said, the Drainage of Land Bill had been on the paper till to day as the first order, and no notice of any change in the order of business had been given up to the hour of two in the morning, at which hour he left the House. The Drainage of Land Bill was not now on the paper, and the Irremovable Poor Bill stood first. He understood the change had been made after two o'clock in the morning, and many hon. Members were, no doubt, under the impression that the Irremovable Poor Bill would not come on for a considerable time. That he regarded as sharp practice. With regard to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (sir John Pakington), he was not prepared to discuss it as he thought it ought to have been discussed, as they were completely in the dark with regard to its operation throughout the country.

said, it was understood on the day before that the Irremovable Poor Bill would come on first today. The Drainage Bill had been put down first by mistake on the paper; but he might mention that it was known to the Members of the Poor Relief Committee yesterday that the Committee would not meet that day in consequence of the Irremovable Poor Bill being on the Paper.

said, that he knew nothing of the verbal arrangements, but he had come a long way to attend to the Drainage Bill, in consequence of seeing it first in order upon the notice paper up to the latter part of last week. He thought, therefore, they had a great right to complain of the transposition of the orders.

said, it was no excuse to say that a mistake had been committed. There ought to be a more orderly mode of conducting the business of the House. As far as he himself was concerned, his own Amendment, to add to the end of the 9th Clause—

"Provided also that extra - parochial places which have, heretofore, paid no contributions to the common fund of the union in which they are comprised shall, notwithstanding anything herein contained, be hereafter exempt from such contributions,"

was now before the Committee; but had it not been for an accident he should not have been present to support it. He had looked at the votes that morning in order to ascertain whether the Irremovable Poor Bill was preceded on the orders by one or two notices, and then, to his great surprise, he found that the Bill stood first of all, and that if he wished to be present at the discussion of his own Amendment he must hurry down to the House.

said, it was an error to say that the mistake was not discovered till two or three in the morning. It was discovered at five o'clock in the afternoon.

said, the mistake might have been found out by five o'clock, but it was not intimated to the House till between two and three in the morning.

said, that all misunderstanding on this subject would have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) had informed the House yesterday that it was his intention to bring the Bill in on that day.

said, he could not agree that his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had made out any case in favour of his Amendment, and he, therefore, felt bound to oppose it.

said, he would leave his Amendment with the Committee, only observing that it was supported by the great authority of the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and that the owners of extra-parochial places would suffer injustice if, having hitherto paid nothing for the support of the poor in those places, they were now compelled to contribute to the common fund.

said, that upon that clause the whole of the Bill turned. It was, in fact, the introduction of a totally new principle in the administration of the Poor Law. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board said that since the passing of the Irremovable Poor Act in 1846, the pressure on the towns had increased. But the fact was that all the large towns, except Liverpool, were paying less for the poor than they did before the Irremovable Poor Bill was passed in 1846. A great equalization of the poor rate had been going on since the peace. For the ten years ending in 1822 the average poor rates for England and Wales was 2s 5 1/2d. in the pound; and up to the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Bill the rate was 1s. 10 1/2d. in the pound. During the last few years in had been 1s. 1 1/4d. At the end of the French war many parishes paid in poor rates as much as 4s., 5s., 6s., and even 7s. in the pound; at present most of these were under 2s. in the pound. In 1815 Sussex was the most burdened by the poor rate, paying on less than 5s. 0 1/2d. in the pound; the lowest rated county, Northumberland, paid 1s. 1 1/2d. in the pound. At present, or rather according to the last returns, the highest rated county was Wiltshire, where the poor rate was 1s. 10d.; the lowest rated, Derbyshire, paid 6d. The charge was false that the poor had been shifted from one class of parishes to another by pulling down cottages. He had tested the evidence given on this point by the census returns of 1851, and found that houses had increased in parishes where they were said to have been pulled down in order to drive out the poor. The fact was that it was found necessary to have the labourers living in the parishes in which they were employed; but it could be demonstrated that the villages and small towns from where labour was drawn increased in wealth enormously. The effect of small areas of rating was to spread villages and small towns all over the country, whereas large areas produced what he might call a congestion of habitations in one place. In the former case the labourers lived near to their work; in the latter they had often miles to go to their work. Mr. Darby, one of the Enclosure Commissioners, was examined before the Select Committee; and he stated that constant applications were made to the Commissioners to borrow money for the purpose of building cottages on entailed estates. It had been complained that while one parish paid 1 s. 10d>. in the pound another paid 10d. formerly paid more; but if it was, he contended that the Bill would not cure the inequality of rating that now existed, for one union would still continue to pay double what was paid by another. He opposed the clause, for the equalization of the rates throughout a union was not a final measure. Evidently it was a stepping-stone to a national rate. No less than 9,000 parishes would be mulcted by the iniquitous operation of the Bill. When the grossest abuses of the Court of chancery were swept away compensation was granted; but by this Bill it was proposed, without compensation, to take away from the present possessor of property one-tenth to one-eighth of his estate, and to hand it to some one else. The hon. Member for Sussex truly stated on the former occasion when the subject was discussed, that the area of relief was "neighbourhood." But was a union a neighbourhood? Why many unions comprised four, six, and even ten neighbourhoods. Let a man go to an overseer or a guardian and ask for relief; and what was the reply? Why he was asked, "Where do you live?" "Twelve miles off." If that answer were given, clearly the Officer would say at once, "I do not know you; I cannot relieve You; go to your neighbourhood where you are known." In the reign of Elizabeth the poor rates were at first imposed on petty sessional districts. The area was too large; and twenty-six years afterwards it was divided into parishes. Again, sixty years later, in the reign of Charles I., the Poor Law system was found not to work in the large parishes in the north and elsewhere, and a law was passed to divide them into smaller areas. And the same result had worked out in Ireland. Another effect of the Bill would be to do away to a great extent with the practice now followed of employing men rather than allow them to go upon the poor fund, and this would lead to a great increase of the rates. The Bill would not give satisfaction. The London parishes and others, including Norwich, complained that the three years' residence would prove highly injurious to them. He thought the London parishes were entitled to some consideration, and that a rate in aid or some other expedient should be resorted to in order to relieve overburdened parishes in London. The large town parishes were, generally speaking, unions in themselves. The present law of removability was most oppressive to the Irish. Where they became irremovable they were fixed for life. The moment they passed the parochial boundaries they became liable to be sent back to Ireland. The Bill, however, would remedy neither of these evils, and he would move the rejection of the clause.

denied that this was the commencement of the system of parochial rating, for such a system commenced as long ago as 1834. [Mr. KNIGHT: Charged on the parish.] The present Bill was intended to do away with a clumsy and unjust arrangement, by which under a system of averages one place was benefited at the expense of others. The charge for the common fund was not to be extended to larger areas than at present; it was simply to be levied on a new principle. It was not a question between town and country. It seldom happened that urban and rural parishes were combined in the same union. The complaints that were made were made by rural parishes in a country union, and by urban parishes in a town union. It had been urged that the Bill might increase the parochial burdens in some places to the extent of 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the pound. But the total amount of the poor rates was only ls. 1 1/2d. in the pound; and the irremovable poor were only one-third of the whole of the paupers. How, then, the imposition of 4 1/2d. in the pound could cause a burden of 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the pound, he could not understand. He believed that the Bill would get rid of a great many of the inequalities which existed under the past system; and, therefore, he was anxious that it should pass without delay.

said, he was unable to support the clause. They were without sufficient information on the subject to enable them to judge of the effect of the change proposed. They could not be said to be acting on the recommendations of the committee, for one of the principal recommendations of the Committee had been rejected by the House. He was surprised to hear his hon. Friend (Mr. Barrow) say that because the average rate for the poor in England was 1s. 1d., therefore, there could not be an advance of 2s. or 2s. 6d. in any one parish. No one could deny that the changes proposed in the Bill would be beneficial to the poor; but when they were breaking down the statutable liabilities of 300 years they ought to know exactly on whom the burden was to be shifted. He thought, if there were injustice in the existing system, it would be better to suffer that injustice for another year rather than to shift the burden in a way which they did not fully understand. His right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) urged that extra-parochial places would for the first time be subjected to the poor fund; but there were other places that might be included in the same way—mines other than coal mines, for example. Now that this shifting of burdens was taking place the whole question of settlement ought to be inquired into, with the view of placing it on a more satisfactory basis. No one thought it was in a satisfactory state at this moment. With regard to the rural parishes, they were what had been called "breeding parishes." The women there bore ten, eleven, or twelve children, and the hive soon swarmed. Well, the young ones, when they grew up, went away, some of them to the four corners of the world, and some of them to the large towns of the country. But, although the towns derived the advantage of their labour, they did not acquire a settlement in the towns; for cases constantly occurred in which, in default of acquired settlement, the man or the woman, or their offspring, came back to the birth settlement one or two or more generations after the original migration. He thought that the Bill should be tried for one year only, in order that it might be seen how it would operate, and in order to give time for full inquiry into the present law of settlement.

said, that it was he who was responsible for the first introduction of the change proposed. In they year 1845 he introduced a Bill making provision, not only for the irrevocability of the poor, but frankly, on the face of the Bill, seeking to establish union settlement, and he made that proposal deliberately, and after full consideration with the authorities with whom he was connected. That Bill did not pass: but in 1846 he introduced a Bill of a similar nature, omitting the provision respecting union settlement. His belief was that the adoption by the Legislature of the principle of irrevocability, especially when coupled with a union charge, would ultimately lead to the abolition of the law of settlement, as well as an enlargement of the area of rating, and he avowed that he thought those changes desirable. After he went out of office the Bill was proceeded with, and the present Speaker moved an instruction to the Committee that provision should be made for union settlement with respect to the irremovable poor. That instruction was carried out so far. In 1847 Mr. Buller moved for a Committee of Inquiry, and in that Committee the fullest inquiry took place. Indeed, he believed there never was a question so fully investigated and discussed as this had been. The Committee came to a Resolution declaring that the power of removing the poor ought to be abolished; but, what was more germane to the subject under discussion, they ruled also that the narrowness of the area of rating was a great source of evil, that it was desirable to extend the area of rating, and that unions formed the fittest area for that purpose. These were important decisions come to by hon. Gentlemen who were well able to judge, and after the fullest inquiry. It had been said that Mr. Buller changed his opinion. If so, the opinion of Mr. Buller must have been originally opposed to the extension of the area of rating, and the result of the inquiry must have been to lead him to the conclusion that the area of chargeability ought to be extended. When he (Sir. James Graham) was connected with the government of the Earl of Aberdeen Mr. Baines, as head of Poor Law Board, laid before that Government a Bill framed on the principles— a total abolition of the compulsory removal of the poor; an extension of the area of rating from the parish to the union; and an equitable establishment of a common fund based on an assessment of all rateable property. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Knight) had referred to the fact that the unions in Ireland had been changed to electoral divisions; but an electoral division in Ireland, thought less that the average of English unions, was much larger than an English Parish. He must say that he believed nothing would so much benefit the poor of this country as the abolition of settlement. Every poor labourer should have the most perfect liberty to choose his place of residence where he pleased, and he believed that nothing would confer a benefit so universal or so great to the poor as the abolition of settlement. He admitted, on the other hand, that hasty legislation might be most unjust to those who had the burden of supporting the poor. He was of opinion that they must gradually approach to union rating, and coincidently with it to the abolition of settlement. If, however, he thought the present measure too violent as an approximation, or as a step in the direction of those objects, he would be unwilling to adopt it. But he believed that the measure was a gradual and safe advisable towards what he thought was advisable, while it was not unjust in itself. For that reason he should support the Bill. He, at the same time, thought that the whole question of settlement and the irremovability of the poor must next come under the consideration of the Legislature. He was disposed to think that the area of rating should be extended to the existing unions, but, at the same time, was ready to admit that if difficulties stood in the way it might be judicious to act as they had done in the case of Ireland and adopt a middle course, taking an area that would not be so large as the union nor so small as the parish.

said, he believed that the circumstances of the case justified the advance proposed to the made towards union rating. They had heard a great deal about the narrow end of the wedge being inserted, but the truth was that it was introduced by the minority of the Committee to which his right hon. Friend had referred, who brought in a Bill which led to the irremovable poor being placed on the common fund. He cordially supported the Bill, as he thought it would be highly beneficial to the poor.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle had spoken with great caution as to the probable effects of the proposed change of taxation, and he hoped the Government would take warning from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The effect of the proposed change would be to impose upon close parishes for the first time a tax of 3 ^s. in the pound, a sum equal to 15 per cent upon the rack rent. Again, it required 15 per cent to bring the land into cultivation. Other charges amounted to 5 per cent. The management came to another 15 per cent. All these together amounted to 50 per cent. If then it was true, which he hoped was not the case, that the land of the kingdom was mortgaged to the extent of 50 per cent, the apparently occupying owner was really an occupant only on sufferance. He should like to know what practical acquaintance the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board had with poor rates, and he would ask whether he had ever paid poor rates in the course of his life? The law intended that the support of the poor should fall on all classes of persons within a parish. Then, on what principle did they impose the burden on one class only? A great shifting of the burden of taxation had been going on during the last two or three centuries. The statute of Elizabeth imposed the poor rate on every man; and stock in trade was exempted only by the annual exemption Bill. If they were going back to first principles in making changes, why not go back to the original principle of the law? He had on objection to the abolition of settlement and to the imposition of a national rate for the support of the poor, provided it was practicable. He believed, however, it was not practicable. The moment a national rate was resorted to, it would be found that they had launched into a sea of experiment and extravagant management. Believing that the clause would greatly increase the rates in many parishes, and would introduce in others a heavy charge for the first time, and believing that it contained one of the most direct attacks on vested interests ever made, he would give it his most determined opposition.

said, that unfortunate 9th Clause seemed to be thought a convenient one for hanging all sorts of arguments upon, and he rose merely to hang another upon it, which, he thought, had been lost sight of in the present discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford shire had spoken of the shifting of burdens, and it was, on doubt, a proper subject of discussion under the clause. But nothing had been said of a considerable shifting of burdens that had already taken place in so many rural parishes by the rating of railways. He was not aware that any complaint had ever been made by landlords of the relief given to their parishes in consequence of a very heavy portion of the burden of supporting the poor having been thrown upon railways which passed through them. When hon. Gentleman spoke of the shifting of burdens, and of injustice being inflicted on certain parties, they should remember that no great measure of this kind could be passed without some shifting of burdens, and even a certain amount of injustice. It should at the same time be borne in mind that the shifting of burdens was no new principle in our legislation, but was one that had been frequently acted upon during the last twenty years.

said, he considered that anything which would extend the area of the laborer's exertions would be an advantage. Serfdom had been abolished in Russia, and he thought they ought not to retain it in England. He believed the Bill before the Committee would be beneficial in that respect, and, therefore, he should support it.

said, the question was not to be decided by the instances of particular parishes. It had been said that relief should be made as easy of access to the poor as possible. He believed that there could not be a greater curse to the poor than that relief should be made easy of access to them. What was wanted was that the deserving poor should be relieved in their distress. He regarded the present measure as an attempt to relieve the towns at the expense of the country parishes.

contended that as the management of the poor was in the union boards of guardians, the maintenance of the poor should be on the unions. In the Metropolis the want of a wider area of rating was to throw the support of the poor upon the poor. He believed that the law of settlement had very much to do with the strike in the building trades, because the men complained that, not being able to get residences near their work, they were away from home at least fourteen hours a day. He should support the clause.

said, the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had referred to the rating of railways for the poor. It was only just that when a new description of property was raised up in a parish it should be subjected to the charge of the poor. A new element of rating was introduced, and it was only fair that it should be included. If, however, railways has been of advantage in one way to agricultural parishes they were a great drawback in others, for they were constantly drawing parishes into litigation, and entailing upon them heavy burdens, to the extent of hundreds, and sometimes thousands of pounds. He had certainly never heard before that the poor laws had anything to do with the strike in the building trades. He should be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board intended to persevere with this clause after the comments which had been made upon it?

said, it should be considered that railways had no voice in the administration of the poor funds, and, besides, that they added greatly to the value of landed property in rural parishes.

urged that more time was required for the consideration of that large and important subject. He was convinced from his own experience that a union rating would lead to laxity of administration.

said, he wished to put before the Committee the result of some recent experience which he had acquired. A committee of which he was a member had raised £ 40,000 to relieve the distresses in the ribbon trade at Coventry. and it the adjacent districts. They worked for some time by a central committee upon the numerical principle—he meant according to the population of each parish. He saw the principle fail. Without the test of individual responsibility they could obtain no security that imposition would not be practiced. They, therefore, gave up the numerical principle. The Committee then obtained a census showing the number actually in distress in each district without reference to mere population, which was equivalent to value. They found that if they took that consideration only they would equally waste their funds and fail to do justice. He was convinced that if the committee adopted the principle of rating by value they would annual the sense of responsibility in the parishes, and lose all economical control, and that a great mass of irremovable poor would be located in several unions, in which the responsibility of individuals would be too small to induce exertion to prevent abuse. He, therefore, opposed the element of numbers alone, as he opposed the element of value alone, feeling convinced that the principle of the old law of Elizabeth, the union of the two, was the proper basis of legislation of the subject. It might be difficult, but the Legislature should not give it up on the ground of difficulty. He was convinced that a maximum rating ought to be adopted, and that being reached, all further proceedings should be in the nature of a rate in aid, which should extend over the union of which the parish, in which the rates had reached a maximum, formed a part.

said, he would propose a clause restricting the operation of the Act to five years. If found to be a wise measure it could be renewed.

said, he had heard no reason given for adopting the clause, but he should not wish to oppose it if it were the wish of the House.

said, he should support the clause. The clause on which they had just divided had been carried by a majority, not one-tenth of whom had listened to the discussion which took place, and who only came into the House when the question was put.

said, he hoped that no limit would be introduced into the Bill.

said, that on behalf of his hon. and gallant Friend (General Upton), he would move to insert after "Ireland," in line 11, the words "or any place in Scotland to Ireland."

said, he must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that the machinery of the Bill was wholly applicable to England.

said, that some of the most cruel cases of removal took place from Scotland, and he should press the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman did not give him some assurance that a measure would be introduced for dealing with the Scotch grievance.

said, the machinery of the Bill would not apply to Scotland, and, therefore, he proposed to withdraw all reference to Scotland in the Bill. His learned Friend the Lord Advocated would, however, next Session, bring in a Bill to carry out the objects of the present measure with reference to Scotland.

said, he must object to proceeding with the measure, which was one of great importance, in the absence of any Irish official.

said, he could not sufficiently admire the spirit with which his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board had promoted the Bill. It would be of great advantage to the Irish poor, and he thought the hon. Gentleman ought to thank his right hon. Friend for the perseverance which had enable him the to bring it to its present stage.

said, he believed it would be of great advantage to the poor of Ireland, and regretted that the case of Scotland had not also been proceeded with. He was satisfied, however, with the statement that a Bill relating to Scotland would be introduced next Session.

said, he rose to present a petition form Mr. George O'Malley Irwin, who claimed to be the original promoter of the Royal Atlantic Steam Packet Company, complaining of the manner in which the affairs of the Company had been conducted by Mr. John Lever, and charging against him various fraudulent acts in his capacity as managing director.

Sir, I rise to order. I want to know if a libel such as that the nature of which we have just heard, ought to be circulated by means of a petition to this House?

said, the hon. Member for Brighton was in order in stating the prayer of the petition.

observed that perhaps the hon. and learned Member would allow him to finish, and he would see that the petition was not a libel. The hon. Member accordingly proceeded to read the petition.

Now we know that that petition is a libel, and I want to know if a libel can be read in this House. This man has been in prison for nine months, and I want to know if such a petition as that can be received. I move that the petition be not received, and the reason why I make that Motion is this—

A petition is presented to this House on the responsibility of the hon. Member presenting it. The House is not acquainted with the contents of a petition until after it is presented, and, therefore, it is presented on the authority of the hon. Member who has it in charge that it contains on offensive matter, or matter that is contrary to the rules of the House. We have only heard the statement of the hon. Member, and if there be any question about the contents the petition the proper course is to move that it be placed in the hands of the clerk, and read by him at the table.

Then, Sir, I move that this petition be read by the clerk at the table.

"Petition of George O'Malley Irwin, alleging certain Frauds stated to have been committed by the Managers and Officers of the Royal Atlantic Mail Steam Navigation Company, and praying for inquiry; and also that the Attorney General may be directed to Prosecute John Orrell Lever, esquire (a Member of this House), and other Managers of the said Company, for participation in the said alleged Frauds,"

—brought up and read. Motion made and Question proposed. "That the said Petition do lie upon the Table."

I am about, Sir, to move that that petition be not received. In the first place, I think the right to present petitions to this House on the part of the people of England is on of the most important that they can enjoy, but if it should be turned to the purposes of private malice it may become one of the greatest evils. Let me tell the history somewhat of this man. In the first place, he has been convicted of forgery, and has been nine months in prison in Ireland. He had brought action against Mr. Lever, and all those actions have been rejected by the English Courts of Law. Now the whole of that petition is accusation, and I hope this House will not allow itself to be made an instrument to gratify the malicious propensities of any individual. I say, Sir, without taking up the time of the House, that this man is unworthy of credit. He has proved himself so. He is lying in goal on an accusation of forgery, of which he was convicted; and I say that such a man as that ought not to have the power of giving pain to any hon. Member of this House. I, therefore, move that the House do not receive the petition.

seconded the Motion. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Petition" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be rejected"—instead thereof.

The petition as far as I could collect form the reading, implicated the character and conduct of an hon. Member of this House. I think it would have been will if the hon. Member for Brighton, before presenting that petition, had given notice to the hon. Member concerned that he was about to do so, and that it contained a statement gravely implication his conduct. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brighton took that course. I believe it is one not only in conformity with the usual practice of the House, but it is a simple rule of justice. The question now submitted to the House, however, is whether the petition shall be received or not Now, as far as I can collect, there seems to be nothing in the petition which should induce the House to reject it. It is a statement implicating a Member of this House, and without saying anything about the accusation—I know nothing about them—the House should consider whether, supposing the statements were true, they would not receive a petition of the kind if it were expressed in proper language, although it might inculpate the character of a Member of this House. I apprehend we have but one course to pursue. The petition being presented by the hon. Member inculpating the character of another Member, and couched in proper language, is one which we are, I imagine, bound to receive; then it is our duty to ascertain whether there is any foundation for those charges or not. But I apprehend it is the duty of any hon. Member of this House, before he presents a petition inculpating so gravely the character of another hon. Member to ascertain that there is ground for making those charges and to be prepared to substantiate them, when the House, in vindication of the character of one of its Members, offers him the opportunity of so doing. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Brighton is prepared to do this. He has not given notice of a Motion founded on the petition, and I must say that an hon. Member who presents a petition of this character containing grave charges against the conduct of a Member of this House is bound to take the first opportunity of laying before the House the grounds upon which he has thought himself justified to bring such accusations. If it turns out, as we all must hope it will turn out with respect to the character of any Member, that such charges are unsubstantial and not founded in fact, and that there is scarcely sufficient prima facie evidence on which to bring them under the notice of the House, then it will be a matter for the House to consider whether the hon. Member who bring forward these charges is not justly worthy of the condemnation and censure of the House. As far as the reception of the petition is concerned, I apprehend that in conformity with the usual practice, the petition not being worded disrespectfully or in unbecoming language, is one that we ought to entertain.

said, there was another matter that the House ought to take into its consideration. The House had delegated to a Committee an inquiry into the circumstances of the Atlantic Steam Packet Company. That committee had diligently inquire into the subject, but had not yet reported. The Committee would, however, sit the next day for the purpose of considering the Report, and he thought it was hardly right that a petition involving so many circumstances connected with the question should be received until the Report was made. At all events he thought the hon. Member for Brighton ought to withdraw the petition until the Report was before the House. He might state that no charge had been made before the Committee to inculpate the director of fraud or malversation, but he had see a letter signed by the gentleman who signed this petition, not addressed to the Committee, but sent to a Member of that Committee, which contained many of the charges now before the House; but he (Sir John Trollope) thought the Committee exercised a wise discretion in refusing to enter into those charges, as they had not been referred to them. The hon. Member for Brighton would, he repeated, do well to withdraw the petition until the Report of the committee was before the House.

said, he wished to say a few words on behalf of an absent Gentleman, who was his colleague. He did not dispute that the knowledge of the practice of the House Possessed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) was superior to his own, but he could not help dissenting from the rules laid down by the right hon. Gentleman as regulating the presentation of petitions. It was evidently impossible for him during the rapid although distinct reading of the petition by the clerk at the table to understand fully the extent of the imputations against his hon. Colleague. But what he knew of him who had signed the petition would make him very tender about believing everything he might put forward. He would undertake to say that if the House thought that such imputations, reflecting as they did upon the life and business habits of a gentleman out of that House, were matters for inquiry within that House his hon. Friend (Mr. Lever) would not shrink form taking the full responsibility of his acts. He felt certain that if his hon. Friend had had any idea that such a petition would be presented he would have attended in his place. Meanwhile, as it was not the practice of the House to concern itself with the occupations or professional business of hon. Members out of doors, he should support the Motion of this hon. and learned Friend for the rejection of the petition, the presentation of which would do no credit to the House, nor was it calculated to increase the confidence which hon. Member was accustomed to place in those rules of justice and honour that guided the transactions of the House. He regretted that the hon. Member for Brighton had not first satisfied himself of the truth of the charges in the petition. That hon. Member was not lucky in the allegations he made against individuals. Only yesterday that hon. Member had "hinted a doubt and hesitated dislike" against a gallant and distinguished officer, and now he brought charges of dishonesty against an hon. Member of the House. He trusted that the House would mark its sense of the nature of the petition and the manner in which it had been presented, and that such charges would not be tolerated by the House.

said, that when a petition of this nature was about to be presented to the House it was usual, in conformity with the courtesy due from one gentleman to another, to give to the hon. Member whose conduct was complained of notice of such intention, in order that he might be in his place and have an opportunity of meeting the charges contained in the petition. Under these circumstances he certainly thought that the hon. Member for Brighton would do well, seeing that a Report was to be presented on a future day, to withdraw the petition now. [Some cries of "No!"] Hon. Members said "No !" and assumed that, because the petition contained libellous matter, the House ought not to entertain it; but numbers of petitions containing libellous matter were presented. The newspapers published them and the speeches made in connection with them at their own risk; but the rule laid down by the House was that such petitions should be printed for the use of Members only, as the charges made might be groundless. He did not think that the House ought to reject the petition or to deny access to any petitioner who made charges which he stated he was prepared to substantiate. At the same time opportunity should be given to the Member of meeting the charges made against him. He would not say there was anything in the petition which required the cognizance of the Committee now sitting, but he thought the hon. Member for Brighton should not have presented it without giving full notice to the Member whose conduct it impugned.

Sir, it is important that the country should clearly understand that the reception of petitions by this House is not a matter of course. The presentation of petitions is the exercise of a valuable right to the people, and I hold the privilege to be of inestimable value; but it should be clearly understood that the House has the power of refusing the reception of petitions. In this instance, some grounds of objection may arise on the matter of the petition, and thus some hon. Gentlemen have stated as a ground for its rejection, that it is libellous. The matter contained in the present petition may be, as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield says, utterly untrue and unfounded, but I confess I do not think that a sufficient ground for refusing to receive this petition. It is the duty of the House to listen to any charges that may be made against its Members, and I suppose that the first feeling of any Gentleman whose character and conduct has been assailed would be to throw no obstacle to the fullest investigation. Another ground of objection may be found in the manner of the presentation, and with respect to the manner in which this petition has been presented I do think very grave objection arise. Not merely a deficiency of that courtesy usual between Members had been shown by not giving notice to the Member whose conduct is impugned, or any public notice of the intention to present the petition, but it is impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that weeks have now elapsed since the subject to which it related was matter of controversy and discussion in this House. The attention of the country has been drawn to it, and yet this Gentleman never thought it his duty to present a petition till now. And when it this petition presented? At the fag-end of the Session, when it is quite impossible, if it be desirable, that a Committee should be appointed to examine into the allegations. That is a course of conduct which the House ought not in any way to sanction, for it tends to show that the presentation of this petition is not invested with the bona fide and genuine character which a petition alleging such grave charges out to have. I think, however, that the House should be cautious in supporting a Motion for the rejection of a petition, and I, therefore, trust that the hon. and earned Member, who has properly called attention to the subject, will be content with the suggestion made that the petition should be withdrawn. I think that such a course will sufficiently show the sense of the House that in the presentation of a petition containing grave charges against an hon. Member there has been a want of that courtesy which should attend such a proceeding; and that, moreover, the petition has been presented under circumstances of delay, after the question has been under the consideration of the House, that are full of suspicion. I cannot condescend to go into the character or conduct of the petitioner. I have no doubt that in due course that will influence the opinion of the House and the country on the subject; but the manner in which the petition has been presented is nor respectful to the House, nor has there been paid that deference to fair and honourable conduct which is desirable, and which we should be anxious to encourage. I, therefore, think that the petition should not be received, but I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton will withdraw it.

As Chairman of the Committee which is now sitting, I may observe that we received an application from this person Mr. O'Malley Irwin) to be examined, with a view to substantiate against the hon. Member and others connected with the Galway contract similar allegations to those which he has made in this petition. The Committee, having looked at the reference that was made to them, were of opinion that it was altogether out of place for them to consider these allegations, and they, therefore, refused to enter into them. I must call the attention of the House to the position we are in. I think the House ought to mark very strongly its disapprobation of the conduct pursued by the hon. Member for Brighton. Remember the position in which we stand. If and hon. Member is to come down to this House and make himself the vehicle of libel and slander, all I can say is that, under these circumstances, the character of every Member of this House is liable to be affected by any person, no matter how low his position is society, who chooses to hand a Member a petition affecting his character and fair fame. These things go abroad into the world, the Member in gibbetted before the public for doing things which may be, and which in this case I believe are, entirely false. A man brings charges of the worst and most degrading character, and they go abroad into the world before he has an opportunity of repelling them. I think the House ought to mark its sense of such conduct by rejecting this petition, and I certainly cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton for having converted himself into a "lion's mouth" for the reception and venting of every charge which a person of bad character may choose to make.

said, if there was one privilege or right which the people prized more than another, it was the right of petition. But it was the bounden duty of the House to take care that the right was properly used, and not abused. He knew noting of the hon. Member against whom the petition was presented. But if the House received the petition they would constitute themselves a species of grand jury, and find a true Bill without giving the hon. Member an opportunity of inquiry into his conduct. If he understood the petition rightly, it contained serious charges against the hon. Member for Galway, and it asked the House to instruct the Attorney General to prosecute him for these matters. Now, if that hon. Member had been guilty of the frauds imputed, or the misconduct, that would not be the course which the House would pursue. It would not instruct the Attorney General to prosecute, but it would expel the Member—expulsion would be the proper course for such misconduct. He could not understand how it was that the hon. Member for Brighton had presented the petition without first giving notice of his intention to do so. He would not go into the question whether the petition was libellous, or whether the allegations were true, he would simply say that it ought not to have been presented, but having been presented simple withdrawal would not satisfy the justice of the case. The petition ought to be rejected altogether at the present moment. If the hon. Member should bring it forward at a future time, let him bring forward a petition properly worded, and give notice to the Member charged; and if the charges were true, let the Member be expelled from the House.

I with to call the attention of the House to one point that not yet been noticed, but which appears to me to have a material bearing on this case. Last year there was a Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the Galway packet contract, and after the Committee had made its report its attention was drawn to those charges which Mr. O'Malley Irwin made against Mr. Lever. The Committee thought that these chares ought not to be passed over. Mr. Irwin and other persons other persons were examined with respect to them, and the Committee in their Report summed up the facts as the appeared in the evidence, and concluded by saying—

"Your Committee having now set forth the whole facts of the case, deem it advisable to leave the matter to the judgment of the House without suggesting any opinion of their own."

The effect of this is that it cannot be said that these facts are now brought before the House for the first time; the House has had the opportunity if it had thought fit to use it to inquire into all the circumstances of the case. It has not so thought fit, but it is open to any hon. Member, with this Report before him, to make a Motion for further inquiry; but it is hardly fair to make an attack upon an hon. Member without notice on facts which are not new, and which the House, having the facts before it, has not thought fit to notice.

It seems to me that this matter involves to a great extent the privileges of the House of Commons and the duties of Members of Parliament. I cannot, however, admit that the fact that a petition contains grave charges against the character of any hon. Member— charges even amounting to a libel—ought to be held to be a good reason why the petition should not be received. I am, upon the contrary, of opinion that if any one of our number be guilty of any act disgraceful to himself personally and unbecoming, his position as a Member of Parliament, it is rather the interest of the House that accusations made against him should be examined, while it is one of the material and essential privileges of the subject to be able to petition Parliament on any matter on which any individual may deem it desirable that his opinions should be submitted to its consideration. I do not, at the same time hold that an hon. Member is bound to present any petition which may be intrusted to him. No man has a right to come to me or to any other hon. Member and say, "I insist on your presenting my petition." It is the duty of every hon. Member to whom a petition is handed for presentation to ascertain by inspection, and inquiry, if necessary, that its contents are fit to be laid before Parliament; and, if the petition should happen to be one inculpating the conduct of any Member, I should deem it to be the duty of the person intending to present it to do two things—first of all, to satisfy himself by the most diligent inquiry that there was a prima facie ground for the imputations which it contained, and, if he were unable to do that, to return the petition to the person from whom it emanated; secondly, in the event of his coming to the conclusion that just and sufficient grounds for the imputation existed to give notice to the Member against whom the charges were made, that on a certain day he meant to present a petition against him—thus affording him an opportunity of being in his place and making such a reply as he might have it in his power to make in re- futation of the allegations embodied in the petition. Now, it appears to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton has not, so far as any statement goes which I have heard from him, fulfilled either of those duties. He has not, so far as I am aware, told us that he himself has examined into the charges in question, or satisfied himself that there were prima facie grounds for those charges being made. Neither does it appear that he has given Mr. Lever or any other person alluded to in the petition notice that he was about to lay it before the House. That being the state of the case, my hon. Friend would, I think, do well to take back the petition. He would, by adopting that course, be afforded an opportunity of informing himself somewhat better upon the subject, and if upon inquiry he should find that the matter of the petition is really such that the honour of the House is involved owing to the conduct of one of its Members, and that a serious examination of the charges made is necessary, he might bring the subject forward on some future occasion, having in the meantime given Mr. Lever due notice that it was his intention to take that course. I trust, therefore, my hon. Friend will either withdraw the petition, or that the debate will be adjourned.

said, he wished at once to express his readiness to withdraw the petition in compliance with what seemed to be the wish of the House. He might, however, before he sat down, be allowed to say that of all the Members of the House the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was the very last who ought to complain, as he had done, of personal at tacks being made, inasmuch as no hon. Gentleman so freely used, or rather abused, the system of personal attack as himself. With respect to the remarks which had been made by a noble Lord who had taken part in the discussion (Lord Dunkellin), as to the course which he (Mr. Coningham) has on the previous day pursued in calling the attention of the House to the appointment conferred upon a gallant officer, he would only say that as a Member of Parliament he claimed it as a right to call in question the expediency of all important public appointments if he felt called upon to do so. ["Question, question!"] He trusted that as he had been attacked hon. Members would not interrupt him. It was contended by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) that in presenting a petition which was characterized as libellous he was doing a serious wrong to the character of an hon. Member, and suggested that the petition should, on that ground, be rejected. He would, however, venture to say, in reply to that suggestion, that if he were attacked in the same way as the Gentleman against whom the accusations were made, he should, so far from endeavouring to avoid publicity, urge the institution of the strictest and most searching investigation into all the details of the charge. He had, he might add, no personal knowledge of Mr. Irwin, and had received his petition only a few hours before. He found that Mr. Lever was absent, but having learnt that the petitioner had appealed to the Committee now sitting upstairs with the view of having the subject of the petition investigated; that the Committee had rejected his request to be examined on the subject, and that their labours were on the point of terminating, he looked upon the presentation of the petition as a matter of urgency. He was, he could assure the House, actuated by no motive whatsoever save a regard for the public interest in taking the course which he had pursued, and he was strongly of opinion that when hon. Members recalled to mind all that had occurred in courts of law and elsewhere on the subject there existed a prima facie case on which the presentation of the petition could be justified. It was, he thought, for the interest of the House that the petition should be referred to the Committee upstairs and printed, while he was at the same time, as he had before stated, ready to withdraw it in compliance with what appeared to be the general wish.

said, he wished to refer to the course adopted by several hon. Members last Session, when charges of a nature to seriously affect his character had been made against himself, as one which was in accordance with the usual proceedings, under similar circumstances, of Members of the House and of gentlemen. The individual who made the accusations against him had, he might add, not been convicted of any crime, yet those Members to whom letters were addressed praying that the charges might be brought before3 the House were so good as to communicate with him whom those charges affected. He had disregarded the attack for some time, but, finding that it began to assume a serious character, he had instituted proceedings in a court of law, and the offender was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour. In that case these hon. Members, to whom letters containing the charges against were addressed, had recognized the right of the person accused to have the earliest intimation give of the attack made upon him, and in the present case, in which the person from whom the petition emanated had had his veracity seriously impugned in proceedings which had taken place in a court of law, he thought the hon. Member for Brighton would have done well to follow the precedent to which he adverted.

said, he was on the Committee with the hon. Baronet the member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) last Session, and from the Knowledge he then acquired of Mr. Irwin, from his peculiarities and other circumstances, he should not have the slightest hesitation in accompanying the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield into the lobby on his Motion that the petition be not received.

said, that if the petition were not withdrawn he should be disposed to vote for the adjournment of the debate, inasmuch as he believed there was no substantial ground for rejecting the petition, whether hon. Members did or did not believe the charges which it contained. Protection ought not, he thought, to be thrown to so great an extent over hon. Members as to lead the House to the conclusion not to listen to complaints made by a person out of doors with respect to their conduct. He might also observe that the prayer of the petition was that Mr. Irwin should be heard before the Committee sitting, and therefore, it had reference to a question under the consideration of the House. He thought it was a rather bold thing for hon. Gentleman to say that they would not receive such a petition. He admitted that the mode in which the petition had been presented was unusual, but he was sure that the hon. Member for Brighton had not adopted it designedly. It was true, as the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) had stated, that some inquiry took place about these transactions before the Committee last year. He had not had time to examine the petition for the purpose of ascertaining whether it contained additional matter, but he was bound to state that after the evidence given last year by Mr. Irwin, who was undoubtedly a very peculiar gentleman, a very considerable change took place in his mind and in the minds of several other Members of the Committee, as the House would see from the Report, which in its first shape was not exactly the same as it was before Mr. Irwin appeared before the Committee. He should be sorry if the House were compelled to divide, but if the question came to be whether the petition should be rejected or not, he should feel it to be his duty to vote against its rejection.

There are two very different questions involved in this case, which, as it appears to me, some hon. Gentlemen have confounded together. One is, whether the petition should be received; the other, what course the House should take upon it. You might receive the petition, and yet see fit to reject its prayer. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) has said truly enough that the House would never think of directing the Attorney General to prosecute in this case. I may say, moreover, that I should not think of voting for a proposal to refer the petition to the Select committee on the Galway contract, because I agree with the Members of that Committee in thinking that the subject of the Petition is totally different from that which has been submitted to them for consideration, and that therefore, it is not in their power to investigate it. But these questions are totally different from the question whether the petition ought to be received. What my noble Friend at the head of the Government said was perfectly right, that the hon. Member for Brighton ought to have given notice to the Member inculpated that he had been asked to present a petition containing grave charges against him —charges affecting his personal character; and I think the hon. Member ought to to have given notice to the House likewise. The hon. Member has accounted in some way—though I must say not satisfactorily—for his omission in this respect. He has pleaded urgency as the reason why he could not take the course I have suggested. I do not think that is a sufficient reason. However, he has now offered to withdraw the petition, which I hold to be the right course for the House to adopt. [Cries of "No, no!"] It seems to me that saying you will reject a petition of this sort is to say that a subject has no right to come to this House making charges against one of its Members. Now, undoubtedly, that is a right of the subject. The House may deal with the petition as it pleases. It may find that the charges are frivolous; it may censure the hon. Gentleman who has presented the petition, and it may pass a re- solution in favour of the Member inculpated; but to say that no subject of this realm shall present a petition inculpating a Member of this House does seem to me to be throwing an immunity over Members of the Legislature to which they are not entitled.

The hon. Member for Brighton having offered to withdraw the petition, the first question I have to ask is whether the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield will withdraw his Amendment?

I will not, Sir.

said, it appeared to him that the charges contained in the petition were different from those which were referred to the Select Committee of last Session. The question before that Committee was one affecting the conduct of public officers of the Government. It appeared that Mr. Lever had contracted to give a large sum of money to Mr. Irwin and Mr. Holmes in the event of his succeeding, through their means, in obtaining a subsidy for the Galway Packet Company. That agreement was clearly proved before the Committee, and then the question arose whether the money was not intended to be given for the exercise of improper influence on the part of Mr. Irwin and Mr. Holmes. The whole evidence was directed to that point. There were no general charges of fraud such as those contained in this petition, no request that the Attorney General should be instructed to prosecute. Mr. Irwin came forward last year to establish his right to the sum of £10,000 which Mr. Lever had contracted to give him. That contract was said to affect the validity of the transactions with the Government. the Committee, seeing that the affairs of the Galway Company had passed into other hands, did not feel themselves bound to make any recommendation to the House on the subject; but at the same time he was clearly of opinion that no question of fraud committed by Mr. Lever was concluded either by the Report of the Committee or by the evidence taken before them.

said, he had then to put the question that the petition do lie on the table.

said, he would beg leave to withdraw the petition.

did not think the hon. Member for Brighton deserved much credit for the step he had taken. An hon. Member before presenting any petition was bound to look to the character of the person from whom it had emanated. The character of the present petitioner was well known in all the courts of justice. The time of the House had, therefore, been misspent in considering a petition coming from such a source.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any steps have been taken to carry out the Recommendations of the Royal Commissioners upon the Control and Management of the Dockyards, so far as those recommendations relate to the accounts of those Establishments, and to the placing of the Department of the Storekeeper General under the Control of the Controller of the Navy; and, if so, whether he had any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of any Board Minutes which may have been written, or of any Instructions which may have been sent, to the Dockyards upon those subjects?

in answer to the question of his noble Friend, begged to state that the Admiralty, in accordance with the recommendation the Royal Commissioners upon the Control and Management of the Dockyards, had given directions that the accounts of those establishments should be placed under the Accountant General of the Navy. Instructions have been issued to that effect, and there would be no objection, if moved for, to place copies of them on the Table. With regard to the other part of the question, the placing of the department of the Storekeeper General under the control of the Controller of the Navy, he had to state that that was a matter which, having reference to the organization of the Admiralty itself, would no doubt be a subject of consideration before the Select Committee on the Admiralty next Session.

said, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty with reference to this Bill, which stood fifth among the Orders of the Day. That Bill was likely to occasion much discussion, and he wished to know what course the Government in tended to take in regard to it?

said, he did not know what priority would be given to any of the several measures marked on the Paper as first to be taken by the Government; but he thought it would be convenient to the despatch of public business if the second reading of the Bill to which the right hon. Baronet alluded were at once fixed for some day when there would be an opportunity for mature discussion.

said, it was his intention to have brought on this Bill, if there had been an opportunity of doing so, before a very late hour; but in consequence of a communication which his noble Friend the Duke of Somerset had made to him to-day, he thought it more desirable not to bring on the second reading till Thursday next. He proposed, if he had the opportunity, to bring on the Bill on Thursday evening; and, if other important business prevented his doing so, he proposed not to proceed with the Bill during the present Session.

said, he wished to know after what hour on Thursday the noble Lord would not proceed with the Bill?

said, he would not bring it on after 11 o'clock.

I promised to state to the House this afternoon what course we mean to pursue in regard to the Bankruptcy Bill. There are three main points in which the Lords have made Amendments to that Bill. One is as to the appointment of the Judge; another is the substitution of official assignees for the creditors' assignees; and the third is as to the retrospective operation of certain clauses of the Bill. What we mean to recommend to the House is to agree with the Lords' Amendments in regard to the Judge; in regard to the assignees, we must prefer the creditors' assignees. We have no proposal to make to the House in regard to the third point. I should also state that we mean to have a morning sitting on Thursday for the purpose of going into Supply, and it would be very convenient for the despatch of business if hon. Members would abstain on that day from making preliminary Motions, so as to allow us to make as much progress in Committee as possible.

The noble Lord has not stated on what day he proposes to take the Lords' Amendment on the Bankruptcy Bill into consideration.

On Thursday evening.

said, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She would be graciously pleased to grant the pension of a major, in place of that of a captain, to Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, Royal Artillery, who had lost his arm when in command of an important battery before Sebastopol, he holding at the time the rank of brevet-major, which rank had been conferred upon him for distinguished conduct in the field; and to assure Her Majesty that that House would make good the same. Colonel Henry had performed the most distinguished service while in charge of a large and important battery which was placed in advance during the arduous siege of Sebastopol, and upon which the whole force of the Russians was turned. On the 17th of August, 1855, he had, while in command of that battery, had his right arm carried away by a round shot. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, who had been an eye-witness of the operations in the Crimea, in a letter which he had written, stated that "not only were the duties which Colonel Henry performed on the 17th of August, 1855, equal, but if anything superior to those of a field officer of infantry." The battery under Colonel Henry threw in upon the enemy nearly 1,000 32-pound shot in one day. On the 17th of November his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief again wrote that "Lieutenant-Colonel Henry's name was omitted to be placed on the roster of field officers when he received the brevet of major for distinguished service. Had that omission not occurred, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry would have been detailed as a brevet-major for the identical duties which he performed for the identical duties which he performed on the day he lost his arm." His Royal Highness recommended this case as one of peculiar hardship, and stated that Colonel Henry "was only prevented from serving as a field officer by the impossibility of other corps sharing in the professional work of the Royal Artillery, and that his duties as captain of a large and important battery in the advance were quite equal, if not superior, to those of a brevet-major of the Line." Sir Robert Dacres, who commanded the Artillery in the Crimea, as well as other competent military judges, had also given their testimony that Colonel Henry was a brave and most meritorious officer, and every way entitled to the boon which the present Motion sought to confer on him. He trusted, therefore, that the House would take the matter into their consideration.

said, he never knew of a case which seemed to him better worthy of consideration. He had not the the pleasure of knowing Colonel Henry, but he knew that the gallant officer stood very high in the estimation of his corps. He was persuaded that the decision which had called for the Motion did not originate with the heads of the department. He thought the warrant was a fair and liberal regulation, but who was it who had interpreted the relative duties of the several ranks to which it referred? He had had some experience of services rendered in the field, and he could say, without hesitation, that Lieutenant-Colonel Henry's services were greater than those usually performed by field officers. He (Sir de Lacy Evans) was not an artillery officer; but, without making any invidious distinction in its favour as against other branches of the service, he must say that it was probably and most distinguished corps in the army, and entitled to high consideration. The question was one, however, which affected the whole of the army. The noble Lord the Secretary for War was not now in the country—they all lamented the cause —but as there was evidently some mistake, he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give some explanation on the subject.

said, he must, in the first place, beg to inform the hon. and gallant Colonel who had brought the matter forward that the was mistaken in supposing that the case of Lieutenant Colonel Henry had not been brought under the notice of the noble Lord the Secretary for War. It had been brought under the noble Lord's notice on several occasions; and the papers showed that he had gone very carefully into the facts, and given a very decided and deliberate opi- nion on the claim itself with a knowledge of all the circumstances. Before going into the merits of the case itself, he would beg the House, and also the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, to consider whether, under all the circumstances of the case, it was in order that the Motion should be put to the House, involving as it did an expenditure of public money. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel North) had not put the Motion in terms similar to those in his notice. The question of order was too important to be passed over. In all cases involving the expenditure of public money, it was the order of the House that two opportunities of considering such question should be afforded; first, on the Motion that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to consider the case; and then, in Committee, upon a Motion for an Address to the Crown, praying that such a pension should be directed to be granted, and assuring her Majesty that the House would make good the same. The position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was, in his opinion, therefore, clearly wrong, for his Motion had been made and seconded for an expenditure of public money contrary to the rules of the House. With respect to the Motion itself, he thought the House must feel that it would be extremely unadvisable for it to pronounce a judgment on individual cases contrary to the rules of the service. The hon. and gallant Colonel was himself the originator of the Pension Warrant. It was drawn up in consequence of some changes which he had advocated, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman expressed himself perfectly satisfied with its terms; yet he was the first man to bring the authority of the House of Commons into play in order to break through it. [Colonel NORTH: No, no!] He would show that the Motion would have that effect. The case was a very simple one. Clause 10 of the warrant declared that, as a general rule, the pension or gratuity should be granted according to regimental rank, but that should any officer, with or without brevet rank, have been employed at the time he was wounded in the discharge of duties superior to those attached to his regimental commission, the gratuity or pension should be in accordance with the regimental rank immediately above that held by him at the time. Under that clause, if a captain was discharging the duties of field officer he would be entitled to the pension of a field officer; but that was not the case made by Lieutenant Colonel Henry himself, for in one of the first letters, if not the first, from him on the subject, he stated that, though not performing the duty of a field officer at the time he received his wound, he was, nevertheless, induced to lay claim to the pension. It, therefore, appeared clear from Lieutenant Colonel Henry's own letter that he was not performing the duties of a field officer, but those of a captain of artillery. He must at the same time observe that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the War Office to disparage the services of Lieutenant Colonel Henry, who had done his duty well and gallantly, and was entitled to all the consideration due to officers who were wounded in service. He had received the usual gratuity of a year's pay, was transferred to the Horse Artillery, and received £100 per annum for the loss of limb. Lieutenant Colonel Henry was at that moment doing his duty and receiving his full pay in the Artillery, and he also received £120 a year for commanding the riding school department. Under those circumstances he hoped the House would arrive at the conclusion that that was not a case in which they ought to interfere with the War Office in the interpretation of a warrant which applied to the claims of so great a number of officers. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would not object to state how he came into possession of the documents from which he had read extracts, and which he Mr. Baring believed were portions of the correspondence that had passed between the General Commanding-in-Chief and the War Office in respect to this case. [Colonel NORTH: They were sent to me. Does the hon. Gentleman deny their authenticity?] He did not dispute their accuracy, but he was not aware they had been moved for or laid on the table of the House or furnished to the hon. and gallant Colonel from the War Office, and he would add that he felt certain that his Royal Highness the General Commanding-in-Chief had not given any authority to any one in his office to publish such letters. The documents, moreover, gave an imperfect idea of the correspondence, and omitted all notice of the objections of the War Office. It was for the Secretary of State for War to decide upon all matters of expenditure, and it was not because claims were put before him in a favourable point of view that he was, therefore, bound to admit their justice.

said, that having been appealed to on a point of order he was bound to give his opinion. The Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford-shire, as it appeared on the paper, was not one which he could with propriety put form the Chair, because there was a Standing which said that no Motion for any public aid or charge should be presently entered upon, and that they should not proceed to discuss any demand for public money on the same day it was made. He had pointed out the informality to the hon. and gallant Member, who has thereupon altered the form of his Motion. He could not say that the Motion was not in order in that form; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman laboured under the disadvantage of proposing a Motion which in effect pointed to the words which had been left out, and which were themselves irregular.

said, he could not regard the question as one of money, but one which affected the whole of the Ordnance corps. When the army was ordered to the Crimea there was such a want of artillery that a captain of artillery, though a field officer by brevet could not be spared to carry on the duties of a field officer. Could it, therefore, be supposed that it was the intention of the Secretary of State that the Ordnance corps should be debarred from the benefit of the Pensions Warrant? The General Commanding-in-Chief, it appeared, stated that Colonel Henry had virtually fulfilled the duties of a field officer. [Mr. T. G. BARING: The General Commanding-in-Chief does not say that Colonel Henry performed the duties of a field officer.] In the letter read by his hon. Friend his Royal Highness gave it as his opinion that Colonel Henry had duties to perform greater than those performed by an ordinary field officer. It was well known that the letter read by his hon. Friend was written by Sir Charles Yorke, Military Secretary to the Commander-in-Chief. Colonel Henry had performed the most distinguished services in the Crimea, and his name had been held up to the approbation of the army by the general in command before Sebastopol. On the day he received his wound he had been ordered to draw off the fire of the Russians, and in doing so he fired 1,000 rounds of heavy shot—an action in itself. No stronger case, therefore, could be presented than that of Colonel Henry. And as he was the only officer of Artillery in the Crimea or India who survived the loss of a limb, it could not be said that in granting his claims the country would be put to expense for other claimants. With reference to what fell from the Under Secretary for War, he (Captain Jervis) begged most emphatically to deny on the part of Colonel Henry that this question had anything to do with pounds, shillings, or pence, it was a point of military honour. Was Colonel Henry when he received his wound doing duties equivalent to a field officer's, or was he not? The Commander-in-Chief said he was. The Secretary for War said he was not. But who was the proper authority on such a subject, surely the military one. He trusted, therefore, the House would assert the principle that the civil authorities should not confine themselves to the mere wording of the warrant, but should be guided by what was the real intention of those who drew it up.

said, he supported the Motion. The opinion of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief on this matter ought to have been attended to. He was burdened with all the disagreeable duties of holding courts-martial on officers, but had no voice in rewarding them. He could not but express his regret, therefore, that the hon. Under Secretary for War should have opposed the Motion on a mere quibble as to whether the Motion was rightly drawn or not, when it involved the case of one of the most distinguished officers which the country had produced, and who had been fearfully maimed in the service of his country. He should certainly take the sense of the House on the Motion.

said, he hoped the House would consider well before it acceded to the Motion. It was no part of the functions of the House of Commons to administer the details of any department of the Government, and least of all would it be expedient that the House should take into its hands the administration of the military branch of the public service. It was obvious that if it were once understood that an officer whose claims, whether for promotion, or honours, or pecuniary allowance, had not met with the approbation of the responsible officer of the Government, who was answerable for the grants on the subject, could obtain the aid of some influential Member of the House, capable, either by his force of speaking or his position, to give effect to his claim, and that these matters could be made the subject of private canvass in the House there would, in the first place, be an end of all proper discipline in the army; and in the next place, no limit to the expenditure of public money. If one case was brought forward on very peculiar grounds, and in a manner to enlist the sympathies of the House, a precedent would be established, and upon that precedent other cases of the same nature, though, perhaps, not so strong, but coming within the same limit, would be submitted to the House and argued, and it would be quite in vain for the War Department to establish regulations and try and administer them, if exceptions from those regulations were forced upon them by debates and Motions. The hon. and gallant officer said it was extraordinary that the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, whether here or abroad, should not be taken on the construction of a financial regulation; but, having been for many years the Secretary at War, he knew it was a fundamental maxim that then the Secretary at War (and the Secretary for War now occupied, of course, the same position) was the Financial Minister alone responsible for these grants, and for the interpretation of all regulations involving grants, though, of course, he would naturally pay great attention to military authority as to the conduct and merit of officers. Consequently, he could not admit that, after his noble Friend at the head of the War Department had repeatedly and deliberatedly examined this case, and come to the conclusion that it did not fall within the regulation, his opinion was to be set aside in consequence of other views taken by military officers. It might be right or not that the regulation should be altered so far as regarded the Artillery service; but, so long as the regulation remained unaltered, it was the duty of the Secretary for War to interpret the regulation according to its letter and spirit. A letter written by Colonel Henry had been read, stating that the service he then performed was the service of a captain; and how, therefore, could the head of the War Department set aside that allegation. Notwithstanding the sympathy which the House might feel for the gallant officer in question who had performed such distinguished services, he must say that it would set a bad precedent if it took upon itself to administer these rules and regulations instead of leaving them to be carried out by the public servants responsible to Parliament and the Crown.

said, the meanest subject of the realm could bring his grievance before that House. Why, then, should an officer in the army be debarred from doing so? He would admit that, if the warrant was read literally, Colonel Henry was not entitled to any pension beyond that of of a captain, but it would be a gross injustice to place him in that position. The neglect of such claims as had justly been made by Colonel Henry, had caused wide dissatisfaction in the army at the weak manner in which the interests of deserving officers were supported against the innovations of the War Office. Officers in mere connection with the War Office, who had never seen a shot fired, or who had not seen as much service in their whole lives as Colonel Henry had seen in three months, were in receipt of large incomes, while under the warrant a most distinguished officer was refused that to which he was clearly entitled. He felt assured that if that state of things continued it would ultimately lead to results in connection with the army that would be greatly to be deplored. Motion made, and Question put,

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleases to take into Her most gracious consideration the case of Lieutenant Colonel Henry, Royal Artillery, who lost his arm when in command of an important battery before Sevastopol, he holding at the time the rank of Brevet Major, which rank had been conferred upon him for distinguished conduct in the field."

The House divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 63: Majority 29.

said, he rose to move that an Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to give directions that steps be taken to enable Her Majesty to appoint a Consul at Pesth. The position of the town of Pesth as a place of commercial importance had become greatly altered since the navigation of the Danube had been rendered more free by the operation of the arrangements entered into at the Congress of Paris in 1856. He had, he might add, on a former occasion, asked the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary whether he intended to appoint a Consul at Pesth, and his answer had been that he did not think the town stood in need of the appointment. The noble Lord had also on the same occasion stated that Mr. Dunlop had been withdrawn from Pesth at the request of Austria, but the very fact that Mr. Dunlop had been there for seven months appeared sufficient proof that diplomatic agency between us and that part of the world was required. Mr. Dunlop had been sent to Pesth by the Embassy at Vienna, to which he was attached, at the request of the Government, with the view of furnishing information to them with regard to what was going on in Hungary, and he had, he believed, during the period which he held office not only obtained the respect and esteem of all with whom he became acquainted, but had also supplied the authorities at home with most authentic reports—reports, however, which Austria did not like, as she feared they might create an unfavourable impression in this country with respect to her conduct towards her Hungarian subjects. Be that, however, as it might, the appointment was one of importance, as hon. Members would readily admit when he told them that Pesth and Buda, which were separated from one another only by a river, as in the case of Southwark and the City of London, and which, therefore, in reality constituted a single city, contained a population of not less than 300,000 inhabitants. Pesth had also a Chamber of Commerce, and steamboats without end; while he found, from statistics which had been furnished him from that quarter, that the population of that town, which had in 1780 been only 13,000, had in 1800 increased to 30,000, in 1850 to 83,000, and in 1857 to 136,666 persons, Buda being on the opposite side of the river, with a population as large. Notwithstanding its importance, however, we had no Consul there, the nearest Consulate to it being that at Galatz, which was 300 miles distant. Why that should be so he was wholly at a loss to conceive, especially when he bore in mind how our consular establishments were scattered all over the world. We had, for instance, within a small district of Turkey in Asia five Consuls—one at Damascus, with a salary of £500 a year; one at Aleppo, with a salary of £350; one at Antioch, with a salary of £200 one at Jerusalem, with a salary of £350; and one at Jaffa, with a salary of something like £300. Now, of all the gross jobs that had ever been perpetrated he believed the appointment of a Consul at Jaffa was the greatest. The gentleman who held that appointment, too, had advantages which other Consuls did not possess, inasmuch as he was allowed to trade, and to report direct to the Foreign Office instead of to the Em- bassy to which he belonged, as with one or two exceptions those filling similar positions were obliged to do. He was a native of Turkey, in Asia; he had been a Roman Catholic, had become a Protestant, and had promised, he believed, to build a great number of churches, but he did not know that that promise had in a single instance been carried into effect. Now, why there should be a Consul at Jaffa, and not one at Pesth, he did not understand. He would at all evets assure the House that he brought forward the present Motion at the request not only of a large number of persons resident in that city, but also of British subjects trading in that quarter. The noble Lord, indeed, had assigned as a reason for withdrawing Mr. Dunlop that it was not deemed desirable to give encouragement to any disaffected parties in Hungary. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: I gave the Austrian version.] But he would ask the Austrian Government where they would find a man in Hungary who was not disaffected? Hungary sought the restitution of her ancient rights and constitution. Hungary asked for the restitution of her laws as they existed in 1848, and she would not give up a single point till Austria made that concession. It might be that Hungary at the present moment was following the advice of leaders to maintain the peace, but they might depend on it that the day was not far distant when the Hungarian question would again come before Europe, and might involve in it great difficulties. On a former evening he had asked whether the English Ambassador at Vienna had advised the Emperor of Austria not to receive the address from the Hungarian Diet at Pesth unless it fully recognized the Emperor's title as King of Hungary. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said there was not a word of truth in the Report. He hoped the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, who was not in his place on the former evening, could adhere to the statement that there was not foundation for the report of the Hungarian address having been sent back from Vienna by the advice of the English Government. But he thought there was some mistake about it. The report that there had been some interference by England was believed at Paris; it was believed at Turin, and it was not denied at Vienna. He was authorized to say that nothing would give the Hungarian people more satisfaction than the establishment of some diplomatic relations with them by the ap- pointment of an English Consul at Pesth. At the present time, also, the steamers on the Danube were manned to a considerable extent by English engineers. These British subjects hoped the Government would take their case into consideration, and he had received a deputation from their body to request him urge upon the Government the necessity of considering their case, and to point out that they would feel much safer if there was a Consul at Pesth, to whom they could apply in any case of necessity. In every point of view, commercial and political, a Consul at Pesth was required. He hoped the Government would take the subject into its serious consideration. He was sure the more it inquired the more it would be convinced of the necessity of some Consular establishment in that large, rising, and important town.

seconded the Motion.

said, that he would say a few words on the subject. With respect to the political part to the question, his noble Friend at the head of Government was quite right in urging on a night when he (Lord John Russell) was absent that the British Government had nothing whatever to do with the sending back of the Address that was sent by the Diet of Hungary to the Emperor. It did not appear to him that it was the sort of question on which any Government would consult the Foreign Ministers about. If any Address had been forwarded to him for presentation to Her Majesty, in which her title of Queen was omitted, and styling her "Her and Mighty Lady," neither he nor his noble Friend would think of consulting any Foreign Minister as to the manner in which they should answer it. That was a point entirely for the consideration of the Minister of the Sovereign to whom the Address was sent. The Hungarian Diet themselves seemed to have felt that the title they gave was not proper, for they afterwards adopted another form of Address, which had been received. It was unnecessary, therefore, to discuss that point further. With regard to the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, he did not think it necessary then to go into the subject of consular establishments generally, or the question of the Turkish Consuls in particular, as he did not think the House of Commons was the fitting place to decide where Consuls ought or ought not to be sent. With regard to Pesth, we had a diplomatic establishment at Vienna, and any representation could be made to the Court of Vienna which the Ministers of the Crown might think necessary. He had never been told by any persons interested in commerce that a Consul at Pesth was necessary. However, he was very glad to hear of the prosperity of Pesth, and if no war took place, if peace were maintained, and the resources and riches of Hungary continued to be developed, it might at some future time be of great advantage to appoint a Consul there. But he did not think there would be any advantage in such an appointment at that moment.

said, he would advise his hon. Friend to leave the matter in the hands of the noble Lord. The people of Hungary might be assured that the people of England would ever take a warm interest in their freedom.

said, he would not trouble the House to divide on the question. But the noble Lord should recollect that the House of Commons had to pay the expenses of the consular establishments; it was, therefore, the duty of the House to see that the money was not uselessly expended in the appointment of Consuls where they were not necessary. He believed that it was necessary to have one at Pesth; but he feared the noble Lord had given way too much to Austria in his foreign policy. In his opinion they did not want Austria as a counter-balance to France, for England never had a better ally than the Emperor of the French; and French and England, with a united Italy by their side, could defy the world.

observed he was glad that his hon. Friend intended to withdraw his Motion. His hon. Friend seemed to be Under the impression that it depended upon the noble Lord whether there should be a British Consul at Pesth, but that was not so. No country could appoint a Consul to any place except with the consent of the Government of the country within which the place was situated. He thought the Austrian Government had been wrong in insisting upon the withdrawal of Mr. Dunlop, because it was far better that the British Government should receive authentic reports of what took place in Hungary rather than the unauthentic accounts which they would, otherwise, leave to rely upon.

proposed a new clause, the object of which was to prevent time running against the Crown during the existence of a demise.

complained that the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman had not been printed.

said, he did not think it necessary to print an Amendment which did not at all militate against the provisions of the Bill.

said, he must appeal to the hon. Member for Bath to postpone the Bill. His hon. and learned colleague (Mr. Locke), who was engaged in the discharge of professional duties at Brighton, had given notice of an Amendment that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months, and took a great interest in the question.

observed, that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark had already spoken against the Bill for three-quarters of an hour, and he did not see why he should postpone the second reading in consequence of the learned Gentleman's absence. The Bill had now been on the paper for a second reading twenty-six times, and he begged to proceed with it.

moved the second reading of this Bill, which he stated referred to the proposed re-distribution of a debt of £94,000 among certain parishes, some of which the Metropolitan Board of Works thought had been unfairly burdened. The case of the parishes had been heard last year by the Select Committee to which the whole subject of this and the previous Bill had been referred, but two very important parishes, Camberwell and Wands-worth, alleged that they had not been heard, and that their cases, which were of extreme hardship, had not been fully considered. It was a matter the Board as a public body were unable to give an opinion upon, and as he, Mr. Tite, had always intimated, he intended, if the House should read the Bill a second time, to move that it be referred to a Select Committee, who would decide the justice or injustice of the case of the parishes in question.

said, he rose to appeal to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department to give his assistance in rejecting the Bill. The provisions of both the preceding Bill and that under consideration were contained in a measure which was brought before the House last year. That measure was referred to a Select Committee, over which the present Secretary to the Treasury presided, and after a most careful examination, extending over seventeen days, and the hearing of witnesses from all sides, the Committee passed that portion of the measure which was contained in the Bill which had been just read a second time, and rejected that portion which was contained in the Bill now before the House. In that decision the Metropolitan Board of Words had acquiesced by proceeding with No. 1 Bill; yet they now came forward, he thought, in a very sly manner to impugn the decision of the Select Committee and reopen the whole question. If they meant to reverse the decision of the Select Committee, why did they not bring forward both Bills as one measure? He hoped the House would not encourage such irregular attempts at legislation, which would plunge the metropolitan parishes into a most wasteful, unnecessary, and useless expenditure.

What I understand this Bill to effect is a fresh repartition of debts created under the Main Drainage Act. There is no allegation, I believe, that these debts were not properly partitioned according to the provisions of the Act; but the Metropolitan Board of Works think that a different distribution would be more equitable, looking to the results of the drainage. They accordingly came here with a Bill last Session, substantially identical with the one which has now been read a second time, calling for a new distribution of these charges. Well, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, of which my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary to the Treasury was chairman. I believe that Committee was very well constituted, and they went most fully into the whole matter, hearing counsel, and sitting seventeen days, at a great expense of attention to the Committee and of money to the parties. The Committee struck out the clauses which now constitute No. 2 Bill, and the Bill came back to this House without those clauses. The Bill, however, did not pass this House last Session, in consequence principally of the want of time. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), now the organ of the Metropolitan Board, has introduced these two Bills this Session—one the Bill that came out of the Committee last Session; the other consisting of the clauses struck out by that Committee. Now, I certainly do not think my hon. Friend open to any charge of slyness in respect to that procedure.

I did not mean the hon. Member for Bath, but the Metropolitan Board of Works.

In respect of that procedure I must say I do not see anything unfair or unreasonable in putting this matter into two Bills. But what my hon. Friend proposes is to read this Bill a second time on the 16th or July, and to refer it to a Select Committee, to be named by the Committee of Selection, who should hear counsel reargue the case. The House, however, is not in a position to form any opinion on the merits of this question and the distribution of these burdens. We are called on to reconsider the decision of the Select Committee last year without any ground being shown why that decision was an improper one. Under these circumstances I think it will be desirable that this Bill should not be proceeded with, and I would strongly advise my hon. Friend, who, I repeat, is not open to any charge of slyness, to withdraw the Bill.

said, that the Bill of last year contained about 200 clauses, and, so far from the present measure having been considered for seventeen days, it had not been considered for more than sixty minutes, and besides, as the Metropolitan Board of Works were the promoters of the Bill, the parishes were not heard before the Committee of last Session. It was on that account that the Metropolitan Board of Works came forward now and asked that the parishes might be heard at their own expense before a Select Committee.

said, he did not wish to insinuate any charge of slyness or anything else against the hon. Member for Bath, but he thought it hard upon his own constituents that they should a second time be put to all the trouble and expense of a contest before a Select Committee merely because the people of Camberwell and Wandsworth had been too negligent to come forward to state their case at the proper opportunity. He, therefore, begged to move that the Bill be read the second time that day six 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." Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

said, he rose to second the Amendment. The measure was brought in as far back as the 22nd of February, and he could not understand why its progress had been so slow. If he had charge of it he would have had it passed months ago, even if he had only had Wednesdays for the purpose. It was a little too much, now that they had reached the dog-days, and were within a fortnight, or, at the most, three weeks of the prorogation, to ask them to refer the measure to a Select Committee, in order that Camberwell and Wandsworth might have an opportunity of pouring out all their griefs. He knew something of what it was to hear the complaints of those two parishes, and believed that a whole Session would hardly be enough to satisfy them. The people of Metropolis must be greatly obliged to the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. Member for Kidderminster for volunteering to conduct their affairs, for it was by those Gentlemen that these two Bills were introduced, and he certainly could not compliment them on the manner in which they had performed their task. On behalf of the Metropolitan Members he repudiated all blame for the present unsatisfactory state of this question.

said, that the absence from the Bill of last year of a clause for relieving Camberwell and Wandsworth from other parishes led to so much opposition and delay that he was obliged to withdraw the Bill. He was still in the unhappy dilemma of being between these fighting parishes. He denied that it was owing to any laches of his that the Bill had progressed through the House so slowly. The Coal Duties Bill, though brought in by the Government itself, had not been advanced at a much more rapid rate. Neither he nor his hon. Friend (Mr. Bristow) had obtruded their services upon the inhabitants of the Metropolis, but they had been freely chosen by popular election in their respective districts to represent Chelsea and Greenwich at a Metropolitan Board. As, however, the opinion of the House seemed adverse to proceeding with the measure he would not persevere with it further.

said, it would be in the recollection of the few Members present on the occasion when a similar Vote was brought forward towards the close of last Session, that he had called attention to the repeated assurances given by various Committees, as well as by a Royal Commission, that the time had arrived when the Royal Academy ought to vacate the national building in Trafalgar Square. The noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown did him the honour of replying to the observations which he then made, and sketched out the different removals which the public requirements had compelled the Royal Academy to make already; he admitted that the time had arrived when the national collection had grown to such an extent that it could not longer continue to occupy the building jointly; but the difficulty was to provide the Royal Academy with suitable lodgings at the least possible expense to the country. At the same time he proceeded to ask the House to vote a sum of £17,000, with the simple object of making the Royal Academy more comfortable in its temporary quarters. What had been done could not be undone, but he felt that he was warranted in the objections which he took at the time to the proposed expenditure, and the objects for which that outlay was to be made. From the steps which had been erected—they did not deserve the name of a staircase—a room was entered which he would not criticise, because he believed his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Works was not prepared to defend it; but those who favoured Mr. Pennethorne's plan contended that for the money spent two rooms had been added—one, the new room, as it was called—in the National Gallery, and the other the sculpture room in the Royal Academy. The new room, as far as it went, was a very good room, expect that it was too narrow for its length, and that the entrance was also narrow and obscure; but, in addition to the fact of its being built across the entrance-hall, which was absolutely necessary as an accessory to the original plan of a portico, there was no possibility of egress from it into the Royal Academy. The only channel, a tiny passage which existed during the alterations, had been shut up, and it would require a large expenditure of public money to open a proper communication. A plan had been submitted by Captain Fowke, embracing a suite of rooms which, when the time arrived for turning out the Royal Academy, would not have required one shilling outlay. The noble Lord the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were at first favourable to that design, though they abandoned it afterwards on pecuniary grounds; but he was assured by those competent to form an opinion on the subject that the additional expenses which would be required to establish a communication between the existing National Gallery and the other part of the building would more that exceed the original estimate proposed by Captain Fowke. In order to obtain a proper conception of the room in which the sculpture was exhibited, hon. Members must imagine themselves in the street facing the building. They had first to mount a flight of steps, by which they arrived at the basement or floor, and that had been no sooner reached than they were invited to descend again—imitating very closely the action of the squirrel in his cage. It was but recently that sculpture had been placed in groups, the original intention being that it should occupy particular niches; considerable differences of opinion consequently existed with regard to the most advantageous mode of displaying works of that description, but he ventured to affirm that in no other country in Europe was there a sculpture gallery where the first view obtained of the sculpture was from above, the figures standing between the spectator and the light, with their backs towards him. He should not have felt it necessary to direct attention to the subject were it not that a rumour had reached him, which the proceedings in "another place" tended very much to corroborate, that before, or probably after, the close of the Session, an additional outlay would be sanctioned by the Government in connection with the building, with the object of fulfilling the provisions of the Turner will, which, if not complied with in a period of ten years expiring next November, were to become null and void. Several of the clauses in the will in favour of the relatives of Mr. Turner had been set aside, and he would ask whether the only clause to be rigidly insisted on was that binding the State to incur a heavy outlay in placing his pictures "in a room or rooms in the National Gallery?" He ventured to think it would be found almost impossible to carry out all the testamentary intentions of that gentleman. Our collection of the works of old masters included about 300 pictures. Mr. Turner left to the nation 324 works, of which 104 were very large pictures. There were a great number of drawings, of which some were so prurient that they could not be exhibited, and others were so unfinished that their exhibition would rather detract from than add to the fame of Mr. Turner. He should himself be glad to see a selection made from these works according to the plan which was adopted in similar cases in France. He saw that last night the Lord President moved in "another place," for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider what could be done with the Turner and Vernon collections and similar bequests; but so many commissions and Committees had reported upon the National Gallery, without any attention being paid to their reports, that he could not think that that Committee had been appointed with a view to the direct guidance of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject. An Act of Parliament which was passed in the year 1854 or 1855 authorized the Government to dispose of works of art left to the nation, and, in fact, to set aside the terms of bequest; and, therefore, he did not see why a Committee of the House of Lords was required to settle the question. The reason why the trustees of the National Gallery could not deal with it was, that although learned, able, liberal and enlightened man, they were perfectly irresponsible, and therefore, did not possess the confidence of the public. That was a matter which must be considered ere long, and in his opinion the National Gallery must be placed, like other public property, under the management of some one who would be responsible to Parliament, and have a seat either in one House or the other. He should be told that all that was very well, but should be asked, "What are you to do with the Turners?" They must either remove form the National Gallery pictures of second-rate character and doubtful authenticity, and replace them by Turner's, or they must devote to the reception of the Turner collection who rooms of the National Gallery, to the exclusion of the Royal Academy. Last year, when he made some remarks with reference to the National Gallery, he received a number of anonymous letters, complaining that he had charged the Royal Academicians with every offence under the sun. One letter, which was written in a very facetious style, alluded to some of his ancestors, and was signed—he hoped it was a forgery—"R.A." No one could appreciate more than he did the immense services which the Royal Academy had rendered to art in this country, and he should be the last person to speak slightingly of a body which included such men as Landseer, Eastlake, Faed, and other great artists. All he desired was that the Royal Academy should be removed to Burlington House, which was purchased for the nation about the year 1854, at an expense of £5,000 a year, and which was now occupied by the London University and the Royal Society, who last winter refused to allow the Fine Arts Club to use their rooms once or twice a year. That removal could be effected without much cost to the nation, because last year the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Works, who, like himself, not expecting this Vote to come Vote to come on, was not then in his place, stated that the Royal Academy was quite willing to erect a gallery on the site of Burlington House at their own cost. He implored the Government to give an assurance that, no matter what might be the Report of the Committee of the other House, they would ask for no Vote this Session, nor would they during the recess authorize the spending of a shilling, or the laying of a brick for the erection of a building for the Vernon and Turner Galleries. The reason he asked for this assurance was that Lord St. Leonard's had made no secret that his desire was that a gallery should be erected for the Turner pictures in direct communication with the National Gallery, and that a grant should be made for its erection. He asked the Committee to consider what the amount of the Vote would be for the erection of a new building. The mere alteration of certain rooms last year cost £17,000, and common sense told them that to acquire the site of St. Martin's Workhouse, and to erect an entirely new gallery from the foundation upwards, could not cost less than from £80,000 to £100,000. He knew from his experience in the House that whenever a Vote more monstrous than usual was required, it was the practice for the Minister in charge of it to inform the House that so much money had already been spent, that the public faith was pledged, and that, therefore, the House must agree to the completion of the work and grant the Vote. It was to prevent that that he now sought an assurance from the Government that they would not proceed further in the matter without the sanction of the House.

Sir, the noble Lord took a great interest in this subject last year, and was one of the advocates of Captain Fowkes' plan for the alteration of the present building. That was a very good plan, and, had it been carried out, a very handsome building would have been constructed at a considerable expense. The plan we adopted was one of a much more limited character, and effected a great improvement in the interior, without incurring a heavy outlay in altering the elevation of the front. Many people may think that a more handsome building might have been erected on the spot where the National Gallery stands, which is certainly a very commanding position, where a fine piece of architecture on a much larger scale would have been very effective. The gallery is there, however, and the question is whether it is sufficiently commodious for the purpose for which it was intended, or whether it will be necessary to pull it down and erect another at a large expense? My opinion is that we had better take advantage of what we have. The alterations which have been made, though they have not met the approval of the noble Lord, are reckoned great improvements by the public. In the first place, we have added to the accommodation of the gallery a large and convenient room, in which the pictures may be seen exceedingly well. This increase in space has enabled the pictures to be properly classified, according to the different schools and periods, so that the collection is now instructive as well as pleasing to the eye of the connoisseur. The noble Lord apprehends that if the Royal Academy were removed from this building a very large expense would be necessary to effect a communication between that portion of the building which is devoted to the National Gallery and that which is occupied by the Academy. The noble Lord is quite mistaken in that respect. There is a door-way communicating between the two parts of the building, which could be thrown open at a very small expense. Then, as to the sculpture-room, I do not mean that it is a place which would have been built intentionally for that purpose. But it is, at least, vastly superior to the little black hole in which the statuary used to be displayed. These changes have been effected at a very moderate expense—not much more, I think, than £15,000, and in a very short time. No doubt it is intended that the Royal Academy shall go elsewhere, and when that takes place a very great addition will be made to the space applicable to the national collection. The noble Lord has talked of "other arrangements;" but even supposing that the Royal Academy gone, and the rooms which they now occupy added to the space available for the public pictures, yet there is reason to expect that in the course of time even that will not be sufficient. As the Collection now stands, the Turner Pictures, if they were brought in, would nearly, if not entirely, fill the space occupied by the Academy. The question would then arise, how can the accommodation be extended. Plans have been proposed by which the present building might be enlarged at a comparatively small expense. That is a matter for future consideration, but, of course, the noble Lord may rest assured that no such operation will be commenced without the previous sanction of the House. Burlington House had been suggested as a site on which the Royal Academy may construct their building, and I am inclined to think that it would be a very good situation. The question is whether the front should be towards Piccadilly or in another direction. Accommodation may be provided there amply sufficient not only for the Royal Academy, but also for those scientific bodies which, although the noble Lord spoke of them rather slightingly, are entitled to the protection and encouragement of the Government. Highly proper and expedient as it may be to give assistance to art, yet I trust that science will always be deemed worthy of public support in this country. It it obvious that while societies of artists may raise money for the exhibition of their pictures, scientific bodies cannot procure funds by the same means, and are often unable to provide the means of carrying on their meetings and investigations, unless the public assist them by providing some place of meeting. I am sure that the House will share that feeling; and that if the site of Burlington House should be held applicable for the Royal Academy ample room will be given both to art and science.

said, it must be owned that the English were the most curious people in the world in dealing with their national art collections, for they were always admitting that their present arrangement was wrong, and inquiring how it might be set right, and yet nothing whatever was done. Last year £15,000 had been voted for the improvement of the National Gallery, but the only alteration made, as far as he could see, was the addition of an extra room, of which all he could say was that it might form a very handsome hall for a railway station. It was plain and unornamental, and almost every third-rate town in Italy had a much finer one for the exhibition of works of art. It was a great pity that so much valuable space should have been wasted by the construction of a couple of staircases, one leading to the Royal Academy and the other to the collection of old pictures, when one would be quite sufficient as soon as the Royal Academy is removed. At the present moment the National Gallery was already too crowded, and many of the pictures by the old masters were hung too high. They had abundant materials for a splendid national collection of pictures in this country, and proper provision should be made for its accommodation. At Hampton Court last year pictures of great value were going to ruin. He found some of them absolutely falling off the canvass. He understood that this year the restorers had been let loose there, so that he supposed there was some alteration; but there were pictures at Hampton Court which ought to be sent to the National Gallery. The really valuable part of the collection of Pictures did not form the attraction at Hampton Court. From personal observation he was able to say that that was the case with the cartoons, which, in his opinion, ought to be removed to the National Gallery as most important objects of study for our young artists. Then, as to Dulwich, there were many pictures of the Flemish school there which were wanted in the Nation Gallery. There were pictures in the National Gallery which he should like to see sent to Dulwich, and pictures at Dulwich which he should like to see sent to the National Gallery. They had no classification of schools and epoch in the present arrangement of the old pictures in Trafalgar Square. No man in the country had a greater knowledge of art, or had greater taste and judgment, then Sir Charles Eastlake; but, unfortunately, there was the trustee system, and as long as they had it they would not have a good gallery in the country. If there was proper space the national collection would be very much increased by bequests. They did not want any great additional expense. What they wanted was judgment. He hoped that there would be no more patching, but that some definite plan would be acted on to increase the National Gallery, and render it worthy of the country. The Committee were aware that many plans for affording additional room had been from time to time put forward. He had suggested one which had received the approbation of his hon. Friend the late Sir Charles Barry, and which he believed to be the best. It was to raise on the British Museum another story. His opinion was that by the adoption of that plan they might have the finest series of galleries in the world—exceeding in extent those of the Louvre and the Vatican. At all events, he trusted that some plan would be adopted which would put an end to the system of having the national collection scattered about the Metropolis.

remarked, that he was agreeably surprised by, and decidedly satisfied with, the alteration effected during the last twelve months in the National Gallery.

observed, that he thought the nation had not got a quid pro quo. The accommodation afforded for the exhibition of the national collection of pictures was not value for the money expended in providing it. If another story were added to the British Museum it would be best applied to affording additional room for the rapidly increasing collection of books; but it had been, on very strong grounds, suggested to add another story to the National Gallery for the purpose of affording additional space for pictures. The soot of London did not ascend above a certain height, and, therefore, if the National Gallery had a higher elevation, the pictures would be taken out of a very deleterious atmosphere. It was monstrous to provide accommodation for the Royal Academy when they wanted it only for three months in the year. That year's exhibition would now soon be over, and, as they had to find an asylum for the Turner pictures before next November, he hoped they would be deposited in those rooms. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to ask for any grant that Session towards alterations in the National Gallery?

said, that the sooner the Royal Academy had their own rooms the better. They would then enter into free competition with other societies, and would, he believed, on that principle, effect greater good to the Arts than at present. The original design of the National Gallery contemplated extension in the rear, and there was space enough in that direction to form one of the finest galleries in the would.

said, the Committee must be very much obliged to his noble Friend for having brought forward this question. He agreed very much in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith), and they must all concur in the observation of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), that the National Gallery was either now or would soon be required for the purposes of the national collections alone. The Committee had for some years fully agreed that the Royal Academy must go elsewhere, and he should like to know from the Government what chance there was of that event taking place. Three or four years ago negotiations were entered into for a transfer of the Academy to Burlington House. The negotiations were then in a very satisfactory state. No opposition was raised by the Royal Academy. They were ready to erect buildings if a site was given for the Purpose. Other societies who had claims on the consideration of the Government were also to be accommodated. He was the last person to say that the £15,000 had not been well expended; but beyond that improvement nothing had been done with a view to removing the Royal Academy, or applying the site of Burlington House to the object for which it was purchased. As it was admitted that the accommodation obtained by the expenditure of the £15,000 was not sufficient, it was important for the House of Commons to know whether the negotiations previously commenced with the Royal Academy were still in progress, or whether they had entirely ceased, and there was no probability, after all, of the Royal Academy being transferred from Trafalgar Square to Burlington House? If the noble Lord at the head of the Government could give an assurance that the negotiations were in progress, and that some definite scheme was on foot for applying the space acquired at Burlington House to those objects, for which a large sum of money had been expended in its purchase, it would give satisfaction not only to those hon. Members who took an interest in all questions affecting the progress of science and art, but to all classes of the community.

said, he had seen the sketch of Mr. Pennethorne, and the improvement already effected was part of a complete plan, which, when carried out, would give the nation a gallery neither disgraceful to them nor discreditable to the architect. He thought that the £15,000 had been well spent, and that great additional accommodation had been obtained by that means. One advantage of the discussions on the subject was that all were now agreed that Trafalgar Square was the proper site for the National Gallery. He remembered sitting on a Committee to inquire into the subject, and he rather thought that their Report was in favour of removing the pictures; but the common sense of the community had prevailed, and it was now admitted on all hands that the interests of science and art would be best consulted by the national pictures being collected on that one spot. He hoped that the Turner Gallery would form part of the national collection, and that there would be a gallery representing the English School. If a site were given to the Royal Academy at Burlington House nothing would be easier in an architectural point of view than to erect a building which would be a credit to the nation.

said, he hoped that if a Committee were to be appointed next year it would be composed of hon. Gentlemen who had some special knowledge of art, and who were independent of the Government.

said, he must press for an assurance that no further demand for money for building purposes would be made that Session. In the remarks which he had made he had not had the slightest intention of saying anything in detraction of the usefulness of the scientific bodies. The noble Lord had misunderstood him on that point.

said, he wished to ask why the £8,670 remaining from last year's grant for the National Gallery was not deducted from the amount of the present Vote?

said, he hoped that the trustees of the National Gallery would not be called upon to expend all the money voted in any particular year within the twelve months, which would sometimes lead to the purchase of common instead of really valuable pictures.

said, he was not aware that there was any intention to propose an additional grant.

said, he would remind the noble Lord that he had asked what was the state of the negotiations between the Government and the Royal Academy with reference to the transfer of the latter to Burlington House?

was not aware of the exact state of the negotiations, but the Royal Academy was prepared to go to Burlington House when they were summoned to do so; but some alterations in the building would be required, and he believed the plans had not yet been prepared.

said, that, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he had to observe that the balance in hand for the Purchase of pictures was only £3,000, and as had been remarked by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), it would be very unwise to compel the trustees of the National Gallery to expend the whole of the Vote for Pictures in each year. Vote agreed to. (2.) £2,000, British Historical Portrait Gallery.

said, he had always opposed this Vote and he should continue to do so. He would ask for an explanation of the object for which the gallery was formed. It could not be to promote art, for the trustees set out with the declaration that they did not care how bad the picture was so long as it was a portrait of somebody notorious in our history. Neither could it be to show respect to the memory of the persons who were exhibited, for the 0persons was so long as they fulfilled the same condition. There would soon be a demand for a building in which to keep these portraits. He thought the House was already expending too much money in the promotion of arts and sciences. He would move that the grant be not allowed.

said, he entirely differed from the hon. Member, as he thought the grant one that would be sanctioned by the great body of the working classes. He regretted the collection was placed in so obscure a building, but when it was opened to the public, and it was known for the purpose of collecting the portraits of personages whose names were illustrious in the history of the country, he felt sure that none of our more public collections would be more popular. [Mr. SPOONER: Why, Nell Gwynne is one of the Portraits!] He must certainly admit that some of those whose portraits might find a place in it were not of that high moral character that might be wished. However, he fully believed that the more the public were familiarized with works of art the better it would be for the public taste and the public happiness.

said, he would recommend the Government to put a stop to the purchases of portraits until they had a proper building to put them in. If the last Government had continued in office the Royal Academy would be by that time in their own palace without the expenditure of a shilling on the part of the public That negotiation had, however, been put a stop to—no one knew why, although it was clear the space was wanted for the National Gallery. He was ashamed that there was no suitable building belonging to the country in which so interesting a collection as the national portraits could be placed.

said, he though that that infant collection had made fair progress during the short time that it existed. The Royal Academy understood that it would be their duty to vacate the National Gallery whenever the public convenience required it, when the House had made up its mind as to the disposal of Burlington House, and when the National Gallery had been enlarged on an adequate scale to allow of future extension. The occupation of the first portion of the site of Burlington House by the Royal Academy would, however, dispose of the whole question of the employment of that side. This was a question which ought not to be compromised until it had been considered as a whole.

said, that no answer had yet been given to the simple question— what were the Government about to do with respect to moving the Royal Academy from Trafalgar Square? The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the Royal Academy would vacate the National Gallery whenever public convenience required it. But the Public convenience required them to go for some years; and, as the public convenience required them to go, and the Royal Academy were ready to go, he wanted to know why they had not gone? The Committee ought to be told whether there was any real intention to propose any plans which would have the effect of accomplishing the transference of the Royal Academy from Trafalgar Square.

said, he did not believe the public grudged the expenditure, but they had a right to know what was done with the money, and why the pictures were kept in a private house, where they were virtually inaccessible to people at large. Why was not the collection added to the National Gallery or placed in some of the buildings at Kensington?

said, he would remind the Committee that there were many bare walls in the lobbies and corridors of the Houses of Parliament where these pictures might be hung. If the lady whose portrait had been alluded to was not thought a proper character to hang in the corridors she might be put in the tea-room. He did not grudge the £2,000 for the gallery, but he grudged the separate establishment, and he should oppose any banishment to Kensington.

said, that as he appeared to be alone in his view of the question, he should not trouble the committee to divide, but would content himself with protesting against the public money being wasted on such tomfoolery. It was all very well to say that the people would not grudge the money. Perhaps those living on the spot would not. But the Committee ought to think of the people from the Land's-end to John O'Groats, who had not a chance of seeing these pictures, or of benefiting from the expenditure. The Portrait Gallery neither served for the promotion of art nor for the cultivation of a healthy moral feeling, for the Commissioners said they did not care how bad was the quality of the picture or the character of the person depicted.

said, he believed that, if proper arrangements were made —that was, if the Royal Academy was removed from the building in Trafalgar Square, and a portion of the building appropriated to the collection—all the necessary accommodation might be afforded there. In any case, he hoped Parliament would not allow the collection to be removed to Kensington. The pictures of the nation ought to be placed in Trafalgar Square; but at present they were scattered all over the town.

said, that a more miserable set of portraits could not be produced than those in Great George Street. They were totally unworthy of the collection. Vote agreed to. (3.) £3,000, Purchases from Soltykoff Collection.

said, it was unsatisfactory that these purchases should take place while no one knew where they were to be put. He complained of the arrangement which they seemed to be getting into of scattering these collections all over the town.

said, he agreed that the arrangement was objectionable, but it was one which they were not getting into but getting out of. At present, objects of mediaeval art were divided between the British Museum and Kensington. It was possible that those two establishments might authorise rival bidders to compete at auctions, but when the question of the Soltykoff collection was brought before the Treasury they declined then to enter into the question whether any purchases which might be made should go to the British Museum or the Treasury, but determined to treat the purchases as made by the nation. In his opinion, it was unreasonable to maintain a mediaeval department at the British Museum and he thought the Kensington collection ought to be the single collection of objects of this kind.

said, he hoped that the truth of the proverb ce n'est que le premier pas qui coute was not about to be exemplified, and that the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lead to the breaking up of the British Museum.

said, he could bear testimony to the sterling merits of the various articles purchased from the Soltykoff collection, and to the marvellously cheap rate at which they were obtained by the Government. Vote agreed to, as were also (4.) £6,620, Magnetic Observations Abroad. (5.) £500, Royal Geographical Society. (6.) £1,000, Royal Society.

, at twelve o'clock, moved that the Chairman report Progress.

said, he understood that the right hon. Member opposite intended to discuss the Colonial Votes, which would be next taken.

said, he was perfectly ready to proceed. Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived. The following Vote was then agreed to. (7.) £4,300, Bermudas (Civil Establishment). (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £6,278, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Ecclesiastical Establishment of the British North American Provinces, to the 31st day of March, 1862."

said, he must object to the item of £2,990 for the ecclesiastical establishments of Canada, as the prosperity of that colony had passed into a proverb. Her revenue was upwards of £2,000,000 a year, and she was, therefore, rich enough to pay for her own ecclesiastical institutions. He did not like the Vote for Nova Scotia, but he would admit that Nova Scotia was a poorer colony. However, he should move to reduce the Vote by £2,990, the amount asked for Canada.

said, he had intended to call attention to the amount of the colonial expenditure on going into Committee of Supply, but under the circumstances he would not detain the House many minutes while he rapidly glanced at the mischief involved in the Estimates before them. He considered that expenditure of the taxes of one country in the administration of another was as unprecedented in the history of the world, as it was mischievous to the best interests of the colonies themselves. He did not complain so much of the burden laid upon the British taxpayers, who were perfectly able to bear much more if just cause were shown; but he objected to the principle of the existing system—the colonies became suckers rather than off-shoots, and diminished the aggregate power of this country by a process of subtraction from instead of multiplication of its internal resources. The largest portion of the English expenditure for the colonies was the military expenditure, but he had no opportunity of bringing that matter before the Select Committee on the subject had reported. He would, however, call attention to the Report of that Committee, which contained many remarkable suggestions, and which was the more remarkable, as it showed, what, from his experience of the Hose, he was led to believe was a rare circumstance, an instance of hon. Members coming out of Committee with different opinions from those with which they went in. Nothing he believed had operated more to bring about this result than the evidence of prosperous colonies having troops and pay from England, for local purposes of their own, or even merely to support a Governor independently of his local legislation in some special policy over which we had no control. The amount voted for the civil expenditure in colonies was less than for their military expenditure but it was by no means unimportant, and though the amount included in the present Estimate could not be reduced by more than £1,00,000 a year, yet as long as one shilling of it remained it was like poison to the empire both at home and abroad, and ought to be eradicated as quickly as possible. He had pressed that consideration on the attention of the House before, and likewise on the particular notice of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he was surprised to find that that hon. Member had, at a public meeting during the last recess, endeavoured to reconcile his habitual absence from Committees of Supply with his diatribes against a wasteful public expenditure by saying that the Committees only attempted to economize in thousands, attempted to economize in thousands, whereas he wished to deal with millions. He (Mr. Adderley) must, however, submit that such a plea was absurd as it was unstatesmanlike. He should like to know, too, what was the use of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down to the House, Session after Session, and complaining of the extravagance of the public expenditure, if he took no practical steps to check its amount in such an instance as this? It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was in the position of a man throwing gold into the sea while bewailing his poverty. He would support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite on the Vote for the clergy of North America. What reason on earth had they to provide the salaries for the Bishop and Archdeacons of the colonies? He knew it would be said that there was an honourable understanding that the salaries of these clergymen should be paid; but he would remind the Committee that these salaries were originally paid out of lands which were now given up to the colony, and it ought to have been provided at the time of the transfer that these salaries should be paid. He was reminded of what happened to a right rev. friend of his own—the Bishop of New Zealand. The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) was accustomed year after year to bring forward the case of Bishop Selwyn's salary, and this House's refusal to pay it, as a positive breach of faith; but that right rev. Prelate had over and over again assured him that he did not wish the point to be urged; that he would rather be without payment from the Parliament of Great Britain, and derive his income from the bishopric itself. For his own part he thought Bishop Selwyn was right; and that those payments were as injurious to the Church as the military expenditure was to the colonies. Was ever a Church on earth so supported? There were instances of Churches flourishing on local endowments, and there were instances of Churches flourishing on the voluntary principle; but when was it ever heard before that a Church in one country throve on the finances of another? They were accustoming the Church to lean on support that would one day fail them, while they were drying up the real sources of her strength. He did not expect to remove the Vote at once; he knew that was impossible, for the money was pledged; but he gave notice that, if no other hon. Member took up the subject, he would early next Session call attention to the matter, and he hoped the House would then determine to put a complete stop to this expenditure. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the item of £2,990, on account of Ecclesiastical Commissioner's Establishments in Canada, be omitted from the proposed Vote."

said, he thought he should be consulting the wishes of the Committee by not entering at that moment into the question of the military expenditure connected with the colonies. He might observe, however, that the result of the Committee alluded to by the hon. Gentleman had been to prove that the expenditure, amounting to £4,000,000 and upwards, which it was stated was the expenditure on account of the colonies, had been enormously exaggerated, and that a very great portion of the expenditure was not on account of the colonies properly so called, but on account of the naval and military stations which the country had to maintain for its own imperial purposes. It was impossible to apply to the military system of the colonies any self-acting and unbending rule. The Vote in question was an expiring Vote, inherited from former years, and was the execution of a pledge on the part of the Crown. That pledge, however, did not go beyond the lives of the persons to whom it was made, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no idea on the part of the Government of assisting systematically Canada, or any other colony in the maintenance of her clergy.

said, that while entirely concurring with his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Adderley) in the opinion that the colonies ought as a general rule to pay themselves the salaries of their public officers, he thought it was undesirable he should seize the opportunity presented by the present Vote to express opinions which wore the appearance of casting a doubt on the liability of this country to perform the pledges which were entered into with respect to it.

said, that the purpose for which he rose was to call attention to the distinction between imperial and colonial purposes. His right hon. Friend talked of taking off £100,000; but he (Mr. Hope) did not know where it was to come from. Bermuda was a naval station, and British Columbia could hardly yet be left to its own resources. There then remained the West Indies, where the only person responsible to the country was the Governor; and he was of opinion that that official should not be left dependent for his income on the colony. As to the colonies on the coast of Africa they were maintained for the suppression of the slave trade. British Caffraria was perhaps a more questionable item; but on the whole he did not see how any portion of the Vote could be got rid of.

said, he would withdraw the Amendment. Motion, by leave withdrawn. Original Question put, and agreed to. (9.) £1,600, Indian Department (Canada).

said, he thought it ridiculous that, year after year, we should be called on to Vote blankets for the Indians.

said, that the Vote was much smaller than it had been, and would probably cease in the course of a few years. Vote agreed to. (10.) £8,600, to complete the sum for British Columbia.

said, he took objection to that Vote. In particular he objected to the charge for the Royal Engineers. They had been sent to survey the land, and land surveys should be paid for by the colony. If they were intended for defence the number was ridiculous. He hoped that in a few months they should hear of British Columbia meeting its own civil expenditure. He also thought that some explanation ought to be given of the item of £2,000 for contingencies. He did not see why this country ought to be called upon to contribute to the civil expenditure of British Columbia.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that this country ought not to be required to contribute to the civil expenditure of its colonies; but it should be borne in mind that the colony was as yet only an infant colony. The greater part of the Vote was for the additional pay to the Royal Engineers, owing to the high price of provisions there. The Vote would not be of a permanent, but purely of a temporary character.

said, he should oppose the Vote, on the ground that when the colony of British Columbia was established, the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire promised distinctly that it was to be a self-supporting colony. With a proper title any money that was necessary could be got from capitalists in the city.

explained that if the cost of the Royal Engineers were left out of the question British Columbia did at the present moment bear its own expenditure. Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:— (11.) £14,728, Governors, &c., West Indies and other Colonies. (12.) £5,706, Stipendiary Justices (West India Colonies and Mauritius). (13.) £9,630, to complete the sum for Civil Establishments (Western Coast of Africa). (14.) £5,954, Saint Helena. (15.) £700, Orange River Territory. (16.) £15,000, British Kaffraria. (17.) £960, Heligoland. (18.) £2,986, to complete the sum for the Falkland Islands. (19.) £2,914, to complete the sum for Labuan. (20.) £500, Pitcairn's Islanders. (21.) £700, to complete the sum for the Fiji Islands Inquiry. (22.) £10,090, Emigration Board.