said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention to inquire into the present condition of the Military Store Department, with a view of insuring greater economy and efficiency in its administration; as well as of redressing the just grievances of which the Officers of that Department complain; and which arise from stagnation of promotion, inequality of rank, and inadequate representation of the War Office?

Sir, I understand it to be the wish of my hon. Friend that I should give some explanation of the answer which I made to him the other evening in replying to some observations of his as to certain alleged grievances of the officers of the Military Store Department. I find upon reference to the report in The Times, that I stated—"The Commissariat Department was organized with higher grades of officers, simply because the duties were considered to be more responsible." I only wish to explain, with reference to that statement, that no doubt the opinion of those who were engaged in the reorganization of the Military Store Department was that the duties of the Commissariat were at that time of a more responsible nature than those of the Military Store Department. I did not feel called upon then, and do not feel called upon now, to enter into the consideration of the question whether that was the case or not. That was no doubt the opinion of those who organized the two departments, and I must say that in my opinion, looking only at the difference of position of the officers of the two departments, there is no necessity for re-organizing the Military Store Department, with the view of assimilating the system in that department to that of the Commissariat. With regard to the latter part of the Question of my hon. Friend, I admit, as I admitted the other evening, that there are some circumstances affecting the position of the officers at present in the Department which are deserving of inquiry. But if the Question of my hon. Friend points to any inquiry taking place outside of the War Office, I must inform him that I do not think that would be expedient. All the questions involved may be very properly inquired into in the War Office, but I cannot pledge myself as to the time when such an inquiry would take place.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the defects in the present Law of Charities in Ireland have been brought under the notice of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, or of the Irish Government; and, if so, whether it is the intention of Government to introduce a Bill to remedy those defects during the present Session?

replied that that Question had been brought by the Treasury under the notice of the Irish Government.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of the Bill for the Representation of the People passing into Law, it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure in relation to corrupt practices at Elections; and, if so, when?

I am afraid, Sir, that I can give no more definite answer to this Question than to refer to the words which I used in my opening statement on the subject of the Electoral Franchise. I then meant to state this on the part of the Government, that the state of the case was certainly very urgent, that we had no reason to believe that the present provisions of the law had been efficient for their purpose, and that consequently it was obviously a primary duty of any Government, in considering the questions connected with the representation of the people, to direct their attention to the subject of the law relating to corrupt practices at elections. But, urgent as on the one hand the question is, it is on the other hand likewise attended with greater difficulty; and I am afraid to give any pledge in respect to it, except the conditional one on the part of the Government that it will be their duty to endeavour to frame a measure upon it when the proper time comes, which certainly, if for no other reason, cannot be until we have obtained whatever additional knowledge and evidence the investigations of the present Session are likely to furnish.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill during the present Session of Parliament to amend the Law relating to Weights and Measures so far as the same refers to the use of local and customary measures and the present mode of imposing and applying the penalties and costs under the Act 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 63?

said, in reply, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill with respect to weights and measures which would deal with the standard and the proper modes of verifying the copies of the standard; but there was no intention to bring in a Bill with respect to the special points to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the transit of cattle by Railway will be prohibited after the 24th of March?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government do not think that it would be expedient to continue for any considerable time the prohibition of the movement of cattle by railway. They think there ought to be substituted for prohibition permission to move cattle by railway, subject to restrictions and precautions, with the view to prevent the spreading of the disease. These restrictions will form part of the general Order now in preparation, but it may not be possible to issue that Order in sufficient time to bring it into operation by the 25th instant, and it is desirable that there should be some interval between the Order being issued and its coming into operation, so that its provisions may be generally known. We think that it will be right to continue the existing prohibition until that Order takes effect.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the Representation of the People Bill, Whether it is intended that the occupation franchise for County Voters should, in the case of non-resident claimants, be joined with premises of £6 value, as stated in the Bill itself, or of £7 as stated by him in his speech on moving for leave to introduce the measure?

said, in reply, that the intention of the Government was stated with perfect accuracy in the Bill—that £6 was the sum at which the intended occupation value was to stand.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it is true that lately, at St. Pancras Workhouse Infirmary, a child was laid out for burial some hours be fore its death; and, if so, whether any in quest has been held or inquiry instituted by the Poor Law Board into the circumstances of such a case?

said, in reply, that the metropolitan inspector had been directed to inquire into the matter referred to, and that in consequence of seeing grounds for believing the truth of the statement, the inspector had made arrangements for an inquest to-night, and would himself institute an inquiry to-morrow.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What are the rules to be applied in Scotland with respect to the slaughter of infected sheep? It was stated the other night that the same rule would apply to sheep as to cattle; but if that were so, he should be glad to know what course should be adopted in the event of the disease breaking out on a large hill farm?

said, in reply, that if the hon. Member referred to the Act of Parliament, he would see that it directed the slaughter of all infected animals.

said, he wished to know whether, if on a large farm the disease should make its appearance, the inspector would have the power of ordering any number of sheep to be slaughtered?

said, the hon. Gentleman ought to have put that Question when the Bill was under discussion. The interpretation of the Act is not left to the Government, but to the judicial authorities.

said, he rose to move for Returns of the total number of Voters in every Borough and City in England and Wales in which there was a contest at the last Election, the number of Voters of the working classes in such Boroughs, the number of Voters of all the other classes collectively, the number of Voters who voted for any Candidate at the last Election, and of the number of Voters who did not vote at all in such Boroughs?

said, that he would not offer any opposition to the production of the Returns asked for, but that he did not think it would be possible to obtain the information.

said, he rose to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Fishery (Scotland) Act (1862). He was anxious to explain to the House that this Act did not profess to make any alteration or change in the law of Scotland, but to be a declaratory Act; and so anxious was the Government to avoid even the appearance of interfering with the rights of property, that a special clause was introduced into the Bill, providing that none of the acts of the Commissioners appointed to carry out the provisions of the Bill should interfere with any of the rights existing at the time it was passed. The object he now had in view was to ascertain whether that provision in the Bill had been fairly and properly carried out, and whether the operation of the Bill had responded to the intentions of the Legislature. If the Bill was intended to declare and to interpret the law, he could not understand why the interpretation of the law should not have been intrusted to the ordinary legal tribunals of the country. The interpretation of ancient Scotch statutes had been left to the discretion of three gentlemen appointed by the Crown—one an Irishman, another an Englishman, and the other, he believed, a Scotchman; and he did not know that any one of them previous to his appointment to this office possessed any knowledge of Scotch law. This was a dangerous course, for which he did not believe any precedent was to be found except in times of revolution. It was well known that the Revolutionary Government of France appointed Commissioners to supersede the ordinary tribunals of the country, and to confiscate the property of the nobles; but this was the first occasion, in Great Britain, at least, on which Commissioners had been appointed by the Crown, vested with powers to confiscate the property of one class of Her Majesty's subjects for the benefit of another, without any appeal to a Court of Law. What was the grievance which rendered this exceptional legislation necessary? It was this—The old Scotch law prohibited the use of fixed engines for taking salmon in different parts of rivers, hut it did not clearly define forbidden ground. By some persons the forbidden ground had been called an estuary, and the word frequently occurred in the new Act, but there was no such word in Scotch law, and no interpretation clause defined its meaning. An estuary was an arm of the sea, but it was never contended that fixed engines were prohibited in the arms of the sea in Scotland, and the Lord Advocate had declared before a Committee of the House of Lords that such engines in the estuaries of that country were as old as the oldest Scotch statutes. If, then, the question submitted to the Commissioners was a legal one, it became all the more necessary that men well qualified to perform the duties which they were called upon to discharge should be selected, because it was obvious that on the Commissioners everything depended. If they were men of high character and perfect impartiality, without any preconceived or pre-declared opinions on the question they had to decide, and if they possessed a competent knowledge of Scotch law, then, indeed, justice might be done. But if the Commissioners possessed none of those qualifications, then, indeed, it was manifest that injustice and spoliation might be the result. What the actual result had been he should state to the House; but before he did so, he should like to say a few words with respect to the qualifications of the Commissioners. One of them, Mr. Ffennell, had been well known in Ireland, where, he believed, he had been acting as Commissioner of Fisheries, and where he was notorious for the vigorous warfare he had carried on against stake nets and fixed engines. So much was that the case that when in 1860 certain parties in Inverness introduced a Private Bill called the Ness and Beauly Fishery Bill, to put down stake nets and fixed engines on the Moray Firth, Mr. Ffennell appeared as a witness before the Committee on the Bill, and having been examined by Serjeant Bellasis, gave it as his opinion, knowing nothing whatsoever, as he himself admitted, of the locality, or of Scotch law, in the most offhand manner, while he looked at a map, that the stake nets should be removed seventeen miles down the river and placed at its mouth. Disputes with respect to property in Ireland were sometimes settled by shooting the landlord. Mr. Ffennell seemed to have as little hesitation about sweeping away the rights of proprietors, as others had in sweeping away the proprietors themselves. When it was rumoured that that gentleman was about to be appointed one of the Commissioners, he had called the attention of the Secretary for the Home Department to the fact that he had prejudged the question upon which, as a Commissioner, he would be called upon to decide, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that he had not been aware of the circumstance, and that, if true, Mr. Ffennell would not be a fit person to appoint. A few weeks afterwards, however, Mr. Ffennell was appointed, and every one interested in the inquiry at once saw that they must make up their minds to accept a foregone conclusion. It was necessary, however, that certain forms should be gone through. The Bill prescribed that the Commissioners should hold a Court at Inverness, and that they should take evidence before they came to a decision. A Court was accordingly held, and, if the statement were true which he found in a memorial addressed to the Home Secretary by the proprietors interested in the matter, and he had no reason to doubt it, it was evident that the Commissioners were not even acquainted with the ordinary mode in which legal inquiries ought to be conducted. In that memorial it was asserted that the inquiry which commenced on the 18th of July was not carried on with that care or deliberation, or with that knowledge on the part of the persons inquiring, which the interests involved demanded. Any man present was allowed to volunteer an opinion; none of the witnesses were sworn; there was no clerk or shorthand writer, and the only record of the proceedings was the hurried notes taken by the Commissioners themselves, and those had not been published. Both on the 18th and subsequently, the Commissioners refused to allow the objectors to put in further proof, although it was asked under peculiar circumstances; and although the Commissioners had professed themselves most anxious to afford all parties full opportunity of being heard, they refused all access to their notes, even for the purpose of bringing forward proper objections. Now, he would ask the House, whether that was a sort of tribunal before which the rights of property could fairly be tried, or which ought to be allowed to take upon itself the duty of reversing the decisions of the Court of Session in Scotland? What was the object of the inquiry? It was to take evidence in order to enable the Commissioners to decide according to the law, which law had been very clearly laid down by the Lord Advocate in the evidence which he had given before the Committee of the House of Lords. The Lord Advocate said that, in the law of Scotland, the line of division in the sea appointed as the limit within which fixed nets were prohibited was not a definite line, and was not necessarily at low-water mark; but it was a line to be fixed by a jury in each particular case. He did not believe that any one would be prepared to gainsay that statement. The seacoast proprietors adopted that interpretation of the law, and accordingly raised their evidence upon it. They produced the evidence of a number of fishermen who had fished the water between Inverness and Fort George, and these men proved that they caught there in the greatest abundance every kind of sea-fish, including cod, mackerel, haddock, skate, turbot, and herring. One man stated that he had taken fourteen score of cods in one haul, within two or three miles of Inverness. The evidence of scientific men who had been called in to examine the coast was also produced. In order to prove that all the animals and vegetables were marine Dr. Gordon was examined, and his opinion was corroborated by Mr. Robertson, who was sent down from the Geological Society. In the third place, they produced the evidence of scientific witnesses, who analyzed the water taken in every part of the Firth; but all this evidence produced no impression on the Commissioners, who decided the question as Mr. Ffennell decided it two years previously when he was before a Committee, and almost in the same words. It might be said that there was a precedent for this exceptional legislation in the appointment of a Commission in regard to the Irish fisheries. But there was this important difference between the two cases—that in regard to Ireland the Bill gave an appeal from the decision of the Commissioners to the Court of Queen's Bench. The consequence was that a great number of appeals was made, and many decisions of the Commissioners were reversed by the Court, and declared contrary to law. Who were the Commissioners whose decisions were so declared to be illegal? The very same men who were now acting in Scotland without any appeal whatever. What the Scotch proprietors required, was to be placed on the same footing as their Irish fellow-subjects, and to have the right of appeal from the decision of the Commissioners to the Court of Session in Scotland. The result of the proceedings of the Commissioners had been that, in spite of the clause in the Bill, which declared that none of the proceedings of the Commissioners should interfere with any rights existing at the passing of the Act, which were enjoyed by grants or Royal charters, or which had existed from time immemorial, gentlemen had been deprived of their rights and property, which they had possessed for centuries, and which had been confirmed to them by decisions of the Court of Session. People might as well tear up their grants and title-deeds, and leave all their property to the mercy of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown; for that was what had been done in this case. If it were for the public good that the law of Scotland should be changed, by all means let it be changed; but let the change be effected by Act of Parliament, and let the persons whose rights were taken away be properly compensated, That was the law of England, where a man's property was not allowed to be taken away even for a public benefit without compensation. If he could prove that one of the upper proprietors previous to the passing of this Act had enjoyed a fishing for which he received £1,200 a year, and that the first year after the passing of this Act it produced about £3,000, would it not be just that he should be made to compensate those who had been deprived of their rights for his advantage? The Lord Advocate had taken great interest in this question. He had shown great industry, and no doubt was anxious to settle it by doing equal justice to all parties; but in this he had unhappily failed. He could not, then, be suprised if those who were injured should cry out. He only hoped that it was not the intention of the Government to stifle their cries, or to pass the Bill which had been introduced in another place for the purpose of confirming all the acts of the Commissioners, without giving to those whom the Commissioners had already doomed some opportunity of stating before a Committee the reasons why this sentence should not be carried into effect. What he asked was inquiry. If the Government would give an appeal from the decision of the Commissioners he would withdraw the Motion; if not, he should press it to a division.

said, he wished, before the Government gave any answer to the appeal of his hon. Friend, to say a very few words, The arguments which his hon. Friend had used were the same that had been urged in opposition to the passing of the present Act and the appointment of the Commissioners. They were also used to prevent legislation in the same direction in the case of Ireland. He might be allowed to say that the Commissioner whose name had been alluded to by his hon. Friend was a gentleman of very great experience on the subject of fisheries, and the manner in which he had dealt with it under several Acts had given general satisfaction. The recent Act, so far from causing dissatisfaction in Scotland, had worked exceedingly well. It was quite true that, in the case represented by his hon. Friend, in the Ness and Beauly River, certain rights that were infringements on the old public right of fishing charters had been extended most preju- dicially. The case of their fisheries was fully discussed at the time of the passing of the Act; and in that Act a special provision was inserted that chartered rights should be protected. Nothing had been done under this Act except under authority of the law of Scotland. The proprietors of engines insisted on keeping them up. They were prosecuted before the Law Courts in Scotland, and, as they had no defence, judgment was given against them. The fisheries had been gradually decreasing; it had been found necessary to legislate on the subject and to appoint Commissioners; and, so far as he knew, no complaint had been made. Of course, certain interests had been aggrieved; but the complaints had no more reference to Scotland than to England and Ireland. If anything was to be done in that direction it could only be by retrospective legislation, by undoing what had already been done for the three countries. No case had been made out for the interference of the Government. Besides, a Bill had been introduced in another place, and referred to a Select Committee, before which parties aggrieved might state their case.

said, he supported the Motion. The fisheries had become more and more deteriorated. In the Findhorn, he recollected when fish were taken of 20lb., 25lb., and 30 lb. Now the average was 7 lb. or 81b. Notwithstanding that the Commissioners knew of all these allegations, they took steps which had had the effect of reducing the produce 75 per cent. Besides this, the powers of the Commissioners to do what they had done had been challenged; and, according to the Lord Advocate, not without good reason. He thought it was very desirable, before discussing the Bill which had been referred to a Select Committee in the House of Lords, to ascertain what had been the real working and operation of the law in Scotland, and he hoped, therefore, that the Motion of his hon. Friend would be agreed to.

said, that as a proprietor both of coast and river fishing in Scotland, he had had an opportunity of seeing the working of the Act, and could bear testimony to the benefit which had accrued therefrom to the salmon fishery. The proprietors were under great obligation to the Commissioners for the careful manner in which they had fixed the boundaries, and these had been generally acquiesced in by the parties concerned. He was glad to say that it had resulted in a great increase of the size and number of fish, both as regarded the upper and lower waters. He hoped the House would not agree to a proposition which would disturb a question so beneficially settled.

said, the real question before the House was not whether a Committee should be appointed to investigate the particular cases to which attention had been called, but to decide whether a clause should be introduced into the Bill now in progress in another place which should allow an appeal to a Court of Law against the bye-laws made by the Commissioners under the Salmon Fishery (Scotland) Act of 1862. It appeared to the Government that that was not a proper subject for a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite would have ample opportunity of raising that point when the Bill came down for consideration, and they, therefore, could not agree to the Motion. He hoped for himself that the House would not adopt the clause which the hon. Gentleman had suggested, for he believed that the legislation of the last few years on salmon fisheries had acted very beneficially, and he trusted that the principles on which it was based would not be departed from. Few persons acquainted with the subject would, he thought, agree with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on Mr. Ffennell, who had conferred the greatest benefits on the salmon fisheries of the three kingdoms. It must be satisfactory to the House to find that out of 102 bye-laws which had been framed by the Commissioners there were only two which the hon. Member was able to challenge.

said, that great injustice had been committed by the Salmon Commission in Ireland, where charters that had existed for centuries had been ruthlessly swept away. Indeed, the legal member of the Commission, Mr. O'Connor Maurice, gave in his resignation rather than be a party to such proceedings. The Act itself was an injustice, and had been denounced by Lord Westbury, then Lord Chancellor. He should vote for the Motion as a stepping-stone towards a similar inquiry for Ireland, and could relate several instances, if necessary, of the hardships which had been inflicted by the Commission in that country.

said, he thought it rather illogical for the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken to vote for an inquiry into the working of the Scotch fisheries, where vested interests had been respected, on the ground that in Ireland such interests had been violated. He was glad the Government had resisted the Motion, for it was well known that the Act was passed in consequence of an alarming diminution in the salmon fisheries, owing to practices which were altogether unknown at the time the charters were granted. The Legislature very properly interfered, and prohibited the placing of fixed engines within the limits of estuaries, respecting at the same time, as far as possible, existing rights. In fact, the legislation of which complaint was made only limited the estuaries on the principle laid down by Lord Eldon in the case of the Tay. The Government of the day had a difficulty in deciding the real rights of the various owners. The matter of which his hon. Friend chiefly complained might be remedied by clauses to be inserted in the Bill when it came down from the other House. No case had, however, been made out for the repeal of the Act, which had done great good in Scotland.

said, it had been stated by the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Esmonde) that chartered rights which had existed for centuries in Ireland had recently been swept away, but he (Mr. Blake) affirmed that not a single chartered right had been abolished in Ireland under the operation of the existing Act. So far from the Fishery Act interfering with the chartered weirs in Ireland, it had greatly improved them; and he could name many that were extremely valuable. Numerous unjust claims to private fisheries have been set aside, and the result was that the general fishery had increased. Since he had been a Member of the House, no Bill had ever passed which was calculated to do so much good as the Irish Fisheries Act. Never had a Bill been more called for, and never a law more fairly administered. A few years ago the fisheries of Ireland did not amount to more than £300,000 a year, whereas now, before seven years were over, they would reach more than four times that amount. Formerly the fisheries afforded to 300 or 400 persons a precarious existence, but now about 2,000 persons obtained from them an exceedingly comfortable living.

said, he had quoted the evidence of the Lord Advocate given before the House of Lords to show that stake-nets were of great antiquity. [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: But not drag- nets.] Boethius, about the year 500, described not only a stake-net, but also what was a modern stake-net. The Under Secretary had not attempted to disprove his assertion that Scotland was at a disadvantage as compared with Ireland. He did not want to do away with the Commissioners, but only to obtain a power of appeal. If it were proper to give an appeal against their decisions in Ireland, ought not the same liberty to be enjoyed in Scotland? The hon. Gentleman had alluded to what he (Mr. H. Baillie) had said about Mr. Ffennell. He had no doubt in the world that he may have given satisfaction to some parties, and he seemed to have done so to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Dyce Nicol). The hon. Member was a great angler, and Mr. Ffennell had given great satisfaction to all anglers by the way he decided. All he (Mr. H. Baillie) said was that, having given such evidence as he did a few years before his appointment, he ought not to have been appointed. If the Government would allow an Amendment to be inserted in the Bill, giving an appeal from the decisions of the Commissioners to a Court of Law, he would withdraw his Motion, otherwise he would go to a division.

said, that so far was Mr. Ffennell from always leaning to the anglers, that he was sometimes accused of being rather too tender to the assumed rights and usurped powers of the people at the mouths of rivers. If the House gave the power of appeal there would be continual contentions. The right of appeal given by the Irish Act was very partial in its operation.

said, that he proposed to the House to take into consideration two of their Standing Orders, with the view of introducing certain Amendments into them. One of the Amendments of the Standing Orders would be a necessary consequence of the adoption of the other, and he should therefore direct the special attention of the House to the first of his Resolutions. He had always understood that one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution was that the House of Commons should never of itself take the initiative in granting or voting away public money, or in increasing the national burdens by levying any tax upon the people, but that it should leave the proposal of such measures to the Crown. It was the duty of the House of Commons to sit in judgment upon the measures introduced by the Crown, and, if possible, to reduce and diminish the taxation on the people rather than to attempt to increase the amount of their burdens. Were he to revert to the ancient practice of the House, it would be easy for him to show that the course of proceeding in centuries past was such as rendered it impossible for any private Member to have departed from this constitutional principle. In those times, the House was required merely to take into consideration messages from the Crown, requesting aid for some public purposes, to grant that aid by their vote, and to appropriate the sum granted to the particular objects in view, so that no opportunity was given to any private Member to introduce any plan of his own by which any addition might be made to the charges upon the people. At the beginning of the last century, however, an entirely new system was introduced, and the Exchequer was constituted to act as a trustee between the Crown on the one hand, and the House of Commons and the people on the other. The consequence of this new arrangement was, that the plan was adopted of separating the levying of taxes from their appropriation by Votes of the House. The result was that there was always a balance of public money lying in the Exchequer, which in the course of time Members began to regard as being very much at their own disposal. To prevent the mischief likely to arise from the growing disposition of private Members to establish a claim upon such balances remaining in the Exchequer a Standing Order was made in 1813 to the effect—

"That this House will receive no petition for any sum of money relating to the public service but what is recommended by the Crown."

That Order undoubtedly was short, and its language was limited, but he believed that the House had given its words a very large and general application. The practice was to allow no step to be taken which would tend to impose any public burden except on the requisition of the Crown. But in 1852 a Committee was appointed to revise the Standing Orders, and it was then thought desirable that this Order should be brought more into conformity with what had been the recognized practice, so that the authority of the Speaker might not be questioned in consequence of the words not being sufficiently comprehensive. The following Standing Order was made, in accordance with their recommendation:—

"That this House will receive no petition for any sum of money relating to the public service or proceed upon any Motion for granting any money but what is recommended from the Crown."

The House had always upheld the principle embodied in the Standing Order, but while they had carefully locked the public gate of the Treasury they had unfortunately forgotten to guard a secret mode of access which had in reality admitted of greater inroads upon the public funds than would probably have been committed if there had been no Standing Order at all. The ingenuity of some hon. Member had led to the discovery that what could not be accomplished by direct attack might yet be obtained in another form, and Bills which contemplated demands upon the public money were brought in containing a clause which provided that the necessary expenses should be defrayed out of money hereafter to be voted by Parliament. He had consequently often found in Committee of Supply that, however objectionable some of these propositions might be, their opponents were informed that opposition was useless, because Parliament had previously agreed upon the advisability of carrying them out. It was therefore perfectly idle for Members to come down night after night to criticize and watch the Civil Service Estimates, because when any expenditure was objected to it was urged in reply that the faith and the credit of the country had been pledged to the outlay. Propositions made in a contingent form the establishment of offices to be provided for by sums to be provided by Parliament, had led to a considerable expenditure of money, but at the same time avoided the principles and practice of the Constitution. This sort of evasion should be got rid of. Indirect attempts should be placed on the same footing as direct attempts on the public purse. It was self-stultification to recognize a Standing Order and at the same time evade it. These proposals sometimes assumed the form of humanity and benevolence, and, when humanity and benevolence failed to supply the necessary funds, applications were made to Parliament for gradually increasing Votes of money, until the demands upon the public purse really became serious. He had found from experience that the opposition of private Members to proposals involving outlays of public money were attended with great inconvenience and embarrassment, because whoever opposed applications for public money would be sure to entail upon himself much odium. The consequence was, that those who felt an inclination to be generous at the public expense had full scope afforded them for the exercise of their generous propensities. By passing such a Standing Order as he had mentioned, it would become the Speaker's duty to inform hon. Members who started such proposals that in so doing they were out of order, and Ministers and private Members would thus be relieved from the odium and unpopularity which they often drew upon themselves by their opposition. To prove that these results were not imaginary, he might state that having on one occasion opposed a demand of this kind which he regarded as impolitic and unjust, he had received an anonymous letter of a threatening character advising him not to prosecute his opposition any further He had noticed, too, on another occasion that several Gentlemen who were professed advocates of economy when outside the walls of the House had absented themselves when a Motion of this kind was under consideration, and on inquiry he learnt that they had been induced not to attend by the arguments of an influential deputation by whom they had been waited upon, whose interest it was to obtain certain legislation at the public expense. It required a good deal of nerve to resist solicitations from interested persons outside the House. There were recent illustrations to prove how expedient it was to get rid of this sort of indirect attack upon the Public Treasury. As an instance of the measures to which he referred, he would allude to one, and the House would see that he would not be likely to deal unfairly with a measure on the back of which was his own name. He might, perhaps, as well add that—while like most sponsors he must, he supposed, be held answerable for its sins—he had had no opportunity of correcting its vices. The Bill to which he referred provided that a Commissioner should be appointed at a salary of £2,000, that numerous other officials should be constituted, and that the necessary expenses should be defrayed out of any money that should be provided by Parliament for the purpose. The measure to which he referred was on turnpike roads, and though the principle advocated by the hon. Member who had introduced it (Mr. Whalley) was undoubtedly a good one, he feared that the hon. Gentleman's discretion was not quite equal to his zeal. He might again illustrate his argument by referring to the Bill introduced by an hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) under the influence of the great calamity which at present prevailed in this country. By this Bill a sufficient number of persons were to be appointed for the purpose of seeing that all cattle trucks, slaughterhouses, and so on, should be disinfected, and the expenses of carrying out the enactment were to be defrayed out of money to be provided by Parliament for the purpose. If this great army of inspectors had been appointed, the Government, and the Committee itself, would have degenerated into mere clerks, whose only duties would have been to vote the money which was demanded. Not, however, content with the contemplated outlay, an hon. Member, while the Bill was under discussion, proposed that all the damages caused by the cattle plague should be paid out of funds hereafter to be provided by Parliament for the purpose. He thought they had reached the utmost limit of the abuse he was condemning. One private Member had by a Bill he had introduced to the House gone so far in usurping the functions of the Crown as to propose to regulate the retiring pensions which were to be paid to public servants. He could conceive of no function more peculiarly that of the Crown than determining the salaries of public servants, and afterwards asking Parliament for the wherewithal to meet the expenditure incurred. But in the case to which he referred a private Member proposed to fix the establishments of the Crown by an Act, and to leave the Crown and Parliament hereafter to go through the ceremony of asking for and providing the money, for the Bill he referred to, like all its kindred, concluded with a clause ordering that the money should be paid out of such sums as Parliament might from time to time grant for the purpose. If the system were permitted to continue, private Members might take upon themselves the control of any Department of State. Any private Member could bring in a measure to regulate and re-organize the whole of the Departments of the State, merely by putting in at the end of the Bill clauses providing that the money should be paid out of money voted by Parliament. He asked the House to look at this matter, as it affected every Member. The principle he proposed to uphold by his Motion was one of vital importance. To depart from it was unconstitutional. He had remarked a passage in one of the public journals a few days ago, where reference was made to an incident bearing upon the subject before the House. The late Sir Robert Peel was asked his opinion upon the draught of a new Constitution for Greece. On examining it he put his finger upon what appeared to him to be a blot in it. By its provisions the House of Representatives would have been allowed to propose grants of public money; and he expressed the opinion that a Constitution framed in imitation of England's could not possibly be carried out unless the House of Representatives were prevented from taking the initiative in making grants of public money or imposing taxes upon the people. Recent events had verified the soundness of his observation. A crisis had recently been brought about in consequence of an attempt to violate that principle of the Greek Constitution, and the Sovereign had succeeded in vindicating it by obtaining an ascendancy over his Parliament in an attempt to deal with the public money except on the requisition of the Crown. It might be said that it was not desirable that they should tie their hands, and every Member doubtless believed he was wise and acute enough to be trusted; but, in his opinion, nothing was more desirable than that a public assembly should tie their hands in this respect. It was useless for the House to attempt to reduce the expenses of the country after they had been increased by Acts of Parliament brought in by private Members; and it was idle to complain of the evil consequences brought upon them by the system to which he had referred. The whole responsibility of increasing public expenditure should be thrown upon Her Majesty's Ministers, and Parliament should not permit them to say they would have been more economical had it not been for the House of Commons. He trusted the House would not charge him with presumption in having brought the matter forward; the suggestion was not entirely his own, but it accorded with his ideas. It had long been the practice of the House not to interfere in providing money for the general service of the country; and they had now to deal with what they might deem the escape in the restrictions imposed, and to say whether they would stop this gap and suppress these indirect applications for money by a Standing Order. He had been led to consider the matter by a very sensible increase in the Civil Service Votes three years ago, and though he could not then bring the subject forward he had deeply studied it. He would remind the House that the Civil Service Estimates had increased of late years from £4,500,000 to £9,000,000. If they wished to keep down these Estimates they must strike at the root of the evil, and cast upon the Government the whole responsibility. In this way only could the desired end be attained of keeping down the burdens of the people. He moved—

"That the Standing Order of the 25th of June, 1852, relating to applications for public money, be repealed, and, in lieu thereof, that this House will receive no Petition for any sum relating to Public Service, or proceed upon any Motion for a grant or charge upon the Public Revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of monies to be provided by Parliament, unless recommended from the Crown; that the Standing Order of the 25th of June, 1852, relating to public aids or charge upon the people, be repealed, and, in lieu thereof, that if any Motion be made in the House for any aid, grant, or charge upon the Public Revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of monies to be provided by Parliament, or for any charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof shall not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint, and then it shall be referred to a Committee of the whole House before any Resolution or Vote of the House do pass therein."

seconded the Motion.

I rise, Sir, for two reasons—first, because the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) appears to meet with the general approval of the House; secondly, to tender my thanks to my hon. Friend for having taken upon himself the task of raising this subject. I will not say one word after what has been so fully and ably stated by my hon. Friend upon the possible mischiefs of this practice of private Members bringing forward measures affecting the public revenue. It is a very young practice, but one which is sure to grow, as all evil things do grow in this evil world. I will just point out, in case it should he apprehended that the House is parting with any portion of its valuable liberty, that that is really not the case. The House will continue to have full authority to pronounce an opinion upon every proposition made by the executive Government, whether negatively or positively. I do not deny that it may be the business of the House to point out public charges which it may think ought to be incurred. It may be done by Resolution or by an Address to the Crown. The latter is the ancient and truly constitutional method of expressing the desire of the House that some public charge shall be incurred. The effect is not ultimately to bind the House, but to throw on the Crown the responsibility of accepting or declining that Address. The House, even after the Motion of my hon. Friend may have been adopted, will be just as free to discharge its duty in recommending any public charge as it is at the present moment. No doubt that is a privilege which the House exercises with very great reserve, and I am certain that great and wise reserve will continue. In reference to what my hon. Friend mentioned respecting the Constitution of a foreign country in Sir Robert Peel's time, I believe that in all cases of legislation—certainly in the great eases of legislation we have had in this House within the last thirty years for Colonial Constitutions—we have been most careful to introduce this provision. In Canada, before the present Constitution was established, the proposals by private Members to make grants of public money became so numerous and glaring that a remedy was necessary. The remedy was to introduce this provision. I believe it has been successful, and that the practice is now becoming a recognized principle of the British Government at home and in the colonies. In assisting us to stop this leak—for such it is—my hon. Friend is only giving consistent efficacy to rules which, having undoubted authority on their side, should always be our guide.

said, he thought no one could doubt that the object of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was in entire conformity with the constitutional practice of the House. He agreed with the Motion of the hon. Member, and thought he deserved the thanks of the House. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remarked upon the only point of doubt which would occur to any one's mind upon the subject. It was clear that every petition and Motion for a grant of public money should, on the ground of economy, and for the safety of the people, be initiated by the responsible Ministers of the Crown. On the other hand, there were cases where they might deem it right to initiate such a Motion. For instance, in the case of a public officer who might have a wrong done him an application might have to be made to that House for redress or compensation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that was a point which might be met in two ways—either by a Resolution or an Address. He doubted whether it could be met by a Resolution, but thought it could be by an Address. There was one very great inconvenience, however, attaching to Addresses to the Crown—namely, that they were carried upon one Motion, and one only. Strongly as he would urge on the House the propriety of retaining the opportunity of addressing the Crown, even for pecuniary grants to redress a wrong done by a Minister, he would also urge on the House the propriety of having some new Standing Order requiring Addresses to the Crown, whether involving money grants or not, to be confirmed by a second decision of the House before they were finally carried. He would also observe that the Standing Order which was about to be passed was confined to two points—namely, Petitions and Motions. It was desirable to consider whether it ought not to be extended so as to meet the greatest abuse of all—namely, that in regard to Bills.

said, he shared entirely in the feeling of gratitude which had been expressed towards the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for introducing that subject, and also concurred in the Motion which he had laid on the table. That Motion appeared to him to meet the case of the Bills to which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had referred. Surely the Motion even for the second reading of a Bill would entirely cover the whole of the contents of that Bill; and still more when they came to the Committee, and the Motion there was that a clause containing a money grant should stand part of the Bill, it was hardly possible to say that that was not a Motion within the meaning of the hon. Member's proposal. The suggestion thrown out by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) as to enabling the House more maturely to consider Addresses to the Crown, was well deserving attention. Supposing such an Address to involve a grant of public money, it would seem to come under the second Resolution requiring all grants to be considered in Committee of the whole House. Be that as it might, the point was one well worthy of attention. It would then be very desirable that such an Address involving a grant of money as its consequence, should be reported from the Committee of the Whole House to the House itself, and the consideration of such Report be postponed to a subsequent day, or some other formal stage of that character be interposed, so as to enable the House to apply a check, if it thought fit, in such cases. The hon. Member's proposal, they must all agree, was a step in the right direction. They did not seek to deprive any one of an opportunity of approaching the Crown who had a legitimate ground of claim upon the Crown. What they desired was that the answer should be given by the Minister of the Crown on his responsibility. At present these Motions were made in the House, and it was the business of nobody to resist them; and the hon. Member had pointed out how they escaped resistance. But that would be remedied by the adoption of some such plan as that now before them.

said, that agreeing as he did with the object which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had in view, he still thought his Amendment required further consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the proposed alteration of the Standing Order would not tie up the hands of the House, or in any manner prejudice its privileges or its usefulness. Let him attempt to illustrate the case by a remarkable hypothesis which might possibly be realized in our history, as it had been before. Suppose the country were involved in a war, and that during its prosecution the Ministry were engaged in the negotiation of a peace. A Motion might be brought forward by a Member of that House condemning the Ministry and expressing want of confidence in them; but the real object and gist of the Motion and the whole debate upon it might turn upon the question whether peace should be made or not. Now, although the House had no right to decide directly on the question of peace or war, there could be no doubt that it could do so indirectly by agreeing to a Motion of Want of Confidence in the Government. But such a Motion would come within the proposed Standing Order, because, by continuing the war, a charge would, of course, be imposed on the public. If, therefore, the present Amendment were adopted, he apprehended that such a Motion of Want of Confidence in the Government, under the circumstances supposed, could not be brought forward without the consent of the Ministry of the day. That was a point of sufficient gravity to induce the House to pause before it assented to the proposal now before it. It might be possible so to modify the words of the Amendment as to meet such a difficulty if it should occur; but it was easy to conceive other cases in which the same objection would arise. Perhaps it would be said that the case which he had put, and analogous ones, might be met by Members not moving a Vote of Want of Confidence, but proposing an Address direct to the Crown. That might be so; but then Members of that House ought not to be shackled in respect to the mode in which, in the exercise of their judgment, and having regard to the interests of the country, they might deem it best to bring forward a question of great importance.

said, that the Amendment was not confined to Motions for the grant of public money, but extended to petitions in relation to any grant from, or charge upon, the public funds. The hon. Mover said it was the present law. As he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) thought the present law ought to be altered, he wished to call attention to it. Being a member of the Petitions' Committee he could state that there was hardly a meeting of that Committee at which petitions were not rejected on account of their praying for a grant of public money or some similar informality. Among the petitions, for example, relating to the cattle plague there were some which prayed for compensation partly out of the local rates, and partly from the Consolidated Fund; and every such petition was rejected. Again, many petitions coming from Ireland, having reference to medical charities and the like, were rejected on the same ground. Why should there be any Standing Order of that kind in regard to petitions? He believed that the practice of the House was formerly that anybody might originate a Motion upon a petition, when it might be discussed. He could see great inconvenience in allowing independent Members to move grants of public money, but there could be none in allowing constituents to petition the House in reference to such grants. This matter had been discussed in the Petitions' Committee, and it was the unanimous opinion of the members of that Committee that the Standing Order was worthless. He suggested that the words relating to petitions in the proposed Standing Order be omitted.

said, he hoped that if this Amendment were agreed to it would have the effect the hon. Member expected in lessening the public expenditure. He could not say he was very sanguine in that matter. Its effect would, he thought, be this—that if it applied to clauses in Bills it would bring back the old system of having the clauses printed in italics. The real matter, however, was this—every one now wanted everything to be done for him, everybody wanted to be paid for what he did, and everybody said that unless he were well paid it was not to be expected that it would be well done. It was like rat hunting, as soon as one hole was covered over the rats made their way through another. He did not think, therefore, that they would stop expense, although he admitted that the attempt to reduce public expenditure was a laudable one. If this proposition was to be really effectual to prevent Members bringing in Bills to do all sorts of things, and to remedy all sorts of evils, real or imaginary, the immediate consequence would be that the bringing in of these Bills would be thrown upon the Government, whereas at present the larger portion of such legislation was in the hands of private Members. One effect of the hon. Member's proposition would be the placing of great power in the hands of the Government with respect to the admission of clauses to Bills that might be introduced. He, however, considered that the Government were responsible for all such clauses, and that they ought not to allow them to pass unless they gave their approval to them. He should be glad if the hon. Member should prove successful, for he (Mr. Henley) was friendly to any thing of this kind.

said, that the hole which had let in these demands upon the public money was due to some ingenious Member of the other House. The proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, if it were adopted, would administer a considerable cheek to a very bad practice. With respect to Addresses to the Crown relating to grants of money, he would suggest that the proceeding should not be completed in one day, and thus he thought the object of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) would be attained. A great difficulty arose from the wording of the Standing Order; for, after looking at it, and considering what the House was in the habit of doing, it was not easy to see how the Order and the procedure of the House harmonized. As some doubt as to the Standing Orders affecting grants of money was entertained by various hon. Gentlemen, he suggested the appointment of a Committee, comprising Members familiar with the business of the House, to take into consideration the Standing Orders as well as those points affecting them indicated by hon. Members who had spoken on the subject. He had no doubt that in this way the object they all had in view would be effected.

said, that he did not think it was necessary to submit the Standing Orders to the investigation of a Committee. He did not intend to touch the Standing Order 320—regulating the presentation of petitions—which had been referred to in the course of the discussion. What he proposed was to take the Standing Order affecting grants of money as it was, enlarge the Bills and Motions which were prospective in their charges, and place them on precisely the same footing as if for a present charge. The change was simple, and could easily be effected. With respect to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), the objection to it was that, as he himself and other hon. Members who took an interest in the question were now engaged on other Committees, it would be impossible for them for a long time to undertake to serve on a Select Committee to consider the Standing Orders. He hoped, therefore, his right hon. Friend would not press his suggestion.

said, he rose to move an Address to Her Majesty, humbly praying Her Majesty to cause to be laid upon the table of the House any Papers with regard to the Appropriation Bill in Victoria, in addition to those which had been already produced. If the Secretary for the Colonies should think it worth while to accept from him any praise, he would with all his heart award the right hon. Gentleman the highest encomiums for the course which he had taken in this matter, and for the two most excellent despatches which adorned the book he held in his hand. The Governor (Sir Charles Darling), although open to the severest censure, had been recalled; he was now functus officio. He was a dead man, as it were, and therefore he (Lord Robert Montagu) would not think it worth his while further to allude to him, except where the narrative obliged him to mention his name. Between nine and ten years ago the colony of Victoria received its Constitution. Under that Constitution two Chambers were formed. The Upper and the Lower Chambers are both elective; but the franchise for the electors of the Upper Chamber was high, for that Chamber was to take the place of the House of Lords in this country. Now, the colonists in their petition to the Queen alluded to the character of that Chamber. They said—

"The Legislative Council of this colony is an elective body composed of thirty members, and is elected by persons possessed of a certain freehold or leasehold qualification, by graduates of any recognized University, by members of the learned professions, by ministers of religion, and by officers of your Majesty's military or naval service. These qualifications on the part of the electors have rendered the Council a fair reflex of the property, education, and intelligence of the community."

According to the Constitution, the Lower Chamber was elected by £10 householders; but since the Constitution was established they had the misfortune to pass a Reform Bill, and the franchise had already been reduced to an universal suffrage. His narrative would show how the people of Victoria were enjoying the blessings of democracy. There was a general election in the colony in October, 1864. The question before the country was the reduction of the tariff. Mr. M'Culloch was at that time the Chief Secretary, and he was a well-known free trader. Mr. Michie was Minister of Jus- tice, and he called himself "an uncompromising free trader." Mr. Higginbotham (the Attorney General) was also a freetrader, and he said he would leave the Ministry sooner than allow protection to be proposed. These were, no doubt, all honourable men; they possessed undoubted talent; they had deliberately come to the conclusion that free trade was the most beneficial policy for the country Yet as soon as they found that the universal suffrage electors turned against free trade they were driven before the popular breeze, and had to accept protection for their policy. Now, the Governor (Sir Charles Darling) had in Despatch No 1 to the right hon. Gentleman stated upon what the election had turned. He said—

"If I may judge by the declarations of opinion which have proceeded from the candidates for election to both Houses, and the results of the elections, I should come to the conclusion that what is designated 'protection to native industry, by means of levying import duties upon articles which may possibly be grown or manufactured in the colony, instead of upon those which must be derived from extra-colonial sources, together with a decrease of qualification and duration of period of service of the members of Council, are the points upon which the contests, especially at the more recent elections, have turned; and that the popular opinion has been decidedly in favour of those views."

Now, the people desired to reduce the qualification of the Legislative Council, or Upper Chamber, because their object was to make them amenable to the will of the Assembly or Lower Chamber. After these elections, and after the people had plainly expressed these views, the Ministers turned round in favour of protection. The Houses met on the 28th of January, 1865; and no sooner did they proceed to business than these free trade Ministers, M'Culloch and the rest of them, who had said they would abandon any Ministry who would dare to propose a measure of protection, introduced resolutions for a new and amended tariff of a most complicated, vexatious, and protective character. These resolutions passed the House. Immediately the Chief Secretary made this announcement—that he did not intend to embody them in a Bill, and send them at once to the Upper Chamber, but that he would proceed to levy the duties upon the fiat of the Lower Chamber, and wait until the close of the Session, when the Appropriation Bill would be introduced, and then he would tack them to that Bill. The avowed object of that irregular proceeding was to rob the Upper Chamber of its right to consider the reso- lutions. Sir Charles Darling, in writing home, said that there had been

"An announcement made by the Ministers in the Assembly that it is their present intention to embody the new tariff which has recently passed that House in the principal Appropriation Act of the Session, with a view of deterring the Council from rejecting the tariff, which there is much reason to believe will meet with but little favour in that branch of the Legislature,"

And at page 39 Sir Charles Darling said—

"I acquainted you with the avowed intention of the Assembly to unite the tariff with the Appropriation Bill, mentioning that the proposed combination was considered to be justified by the precedent of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill; and adding that this was done with the object of deterring the Council from rejecting the tariff."

Let it be observed that the Ministry proceeded all this while to levy the duties, although they had not been sanctioned by the Upper Chamber, or by the Crown in the person of the Governor. Sir Charles Darling went on to repeat that the policy of the Lower Chamber

"Is justified, generally, upon the precedent of Mr. Gladstone's proceedings in the case of the Paper Duties Repeal Act, and a considerable majority of the Assembly appear determined to support them in that policy which is, in effect, their own,"

But surely the popular Assembly of Victoria in attempting to imitate the proceedings of the House of Commons was only caricaturing those proceedings, and making them worse. The Bill was not sent to the Upper Chamber until the 25th of July following, and during the intervening six months the duties were levied. What did the Upper Chamber do? They were justified in feeling indignant with the Lower Chamber, they might reasonably, and made a strong protest; they might have been excused for standing harshly on their rights. But, so far from showing any passion, they proceeded calmly in the most legal and orderly manner. They appointed a committee to search for precedents. What were the precedents which the committee found? In the first place, there was the despatch written by Lord Grey, which was intended to be the text-book of all Colonial Governments. It was written to the Governor of Jamaica in 1849, and was to be found in his hook on the Colonial Policy of Lord John Russell. Earl Grey said—

"Although I am equally aware of the cogency of the motives which induced you to assent to the Import Duties Bill, notwithstanding the clauses of appropriation attached to it, I have to instruct you not in future to admit of any innovation on the regular and constitutional practice of keeping Revenue and Appropriation Bills separate from each other; assuming that to have been, as I understand it to be, the case, a practice as fully established in Jamaica as it has been in this country, and in the other colonies whose Constitutions have been modelled on our own. It is a practice which cannot be departed from without danger."

They also found other precedents—one of them was a Resolution of the House of Lords which was made a Standing Order in December, 1702. It was as follows:—

"That the annexing any clause or clauses to a Bill of aid or supply, the matter of which is foreign to and different from the said Bill of aid or supply, is unparliamentary, and tends to the destruction of the constitution of the Government."

The Upper Chamber, therefore, passed a resolution that it was irregular and unconstitutional to tack a Tariff Bill to an Appropriation Bill, and that the Bill in question should be laid aside. That was done on the 25th of July. Four days afterwards, on July 29th, the Ministry, backed up by the popular Assembly, put, by means of the Governor, the screw upon the Upper Chamber. A Treasury Minute was issued to the effect that, in consequence of the action of the Upper Chamber in not passing the Bill, the payment of wages and salaries must be deferred; that no public works could be prosecuted, and that the Governor had not a right to touch a farthing of the public money. The screw thus applied was unsuccessful. It had, as we shall presently see, to be taken off in about six weeks. When the appropriation-cum-tariff Bill was rejected by the Upper House, actions were brought in the Supreme Court against the Ministers for the recovery of the duties which had been levied under the new tariff. The Chief Justice there decided that the plea of the Ministry was unconstitutional and contrary to law, and damages and costs were in consequence awarded against them. What did the Attorney General do under the circumstances? He in open court threatened that a Bill should pass the House, retrospective in its nature, which would have the effect of quashing all those judgments and robbing all the poor people of the money and costs which they had obtained at the hands of a jury. Subsequently it will be seen that this threat was carried into execution. The new duties were still levied in defiance of the court. The Ministry finding, after the lapse of the six weeks which he had already mentioned, that the Upper Chamber stood firm, resolved to remove the screw which they had imposed. The Treasury notice had been daily advertized in the papers for six weeks; they now ordered it to be withdrawn. A message was then sent up to the Upper Chamber to say, that owing to the great inconvenience to Ministers and others who received salaries, an arrangement had been made which would shortly be put in practice. What that arrangement was they soon discovered. The public revenue of the colony was paid into six banks at Melbourne. The Ministry applied to those banks asking them for a cash credit to the amount of the balance of public money in their hands. Five of the banks took counsel's opinion, and declined to comply with the request. One bank, however—the London Chartered Bank—whose sole director was Mr. M'Culloch himself, the Chief Secretary, expressed its readiness to accede to the proposal. That message was sent to the Upper Chamber on the 5th of September. On the very next day £40,000 was advanced to the Government. Immediately an action was brought against them in the Supreme Court for that amount. The Attorney General appeared and confessed judgment. The Ministry took advantage of a clause in another Act which stated that money awarded by the judgment of the Supreme Court was "legally available;" and thus this sum was transferred from the public account to the Governor's private account. These operations were repeated until they had succeeded in getting into their hands no less a sum than £500,000. Such was the miserable dodge to which a popular Ministry resorted; judgment having been confessed by the law officers, the necessary certificate was given by the Audit Commissioners, and the amount owing to the bank was repaid by issues from the public accounts. By means of these collusive judgments, all the Parliamentary funds were paid away without the sanction of Parliament. All the while, however, the Ministry were aware that they were perverting the Act from its original purpose. This is Sir Charles Darling's account of the transaction—

"Sums have been obtained from time to time from the London Chartered Bank of Australia; judgment has been confessed by a law officer of the Crown; the necessary certificate given by the Audit Commissioners; and the amount owing to the Bank repaid by issues from the Public Ac- count.…I do not maintain for a moment that the law to which I have referred was intended to be practically applied for the purpose which, in this instance, it has been made to sub-serve."

The Secretary for the Colonies in his latest despatches to Sir Charles Darling made some comments on that which were deserving of approval. He said—

"The effect was practically to transfer the public money out of the 'public account,' from which the Bank could not ordinarily issue it without the Audit Commissioners' certificate, to another account, entirely under the control of the Government.…By such a mode of procedure the Governor and his Government, with the co-operation of a local Bank, may at any time withdraw any amount of Public Funds from the 'Public Account' to which it is consigned by law, and place it at their own command, relieved from all those checks with which the Legislature has surrounded it,"

At the beginning of October an attempt was made to put an end to the difficulty. But from what quarter did it proceed? From the Lower Chamber? No. They, on the contrary, passed three resolutions copied from Resolutions which were passed by this House, appending to them, however, another of a still stronger character, which he would read to the House. It was written neither in very good English nor in a very good spirit. Indeed, the remark as to its being written in very bad English applied to most of the documents which emanated from the popular Assembly in Australia; the Upper House being in reality the reflex of the intelligence and education of the country. The conclusion of the resolution to which he referred was as follows:—

"This House hereby declares its determination not to entertain any further or other Bill for the appropriation of supplies for the service of the year 1865, until the rightful control of this House over taxation and supply shall have been acknowledged by the adoption by the Legislative Council (or Upper Chamber) of the tariff approved by this House and contained in a schedule to the said first-mentioned Bill."

It would be seen, then, that the Lower House had passed a resolution to the effect that until the Upper Chamber knocked under and became submissive, the popular Assembly would not send up an Appropriation Bill. To that haughty determination they seemed resolved to adhere, without taking any step to get rid of the dead lock to which things had come. It was by the Upper Chamber, representing the wealth, the intelligence, and the education of the country, that the first step towards conciliation was made, on October 3rd, They passed a resolution asking the Lower House to agree to the appointment of a joint committee to prepare a case for reference to the Privy Council, whose decision should be binding on both parties. The proposal, however, met from the Lower House with a flat denial. Thus matters remained until the 25th of October, when another resolution passed the Upper Chamber, asking the Lower House to appoint a joint committee to consider what course it was best to pursue as to the questions at issue. The Lower House replied that until the Upper Chamber gave way they would not consent even to confer with them. On the 7th of November the Attorney General's threat was executed. The Tariff Bill was separated from the Appropriation Bill, and was sent to the Upper Chamber; but it contained a retrospective clause, which would have the effect of quashing all the judgments which had been obtained during the previous eight months. It was consequently rejected by the Upper House on the 16th of November. Thereupon the Ministry took it into their heads to commit another illegal action. Mr. M'Culloch, he believed, was connected with the tea and sugar trade, as well as being a banker. The reduced duties merely on those articles were still collected, and actions were, therefore, brought against the Government because they did not collect the full amount of the duties which by law were enacted. The Government, however, resorted to still worse measures and more illegal deeds for obtaining funds. They revived a Bill entitled the Units of Entry Bill, one of the most perplexing, complicated, and vexatious systems for interfering with trade which could be devised. It had been passed some time previously only for the space of one year, had then been sent home, but had never received the Royal assent; the Secretary for the Colonies, he understood, regarded it as so bad a Bill that he wrote back word that the Royal veto would have been sent out if it could have arrived in the colony before the year for which the Bill was to last had expired. With a view to getting out of the difficulty, the Governor thought of a dissolution; and I on the 21st of November he consulted the Ministers as to the policy of dissolving Parliament. The Ministers said they would not dissolve, because that would be abandoning the popular Assembly in the assertion of what they conceived to be their rights. The Governor himself used this remarkable expression—"As to dissolving, that would only aggravate the evil, because the Ministry are driven on by popular cla- mour." Sir Charles Darling also wrote on the 25th of September—

"I think there is a spirit aroused just now which will scarcely be satisfied with anything short of a reform of the constitution of the Council (or Upper Chamber)."

He was borne out by facts. Numerous large meetings were got up. One of them was held in the suburbs of Melbourne on the 18th of September, and passed a resolution, as usual not in good English—the populace have as great a contempt for the Queen's English as for British law—in the following terms:—

"That while this meeting is willing to accord to the Legislative Council the privileges of a branch of the Legislature, it is still of opinion that, looking at the irresponsible power invested in that body by the Constitution Act, and their obstruction to the popular wishes of the country, considers it advisable that an urgent, loyal, and emphatic appeal be made, without delay, to the Imperial Parliament for such an alteration of the constitution of the Upper House as will render it in some degree amenable to the popular will and control."

On the 28th of November, that is to say, a week after the Governor had consulted the Ministry, and they had advised against a dissolution, the Governor dissolved the Chambers. From the Melbourne Argus, which has just arrived, we find that this popular Ministry are in a state of absolute sedition; they are going about the country making speeches and saying that they will not stand the interference of England, Mr. Michie, the Minister of Justice, speaking of the British Constitution, said (as described in the Argus)—

"He did not care that for it, suiting the action to the word, and expressing, in a tone and manner which are characteristic, supreme contempt for the opinion of the Secretary of State and of all others opposed to the policy of the [Victorian] Cabinet."

He had now finished his narrative, but he wished to comment on one or two points. They bad seen how a dead lock was brought about by the Lower House levying certain duties directly they had passed resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means before the Upper Chamber had sanctioned them. It was our practice here to pass similar Resolutions, and the duties were immediately levied, before the other House had given its sanction to the measure. In 1848, in answer to Mr. R. C. Hildyard, the Attorney General of the day, stated the rule to be this—

"If the House of Commons resolved that a given duty should be imposed upon goods before they were entered for home consumption, it was fairly to be presumed (and the practice proceeded upon the presumption) that the House would pass a Bill founded upon that resolution; and, as the Bill related to a matter of money, it was not supposed that the other House would interfere with the resolution. The Government would therefore give an order to officers to act on that resolution. He admitted that an action would lie; but before it would be ripe for investigation the Act of Parliament would have received Her Majesty's assent that "from and after that date such and such duties should be levied," and that would be a perfect answer to the action."

But suppose the other House should not sanction them? It was only in 1861 that the Lords rejected a Resolution. This fortunately did not bring us to a dead lock, because it was not for levying but for remitting duties: that made the difference, which saved us from a dead lock. The Secretary of State in one of the two last despatches in the blue book, which despatches indeed formed a manual of constitutional government, and should be studied by everyone, said—

"The plea that taxes are levied in this country on a vote of the House of Commons before they are imposed by law is manifestly irrelevant. Such taxes are so levied because it is not doubted that the Bill imposing them as from the date of the resolution of the House of Commons on which the Bill is founded (and after which only they are levied) will become law, by the concurrence of the two other branches of the Legislature."

Suppose they did not concur, then we should be involved in a dead lock. It might cause inconvenience and unfair speculations in trade if duties were not levied immediately they were voted; but the evil of a dead lock would be far greater than this. This point was worthy of consideration with a view to the prevention of such a difficulty. The other point to which he wished to call attention was the operation of universal suffrage. A man who was a great Radical in this country, writing from Melbourne to a Liberal in this country, said—

"I am glad to see from the home papers that the Liberals have obtained again a majority, although I have considerably altered my opinion in regard to the suffrage, which here is extended to manhood, and you will observe from the papers sent you into what this country is drifting by manhood suffrage.…I am sorry to think we do not have such an intellectual array of able politicians as we have at home. The most of our public men are men of no education, who pander to the most depraved tastes.…I can assure you that if you were here to see the evil effects of manhood suffrage, and also to think of the evils it has caused in America, it would make one pause before thinking of an extension of the franchise at home."

[Mr. CHILDERS: What name?] He supposed there was no objection to his reading the name and address, as the letter was not confidential, and there was nothing in it for which anyone could feel shame. They were J. M. Thompson, 52, Rosslyn Street, Melbourne. This letter showed what were the consequences of reducing the franchise. The House of Commons was asked to take a leap in the dark, to reduce the franchise without knowing what the real effect would be. Many had gone out from this country to America as Radicals and had soon become Conservatives there. He believed it was the famous actor Kean who went to America as a Radical and on returning said—"Give me a Nero if you will, hut never give me manhood suffrage." Should not the judgment of those who had experience warn those who had never tried its effects? The Melbourne Argus—The Times of the colony—said—

"The petition of the Council to the Queen will speak for itself, and will fully assert the intellectual and moral fitness of the Council (or Upper Chamber) to act as a bulwark against the attempts of those who openly avow their desire to substitute for the two Chambers at present existing one which would be an immediate reflex of popular clamour and caprice, and to which it would be impossible for a Governor, or for the wiser classes of the community, to oppose an effectual resistance."

In Victoria both the Upper and the Lower Chambers were elective. The voters who elected the Upper Chamber also voted for the Lower one; but the Upper Chamber was elected by the voters of a high qualification; to these in the election of the Lower Chamber were added the working classes. That was the only difference between the constituencies of the two Chambers, It was a rule of logic that where there was a difference of effect it must be due to a difference of cause. Here the only difference of cause was that difference between the two electoral bodies—the addition of the working classes to the electors who chose the Upper House. What, then, was the difference in effect? The Upper Chamber "which represented the intellect, the education, and the wealth" of the colony, adopted an enlightened commercial policy, showed a reverence for the law, and offered a determined resistance to all encroachments on the Constitution. The Lower Chamber, following a blind and exploded policy, exhibited disregard for tin-law, nay, even substituted popular caprice for the law, and overbore, like a mountain torrent, everything that stood in its way, or opposed and thwarted its will. In New South Wales there were also two Chambers, but while the Lower Chamber was elected by universal suffrage the Upper Chamber was nominated by the Governor. Another rule of logic was that where the effect was the same it was due to the same cause. With an elected Upper Chamber in the one case and a nominated Upper Chamber in the other, the Lower Chamber in both was elected by universal suffrage. In both there was the same result—a collision between the two Chambers, and the Upper Chamber overborne; for that of New South Wales had been swamped by newly created members to make it subservient to the Lower Chamber. This showed how democracy dealt with those wholesome checks which the wisdom of our ancestors invented to rein up the changing passions of men. The solemn majesty of the supreme Court was treated with defiance; the steady deliberations of the Upper Chamber met with scorn; while the Lower Chamber, blown hither and thither by the inconstant breath of popular opinion, had resorted to a blind and foolish commercial policy, and to the illegal levying of unenacted duties, to a haughty defiance of legal decisions; to forced loans and collusive judgments, until at length both sides, wearied of responsible Government, fly from anarchy to a despotic interference in their broils. The illegal loans and ship money of Charles I. might be enforced by an elected Chamber And this was far more perilous to representative Government; because no Hampden dares to defend the Constitution against an agitated and headstrong populace The noble Lord concluded by moving an Address for additional Papers concerning the dispute between the Houses of Legislature in the Colony of Victoria with regard to the Appropriation Bill of 1865.

said, that he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. He would refer to circumstances connected with the establishment of Victoria as a distinct colony from New South Wales, and to the original institution in those two colonies of what was called responsible Government, though it was hardly in his power to add anything to what had been so ably stated by the noble Lord. Having resided in the colony, and having paid considerable attention to what had there occurred, he thought the noble Lord had correctly described the state of the colony and the general tendency of its institutions. The practically-universal suffrage which existed was the fons et origo mali. With respect to Victoria, he wished to say a few words with respect to its tariffs. Many of the items were taxed very heavily. In the tariff which had been alluded to a great many items were put down, and among them was the item of varnish. Now, what could be the reason for inserting varnish in the tariff, unless it were that some Member of the Assembly was interested in the varnish trade? Again, of all things in the world, salt was taxed: that must be for something like the same reason. Doors and window sashes were also among the protected articles in the tariff, and their insertion seemed to indicate the influence of a carpenters' trades' union. In like manner, it might be depended on that if the franchise were lowered in this country the House of Commons would be under the dominion of trades' unions. After reading the despatches presented to the House, he felt bound to declare that there was one person who deserved the highest praise, and that was the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell), who throughout the whole of this matter appeared to have acted most judiciously and wisely.

said, he did not wish to discuss the merits of the controversy which had arisen between the two Houses of Legislature in Victoria, but, having read the despatches very carefully, he hoped he might be allowed to say that in his opinion the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell) had come to a most correct judgment in the matter, and had expressed that judgment in his despatches in the most judicious and well-chosen language. The right hon. Gentleman had blamed and withdrawn the Governor for having made himself a partizan in the dispute, but had not expressed any opinion on the dispute itself. In that course he most entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. However much it might be regretted that the Assembly of Victoria had adopted what in this country would be deemed a retrograde system of legislation, it was evidently not the duty of this country to interfere by coercive means or by holding out a threat to the people of the colony. He would make a few remarks which might elicit some expression of opinion as to the manner in which the Government of this country should act with respect to the general question of protective tariffs adopted by its colonies. He looked on this as an important matter, because it was much to be desired that a friendly feeling between this country and the colonies should be maintained, so that when at length a separation occurred that separation should take place under friendly conditions. If such was to be the case, it was of the utmost importance that the people of the colony should not run counter, as they were now doing, to the commercial policy which had been adopted by that House. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman what course the Government intended to take in this matter. He was quite aware that they could not interfere by violent means; but when the Government had negotiated treaties of commerce with the great military monarchies of France and Austria—when they had shown that it was not hopeless to overcome the prejudices that existed in those countries and induce them, if not to enter into free trade, at least to take a step in that direction—surely the Government might do something in the way of inducing our colonies not to recede from the policy of free trade between themselves and the Home Government. The system of protective duties, which had already come to something like a crisis in Victoria, was not new in our colonial history. For many years Canada had imposed protective duties on our goods, and they were maintained to the present day. Some years ago the effect produced by an increase of duties on goods entering Canada exported from this country was so remarkable that a Chamber of Commerce—he believed of Sheffield—addressed a communication on the subject to the Government, and a despatch was sent out to Canada by the Colonial Secretary, then the Duke of Newcastle, and the result was the Colonial Government replied, it was their affair not ours, and they would do exactly as they liked as to imposing duties on our goods. He frankly admitted that they had a right to do so; but they did so to raise up a protective industry in the colony. It might be said that protective duties were imposed for the sake of revenue, but the effect had certainly been to raise up a protected interest in Canada. Evidence of this would be found in the statement made by the Finance Minister of Canada in 1862, when he said that the duties on goods imported into Canada were stationary; but he added this was a matter of congratulation rather than regret, because it showed that the native manufactures were increasing, being protected by those duties. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why no remonstrance had ever been sent out to Canada on this subject? When negotiation took place last year with the delegates from Canada, was the subject of import duties on goods discussed? Was no remonstrance made in relation to this matter when the Government undertook to recommend to Parliament to guarantee a loan for a railway in Canada and for other purposes? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies would say that that was of no use when they could not back them up by a stronger force. Still, when last year the fortifications of that colony were under discussion, why did not the right hon. Gentleman mention this matter to the Canadian Ministers? He also wished to know what the Government intended to do in the case of the protective tariff in Victoria? He was willing to admit that it would not do to adopt a tone of menace to the colonies. We ought to proceed with extreme caution in this matter; but, looking to the result of the protective duties which had existed many years in Canada, which now existed there, and which there was no inclination to abate, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think he (Mr. Aytoun) sought too much when he asked, first, whether the course now pursued by the colonies might not have the effect of weakening the ties which subsisted between this country and her colonies, and of greatly accelerating the period of separation; and secondly, what steps it was possible for the Government to take in order to induce the colonies to revert to that system of free trade which formerly prevailed between them and the mother country?

Sir, this is a Motion for papers; and my reply with regard to them is, that an answer has been received from the Governor of Victoria to the first despatch among these papers, and that j answer is in preparation to be laid on the table of the House. With regard to the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu), I will say if it had been any criticism on the action of the executive Government at home, it would have been my duty to enter fully into the discussion of the course which has been pursued; but so far as I am concerned nothing could be more gratifying than the tone taken by the noble Lord and those who followed him. All that I have to regret is that the debate has taken place before the whole papers were on the table I should have been glad, as I stated to the noble Lord, that the Motion had been postponed with that view; but he thought from the turn the discussion was likely to take it was not advisable to postpone it. Now, with regard to the whole case I have one desire, one opinion which I wish most strongly to impress on the House, I do earnestly hope that we are not about to constitute ourselves into a court of appeal with regard to colonial matters. When the question is whether you should require a Governor to observe the law, you have no alternative but to insist on its observance in the colony, but when it is a question of the autonomic action of the colony, I can conceive nothing more calculated to sever the tie between the colony and the mother country than that there should be in this House any disposition to constitute ourselves the judges of their rights, the guardians of their interests, or the interpreters of their policy and their wishes. We have deliberately determined to leave these matters to themselves, and I earnestly and sincerely hope that we shall not by any discussion that occurs here give rise to an opinion that we regret the course we have taken in that respect. My hon. Friend who has just sat down asks me what my opinion is on the subject of a protective policy being adopted by a colony. My views on protective duties are, I hope, well known so far as regards their bearing on this or any other country; but if we are to say that the Victoria Assembly ought to be censured because it has not yet arrived at what we consider sound opinions on this question, we ought to remember that the day is not very far back when we ourselves held opinions very different from those we now entertain. And when my hon. Friend speaks of that free trade that used to exist between us and our colonies, for which they are substituting what he calls the principles of restriction, I should rather have said, whatever may be the defects of colonial legislation, the true history of recent times has been that we have determined to shake off the mistaken policy of protection between ourselves and the colonies, to withdraw the restraints which, we imposed on them, and to encourage the adoption of an universal policy of free trade with all countries, as best calculated to promote the interests of all concerned. Then, I say, do not let us, in dealing with disputes that have arisen in Victoria, entangle ourselves with questions of who are in favour of protection and who not. Let us rather consider who is contravening the law and who supporting it. In this country we are on the side of the law, whatever the policy of the colonies may be. It has been my painful duty to recommend that the Governor of Victoria shall be relieved from his duty. My hon. Friend who has just sat down truly stated that the reason of this is to be found not in any errors I consider he had fallen into in the difficult circumstances in which I admit he was placed during the contest between the two branches of the Legislature. It appeared to me that the proposal he conveyed to me, that the Members of the former Executive Council should be deprived of the distinction they enjoyed, because they presented a petition to their Sovereign praying for redress of grievances, which I thought they were justly entitled to do, was couched in terms which rendered it impossible that the Governor who employed that language and adopted that course should be a safe guide to the colony or an impartial arbitrator of differences in the circumstances in which the colony was placed. I only hope that if in the course of this discussion any expressions have fallen from any hon. Member which may be calculated to give pain to anybody in the colony, such expressions will not be too much insisted on or thought of. I think it is of the utmost importance in the government of all our colonies that we should not only be conciliatory to them, but that, above all things, we should avoid casting imputations upon them in respect of matters within their own proper control, jurisdiction, and cognizance and particularly we should not evince a censorious disposition with regard to the manner in which they may exercise any part of their legislative functions. And when I hear remarks made upon the policy which those colonies have pursued, I hope we shall never forget from what small beginnings they have risen into large dominions, how rapidly they are progressing, and how materially they reproduce the greatness, the glory, and the power of this country in distant quarters of the globe. Let us remember that our institutions have not passed into the perfect state in which we now behold them by any sudden and rapid growth. We have had our infancy, contended with our difficulties, and grown slowly into mature life. Let us not, therefore, discourage the colonies by adopting a tone which they might deem uncourteous. I was reading the other day an interesting review of the growth of these very colonies, from the pen of an historian who is not unknown to this House, for, indeed, we see him daily sitting among us. Mr. May, in his excellent Constitutional History of England, speaking of these colonies in Australia, says—

"The transition from a state of control and pupilage to that of unrestrained freedom seems to have been too precipitate. Society, particularly in Australia, had scarcely bad time to prepare itself for the successful trial of so free a representation. The settlers of a new country were suddenly intrusted with uncontrolled power, before education, property, traditions, and usage had given stability to public opinion. Nor were they trained to freedom, like their English brethren, by many ennobling struggles and the patient exercise of public virtues.…Hitherto there have been many failures and discouragements in the experiment of colonial democracy. Yet the political future of these thriving communities affords far more grounds for hope than for despondency."

Now, let us not, in the first place, travel out of our province in order to censure the colonies; and, in the second place, when we differ from them, let us not be discouraged by temporary difficulties. Let us acknowledge the thriving power they possess and the tendency they evince to grow greater, and, above all, let us take care that we do not by discussions in this House engender feelings in our distant possessions of animosity towards the mother country.

said, he thought the House were much indebted to the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) for bringing forward a question of so much interest and usefulness, and in so able a manner. It would have been very unwise for them to pass over without notice events of such importance as those which had just occurred in the colony of Victoria. Whether the additional papers for which the noble Lord had moved would throw any additional light on the subject they could not tell, but, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had wisely remarked, they had not the Governor's case fully before them at present. Quite sufficient information, however, was in their possession to indicate the general character of the events which had taken place, and to render the discussion not a premature but a timely one. In fact, had the noble Lord's object been simply to call the attention of the House to what had occurred in the colony, it would, in his opinion, have required no apology, for it seemed to him that the House ought from time to time to be made acquainted with the principal events taking place in our colonies, especially in those which had within the last few years received representative institutions with the concurrence of the Imperial Parliament. In saying this he had no intention of asserting that the House should interfere in the internal affairs of colonies which enjoyed institutions as free as our own, for he should regard it as most disastrous were they to attempt again to undertake the conduct of colonies now possessing responsible governments of their own. They were indeed under the same Crown, but they controlled their own affairs, and had a government as constitutional, as representative, and as responsible as our own; so that this Parliament had no right or interest that would justify any interference with this Parliament in matters which were entirely within their own province, and for which we were not in the least degree responsible. He should like, indeed, to see the proper corollary of that position; he should like to see these self-governing communities accepting the legitimate consequences of their self-government, and maintaining the forces required for their own defence. Returning to the question more immediately before them, he must say that he was not at all prepared to admit what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) appeared to imply, that those free institutions had in any instance been prematurely conceded. He fully acknowledged the value of the work from which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, but he certainly took exception to the passage which implied that these free institutions had been too hastily granted. The fact was, that those concessions were only a recurrence to the earliest principles of our colonial policy, which were attended with much greater success than those subsequently followed. He could give no better proof of this than by mentioning the fact that Rhode Island at the present time retained the very Constitution which she originally received from this country He did not know whether the noble Lord's intention was to criticize in any way the conduct of the Colonial Secretary in this very difficult case, but the result had been to draw forth from every quarter of the House the warmest encomiums on the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman. He fully concurred in those encomiums, believing, as he did, that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct had been moderate, wise, and well considered. The right hon. Gentleman had had to deal with several other questions of difficulty, and in those, as in this, his policy had been such as to strengthen the influence of this country in her colonies, and to increase the confidence of the colonies in the mother country. It was not the province of Parliament to interfere with matters which came before the Colonial Legislatures, but they had a perfect right, and he hoped they would never cease to exercise it, to discuss the conduct of the Home Executive in the superintendence of colonial affairs. They were justified also in looking occasionally into those mirrors of our own Constitution which were placed around us in various parts of the world; not as a mere historical study or to see a sort of caricature of the anomalies existing at home; but to watch some of the most difficult problems of our Constitution worked out with a boldness which we could not venture to imitate, because we might learn wisdom as to experiments which were being made in this country from the more speedy results of the bolder experiments instituted there. He ventured to say that if any lesson was to be drawn from the recent occurrences in Victoria, it was a warning as to an unlimited infusion of democracy into British institutions. In America such an infusion was perfectly safe, because it harmonized with the principles of their Constitution; but, introduced into British institutions, the result was to make the Executive the absolute tool of the popular branch of the Legislature. In the present case, they found a man like Sir Charles Darling, who had acquired considerable reputation in other colonial governments, and had established for himself a high character, following the mere impulse of the popular will in the lower branch of the Legislature, and this almost confessedly in opposition to his own views, and certainly in opposition to the advice of the Ministers of the Crown, whose counsel he should have taken. If, then, they were to learn a lesson bearing on questions now before the House from these events in Victoria, it was a caution against admitting American democracy to pervade our English institutions. Putting new wine into old bottles, would only result in the bursting of the bottles. In America the difficulty was avoided by the separation of the Executive from the Legislature, and were the same experiments to be carried out here, they would have to adopt a similar safeguard. He had ven- tured to offer these remarks upon what seemed to him to be the most important aspect of the question, for they were all agreed in approving the conduct of the Home Government, and in deprecating any interference with problems which had to be settled by the colonists themselves.

said, he had deferred his Motion until the production of papers on the question, and it was by no means his object to criticize the recall of Sir Charles Darling, with whom the Government had, he believed, dealt justly, or to constitute that House a court of appeal on colonial subjects. His thoughts were entirely confined to this country, and his motive had been to draw from those occurrences a lesson for our own guidance, remembering that we could only profit either from events which had happened at former periods, or from those now taking place in other parts of the world. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) with respect to the papers, he begged permission to withdraw his Motion.

said, that he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the improvement of commons in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, and the protection thereof from nuisances. One of the fortunate circumstances in connection with the position of London was, that this capital was surrounded by a circle of fresh and breezy commons, where furze and broom flourished, and possessing the natural and unpretending charm of land never brought into cultivation. Within a radius of fifteen miles of London there were 180 commons, containing in the whole 10,500 acres. Prom the earliest times some of these had been village greens, used for the recreation and amusement of the people, and though the law did not acknowledge any right of the public in these commons unless the right had been restricted to some particular body, long usage had enabled the people to enjoy those commons without the risk of being dealt with as trespassers. No institution handed down to us from our Saxon forefathers had contributed more to the happiness of the people. The maintenance of those open spaces was important for the inhabitants of the metropolis at large, and they were essential to the success of the Volunteer movement by affording ground for drilling and prize shooting, which, but for the existence of commons, it would have been difficult, and, in some cases, perhaps, impossible to obtain. It must be remembered, too, that as in London are found the rulers of the Empire, the representatives of the people and the guides of the nation in science, art, and literature, whatever conduces to its salubrity and enjoyment is of national concern. But in proportion as the great Babel was encroaching on the country—just as those commons were becoming more valuable for the enjoyment and recreation of the people, they were being more menaced by the builder and the railway engineer. It was, therefore, a matter of moment to develop, as far as we could do so, the means of preventing them from being engulfed in building operations. The public policy in respect to these matters had been for years directed to encouraging the inclosure of waste lands. At the end of the last century there were seven million acres of land untouched, and large portions of these had since been cultivated. In an agricultural point of view inclosure was desirable; because in the present day no farmer liked to put his cattle on our commons. The commons in the neighbourhood of large towns, although not particularly valuable for agricultural purposes, were of immense importance as places of amusement and recreation, and in the Inclosure Act of 1845 a distinction was drawn in respect of all waste lands within a radius of fifteen miles round London, and in respect of all waste lands within a smaller radius round other towns. It was provided that as regarded waste lands so situated Parliament should have a more direct and particular control. He proposed by the Bill which he was about to introduce to renew that distinction, and provide that the Inclosure Commissioners should not take within the operation of their office any waste lands within fifteen miles of the metropolis. The proposal was to establish a Board of Commissioners who would act like the Inclosure Commissioners, with a different object. 'A careful examination into the circumstances of the commons round London showed that the dissatisfaction existing with regard to them mainly arose from the condition in which they were suffered to remain. They were ill-drained, boggy, cut up into gravel pits, frequented by tramps and disreputable persons, so that respectable persons wishing to resort to them were debarred from their enjoyment. The lord of the manor, upon whom the responsibility rested of keeping the common in order, ordinarily derived but a very small income from it, and was not prepared to spend his own money in draining and levelling the ground, from which improvements the benefit would be reaped by the commoners who turned out their cattle upon the improved pastures, rather than by himself. In the case of the Epsom Common it was represented to the inhabitants that they could derive little enjoyment from the common in its then boggy and swampy condition, but that the rates of the parish would be diminished by the increase of houses. It was stated that the lord of the manor had no pecuniary advantage in the inclosure; and therefore, merely because the common was damp, it was proposed to deprive the residents in the vicinity, as well as the people of London, who frequently resorted there by railway, of a fine, open, healthy space, abounding in beautiful views. Wimbledon Common, of which so much had been heard, last year appeared to have been taken in hand for pretty much the same reason. Lord Spencer stated that numberless representations had been made to him as to the want of drainage and police regulations upon the common. In accordance with those representations he thought it right, as lord of the manor, to consider in what manner the necessary expenses might best be met. Giving to the noble Lord the fullest credit for a desire to benefit the public, he yet took a course on that occasion which, under the circumstances, seemed unnecessary. For, not contented with taking steps to drain the common, he wished to improve it and make it into a park, obtaining the funds necessary for that purpose by the sale of portions of the common alleged to be particularly useful to the inhabitants. These latter, meanwhile, were quite willing to be rated for all purposes of necessary expenditure, so that the proposed outlay by the lord of the manor became quite unnecessary. There were many lords of manors who desired to render commons more useful and beneficial to the public, and one of the objects of his Bill was to call forth local energy, and facilitate the raising of money for drainage and other improvements which would render commons more suitable for purposes of recreation. The Board of Commissioners contemplated by the Bill was intended to consist of five persons, of whom one would be the First Commissioner of Works, another the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, a third, one of the Inclosure Commissioners, and the two remaining members would be nominated by the Crown, as persons interested in the subject, who would give their services gratuitously for the benefit of the public. The Commissioners would have the corporate power of holding land, if any should be given to them, for they knew by the evidence given before the Commission that several persons were desirous of giving over the rights which they possessed to any competent authority which might be established. Mr. Alcock, for instance, whose name was entitled to public respect, had expressed his wish to give over his rights, as lord of the manor, to upwards of 1,400 acres on Banstead Downs. The Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's were prepared to surrender their rights as lords of the manor over Barnes Common for the benefit of the public, and there were other lords of the manor inclined to follow their good example. The lords of the manor of portions of Clapham Common and Blackheath were favourable to some measure of this description, though they had not actually declared their approval of the provisions of this Bill; and there could be little doubt that many lords and commoners would avail themselves of the opportunity to surrender to a permanent body, acting as guardians of the public, rights which at present were only burdensome in their own hands, and which they had no wish to use in opposition to the public interest. Then, with reference to local management, the Commissioners that the Bill will constitute would proceed as the Inclosure Commissioners did, only with a different object. It was the business of Inclosure Commissioners to facilitate the inclosure of commons, whereas the Commissioners under this Bill would exist for the purpose of keeping them open, and of creating a local management to do what was necessary in the way of levelling, draining, preserving, and protecting the commons for the benefit of the public at large. Upon the receipt by the Commissioners of a memorial from the lord of the manor, or from the commoners—[Mr. POWELL: Not from inhabitants?] No, only from those having rights on the common, the supposition being that if improvement were absolutely necessary, some commoner would be found to set the machinery in motion. The Commissioners, on receipt of such a memorial, would empower the Assistant Commissioner to hold a public meeting of all persons having rights in the common, and to report as to how far the scheme put before him was acceptable to the persons concerned, according to the value of their property. It would be his business to specify whether the scheme would interfere in any way with rights of property, so that these might not be affected without ample notice and full consideration. The scheme, if adopted by the Board of Commissioners, would then be presented to that House in the form of a confirming Bill. It was provided that the expenses should be defrayed from local sources, and that the inhabitants of any district might, if they chose, agree to be rated. There was also a proviso empowering the Metropolitan Board, in case they thought fit, to add to the local funds by a contribution from the general funds of the metropolis, just as they were accustomed to do in the case of public improvements, where one-third was often contributed from the general fund of the metropolis, when the remaining sums were levied from the actual district. The principle of the Bill was to provide machinery to call out and give organization to local activity and effort. These commons were to be mainly enjoyed by the people who lived near them, and it was only fair they should pay a considerable proportion of the expense. But they were also enjoyed by the inhabitants of the metropolis, and it would be fair that the whole of the metropolis should also contribute to their maintenance. The circumstances and commoners rights of each common varied so much in the details, that it was impossible to lay down any general rule applicable to all. The attempt to include all in one Act of Parliament would therefore be a failure. The rights of the lords of the manor and of commoners, and the customs in each case varied, but the persons who would be the natural guardians of the commons would be there to secure the public interest. By giving those locally interested the management there would be always on the spot a conserving element ready to resist encroachments, and to keep these places of public recreation free from nuisances. When the confirming Bill came to the House the same course would be adopted as in the case of Inclosure Bills. Where a petition was presented against the measure it would be treated as a Private Bill, and the opportunity would be given to parties to he heard by counsel and witnesses in Committee against the Bill. Where there was no such petition, the measure would pass in the ordinary way. The Bill embodied the recommendations of the Committee of last Session, which was moved for by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Doulton), and presided over by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke). An alternative proposal was considered by the Committee, which embodied a resolution of the Metropolitan Board of Works. That Board were willing to undertake the management of all the Commons and open spaces around London if the funds were found to enable them to purchase the rights of the lords of the manors and of the commoners. These funds they proposed to obtain partly by the sale of a portion of the land of the commons, and partly by the imposition of a new tax on the ratepayers. To the sale of these commons, however, he (Mr. Cowper) and many others entertained the strongest objection. It was an awkward way of preserving a common to begin by selling and alienating the portion most adapted for building purposes. The plan must fail, too, in a pecuniary point of view, because if the rights were to be purchased upon the principle embodied in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, not only the full present value, but the possible value would probably be given by the jury to the persons having an interest in the commons. If so, the sale of the property would only produce the sum of money that would be paid over, and no surplus would remain to the Metropolitan Board of Works. The chief objection, however, to this scheme was, that the Metropolitan Board of Works would require to have a central management over all these commons, while they were, in fact, placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Beard, because the area of the jurisdiction of that Board did not extend over half the area of the metropolitan police district, which included a fifteen mile radius round London. So that it was proposed to impose upon a Board already, according to the statement of its own members, too hardly worked the duty of watching over and managing these various commons and open spaces, and this duty he could not hope they would be able satisfactorily to discharge. The Select Committee, after consideration, came to the decision that the only practical solution of the question was that embodied in the Bill. It would not effect all that one could desire, but would do what was at present possible. The Central Board would call into existence local action; it would be the natural enemy of encroachments, and it would be safely consulted in such cases. It would not be required to intervene in the proceedings which startled the public the other day at Berkhampstead, where the commoners showed fight against the lord of the manor, for that was a common not within the metropolitan district. The Board would give organization to local effort and co-operation with local authorities. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Hill to make provision for the improvement of commons in the neighbourhood of the metropolis and the protection thereof from nuisances.

said, he seconded the Motion. He congratulated the Government on having grappled with a difficult subject, but could not help regretting that the First Commissioner had not enlarged the radius from fifteen to twenty-five miles. He also thought that power of originating action should be given to the inhabitants of the district, as well as to commoners and lords of the manor. He could hardly go so far as to advise the extension of the Bill to the whole country, although he was aware that the Inclosure Commissioners, while paying regard to the interests and rights of the manor, had often exhibited but little care for the rights of the people. He could mention cases within his own knowledge where the spaces devoted under the Inclosures Act for recreation and other like purposes were so situated as to be useless for those ends. In the case of Clapham Common negotiations had been entered into between the lord of the manor and the inhabitants, and the result was that the common was open to the public for all purposes of rational enjoyment, while it was at the same time preserved against nuisances. It was quite time that some thing should be done, because a process of encroachment was going on around London. In London the legal rights of the people were extremely narrow and limited. At tempted encroachments on Hampstead Heath had been defeated by the House, not without injury to the individual, who desired to build on other parts of the property he held by the same tenure. He would mention one case which he found in the evidence. Mr. William Thompson was lord of the manor of Tooting. He was, probably, a liberal and philanthropic indivi- dual, but his mind appeared to have passed through "the seven ages" of Shakespeare. Never was there a witness examined before a Committee who revealed the workings of his mind with more refreshing simplicity. At first he purchased the manorial rights with a view only of benefiting his neighbours. He had lived on the common for eighteen years, and thought the manorial rights of no value, except to prevent any nuisance from occurring. Next he found that the rights had some value, and, passing through a series of mutations, ended by believing the whole to be his freehold. This gentleman having bought the land for a small sum, and having made a certain arrangement by way of compromise, now said he gave up to the public land worth £20,000. He did not say whether this was or was not an accurate estimate, but he did say, that when these rights could be appropriated by any one man to the exclusion of the public time, for Parliamentary interference had arrived. Moreover, it appeared from the evidence taken before the Committee that, on the grounds of strict law, the rights of the people should be promptly vindicated. He could not venture to pronounce any opinion upon the Bill which had been introduced, without having further time to consider its provisions, and the new authority which Government proposed to create. As to the nature of this new authority, it must be an authority strong, vigilant, and able to adapt itself to circumstances as they arose from time to time; and it must, moreover, be an authority competent to resist the Committees upstairs, and the plans brought before them by engineers, promoters of companies and others. In order that that end might be obtained, the Bill should be most carefully drawn, so as to show distinctly that the duty of the Commissioners was to protect commons for the benefit of the public against railway companies and all others who might seek to encroach upon them. It was in the interest of the poorer classes that this law should be passed, and he hoped that its provisions would secure to them the blessings of fresh air; that the next generation, instead of being weaker, might be more powerful; even better able than men of this age to discharge the duties of public life.

said, he had listened with satisfaction to the observations that had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken, and ventured to say that this Bill would not answer the purpose which all admitted should be kept in view. He had heard with pleasure at the commencement of the Session, that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the better preservation of the commons and open spaces around London, but as far as he could gather from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) the Bill now introduced would not add one tittle to the protection of those places. If the Bill were to become law, it contained nothing to prevent the shameless inclosures that were taking place on every side of the metropolis. The three most important commons around London were Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath, and Wimbledon Common, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman what there was in the Bill now under discussion that would prevent their being enclosed? In the case of Wimbledon Common, of which Earl Spencer was the lord of the manor, which of the provisions of the Bill would prevent the noble Lord from coming to an arrangement with the copyholders and freeholders of the manor for its inclosure? There would be no necessity in the case of either of those commons for the lord of the manor, if he came to an arrangement with the copyholders and freeholders, to apply to the Inclosure Commissioners now proposed to be appointed for the special protection of the public. A strong power should be created to deal with this matter, not by confiscating the rights of the lords of manors, hut by purchasing those rights on behalf of the public. One great defect in the Bill was, that it did not even provide for raising the necessary funds for defraying the expenses incurred in preserving the commons from nuisances. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, said that the object of the Bill was to bring into action the local machinery, but he did not think that the inclosure of commons could be prevented by local efforts. They ought to buy up the rights which existed, because they could not with more justice confiscate those rights than they could appropriate any other kind of private property. Those rights, though not of great value, were certainly worth something, and it would be the duty of anybody constituted for that purpose to buy them up and dedicate them to the service of the public. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down alluded to the case of Tooting Common Tooting Common was now being enclosed, and it would continue to be enclosed if this Bill passed, because the lord of the manor had made arrangements with the copyholders and commoners by purchasing their rights, and he could proceed with the inclosure therefore without being compelled to go before the Commissioners. Then take the case of Epping Forest. At the present time there were miles offence on the ground, and in the course of a few months the forest would be enclosed, and there would be no power under this Bill to prevent it. He hoped that before the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether a clause could not be added, which would not only recognize the evil, but provide a remedy. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill would do something, and therefore it would be well to let it pass; but he (Mr. Doulton) said no, it would do harm, because it would prevent better legislation.

said, that when the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Doulton) objected to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman he should have told the House what his own plan was. The plan of the hon. Gentleman was laid before the Committee, and the Committee rejected it, while the plan upon which the Bill was founded was carried. The hon. Member's plan was a Metropolitan Board of Works plan to compensate everybody, whether they had anything for which to compensate them or not. [Mr. SANDPOKD: Oh, oh!] He (Mr. Locke) should like to know what course the hon. Gentleman who cried "oh!" took in the Committee. It was difficult to say, for he was first up and then down. He first advocated one side and then the other. A more inconsistent Member of a Committee, or one more obstructive, he (Mr. Locke) had never had the lot to meet since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. He cheered compensation now as a delightful thing. What did he propose in the Committee? That the statute of Merton should be abolished. He and his statute of Merton were the clog on the Committee throughout. They must look at the two propositions that were made in Committee. One was made by the hon. Member for Lambeth, and it was that the Metropolitan Board of Works should have the power to compensate all the lords of the manors, and all the commoners upon every common throughout the metropolitan radius, and for that purpose they should have the power of selling portions of the land of those commons, and besides that of levying what Sir John Thwaites called a property tax upon the metropolis for the purpose of paying for it. [Mr. DOULTON; That was not my proposal.] That appeared to the Committee to be a strange measure; they did not like it, and they thought that some other scheme might be adopted. The scheme they did adopt was that which was contained in the Report of the Committee, and which was in a great measure embodied in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. It seemed to be assumed by the hon. Member for Lambeth that the rights of lords and commoners were defined rights; that everybody knew what they were, and that they were so clear that everybody could understand them. But those rights were in many instances extremely doubtful. If they adopted the proposal of the hon. Member for Lambeth, and held out to the lords of manors that the Metropolitan Board of Works, with the property tax and the coal tax at their back, were ready to compensate everybody who chose to ask for their money, he would like to know what the demands might be. The scheme now pro posed was one which at all events ought to be tried, and it was that recommended in the Report of the Committee. It was extremely difficult to ascertain the title to numbers of commons around the metropolis. The lords of the manors would certainly have enclosed the commons long before now had they known exactly what their rights were; but as it was, if they attempted such a thing the commoners at once stopped them, because the property of the lords and the interests of the commoners in the commons were undefined. It was treated as a trifling matter that Mr. Alcock and the Dean and Chapter had come forward with an offer of their lands, to beheld for the benefit of the public. It had been stated that Lord Spencer's powers over Wimbledon Common were not so great as he claimed, and an attempt to enclose a portion of it had been resisted by knocking down the fence. In that case an action was commenced against the person who destroyed the fence, but it was not proceeded with. The hon. Member for Lambeth began everything with an "if." "If 'ifs' and 'ands' were kettles and pans"—but they knew the rest of the old saw. "If" the lords of the manors could get all the commoners to go with them, they would enclose all the commons. Why, of course they would. But that "if" was most unfortunate. To take an example: Did the lord of the manor of Wimbledon get the commoners to agree with him? Did they not rise up when he sought to obtain a Bill to enclose the common, and say that Bill should not pass? Was not that Bill sent to a Select Committee, and also to a Committee of that House? And had Lord Spencer been able to enclose the common at Wimbledon, after all? He thought this Bill ought to be brought in. If the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sand-ford) wished to make it more stringent, lot him do so—it was elastic enough. The hon. Member for Lambeth might also introduce some of his clauses, if he liked, in order to make the Bill perfect. It was the most beautiful skeleton ever seen on the face of the earth as it stood, and it could be fitted up in any way the hon. Members might choose. One subject that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) had not touched upon was the question of the Crown rights. When they found Mr. Alcock handing over his property to any Board that might be established for the benefit of the public, and leaving his commons open to; them, should not the Crown hand over its rights? But how did the Crown use its rights? The Crown had rights over a portion of Blackheath, the other portion being owned by Lord Dartmouth. The representatives of the Crown told the Committee that the only object they had in view was to make all they possibly could out of the heath. Seeing that Scotch gentlemen used it for playing golf, that donkeys were always running over it, and every kind of amusement going on, what profit could the Crown make out of it? Why, a man was allowed to dig gravel and; make great holes in the heath at a gain to the Crown of £56 a year. Then with regard to Epping Forest, how had the Crown behaved? The Crown used to grant licenses to persons selling its forestal rights, until that House passed a Resolution that it should no longer sell any of those rights. But did that make the Crown better behaved? Far from it! Instead of selling any of its forestal rights it withdrew all its officers of the forest, and allowed people to encroach just as they pleased. The Crown, in abandoning its own rights, had abandoned the rights of the people. When they were establishing a Board for the purposes of protecting all the places of recreation around the metropolis for the benefit of the people, they ought not to forget the Crown lands, which he believed were as large in extent as all the rest put together. He would like to have some statement from his right hon. Friend as to what course would be pursued by the Crown. If they were to have a body to whom the conveyances of these rights and privileges were to be made, and to establish for ever those open spaces around the metropolis for the benefit of the public, they ought, when considering what private persons might do, to know what the Crown would do.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill, but he felt called upon to remark that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had by his remarks confirmed him in an opinion which he had formed when sitting in his company upon the Open Spaces Committee, an opinion shared in by a large majority of the Committee, that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not quite understand the subject with which he was dealing. The hon. and learned Member had thought proper to state that he (Mr. Sandford) had carried a proposition for the repeal of the statute of Merton against the wish of a great portion of that Committee; but he held in his hand a record of the division upon the occasion referred to, and it showed that ten Members supported him in the proposition and four voted against him. Not only so, but one-half of the Report upon the subject, which was drawn up by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, was occupied by an elaborate defence of the repeal the Committee had decided upon. It was certainly most extraordinary conduct on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman to retort upon him for having carried a proposition to which he had himself devoted four or five pages of his Report. [Mr. LOCKE: It required so much defending.] The statute of Merton permitted the lord of the manor to enclose all the waste that he pleased, provided he left the commoners sufficient pasturage. If the rights of the commoners were encroached upon by the lords of the manor, their only remedy was in an expensive lawsuit; and, as that was the sum and substance of the statute, the House would not be surprised that the Committee had desired to repeal it. He would not address himself to personal questions further than to say that the general opinion of the Committee as to the hon. and learned Gentleman's conduct in the chair would, if described by him, be anything but agreeable to his feelings. Proceeding to discuss the Bill, he would inquire of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) whether he had submitted his measures to the Law Officers of the Crown? [Mr. COWPER: No.] He thought not, and recommended him to do so at once. He had never heard of a measure framed in such complete ignorance of the existing state of the law. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the lords of the manors had mere property in the soil, and the commons were to be enjoyed by the public in the vicinity. But the lords of the manors had absolute control of the soil, subject to certain rights of the commoners. The inhabitants of the neighbourhood of the commons, with the exception of the commoners, had no right upon them except by permission, and without permission they were trespassers. He regretted this state of things as much as the right hon. Gentleman did. But he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say also that the Commissioners were to have power to tax the people for the purpose of taking care of the commons. Had he taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon that? Then the Bill did not appear to make any provision for the raising of money to purchase rights. It was absolutely nugatory in this respect in all points but one. It proposed to empower certain Commissioners to receive the munificent donations of such persons as Mr. Alcock. No praise could be too great of Mr. Alcock for the princely way in which he had dealt with his rights, and it was meet that some provision should be made for placing the gift in proper custody; but beyond power to receive these rights the Commissioners had nothing. They would not have a shilling at their disposal. He did not intend to throw out any alternative suggestion. Possibly hon. Gentlemen were naturally jealous of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He confessed he had no great confidence in it, but they should consider it was the only body in the metropolis empowered to raise money, that it was not advisable that such a power should be created in a fresh body, and that it was desirable that the rights in the commons should be purchased for the use of the people. The Bill, as it stood, would amount to a com- plete confiscation of the rights of lords of manors.

said, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) for having brought in this Bill, and regretted that the hon. Member for Lambeth should have so hastily condemned it, from misapprehending its scope or purport. The Bill was founded on the Report of the Select Committee, and it would neither confiscate the rights of the lord of the manor, nor touch those of the commoners and the public. It was certainly a matter for consideration whether some of these rights should not be purchased, but having been a member of the Select Committee, and since then having paid much attention to the subject, he had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable that the rights of the lords of manors should be purchased at once; because he believed there were very few commons with which the lords of the manor could deal either with or with out the consent of the commoners. He found that with regard to all the commons around London the interests of the commoners were opposed to the lords of the manor, and that there was no possibility of obtaining the consent of the latter. The commoners still claimed the right of turning out cattle upon them; but they used them for the purpose of keeping the commons open as against the lords for the benefit of the public, and not for feeding cattle. As to the rights of the public in these commons, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) appeared to revel in the notion that the public had no such rights It might be so; but that was an undetermined question of law. There could be no doubt that in regard to many of the smaller commons, such as village greens, the public had rights. Therefore, in the present state of the law and of the titles to all these commons, it was not desirable that the Metropolitan Board should at once proceed to purchase them. The question was—What steps should be taken to prevent tin deterioration of these commons by nuisances of all kinds? The evidence of Lord Spencer in respect to Wimbledon Common showed the very great difficulties under which lords of the manor now laboured in preventing encroachments and nuisances of various descriptions upon commons. Great nuisances and deterioration were going on on almost every common around London, to the injury alike of the lords of the manor, the commoners, and the neighbouring inhabitants. If these commons were to be purchased under compulsory powers, they would have to be bought at building land value, which could hardly be less than from £300 to £400 per acre. As there were about 10,500 acres of common in the neighbourhood of London, a sum of nearly three millions of money would be required for that purpose. The South-Western Railway Company had recently to pay £5,000 for twelve acres of land on Barnes Common, and to show that the rights of the lords of the manor were not so great as were generally supposed, in that case the Court awarded one-fourteenth part of the purchase money to the lord, and the remaining thirteen-fourteenth parts to the commoners Then it had been proposed that they should sell a portion of the commons to buy the remainder, but that would be a dangerous mode of proceeding, because it would entail a sacrifice of large portions of the commons and would raise all sorts of difficulty between the lords of the manors and the commoners. Three-fourths of the commons in the neighbourhood of London were beyond the Metropolitan Board of Works district. They had already heavy duties to discharge, and besides other difficulties, they would have no power to levy rates in those neighbourhoods for the purchase of the commons beyond the district. He hoped the House would assent to the introduction of the Bill.

said, that Epping Forest did not come under that Bill. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests conceived that by their Act of Parliament they were bound as trustees to administer the property intrusted to them with a view to obtain as much money as they could from it. He hoped the question would shortly be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. The same remark applied to the rights of the Crown over the waste of Blackheath, from which the Commissioners obtained the £56 that had been referred to. However unfortunate it might be that a common should be spoiled for the sake of such a small sum, yet, entertaining that view of their legal duty, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests thought they must do so. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) had attributed to him some very erroneous views of the law of the question in relation to these commons; but he, had never doubted that the lord of the manor had the soil of the waste, subject to the rights of the commoners over the surface. The public had legally no rights. If these commons were to be im- proved and protected it was but right that it should be done at the expense of the public at large. That Bill would set on foot a system of special Acts of Parliament for each special case; and consequently each Act of Parliament would provide the power of raising the money necessary for giving effect to it. That seemed to be a more practical and intelligible course than any attempt to establish a uniform measure applying to all commons, however varying might be their particular circumstances.

said, he wished to ask if the powers of the Commissioners were to extend to all large towns?

said, they were not, but only to be confined to the metropolitan area.

said, he wished to ask whether the Commissioners would have power to spend the money on a common without the consent of the lord of the manor?

said, he thought that a suitable opportunity of noticing the highly official view put for-ward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) as to the relation between the property of the Crown and the rights of the people. That was not the first time when the two things had been placed in violent opposition to each other in that House. The legal representative of the Crown was supported in exacting the very last farthing in respect to every right possibly appertaining to the Crown, to the utter disregard of the wishes or the enjoyments of the people. The property in the Crown was merely nominal. For all practical purposes it was completely alienated from the Crown, and the office of Woods and Forests was put into such a position as compelled it to act in direct hostility to the wishes of the people. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he brought forward the Budget, and on similar occasions, would appeal to the feelings of the House in favour of the people, while the Government would exact the last farthing in respect of the Crown property, with entire disregard of the rights and interests of the people. Different Departments of the Government were thus opposed. This, he contended, was an anomaly which ought not to exist.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat had appealed to him to prolong the debate; but the hon. Mem- ber had not consulted the convenience of the House in expatiating on topics which would have been better discussed at an earlier stage of the debate, particularly as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) in reply had not broken up any new ground, but contented himself with noticing the observations that had been made by hon. Members. It was an entire mistake to suppose that the possession of Crown property was merely nominal. As far as regarded the person of the reigning Sovereign there might be some truth in the assertion, but although the reigning Sovereign had for years parted with all pecuniary interests in the property, it was an established principle that no changes affecting the Crown lands could be made without the assent of the Sovereign. The House had no right to encroach upon them without the consent of the persons interested. The reigning Sovereign was strictly tenant for life. Any renunciation of right, therefore, would not bind the succeeding Sovereign. The Prince of Wales on his accession to the Crown would be perfectly entitled, if he thought fit, to take the management of these estates into his own hands. This was a matter entirely beyond dispute. Still less was it necessary to raise this question after his right hon. Friend had stated that the forestal rights of the Crown at Epping were under the consideration of the Government, and that he hoped very shortly to make a proposition to the House on the subject. The rights of the reigning family in the Crown lauds must be respected just as much as any other private rights. The subject of Epping Forest could not have been included in the Bill before the House, because it did not come within the jurisdiction of his right hon. Friend. In the course of a few days he hoped that the Government would be in a condition to inform the House that, without at all giving in to the doctrine of the hon. Member, they had made arrangements respecting the forestal rights at Epping, with the full concurrence of Her Majesty, which would bring them out of a state of conflict with the interests of the community, and enable the Government to deal with them at proper seasons in a manner satisfactory to all concerned.

said, he rose to move that the House resolve itself; into Committee in order that the Chair man might be directed to move the House that leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish a certain declaration commonly called a Declaration against. Transubstantiation, the Invocation of Saints, and the: Sacrifice of the Mass, as practised in the Church of Rome, and to render it unnecessary to take, make, or subscribe the same as a qualification for the exercise or enjoyment of any civil office, franchise, or I right. Many Members, when they saw the notice of his Motion on the paper doubtless were unaware that such a declaration was in existence. It was instituted in the reign of Charles II., at a time when great excitement prevailed in the country, and the people were afraid of the in crease of Roman Catholic influence. The declaration was embodied in terms most offensive to Roman Catholics, but, according to the present law, before accepting certain public offices they were compelled to make the declaration. The person making the declaration expressed his belief that the body and blood of our Lord were not present in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Invocation of the Saints were superstitious and idolatrous. It had to be made by every one who succeeded to any office from which Roman Catholics were by law excluded. The Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland had to subscribe the declaration in the presence of the Members of the Privy Council in Ireland, many of whom were themselves Roman Catholics That was manifestly an offensive proceeding, and one which was wholly unnecessary. He would not, by the Bill he then asked leave to introduce, make any change whatever in the law which excluded Roman Catholics from certain offices; but he would merely put an end to the necessity at present imposed on Protestants, under certain circumstances, to make the declaration The declaration was a relic of barbarism, which ought to be immediately erased from the statute-book. He did not believe there was one. Member who would attempt to justify its retention, and he therefore moved that the Speaker leave the Chair,

said, that he second ed the Motion. A Commission, comprising some of the highest dignitaries of the Church, both in England and Ireland, appointed some years ago, unanimously resolved to recommend Her Majesty to abolish a declaration similar to that under the consideration of the House.

said, he did not feel inclined to allow the proposed alteration to be made without entering his protest against it. The Bill was not exactly what the hon. Baronet had described, for, as he understood it, the words would apply to the holders of any civil office, and therefore to the Lord Chancellors of England and of Ireland. If the Lord Chancellor was to be freed from the obligation of taking the oath, he did not know what was to be come of the Settlement of this country. He strongly objected to the Resolution, which, if carried, would affect the existing Constitution, inasmuch as it would enable Roman Catholics to hold offices from which they were excluded by the existing law.

said, he could allay the fears of the hon. Gentleman. The Settlement of this country would not be in any way endangered if the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was accepted, because the second clause proposed to enact that nothing in this Act contained should be construed to enable any person professing the Roman Catholic religion to exercise any office which could now be held only by persons making the declaration which the Act proposed to repeal, The object of the Act was simply to remove a declaration which was offensive to Catholics, and which had given great pain to many persons who were obliged to take it.

said, he certainly had not read the Bill. He only judged of its nature by the terms of the Resolution.

said, the Government had no intention to offer any resistance to the proposal, He was bound, however, to say for himself and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that they would have preferred that this matter should be dealt with by a general Act relating to the present state of oaths and declarations, which, as the House would see from papers recently laid before it, involved a great deal of anomaly and of useless and cumbrous phraseology. It I would have been better that the whole subject should have been handled by a competent body which, while dealing with one part of the question, would have the other parts in view. However, his hon. Friend was anxious to remove words which were of a very painful character, peculiar in their origin, and adapted for a particular object, which had become unnecessary, and as they were now much more likely to give pain than to serve any useful purpose, it was impossible for the Government to refuse their consent.

said, he quite concurred in what had fallen from his right hon. Friend. His own opinion was in accord with that of the hon. Baronet, and he could say for Members on that side of the House, that they were not desirous of keeping up any test which was in the slightest degree unnecessarily offensive or distasteful to the feelings of others. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the papers laid upon the table of the House during the last Parliament showed that there was a number of oaths which it would be well to repeal. He hoped he might consider what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an intimation coming from Government that they would be prepared to consider the whole question. There was clearly too great a variety of oaths, and if, as he believed, the simpler they were in form the more solemn they were, he should be very glad to see some modification of them adopted.

said, he wished to ask, whether he was to understand that it was the intention of the Government to take up the subject?

said, he thought he might venture to say that the Government would probably introduce some measure for a general revision of those oaths.

said, that would be the more satisfactory course. Those oaths, which were of a very grave nature, should not be altered except upon the responsibility of Government.

said, he wished to express his satisfaction at the course indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Mortality in the Troops in China; the causes which led to it; and the conduct of those Departments of the Government whose duty it has been to administer to the wants of those troops. As the Government had expressed their willingness to grant the Committee he would make but very few remarks upon the subject. The fact that the Committee would be granted was primâ facie evidence that he was not about to give unnecessary trouble by the Motion which he was about to make. On the 8th of December last the feelings of the people of this country were most painfully excited by a statement in The Times of the deplorable condition in which a detachment of the 11th Regiment landed in Japan, and of the melancholy state of health of the force at Hong Kong. Feeling the deepest interest in these unfortunate men, and especially in those of the 11th Regiment—in which he commenced his military service and in which he was subsequently adjutant—he communicated his intention to his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) that as soon as the House met he should move for all the correspondence, and for any information which could be given on the subject of this deplorable event. It was only fair to his noble Friend opposite to say that every request which he had made for information in connection with the case had been instantly complied with with his usual courtesy. The question was no party question. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House had relations and friends in the army; but, independent of all such considerations, it was, he thought, the duty of the House to bear in mind the interests of the noncommissioned officers and privates, a body of men who always served with fidelity their Sovereign and their country, and who never shrunk from exposing their lives to the unhealthful influences of pestilential climates or the deadly bullets of an enemy. As there would be no opposition to the granting of the Committee, he should merely call attention to two or three of the letters contained in the correspondence which had been placed in his hands. It opened with a letter from General Guy, the commander of the forces in China, dated 12th of November, 1864, which, after stating his intentions as to the accommodation of the 9th Regiment on its arrival, and pointing out the diffiulty of providing for them, closed as follows:—

"I would therefore request your Lordship's instructions as to the disposal of the 2nd battalion 11th Regiment, which by Horse Guards' letter of the 26th August last it is proposed to send to China, as under existing circumstances it will be impossible to provide for it in this country."

The result of that statement not having been attended to, he would presently show. The second battalion of the 9th Regiment landed at Hong Kong on the 7th of February, 1865. Its strength on landing was 34 officers, 839 men, 47 women, and 19 children. Within eight months and a half officer, 36 men, 5 women, and 23 Children—amounting in all to 65 persons—had died; while officer, 78 men, 20 women, and 27 children were invalided, making a total, dead and invalided, of 193 persons. The second battalion of the 11th Regiment landed at Hong Kong on the 28th of May. 1865. It consisted of 25 officers, 784 men, 54 women, and 92 Children, and out of that number, in the course of only four months and a half 2 officers, 49 men, 3 women, and 48 children, or in all 102 persons, had died; while 3 officers, 124 men, 16 women, and 14 children were in Valided—making a total of 259 dead and invalided. That report was made tip to the 15th of October last, and did not include the Artillery, the Engineers, or the Staff. A ship was freighted for the purpose of taking many of the invalids to England, but on the passage from Hong Kong to the Cape, out of the 234 persons who embarked on board the Gresham, 31 men, 3 women, and 6 children, making a total of 40, died. He should, with the permission of the House, read an extract from a letter dated Capetown, December 18, 1865, which said—

"The Gresham left Hong Kong on the 13th of October, 1865, with 239 persons on board, and arrived at Simon's Bay on the 6th of December, having lost by death 31 men, 3 women, and 6 children, principally from dysentery, the remaining invalids being in a very unhealthy state. The commodore had the troops immediately removed from the ship, some, the healthiest, were put into huts; some not so well were sent on board Her Majesty's ship Seringapatam, and the remainder, 21, were sent to the Royal Naval Hospital, of whom o men and I child have already died, and there are but slight hopes that any of the others will recover. In consequence of the state of debility that many of the men and women were re duced to, and very advanced stages of their diseases, it was considered advisable some should be left behind. I therefore made a careful selection, and regret to state that there were 34 men who did not present any favourable hope of arriving in England."

On the arrival of the Gresham at Portsmouth, his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had ordered a report to be I made, with the view of ascertaining whether the mortality was attributable to any defect in the ship, and the following was the letter of Deputy Inspector General limes, dated Portsmouth, February 5, 1866:—

"Sir,—I have the honour to report that a Board of Officers on which I attended was ordered: by his Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief to ascertain whether the mortality on hoard the hired transport Gresham, on her late voyage from Hong Kong to Spithead, is to be traced to any of the arrangements on board that ship. The result of a careful and minute inquiry into all the circumstances was a unanimous finding in the negative. The accommodation for the troops was spacious, thoroughly ventilated; the supplies and medical comforts good and abundant; the excreta from the sick were promptly thrown overboard, and disinfectants freely used. The ship was easy at sea, carrying her ports always open. The soldiers and their families on board expressed the fullest satisfaction I with the treatment and accommodation they had; received. The Board ventured to express a high opinion of the attention and care displayed by: Captain Burland, the officer commanding, and I Staff Assistant Surgeon Adams, in medical charge. The detailed proceedings of the Board were for warded to the military authorities."

The amount of the deaths and invalidings in those two unfortunate regiments was, in the case of the 9th, 193; and the 11th, 259—making a total of 452 persons—of whom 40 died on the passage to the Cape; at the Cape, 5; 34 being left at the Cape as there was no favourable prospect of their reaching England. The Agincourt was now on her way home with another batch of invalids of those regiments. The expense, according to the account which he had received the other day as being paid by the Government, from China was £29 10s. per head for 235 men, or no less a sum than £6,827, and that merely for one detachment. He did not wish to impute to anybody blame in the matter, but it was, he thought, the duty of the House to ascertain to what cause the frightful mortality to which he had called their attention was to be attributed. He could not close his observations without expressing the greatest admiration for the conduct of the Military Medical Department, and especially for the conduct of Dr. Saunders, surgeon of the 9th Regiment, who, in the absence of his senior (Dr. Dick), took the whole responsibility on his own shoulders and saved many valuable lives. The report of Dr. Snell was also entitled to much praise. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving—

"That a Select Committee be appointed 'to inquire into the mortality in the Troops in China, the causes which led to it, and into the conduct of those departments of the Government whose duty it has been to administer to the wants of those Troops.'"

said, he seconded the Motion, He thanked the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the manner in which he had submitted it to the notice of the House. The officers and men of our army, unlike that of other countries, were frequently obliged to spend a considerable time away from their homes in unhealthful climates, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to see that the necessary precautions were taken to provide for their health and safety. If it should be found that this great mortality among our troops was occasioned by negligence the authors ought to be severely punished. He was glad that the Government had consented to a full inquiry.

said, that the Government, in common with the House and the country, deeply regretted the unfortunate occurrences narrated. Undoubtedly, both the House and the country, and more especially the friends of those who had perished, had the fullest right to demand investigation and inquiry as to whether the causes of that mortality resulted from the negligence of the Government or of the commanders of the troops. While acknowledging the candid and impartial manner in which the subject had been brought before the House, he must state that he should be prepared to deny that these unfortunate events had occurred through the shortcomings of the Government. It might be said that the matter might have been disposed of in the House, and that the question of the responsibility of the Government, or of individuals, might have been decided there, but there were circumstances which rendered it more advisable that the subject should be investigated in a Committee. In a discussion in that House when the conduct of individuals was called in question, assertions were often made and rumours were referred to which it might be impossible at the moment to deny, but which on further investigation might prove to be perfectly groundless, and such rumours and charges could be more properly met in a Committee than in a debate. So far as he was aware, every one connected with the Government and with the War Department, including his noble predecessor (Earl De Grey) was anxious that the affair should be thoroughly investigated, and was ready when called upon to stale what had passed in reference to these transactions. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel North) had said that the mortality had occurred in consequence of the Government not having attended to the recommendation of the General; but his representations were not neglected by the War Department, as two letters in the correspondence would show. In the first reply of the War Office to General Guy he was told that the distribution of the troops which would remain at his disposal in the command between Hong Kong, Kowloon, and Japan, was left to his discretion, subject, of course, in the case of Japan, to his consulting Her Majesty's Minister there. A subsequent letter, dated the 23rd of March, contained the following more specific instruction:—

"With regard to the difficulty which you anticipate in providing sufficient accommodation for a second regiment at Hong Kong and Kowloon, I am to acquaint you that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, have decided on withdrawing the Royal Marines now serving in Japan. There will, therefore, be no objection to your sending the 2nd battalion 11th Foot, on its arrival from the Cape, or such portion of it as you may be unable to accommodate at Hong Kong, to Yokohama, where the climate is better suited than that of China to the European constitution."

It never was intended, as had been stated in the press, to replace the Indian troops who were last year serving in Hong Kong by a British regiment. What was intended was the reduction of the garrison in China. It was thought that a force of three battalions was an unnecessarily large one to be stationed at Hong Kong, as it was never intended that the force there should exceed one or one and a half battalion. It was possible the Government might be accused of attempting to get rid of some responsibility in leaving the matter to the consideration of a Committee; but if it were thought necessary afterwards to bring forward a Motion impugning the action of the War Department, he would then make any statement which he was now prepared to make. If it were said they were delegating to a Committee a duty which more properly devolved upon that Department—an inquiry as to the degree of responsibility that ought to attach to any of the officers of the army—he repeated, as far as he was personally concerned, he was quite ready, if it were the wish of the House, to undertake the responsibility of an investigation.