said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any information has been received from Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople announcing the release of Mr. J. W. Stevens, a British subject, who has been captured by Brigands near Smyrna; and if the restoration of Mr. Stevens cannot be obtained without the payment of the money demanded by his captors, application will be made to the Ottoman Government to pay the required ransom?

Sir, I am sorry to say I have as yet no intelligence upon the subject. There is a mail at present due from Constantinople, and I daresay I shall receive information in a day or two.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, At what time the noble Duke the Chief Secretary for the Colonies received an official letter fully addressed to his Grace by Mr. George Wall, the President of the Planters' Association of Ceylon, find dated Colombo, March 5, 1868, which letter was entrusted by Mr. Wall to the hands of the Governor of Ceylon, Sir Hercules Robinson, to forward, in accordance with the usual etiquette; if he is aware of the fact that such letter so entrusted to the hands of the Governor was tampered with, and was published in a local paper called the Ceylon Herald before it could have come to the hands of the Chief Secretary, and without the knowledge or consent of the writer, or of the Chief Secretary; and, what course is intended to be taken in reference so such a proceeding?

, in reply, said, the noble Duke the Colonial Secretary received Mr. Wall's letter dated Colombo, March 5, in a Despatch, dated March 21, on April 27, and a further letter from Mr. Wail, dated April 17, complaining of the first having been published in a local newspaper. On inquiry it appeared that this publication was without the authority, consent, or even knowledge of the Governor, but much to his annoyance, as unfair to himself. But the substance of the letter, and of one of the League Committee of the same date, was sent by Mr. Wall himself to a local newspaper before even the transmission of the documents from the island. The Governor, however, had been requested to ascertain, if possible, whether the letter appearing in a local newspaper supporting the Government had been effected by any Government officer or by any breach of official duty. An answer had not yet been received.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in order to secure an adequate discussion on the subject of University Education in Ireland, he will promise that there shall not be a Morning Sitting on Friday, the 19tb of June, the day fixed for a Motion relating to Trinity College, Dublin?

Sir, I really am unable to see so far ahead as the 19th of June, At the same time I snail he very sorry to interfere with the discussion indicated by the hon. Gentleman.

said, he wished to ask a Question about some Returns which had been ordered some time since and had not been produced, although they would require very little preparation. He hoped they would be forthcoming before the re-assembling of Parliament after Whitsuntide?

, in reply, said, he would endeavour to get them issued during the holidays.

brought up the Report of the Select Committee. There were several corrections which required to ha made in it before it could be circulated; but such instructions had been given that he hoped the Report would be in the hands of Members by Monday morning. In the meantime he was authorized and instructed by the Committee to communicate to the House the results of their labours, which, he hoped, would be satisfactory to the House. There were three classes of cases into which the boroughs as dealt with by the Committee might be divided—cases in which the Report of the Commission had been recommended for adoption; cases in which the Select Committee recommended that modifications should be made in the Report of the Commissioners; and cases in which the Committee recommended that the present boundaries should be retained. The first class, in which it was recommended that the Report of the Commissioners should be adopted, included the cases of Bolton, Chester, Greenwich, Newport (Monmouthshire), Northampton, Preston, Stalybridge, and Windsor. The cases in which the Committee recommended that the Report of the Commissioners should be modified were those of Chelsea, Cheltenham, Darlington, Gloucester, Hastings, Midddlesborough, Newport (Isle of Wight), Oldham, Salisbury, and Wilton. It was recommended that the present boundaries should be retained in the cases of Birkenhead, Birmingham, Bristol, Gateshead, Lambeth, Liverpool, Marylebone, Manchester, Not- tingham, Portsmouth, Reading, South Shields, Tynemouth, Warwick and Wigan.

said, he rose to call attention to the site of the New Law Courts. That site was accepted by the House at a time when the embankment of the Thames had scarcely been commenced, and when it was impossibly for the House to have decided fairly upon so important a point. There was an opportunity now, however, of carrying out a most magnificent design, and of carrying it out without additional expense and with the greatest advantage to the public. Three conditions should be satisfied in the choice of a site for such a building: there must be space, light, and air. Another point should be remembered—that things beautiful in themselves became more beautiful still by juxta-position. Thus, a woodland scene, and a venerable abbey, each beautiful in itself, had new charms when placed side by side. Apply this principle here. Nothing could well be finer as a building Bite in European capitals than the banks of the Thames. There was nothing like it in Europe, except the Neva and the Tagus. Well, place the Law Courts on the river side, and their architectural effect would be greatly enhanced. The three conditions requisite in public buildings were space, light, and air. The site on the Thames Embankment combined these requisites. At present it was proposed to build the Law Courts on a site which would give a frontage of 700 feet and a depth of 550 feet. Now, the Quarterly Review had shown clearly that that space was utterly inadequate. When erected the Law Courts would be surrounded by most miserable streets—such as Carey Street, Drury Lane, and its purlieus. He had seen an estimate showing that in order to procure the necessary approaches it would be necessary to spend another £1,000,000: and the Courts would be so crowded that they must be enlarged at a probable cost of £1,000,000 more. On the other hand, between King's College, adjoining Somerset House, and the Temple, you had 1,000 feet of river frontage, with a depth to the Strand of 700 feet—150 feet deeper and 300 feet longer than that of the Strand site. The accommodation would be admirable, the approaches would be made for you, the Underground Railway would be close by, and yet the House hesitated to acquire a site which would be unequalled in any capital in Europe, because they had formerly agreed to place the Law Courts in the Strand. Some of those Gentlemen (among them Mr. Abraham) who had been of opinion that the Strand would be the best position were now most anxious to place the Law Courts on the Embankment. The objection that, having bought the site you must make use of it, reminded him very much of the answer given in one of Mr. Dickens's works by a man who was getting very drunk on a bottle of bad port, and who, when remonstrated with, said, "I cannot help it; I have paid for the wine and I must drink it," Why should the House throw away £2,000,000 and lose all the advantages they would derive from the adoption of the Embankment site? They had performed a good and philanthropic work in purchasing the present site and clearing it from the dens of dirt and infamy with which it was crowded, even if they had never intended to place the New Courts there at all. The persons whom it would be necessary to turn out from the houses between King's College and the Temple might be transferred to the vacant ground which had been bought fronting the Strand. The calculation was that the land would cost about £1,000,000; but the result would be a great economy in comparison with the existing site, for the Embankment and the Strand would be ready-made approaches. They would have only one street to open out, leading from the Strand down to the River. He did not care how admirable the architecture might be, the building on the site now contemplated could not have the same beauty as if placed upon the Thames Embankment. They had now got a great opportunity of beautifying the metropolis, and not only that, but of doing honour to the whole country, for almost everyone was interested in whatever promoted that end. Some Gentlemen might consider that such a matter was not worthy of the attention of Parliament; but he, on the contrary, had been much struck by the truth of a passage on this subject which he would read to the House—

"The greatest statesmen and philosophers have ever considered the cultivation of art, and the building and adornment of cities, as of primary political importance. Plato attributes the origin of legislation to the cultivation of the arts. Public buildings are the most lasting and effective ornaments of the country, and at the same time the cheapest the people can obtain."

said, he desired to express his concurrence in the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman. We had laid out a large sum of money, and obtained what he (Mr. M. Chambers) thought at the time would be the most eligible site for the New Law Courts. But since that expenditure and the partial clearing of the ground it had become known that it would be next to impossible to accomplish the original grand scheme. They had had the mortification of seeing that some of our ablest architects had failed in producing even one design adapted for the purposes in view. There were, however, reasons which, might account for that failure. In the first place, the site was perfectly inadequate and unfit for its object. It was upon a steep descent, or ascent, and of a very irregular shape. In the next place, there would be the greatest difficulty in getting access to the edifice if erected. He had been informed by a gentleman of great experience that it would cost half as much as had been already expended to make proper approaches. Then, with regard to the nature and situation of the plot of land, he did not know whether any Gentleman in that House had ever walked in that unfashionable neighbourhood; but if so, they must have discovered that the houses to the west were the dirtiest and worst that could possibly be imagined, and to the north and east equally unsightly. Of course those houses could not continue in the neighbourhood of the Courts, for they would be an absolute disgrace. But what would be the result? Why, that these must all be bought and pulled down; and how much that would cost it was not for him to say. But everyone knew that as soon as a spot was improved and beautified, that moment the adjacent lands and premises were rendered three, six, and even tenfold more valuable than before. But besides, light and air could not be obtained without buying other property, hemmed in as the Courts would be by Carey Street, Bell Yard, and Chancery Lane. Then how were they to approach the Courts from Holborn and the West End; for access would be required from every side? Owing to the land being on a slope, it was most remarkable that in one of the two plans—the external and internal—which had been most approved, the Judges, counsel, witnesses, and, in fact, all who had to go to the Courts, would have to ascend, as he was told, nearly as high as the Chamber in which he was speaking, by means of a magnificent staircase. How they were all to climb so high was matter for consideration. Some people said there were such things as lifts; but if they were to put such an expedient into practice how ridiculous they would make themselves. He ventured to say that we laid too much stress on external beauty, or florid ornament, and did not sufficiently consider, in the first instance, what the object of the building was, and what the purposes were for which it was intended. He thought solidity and sedateness should be consulted, and he was disposed to prefer the mixed Roman and Grecian or Palladian architecture to towers and turrets and the monastic or cathedral style proposed in the plans. Before any active measures were taken it should be ascertained by the authorities how much had been paid for the present site, what sum it would be likely to realize either now or a few years hence, and what a new site on the Thames Embankment would cost. His impression was that if the latter site were purchased and cleared the value of the present one would immediately be considerably raised, so as to preclude any danger of loss; and a building having the Embankment on one side and the Strand on the other would have an access far superior to one erected on the north of the Strand. We should not be in too great a hurry to do something simply because we had a site in hand. No plan having been adopted, no harm could ensue from waiting. It would be bettor even to sustain some loss than to have a bad site and a bad building; but from the experience of the Metropolitan Board of Works with regard to some of their purchases, he believed that if the matter were properly managed the change of site would be attended with gain rather than with loss.

said, he felt some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baillie Cochrane)—who was known in that House for the interest which he took in matters of taste—in his desire for the erection of a fine building on the banks of the Thames, and he admitted that on purely aesthetic grounds there was much to be said on behalf of that site. He could not, however, admit that it was preferable to the present one in point of convenience and economy. It was obviously undesirable that the Courts should be bounded by two noisy thoroughfares; and the present site, while having the Strand on the one side, would have on the other streets which, though wide, would not be thoroughfares, except for persons attending the Courts. The slope, moreover, so far from being a disadvantage, would be a great advantage; for it would furnish a considerable amount of space for records on the lower side, while the ground floor would be at a proper height to prevent inconvenience from the traffic. The site, too, was just in the centre of the legal quarter, equi-distant from Lincoln's Inn, the Temple, and Gray's Inn, so that one object of a concentration of the Law Courts would be accomplished, and the convenience of the gentlemen of the long robe would be consulted. On the other band, a site on the Embankment would cost at least twice as much; for the houses in Norfolk and Arundel Streets, and all the streets which would have to be pulled down, were of a more valuable description than those which had been purchased for the Carey Street site, the cost of which, moreover, had not exceeded the original estimate. If 1,000 feet instead of 700 feet were required, the extra space could be obtained at less expense on the present than on the proposed site; but he did not believe that such an enlargement was necessary. Many architects, indeed, had fancied that the present site was insufficient; but this question depended on the amount of accommo- dation which the Government might finally determine upon. It had not been necessary to consider this point before the final adoption of plans; but he felt confident that when the plans were ultimately adopted and were carefully scrutinized, with a view of avoiding any unnecessary Offices or Courts, additional space would not be required, and that it would not be necessary to expend much money upon the approaches to the Courts. The site was amply sufficient for the real and necessary wants of the Courts. There was another ground on which the House ought not to make any change. An immense inconvenience would be caused by the delay which would arise from changing the site—a delay of at least five years. Four years had already elapsed since an Act was passed authorizing the purchase of a site for the Courts of Law. He hoped the Government would endeavour to push on the work with as little delay as possible, and that, now the Report of the Attorney General had been received, they would give effect to the report of the judges as to the design to be adopted, so that the two architects might proceed to prepare a plan with reference to any change that might be determined upon as to the number of the Courts. He entirely demurred to the assertion that these designs were so bad that none were worthy to be selected. The reverse was the fact; for the difficulty of the judges arose rather from the excellence of the designs than their want of merit.

said, it was evident that considerable delay would occur before the plans of the New Courts were settled, because the Commission of Judicature proposed great alteration in the system of the Courts of Law, and it would be absurd to build a Palace until they knew what Courts were wanted, and what Parliament would do upon the Report of that Commission. He thought it would be a great advantage to have the Law Courts built upon the Thames Embankment; because there they would be accessible both by land and water, and would not be surrounded by old and low streets and lanes like those which surrounded the selected site. Then as to the question of ornament and beauty the Thames Embankment was, in his opinion, far preferable to the present site. Having bought a site it might be said that it was necessary to make use of it; but if they had not, after all, got a good site, it was better not to use it. Dr. Johnson being at a tavern where the wine was not good, said that he called for the wine for the good of the house, and he abstained from drinking it for his own good. The site already bought was as good as a bank note, and, if sold, it would probably fetch more than the Government had given for it, especially if it were settled that the New Courts were to be built in immediate proximity to the site. With regard to the style of the new building, the plans were very picturesque, but none of them were, in his opinion, appropriate to the style of a Court of Justice. They seemed to be formed of reminiscences of feudal castles, cathedrals, and chapels,—one imitating the interior of Westminster Abbey, and others being reminiscences of the Sainte Chapelle at Paris and various picturesque buildings on the Continent. What was wanted was a plain, handsome, and noble style, with no ornament at all. He thought the Four Courts at Dublin was a building which would be a very good model of a structure of this kind. It was elegant, yet plain, with no ornament; yet it was admired by all persons of taste. Why could not the new Courts be built something in the style of Somerset House? It would be less expensive than the fanciful Gothic building in which they were assembled, on which thousands had been thrown away on ornament consisting of a repetition of panels and an excess of details, the result being very florid and very expensive. It was a building resembling a wedding cake, covered with ornaments, but unfit for the purpose for which it was intended. What was wanted for the New Courts of Law was a structure with an exterior plain and severe, and in accordance with the uses for which it was designed.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had expressed a hope that the Government would not hastily decide on the site of the New Courts of Law. But the Government had no decision to make in the matter. This question had been decided years ago by both Houses of Parliament—not hastily, nor by one decision, but after consulting the highest authorities, and by repeated Acts of Parliament, extending over a series of years. Ten years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into this very question of site. That Commission reported in favour of the present site. Parliament sanctioned the purchase, which was now vir- tually completed, and the whole legal profession were anxiously awaiting the proper steps to be taken to carry out the intentions of Parliament; yet at such a moment the hon. Member had thought proper to raise the question of an entire change of site. If the question could be re-opened, no doubt much might be said in favour of the site of the Thames Embankment; but the question had been definitively settled by the Legislature. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Mr. Montagu Chambers), he was able to state that the site had cost £789,000 up to the present moment, and there were additional purchases and contingencies, so that the total amount for the purchase of the site would amount in a very short time to £896,000. The hon. and learned Member asked what they could sell the site for, two, five, or ten years hence? It was impossible to form anything but the most vague conjecture as to that. They knew what the site had cost; but what it would sell for if put into the market was a matter of speculation about which he could give no opinion offhand. Then it was said it was a drawback to the present site that the Strand was not on a level with Carey Street; but he thought it would be found that there was as great, if not a greater, slope between the Strand and the Thames Embankment. There could be no doubt that, as far as the suitors were concerned, the Carey Street site would be extremely convenient. Then, again, the House had, from time to time, appropriated considerable funds for one of the best public buildings of which we could at present boast—namely, the Public Record Depository, behind Chancery Lane. Including the sum of £60,000 sanctioned by the House the other day, during the last few years upwards of £200,000 had been expended on that building. It was of the greatest importance that the public records should be kept in immediate proximity to the Courts of Law; and that point ought also to be taken into view when they were asked to place the Courts of Law on a different site from that which Parliament had decided upon. He did not think, therefore, that the present Government ought to take upon themselves the responsibility of changing the decision of the Legislature on that matter; and he felt that if anything of that kind were now attempted, not only would the greatest delay ensue, but in all probability there would be an immense outlay incurred, he did not say of public money, because the fund applicable to that purpose was the Suitors' Fund, but there would be an immense demand made upon that fund, the result of which no human being could tell. Most probably, however, at the end of four, five, or six years, when the new site had been purchased and cleared, and when the Government of the day had selected the architect for erecting the building, other Gentlemen would rise in the House and say that the circumstances were altered, that a still better site might be obtained in the east, the west, the north, or the south, the whole question would be left in suspense, and no final decision whatever would be come to. On the question of space, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper). The site already acquired was seven acres; and if the Courts of Law could not be accommodated on that space, their requirements must be very extraordinary indeed. Under those circumstances, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had made no Motion, he hoped he would be content with the discussion which had just taken place.

said, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can inform the House what steps he in tends to take in reference to the contemplated measure for expediting the dissolution of Parliament on the new constituency in the autumn? He believed that both sides of the House would be agreed that it was desirable that as little uncertainty as possible should prevail in reference to that important subject; and, before they separated for a short holiday, he wished to remind the House of what he considered to be the condition in which they stood with respect to it. The right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government had brought the matter before them in a Ministerial statement about three weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman then told them that Her Majesty, acting on his advice, had announced her readiness to dissolve Parliament as soon as the state of Public Business would permit; and, he added, that by that he meant the autumn of this year, when, he believed, an appeal could be made to the new constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman informed them that the House of Commons having come to a vote opposed to the views of the Government upon a most important point of public policy, the Government only held Office upon the condition of making that appeal at the earliest possible moment; and he repeated that assertion on last Monday, in urging them to proceed as rapidly as they could with the Scotch Reform Bill. On the following day the right hon. Gentleman in replying to a question from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) said the matter had been under the consideration of the Government, and that he was bound to state that the difficulties connected with it were greater than had at first been contemplated, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman must be his (Mr. Foster's) excuse for bringing the subject, at that moment, under the notice of the House. It appeared to him, after having looked into the question as carefully as he could, that the difficulties were not insuperable—that it would be possible so to facilitate the registrations as to enable Parliament to meet in the middle of November—say, Thursday, November 12. By the present law, six weeks were allowed for the work of the Revising Barristers; but he believed that if they appointed more barristers, that work might be completed in four weeks. Then, again, the printing of the register, under the present law, occupied two months; but that was an alteration of the previous law, under which the register was printed in one month, and he saw no reason why they should not return to that former system. Thirty-five days were at present allowed for the actual process of election; but he thought that on an emergency, twenty-five days would be found sufficient for the completion of the whole of the elections. Then there might be a few days gained by shortening the time within which claims and objections could be furnished. He did not believe there could be any change made with respect to the date at which the new registration was to begin. The existing law declared that it should begin on the 1st of August; and he did nut think it would be possible to ante-date that event. Under any circumstances, some new legislation would be necessary. The 10th section of the 6 Vict. c. 18, provided that the town clerk of every borough should issue his precept to the overseers, to make out the lists before the 10th of June in each year. The precepts should, of course, be issued for those additions to the boundaries to be made under the Boundary Bill, and he supposed it would not be possible to get that measure passed before the 10th of June; so that some fresh legislation would be necessary, in reference to that matter. That was not, however, an important point, because there would be time between the 10th of June and the 11th of July for the overseers to prepare the lists. Under all the circumstances, it appeared to him that it would be quite possible for Parliament to meet in the middle of November—say, the 12th of that month, so that they might begin business on Tuesday, the 17th, which would be the same time at which they had commenced business last year. But other Members might entertain a different opinion upon that subject; and that being the case, he hoped that the Government and the House would take into their consideration the suggestion which had been made by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), that the question should be referred to a Select Committee. There would be this advantage in adopting such a course, that as the Committee would no doubt consist of Members from both sides of the House, any decision to which it might come would be regarded as one perfectly irrespective of party or personal considerations. Many Members, it was true, objected to having their holidays cut short by an autumn Session, but, on the other hand, a longer Recess with several months spent in canvassing, would come to much the same thing. Whatever might be the general opinion, however, he was sure the House would not approach this question in any personal or party spirit. How an early dissolution would tell on party aims, he, for one, had not the remotest idea. There were several reasons for having as early a dissolution as possible. Undoubtedly it might be found that the difficulties in the way of the adoption of such a course might be insuperable, and that the new elections could only be hurried forward at the risk of disqualifying the voters who had been enfranchised under the new Reform Bill. In the latter event, of course, it would not be advisable to have an immediate dissolution, for certainly it was the first duty of the House to take care that the new electors to whom votes had been given by the English, Irish, and Scotch Bills, should not be disqualified in consequence of any haste in the registration. But if there were no such difficulties he thought little difference of opinion could exist as to public convenience being promoted by an early election. Even the right hon. Gentleman opposite had himself stated that a great question of public policy having been debated, and the House having arrived at a decision adverse to the opinion entertained by Her Majesty's Ministers, it was important that the opinion of the country should be taken without delay. There was another reason why the decision of the country should be given as soon as possible, and that was that the longer this great question was in debate, the worse it would be for England and Ireland. If it turned out, as was urged from the other side, that the feeling of the country coincided with that of the minority of the House, the quicker that opinion was known the better, in order that Gentlemen on the Opposition side might give up a fruitless agitation. If, on the contrary, the majority of the people in the country coincided with the majority of the House, even Gentlemen from the North of Ireland would agree that the sooner the question was settled for the interests of Ireland the better. The saving of three months during the present year might be the means of saving much bad blood, agitation, and hot water in Ireland. He did not think the question whether or not the present Administration possessed the confidence of Parliament was of sufficient importance to justify the putting of the country to inconvenience in the matter of a General Election; but nobody could deny that owing to exceptional circumstances the Constitution of the country was strained at the present time. Her Majesty's Ministers were holding Office in a manner that was contrary to the usual custom of this country. They held it in opposition to a majority of the House, upon a question of the very utmost importance. The Government had stated that they held Office simply because, in the present exceptional circumstances, they found it difficult to appeal to the country, though they were most anxious to make such an appeal. He gave them credit for that being their view, and upon the whole he believed that they had not taken a wrong course in determining to appeal to the new constituencies. That however, was only another reason why the Constitution of the country should be strained as little as possible, and that the appeal should be made at the earliest possible opportunity. These were the reasons which induced him to put his Question to the First Lord of the Treasury.

said, he could fully confirm what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford as to the possibility of having an election in the middle of October, and he thought that only very slight alterations would be required in our electoral machinery for the purpose of accomplishing that end; but the real question to be determined was whether the House were really desirous to have a sitting in November? He went so far with his hon. Friend as this—that he should be very glad, in common he was sure with most hon. Members, to have the opportunity of eating his Christmas dinner in peace, find unless there was to be an election during the present year, that desirable object could not be attained. According to the present law Parliament could not be dissolved until after the 31st of December, and consequently there could be no elections till the beginning of January; but without going as far as his hon. Friend proposed, and without even attempting to alter any part of our electoral machinery, he wished to point out that we might have an election in December, so that the new House might meet either in the early part, or the middle of January. Thus the unpleasantness of canvassing during Christmas would be got rid of. He would briefly indicate how this might be accomplished. Under the present law the lists must he handed over by the Revising Barristers to the clerks of the peace on the 31st of October, and the clerks of the peace were allowed two months from that time to prepare the lists, by putting them into alphabetical order, and causing them to be printed. But prior to the Act of last year the clerks of the peace were only allowed one month to prepare the lists, and were obliged to have them ready on the 30th of November. Now, if a return were made as to what was the law on this subject previous to last year the elections might easily occur in the middle of December, and the House might then meet not less than thirty-five days afterwards, or some time in the middle of January. That would be one way of getting over the inconvenience and unpleasantness of a long canvass during the winter months. He did not, however, say that the object of his hon. Friend could not be accomplished; for he thought there might be an autumnal meeting of the House in November, if the House desired it. That object might be attained, either in the way just sketched out by his hon. Friend, or in the way sug- gested by the Solicitor General some evenings ago. At all events, he was sure that all hon. Members must desire to prevent the long period of excitement which would be inevitable if the elections were postponed till after Christmas.

Sir, last evening when the Scotch Reform Bill was under discussion the late Lord Advocate said it was the unanimous wish of the House that the dissolution should be hurried forward. I expressed my dissent by a "No," which found a response on both sides of the House. Now I think this is a question which affects other persons in this House besides the right hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the front Benches. It affects the convenience of private Members, and the interests of the public, though I perceive it is too much regarded simply as a question between right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House and right hon. Gentlemen on the other. On this side of the House you have right hon. Gentleman who, no doubt, suppose it is not in the interest of the country that a Government in a minority should continue in Office. On the other hand, we have Gentlemen on that side of the House who have thought it their duty to carry on the Government with a minority. I should remind the House, however, that although the Government were in a large minority on the Irish Church question, yet they were in a majority on the great constitutional question which has occupied so much of our time. Last year, when the English Reform Bill was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) did all he could to carry certain propositions which would have turned out the Government, but he failed to do so. Last night we had the Scotch Reform Bill under discussion, and again the right hon. Gentleman spoke against the proposition of the Government, and his party to a certain extent supported him; but what was the result? Why, the propositions of the Government were carried. On this great constitutional question, therefore, the Government has been able to command a majority. Is there, then, any important public reason which would justify the forcing of our whole system of registration, and the torturing of the machinery of registration, in order that two mouths, or perhaps one month earlier, a vote may be taken in this House as to which right hon. Gentleman is to be at the head of affairs? I maintain that there is no public reason which justifies or demands that such a course should be taken, and as a private Member I boldly say, that after the hard work of a long Session, we ought not to be put to the inconvenience of spending the months of August, September, and October in electioneering. I say boldly that I want to have those three months free. I want ray holiday in August, September, and October, instead of having it sacrificed in order that an early decision may be come to as to whether this or that right hon. Gentleman should be in power. At the same time, I, with other private Members, shall be quite willing to make the sacrifice if the public interest required that that decision should be precipitated. The speech of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) showed the great difficulties in the way of bringing about a dissolution in time to enable the House to re-assemble on the 12th or 17th of November. You were to repeal and enact, and, indeed, such a description of the difficulties to be got over was given that it seemed to me the argument by which the hon. Gentleman attempted to show how possible it would be to do, what I hope is unnecessary, proved the impossibility, or, at any rate, the impolicy of doing it. The right hon. Gentleman says that if we postpone a dissolution we shall be spending all the autumn—the time we should naturally spend on the hills of Scotland, or the hills of Switzerland, or, at any rate, in enjoying the country—in canvassing our constituents. Let the hon. Gentleman speak for himself, if his constituents have so little confidence in him that he has to spend a whole holiday in going about from door to door canvassing them. I hope my constituents have more confidence in me than to require that I should go about from door to door for three months waiting upon them. I maintain that the public interests, so far from requiring all this, require that it should not be done. The hon. Gentleman talks about registration agents, but a letter appeared in The Times this morning from the gentleman who is, perhaps, the best authority in this kingdom on the question—an authority which, at any rate, the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) will not dispute; for it is in a great measure to the exertions of Mr. Sidney Smith the Secretary of the Liberal Registration Society in London, that the light hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, including the worthy Alderman (Alderman Lawrence), owe their seats in this House. Mr. Smith's opinion is not that of a theorist, as the opinion of the hon. Member for Bradford is, for the hon. Member is no more competent than any other Member who is not a lawyer, nor a practical registrar, to express an opinion on the subject. What does this practical man say? He says—

"Sir,—May I be permitted to ask" [not on behalf of the right hon. Members on the other side, but] "on behalf of the world outside the House of Commons, what urgent necessity there is for hastening the business of registration and the dissolution of Parliament?

"If the new constituencies are to be properly tested, the register must be rightly formed. Every official has a new and excessively ill-drawn Act to understand and to work; every Revising Barrister has to dispose of a fresh statute, bristling with points of doubt which will all have to be argued out, and to reconcile, if he can, anomalies betwixt the new and the old Acts, which will puzzle all concerned."

"It the General Election is to be anything but a scramble, in which nobody will be allowed time to discover the colours under which he would march, it should not be before January at the earliest."

Which party would gain by it? Bead the latter part of the letter.

I am ready to read the whole, but I do not wish to trouble the House. I had marked that passage to read—

"The only faction that can gain by precipitating the business of revision is that which would be weakest if the new statute were duly carried out, and that is certainly not the Liberal party."

said, he had never accused right hon. Gentlemen opposite of undue tenacity to Office. On the contrary, he was of opinion that the course they had taken was the right one. Although it might be doubted whether any Prime Minister ever had a right to a dissolution before leaving Office, he believed that, if ever a Prime Minister had that right, it was the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not on the ground on which he himself had put it, that the present Parliament was not elected under his auspices, or those of his predecessor; but because his Government had passed one of the most remarkable and important Acts in the history of this country, and he had every right to ask whether the country gave him credit for it or did not. He had his own opinion as to the answer that would be given, and thought the country would rather give the credit to the Liberal side of the House; right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite had as good a right to their opinion; and it certainly was a question which they were entitled to put to the country. That feeling was very general on the Liberal side of the House; and it was because of that that remarkable forbearance had been shown to the Government. That forbearance was entirely due to the very peculiar circumstances in which the Government were placed. It must be recollected that the ordinary chance of a dissolution was almost denied to the present Government by the necessity of appealing to the now constituencies. Nothing but the direst necessity would have warranted the Government in dissolving with the existing constituencies. Under ordinary circumstances, he believed the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not, but for this reason, have delayed a dissolution the first time he was beaten by a majority of 60. At that time a dissolution would have been almost wanton, and would have brought together a Parliament which could have sat only for a few months and could have settled nothing. It would have been a serious inconvenience to hon. Members, and, which is of far greater importance, a serious disaster to the country, to have had two dissolutions within a year: of each other. It was owing to these circumstances that we had not a dissolution two months ago, and that very proper forbearance was shown to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It certainly behoved the Government, for the sake of their own characters and to justify the the forbearance to them under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, to see that not a moment was lost in consulting the country as soon as it was possible to do so. The country undoubtedly expected it; and he had been asked over and over again, "Do you believe the Government are sincere in telling us that they will expedite matters as much ns possible in order to give us an early dissolution?" He always said he believed such was their intention; and he still held that belief. Whether that were so or not, it was the right thing for them to do, and for the Opposition to insist upon as the only means of justifying the forbearance they had shown. At the commencement of the Session, looking forward to the difficulties that were sure to arise, to the probability of the Government being in a minority, and to the probability of a Vote of Want of Confidence being moved, which he and others, however, had determined not to be parties to, it was his idea that the proper Business of the Session was the passing of the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills, and of the Bill against Corrupt Practices at Elec- tions. That was the Business that Parliament ought to endeavour to finish now, and the Opposition ought to insist on a dissolution at the earliest possible moment.

Sir, after it has been admitted that this Parliament would have been dissolved were it not for exceptional circumstances, it appears to me that we are not in a position to deal with contested measures, or measures of public importance about which there may he great difference of opinion. The supplemental measures of Reform relating to Scotland and Ireland—which may be considered to form part of the original question of Reform—should alone be the measures dealt with by this Parliament. I have doubts whether the Bill with regard to Corrupt Practices at Elections ought to be decided by this Parliament, because it is proposed by it to transfer the jurisdiction over contested elections to Judges out of the House. And we can never get that jurisdiction back if we part with it, without the consent of the other House. Therefore, a question of that importance should not be disposed of by the present Parliament. There is also the Telegraph Bill, involving questions of importance that will lead to long discussions. There is also the measure relating to the Importation of Foreign Cattle. That will lead to discussion. I think that all these measures had better be deferred to a new Parliament, rather than that we should take upon ourselves the responsibility of deciding upon them. This may be considered a dead Parliament, and we ought not to attempt to settle these great questions in it. I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, whether he will give us some assurance that the business of the Session will be limited to the subjects to which I have referred?

said, he wished to remind the House of the position in which they stood with regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill. In 1860 his hon. Friend Mr. Bentinck, who was then Member for West Norfolk, proposed as an Instruction on going into Committee upon Lord John Russell's Reform Bill that the Committee should have power to deal with the question of bribery and corruption. Lord Palmerston, with his usual good sense, assented to that view, and the Instruction was adopted. In 1866 he (Sir Rainald Knightley) made a similar Motion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) thought proper to object to it; but the House re-affirmed their former decision, that bribery and corruption were part and parcel of the same question. In deference to this repeated expression of opinion, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) last year said he would either deal with the question of bribery and corruption in the Reform Bill, or on the same night would bring in a separate measure. He did not reproach the right hon. Gentleman for failing to carry out that intention, for circumstances made it almost impossible to do so. But both sides of the House were pledged to deal with the question of bribery and corruption, and as soon as the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills were dealt with he hoped that the Government would proceed with the Bribery Bill without any delay.

said, he had not hitherto uttered one word about the "clinging to Office "which was said to characterize the Government; but, on the other hand, he had seen nothing of the "writhing" process which the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had described as going on upon the Treasury Benches. He was not surprised that the noble Lord should have taken advantage even of this opportunity of expressing his sympathy with her Majesty's Government. But on this occasion it seemed to be wasted. He (Mr. Otway) thought that Ministers retained their seats with astonishing calmness and composure, although there had been a Ministerial crisis about once a fortnight. The fact was that the question of the gravest importance just now was not what party should be in Office; the credit of the House itself was at stake. Of late the House of Commons had fallen into great discredit throughout the country. Scenes had occurred there which had rarely been witnessed before; and those who presided over the affairs of the country had shown such an indifference to public opinion and to constitutional usage as had never been shown by any Government of recent days. Now, he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown would say anything on this matter which he thought would bring discredit upon the House of Commons. But as the right hon. Gentleman had said it was his earnest wish to dissolve as soon as possible, and the Solicitor General added that means might be taken for facilitating a General Election, it was desirable, that the House should know whether the right hon. Gentleman would on an early day introduce a Bill to shorten the time between the dissolution and the elections. Not only was the honour of public men at stake on this occasion, but the House would remember that the longer this question of the Irish Church was kept in abeyance, the greater would be the turmoil and the disorder in Ireland itself. Again, from the moment the House separated it was tolerably certain that canvassing would be carried on all over the country. For instance, if he (Mr. Otway) gathered correctly the opinions of Scotchmen, the noble Lord must make great exertions in order to secure his return for Haddingtonshire, and would have to make a larger distribution of tobacco than at the last election. He believed the feeling of the country to be that the right hon. Gentleman should do all in his power to expedite the General Election, and he trusted that he would make a declaration to that effect.

said, he did not think that any arguments could be advanced on public grounds in favour of an early dissolution. Hon. Members were well entitled to a quiet holiday when they left Westminster; besides which, the period between the dissolution and January was short enough for the country to form an opinion upon the great question of Popery and Protestantism on which the new Parliament would probably be elected.

Sir, with reference to the inquiry of the right him. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) as to the conduct of Business, I thought I had before expressed the views of the Government upon that subject. Our opinion is that we should confine our labours, generally speaking, to that which is necessary; and I should describe as "necessary" only the supplementary Reform Bills and the Estimates. With regard to the Bribery and Corruption Bill, I myself should relinquish it with a pang. It is, in my opinion, most desirable, if not absolutely under the circumstances, indispensable; and if, after proceeding with the supplementary Reform Bills, and the Public Business which is absolutely necessary, we have time also to carry the Bribery and Corruption Bill, there will be no lack of effort on the part of the Government to do so. Then, with regard to other measures. We have allowed some of them, such as the Bankruptcy Bill, to drop. There are, however, two measures, which have been especially alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the Telegraphs Bill and the Bill with regard to the Importation of Foreign Cattle which have not been formally withdrawn. There are special reasons why these subjects should be brought under the consideration of the House; but then it will be for the House to express an opinion whether they should be proceeded with or not, or whether certain objects of public interest connected with them might not be accomplished without going on with the entire measures. With regard to the inquiry of of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) as to the steps which we intend to take in reference to the contemplated measure for expediting the dissolution of Parliament and the appeal to the new constituency in the autumn, I have nothing, certainly, more precise to say than I had forty-eight hours ago, when the subject was introduced to my notice. It is a matter on which it is useless to speak unless you are prepared to speak with great precision. When I originally made to the House that declaration to which the hon. Member adverted—namely, that I was assured by those in whom I placed confidence that an autumn Session was practicable—and of course at that time I never contemplated a Session earlier than November—I felt that it was a very great object to obtain that result, and great incredulity was expressed by many hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was even intimated that I had made a random observation without having consulted the Law Officers. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) brought the matter before this House, but he brought it forward in a spirit of scepticism and incredulity, not for the purpose of pressing the Government to accomplish an autumn Session—or facilitating that operation, but rather of making some critical remarks by which he wished to prove that it was impossible. Upon that occasion the Solicitor General—though it has been insinuated that I had not consulted with the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject—placed before the House the general conclusions at which he had arrived. But that was not a mature statement on the part of the Government, but was rather intended to show to the House that we were in earnest, and had given considerable attention to the matter. We were obliged to make that statement then in self-defence; but it was not put forward by the Solicitor General as a complete mid mature exposition of the views of the Government, and the means by which they hoped to accomplish their purpose. Well, the subject has been more or less under our consideration since that period, and though some time has elapsed, not a day has been lost so far as regards the ultimate accomplishment of our object. But we had not only to consider what were the best means by which that object could be accomplished; some regard was also due to the progress of other Public Business, and our calculations must be affected in some degree by that consideration. I said when I spoke first that it was very important that the Boundary Bill should be passed by the 10th of June. That was an element in our calculation, but, unfortunately, now there is no chance that it can be passed so soon. Then you are to have questions of boundary with regard to the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills which are of a very vague and disturbing character. But, at the same time, I am bound to state that these are difficulties which I think may be overcome; but, nevertheless, we must remember that in preparing any proposition for the consideration of the House, it is of the utmost importance that no suspicion should enter into the minds of the new constituencies of this country that there is any attempt to neutralize the great privileges which we, in my opinion most wisely, accorded to them last year, by, as it were, hurrying and hustling them in obtaining their electoral privileges. And although I have had schemes put before me for reducing the period of registration—which I must say were far from impracticable, though they might have been expensive—but in a matter of this kind the House would not hesitate as to the expense—still, in other respects they proposed such a serious reduction of the time for making claims and defending and vindicating rights, as to require the utmost delicacy and consideration on the part of this House, otherwise the result might be of an undesirable and even a calamitous character. Because, if there be an impression after all that, though we have given those privileges to the great body of the people, yet at the last moment they have been deprived of time to avail themselves fully of their new rights, the House of Commons that would be elected would be one in which the mass of the people would not have confidence. That consideration has not been absent from the mind of the Government, nor should be absent from that of the House for a moment, and in any propositions which we shall make to accomplish an earlier dissolution than the law at present provides, that consideration will necessarily influence us. I must repeat to the House that no time has really been lost, and that Her Majesty's Government have given to this subject a constant, and, I hope, a candid consideration.

Sir, there are two brandies of this subject. One of them relates to the Bills as to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) has inquired whether, in case they are contested, the Government would go forward with them or not, and on that matter the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown is a perfectly just and fair answer. He says that in his opinion all Business ought to be dropped except the measures necessary as a supplement to the Reform Act, unless there be some very special cases indeed. I think the right hon. Gentleman has specified in a very fair manner all the measures essentially supplementary to the Reform Bill. I presume him to mean the Irish Bill, the Scotch Bill, and the Boundary Bill. I think the House entirely sympathizes with the right hon. Gentleman in his strong desire to dispose, if possible, of the Corrupt Practices Bill. But, with regard to the Foreign Cattle Market Bill and the Electric Telegraph Bill, we are not precisely cognizant as yet of the special reasons which make the Government desirous of carrying them forward at this moment. As to the Foreign Cattle Market Bill, I confess I am very sceptical, if not extremely jealous, of the policy it involves; but I will not give any opinion upon it now. But, with regard to the other branch of the question, I cannot speak with quite so much satisfaction. And here I greatly regret that, after my hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) introduced the subject in a tone which could give offence to none, and which involved no matter of controversy, my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), in that indulgence if not of his sympathies, at all events of his antipathies, found it necessary to trouble, perplex, and embroil the question by the introduction of very invidious, not to say offensive topics. Now, Sir, I must very frankly make this protest in the face of the noble Lord. The noble Lord says he is anxious for the credit of the House. It is not for the credit of the House that this matter, with respect to the time of dissolution, should be made to turn upon the holidays of the noble Lord or any other person. I must say that ingenuous confession of his is one which I must take the liberty not to pass by in silence, and I think the noble Lord himself will feel it is not a consideration upon which this matter ought to turn, [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear.] I am glad we are agreed in that; it was a part of his speech on which the noble Lord dwelt with some emphasis, and it elicited some cheers from another quarter of the House. Well, the Session of Parliament, by the very declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, is a maimed and mutilated Session. It is a Session in which the House is quite averse from carrying forward a variety of important measures, not simply from want of time, because we have not yet reached that period of the year at which measures would have been dropped from want of time, but on account of the political situation which has arisen. What is that situation? On an occasion upon which this House arrived at certain votes with regard to the Irish Church, the right hon. Gentleman attached, I will not say an exaggerated, but an enormous importance to those votes. I thought, however, that there was some degree of exaggeration in the remark of the right hon. Gentleman—that the consequences were more important and vital than those of a foreign conquest. But at the same time he recognized, and properly recognized, the facts then before him as constituting what we in our peaceful way looked upon as a constitutional crisis, The right hon. Gentleman, though he did not say so at the moment, stated afterwards that the votes of Parliament did not justly represent the opinions of the country. That is the opinion which he has expressed, and he holds that opinion irrespectively of other doctrines to which I do not assent, but which the right hon. Gentleman has sometimes laid down with regard to the general right of a Minister to dissolve Parliament. But with respect to the case of dissolving Parliament when the Advisers of the Crown consider that the existing Parliament does not actually represent the country, they are clearly in the right when they undertake upon a bonâ fide declaration of that kind to appeal to the sense of the people. But do the facts supply the reasons for delaying that appeal which my noble Friend said had been supplied in this case? Undoubtedly, it would have been a great waste of labour on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), if he had entered into an elaborate argument and exposition of facts which he naturally supposed to be present to the mind of every man. The Government have recognized them; they have declared that a case had arisen either fur resignation of their offices or for an appeal to the people. Well, now, it is the A B C of Parliamentary knowledge that when such an appeal to the people is to be made under circumstances like these—that is to say, as an alternative to resignation, it is to be made at the first practicable moment, and I am certainly astonished that a man of the experience of the noble Lord should have to be instructed in a truth so elementary. Well, let me look back to what has happened in former years. There were three of those cases. In 1841, a case of this kind arose. A Vote of Want of Confidence having been passed, the supplies were voted for a few months, Parliament was dissolved, and the new Parliament met in August. [Lord ELCHO; There had been a Reform Bill.] I will come to that presently; for I like to deal with things in order. In all these cases, it was a matter of course, and according to the practice of the Constitution, that the appeal should be made at the earliest possible moment, and that the new Parliament should meet immediately after that appeal. The case of 1841 was a remarkable instance of that kind, and in neither instance was there any direct declaration of want of confidence in the Government, but the Government was in a minority in a general vague sense—not that they were unable to carry on the Business of the country, or that they did not sometimes obtain majorities in the House; but they were in circumstances which the Government itself recognized as rendering it its duty to wind up the business of the Session, and appeal to the people. The appeal was made in due course, and the new Parliament met for the purposes of an autumn Session. There was, therefore, nothing special in the inquiry of my hon. Friend to justify the noble Lord in going out of his way to find or impute motives to that inquiry. The affair, says the noble Lord, is not an affair between Gentlemen on this Bench and Gentlemen opposite. It is, however, so far an affair between different Members of the House that the intention of an appeal to the people is that they should affirm either the policy which has been pursued on this side of the House, or the policy which has been pursued upon that. Both Bides, I am certain, with the exception of the noble Lord, and of an hon. Member opposite must recognize that the Constitution requires the earliest possible appeal to the people, in order to bring our machinery of Parliamentary government again into play. Well, then, the question is, how is that to be done? Now, here, I admit, the interpolation of the noble Lord is in place; that is to say, there has been a new Reform Bill, and consequently, the question arises how far this matter is qualified by that circumstance which renders the machinery of the present constituencies a machinery which it is undesirable to use for ascertaining the opinion of the people. Well, then, we come to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which was very much like an authoritative declaration that, according to the sentiments and judgments of men well skilled in these matters, there might be an autumn Session. That statement was made, I think, a full month ago. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: On the 4th of May.] It was made, my hon. Friend informs me, on the 4th of May, and on the 29th of May the right hon. Gentleman gives us to understand that he does not see his way; that he has a vague hope something may be effected, but cannot say what or when; and that he cannot indicate the time when he will tell us his intentions. I must say there is something very extraordinary in this change of tone on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to know his own meaning at the time when he told us that in the judgment of skilled and experienced persons it was practicable to have an autumn Session. The right hon. Gentleman says no time has been lost. I entirely disagree with him. Every day that passes is a day lost, because the operation to be effected is an operation upon the machinery of registration. It has no connection with the progress of Business in this House. The progress of Business is, it may be, very important with respect to a limited number of Bills, and as to those we can see our way perfectly well; but what is really important is that we should now ascertain, at the earliest practicable moment, what can or cannot be done to expedite the operation of the machinery for the new registration. Now, it was with reference to that point that I suggested the other day that a small Committee might possibly afford a convenient instrument for arriving at a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman made no response to that suggestion either then or to-night; and, of course, if the Government have a plan to propose, it might be more advantageous than to refer the subject to a Select Committee. It is plain, however, that if day after day and week after week slip from us, while the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, instead of becoming more clear and precise as we approach the point, become more vague and ambiguous and misty—if we pass the 10th of June, when the first step in the registration is to be taken, and the 20th of June, when the second step is be taken, and if all those periods which we intend to shorten are to be allowed to slip away—why the question will practically decide itself. I wish, therefore, to impress on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman much more than it seems to be impressed at present the gravity of this question, and the absolute necessity, after he himself laid the ground in a declaration of the most solemn kind, which, in my judgment, exists for bringing it to an early issue. We have now come to the Whitsun holidays, and must pass another week in total ignorance of what course the Government intend to take. I hope that when the House reassembles, the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to make a distinct and determinate declaration of his intentions. If he is not in a position to make such a declaration, I think that, looking to all the circumstances, and to the undoubted and unquestionable argument applicable to the subject, as well as to the precedents to which I have referred, it will become necessary—in default of just action on the part of the Ministers of the Crown—a default which I, for one, should deeply regret—for independent Members to consider whether they ought not to take some steps of a definite character for the purpose of obtaining the judgment of Parliament upon the subject.

said, he was glad that reference had been made to the shame and disgust which prevailed out of doors with regard to the language which had been used in the House during the last few weeks, and which had recently called forth a cutting rebuke from the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne). Only last night an hon. Member gave the he direct, and was obliged to retract, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) had just de- scribed the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) as offensive. [Mr. GLADSTONE: My words were "Not to say offensive."] Well, that was a negative way of saying that they were offensive. There had been a great number of dictatorial speeches, and the exhibition of angry passions which ought to have been kept under control; and he was bound to say that not the least dictatorial speech of all was that which had just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He could see no reason why the House should listen to such speeches or why such language should be used, and surely those who had most contributed to the delays of this Session had the least right to press the Government to forego the satisfaction of carrying necessary and desirable measures. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson) in his usual fascinating manner, had appealed to the Government to withdraw all measures except those relating to Reform; but he had omitted to mention a little Bill which was quite unnecessary and which might be dropped with very great advantage—the four-clause Suspensory Bill. What justification could there be for proceeding with that Bill, which would throw all ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland into confusion for twelve months? How had the proper Business of the Session been delayed but by the sudden introduction of proposals for disestablishing the Irish Church? What object that procedure could serve, the right hon. Member for South Lancashire could best say. The right hon. Gentleman knew well the firebrand he was throwing down. In fact, of all the Bills before the House there was none for which there was less cause than the Bill in question. A Suspensory Bill ought not to have been introduced unless there was a reasonable certainty that within the twelvemonth during which it was to be in operation permanent legislation would take place; but he could see no such certainty in this case. For his own part, considering that long intervals between dissolutions and elections were extremely in convenient and expensive, he should like to get the election over within a fortnight of the close of the Session, so that Members might begin their holidays with their difficulties over; but it was only right that time should be given to the country to consider the questions at issue. It took some time to arouse the political feelings of the people, and he trusted that during the next few months the country would consider the position of the Church in Ireland, and the results which would follow to the Church of England if the Irish Church were disestablished. It was but fair that the people should have time to reflect on the changes which had been proposed, and to consider whether they should support the present Government or the right hon. Gentleman opposite He hoped that a dissolution would not be pressed forward too hastily, but that the difficulties in the way of registration and other matters would be fully considered and carefully investigated by the proper authorities.

said, they had at last got an avowal as to the cause why the postponement of the dissolution was thought to be desirable, namely—that they might have an opportunity of getting up a cry. He thought it greatly to be deprecated that an attempt should be made by any political party to get up a religious cry. Nothing would be more disastrous to the interests of the country than to inflame the passions of the people on the ground of religion. He believed no cry was likely to do such permanent injury to the country, or to inflict more indelible mischief and disgrace on those engaged in getting it up. Whether or not it would be successful he could not say; but they had already seen the peace of this country broken by religious riots in the North of England, and he believed a most serious responsibility would rest on any Minister, however, eminent his fame and talent might be, who lent the sanction of his high authority to raising a religious cry, whether that of "No Popery," or "No Protestantism." There had been other ominous signs and indications, though of a minor nature, as to the course of proceedings intended to be taken. A Notice of Motion given by a Member of that House had been distorted and misrepresented in a way which, during his experience of Parliament, which now extended over sixteen years, he had never seen equalled. He alluded to the manner in which the Notice given by the hon. Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) for the insertion of clauses in the Oaths Bill had been vilified and misrepresented in doubleleaded columns in an organ of the party opposite, and to the extraordinary interpretation put upon it by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire a short time back.

The hon. Member refers to a past debate, which he is not at liberty to do.

said, he would not pursue the topic further. He thought it a serious matter that these religious questions should be stirred in this manner, and the public passions inflamed. The sooner the issue was taken the better for the country. He sincerely believed that the condition of Ireland was was one of very serious import, and if not soon remedied might be a cause of permanent disaster to the interests of the Empire. There was a lull at this moment in the dangers of Fenianism; but he trusted the House and the country would not be led into false security by the peril appearing to have passed away for the moment, and that the hopes excited by the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, and affirmed by a majority of the House, might not be indefinitely postponed. Nothing could be more injurious to the prosperity of the Empire, or to the interests of Ireland, than that the faith of the country in the wisdom of Parliament should be shaken, and that the public should be led to think they had no redress for the evils that oppressed that portion of the Empire. He believed in the justice of the English people, and was happy to think that the efforts to create discoid had to a great extent failed. He looked forward with confidence to the public supporting that policy which was directed to the maintenance of union and harmony between both branches of the Empire, and which would ultimately, he trusted, attain a prosperous issue.

said, he very much regretted that the discussion had not been continued in the tone in which it had been introduced by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). The question raised by the hon. Member was a very simple one. With respect to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), that the Government were going back from something they had stated before, he entirely repudiated any such insinuation. He asked the House whether it would be possible to introduce a Registration Bill, or to adopt means to facilitate the registration, until they knew what the boundaries of the boroughs were to be, and until the matters were settled which were to be the basis of the registration? When his right hon. Friend made his statement, he expected that the question of the Boundary Bill would have advanced much more rapidly. The House, however, although it was the Commission of their own appointing, had thought proper to refer the subject to a Select Committee. He understood that some changes had been made by the Committee, which would have to be discussed, and either adopted or rejected by the House. Until that was done, it was impossible to say in what way the registration could best be facilitated. He was prepared to say on behalf of the Government that they did not go back in any sense from what they had stated. At that very moment, those who were acquainted with the matter, were waiting and watching for the completion of the Boundary Bill, and the Government were prepared, if the opportunity were given them, to hasten a dissolution as much as it was proper to do.

said, he had heard with very great pleasure the statement just made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. When the First Minister of the Crown made his statement on the 4th of May, he asked him whether he had spoken after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown? He understood the right hon. Gentleman to give him an assurance, and he had since remained in the hope that he would do so, and would then make a more definite statement to the House. He had never taken any step to press the right hon. Gentleman, though he had certainly expected to hear something more definite. It appeared to him that the statement now made by the Secretary of State was satisfactory, and he had no doubt that after the Recess the House would receive some definite proposal from the Government on the subject.

said, he wished to know whether the two Bills having reference to the Government of India would be proceeded with?

said, he would make inquiry of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India as to the Bills, and take an early opportunity of stating the intentions of the Government.

said, he rose to call attention to Rule 164 of "The Rules, Orders, and Forms of Proceedings of the House of Commons"—namely, "No Member may allude to any Debate in the Other House of Parliament," and to it; frequent infraction or evasion, and to move that it be rescinded. These Rules were often treated like a net which was strong enough to stop the little fishes, but which the great fishes broke through whenever it so pleased them. Now he could not understand the use of Rules that were not to be uniform in their operation. All Members of that House were presumed to be on a footing of perfect equality. They recognized no social rank as giving any preponderance in the estimation of the House; a noble Lord had no greater weight than his talents and character might give him in their debates, and no advantage over another person who was a Commoner. A Minister was no more than a Member. He was, therefore, not ready to give one Member impunity in infringing this law; an impunity not extended to others, simply because he had occupied the position of a Minister in this House. He had noticed that when anything had occurred in the other House of Parliament, which excited interest in this House, hon. Members who had been in office previously, and who expected to be in Office again, were habitually accustomed to disregard the Rule in question, and to refer to debates in the other House of Parliament, and even to give the speakers' names, repeating the ipsissima verba of their speeches, without even going through the formality of apologizing or asking permission before doing so. He was always desirous of avoiding direct personal reference to Members of the House, and therefore he would not mention the particular occasion to which he referred; but it must be within the recollection of the House that, on a recent occasion, the Rule to which he alluded was completely broken through. But minor Members were not allowed to infringe the Rule without being called to Order. Though personally not in favour of restricting Parliamentary freedom, he thought that if the Rule were not to be observed in high quarters, it would be better to abrogate it entirely. There was another Rule of the same kind, which had been applied to an hon. Member only a few minutes ago. It was of precisely the same character as the other, and it was for the credit of the House that, if applied to one, it should be applied to all. He held that Members of that House were completely on a par one with another, though one might excel his fellows in some qualifications for public distinction, just as the horses which ran for the Derby two days ago were all blood horses, almost exactly equal in breed and training, though one might come in a head or u neck in front of another at the end of the race. He did not put his own judgment against the experience of centuries which had established the Rule, but he desired that his: Motion should be proposed from the Chair pro formâ, so that the subject might be discussed.

The hon. Member says that he desires to put this Motion pro formâ; but the fact is that there is no such Rule in existence, in a shape that it can be formally rescinded. Certain Rules are to be found in a book which defines what the observances of Parliament are; but they are not in the nature of Standing Orders. There is no Standing Order dealing with this subject, or anything that can be rescinded in the manner suggested by the hon. Member. I will, however, put his Motion if he desires it.

said, he would ask Mr. Speaker, as a Question of Order, whether he could not enforce these Rules, and whether he would not enforce Rule 164 against any private Member; and also whether it was not a fact that Rule 160 had that very evening been enforced in the case of a private Member?

Certainly, if any hon. Member infringed Rule 164, which, as I said, is an account of the practice of Parliament, I should feel it my duty to put that Rule in force; and I trust that I should do so with impartiality in the case of any hon. Member who transgresses it, But the matter can be very easily arranged. If the hon. Member desires the law of Parliament should be laid down that allusions to debates in the other House of Parliament should be permitted, it would be more proper for him to put his Motion in that shape than in the form in which it stands on the Paper.

I understood the hon. Gentleman—though what has fallen from him is not very clear—to cast some censure upon me for having made allusion to debates in the House of Lords.

I do not presume to censure the right hon. Gentleman.

Well, I do not mean to complain of the hon. Gentleman's censures or observations whichever he meant. What I wish to say is this, that it appears to me that reference to debates in the House of Lords is, as a general rule, very improper and inexpedient; but cases may occur in which it would not only not be improper and inexpedient, but in which it would enter into the obligations of Members of Parliament to do so. I can say for myself that I have been extremely rigid in abstaining from all references to the House of Lords in any matter of general controversy. I think I may say that during my public life, extending now over thirty-six years, I do not remember to have referred to anything said in the House of Lords except on two occasions, and both of these were in the present year. They were cases which did not refer to myself, but they were cases where the position of the House of Commons was involved. It appears to me that in cases where a Member of the House of Commons thinks, whether rightly or wrongly, that a declaration made by a Minister in the House of Lords is material to the position of the House of Commons, it is, I do not say his duty to refer to that declaration as having been made in the House of Lords, but it is his duty to get at that declaration in any manner he can, and make it part of the subject-matter of discussion in this House. So again, if a Member thinks, whether rightly or wrongly, but in good faith, that remarks have been made in the House of Lords disparaging to this House, he would be fulfilling his duty, rather than doing a thing calling for any apology, in referring to them. I do not conceive that any reference ought to be made to the House of Lords except in those two cases; but I must', add that I have heard many speeches in the House of Lords which consisted simply of replies to the arguments of Members of this House. With respect to the rescinding of this Rule Her Majesty's Government will, no doubt, have their own opinion upon that; but I conceive this Rule, like every other Rule of the House, must be applied with discretion. There is no rule more rigidly observed amongst us, than that no Member should speak more than once; but it constantly happens—sometimesin the case of a Minister, sometimes in the case of a Member who has been attacked—that the House by a just instinct relaxes the rule in his favour on grounds of public convenience, and he is not only allowed, but encouraged, to infringe the rule. These are customs which are a good deal more honoured in the observance than in the breach in ordinary circumstances; but peculiar circumstances will arise from time to time, and the good sense of the House may be trusted to discern the cases in which it is better to allow the custom to be broken through. But now, with regard to the hon. Gentleman, I wish to return his animadversions upon himself for one word which he used in the course of his observations. He spoke as if you, Sir, only enforced this Rule against private Members. I am not sure that I know the definition of a private Member; but if there be a definition strictly applicable to that word, it includes all persons, except Mr. Speaker himself and the Gentlemen who are Officers under the Crown. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit that it is impossible to apply these Rules in a more equal or impartial manner than is now done in the conduct of Public Business and the regulation of our proceedings.

said, he hoped the House would always support that Rule; because he thought it prevented controversies and recriminations between the two Houses, while it had a tendency to promote mutual courtesy and softened the manners of a popular assembly, which required some restriction of that kind. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not sanction the criticism of the hon. Member nor the object to which it would lead. As to any observation which might seem to impugn the impartiality of Mr. Speaker, he could only say, speaking for those who sat on that (the Ministerial) side, that there existed only one feeling—that Mr. Speaker exercised his functions with an impartial discrimination towards both sides of the House.

disclaimed any intention to impugn the Speaker's impartiality, and said he would withdraw his Motion.

said, he rose to move "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Declaration against Trausubstantiation, &c, taken by the Sovereign of this Realm at his first Parliament, or at his Coronation, whichever shall first happen after his Accession." In doing so, he wished to make a brief explanation with reference to a Notice of Motion which he had placed upon the Paper, and which had been very much misrepresented both in that House and out-of-doors. That Notice of Motion had received a good deal of publicity in consequence of the kindness of some association, which was acting in the interests of Her Majesty's Government. It had moreover been misrepresented by the Press, and the public mind had been disturbed and confused upon the subject. A noble Lord (Lord Elcho), in the course of a debate a few nights ago, had animadverted upon that Motion without having given him (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) any intimation of his intention to do so. The noble Lord said that the clause—which he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had given Notice to move to introduce into the Promissory Oaths Bill—was an attempt, in the first place, to interfere with the Coronation Oath; in the second, to open the Throne to Roman Catholics; and, in the third place, that it was a Motion made in connivance with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), who was said to be endeavouring to upset and do away with the Protestantism of this country. As to this last notion it was too absurd for notice. The fact was that he had had no communication with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, the proposal being made on his own sole responsibility; and not a single Member, as he believed, having had any knowledge of it until it was placed on the table. The allegations that he proposed to tamper with the Coronation Oath and open the Throne to Roman Catholics; were equally unfounded. The Protestantism of the Sovereign was secured by express provisions in the Act of Settlement and in the Bill of Rights. The 9th section of the Bill of Rights declared that any person professing the Popish religion or marrying a Papist should be incapable of inheriting or possessing the Crown; the people in any such case being absolved from their allegiance and the Crown descending to the nearest Protestant heir. That Act was followed by the Act of Settlement, passed in the same reign, which repealed the provisions contained in the former Act, and further required that who ever came to the Throne should join in communion with the Church of England as by law established. He need only refer to the provisions of those Acts to show that the Notice which he had put upon the Paper had nothing to do directly or indirectly with the Protestantism or Protestant succession to the Crown; of these realms, as falsely represented in placards which had been extensively distributed. But it might be said, if this were so, what was the meaning of the Notice which he had given?

The hon. Member gave Notice of a Motion relating to this Declaration. I think he cannot enter at the length which he is now doing upon a subject that stands for future consideration.

said, he would not discuss the matter at any length, but in moving for the copy of the Declaration he did not think he was out of Order in alluding to the Motion for which he wanted it. The object of his Motion was simply to get rid of the particular Declaration, a copy of which he now moved for, and which was established in this kingdom in the reign of Charles II., at a time when Protestant feeling was strongly aroused in consequence of the excitement connected with the Popish plot. The Declaration which was required to be taken by all persons holding office was framed expressly for the purpose of excluding persons who, though nominally Protestants, were not relied upon as such; and hence the Declaration was one of a most offensive character. He would not read the whole of it, but would merely give the substance. [The hon. and learned Baronet read passages from the Declaration denouncing the belief in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the adoration of the Virgin Mary, and the sacrifice of the Mass.] The Declaration was framed in the most offensive and insulting manner to Catholics. It was a relic of that temple of intolerance which had been reared by our ancestors long ago. From the time he first entered the House he had endeavoured to erase that offensive Declaration from the statute book, and on his introducing a Bill for that purpose the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), with the feelings of a Gentleman and a Christian, stated, on behalf of the Conservative party, that he should offer no objection to the removal of this Declaration. The Bill passed through the House of Commons, but, as they were all aware, it was not the custom in "another place" to pass a Bill of the kind the first time it was sent up to them; and accordingly the application was repeated in 1867, when he was happy to say that it became the law of the land, and now every person under the Crown was relieved from the necessity of taking that Declaration. It was formerly required to be taken by the clergy in Ireland; but a Royal Commission appointed in 1865, unanimously declared that it ought to be abolished even as to the clergy. The Report of the Oaths Commission described the Declaration as "painful and irritating in its nature," and also as "needless and mischievous." At the time he first introduced the Bill he carried last Session, he did not know that the Sovereign was required to take the Declaration; but afterwards it came to his knowledge that such was the case. It was too late then to put any provision into the Bill; but this year, especially after the Report of the Commissioners had been published, he had felt that advantage ought to be taken of the Promissory Oaths Bill being before the House to relieve the Sovereign from the necessity of making a Declaration which was no longer required from any of her subjects. It was with that object he had put upon the Paper a Notice for abolishing the Declaration. It was quite possible to frame a Declaration that would be effectual for the purpose without containing in it words that were almost indecent in their condemnation of doctrines believed in by nearly one-half of Europe, and by many millions of Her Majesty's subjects. He certainly had ventured to hope that a Parliament which—though it was called a moribund Parliament—had done so much for the cause of religious liberty, and in adopting the Resolutions relating to the Irish Church had shown its zeal for religious equality, would be anxious, before it passed away, to complete the noble work it had undertaken. He felt it right to make this short explanation for the purpose of explaining that the Motion was entirely his own, that it had nothing whatever to do with the Protestantism of the Crown, or the alteration of the Coronation Oath, and that its object was simply to get rid of a foolish and offensive Declaration, as the Motion was much misrepresented out-of-doors, and the misrepresentation, if un-contradicted, was calculated to do much harm by aiding the Protestant cry which Her Majesty's Ministers had attempted to raise in view of a General Election.

said, the hon. and learned Baronet had been very anxious to disclaim any intention of interfering with the Act of Settlement; but the mutt admit that the Declaration to which he so strongly objected was required to be taken not only by the Act of Settlement, but by the Bill of Rights. Hence it was not surprising that the people of this country should think the hon. and learned Baronet intended to repeal u part of the Act of Settlement, inasmuch as he proposed to strike out of that Act the provisions requiring this Declaration to be taken by the Sovereign. It was he who had called the attention of the hon. and learned Baronet to the fact that if his Bill of last year became law the Sovereign would remain the only person compelled to make this Declaration. Its terms were complained of as offensive; but its offence lay in the fact that it distinctly and plainly repudiated those cardinal doctrines of the Church of Rome, which mainly constituted the difference between that Church and the Church of England. It was unnecessary to repeat the origin of this Declaration; but there was a time in the history of this country when the religion of the aspirants to the Throne was doubtful. It was thought that the Duke of York, afterwards James II., was a Roman Catholic, and it was determined that in some explicit manner the Sovereign should make a Declaration on this leading doctrine of the Church, and should assert his identification of belief with the Reformed Church of this country. He admitted that the language of the Declaration was plain-spoken, and he consulted the present Lord Chancellor, then Sir Hugh Cairns, and Mr. Whiteside on the subject. Their opinion was that by substituting a declaration of adherence and acceptance of the 27th and 28th Articles of Religion of the Church of England all the offensive terms of the Declaration against Transubstantiation might be eliminated, and yet that the substance of the Oath might be retained. This proposal he submitted to the House in Committee on the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), Was he satisfied with this honest attempt to eliminate the offensive terms? No, he aimed at the substance of the Declaration, and induced the Committee, by a small majority, to reject the Amendment. After that opinion, given by two of the most eminent lawyers in the kingdom, and confirmed by other lawyers, and the attempt he had made to carry it into effect, he could put no faith in the hon. Member's statement that he only desired to rid one portion of the Act of Settlement of the offensive terms contained in it. He believed. that when the people out-of-doors saw an attempt made to tamper with the Act of Settlement, which, if there were any such, was the fundamental statute on which rested the rights of the Throne and the liberty of the subject—when they saw that this was done upon the plea that it was only an attempt to get rid of offensive words after an honest attempt had been made to sweep them away and retain the substance, it was not surprising if the proceedings of the hon. and learned Gentleman were regarded with great suspicion. They had heard from the hon. Member for Manchester something about the desirability of putting some limits to the right of free discussion. And at what period was this bold suggestion made? Just when repeated attacks were being made upon the Protestant Establishments of this country, and when an energetic Roman Catholic Member was attempting to tamper with a portion of the Act of Settlement. The experience of 200 years had shown that the terms and substance of this Declaration were necessary, and that it was requisite that the Sovereign should with his own lips declare his sincere attachment to the Protestant religion.

rose to reply, but—

said, he had not thought it right to stop the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in replying to the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Clare; but the hon. and learned Member had gone too far in the observations he had made, and the House ought not to be led now into further discussion.

said, it was not his intention to proceed with his Motion.