, it its late legislation for the Scottish Universities, has itself given a strong claim for representation, by confirming and extending a privilege upon which long usage had stamped a political character. In 1858 Parliament found the privilege of electing their rector—an officer invested with considerable dignity and important powers—in the possession of the students of some of the Universities. It was in Glasgow that this rectorial election first assumed a political significance. In former times, the students used to be content to find their rector amongst the civic or provincial notabilities of the west of Scotland. Somewhere about thirty-five years ago, however, they became more ambitious, and conceived the bold idea of choosing him from the front ranks of English statesmen. The English statesmen; I may observe, were quite as ready to accept the honour, as the Scotch students were to confer it. Sir James Mackintosh was elected, and Mr. Brougham, and afterwards Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel. Sir Robert Peel's election followed close on his brief tenure of office in 1835; and he seized the occasion of his visit to Glasgow to deliver a speech which was the celebrated political manifesto, with which he opened those brilliant campaigns of opposition, resulting in his reconquest of power in 1841. From that day to this, I remember no rectorial election which was not also in great measure a political contest. Men of letters, no doubt, were sometimes elected, but they were always men of letters who were, likewise, politicians. In 1858, when Parliament was about to reform the Scotch Universities, the question naturally arose, are these political rectors and their elections good things or bad? Is it desirable to extend to them the Universities where they have not hitherto obtained, or to abolish them in those where they have long existed? The opinion of the Scotch Members was a good deal divided on the subject. Some of us thought the privilege a bad one, tending to the disturbance of study, and the formation of premature habits of political partisanship, without any countervailing advantage. Others thought it a useful and valuable privilege, stimulating thought on important subjects, and affording a healthful and intellectual recreation for the youth of a free country. Parliament adopted the view favourable to the privilege and the practice; and finding it in existence at Glasgow and Aberdeen, created it also at St. Andrew's and Edinburgh. Our students all over Scotland now cultivate their political ideas, and indulge their political predilections with the direct sanction of Parliament and the Crown. They invite, with something of the force of a Royal invitation, their rectors from the front ranks of both Houses, and even from the great offices of administration. Only last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a moment of unusual public anxiety, left the new tariff and the new treaty, the wine duties and the paper duties, to put on at Edinburgh the purple robe of a new office, and to address a vast audience—of which 800 students formed a mere fraction—on the benefits of intellectual culture, and the delights of divine philosophy. These rectorial elections, with all the political significance which long usage have stamped upon them, have been deliberately accepted by Parliament as worthy not only of maintenance, but of wider extension. Does not this acceptance almost imply a pledge of doing something more in the same direction? Is it just or reasonable for Parliament to say to the youth of Scotland, "So long as you are students, you shall enjoy a privilege which cannot fail to make you politicians, but remember, when you become graduates, you must take leave of political privilege and political action? As lads, you make excellent electors, but as men, we really cannot entrust you with the franchise. That is a privilege which must be reserved for those who have studied at Cambridge or Oxford, or Dublin, or for those superior beings, the Glasgow whiskey dealers, the Marylebone publicans, the freemen of London or Liverpool, or the forty shilling freeholders of South Lancashire." Besides conferring what I must consider a semi-political right on the students of our Universities, the Act of 1858 made provision for various reforms and improvements in these institutions which will cost a considerable sum of public money, and have already created a large constituency of intelligent persons taking a warm interest in their affairs and invested with powers of directing them. By its own act and deed Parliament has repeatedly acknowledged the national character and public importance of these institutions. The Reform Act of 1832 gave a second Member to the University of Dublin. At a time, therefore, when intelligence had hardly begun to be considered as a possible basis of electoral right, Parliament acknowledged the value of University representation. You are now giving away four seats. Will you not seize the opportunity of enfranchising a new constituency, in which education and intelligence will be the qualification? In the Scotch University constituency I believe there would be a greater number of persons well worthy of the franchise, but not at present possessed of it or likely to obtain it, than in any other that could be suggested. The fancy-franchises of our late abortive Reform Bills gave rise to much diversity of opinion, but I believe we all agreed in desiring to attain the end to which these franchises were directed—the end of making character and intelligence a path to political power. The creation of these new franchises would have been an experiment, perhaps a failure; the creation of a new University constituency would be no experiment at all, but is a course suggested and sanctioned by a long and happy experience. I cannot use, and I do not regret that I cannot use, an argument of a private and personal kind, which might have been urged by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, had he seen fit to bring before the House on this occasion the claim of the University of London to representation in Parliament. I cannot state with any confidence the name, or even the probable political creed of the first Scotch University Member, supposing the Legislature and the Crown were to agree to create one. I cannot appeal to the Treasury bench with the assurance that the new seat would give it a new supporter; nor can I hold out to my Opposition Friends the hope that the new Member will swell our own ranks. I can only assert my confident belief that the Scotch Universities will send us a man well worthy of the honour of holding the seventh University seat in this House. If late rectorial elections are to be taken as any test of his probable opinion, it is not unlikely that he will support Her Majesty's Government. But, on whichever side of the House he may sit, I am sure that he will share the better tendencies of both our political parties. If either party were seized with a paroxyism of faction and folly, I am confident he would go into the lobby with that which retained its sober senses. And the ground of my confidence is, that he would represent a constituency both more enlightened than others and less subject than others to sudden and spasmodic changes of feeling and opinion. He would represent a constituency wholly inaccessible to those external influences to which, in their baser modes of action, Sudbury and St. Albans succumbed, and to which, in their higher forms, broad counties and famous cities have occasionally yielded. Scattered over town and country, the electors of the new University constituency would, each in his own sphere, be in some measure the creators of that public opinion, of which, in their corporate capacity, they would form one of the highest and purest organs. The question which I have the honour to submit to the consideration of this House is, will you give the seat now under discussion to the already largely represented County of Lan- caster, or to the ancient and national Universities of Scotland, which are still wholly unrepresented in Parliament? He would, therefore, conclude by moving the omission of Clause 1, with a view to the insertion of the following clause:—

"From and after the 1st day of November, 1861, the Universities of Scotland—that is to say, the University of St. Andrew's the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh—shall be entitled collectively to return one Member to serve in Parliament."

seconded the Motion.

Sir, the Motion which the hon. Member makes is that the clause giving one additional Member to South Lancashire should be omitted in order to substitute for it clauses enfranchising the Universities of Scotland. The Motion, in fact, calls upon the House to rescind a decision which they came to in Committee after full discussion, and by a considerable majority. The main argument brought forward in support of this Motion is that the Universities of Scotland are not represented, whereas the Universities of England and of Ireland have representatives. It is manifest that there has been up to a recent date a sufficient reason for that distinction. The constitution of the Scotch Universities was wholly different from that of the Universities of England and Ireland. In the English and Irish Universities the voters were a body of graduates, whereas in the Scotch Universities the practice of graduation was carried to so slight an extent that such a body had scarcely any existence. If, therefore, up to a recent date, a representative had been given to the Scotch Universities, the power of electing him would, in fact, have been vested in a small body of professors and an extremely limited number of graduates, and there would not have been in existence a body, similar to that which exists in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and in Trinity College, Dublin, capable of exercising the franchise. Up to a recent date, therefore, I am not aware that there even was any serious question of enfranchising the Scotch Universities. At the time of the Reform Bill, when all these subjects were considered, no Member was given to the Scotch Universities. A few years ago the constitution of the Scotch Universities was altered, and there is no doubt that now a system is at work by which the graduation is increasing, and Universities are gradually acquiring a body of persons competent to exercise the franchise; but it can hardly be said, I think, that the time has arrived when it would be desirable to give them that right. Undoubtedly, the Scotch Universities are a highly respectable and intelligent body of persons. They will speedily have a claim to enfranchisement similar to that which has been acknowledged in the case of the English and Irish Universities, and I do not doubt that at some future period their claim will be fairly considered by this House; but it appears to me that, after what has taken place in Committee on this Bill, and in the absence of any sufficiently strong arguments, we should not be justified in giving to the Scotch Universities a representative at present in preference to the southern division of Lancashire, especially since the forfeited seats are exclusively English seats, and, therefore, I trust the House will not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Perthshire if he carries it to a division.

said, he was astonished at the argument of the right hon. Baronet—that because a few years ago the Scotch Universities did not furnish a constituency capable of exercising the franchise, therefore, now, when they possessed a body of electors numbering 3,900, the right to return a Member should not be conferred on them. The only reasonable argument which he had heard against the claim so ably and temperately recommended to the House by the hon. Member for Perthshire was that as the forfeited seats were English seats they should in fairness be given to English constituencies. However conclusive that argument might have been deemed at the time of the Union, it could not be urged with any force now, because the Reform Bill of 1832 proceeded upon the principle of departing altogether from the system of representation established by the Act of the Union, and of setting aside the territorial distinctions as between the three divisions of the United Kingdom. That Bill conferred increased representation on Scotland and Ireland, because it was held to be right, whenever occasion arose for remodelling the representative system, to bestow the franchise upon those constituencies which, from their number and intelligence, were best deserving of that high privilege. As these seats had been vacated on account of corruption, it would, in his opinion, be rea- sonable to confer the privilege lost by them upon a part of the country where no corruption prevailed; and against no constituency of Scotland had such an accusation ever been made. It was said that the West Riding was entitled to an extra Member, upon the ground of wealth and population; but the claim now before the House was not put upon these grounds. The West Riding boasted of the great men—such as Wilberforce and Brougham—who had represented it; but such representatives were due in a great extent to the constituency being the largest in the kingdom; and the importance of the West Riding would, no doubt, be much impaired if the proposition of the Government were acceded to. He did not support the Amendment on the ground of either property or population, but because he was anxious to complete the union of England and Scotland. In England the interests of education and learning were represented by four, and in Ireland by two Members. Scotland possessed no such representation, and its absence was felt to be a badge of inferiority. She asked to be admitted to an equality in that as in other matters. It was true that until within the last few years the want of a constituency furnished a good reason why the Scotch Universities should not be represented. By the Universities Act, for which Scotland was indebted to his learned Friend the Lord Justice Clerk Inglis, supported by the present Lord Advocate, that want had been supplied. There was now in existence a large constituency which was steadily increasing, and the increase of which would, no doubt, be greatly stimulated if the franchise was conferred upon it. It was such a constituency as would, he doubted not, return a Member who would be worthy to take his place beside the representatives of the English and Irish Universities who already sat in that House. He did not mean to say that he would possess the splendid and fervid eloquence of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin—Scotchmen were not generally gifted with the eloquence which every Irishman appeared to drink in with his mother's milk—nor be gifted with the marvellous ingenuity "to make the worse appear the better cause," for which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so much distinguished; but he would be a sound man, not of extreme opinions, enlightened, educated, Liberal, and Conservative; probably a worthy follower of Adam Smith, whose comprehensive knowledge of detail and depth of philosophical research were so highly commended by Mr. Pitt as furnishing the best solution of all questions connected with the history of commerce or the system of political economy, and an attention to whose teachings upon financial matters, instead of too easy a yielding to the fair promises of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would prove of great advantage to the country. He hoped that the House would not let slip that opportunity of doing an act of justice to Scotland and conferring a boon upon that House and the country at large.

Sir, I shall not follow my hon. Friend who has just sat down into a disquisition upon the rival claims of Irish eloquence, Scotch prudence, and English common sense. I am very glad to be relieved from the necessity of pitting the claims of an English University against those of the Universities of Scotland advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire; but, having given notice of my intention to bring under the notice of the House the claims of the London University in the event of a Member being refused to Kensington and Chelsea, I shall very shortly state to the House the reasons which have determined me not on the present occasion to press that claim. I am happy to be relieved from even appearing to deny the claims of the Scottish Universities. I should be sorry to urge any national ground against that claim, and, personally, I am under too much obligation to the University of Glasgow for an honour once conferred upon me not to be the very last man who should contend that the Universities of Scotland are not on a proper occasion entitled to be represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. When I undertook to prefer the claim of the London University, I stated distinctly that I could not urge that claim in preference to that of the metropolitan constituency of Kensington and Chelsea. The House has decided against that claim, although it was founded upon numbers, respectability, and wealth; and certainly I should have hoped that, failing that metropolitan borough, a claim might have been recognized on the part of the metropolitan county. The House has, however, decided against any addition to metropolitan representation; and in the present balanced state of opinion in this House I thought that, upon the whole, it was my duty to consult what appeared to be the feeling of the majority on both sides of the House in favour of conferring two additional Members upon the West Riding of Yorkshire. Having consulted the Senate of the University of London and the chairman of Convocation, I have resolved, in conformity with their wish, on not obtruding the claims of that University upon the present occasion on the consideration of the House. But if past pledges are to be remembered, I need only state that when the Reform Bill of the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen was introduced by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it was proposed to confer on the London University the elective franchise. So, also, on the last occasion of the introduction of the Reform Bill, under the Government of my noble Friend the noble Viscount, it was proposed in the Bill of 1860 that the elective franchise should be conferred on the London University. If I mistake not, in the year 1852, that claim was brought under the notice of the Earl of Derby, then at the head of the Government, who expressed himself favourably to its consideration; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, in his place, representing that Government, stated that on a future and fitting occasion he was not indisposed to consider that claim when it should be brought forward. In addition to all this, the Home Secretary of Lord Melbourne's Government, who advised Her Majesty to confer on the London University a charter, did distinctly state on that occasion that it was the intention of the Government in granting that charter that the London University should be placed on a footing of perfect equality with the ancient Universities of the kingdom. I mention these facts, which concur strongly in favour of this claim in the hope that on a fitting opportunity it may not be cast aside. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has referred, but rather tauntingly, to an expression which I had used on a former occasion when I spoke of "large and comprehensive measures or Reform." Well, Sir, the House on both sides, has had experience of the difficulty of carrying such measures. I hope, therefore, that it will recur to the doctrine of Lord Chatham, and Mr. Pitt, and the early Reformers, who were of opinion that when extensive delinquency was proved against any borough, the proper punishment was a forfeiture of the right of returning Members to this House, that disfranchisement should ensue. My belief is that that would be found, in present circumstances, the surest and most effective punishment of bribery, and the best security against its further inroads on the constituency. Opportunities would not then be wanting of conferring on unrepresented boroughs the valuable right which had thus been abused. If those opportunities should occur, I hope justice will be done both to London University and the Universities of Scotland, and then, I think, there will be a larger infusion into this House of the representation of learning, intelligence, science, and those habits of strict propriety and conduct which superior education, in my judgment, never fails to enforce. On the whole, without preferring the claim of one University to another, on national grounds, my hope is that before very long the elective franchise may be bestowed on both these learned bodies, but on the present occasion, there being only four seats to be disposed of, and these being English seats—three having been now by general concurrence settled, and only one remaining—on the whole, I think that the decision of the House will be more unanimously in favour of giving the fourth Vote to the West Riding than can be expected with respect to any other proposal; and, on the grounds I have stated, I certainly do not intend to prefer the claim of the University of London, which, I think, were it urged, might be shown to be, on the whole, prior to that of the Scotch Universities. I, therefore, satisfy myself by withdrawing that claim for the present, voting with some reluctance against the proposal of the hon. Member for Perthshire, and giving my support to the Motion for assigning the fourth Member to the West Riding.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had not clearly understood the proposition before the House; for his hon. Friend the Member for Perth did not wish to take a Member from Yorkshire, but to prevent South Lancashire from having three Members. [Sir JAMES GRAHAM: That proposition has been already agreed to.] The very hesitating denial which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had given to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire was based on two grounds—first, that the time was not ripe for giving representation to the Scotch Universities, there being no proper constituency; and, secondly, that the House had already decided the question, and it was now too late to urge this claim. Now, as to the ripeness of the constituency, he begged to remind the right hon. Baronet that the clauses proposed by his hon. Friend were taken from the Reform Bill of the Government last year; and if the constituency was then ripe for representation why not now? The Scottish Universities had a constituent body of 3,900, while Oxford had only 3,786, and Dublin about one-half the number. The first ground, then put forward by the right hon. Baronet certainly did not stand him in good stead. Then as to the second ground of objection, that the seat had been already disposed of, he believed that there was a very strong opinion in the House that there should not be a third Member in any county. Besides, it was but fair to remember that the very first proposal for the transfer of seats was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire in favour of the Scotch Universities. On the ground of property, population, and on the joint basis, Scotland had a strong claim for an increase in the representation. Proportionately to population Scotland should return 71 Members instead of 53; proportionately to revenue and taxation she ought to return 74; and proportionately to the mean between both she ought to return 73 Members. Scotland might claim the whole four seats to be disposed of; but the Members for Scotland had the modesty to put forward their claim to only one. Lanarskhire had much stronger claim to an additional seat than South Lancashire. He did not know what particular interest South Lancashire represented. Cotton was already sufficiently represented; he appealed with confidence to a sense of British justice on the present occasion, and should certainly support the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire.

As a very humble but a very steady supporter of Her Majesty's Ministers, I hope I may be allowed to express, in a very few sentences, my deep regret at the course which they have thought fit to take with regard to this Bill. If they had given one Member to the West Riding, one to Birkenhead, one to the London University, and one to the Scotch Universities, they would have conciliated at once the county interest and the borough interest, the metropolitan interest and the educational interest. They have not done so. I do not think they have the least idea how popular a measure it would have been in that part of the kingdom whence come their steadiest supporters, if they had yielded to the proposal of the hon. Member for Perthshire. It must not be forgot that, while the English Universities are chiefly frequented by the upper classes, the Scotch Universities are chiefly frequented by the middle, and, to a certain extent, by the lower classes. This consideration is a sufficient answer to the reproaches which have been directed by some of my Friends, who sit below the gangway, against the conduct of the Scotch Members about Chelsea and Kensington, as if they had been untrue to the wellknown policy of the Liberal party, to increase the power of the middle, and of the better section of the lower classes. Far be it from me to disparage the claims of the London University. I am free to confess that a simple degree at the London University guarantees a higher amount of attainment than a simple degree at the Scotch Universities; but then a simple degree at the London University guarantees higher attainment than a simple degree at the older English Universities. The University of London is a noble growth, but it is a growth of yesterday; whereas the Scotch Universities are some of them coeval with the beginning of true civilization in Scotland, and are connected with all that is best in her history. The greatest evil which afflicts Scotland is the want of encouragement for high scholarship and remarkable attainment. The perfervidum ingenium of my countrymen, if not guided by the highest intelligence, may still give trouble to English statesmen, and the best way in which you can aid the development of that highest intelligence is by fostering those Universities which do not at present exercise sufficient influence in elevating the standard of acquirement amongst us, or occupy their proper place in the national regard.

said, he would venture to recommend the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) not to press his Resolution to a division, but to remain satisfied with having stated ably, clearly, and satisfactorily to the House the claims of the Scotch Universities, which he hoped the House might, on some future he hoped the House might, on some future occasion, be induced to recognize. He must protest, however, against the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis), that, because these seats were English, they ought to be redistributed amongst English constituencies, as though the Act of Union and the Reform Act of 1832 had not identified Scotland with the rest of the United Kingdom in point of representation.

remarked, that he had heard it said that the hon. Member for Perthshire was playing a foolish game in combining with the Irish Members to disturb the Ministry, and that a cabal had been entered into between the representatives of Scotland and Ireland for that purpose. Now, he was not aware of the existence of any such combination or cabal, but, for his own part, he should be one of the first to join in it, and to give the right hand of fellowship to the Irish Members in fighting the battle of the two countries. Numerically speaking, Scotland was not properly represented in that House, and now that the vacant seats were to be filled up an opportunity offered for doing justice to that country. A deputation lately waited on the noble Premier to advocate the claims of the Scotch Universities, and with his usuul affability the noble Lord told them he thought a strong case had been made out, but that the remedy was in their own hands; they had only to corrupt a borough in Scotland, and get the Government to disfranchise it, and then its seat might be given to the Scotch Universities. The hon. Member for East Lothian having rejoined that bribery was impossible in Scotland, the Home Secretary, who stood behind the noble Lord at the time, remembering the words of the hymn of their childhood which referred to the work a certain gentleman found for idle hands to do, observed that there was another way in which the Scotch Universities might obtain representation—that Sutherlandshire, for example, and some of the other least populous Highland counties should be conjoined. Now, he could only say, on the part of the Lowlands, that if any attempt of the kind thus indicated were made by the right hon. Gentleman, the card which the Scottish gentlemen would play would not be the nine of diamonds, but a card of a darker suit and fewer spots, and in the words of the Scotch proverb, he would advise the right hon. Gentleman before going to Sutherlandshire to touch the wild cats, to put on a pair of very thick gloves.

said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the Motion would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie). The hon. Gentleman had made a very able speech, stating very temperately all the reasons in favour of giving a seat to the Sctoch Universities. For his own part, he should be very glad to see those Universities returning a Member, and he could not agree in the proposition that in no circumstances should Scotland have an additional seat, if that additional seat was to be derived from England. Still, when they remembered that no less than eight additional Members were given to Scotland by the measure of 1832, they could not come to the conclusion that the claims of Scotland had been overlooked. That not being an occasion on which the hon. Member for Perthshire could gain anything by dividing the House, it was to be hoped that he would now be content with having stated his case. At a future period that case might be fairly considered.

said, that he merely wished to protest against the attempt being made to throw the Scotch Universities overboard. Everything appeared to be cut and dried, and any appeal by a Scotch Member to the sense and reason of English Members in this matter would be wholly unavailing.

said, he was quite satisfied with the discussion to which his Motion had given rise. He desired, therefore, with the permission of the House, to withdraw these clauses. He begged to thank the right hon. Member for Carlisle and the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary for the admission they had both made that the claims which he had ventured to advance were not unfounded.

said, that when the Bill was in Committee he gave notice of a series of Amendments to carry out the object to which the Government had acceded that night. Since then the Home Secretary had laid on the table a series of clauses to the same effect; but on Saturday last the Government proposals were altered in one material particular, inasmuch as the place for holding the election was changed from the central town in the Southern Division of the Riding to Ponterfract. It would be more convenient that he should waive his own clauses, and allow those of the Government to be proceeded with, and when they came to the word "Pontefract" he could move that it be struck out.

then moved to insert the following Clause before Clause 1:—

"After the dissolution of this present Parliament the West Riding of the County of York shall be divided into two divisions, to be called respectively the Northern and Southern Divisions; the Northern Division shall contain the Wapentakes of Staincliffe and Ewecross, Claro, Skyrack, and Morley; the Southern Division shall contain the Wapentakes of Barkston Ash, Osgoldcross, Strafforth and Tickhill, Staincross, and Agbrigg."

said, he objected altogether to these seats, which were taken from boroughs, being given to counties. He would remind the House that although undoubtedly both Sudbury and St. Albans were small places, they were frequently represented by men who represented large mercantile interests, and not principally by gentlemen connected with the landed interests. As the representative of one of the largest boroughs in the West Riding, he wished to make one remark with respect to the intended division of that important constituency. It appeared to him that there were serious objections to be made to the division of the West Riding, and although he should not object to four Members being given to the West Riding, he must confess that in his opinion Middlesex had a better claim; because in the metropolitan county there were eight Members to 2,800,000 of the population, whereas in the West Riding, important as it was, there was the same number of Members to a population of 1,500,000. But the separation of the present united districts of the West Riding was most objectionable, there being at present one compact feeling throughout the constituency. There was no difficulty in taking the votes at an election for the West Riding in one day, and certainly there would be no saving of expense to candidates by the proposed division. However, he should not divide the House on the subject; though he must confess that he was glad that the importance of Leeds, as a place for holding the election, was recognized.

said, he would then propose the following clause:—

"In all future Parliaments there shall be two Knights of the Shire to serve for each of the said Northern and Southern Divisions, and such Knights shall be chosen in the same manner, and by the same classes or descriptions of voters, and by the same classes or descriptions of voters, and in respect of the same rights of voting, as if each such Division were a separate county, and all enactments now in force applicable to divisions of counties returning Knights of the Shire to serve in Parliament, shall apply to the Divisions hereby constituted."

said, he would then move a third Clause to the effect that—

"The court for the election for the Northern Division should be held at Leeds, and the court for the election of the said Southern Division should be held at Pontefract; but the justices of the peace should name the polling places for each of the said Northern and Southern Divisions, and divide such Divisions into convenient districts for polling."

said, he wished to call attention to some defects in the framing of the clause. The selection of new polling-places was left to the justices at Quarter Sessions, but it was utterly impossible that the appointments could be made in the brief interval which elapsed between the dissolution and the nomination. It would, therefore, be better to give the justices a power to act provisionally. If new polling-places could not be fixed upon in the time it would be necessary to fall back on the old ones, and, the districts apportioned to these being partly in one division and partly in another, much inconvenience would necessarily arise. That was not as trifling an affair as it might at first sight appear, for it affected about 2,000 voters, most of whom, under such a system of polling, would be practically disfranchised. He was also informed that there were only twelve working days for the Sheriff of Yorkshire to make all his arrangements, which would clearly be impossible, unless power were given him to appoint a sufficient number of returning officers. Having only obtained some of his information that day, he was not in a position to move that the clause be amended; but he would gladly place all the facts in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and as these clauses were of a purely technical character they could easily be postponed, and brought up in an amended form.

said, he saw great difficulties in the way of enabling justices to make any provisional arrangement, because in the event of a vacancy occurring before the dissolution of Parliament took place, it was necessary that the present register should be kept in activity. It was extremely difficult to legislate on the particular case, for none of the previous Reform Acts contained anything which could be regarded as a precedent. The information with regard to the position of the sheriff had already been conveyed to him, but the reason he did not propose any special clause on that point was because he thought it better that any number of under-sheriffs should be employed than that an alteration of the law should be made to meet a particular instance. He had no objection to withdraw the three clauses following that before the House, with which he proposed to proceed, and he would consider whether the objections referred to by the hon. Gentleman might not be obviated.

remarked, that in the Reform Bill of 1854 the Government overcame the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to contemplate by a clause providing that, in the event of an election prior to the dissolution, the register of the two divisions should be considered the register of one undivided county.

said, he would move the omission from the clause of the word "Pontefract," and the substitution of "Sheffield," which he contended was a more convenient place for the nomination and declaration of the poll in the southern division of the West Riding.

said, he did not think the question raised by the hon. Member one of paramount importance. The polling would not be affected by the selection of Pontefract as the place of nomination and declaration for the southern division of the West Riding. Wakefield had been first proposed, because it was at present a polling-place for the undivided West Riding; but the Government were afterwards informed that Wakefield was not so conveniently situated as Pontefract. The latter would seem to be very central for the southern division.

said, he hoped that the first part of the hon. Member's Amendment would be adopted, and Pontefract struck out. Wakefield was at present the place for the central business of the Southern division, and Pontefract would not be as convenient for the electors. Seven of the polling-places were nearest Pontefract, but twelve were nearest to Wakefield. No less than 13,325 of the electors were nearest to Wakefield, while only 4,504, or about one-third that number, were nearest to Pontefract. It might be said that Wakefield had been convicted of bri- bery, but Mr. Oliveira and his wife were found to have committed bribery and corruption at Pontefract.

said, he thought that the gentlemen of the southern division ought to be left to settle this question. All the residents of that division claimed was that they might select the place which they thought best for themselves. The question before them was between Pontefract and Sheffield. The general impression was that in times of great political excitement it would be impolitic to have the election in a large and populous borough like that of Sheffield. The question then was whether they would select the agricultural tranquil town of Pontefract, or the somewhat tumultuous town of Sheffield, and he hoped the House would decide that Pontefract was the more preferable of the two.

said, that in 1854, when the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary brought in his Reform Bill, Pontefract was inserted in the Bill as a place of election. A deputation waited on the noble Lord, of which he (Colonel Smyth) formed one, when the noble Lord stated that Pontefract had been inserted in the Bill by mistake. He, therefore, should claim the vote of the noble Lord against Pontefract on this occasion. Wakefield was in many respects a more convenient place for the election than Pontefract.

said, he thought there must be some mistake in what had fallen from the gallant Colonel. He had not understood that Pontefract was inserted in the Bill of 1854 by mistake. He was satisfied that Pontefract was more suitable for a place of election than either Wakefield or Sheffield. Wakefield was certainly the most central for the whole Riding, but there was a large portion of the agricultural population who had no opportunity of travelling by railway, to whom Pontefract would be the most convenient place.

said, he thought that Pontefract, on the whole, was the most convenient place of election, but Doncaster had also a good claim to the honour.

said, he had given notice of a Motion to take away the third seat from Lancashire, and to form a bo- rough consisting of St. Albans, Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Great Berkhamstead, and Tring. In his opinion the county of Hertford had not been fairly treated. It used to return six Members—two for the county, two for Hertford, and two for St. Albans. The borough of St. Albans had been a great political sinner for many years, and had been very properly disfranchised. But it had been now disfranchised for seventeen or eighteen years, and hon. Members who were so anxious to condone the delinquencies of Wakefield, might now well agree that St. Albans should have its privileges in part restored. Looking to the importance and population of Hertfordshire, he thought six Members a fair quota. As he had given very short notice of his Motion, he would not press it on the present occasion, but he trusted that in any future Reform Bill the claims of the new Parliamentary borough he had proposed, which would have a present constituency of 1,500 electors, would be duly considered.

said, he would propose in page 2, line 3, to leave out the words from "the" to "Yorkshire and," in line 4 inclusive, and insert "passing of this Act." The effect of the Amendment would be, that the election would take place immediately after the passing of the Act, instead of in the month of November, as originally proposed.

said, that on a former evening he had made precisely the same proposal. The right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, had then opposed it, because of the harvest. Would the right hon. Gentleman now state what steps the Government had taken for the acceleration of the harvest?

said, that the Amendment had been thought upon the whole to be most convenient. The Bill had made such progress that he trusted the probability against which he wished to guard would not occur, and that the elections might be held under the Bill before the harvest.

said, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice with reference to harbours of refuge. In 1844 a Commission was appointed on the subject of harbours of refuge, and amongst others it was found that the harbour of Harwich, from want of proper care, was nearly silted up. It was, therefore, recommended that a sum of money should be granted for the purpose of improving the harbour. It was proposed that a groyne should be erected on the east side of the town, 700 yards in length, to secure a proper force of water. Subsequently it was resolved that the groyne should be only 500 yards in length, and that another should be erected to the eastward of Landguard Point. But the second groyne was never carried out, and the consequence was that the harbour, as a harbour of refuge for large vessels, was likely to be entirely lost. On the 25th of October, 1858, the Trinity House addressed a letter to the Admiralty calling attention to that important subject, and expressing the strongest apprehensions of the utter loss of the harbour for large craft if proper measures were not immediately applied to remedy the evils complained of. That statement of the elder brethren of Trinity House caused the greatest anxiety to the mercantile community connected with the coasting trade in that direction; for the accumulation of sand on the east side of the harbour would not only prove dangerous, but large vessels attempting it in that direction would most probably be lost. The Board of Admiralty replied to the letter by asking the brethren of Trinity House to mark upon the chart the position of the sands to which they referred. That having been done, the Admiralty then stated that they had no funds available for the object in view. This proceeding on the part of the Admiralty was the more extraordinary that various reports had been made to them on the subject from the engineers to the Board. On the 1st July, 1852, Mr. Walker, one of the most eminent of naval engineers, called that attention of the Admiralty to it, and estimated that the cost of the groyne recommended would be only £10,000. These Reports were repeatedly pressed until the 1st of April, 1856, but without effect. He (Cap- tain Jervis) then wrote to the Board of Trade on the subject. The reply he received was that the matter was not within their departament, but that it belonged to the Board of Admiralty. He then wrote to the Admiralty. The answer he received was that it was no business of the Admiralty—it belonged rather to the Treasury. He then applied to the Treasury, and he was told that it was a matter for the Board of Trade and not for the Treasury. Under those circumstances he saw no alternative but to bring the matter before the Government generally. He might be told that it was not a question for the Government but that the town should look after its own harbour, but the jurisdiction of that harbour was with the Borough of Ipswich, and from time immemorial Harwich had been looked upon as a harbour of refuge by all vessels that traded along that part of the coast. He had seen as many as 500 vessels run into it of a day. From the prevalence of easterly winds the sands on the south-east coast renders the navigation of vessels in that direction most dangerous. To keep the mouth of Harwich harbour open, and to remove those obstacles, were, therefore, measures of the deepest interest to the mercantile community on the east coast of England. The hydrographer of the navy had given it as his opinion that the matter ought not to be postponed for a single day, as the danger was augmenting more and more every day. Captain Washington also had made a report upon the subject, calling attention to the dangerous extension of the Landguard Point. He (Captain Jervis), therefore, trusted when the Government were asking for a Vote of £160,000 for the works at Alderney, Portland, and Dover, that they would see the importance of providing for the security of Harwich harbour, the works of which only involved a sum of £15,000, as estimated by the engineer of the Board of Admiralty.

said, that he was sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have been inconvenienced by the referecne made from one department to the other; but as his application was for a grant of public money, the Board of Trade thought, therefore, that it was a more appropriate subject for the consideration of the Treasury than for the department with which he (Mr. Milner Gibson) was connected. The Board of Trade were quite alive to the importance of the question, and it would be admitted by every one that the filling up of so valuable a harbour of refuge would be a great national misfrotune. He had heard it stated, however, that the predictions which had been made were not likely to be fulfilled to the extent that it was supposed, and that the access to the harbour was not likely to be put an end to altogether; but, no doubt, it was possible that the access might be rendered far more difficult than it was at present. The subject should receive the most serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. He quite admitted that it was a matter of importance, and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done good service in bringing it under the notice of the House. He should not anticipate what his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was likely to say on the finanical part of the question, but they knew that estimates for engineering operations of this character were not generally to be relied on, but that difficulties arose in the progress of operations connected with harbours involving a great outlay beyond the original estimate. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that full inquiry would take place, and that means would be found to deal with the difficulties of the case.

said, he was so far satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that he would withdraw his Motion.

said, he wished to call attention to the manner in which the Estimates were framed, as he thought great facilities were afforded to the Government for spending more money than was voted, from the system of balances that were allowed to lie over. He hoped to hear from the Secretary of the Treasury that the Government had resolved to adopt entirely the recommendations of the Committee of Public Monies in respect to the Estimates, and that measures would speedily be taken to carry those recommendations out.

said, that these Estimates in the last year of the unreformed Parliament, when the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, were £2,000,000. They were now £7,665,000, and that was £123,000 more than was required last year. He would make no comment on the expenditure on the palaces occupied by Her Majesty, as it did not appear to be extravagant. But explanation should be given of some items. There was an item of £6,377 for repairs, &c., of St. James's Palace. He was not aware that St. James's Palace was occupied by any of the Royal household, and the State apartments were only used half-a dozen times a year. There was another item of £4,775 for Kensington Palace. He wanted to know who occupied that palace, as it was not occupied by any of the Royal Family. There was another item of £6,054 for Hampton Court Palace. It was all very well for members of the aristocracy to have a palace like that to dwell in, with splendid gardens around it, but the public ought not to be taxed for everything required in it.

said, he would remind the Committee that it was useless to make a comparison between the Estimates of the present time and those before 1854, because since the latter period there had been transferred to the Miscellaneous Estimates many charges, which were previously defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, and out of the gross revenue before it was paid into the Exchequer. It should also be borne in mind that the census Vote amounted to £127,000, which sum alone was greater than the increase mentioned by the hon. Member.

observed that it was true that St. James's Palace was not in the personal occupation of Her Majesty, but the apartments for which the Estimate was proposed were the State apartments used on the occasion of drawing rooms and levees. Some of the subordinate officers of the departments of the Lord Chamberlain and Lord Steward were lodged in St. James's Palace. As to Kensington Palace, many parts were in a considerable degree of dilapidation. It required repairs every year, and before long some portion must be pulled down as not being worth repair; but in the present year the sum taken was necessary to keep the walls and roofs in good order. That palace was only partly occupied, and the occupation, such as it was, did not much increase the amount of money that would be required even without any occupation. Hampton Palace was a monument of architectural beauty, and he was sure the House would not grudge money to keep it in repair. The hon. Member spoke of the aristocracy being lodged there, but the apartments were given to persons of very slender means, to the widows of distinguished officers in the army and navy, and to those whose connection with eminent individuals and with men who had rendered public service, entitled them to this favour from the Queen.

said, he had not been able to discover that there were more than three widows of officers among the occupants of Hampton Palace, and he had not the least objection to granting the use of the Palace to persons of that description. He understood His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had apartments in St. James's Palace. He did not object to that; but he thought His Royal Highness ought to maintain those apartments himself, and not let the charge fall on the public.

said, that the Duke of Cambridge had no longer occupation of those apartments, which he left on proceeding to Gloucester House, and the apartments in question were for the most part vacant.

observed that £4,200 were required for supplying water for the Houses of Parliament and other public buildings and offices. He thought that the Houses of Parliament and most public offices were supplied with water from the fountains in Trafalgar Square. There was also an enormous sum asked for on account of furniture, independent of the item of £26,318 for the maintenance and repair of public offices and the charges attendant thereon. He wished to know why the whole cost was no included in one item, so that the extent of the expenditure might be understood at a glance? The rent paid for offices reached a high amount; £900 a year were paid for a house in St. James's Square for the Tithe and Copyhold Commission. He thought it high time that that Commission should be brought to an end. The Ecclesiastical Commission occupied apartments in Whitehall Place, for which £680 were given, besides taxes. That Commission had an enormous amount of money in hand, and these charges ought to be taken from the backs of the public, those who derived advantage from the Commission being made to defray them. He should take the sense of the Committee on the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £680, the rent paid for the house occupied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

complained of the manner in which the expenses of the public offices were jumbled up together. It would be much more convenient if the Estimates were so arranged that it could be seen at a glance what were the expenses of the public buildings.

said, he thought that while the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had a large surplus income to dispose of they ought not to come on the public for the expenses of their offices.

said, these payments were made to the Commissioners, not as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but as the Church Building Commissioners, the duties of which Commission had been transferred to them by Act of Parliament some years ago. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners stated that one-fourth of their time was occupied on business that did not properly belong to them, and it was under that calculation that the sum was put down in the Estimates.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would not press his Amendment then, as it would preclude Amendments in preceding items.

said, that looking to the state of the Committee—there were only twenty-two Members in the House—he would withdraw his Amendment, in hopes that in a short time there would be more hon. Members present to divide on it.

said, he also must complain of the inconvenient manner in which the Estimates for the expenses of the public offices were arranged. He also wished to know why it was that a distinction was made between the Admiralty and the War Departments in respect of money required for buildings? Already £10,000 had been voted for the War Department for purposes precisely similar to those for which they were now called to provide in respect of the Admiralty. Votes for the public buildings ought to be placed altogether. He wished also to know why a large rent was paid for houses in Gate Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, which were not now occupied by the Government? He should be glad to hear also why so much as £700 a year was paid for the Stationery Office?

said, that there was a hideous piece of upholstery under cover opposite Marlborugh House at the disposal of anybody who would take it; but, as nobody would take it, they were now asked to vote £340 for its removal to St. Paul's, where it would be placed beneath one of the crypts. He alluded to the car used at the funeral of the late Duke of Wellington, and than which nothing more hideous had ever been invented. The best thing would be to give it to Madame Tussaud, or, if she would not take it, to burn it.

asked whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth had been withdrawn?

replied that it had.

said, the withdrawal of the Amendment had not been heard on that side of the House. Some explanation ought to be given to the Committee of the reason for its withdrawal. The hon. Member for Lambeth, who was a great advocate for economy, moved to omit an item to which he appeared to have a great objection, but the moment it appeared from the state of the Committee that there was a chance of his Amendment being carried he immediately withdrew it. If that item was outrageous in the opinion of the hon. Member, he could not understand why he should have retreated from his Amendment in so nervous and precipitate a manner when it seemed likely that he would effect a reduction. Well-considered Amendments ought really not to be withdrawn in this hasty manner. The hon. Gentleman and his friends obtained great public credit and esteem for always being in their place on these occasions when the House was there; but it also ought to be known, as a concomitant to this state of affairs, that when they had a majority of their friends present, they invariably retired from any chance of carrying their opinions into effect.

said, that the Amendment had been withdrawn at the instance of the hon. Member for Pontefract, because if it had been pressed to a division, it would not have been competent to move any Amendments on the previous items of the Vote.

said, the reason why no sum for the repair of the Admiralty Offices was included in the Estimates was that that department itself possessed the machinery for doing all the work which it required. With respect to the houses in Newport and Gate Streets, he had to state that, not being wanted for Government purposes, they were under-let to tenants who paid a rent, the account of which appeared under another head; so that in reality the rent of those houses constituted no charge on the public purse. As to the Wellington car he could only say that, notwithstanding the manner in which the taste exhibited in its construction had been criticised, it was naturally an object of great interest to numbers of Englishmen, and crowds of visitors flocked to see it while at Marlborough House, and that he considered it was not inappropriately placed in proximity to the tomb of the great man whose remains lay buried beneath St. Paul's Cathedral. He might add, in reference to the remarks which had fallen.from the hon. Member for Lambeth with regard to the supply of water to the public offices, that that supply was drawn from a deep well behind the National Gallery, and that three engines were constantly employed in pumping up the water from a considerable depth. This year some fresh hose, pipes and stopcocks were required, which rendered the item under that head larger than it had been in previous years.

said, he thought the want of respect for the memory of the Duke of Wellington in reality lay in connecting it in any way with the absurd car, for the removal of which a Vote was now asked. In the hope of getting rid of it altogether he should move the omission of the item of £340.

said, he hoped the Committee would not condemn the car. For the taste of its construction the Government were not answerable; but the noble Lord opposite could, no doubt, give a satisfactory explanation on that point. [An intimation of dissent from Lord JOHN MANNERS.] Whether, however, the car was in good or bad taste, it was a relic connected with the funeral of the Duke of Wellington, and the Committee would not, he felt assured, hesitate to grant the small amount which was asked for under the circumstances of the case.

said, he always trembled when questions of taste were submitted to the House, and he would not say a word on that subject. He agreed, however, that it would not be right or proper that the car should be broken up, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had made a very wise selection of a place in which to deposit it?

said, he wished to know whether anybody could see the car in the place in which it was proposed to place it? If they could it would certainly be a great hardship.

said, it would be underground where nobody could see it without going expressly for the purpose. There was a difference of opinion as to the artistic merits of the car; many persons considered it an excellent example of English metal work and worthy to bear a hero to the tomb. He could assure the Committee the car would add to the effect of the arrangements in St. Paul's Cathedral.

said, he must protest against the notion that any feeling of disrespect to the memory of the Duke of Wellington had prompted his Motion. On the contrary, he did not see why the one failure of the public funeral should be perpetuated. Everybody admitted that it would have been infinitely better that the coffin should have been borne upon a common gun carriage; and, in fact, the disrespect to the memory of the Duke seemed to him to be connecting it with such an abominable abortion.

called attention to the item of £4,200 for the waterworks before alluded to.

said, the item of £4,200 for the supply of water included the water supplied for the Houses of Parliament, the public offices, and the Trafalgar Square fountains. There was a special supply from the well in the Orange Street works to the fountains. This required enlargement, and there would thus be an increase of the bulk and of the effect of the fountains.

said, he would then move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £680, rent of office in Whitehall Place for the use of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He thought the public ought not to be taxed for the support of a commission which had such a vast amount of money passing through their hands. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) he might add had imputed to him a very unworthy motive for withdrawing his Motion previously. He had done so partly for the reason stated by the Chairman, and partly because he had no wish to count out the House at a time when there were only some two-and-twenty Members present.

said, that the Vote had been agreed to for a series of years. It must not be supposed that the Ecclesiastical Commission had been instituted at the wish of the Church, or that the Church had desired that the estates of deans, chapters, and bishops should be transferred to it for the augmentation of small livings. On the contrary, the arrangement had been effected by the interference of Parliament for what it considered and what he believed to be a great public object, the endowment of the less well paid portion of the clergy at the expense of the more wealthy and dignified portion. Besides, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had latterly performed the duties (which were not light) of the Church Building Commission. It was, therefore, not unreasonable that the country should be asked to pay a portion of the Commissioners' expenses.

said, he wished to know whether any part of the expenses of the Commission was paid by themselves?

said, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were trustees for the purpose of dealing with a special fund derived from the income of church lands. They paid, however, a greater portion of their own expenses out of their Common Fund.

said, he thought the Commissioners ought to pay the rent of their house. He thought that if that Vote of £600 was refused the Commissioners might occupy Kensington Palace, which was going to decay from want of occupation.

said, that the operations of the Commissioners were no doubt satisfactory. The Commissioners derived £30,000 or £40,000 a year from the county of Durham, and the people there complained that after paying this amount they should be called upon to pay more from the taxes of the country. He also wished to protest against the statement of the right hon. Members for Bucks, that those who criticised the Estimates did so from a desire to gain popularity, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not again attempt to discourage reasonable inquiries on the various items of public expenditure.

said, the hon. Member had misunderstood his meaning. He did not deprecate discussions upon the Estimates; on the contrary, he thought it was the first duty of hon. Members to criticise the Estimates, and to endeavour to effect prudent reductions. What he objected to was, that having ably criticised particular items, and having established a case which in their opinion called for the decision of the Committee, they should recede from challenging that decision because they were afraid of obtaining a majority.

remarked that, as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners carried on their business for the exclusive benefit of the Church it was hardly fair that the public should be burdened with a portion of their expenses.

said, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were required by the late Sir Robert Peel to enter upon an inquiry on the part of the State into the Revenue of the Church, and it was only reasonable that the public should bear a portion of the expense.

inquired whether the Government were prepared to place plans before the House for the erection of suitable buildings on the site of Burlington House? Several years ago that site was purchased at a cost of £180,000, and up to that moment nothing had been done to render it available for public purposes. He thought the time had come when accommodation should be furnished at Burlington House for the various public institutions of science and art. The Geographical Society, for example, had claims upon the Government which should not be overlooked.

said, he hoped the Government would not produce plans for the erection of buildings on the site of Burlington House. Whatever had been done hitherto in the way of public buildings showed that they were not advanced enough in the art of architecture to occupy the vacant ground at Burlington House with buildings of a satisfactory character at present. Considering the large annual expenditure, it was unreasonable to ask the Government to give additional grants either to the geographical or any other private society. He wished to know, however, what the Government proposed to do with the main part of Burlington House. The Royal Society was lodged merely in one of the side pavilions.

said, the Geographical Society would be willing to receive premises, instead of the grant, if the Government would provide them.

said, he had understood that Burlington House was purchased for the accommodation of certain societies that had claims on the Government. That accommodation had not been provided, and he should be glad to know if it was intended that it should be provided.

said, that every inch of Burlington House was now occupied most advantageously for the public by the societies having claims on the Government. No final decision had yet been come to by the Government on many plans before it for appropriating the site and garden of Burlington House; but he hoped in a short time that decision would be made. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. D. Seymour), however, that we had not architects capable of erecting a building that was worth looking at.

said, the Vote included £10,400 for furniture for the Kensington Museum; if it was to furnish the new building there he objected to the Vote, as he objected to the building itself.

explained that the £10,400 included the expense of all the furniture, both for the old building at South Kensington and for what would be required for the new part of them.

moved that the Vote be reduced by £10,400.

said, he feared no scrutiny into this item; the expenditure had been made under strict regulations, and with great economy.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide the Committee on this item. He did not think any public money had been better expended.

said, the Vote was not for furniture only, but for the Museum fittings; great care had been taken to keep down the estimate.

said, he thought that the museum at Kensington conferred advantages upon the working classes which they could not derive elsewhere, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, he objected to the expenditure in toto, and he had no doubt, if the Committee passed the vote of £10,000, it would be £20,000 the next year.

said, he sat on the Committee on the South Kensington Museum, and he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith). He thought that the South Kensington Museum was going on at a very great pace. They ought to have some explanation of what these fittings were and for what purposes they were intended. He admitted that the museum had done good service, but still they might be paying too much for an establishment of that kind.

said, a very large addition was to be made to the South Kensington Museum by throwing a glass roof over four sides of a quadrangle. A sum had been voted for that purpose, and that building must be fitted up. These fittings were necessary to enable the South Kensington Museum to exhibit the finest collection of medieval objects of art and manufacturing industry which existed in Europe, and which must attract the attention and admiration of all who understood the subject. The Department at Kensington had greatly improved the artistic manufactures of Great Britain. Looking at the question in a money point of view, the nation had gained immensely, while, as regarded the objects of recreation, amusement, and instruction of the middle and lower classes, the gain had been ten times the value of the money expended.

said, he was at a loss to understand what necessity there was for so great an increase of window room. He complained of the rather insidious attempt to keep up Kensington Museum against the wishes of that House. He had paid great attention to that museum, but he could not tell from whence the large collection for which the fittings were required had come.

observed that if the hon. and gallant Member had paid the slightest attention to Kensington Museum, if he had been there lately and had made use of his senses, he would very soon have discovered what the collection was. It was a most important and valuable collection of busts, terra-cottas, and other works of mediaeval art, which had been deposited in a room not accessible to the public, and which, to be exhibited, must be placed on tables with appropriate fittings.

said, he understood that the fittings were for the new schools and residences of the officers; not for any new collection.

observed that he was surprised at the ignorance which had been displayed in regard to the South Kensington Museum. If that museum had not stepped in at the present time, one of the finest mediaeval collections would have been lost. It was absurd to spend £20,000 in purchasing a collection, and then refuse the money requisite to purchase the cases for properly exhibiting the articles.

said, the great unpopularity of the South Kensington Museum was attributable in great measure to the unfair way in which the Votes for it had been brought forward. At first it was stated to be merely a temporary institution, Last year it did not appear in the Estimates, and a Committee was appointed, but at so late a period of the Session that the independent Members could not attend, and the majority who did attend were members of the Government, who had it all their own way.

said, he thought it would be more satisfactory to the Committee if they received their information in respect to the Vote from the First Commissioner of Works, whose legitimate function it was to furnish it, instead of from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory).

said, they might assume that of the Vote about £7,000, would be required to furnish these new buildings, and the remainder for the annual expenditure on the whole building. It was proposed to cover over the quadrangle, and to obtain a large space for the purposes of the collection at comparatively little cost. There was such a readiness among persons possessing interesting objects of industrial art to lend them for exhibition, that, supposing the museum had not sufficient property of its own, it might be filled with specimens lent for a time by the owners. They had an architectural museum to which valuable additions had lately been made. The extent of glass cases required for such a building must be costly; and chairs, tables, pedestals, and other furniture were wanted as well as fittings.

, said, he did not regard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as at all satisfactory. The term "fitting" was a most indefinite one, and he could not understand how £10,000 should be required for tables and chairs.

complained of the deceptive nature of the comparative statement of expenditure between this year and last year—an inaccuracy which was common to other Votes in the Estimates. There was an apparent diminution of £2,000 as compared with the Vote of last year, but when all the items were included there was a positive increase of £13,000. The amount asked for was very large, and he would like to know whether £80,000 was absolutely required for the maintenance of the parks round London? The Committee ought to allow a fixed sum, and say that it must be made to do.

said, he objected to the extraordinary charge for Kew Gardens. For the botanic gardens £12,135 was asked, and for the pleasure gardens £24,262. Then there was a sum of £23,417 for St. James's, Green, and Hyde Parks, but he was at a loss to know for what that money was required.

said, he was glad the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) had called attention to the question of the Estimates. The manner in which they were presented was thoroughly calculated to deceive the House. There was throughout the mention of a "probable surplus" from last year. The House ought to have fuller information as to what this surplus was. He thought the same precision ought to be required for those Votes as for the Army and Navy Estimates. There were some items which required explanations—such as £2,800 for the ranger's department in Richmond Park, and £2,020 for the department of the ranger of St. James's Park, those departments costing more pounds than there were acres to look after.

said, he wanted to know what were the duties of the deputy-ranger of Hyde Park, and he hoped that when a vacancy occurred in the office the ground now occupied by the deputy-ranger's house would be devoted to public use.

said, he observed a charge of £2,500 for providing a walk and ride near the Serpentine, and he wished to ask how that money was to be expended? There had been a walk near the Serpentine, but it had been stopped and converted into a ride by simply putting up hurdles to prevent persons from walking there.

complained that the enormous sum of £23,000, which was quite a nobleman's income, was expended on those parks. He thought it quite right that the parks of the Metropolis should be kept in good order for the enjoyment of the public, but surely that was a preposterous sum to expend upon them. He hoped further explanation would be rendered to the Committee.

said, he thought that as the property in the neighbourhood of the parks was increased in value by the improvements in the parks, it was not right to make the nation at large pay for all those improvements.

said, he thought there was some reason to complain of the way in which this Estimate had been drawn, the money for two very different things being put into one Vote without saying how much for each. Thus there was an item of £2,500, which was said to be for a walk and ride near the Serpentine.

said, that as to the form of the estimate the mention of the probable surplus of former grants was an arrangement which in the early part of the evening met with great approbation from hon. Gentlemen. It had been adopted in pursuance of the recommendation of a Select Committee. It did not mislead, because the total estimate was given, and the probable surplus being deducted would leave the net amount. As to the walk and ride being included in one Vote, that was a misprint. It ought to have been simply "a walk;" the word "ride" was mistake. Every Sunday afternoon a very large number of persons were walking on what was formerly grass, but was now a very bare and ragged strip of land. Since the public seemed to have made up their mind to use it for a walk he wished to render it suitable for that purpose, it was 2,000 linear yards in length, from Hyde Park Corner to Kensington Gardens. The distinction between the rangers' department and the department of the Office of Works was one of form and not of substance. When Hyde Park, Greenwich, and Richmond Parks were kept as parks for hunting deer, the office of ranger was more required, the lodges and the grazing of cattle were under his direction. As for that part of the parks near the Serpentine which was occupied, as it was likely that some years might elapse before the house there could be pulled down, it was thought desirable to make it as convenient as could be, and, therefore, £2,000 was asked for that purpose. With regard to the expense of the parks in general, that for the Green Park and Hyde Park was less than in previous years, and yet there had been increased accommodation for the public. There had been an increase of convenient walks and of flowers, and more comfort and recreation had been supplied to the public for the money than heretofore.

said, that the form of the Votes gave as the total amount a sum less than was likely to be required, because the surplus of former years was to be taken into account. Some days ago the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking of the subject, said that was an approximation to what the Committee on Public Monies, and other Committees had recommended; but he (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not think that a fair description. What the Committee desired was that these Votes should come before the Committee in the same form as the army and navy Votes—namely, that Votes should be taken for the money actually to be paid during the year, and that if there was any surplus at the end of the year it should be surrendered. Such a plan enabled them to compare one year with another, which they could not do while the present practice was adopted. The surplus of £296,000 from last year ought to have been surrendered to the Exchequer, and Votes larger than those now asked for by that sum ought to have been proposed.

said, he could not admit the fairness of the criticism, considering the quarter from which it proceeded. The hon. Gentleman imagined that he had discovered a practice which greatly deluded the House of Commons, but the Government in following it, and cutting down the Estimates by means of the balances from the preceding year, had carefully informed the House what they had done. But in the year 1858 the same course was taken by the Government, of which the hon. Baronet was a Member, but he did not recollect that in that year any notice was given that that course had been taken. It was then announced that the Miscellaneous Estimates would be less than they were the year before, and so they were, because the balances were drawn upon to such an extent that upon some Votes there was left an insufficient provision for the wants of the year. When he said that it was an approximation to the state of things recommended by the Public Monies Committee he did not mean that it was to be the permanent condition of things, but only that it was a state of transition to the complete carrying out of the recommendations of that Committee. As regarded the merits of the question, he believed the description given by his hon. Friend was entirely inaccurate. For the last three years the balances of the Estimates for the miscellaneous services had been considerably drawn upon, but in no single instance had the total expenditure equalled the amount voted—not even in the particular case where the hon. Baronet claimed for the late Government the merit of originality in the course which they adopted. Undoubtedly, when the House voted money for 202 services with 202 margins, it followed that the general effect was to make a provision largely in excess of the actual requirements. He had for years advocated the principle that balances ought to be paid over to the Exchequer, and he hoped they would soon be able to give full effect to the recommendations of the Public Monies Committee.

said, he thought the Government entitled to credit for the efforts which they had made to fulfil some of the recommendations of the Committee, and for that reason he had supported the Motion for a Vote on account, in opposition to the party with whom he usually acted, But the Committee had a right to ask whether next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared fully to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.

said, his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works had given no explanation of what appeared to his untutored mind an extraordinary demand for the pleasure gardens at Kew. Year after year there was a continued increase in the demands for parks and gardens, and as long as the heads of departments lent a willing ear to the representations of their subordinates there would never be a cessation of these growing calls on the public purse. Such items in moderation were not grudged, but if carried to excess a revulsion of feeling would some day manifest itself, which would eventuate in the total suppression of these pleasure grounds. The House being called upon to vote money for works already half executed, had no opportunity of judging of their desirability.

said, he wished to remind the Committee of the circumstances connected with the erection of the temperate-house at Kew Gardens. Some years ago great complaints were made that valuable plants and trees were being destroyed for want of a proper house, and the necessity for such a building was strongly urged on the Government of the day. A pledge was given that it should be erected at a cost of £30,000; and by a majority of ten to one that decision was afterwards supported in the House. In accordance with that vote contracts were entered into, and it was rather late in the day for hon. Gentlemen now to come down and open the subject afresh.

said, he thought the works at Kew were a credit to the Government. He would also congratulate the Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Cowper) on the improvements he had effected in Battersea Park, which formed a most agreeable place of recreation for the large population congregated on both sides of he river.

said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to state the amount of the expenditure on the ride in Kensington Gardens?

said, it ought to be matter of praise rather than blame that the heads of particular departments attached importance to the interests confided to them, and pressed them upon their superiors. It was not the influence which they brought to bear, but that which the House itself put upon the Board of Works, that caused the large expenditure at Kew, which was complained of. Having himself been instrumental in inducing the House to agree to the expenditure at Kew, to which allusion had been made, he was by no means ashamed of the part he had taken.

said, he wished to return his acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman for the improvements which he had carried out for the public advantage. He hoped it might be possible at a future day to establish some pleasure grounds in the south-west district of the Metropolis.

observed that the expense of erecting a drinking fountain in St Jame's Park was £100, while in Regent's Park it was £150, and he should like to hear the discrepancy explained.

said, that Kew Gardens were the only public establishment of the kind that were a credit to the country. He was surprised at the limited cost for which they were maintained. He had only one fault to find, and that was that for a large portion of the year there was but one means of ingress and egress to the gardens, and that was at the Kew side.

remarked, that another entrance was very much wanted to the Kew Gardens, which certainly were a great credit to the country. With regard to the new ride in Kensington Gardens, he thought, although the riders were admitted in the least objectionable place, the general feeling was that it was an invasion of the rights of the public.

said, he did not intend to oppose the Vote, but he hoped that next year the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an account of the way in which the large sums voted for the parks were expended.

approved of the expenditure in St. James's Park and Hyde Park, which were public parks from time immemorial; but he strongly objected to the large expenditure for Battersea Park, amounting last year and this to £17,000. He objected to the continual laying out of new parks in the Metropolis at the expense of the country generally. He would divide the Committee if he thought he would be supported in a protest against that system.

also complained of the heavy demands made for water supplies to the parks.

said, the temperate house in Kew Gardens would soon be complete, when, no doubt, there would be a great influx of persons there in the winter. The pleasure gardens would then be thrown open in the winter, and additional access given to the gardens. As to the water supply to the gardens generally, the sum set down from it included also the labour, the water carts, and the horse hire. He did not think it was necessary for him to enter into details as to the cost of the parks, for last year the Estimates were referred to a Committee, and no recommendation of a diminution in those Estimates was made. The new Kensington ride had not cost more than £20, and that sum had been defrayed out of a Vote of £250 of last year.

said, he could not but complain of repeated demands on the account of the new Houses of Parliament, after it was understood that the last of them had been paid. They began the Houses of Parliament with an estimate of £700,000, and ended with an expenditure of £2,500,000. For many years he and other had tried to draw this expenditure to a conclusion, and it was owing entirely to the late Sir William Molesworth that a termination was arrived at. It was then settled that the sum of £180,000 was to cover every cost. But what had happened? They were now asked to vote an item of £20,895 which had been expended by the late distinguished architect without authority. The Committee had a right to expect some explanation, and to ask whether they had yet got to the end of this expenditure. A more prodigal expenditure of money he never heard of.

said, that no doubt it appeared upon the face of the Estimates that a sum of £20,895 had been spent beyond the estimate prepared by Sir Charles Barry in 1859. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that this excess was a matter to be deplored. It could, however, be traced to the course that was taken in the beginning. A contract in gross would have furnished better security against an excess of the Estimates, than confidence in the architect. The architect had exercised a general authority over the works without being subject to effectual control. He was responsible to a Committee of the Commons and to a Committee of the Lords, then to a Commission. He had many masters, but none were able to control the expenditure. It was a long story but everybody agreed that the arrangement had been a mistake. With regard to the item of £20,895 in the present Estimate "for the completion of the unfinished portions of the entire building," an explanation would be found in the annexed correspondence. He would admit that it was not entirely satisfactory, but since Sir Charles Barry had been removed by death it was impossible to get the detailed explanations which he alone could give. Sir Charles Barry had authority to expend the money, and he made periodical returns, but they did not give all the information desired. The works for which the sum was now taken were necessary. They ought to have been included in the specification of 1859, but were not. But although the Committee were asked for the sum of £20,895, it was more than covered by a balance of £35,000 recently surrendered which had been saved in other directions. With regard to future expenditure, Mr. Edward Barry had undertaken to make half-yearly reports, giving in detail the expenditure on the works for which this Vote was taken. There was no reason to doubt that the sum of £20,985 would be sufficient, under the management of Mr. Barry, to complete the building.

said, there was an item in the Vote for statues of four British Sovereigns. Who were they? They had statues of all the British Sovereigns about the House, and in St. Stephen's Hall statues also of great and distinguished men. But there was an absence of the statue of the greatest man, the greatest soldier, the greatest statesman, the wisest governor, and the greatest friend of liberty the country ever had. He need not add that he meant the Protector, Cromwell. Historians were beginning to throw light on his before blackened character. Was the Government, he would ask, about to give a statue to this great man? The public—some of them, he meant—were willing to do so by subscription. To that he would never consent. The statue to that illustrious man ought to be erected at the national expense.

said, there was an ambiguity in Mr. Barry's letter; in consequence of which he would ask whether the "£20,000 to finish works in hand" would finish the building? Of course there would be ornamental work; but would the building be substantially finished for that sum? The north-west corner of the building, under the clock tower, was incomplete. Sir Charles Barry had a magnificent design, which he remembered was lithographed, having an immense court in Palace Yard, with a beautiful screen of decorative architecture, which was to cost the modest sum of £900,000; and the gap in the clock tower was, he believed, left as a hint that such a grand scheme was to be carried out at the public expense. Was anything included in this £20,000 for removing this blot in the wall?

said, he also would be glad to know whether any further sums were to be called for beyond the £20,000 to complete the Houses of Parliament, as well as whether there were any plans or specifications of the works required for that purpose?

remarked, that although Mr. Dyce had been paid £560 for the frescoe he had undertaken, he had executed very little of his work; and he wished to know whether any steps had been taken to bring him to a sense of what was due to the country? As long ago as 1857 the Commission on the Fine Arts wrote to him that his work ought to be finished by the following year. Perhaps the First Commissioner of Public Works would inquire into the state of the frescoes, and would he apply the unexpended balance to that work?

remarked, that the First Commissioner on a former occasion had stated that the condition of the frescoes was owing to the badness of the materials used in laying on the "intonico" or plaster on which the picture was painted. That plaster came from Munich, where frescoes painted on the same foundation were also "going." Some of the artists who had painted the frescoes in the Houses of Parliament were willing to repaint their works, but they wished it to be perfectly understood that the material to be painted upon must be good. He would suggest the appointment of a Commission, to comprise chemists among its members, to examine into the nature of the plasters, for in some places frescoes were good after being painted hundreds of years.

said, he wished to know whether the First Commissioner had come to any determination as to the various processes for preserving the stone of the Houses of Parliament?

said, that a Commission of scientific and experienced men was investigating the last-mentioned subject, and had not yet reported. The explanation of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) confirmed what he had previously stated. If the decay were not attributable to the manner in which the colours had been applied, but to a defect in the plaster, he still thought that the artists ought to have satisfied themselves of the proper quality of the plaster upon which they painted before they commenced their work. The more recent frescoes did not exhibit the same signs of decay as those first executed. No Vote was required for frescoes this year, because there was a balance in hand. Allusion had been made to Mr. Dyce's conduct in a recent Report of the Fine Arts Commission, and he was not aware that that gentleman had challenged the allegations in the Report. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) had expressed a wish that there should be a statue to Oliver Cromwell. That distinguished personage had not been forgotten, and in the list of persons to whom statues might be erected, which had been published in an appendix to one of the Reports of the Fine Arts Commission, the name of Oliver Cromwell appeared, but no place in the building had been assigned to his statue. In reference to the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), he might say that the Vote of £20,000 was intended to complete all those portions of the Houses of Parliament which were now in hand, but did not include any of the designs sketched out by Sir Charles Barry for the encloure of New Palace Yard by two additional wings. It would be premature to come to a conclusion as to what should be done with the site until the houses in Bridge Street were pulled down, and those houses would not be pulled down for another year. None of the £20,000 was intended to fill up the rough wall of the Clock Tower.

said, the completion of the unfinished part of the wall of the Clock Tower was provided for by a Vote taken two years ago.

said, he wished it to be understood that the painters had nothing to do with putting up the plaster on which the pictures were painted. For any defect in that the persons employed by the Government were responsible.

said, that no great body ought to be ashamed to acknowledge Oliver Cromwell as the originator and founder of England's greatness. Oliver Cromwell was one of the chief conservatives of his age. He was the originator of the Navigation Laws. Without those laws England would never have been mistress of the seas, and, therefore, to Oliver Cromwell was owing the greatness of this country. In addition to that every one must acknowledge the high standard of moral principle and rectitude maintained by Oliver Cromwell. While monarchs were unobservant of their word, the word of Oliver Cromwell was always binding. While there were soldiers who regarded neither the laws of God nor man, his soldiers regarded their commanders, and paid reverence to the great Commander of all. When he spoke in terms of respect of Oliver Cromwell he was not wanting in reverence for the Royal Sovereigns who followed or preceded him. He felt no diminished attachment to monarchy, and he was no less sensible of the privilege of living under such a monarch as now governed these realms. At the same time he was not ashamed to say that there were many parts of the history of Oliver Cromwell which monarchs would do well to study and imitate. Oliver Cromwell possessed those great qualities of moral worth, indomitable courage, and unwavering attachment to his country, of which no mo- narch and no Englishman could ever be ashamed. He hoped that the statue would not be placed in some obscure or hidden corner, and that it would prove to all future ages that worth was always recognized, and that truth would always prevail.

said, he wished to have a reply to the question as to who were the four sovereigns who were mentioned, because last year they had a pleasant debate upon whether they were to have some Saxon kings, or some of the Georges, and many hon. Members would like to know if they had escaped that infliction?

remarked, the great decay in the frescoes was confined more particularly to one, which must have arisen from some accident or carelessness in the workmen; but the part could be cut out and be replaced with new painting. He said the quality of the plaster depended on the purity and age of the lime employed.

said, he he had no objection to a statue to Oliver Cromwell, or to additional frescoes; but he had an objection to additional taxes being taken out of the pockets of the English people. He wished to have a distinct answer as to whether they had done with the designs of Sir Charles Barry? Was there to be an end to the expenditure on the House? He did not allude to the buildings to be erected where the houses now were which were to be pulled down, but was there to be additional expenditure on the House itself? If the question were not answered honestly he should move the omission of the sum from the Vote.

said, that the sum now asked for would complete the residences, approaches, and everything that was understood under the term "Houses of Parliament," but he guarded himself against expressing any opinion with respect to what was to be done with New Palace-yard hereafter. That was not a portion of the Houses of Parliament, and future consideration must determine whether the northern side should be closed with buildings. He also wished to guard himself against being supposed to be committed to the erection of a statue of Oliver Cromwell. All he had said was that the name of Oliver Cromwell was to be found in the appendix of the Fine Arts Commission among men to whom statues might hereafter be erected. With respect to the statues in the Royal Gallery, the Fine Arts Commission had been engaged for twenty years in endeavouring to develope and elevate art in its application to those buildings, and, as the Royal Gallery required sculpture as well as painting to complete it, it was proposed this year that four statues out of twelve in all should be placed in four prominent positions of that gallery. The statues were, he understood, to be a chronological series of the Sovereigns of this country. The sculptors selected were rising men whose talent deserved encouragement. [cries of "Name!"] They were Mr. Theed and Mr. Thorneycroft. Sculpture required more public encouragement than painting, because there were fewer opportunities of employing it in private houses.

said, that the Committee had now come back to exactly the same point which was decided last year. It was then distinctly understood that the House would not enter upon the expense of having a whole chronological series of British sovereigns; but that a selection of four of the most eminent should be selected for representation in sculpture, and the statement now made by the right hon. Gentleman showed a desire on his part to set aside that decision. He should, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced by £3,200, the cost of the four proposed statues.

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman included in his statement all the expense occasioned by the decay of the building before its completion? With regard to the statues, he was one of the those who considered, if there were to be statues in illustration of English history, that it would be a perfect farce to exclude the statue of Cromwell—one of the most remarkable men in history. He did not wish to hold him up as an example; but his energy and firmness had swayed Europe in a way that few British statesmen had been able to do, and it would be a mockery and delusion to attempt to illustrate British history by statues and at the same time to exclude the statue of Cromwell.

said, he desired an explanation of the item of £6,455 for the furniture and repair and cleaning of furniture. With regard to the four sovereigns, he thought the Committee, before voting the money, should know who they were to be. Were they to be sovereigns known in history, and whose portraits were known, or sovereigns of that mythical kind who were sculptured first and christened afterwards?

said, the hon. Member for Galway was a little hard on the scheme. What the House declined to agree to last year was that there should be a chronological series beginning either at the beginning or at the end; and what was now proposed was that the series should begin in the middle. He (the noble Lord) sincerely hoped that the Committee would not attempt to determine what kings should have statues? If they did, they might depend upon it that the debates they would have as to the appropriation of these four seats would exceed those which they had just finished upon a similar question. They had better leave the decision to the responsible Ministers of the Crown.

I join with the noble Lord in recommending the hon. Gentleman to be warned by his past experience. He has seen how difficult it is to form a Committee. He had the charge of forming the Galway Committee, and great difficulty he had in selecting a few names from the body of the House. If he undertakes to form a committee of Sovereigns who are to sit in this Royal Gallery he will find it still more difficult to satisfy, not himself, but the public at large. The question is a very simple one. The object for which the Fine Arts Commission was appointed was to forward and promote the arts of painting and sculpture in connection with the construction and ornamentation of the Houses of Parliament. Paintings have been placed in the Royal Gallery, and it was thought—and justly, in my opinion—that it was a proper site for works of sculpture. Then the question comes, what works of sculpture are most appropriate for the Royal Gallery, though which the Sovereign has to pass? Would you have allegorical statues of heathen deities? No; you would naturally put in it statues connected with the history of the country. You cannot obliterate the history of the country. One man, as he reads over history, may think one Sovereign good and another bad, but there they are—they are persons who have reigned, and whose reigns form part of the history of the country. Here it is proposed that in this gallery should be placed a certain number of statues, and naturally it seems to me they should be statues which represent portions of the history of the country. The way in which they are identified with portions of our history is by being statues of Sovereigns who have reigned in remarkable periods of our history. I do not know who are to be selected: but I quite agree with the noble Lord that the selection should be left with the Fine Arts Commission, with whom the house may find fault afterwards, rather than the house, which would only have itself to reproach if it changed its mind.

said, he wished to insert two clauses, the first of which was to the effect that the Indian Judges should, like the Judges in England, hold office during good behaviour, instead of during Her Majesty's pleasure. The second Clause provided that whenever an Indian Judge was removed, the fact of his removal should be communicated to Parliament.

said, the present law as to the removal of these Judges had been in existence many years without any complaint of having been made. He opposed the Amendment, and it was negatived.

said, he had to to propose an Amendment, the object of which was to prevent injustice being done to existing Judges.

said, he wished to add a proviso at the end of the clause by which any covenanted civilian appointed or transferred to any court should be entitled to a retiring pension, the same as that of the other Judges appointed under this Act.

said, as the clause imposed a charge on the revenue it could not be put unless it was first agreed to in Committee.

said, he had to move the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was the appropriation, out of the eight suspended canonries, the proceeds of which were payable to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of the profits of one canonry for the benefit of the military knights, on the Royal foundation at Windsor, and the profits of another of these canonries in augmentation of the benefices of the vicer and the perpetual curate of the district church of the Holy Trinity in Windsor.

said, he objected to the Bill on the ground that it reversed the principles on which Parliament had of late years dealt with Ecclesiastical property of that description. One of the canonries consisted of the tithes of the parish of Wraysbury, which, in point of fact, was much more miserably endowed than Windsor was.

said, that as one intrusted with the administration of these funds, he must protest against such an application of the revenues of one of the suspended canonries. The principle was one which might be carried a great deal further, and might destroy the effect of much useful legislation.

said, that if the object of the Bill was to give to the Military Knights of Windsor, out of the revenues in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, an advantage which they had never before enjoyed, and to which the highest Court of Appeal in the realm had declared they had no right, it was a very extraordinary measure indeed. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had on other occasions opposed, on the ground of principle, a diversion of ecclesiastical funds for which he now sought a legislative sanction.

contended that the Military Knights had an equitable, though not, perhaps, a legal claim to the allowance the Bill proposed to give them. As a Royal foundation, the chapter of Windsor, he thought, was bound to make provision for the living of Windsor.

said, he had great sympathy for the Military Knights of Windsor, but he could not help thinking that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was a strong one, in giving to these knights what the law had decided they were not entitled to. He could not agree either to the proposal for increasing the livings of Windsor out of the fund. But he would not divide the House at that stage.

proposed that this Bill should be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee.

urged that there were valid reason why the question of site should be also referred to the same Committee.

said, the question of site formed no portion of the Bill; and if it were referred to the Committee, it would be tantamount to the rejection of the measure this Session.

moved the adjournment of the debate.