asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to lay before the House Copies of all Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Christie, British Minister in Brazil, and between Mr. Christie and the Brazilian Government, relating to the wrecking of the Prince of Wales, and the alleged ill-treatment of three Officers of H.M.S. Forte by the police of Rio Janeiro; also, of any Despatch from the American Minister in Brazil to Earl Russell respecting the conduct of Mr. Christie, or of Mr. Vereker, late Her Majesty's Consul at Rio Grande do Sul?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I beg to state that the papers which relate to the differences between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Brazil are being prepared, and will be laid upon the table with the least possible delay. As regards the despatch from the American Minister, that despatch relates entirely to a private affair of a painful character, and no good could arise from laying the paper on the table of the House. As I am on my legs, the House will perhaps permit me to make a short statement, strictly confined to facts, regarding the matters in difference between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Brazil, especially as those facts have been much misrepresented and much misunderstood. In the month of June, 1861, Her Majesty's Consul at Rio Grande do Sul heard that Señor Soarez, a Brazilian magistrate, had mentioned in conversation that some dead bodies of Englishmen had been washed on shore on the coast near his dwelling at Albardao, but had denied that there had been any wreck. This led to inquiries being made, in consequence of which Her Majesty's Consul found reason to believe that a British ship had been wrecked on the coast of Albardao, and that that wreck had taken place some days previous to the conversation in which the magistrate in question took part. The suspicions of the Consul were further excited by the fact that no inquest had been held upon the bodies, and no information had been given to him by the authorities as to the wreck. He accordingly proceeded to the spot, in company with a judicial officer and a coast-guard. On arriving there, he went to the house of Señor Soaroz, the magistrate, who was absent. His visit was evidently not very acceptable; and in the house was found some portion of the cargo of the wrecked vessel which had evidently not been in the sea, but had been removed from the vessel and brought on shore without being damaged by sea water. On the following day the British Consul went to the coast, and found the remains of an English vessel. The sands were covered with cargo, some part of which was damaged by the sea, but a very large part of which was not so damaged. The chests had been broken open and rifled of their contents; and the Consul heard that ten bodies of Englishmen had been found on the beach. He accordingly desired to see those bodies, but the inspector of the district appeared inclined to resist the attempt; and being at the head of a body of armed men, the Consul was obliged to submit. He therefore returned to Rio Grande; and having, after some trouble, obtained from the authorities orders that the bodies of the English seamen should be brought to Rio Grande, he (the Consul) having, however, to bear the expense. Instead, however, of ten bodies being brought, only four could be obtained. On those bodies a very unsatisfactory in quest was held, and a remonstrance was made with respect to the non-production of the other bodies. Upon those bodies the authorities directed an inquest to be held, but no person from the Consulate was present, and the persons appointed to hold the inquiry were the sub-delegate and the brother-in-law of the magistrate implicated, as it was suspected, in the wreck of the vessel

rose to order. He desired to remind the House that there was no question before it. The hon. Gentleman seemed about to cast imputations of a very serious character upon persons in a foreign country; which he ought not to be permitted to do, at a time when no answer could be given.

I am entirely in the hands of the House, and will act in accordance with its wishes; but my hon. Friend (Mr. Laird) came to mo this morning and expressed great anxiety on the part of himself and his constituents that some explanation of this matter should be given in the House before the departure of the mail on Monday next.

The usual course is to permit a Minister in replying to a question of this description to enter more into detail than would be deemed right in the case of a private Member. At the same time, it is a matter for the exercise of discretion in the Minister. He should avoid expressions which may call forth observations from other Members, and excite debate.

I will carefully avoid making any comment, hut will merely state the facts on which her Majesty's Government have acted. The dead bodies to which I have alluded, were found some distance from the shore, and there were I grave reasons for suspecting that some of the sailors had been murdered. On this a demand was made for further inquiry and redress. It was not until the 18th September that any steps were taken by the Brazilian Government. One person was then tried and convicted of stealing some of the property. This was not considered sufficient by Her Majesty's agent, and a further inquiry was demanded, but that demand was not complied with until the month of August in the following year. Early in August Mr. Christie requested that an inquiry might be held, at which a British officer should be present. That the Brazilian Government refused. On the 4th August it was announced that two minor officials, whose conduct had been justified, had been dismissed for culpable neglect previously; but no step was taken with regard to the principal offender, Señor Soarez. After various ineffectual attempts to obtain redress, Her Majesty's Government felt it absolutely necessary for the protection of British interests to take the steps which had been resolved upon under this painful necessity. Instructions were given to Mr. Christie to demand reparation, and if that were refused, to give orders to the Admiral commanding the squadron at Rio to make reprisals. In the mean time, in the month of June, great indignities were offered to two officers and the chaplain of Her Majesty's ship Forte, for which reparation was demanded, but not given. Instructions were accordingly given to the British Admiral to make reprisals, on refusal of the Brazilian Government to accept the ultimatum presented by Mr. Christie demanding the settlement of both questions. Upon the action of Admiral Warren, who seized five Brazilian vessels, the Brazilian Government agreed to give damages to the owners of the Prince of Wales, and to refer the other question to the mediation of an arbitrator. Mr. Christie, acting under his instructions, accepted the offer of the Brazilian Government, and the five vessels which had been seized were then restored. I am happy to state that Her Majesty's Government, having the utmost reliance on the wisdom and justice of the King of the Belgians, have accepted him as arbitrator in the matter of the Forte, if His Majesty should deign to accept the proposal. As regards the Prince of Wales, the Brazilian Government have agreed to pay, under protest, a certain sum by way of compensation, and that offer has been accepted. By the last accounts from Rio the excitement which had been occasioned by the seizure of the Brazilian vessels had ceased, and I trust that the matter has now been arranged satisfactorily, and that the amicable relations which ought to exist between the Government of Her Majesty and that of the Emperor of Brazil will be restored.

said, that in former times, when it was not intended to offer any opposition to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne, the opinion of the House was generally considered to be expressed by the speeches from the front benches. That was the case in the days when the House was divided into two great parties. But he ventured to think that the union and action of party could only be harmonious and effective when the organization of party rested upon principle; and he for one thought that, unfortunately both for themselves and the country, the occupants of the front benches on both sides of the House had for some years past been in the habit of sacrificing principle to expediency—though he did not think that the expediency upon which they had sought to act always promoted the object in view. It appeared to him that they had come to that pass when the occupants of the front benches neither exercised a very large influence over the opinions of that House, nor fully represented the opinions of the people of this country. There was no other resource, therefore, for private Members but to trespass on the patience of the House, and he would do so on that occasion with the view of making a few remarks on the topics referred to in the Royal Speech. The subject which seemed likely to occupy the largest share of the attention of the House was the proposed cession of the Ionian Islands. He should be very sorry, in the present state of the proceeding, to commit himself to any opinion as to the course he might think it right to take upon the political part of the question. He would only observe that it seemed to him so important and intricate as to require the gravest deliberations before coming to a decision upon it. It seemed to him that during the whole time these Islands had been under our protectorate we had never exercised our power advantageously for the islanders, and the consequence was that our whole system of government had provoked undisguised aversion. We had been endeavouring to palm a constitution upon a people that was utterly unfit for it, and which had made all attempts at the Government of these Islands utterly ineffectual and ridiculous. During the debate of last evening great stress had been laid upon the military part of the question. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire to say that he thought that in a military point of view the possession of the Ionian Islands was essential to the interests of the country. That was a very difficult question. If it had been put to him (Mr. Bentinck) thirty years ago, he should have inclined to the view of the right hon. Gentleman; but it appeared to him that circumstances had entirely changed, and that the introduction of steam had so altered the system of warfare that he was disposed to doubt whether, in case of war in the Mediterranean, we should derive any great military advantage from the possession of these Islands. The right hon. Gentleman had said truly that power was a source of national wealth, and that this nation ought to possess strongly-fortified posts in particular positions. But it must be remembered that these strong places could not be maintained and held except by strong garrisons, and he wanted to know where these were to be found in the reduced state of the military armaments of the country, and what prospect there would be of our maintaining secure possession of these Islands if our armaments—if the term "bloated" could be applied to them— were to be reduced, and our military resources were to be diminished? If the cession of Corfu was to be made an argument for the reduction of our military establishment, he should regard the cession as a disadvantage; but supposing that the result of the discussion on the question of the abandonment of the Protectorate of these Islands should be to approve that course, he hoped they would obtain a large military force for the defence of other military posts now very ill-garrisoned. Another question of the greatest importance had been adverted to yesterday. The fortresses of Gibraltar and Malta were incidentally referred to in connection with the Ionian Islands. He thought there was no affinity whatever between them. The House knew how they came into possession of the Ionian Islands, but the retention of Gibraltar and Malta stood upon an entirely different footing, and he thought that any man who advocated their cession must either be imbecile or a traitor to his country; and he trusted that, if such a proposition were made, it would be scouted by the almost unanimous opinion of the House. Much had been said on what was going on in the United States, and he was certainly a good deal surprised that the noble Lord at the head of the Government should not have thought proper to advert in any way to this subject. He thought he might securely venture to say that a great change of opinion had taken place in this country during the last two months with respect to the state of things on the other side of the water. In March last he (Mr. Bentinck) ventured to suggest the propriety of recognising the independence of the Southern States. He ventured to say that, though at that time he did not receive any support in that House, yet he believed, if the matter were now to be brought forward, the proposal would meet with a very different reception. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Address (Mr. Calthorpe) had referred to the change of opinion which had taken place with reference to the nature of the war now going on between the Northern and the Southern States of America, and as to its being a struggle for the maintenance or abolition of slavery. He (Mr. Bentinck) believed it was utter cant to assert that this was a war for the abolition of slavery, and that the people of this country generally had arrived at the conclusion that the question of abolition or non-abolition had nothing to do with the war. We were now in possession of the real merits of the case, and we knew that the question of slavery was not the bone of contention between the North and the South. The people of this country to a man had a distaste for the institution of slavery; and if they thought that to be the real cause of the war, he believed the strong feeling of sympathy towards the South would not have existed in the minds of his countrymen. The hon. Gentleman had also reminded them that after expending £20,000,000 upon the abolition of slavery we had refused to maintain the duty on slave-grown sugar because it was in contravention of the principle of free trade. He was glad to hear that observation come from the other side of the House, because it showed that there had been a great deal of cant upon that subject. So far as concerned the conduct of the South it was impossible to help admiring their gallant bearing and their heroic defence. This struggle, at all events, had taught them one great moral lesson, and that was, that under American democracy all the men of highest repute for education, ability, and character, were excluded from an influential part in the government of the country. Another topic of the Address was the great and wide distress that had existed for many months past in this country. No man could refrain from saying that it had been borne in a manner most creditable by those who were the sufferers, and no one could fail to admire the immense amount of benevolence that had been called forth. It behoved the House, however, not to allow themselves to be misled on this question. He ventured to think — for he had heard it stated over and over again by those who had the best opportunity of forming an opinion — that this distress was not caused solely by the stoppage of the cotton supply from the United States, but that much of it was to be attributed to the over-speculation and overproduction of the great mill-owners. They were naturally anxious to turn their capital to the best account, but they had not been sufficiently mindful that their power of production was unlimited, while the markets of the world were limited. This was a subject of grave consideration for the Government; because, if the distress arose, as was generally assumed, solely from the absence of a supply of cotton, they might hope soon to see it terminated; but if this distress had been in a great degree caused by the over-speculation of the great mill-owners, it behoved them to look more closely into the matter, for the same cause would periodically bring about the same result. It would be well not to encourage over-production. He did not wish to say one word in derogation of those who had borne their sufferings so bravely in Lancashire and Cheshire, but he regretted that in the Royal Speech no allusion was made to the distress existing in other parts of the country, for there had also been great suffering in Warwickshire, in the metropolis, and in Ireland. He wished to know why the Government should have reserved all their sympathy for the manufacturing districts? When the time came for paying a proper tribute to those who had done so much to meet the wants of the distressed operatives of Lancashire, it would be necessary to inquire whether those who had distributed the funds—beyond doubt a difficult task —had exercised their powers with sufficient discrimination, for there was danger lest a state of things should be brought about which would induce a portion of the population to prefer a state of idleness to one of industry. Various topics had been introduced to the attention of the House in the Speech from the Throne, and even the question of Reform had not been forgotten. He was not now going to dwell upon it, though there were many hon. Members who were fond of talking of Reform when there was no prospect of its being effected. He wanted to know, however, whether Reform meant anything but an attempt on the part of one portion of the community for their own benefit to have the control of the incidence of taxation. If the question of Reform were to be considered, taxation should be taken into account with it. The contest at this moment going on between the North and the South was in truth nothing more than a discussion, something roughly carried out, of a Reform Bill. He hoped it would be borne in mind at the present moment that there was one great existing grievance to be remedied—that was that the present representation of the rural districts was wholly inadequate. The result was, that at that moment the rural districts bore a larger share of the taxation of the country than was their due. He hoped, if a distinguished Reformer should arise, that he would bear in mind the gravity of this existing grievance.

said, he did not quite concur in the theory of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), that a new Reform Bill should be founded on a supposed excess of taxation paid by the agricultural interest. His constituents, who belonged chiefly to the working classes, contributed largely to the revenue of the country. For example, the tobacco smoked by the poor man was taxed at 3s. 2d. per lb. weight, whilst cigars sold at 50s. per lb. bore only a duty of 9s. The same inequality might be found in the duties affecting tea, sugar, and other articles of necessity. He thought, therefore, that the working classes had a right to ask that such questions as these should be considered with reference to any Reform Bill that might be submitted to the consideration of the House. On the other hand, he thoroughly went along with the hon. Member for West Norfolk in his observations regarding the Lancashire distress, He should like to know from those Gentlemen who represented localities in the north of England what was the course which had been adopted in the manufacturing districts in respect to the Bill which was passed at the end of the last Session of Parliament—he alluded to the measure which enabled those localities to rate themselves in a way best calculated to relieve the distress which fell so heavily upon the working classes in those districts. As far as he understood, there were only a few instances where the rates had risen to the amount of 3s. in the pound, when the Board of Guardians had availed themselves of that Bill. It was provided that in such an eventuality the parishes concerned could obtain a rate in aid. Now, he believed that the measure in question had never, with one or two exceptions, been acted upon. There were many parishes in the metropolis whose normal state was a poor rate of 3s. in the pound and upwards. A Bill was a short time ago brought into the House with the view of effecting an equalization of the poor rates in the metropolis. It, however, obtained no general support then, as it was objected that such a measure was opposed to the principles of political economy. Now, he did not think that political economy had any more to do with that particular question than it had with the principle of the Poor Law in general; and he contended that the measure which was passed at the end of last Session to relieve the distressed districts was one which in effect adopted the principle of equalization of rates for the relief of the poor. A Committee sat last Session on the question of Poor Relief, when evidence was given on the subject of equalization of rating to the relief of the poor, and he supposed it would continue its labours this Session, and he trusted the Government would turn their attention to the subject, with a view to the equalization of the rates, not in the metropolitan dis- trict only, but throughout the country. He made those observations for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House and the Government to this question of the equalization of the poor rates, which he considered to be one of the most vital importance. The Act of last Session was a step in the right direction. Subscriptions, however, had come in most liberally for the relief of the operatives, and the several Boards of Guardians had chosen to accept the contributions of the benevolent rather than adopt a course which would have thrown a heavier local taxation upon themselves.

said, he must express his regret that the Government had not thought it advisable to introduce into the Speech from the Throne any allusion to any one subject which was generally connected in the minds of the people of this country with the liberal party. In their foreign policy he concurred, nor was there one count in the long indictment brought against the Government last night upon which he should not be inclined to pronounce a verdict of acquittal. Even on the difficult question of Schleswig-Holstein he thought it would turn out that the solution proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office would prove to be the only solution which would prevent that long-standing and embittered controversy leading to a bloody war. But had the country arrived at such a point of political development that nothing remained to be done at home, and that all the energies of the Government must be employed in extending the blessings of constitutional Government to other nations? Such an assertion might be refuted by the example of Holland, a country much in advance of Great Britain in some material points of political development. He rejoiced to learn that there was some prospect of a reduction in the expenditure. Reduction of expenditure was a good thing; but for this few thanks were due to the Government. The House had to thank, in the first place, the convictions of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and next the tactics of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). How did it happen that not one of the questions brought forward by the liberal party, and supported by them upon divisions, was alluded to in the programme of the Government? He thought it was the general opinion of the country that the question of Reform should for the present be laid aside; but there were many other questions which the Government might have taken up—for instance, the question of church rates, which year after year had been dragging its slow length along, and which now seemed further than ever from solution. Then there was another question —a Clergy relief Bill, which ought to be brought forward by the Government; for without some such measure being passed into law they would see the pulpits of the Church of England filled by a set of men who would have no relation whatever to the once learned and refined clergymen of that Church. What he complained of now was that the Government were not bringing forward any measures: it was not that they were to have half a loaf, but that they were to have no bread. The Government might say that they were willing to remain in office for the purpose of conducting the foreign affairs of the country, and of saving Europe from the calamity of having such a statesman as Lord Malmesbury for our Foreign Minister; but, in his opinion, the constituencies would support them in a bolder line of policy.

said, he could not share in the regret expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that Her Majesty's Government had not promised to bring in measures which would have recommended themselves only to a section of the House. With respect to church rates, he had himself given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill on that subject, and he should rejoice if its provisions were of such a character as to secure the approval of Her Majesty's Government, He fully concurred in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman that the time had arrived for a settlement of this long-agitated question. It appeared to him that the present condition of the question opened a breach through which the enemies of the Church of England could approach the chief stronghold of our ecclesiastical establishment. He could not concur in the terms of the Address which echoed the sentiments of congratulation expressed in the Royal Speech upon the operation of the French Treaty. It was impossible for him to forget how it had affected the riband trade, and that this was the third winter during which he had been compelled to labour for the alleviation of the distress of the industrious classes around him, and that the French Treaty was in operation during the whole of that time. No one therefore could expect him to join in those congratulations to which he had referred. If the treaty had benefited the great mass of the community, he could only say he rejoiced at it. He had never opposed the principle of a treaty with France. Such a treaty as that concluded by Mr. Pitt was undoubtedly of the greatest possible advantage to this country; but he was sorry to say that the present treaty with France had imposed a heavy weight upon the shoulders of the constituency he represented, and from which very many thousands of honest men would, he believed, never recover. He hoped, then that the House would allow him, as far as his constituents were concerned, to except himself from joining in that portion of the Address to which he had referred. Her Majesty, in Her Royal Speech, had alluded to the fact that she had concluded a commercial treaty with Belgium. Now, it should be recollected that the products of Belgium come into competition with the products of the looms in his district. He had repeatedly brought before the House the fact that the conditions of the French Treaty were not reciprocal as regarded both countries; for whereas the conditions relating to the whole category of duties abolished in the treaty under the fifth article were absolute, the conditions for the admission of the products of Great Britain into France were qualified. The effect of such an arrangement was, as he had frequently stated, that England was bound to receive the produce of the whole world coming under the category of the article No. 5 duty free; whereas France was only bound to receive the produce of the United Kingdom, not of the Colonies, and that under a scale of duties which France under the treaty had the power to modify. If he were right as to his apprehensions of the effect of the fifth article of the French treaty, he wished to know whether the commodities imported under the category of the article No. 5 were not duty free under the operation of that treaty, and whether or not it was possible to modify the duty on the produce of Belgium and other countries under the said treaty? He was aware that the present Lord Chancellor when Attorney General, gave it as his opinion that the conditions of the French Treaty were in this respect reciprocal— that it was only the produce of France and Algeria that came under the provisions of Article 5 of the treaty. But he was advised by competent authorities that that opinion would be disputed, in consequence of" the most favoured nation "clause. If we were, then, to form treaties with other countries, and that "the most favoured nation" clause were introduced, he was afraid we should be found totally impotent as regarded other countries, because we should be precluded by the terms of the French Treaty. He trusted that the Government would at the earliest period lay the text of the Belgian Treaty before the House. In the general tenor of the Address he cordially concurred. He felt he would be wearying the House if he were to express the depth of the feelings of gratification which, as an individual, he experienced at the prospect of happiness which had dawned upon the Royal Family. But he wished to express his conviction distinctly upon one point, and it was this. He thought that the greatest praise was due to Her Majesty's Government in reference to the proposal that His Holiness the Pope should take refuge within the British dominions, should he be compelled to leave Rome. He thought that that offer by Her Majesty's Government was characterized by a due courtesy and a sound discretion. In 1861 he drew the attention of the House to the fact that rumours were afloat to the effect that in the event of the Holy See becoming vacant or of the Pope abdicating his functions, or leaving Rome, it was proposed to convene an œcumenical Council in this country. It was further rumoured that Cardinal Wiseman was to have exercised the functions of His Holiness, and that a successor to the Pope was to be appointed. This report was circulated principally on the authority of the Indépendance Belge. Now, this was an important matter. If an œcumenical Council were convened in this country, a vast number of foreigners would be attracted hither in consequence, and the Roman Catholic priesthood might be excited to the commission of acts which would be seriously resented by other parties. Such a feeling of irritation would be then likely to arise as would far exceed that which existed in 1851. He wished now to express the opinion that Her Majesty's Government, in answering the question put to them, whether English hospitality would be afforded to the Pope in the event of His Holiness being obliged to leave Rome, had replied in a wise and courteous manner, and that the site indi- cated by them as a residence for the Pope was a site well chosen as regarded not only his own interests, but also the interests of the United Kingdom.

said, that with respect to the cession of the Ionian Islands he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), but he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had considered the question of the cession of the Islands in reference to the communication with India? In the event of a war with France, the route from England by Marseilles would of course be stopped, and the Adriatic would then be regarded as the direct route to the Indian possessions of this country; but if the Ionian Islands were given up, they would either be occupied by the enemy or become the resort of vessels which might cut off our communication with the Indian Empire. The Adriatic in time of war was a great battle-field for naval operations, and notwithstanding the different motive power now applied to vessels, it must still be an important position, and he could not regard the cession of the Ionian Islands as other than detrimental to this country, and he should oppose the measure as far as it was in his power to do so. Had the Secretary of the Admiralty been in his place, he should have put a question to him with respect to the iron ships now building; but he should take an early opportunity of inquiring what was the model which was to be finally adopted. Observing that the senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty had gone down to Devonport and informed the constituency that the iron fleet at present constructed consisted of exceedingly fine ships in every point of view, and were highly reported on by the Admiral on the Lisbon station, yet that "these," according to the words attributed to the Senior Lord in The Times, "would not form the model to be finally adopted," he gave notice that he should take an early opportunity of asking the Government what model had been finally adopted, and whether they had adopted any precise and definite views in reference to the construction of the iron fleet of this country. There was another point not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but which must soon come under the consideration of the House, and on which the Government would have to explain their policy—he alluded to the renewal of the Galway contract. That was the most extraordinary circumstance that had hap- pened within his recollection. It would be remembered what a great amount of political capital had been made out of that question, and that hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Opposition side of the House had been vilified on account of the grant of that contract. He was told, indeed, that an hon. Gentleman had been made a Baronet in consequence of having held up that contract to execration. Yet, if the contract was at any time necessary, it was at the period of its grant, when there was a large efflux of emigration from Ireland to America. But now that that emigration was reduced to a small figure the contract was restored. Was that done with a view to a general election? The present Government availed themselves of every means of vilifying the Administration of Lord Derby by condemning that contract in every possible way for three long years, and yet now, on taking up The Times one fine morning, people discovered that the Galway contract was restored. What was the reason of that? If he was rightly informed, the terms on which the contract bad been restored were of a most extraordinary description. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were once opposed to a sliding scale, but those who formerly stood up for free trade now recommended differential duties on various articles of commerce. They were all sliding back to the old thing; but the sliding scale he now spoke of bad reference to speed. He was told that under the new Galway contract, if the vessels made 10½ knots an hour, the Government were to pay so much; for nine knots they were to pay another sum, and the scale went down to eight knots. Now, if a vessel, only capable of going eight knots an hour, were to cross the Atlantic against a westerly gale, she would not be likely to reach her destination at a very early period, and he was informed that some houses in the City bad on this ground remonstrated against the arrangement. He should be glad to hear on an early day an explanation relative to the Galway contract.

said, he wished to avail himself of that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a question involving a sum of £500,000, and the conduct of the Government in reference to appointments in the Colonies. The colony he referred to was New Zealand. If be were to say that they were spending £500,000 a year there uselessly, or were engaged in an unjust quarrel with the Native chiefs, he should expect to be counted out; for, on a former occasion of the kind, he had found every possible difficulty thrown in his way, of which be had great reason to complain. They professed that the Natives of New Zealand should have the rights of British subjects, yet they were overborne in the exercise of them, the Governor had been allowed to interfere in matters affecting private property, and to disregard the rights of individuals; and upon a war breaking out, for which the public of this country had to pay, complaints from the colony were unheeded and justice was not done. What he now specially referred to was the fact that the Government of this country had guaranteed a loan of £500,000 on the recommendation of a Committee, which recommendation was founded on evidence which was the reverse of the truth. The Governor, who had done all the mischief, was removed; but because he had abused his trust in one office he was appointed to another. And in the mean while the colony had been left in a state of chronic disorder. Thus the British Parliament became responsible for all this bad government. He could assure the House that there was a most serious case to be inquired into, and that they would be wanting in duty if redress were not given.

referring to the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), that the unions in the distressed manufacturing districts had not made large use of the Act passed last Session, said, that he (Mr. Hibbert) know that out of the nineteen or twenty unions which constituted the distressed cotton districts, ten or eleven were in a position to avail themselves of the Act. He knew also that since the. Christmas quarter two of these unions had availed themselves of the rate in aid upon the counties of Cheshire and Lancashire, and five unions were availing themselves of the borrowing Powers of that Act. Therefore, it was scarcely fair to say that sufficient use had not been mode of the Act of last Session. At the same time, however, he was well aware, that had it not been for the great sympathy which had been shown towards the distressed districts, many more of these unions would have come under the rate in aid. As one of the representatives of that district he was glad to take that opportunity of thanking the nation for the admirable manner in which it had come to the relief of their fellow-countrymen in their distress, and he could assure the House that Lancashire would be found willing, whenever appealed to, to contribute to the relief of distress which might be found to exist in any part of the United Kingdom. The Act of last Session, however, should have justice done to it, and he had no doubt that before twelve months were over it would be of great assistance to the people of Lancashire in enabling them to meet the distress which was still pressing upon them.

said, that it was by no means an easy task to draw up a Royal Speech in which a great variety of subjects were to be touched upon, without at the same time raising opposition in some quarter; and in the endeavour to secure the concurrence of all parties, not only much diplomacy was displayed in dealing with different subjects, but matters of importance were sometimes omitted altogether. To adopt a figure of speech— usually termed an Irish bull—it sometimes happened that the most important parts of the Speech were its omissions. There were, however, one or two subjects in which the public had been interested lately, to which some allusion, he thought, might with propriety have been made. One of those subjects, the Home Secretary would say, was already referred to a Commission; he alluded to that of transportation and secondary punishments. He was not at all anxious to go into the question; but in his experience of Parliament and the ways of Government he had had occasion to remark that Commissions were often appointed for two very opposite purposes. One was to elicit most valuable and complete information, by means of an investigation for which a Commission was more competent than a Committee of the House of Commons, and thus to lay a foundation for sound practical legislation. But there was another object for which Commissions had sometimes been appointed, and that was the evasion of a subject altogether. That was one of those dexterous acts of Government which were not altogether unfamiliar to most of them. He did not think that the Commission on the question of transportation had been appointed with any such intention. The question was a grave one, and called for serious discussion; and, according to the general feelings of the country, there was a call for some great change in legislation—a change which he thought could not be avoided. It was a subject which could not be lost sight of, and what he wished to observe was, that the Government should endeavour, at as early a period of the Session as practicable, to bring the labours of the Commission to some sort of conclusion, and to place in the hands of hon. Members materials for legislation in the course of the present Session. There was another subject, the absence of which was a noticeable feature of the Speech, and that was the much-vexed question of Reform. Even his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. White) had not proposed an Amendment to the Address because of the omission, being deterred, no doubt, by his former ill success. He hoped the omission was because Her Majesty's Ministers were convinced that throughout the country there was absolute indifference to the question. There was no pressure on the Ministers, and therefore he hoped they would not move in the matter; and, indeed, the noble Lord at the head of the Government was perhaps not much inclined to start this organic question. There had been a battle raging in different parts of the country as to whether or no there had been a Conservative reaction—whether there was a turn in the tide, or whether there was still only a little lull, and the great Reformers were only retiring that they might jump forward with greater vigour. In one sense there was no reaction whatever. A great number of very important measures had been carried in the course of the last thirty years; and on none of these questions was there any disposition in any quarter of the House or the country to retrace their steps. To some of those measures the Conservatives gave a consistent and steady opposition. In respect to some they admitted candidly they might have been mistaken in their estimate of the results that might follow from them. There were other measures which they still thought did not work well. But he did not think that in the Conservative ranks, any more than on the other side of the House there, was any desire for change; they were ready to accept the existing state of things. There was a general feeling in the country against pushing democratic reforms too far; and he thought that those Gentlemen who were considered the leaders of democratic progress in this country, if they were candid and acknowledged the truth, would admit that there was a disposition now to remain tranquil. The number of those who cheered them was fewer, and the cheers were less vociferous. So far as lie had been able to observe from significant speeches of hon. Members to their constituents, the former were sensible of the influence of this spirit of Conservatism, and also felt that there was a disposition, even on the part of those who sat on the same side of the House as themselves, not to push reforms farther. These Gentlemen acted judiciously for the promotion of their own cause. He elicited from their speeches that they began to contemplate getting more out of the Conservative side of the House than they got from their own quondam friends. It appeared to him that these hon. Gentlemen were beginning to follow the historical example of the Praetorian Guards of the Roman Empire, who put the empire up to auction, and sold it to the highest bidder. He really thought that they were showing great dexterity, great knowledge of human nature, and that they were wise in their generation, considering that they were a minority in the House and not a large one, and that in the present state of parties they could make either the Opposition or their old friends a majority, and thus to a certain degree held the scale in their hands. He saw the policy of such a course; and he had no doubt they would carry out the policy with perfect consistency. What he did not see was any possible gain the Conservatives could have in lending themselves to such a combination. The Conservative party, whether in or out of office, had but one course to pursue, and that was to maintain Conservative principles. Twice in the course of the last few years a Conservative Administration had attained a brief tenure of office, and the results of that experience must have convinced the Conservative party that to accept office whilst they were in a minority in this House was not to further Conservative policy, and did not tend to elevate the Conservative character. He believed that if the experiment were made at the present time by the Conservatives of governing the country, it would be injurious to their character, their position, and the reputation they enjoyed in the country. He believed that gradually, certainly not quite so speedily, but eventually with much greater stability, the Conservative party would again be at the head of affairs. He believed they would be at the head of affairs because they would gain the confidence of the constituencies at large; and that they would be supported by a clear and undoubted Conservative majority in that House. That day would come; perhaps it might not be a very distant day, but he was quite sure that the great majority of the Conservative party would never wish again to accept office until that state of things arrived.

said, he wished to make a few observations with regard to the events in the Levant and the proposed cession of the Ionian Islands. He wished to know how the cession of these Islands to Greece was reconcilable with the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government, particularly by the noble Lord at the head of it—a policy which he had pursued at all periods —the policy of maintaining the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire? A country like Greece commanded the affection of all enlightened and educated people. It had recently made a revolution, in which the inhabitants had deposed the Sovereign given to them thirty years ago; and now we were making them a present of this territory which had practically formed part of the British dominions since 1815. The Ionian Islands were given to us to hold because they excited the ambition of other great Powers of Europe, who at one time or other had possessed them, to protect them from the recurrence of those attempts, and they had been practically treated as part of the possessions of the Crown of England. In fact, it was not till 1848, when that unfortunate power of self-government was made over to them upon the wildest democratic principles, by a Government of which the noble Lord was himself a leading Member, that any difficulty was found in dealing with them. Now, as regarded the integrity and independence of the Turkish empire—that political formula with which the noble Lord's name was associated—how was it likely to be affected by this surrender? We were giving the Greeks an extension of territory, with a fortress which we had made one of the strongest in Europe; and then they were told that they were to put it to no use; whereas the use which they would consider legitimate would be to recover some part of their ancient possessions. The fortress of Corfu fronted immediately the Turkish territory of Albania, from which it was separated by a strait so narrow that it might be crossed in a fisherman's boat. Then they told the Greeks a contradictory story—in the one case, that they gave them these Islands, and in the other, that they were to have them but not to make use of them; and yet the only use the Greeks could make of Corfu would be to attack the country of Albania, which is in a chronic state of rebellion against the Turkish Government. Looking, then, at this cession as so contradictory in itself, and so eminently opposed to the conduct of the noble Lord in regard to the fortress of Belgrade, he could not regard it as an emanation of that perfect wisdom which came from judgment and calm deliberation, but as one of those expedients by means of which Governments from time to time got out of difficulties that occurred to them. He quite concurred in the generous feeling that had dictated this act on the part of Her Majesty's Government; but having regard to the fact that the Government of Greece was not particularly stable or sufficiently powerful to protect them from the aggression of other Powers—for nobody could say that Russia or France might not pounce upon them—he was bound to consider the proceeding as more a matter of generosity on the part of the Government than an act of wise statesmanship, or as the result of the deliberate opinion of the country, or even of the more intelligent portion of the Ionians themselves. Then he would like to ask, if it was the constitutional doctrine of the prerogative of the Crown that a Minister acting for the Crown can give up any portion of the territory belonging to it without ascertaining what the feeling of the Parliament and the country is—if that were so, was it a desirable thing to do it? Could they give away Canada in the same way? He contended that they were by no means to take as conclusive and authoritative the proceedings of a Government during the recess, when no longer subject to the supervision of Parliament, and that all such matters must be left entirely open to be dealt with as Parliament may think fit. Turning to another subject, he thought with the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Sir John Walsh) that there could be no greater delusion than to suppose that there was a Tory reaction in this country, or that there was a disposition in the country to support the Conservative party, except on the understanding that it would act in a reasonably Liberal spirit. Any chance indication, such as an individual election, might be a false barometer of the public feeling. There could be no doubt that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was personally popular with the country — a remit duo to a great extent to his great physical and intellectual activity at a venerable stage of human existence; and this was shown by the fact that when a Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House offered himself for election he declared that he would not offer any factious opposition to the noble Lord. The only pledge that ever he took himself was something of that kind, which he had endeavoured to fulfil always in so far as it was compatible with public utility. Therefore, he warned them against that epidemic delusion which came up at the end of last Session, should it rise again, that no such combination as that of the Gentlemen on his side of the House with the Radicals would succeed. He believed that the Tory and Radical cross, if attempted this Session, would be a complete failure. he believed that it belonged to those who were not Radicals, and yet did not go for Tory dominion—that is to say, for the independent Members—to turn the scale if any such combination as was attempted last Session should be tried again. If those two parties had any principles at all, no two elements ought to be so dissimilar. They did not, of course, know what might be in prospect this Session. There was a lull at present; but he did not think that any such patched-up combination as that to which he had referred—comprising the most dissimilar elements—would be likely to succeed.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill "for diminishing the expense attending the passing of Bills relating to Railways and affording facilities for obtaining ample and trustworthy information thereon," said, that he had brought the subject before the House so far hack as 1853, and he was then told by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) that the subject was being inquired into, and that it was unnecessary to make any Motion upon it at that moment. The present system occupied the time of some of the best Members as Chairmen, and of a great number of other Gentlemen as members of these Committees, and greatly interrupted the discharge of their ordinary Parliamentary duties in the House. The result of the inquiry by the Committee of 1858 was to show a unanimous concurrence of opinion that the present tribunal was attended with almost every possible inconvenience and disadvantage. The proper principle was to refer such investigations to a department of the Government, subject, of course, to a review of their decisions by cither House of Parliament. It was now some twenty-five years since the Tithe Commissioners were first appointed. Questions of far greater moment than even the important questions in relation to new lines of railway had been referred to the Tithe Commissioners; and yet such were the means adopted for checking and controlling the operation of the law that there had never been any substantial complaint of the way in which they had exercised the powers intrusted to them. Twelve years ago the subject of enclosures was referred to another Commission, constituted upon the model of the Tithe Commission, and that part of the private jurisdiction of the House was withdrawn without dissatisfaction and without complaint. The year before last another step in the same direction was taken in reference to piers and harbours. He now thought the time was come when something ought to be done in defence of the interests of those parts of the country which were not already provided with railways. The practical effect of the present system was to render it almost impossible for any local company to get powers to make a local line. In the case of a company of this character, of which he was chairman, they expended £86,000 before they obtained their Bill to construct a line eighteen miles in length. They had to prepare plans, to give notice to every one who could possibly be affected, and to contest the scheme before Committees of both Houses, because one great company feared that they might be indirectly injured or that their great rival might be benefited. It was scarcely possible to conceive anything better adapted than the present machinery to prevent the investment of money in the improvement of districts at present unprovided with railway accommodation. Mr. Hope Scott, who had had great experience of railway contests, said he always gave his clients a stereotyped answer—

"I can't advise you absolutely upon your prospects of success. There is so much uncertainty that all I can say is, I think you have a chance."

expressed his approval of any proposition the effect of which would be the lightening of the heavy expenses to which railway companies were subjected in passing Bills through the House. There was one notorious case of a railway, the engineering and law expenses in connection with which amounted to £680,000. One indefensible part of the expense was the enormous fees paid to the "leading counsel" practising before Parliamentary Committees, who very frequently, if they carried out their engagements, ought to appear before half a dozen Committees at once, while able men in stuff gowns were to be secured whoso services would be in reality more efficient, inasmuch as they could attend to the cases which they undertook. The consequence was that very few barristers gave their exclusive attention to any one case, and it would be far better for the clients if they could have the services of men in stuff gowns than have to fee gentlemen in silk, who would undertake the advocacy of any number of cases and attend to none. It was an undeniable hardship that a man, whose property was about to be interfered with by a proposal for a railway, should be obliged to present himself before a Committee to defend it, and to incur the great expense of feeing counsel, and actually paying for reporting the evidence on his own side and the House fees in addition. He hoped the Bill of the hon. Gentleman would have the effect of providing a remedy for that state of things.

thought that cheap law was about as bad a thing as possible, and he thought that to carry on a local inquiry on the spot where the persons differently interested resided would be the worst possible thing that could take place. As to the fees to counsel, it was for the public to judge the value of the services of counsel, and not for Parliament to meddle with small details of this character. He protested against such a suggestion that these gentlemen were not entitled to the remuneration which the public were willing to give them. They were men of great ability and learning, and afforded the Committees very great assistance, such as could not be obtained from any attorney ill-informed on these subjects who attended on the spot. Though not a member of the Bar now, he had been, and protested against this meddling interference with that which was a free-trade principle, and which secured to men eminent in their profession what had been called a high rate of remuneration.

said, that the question of the emoluments of counsel was not embraced in the measure now proposed by the hon. Member for Peterborough. The hon. Member proposed a scheme for diminishing the expense of Railway Bills; and if he could devise a scheme to accomplish that end consistently with security to the land-owners and the various other interests affected, he would undoubtedly confer a great benefit on the country. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) thought the House ought to give the hon. Member leave to introduce the Bill; but he did not consider it probable that the House would part with the powers it now exercised in private legislation to so great an extent as proposed, without deliberate inquiry into the subject. He should like, before expressing any opinion, to have heard the views of those hon. Members whose great experience in Private Bills, and the attention which they had given to these sub- jects, entitled their opinions to great weight. It was possible that his hon. Friend would be able, from the consideration he had given the subject, to frame clauses in a Bill which would form the basis of a good scheme; and he thought, therefore, they should allow his hon. Friend to submit his measure to the consideration of the House.

said, that there were no doubt evils in the present system which it was very desirable, if possible, to remove, and if the hon. Member for Peterborough should succeed in devising a scheme to remove them, he would deserve the thanks of the country. The great object which they ought to endeavour to accomplish was to diminish the expenses which the prosecution of those Bills now entailed. But he would warn the hon. Gentleman that the constitution of a private tribunal for deciding those cases would not lead to the attainment of that end. If the new court of inquiry was to partake of the character of a system of arbitration under which inquiries were to be made upon the spot where the works were to be constructed, it would, he believed, be found even more expensive than the present Committees of the House of Commons. A local inquiry had been instituted in the case of a water-works scheme at Reading, and he believed the parties were anything but satisfied with the result. He thought it very desirable that they should direct their attention to the subject, and that they should for that purpose proceed to a consideration of the Bill which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Peterborough; but if they were to pass any measure in the case, he hoped that measure would be made to extend to Private Bills of every description as well as to Railway Bills.

replied.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish Church Rates. He understood that there would be no opposition to the measure at that stage of the proceedings, and he should not, therefore, at that moment trouble the House with tiny observations upon the subject.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Drainage of Land in Ireland, said, it was not necessary for him to dwell upon the details of the measure, which was similar in most respects to the Bill which he introduced and which was discussed last Session. There were, however, two points of difference between that Bill and the present. One was a power to borrow money under the provisions of the Bill, and the other a power to make alterations in the bridges over the waters proposed to be drained, He regretted to say that great distress existed in Ireland—distress peculiar to itself, and which fell heavily at periodical seasons upon the people. He hoped he would be distinctly understood as not asking for charity; but he meant to say the distress in Ireland was such as no person in this country could have any idea of. It was distress such as no description of his could exaggerate, and was beyond the means of the resident gentry to remedy. He did not ask for any temporary assistance—that they obtained in former times, but instead of its having been employed ns it ought to have been, it was, on the contrary, expended in the most extravagant manner to the amount of millions. If they could get a power to borrow money, great good would arise to the unemployed labouring classes of Ireland, He therefore begged to move, in conclusion, for leave to bring in the Bill.

seconded the Motion.

in replying, on the part of the Government, to the observations made by the hon. and gallant Member, said, that as he understood the Bill to be similar, in most respects, to that brought in last year, and recollecting that the Bill had been well received by the House, he should not offer any opposition to the Motion. There were, however, se- veral points in the Bill of last year, particularly as regarded the limits of drainage, which were deserving of serious consideration. With regard to the power of borrowing money, he might observe that within the last fifteen or twenty years money Bills had passed through that House in relation to the draining of land in Ireland, and amending previous Bills; and if his hon. Friend should be more successful than others in the objects he had in view, he should be very glad to assist him in carrying out those objects.