said, he would take this opportunity of calling attention to the Law affecting Aliens, under which, as it now stood, they could hold no land in this country. It was true that, under a late Act of Parliament, a foreigner might take a lease for years of a house for his habitation, but anything like a freehold was a sort of forbidden thing; he could not hold land, a dwelling, a warehouse, or promises, though necessary to enable him to carry on his business. When they were discussing the two subjects of transferring allegiance from one nation to another, and the mode of transferring land from one person to another, he thought this grievance under which aliens laboured should be considered. English subjects occasionally bought freehold in their own name for the benefit of foreigners. He would like to know what objection there could be to a foreigner, who came here for a number of years to engage in business, buying a counting-house, or a house for residence? The fear that foreigners, who had these privileges, might upset the institutions of the country was an obsolete absurdity. He hoped that there would be some provisions in the Bill to be shortly introduced to enable not only naturalized foreigners, but even those who only paid a temporary visit to this country, to acquire land by purchase. In America, he understood the law was somewhat conflicting. In some States land was absolutely given away to induce emigrants and others to settle upon it; but, in other parts of the Union, restrictions were placed upon foreigners in this matter. Attention should be given to the subject in negotiations with foreign countries, and he hoped to obtain from the Government an assurance that it should receive careful consideration.

I am happy, Sir, to; give my hon. Friend in public, as I have already given him in private, an assurance that this subject has been under the consideration of the Government, and that, in a few days, a Bill will be introduced in the other House which will deal very fully, and I think to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend, with the important subject he has brought under the notice of the House. That Bill, however, deals solely with the question as regards the law of England. The laws of other countries, and especially in France, are far more liberal on this point than ours; but I cannot undertake to say, at this moment, whether or not the Bill will make provision for entering into treaties with foreign countries. That is a subject for future consideration. So far as regards this country, my hon. Friend will find that the Bill deals fully with the matter he has named.

said, that, considering the wide range of subjects dealt with in the Queen's Speech, it might be thought that he was making an unreasonable objection when he called attention to what he thought an important omission. As this Parliament was elected, to a large extent, by members of the working classes, there seemed to him to be a remarkable absence of reference to measures for the benefit of those classes. The only question in the Address which appeared to have a bearing upon them was that of primary education; and he believed that was not resolved on until a late period. One subject pressed very gravely upon the nation at this time—namely, our condition with regard to pauperism and the Poor Laws. He was happy to find, from some Notices which he saw on the Paper, that this subject was about to be partially treated. Still he could not help remarking on the omission of all reference to it in the Queen's Speech. Last year, he mentioned three subjects which he thought had been omitted in a similar manner. They were Local Taxation, the Cattle Plague, and Pauperism. One of these questions formed part of the legislation of last Session, and was dealt with by the Go- vernment; and on the first they had a satisfactory assurance that it would be dealt with in the course of this Session; but, with regard to Pauperism and the Poor Laws, there was no such promise in the Speech. He had taken an opportunity of bringing the whole question before the House last Session, and he thought it met with a very inadequate response from the Treasury Bench. Since then nothing whatever had been done. No doubt, a Minute had been issued, but the effect it had produced, and the manner in which it had been received, were proofs positive of the want to which he now called attention. The Minute had fallen entirely short of its object. Under such circumstances, he felt justified in asking the serious attention of the House to the necessity of the further consideration of the subject.