Commons Sitting of 27 February 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Marriages.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. M'Gregor, from Kensington, Chelsea, Hammersmith, Fulham, and Chiswick,
1314
for Returning Two Members to Serve in Parliament for those Parishes.—By the Marquess of Chandos, from the Borough of Buckingham, against the Buckingham Summer Assizes Bill.

DUBLIN CONSOLIDATION IMPROVEMENT WATERWORKS AND SEWERS BILL.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question (13th February), "That the Bill be now read a second time," and which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months," Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. REYNOLDS, before the adjourned debate on this Bill was resumed, begged to state, that he had received petitions from the Lord Mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the city of Dublin; from the Grand Canal Company, under their seal; from burgesses and ratepayers of the city, 4,000 in number; from the High Sheriff of the city, and from the president and vice-president and members of the Chamber of Commerce, against it. He believed he could not take any part in the debate, as it had been adjourned upon his own Motion, that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. He however, should, on the part of his constituency, protest against the second reading.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly could not take part again in the debate upon the question then before the House. But a clause had been referred to him for consideration. He had examined it, and he thought it was one which should be struck out by the Committee.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsupported the Amendment, and begged the House to give due weight to what he believed to be the almost unanimous opinion of the citizens of Dublin.
The EARL of LINCOLNsaid, that he understood the chief reason for the adjournment of the debate upon the Bill was in order that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville) might have time to communicate with the Lord Lieutenant, and ascertain his opinion upon the measure. He thought that the rules of the House ought to be relaxed, and the right hon. Gentleman be allowed to state the result of the communication.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that that could be best done by the withdrawal of the Motion, and the substitution of another.
MR. REYNOLDSdeclined to withdraw his Motion.
Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 39: Majority 16.
The EARL of LINCOLNpressed the Secretary for Ireland to state his reasons for allowing a private Bill such as the present one to be thrown out upon the second reading.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, he had been precluded by the rules of the House from stating his reasons. The division had come upon him by surprise. He was quite ready to state his reasons, but was not permitted. He would now say, that the Government was prepared to propose certain measures connected with the objects of the Bill before the House. One was with reference to a concentrated board for purposes of general taxation for the city of Dublin, and to vest in the corporation of the city the powers at present vested in several Government offices. The Lord Lieutenant was in favour of such a course; but there did not appear to be—at least at present—any chance of the several parties concerned agreeing to a general plan. There were two other Bills, the Dublin Corporation Waterworks Bill, and the Dublin improvement Bill, fixed for Friday next, when some of the questions in debate would come before the House; but he had made up his mind to oppose the present Bill, because he found it was objected to by all parties.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, it was a mistake to suppose the Bill was opposed by all parties. He proposed that the second reading should be adjourned for a fortnight. The other Bills could be postponed to the same day, and all could then be considered together.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, the question was at an end. His Amendment had been carried.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTbegged the hon. Member's pardon. They had only decided on striking out the word "now;" the future day on which the Bill was to be read a second time had not yet been decided. He moved as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day fortnight.
MR. REYNOLDSappealed to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. He had always been under the impression that a Motion such as had just been carried, postponed the reading of a Bill for six months.
MR. SPEAKERexplained that the
1316
words of the Amendment were, "to strike out the word 'now,' for the purpose of adding 'this day six months.' "The division had been taken on the omission of the word "now." The day to be substituted was a question still to be decided.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNErecommended Mr. Reynolds to agree to the postponement for a fortnight. He had himself voted against the Bill, knowing nothing about it, but merely giving, as it were, a vote of confidence to his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, the more he considered the matter, the more he was determined to persevere in his opposition to the Bill. It was a Bill concocted by a speculating attorney for the mere purpose of making up a bill of costs against his (Mr. Reynolds') constituents. And this attorney was helped by a London Parliamentary agent. Would the House, he asked, endure such a thing? Would it tolerate such a measure being thrust upon London, Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham? No, they would not; and yet, because the measure referred to a place at the other side of the Channel, they were asked to enable a speculating attorney to bring in a Bill which would saddle the citizens with costs to the amount of at least 10,000 l. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had said, that he was for extending all the municipal privileges enjoyed in England to Ireland. Yet the House of Commons was asked to hand over to an irresponsible board the complete command of 250,000 l. a year, in the shape of local taxation inflicted upon the citizens of Dublin, and over the expenditure of which they were to have no control. If the Bill were even sent only before a Committee, it would put his constituents to an expense of at least 5,000 l to oppose it. Was that to be endured? And with regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Lincoln) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville), was it not a degradation to the citizens of Dublin, the second city in the kingdom, that their rights and privileges should be decided upon by the dictum of the Lord Lieutenant? No one respected the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland more than he did; but that nobleman had enough on his hands without undertaking the management of the municipality of the city. As to the board proposed under the Bill, it was altogether a fiction. It included his (Mr. Reynolds')

1317
name, and that of the Lord Mayor, and of Alderman Guinness, all of whom had repudiated the scheme altogether, and he disclaimed all connexion with it.
MR. GROGANpressed for the adjournment of the second reading for a fortnight.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEalso recommended the adjournment for a fortnight. At the same time he begged to assure the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) that it was not his wish that the Bill should be sent to a Committee upstairs.
MR. REYNOLDS MR. REYNOLDS moved that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.
Question proposed—"That the words 'upon this day six months' be added, instead thereof."—Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the words 'six months,' and adding the word 'fortnight,' instead thereof.—Question put, "That the words 'six months' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 71: Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Anderson, A.

M'Gregor, J.

Bass, M. T.

Marshall, J. G.

Bellew, R. M.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Meagher, T.

Bright, J.

O'Connor, F.

Brown, W.

Osborne, R.

Clay, Sir W.

Pattison, J.

Cobden, R.

Pilkington, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Salwey, Col.

Devereux, J. T.

Scrope, G. P.

Drummond, H.

Scully, F.

Duncan, G.

Shafto, R. D.

Ellis, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Evans, Sir De L.

Talbot, J. H.

Fox, R. M.

Thompson, Col.

Greene, J.

Thompson, G.

Grenfell, C. P.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Grey, R. W.

Wawn, J. T.

Harris, R.

Willcox, B. M.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Williams, J.

Henry, A.

Wyld, J.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Fagan, W.

Lushington, C.

Reynolds, J.

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Ashley, Lord

Cavendish, W. G.

Bagshaw, J.

Chandos, Marq. of

Baillie, H. J.

Christopher, R. A.

Boldero, H. G.

Cocks, T. S.

Bourke, R. S.

Cubitt, W.

Bramston, T. W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Brotherton, J.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Duncuft, J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Dundas, Adm.

1318

Dundas, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Du Pre, C. G.

Mahon, Visct.

Ebrington, Visct.

Maitland, T.

Egerton, W. T.

Mangles, R. D.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Matheson, Col.

Ewart, W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Farnham, E. B.

Patten, J. W.

Farrer, J.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Fuller, A. E.

Russell, F. C. H.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Rutherfurd, A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sandars, G.

Greene, T.

Scott, hon. F.

Hall, Col.

Seymer, H. K.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hay, Lord J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Henley, J. W.

Stafford, A.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Stanley, E.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Thornely, T.

Hildyard, R. C.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Verner, Sir W.

Hope, Sir J.

Verney, Sir H.

Hope, H. T.

Wall, C. B.

Howard, Lord E.

Wilson, M.

Jervis, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Jones, Capt.

Grogan, E.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Taylor, T. E.

Question—"That the word 'fortnight' be added, instead thereof," put, and agreed to.—Words added.—Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill to be read 2° on Tuesday 13th March.

ST. MARY'S, WHITECHAPEL, TITHES AND EASTER OFFERINGS BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEopposed the second reading of this Bill. It was promoted by the remarkably suitably named corporation "Brazenose College, Oxford," for the purpose of enabling the rector of St. Mary's to receive 1,000 l. a year out of the poor-rates. The Bill was intituled "a Bill for extinguishing the rights of the Rector," but it would have been more properly intituled, "a Bill for extinguishing the rights of the parishioners." It was an attempt to induce the House to sanction a title which was disputed, and to enforce a commutation where there was nothing to be commuted; to lay a tax upon the householders of Whitechapel, where they said there never was any right to make a demand. Far from there being even immemorial usage for such a charge, the parish had been originally part of Stepney parish, from which it was separated, and the offerings made to the rector were only voluntary. The promoters of the Bill endeavoured to make out a title, by referring to the proceedings of a select vestry meeting held in 1818, whereby

1319
300 l. a year had been agreed upon by the inhabitants as the income of the rector. But, recently, the collector stated the offerings to be worth only 141 l. If such a measure were allowed to pass, it would have the effect of hindering the people from paying the poor-rates; and nothing could be more discreditable to the Established Church than to have its rectors living upon the money given for the support of the poor. He should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
MR. G. THOMPSONseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed—"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon that day six months.'"
MR. W. E. GLADSTONEthought that a more temperate mode of discussion, one dealing less in strong language, a more fair and candid consideration of the subject, would have tended more to the coming to a fair decision upon it, than the very animated language—to use no more expressive terra—indulged in by the hon. Member for Middlesex. That hon. Gentleman said that the principle of the Bill was to give to the rector of St. Mary's, Whitechapel, 1,000 l. a year out of the poor-rates. He (Mr. Gladstone) said, that its principle was to extinguish the rights of the rector to the Easter offerings and the tithes, and to establish a fixed annual payment in lieu thereof. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) asked the House, would they pass such a Bill against the unanimous feeling of the parish, at the instance of the rector alone? But the hon. Gentleman knew very well that the parish was divided upon the subject. There was a petition in preparation, which would be presented in a day or two, signed by a large number of the most respectable inhabitants of the parish, including several Dissenters, a Dissenting clergyman, and some Jews, in favour of the Bill. He repeated, its object was to extinguish claims of a large and undefined nature, which could only be enforced by a suit in Chancery, at great expense to the rector, and at greater expense still to the ratepayers, but with the certainty of giving to the rector, finally, a very much larger income than he claimed under the Bill. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Yes, supposing him to get a 2s. 9d. rate.] Yes; a 2s. 9d. rate on a rental of 96,000 l. would produce from 12,000 l. to 16,000 l. a year. All he asked the House was to go into
1320
Committee to consider the propriety of a fixed income in lieu of the present disputed rate. He would not pledge himself to the particular amount at which the income shall be fixed; because that point could be arranged in Committee; but in principle he said the principle was a reasonable one. What would be the consequence if it were rejected? The parish was at present under, he thought, one of the most devoted, pious, and active clergymen that ever existed. But he was much less regardful of his temporal interests than of his spiritual; and the consequence was, that the income of the parish was dwindling away in his hands. The last payment he had received was only 490 l., whilst the average for the last ten years was 541 l. But if he were to enforce his right, which was upon an extreme rate of 2s. 9d. in the pound, he would be entitled to 1,200 l. or 1,500 l. a year. There must be a limit to his patience and endurance. Much less would he continue his forbearance when he recollected that he was presented by the college, and that his right was a trust fund which he was bound to guard and hand down in its integrity to the future generation. The consequence would be, that if he could not enforce those rights he would resign, and another rector would be appointed, who would come in with the determination of enforcing and defending them. The parish would be obliged to go to law, and the end of it would be, that they would be obliged to pay more than 1,000 l. a year, besides the expenses to which they would be put. He hoped that those hon. Gentlemen who were about to address the House upon the subject, would confine themselves to its merits, and not mix up their objections to the endowment of State churches with it. Whatever might be their opinions regarding the funds of the Established Church, they were public funds that ought not to be frittered away either by State or Church. He did hope, then, that a Bill like this, having for its object the simplification of the law, would receive the assent of the Legislature.
SIR W. CLAYconfessed that it was with pain and reluctance that he opposed this Bill; but he was under the necessity of stating to the House that the real case was this—it was the substitution of endowment, by the will of that House, for certain legal rights. If he were asked whether he would consent to the substitution for legal claims of an arbitrary determination to take a certain sum, he was compelled to say

1321
that he could not sanction such a principle. He could wish, perhaps, that the differences existing on the question could be settled by arbitration, but he saw many difficulties in the way of such a mode of settlement.
The ATTORNEY GENERALwould venture to point out to the House the objections attaching to this measure, and also the course which he thought the House ought to pursue. It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) stated, that under the Bill the parties concerned would be bound to pay only 1,000 l. per annum. Yet the principle of the Bill was the substitution by the House of a certain sum in lieu of an undecided claim, and its effect would be the charging an ecclesiastical endowment upon the poor-rates. Now, many and grave objections must be entertained to the proposition for throwing on the poor-rates a charge of this description, while there would also be objections of an equally grave nature to any other rate—which must be in the nature of a church rate—being levied for the purpose. The rector did not allege that his claim was actually established; he only assumed that it was so; but even supposing such a measure founded upon such an assumption to be desirable, it ought to come before them in the shape of a general Act, extending over the whole of the city of London, and not as a private Bill, embracing only a single parish. He objected, however, to the Bill as it stood, because its very principle was to saddle the poor-rates with a claim which was not chargeable upon them; and he thought that the most satisfactory plan would be to postpone the second reading of the present Bill, for the purpose of introducing another, in which the right hon. Gentleman might distinctly state how he proposed to levy the rate for the commutation of tithes in the parish in question.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, seemed hardly aware that this case was not unprecedented, or one which that House had been called upon to affirm. In the case of the Bethnal Green rectory, no longer than two years since, this principle had been affirmed. If, as suggested by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay), this case were to be settled by arbitration, where could it be so well decided as before a Committee of that House? He supported the principle of this Bill, in order to enable the House to decide what ought to be the amount of
1322
compensation, and thus prevent litigation.
MR. G. THOMPSONmust oppose the Bill, in compliance with the wishes of a large number of his constituents, who, however, were influenced by no personal hostility to the truly exemplary and excellent incumbent. The parishioners, who were now pursuing an inquiry into the claim of that rev. gentleman, wished the Bill to be postponed until that inquiry should have terminated, when, should the result be to establish the claim, none would be more willing than they to recognise it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said the Bill was brought forward with a view to prevent litigation, and save the money both of the parishioners and the incumbent; but the parishioners were not afraid of litigation. There had been litigation before in this parish, and it had always resulted in cutting down the claims of the rector, and freeing large numbers of the inhabitants from the charges sought to be made upon them. The right hon. Gentleman, when he talked of the possibility of the rector maintaining a claim of six or seven times the amount now proposed, should remember that the late rector (Dr. Matthias) never put his claim at more than 1,100 l., and never obtained more than 1,000 l.
SIR E. N. BUXTONhoped the House would allow the Bill to go to Committee. He was connected with the district by business, and he considered that the claim of the rector should be commuted for a fixed sum, which could be easily settled in Committee. It was a great hardship that the rights of the rector should be allowed to lapse, because there was a difficulty in enforcing them. He was especially anxious that the present Bill should pass, because he had reason to believe that, were it to be thrown out, the present excellent rector would be obliged to resign his charge, and that another would be appointed who might be less scrupulous in asserting his rights. On that account he bogged the House would allow the Bill to go before a Committee.
SIR D. L. EVANSsaid, the opponents of the Bill did not object to an amicable settlement, or to a settlement which should be satisfactory to the incumbent; but it should be remembered that they were now legislating for a parish, the majority of whose inhabitants were Jews or Dissenters. He suggested that the Bill should be postponed, in order to give time for an amicable

1323
arrangement between both parties. With regard to the feeling of the inhabitants, at a vestry meeting held on the 25th of January, a resolution was unanimously come to that was decidedly hostile to the Bill.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 89: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Anstey, T. C.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Ashley, Lord

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Bailey, J.

Hildyard, R. C.

Bailey, J., jun.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Baillie, H. J.

Hope, Sir J.

Beresford, W.

Hope, H. T.

Boldero, H. G.

Hughes, W. B.

Bourke, R. S.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Bowles, Adm.

Lincoln, Earl of

Brackley, Visct.

Lopes, Sir R.

Bramston, T. W.

Mahon, Visct.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Mangles, R. D.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Masterman, J.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Meux, Sir H.

Carew, W. H. P.

Miles, P. W. S.

Chandos, Marq. of

Miles, W.

Chaplin, W. J.

Napier, J.

Clements, hon. C. S.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Clive, H. B.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Cocks, T. S.

Pugh, D.

Cubitt, W.

Reid, Col

Dodd, G.

Sandars, G.

Duncuft, J.

Seymer, H. K.

Du Pre, C. G.

Sidney, Aldm.

Farnham, E. B.

Stanley, E.

Farrer, J.

Taylor, T. E.

Filmer, Sir E.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Forbes, W.

Waddington, H. S.

Fuller, A. E.

Wiloughby, Sir H.

Granby, Marq. of

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Greenall, G.

Young, Sir J.

Greene, J.

Grogan, E.

TELLERS.

Hall, Col.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

List of the NOES.

Anderson, A.

Evans, Sir De L.

Bass, M. T.

Ewart, W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Fagan, W.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Fordyce, A. D.

Bright, J.

Forster, M.

Brotherton, J.

Fortescue, C.

Brown, W.

Fox, R. M.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Cavendish, W. G.

Glyn, G. C.

Cobden, R.

Greene, J.

Cowan, C.

Grenfell, C. P.

Crawford, W. S.

Grey, R. W.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Drummond, H.

Harris, R.

Duncan, Visct.

Hastie, A.

Duncan, G.

Hawes, B.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Henry, A.

Dundas, Adm.

Heyworth, L.

Ellis, J.

Hindley, C.

1324

Hodges, T. L.

Russell, F. C. H.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Rutherfurd, A.

Howard, P. H.

Salwey, Col.

Hume, J.

Scully, F.

Humphery, Aldm.

Shafto, R. D.

Jervis, Sir J.

Sheridan, R. B.

Kershaw, J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Lennard, T. B.

Smith, M. T.

Locke, J.

Smith, J. B.

Lushington, C.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

M'Gregor, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Maitland, T.

Stuart, Lord D.

Matheson, Col.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Moffatt, G.

Thompson, Col.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Thompson, G.

Morris, D.

Thornely, T.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Tufnell, H.

Mowatt, F.

Wall, C. B.

O'Connor, F.

Wawn, J. T.

O'Flaherty, A.

Willcox, B. M.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Williams, J.

Pattison, J.

Wilson, M.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Wyld, J.

Pilkington, J.

Wyvill, M.

Pinney, W.

TELLERS.

Roche, E. B.

Osborne, R. B.

Romilly, Sir J.

Clay, Sir W.

Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Second Reading put off for six months.

AUSTRIAN CLAIMS—ITALY.
MR. C. ANSTEYinquired whether it was true, as stated in the Austrian official journals, that the Envoy of Austria at the Congress at Brussels had laid it down in the basis of negotiations, that the status quo, as guaranteed by the Treaty of 1815, should be maintained; and, if so, whether that arrangement was to be understood to refer to the present political situation of Poland and Cracow?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that the Austrian Government held that they were entitled to maintain that the territorial distribution settled by the Treaty of Vienna should still remain in force. There was no guarantee given by that treaty, although certain rights were established by it. As to Poland and Cracow, those who knew what had passed with reference to these States during the last two years, could answer the question of the hon. Gentleman as well as he (Viscount Palmerston) could.

SUPPLY OF ARMS TO THE SICILIANS BY ENGLAND.
MR. BANKESwished to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of some importance. Rumours were prevalent that some of the arms used by the Sicilian insurgents had been supplied from Her Majesty's stores

1325
at Woolwich or elsewhere. He wished to know whether there was any foundation for those rumours?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that no stores had been supplied at the expense of Her Majesty's Government. The fact was, that in September the contractor who was in the habit of supplying guns to the Ordnance, applied for leave to take back some of the guns he had supplied, to enable him to complete an order from the Sicilian Government. On the matter being referred to him, he (Viscount Palmerston) thought that there could be no objection to allowing the party to take back some of the arms, on the understanding that he was to furnish others in their place.

COLONIAL DESPATCHES.
MR. P. MILESwished to ask a question of the Under Secretary of the Colonies (Mr. Hawes), From information he had received, he understood that the House of Assembly in Jamaica had voted certain supplies, but that, in consequence of a clerical error as to the date of the Bill granting them, the Governor in Council refused to allow the mistake to be rectified. He (Mr. Miles) wished to know whether the Government had received any despatch on the subject; and if so, whether they would have any objection to lay it before the House? He also inquired why no blue book for 1847 had been presented to Parliament with respect to this and other; colonial possessions, and should like to be informed when they would be produced?
MR. HAWESsaid, that the facts of the case were these: The Bill referred to by the hon. Gentleman was the Export Duties Bill; and in the course of its engrossment the word "December," 1849, was inserted instead of "February," 1849. The error was discovered and pointed out to the Governor. The Bill containing a clause enabling the error to be corrected, the Governor said he had no objection to the alteration being made. The Governor certainly had no intention to avail himself of this clerical inaccuracy; and he (Mr. Hawes) thought that he would be the last man to do so. The despatch to which the hon. Member alluded was included in a return moved for by the hon. Member for Montrose, which he hoped before long to lay upon the table of the House. With respect to the blue book on the affairs of Jamaica, he might state that a despatch had been sent out to the Governor re-minding; him of the omission.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, as the hon. Gentleman was about to present some despatches to the House, he trusted they would not be mutilated in the way in which the despatches with respect to Jamaica were. ["Order, order!"] [Mr. HUME: Put it as a question.] Well, then, he would ask whether they were likely to be mutilated in the way the other despatches had been? He held some of those despatches in his hand, and could not help observing that every particle of information contained in them had been withheld. The hon. Member here read a portion of one of the despatches to which he had referred, commencing, "I have the honour to lay before your Lordships," &c.; and, after a long blank, concluding thus—"Under all the circumstances of the case," &c. He wished to know whether the despatches would be presented entire, or whether they would be mutilated like the despatches which he hold in his hand?
MR. HAWES: What is your question?
MR. BAILLIE: Whether they will be presented to the Committee without mutilation?
MR. HAWES: I think the question put by the hon. Member is a most unusual one to ask. It is calculated to excite a prejudice, which I am happy to have this opportunity of entirely repudiating. I have seen it stated more than once, by parties whom the hon. Member may know, that there have been instances in which despatches were mutilated by my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Grey), for some purposes of concealment. Sir, it is utterly unfounded—altogether unfounded—that that has ever been done. It will be in the recollection of the House that certain despatches were moved for by the late Lord George Bentinck, and that an explanation was given by me at the time. The despatches in question related to some apprehended disturbances in the island of Jamaica, in consequence of the monopolists there having been disappointed at the passing of the Sugar Bill in England. The language used was, that several of the plantation proprietors were going to transfer their allegiance to the United States, and it excited considerable alarm among the negro population. The despatches contained a statement relative to the threatened disturbances; they referred to particular individuals by name; they embodied depositions which had not been taken before the magistrates, and also some improved charges; and those parts which

1327
had reference to charges of that nature against individuals were struck out: a course which I am perfectly prepared to defend, and to take again if necessary. I think I have met the charge of the hon. Gentleman; and now I beg to tell him, that when the Committee meets there will not he the slightest objection to lay before them the whole of the despatches received, not for the use of the House or the public, but in order to show them that there is nothing to justify the term "mutilation," which has been used. Whatever was withheld on a former occasion was extracted simply with a view to the just protection of private character; and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies would have been unworthy the position he holds had he scrupled to act as he did.
MR. BAILLIE: Will you lay the despatches before the House?
MR. HAWES: Certainly not. I will lay them before the Committee, but not before the House and the public.
MR. BAILLIE: You must recollect that the Committee does not sit on the affairs of Jamaica, but on those of Ceylon.
MR. HAWES: I will not consent to lay them before the House and the public.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Is the Committee to be a secret one?
MR. HAWES: Certainly not, so far as I know.
MR. HUME: I thought they were to sit on the affairs of the Colonies generally.
MR. BAILLIE: They are limited to those of Ceylon.
Subject dropped.

CALIFORNIA.
MR. WYLDwished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government of this country had appointed a British Consul at San Francisco, or in any other part of California?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: This is a question which is not now put to me for the first time. I have had it put to me privately by a number of persons, some of whom were no doubt interested in their own prosperity. There is no intention, however, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Consul to California; and I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House will see that such an appointment would be impossible at the
1328
present moment, considering that at this moment there is no form of government established in California, with whom a consul could communicate. Under present circumstances, I fear a consul, like others, would have nothing to do but to pick up the gold, and communicate with the goldfinders.

THE RIVER PLATE.
MR. EWARTwished to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with respect to the affairs of the River Plate, to which, on a former occasion, the noble Viscount had not given as unambiguous a reply as could have been desired by the parties interested. He wished, first, to ask him whether the Government entertained a hope of effecting a settlement of these affairs; secondly, whether the reception of our new envoy in Buenos Ayres had been such as to justify the hope of a favourable settlement; and, thirdly, what was the present state of the negotiations with respect to these affairs?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that it would occupy some time to detail with exactness the present state of these negotiations. Briefly, however, he might state that a proposition had been made by the English and French Governments, which had not been accepted, and that it remained for the French Government to determine whether they would make any fresh proposals. Mr. Southern had not yet been received officially; but he had been privately received with all possible cordiality, and he might say with distinction. Mr. Southern had been received by General Rosas, and there was reason to believe that in a short time he would be permitted to present his credentials. Negotiations were pending, and he saw no reason why a satisfactory arrangement should not shortly be come to.

WORKING WOMEN IN FACTORIES BY RELAYS.
MR. HINDLEYasked the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as stated in some of the public journals, to bring in a Bill to authorise the working women and young persons in factories by relays, and if so, when it was probable the Bill would be introduced?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that conflicting decisions had been given as to the construction

1329
of one of the clauses of the Factory Act, relating to the point alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, which decisions, in his opinion rendered some amendment of the clause in question necessary. The Government had recently had interviews with several parties interested in the matter, but the subject was one which required much consideration. A Bill was in preparation on the subject; but he thought it unadvisable to state the provisions of a measure until leave was asked to introduce it.

CONVICTS IN IRELAND—TRANSPORTATION.
MR. H. A. HERBERTasked whether Her Majesty's Government contemplated the adoption of any immediate measures for the removal of convicts from the gaols in Ireland? He had received a statement from his own county (Kerry), from which it appeared that there were at present three times the number of prisoners in the gaols that there was accommodation for, and that a daily increase was being made.
SIR G. GREYbelieved the prisons were very much crowded. There were two classes of prisoners, the greater portion of whom were only waiting for trial. The Government had no power of placing these prisoners in any other gaol. The Prison Act imposed on grand juries the obligation to make sufficient provision for the accommodation of ordinary prisoners. The Lord Lieutenant had directed communications to be sent to grand juries on the subject. With respect to prisoners under sentence of transportation, it was quite true that they had been detained in gaol longer than usual; but that arose from the enormous increase which had take place in the number sentenced to transportation. Formerly the number did not exceed 500 annually, but last year it amounted to 2,500. At the last quarter-sessions he understood the number sentenced to transportation amounted to 559, being an excess of the annual number in former years. The Government had made every effort to provide increased accommodation. A considerable number had been removed, and ships were now receiving some for Australia. A depôt had been established at Spike Island, which depôt was now in the course of being enlarged.

RAJAH OF SATTARA.
MR. HUMErose to move—
"For a Return of the amount of money paid for the maintenance of the family of the late
1330
Purtaub Shean, the late Rajah of Sattara, since his death, and the dates on which the payments were made."
The hon. Member said, on the authority of letters which he held in his hand, that when the British Government resolved to remove the Rajah, an assurance was given that if he lived quietly, and conformed to the wishes of the East India Company, all his private property would be surrendered. But no portion of it had ever been paid to him or his heirs. Orders had been given to make certain payments to Purtaub Shean. He (Mr. Hume) was told that the Government had offered money to his family; but that the Ranee would not grant the proper receipt. The fact, however, was that the money which had been promised had not been paid. He wished to know why that infraction of public faith had taken place?
MR. G. THOMPSONseconded the Motion.
SIR J. C. HOBHOUSEobserved, that his hon. Friend on more than one occasion had stated that a stipulated sum was agreed to be paid on account of the Rajah of Sattara. On the death of Purtaub Shean it was resolved that a certain portion of that sum should be given to his family; and, to show his hon. Friend that what he stated last year was founded entirely on fact, he begged to read an extract of a letter from the Governor General on the subject. The Earl of Dalhousie said—
"I fully concur with you in your opinion, that the family should be treated with ample liberality. We have done so by the Ex-Rajah and his people. 50,000 rupees were given for his funeral expenses, 2,500 rupees for the monthly support of his family and supporters, till a final settlement was made. The Ranee refused to receive the 50,000 rupees unless we received a receipt signed by the boy, as representing the ex-Rajah; and she would not receive any money unless the whole allowed to the ex-Rajah was continued to the boy. Of course we refused to pay the 50,000 rupees, and she would not have the other. Ultimately the daughter has been allowed 1,756 rupees a month from the date of the ex-Rajah's death to the 1st of July, paying all the retainers; on the 1st of July this allowance to cease, the retainers to look out for themselves, as it appeared that only a few of them came from Sattara with the ex-Rajah. The daughter will have her own allowance of 500 rupees a month, and her travelling expenses to Sattara when she goes. The old Ranee has her 800 rupees, which she would not receive. This is the course that has been pursued with the ex-Rajah's family."
That letter was dated the 7th of August, and he had not had any communication since, except to the effect that the Ranee had refused to receive the money. He

1331
could assure his hon. Friend that there was every disposition on the part of the Governor General of India to act with the greatest liberality to the family of the Rajah, and to provide, as far as possible, for their comfort.
MR. G. THOMPSONinquired whether, in the event of a manifestation of willingness on the part of the family of Purtaub Shean to receive the money, there would be any indisposition on the part of the Government to pay the arrears? The family was involved in great embarrassment, with a large number of retainers. They had not received the money simply because they thought it would compromise their rights. He had given a contrary opinion, and thought that, without any compromise, they could fairly accept what had been kindly and generously offered.
SIR J. W. HOGGmust be permitted to observe that the disposition to provide for the family of the deceased Rajah of Sattara was just as strong on the part of the local Government as it was on the part of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) and of the Court of Directors. But what he would ask, was the use of discussing the question which had now been raised, when they had no despatches as to what had been done in the matter? He repeated, that there was every disposition on the part of the local Government to give a fair, liberal, and immediate consideration to the claims of the family.
MR. HUMEobserved, that the order of the Court of Directors was dated in June, 1846, and up to January nothing had been done. The family, therefore, remained in a state of starvation. Good intentions might exist, but intentions would not feed the hungry.
SIR J. W. HOGGprotested against accusations, which involved the local Government being brought on the authority of letters taken out of the pocket of an hon. Member, in the absence of official information.
The Motion was then agreed to.

SALARIES AND PENSIONS.
MR. HUME MR. HUME moved—
"For a List, alphabetically arranged, of all persons in England, receiving salaries, pensions, pay, profits, fees, emoluments, allowances or grants of Public Money, between the 5th day of January 1848, and the 5th day of January 1849, the amount of which exceeds 200 l.; stating the total amount received by each individual, and distinguishing the sources from which the payments are made, and the aggregate of the whole:
1332
"Similar Return of all persons in England, receiving salaries, pensions, pay, profits, fees, emoluments, allowances or grants of public money (not including those persons paid by wages), between the 5th day of January 1848 and the 5th day of January 1849, the amount of which is upwards of 50 l., and not exceeding 200 l. sterling each person, the total amount received by each individual, and distinguishing the sources from which the payments are made, and the aggregate of the whole; so as to exhibit in those two Lists every person in England In the receipt of 50 l. and upwards from those and from all other sources of public money (the Church excepted).
"Also, two similar Lists for Scotland, and two similar Lists for Ireland."
He brought forward this Motion because public attention was now being directed to every possible means of effecting economy in the public expenditure; and these returns would help to facilitate that result. England was the only country he knew of which had not a list regularly prepared of all the fixed salaries paid out of the public purse. The only objection that could be offered to his Motion that he knew of was the time and expense that would be required to make out these returns; but if the House chose to appoint a Committee upstairs, he (Mr. Hume) would undertake all the trouble, and to have the lists printed at a cost not exceeding 10 l. It was most essential that the nation should know how its money was expended, and with that view he submitted the present Motion.
MR. J. PARKERobjected to the Motion, on the ground of the great trouble and difficulty of classification in the returns, as well as upon the score of expense. These inconveniences had already been greatly experienced in making out two recent lists of all salaries of 800 l. and 1,000 l. In 1835 and 1844, returns of a somewhat similar character had been ordered, and occupied from fifty to sixty printed pages. The second return, in particular, would be very extensive.
MR. HUMEsaid, that in moving for those returns he had no desire to create any unnecessary trouble or expense, without leading to any good results; but the hon. Member for Finsbury had some years ago moved for similar returns, only the lowest salary he included was 100 l. and although these returns had been ordered at the time, they had never yet been produced.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaw no objection to the production of these returns; the only question was, whether any public advantage that would arise from them would equal either the trouble or expense of preparing them. If the hon. Gentleman would put

1333
off his Motion for a few days, the Government, in the meantime, would make inquiries to ascertain the amount of expense.
MR. HUMEacceded, and accordingly postponed his Motion.

WAR IN THE PUNJAUB.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That, in reference to that part of Her Majesty's gracious Speech informing Her Parliament that a Rebellion had broken out in the Punjaub, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be pleased to direct all Papers relating to an event of this domestic and important character to be laid before the House without further delay."
MR. G. THOMPSONsaid, he had no desire to press his Motion, but a great want of information existed in the country, and in this House even, with regard to the causes of the war going on in the Punjaub. He had no desire to make out a case against the Government of India in the absence of the official papers; but as the events connected with the war had been reported in the ordinary vehicles, the information now before the world showed no sufficient cause for the operations now going on in that country. He, however, had no desire to press his Motion for these papers against the wish of the right hon. President of the Board of Control and that of the Government; but he trusted the right hon. Baronet would see the desirability of giving an assurance to the public that, as soon as the convenience of the public service would allow, the whole of these official papers would be laid upon the table. Therefore, he would propose his Motion as a matter of form.
SIR J. C. HOBHOUSEsaid, he was exceedingly glad that the hon. Member had taken the very discreet course of not pressing this Motion. Had it been pressed he should have felt it impossible, in the situation he held, to consent to the production of all the papers. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted that there were some, the production of which might be prejudicial to the public interest; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, that there would be no delay in printing any that were necessary for the public in-formation. If the subject of the proceedings in the Punjaub were brought under discussion at the proper time, after the papers were given, he doubted not that the hon. Gentleman and the House would absolve the Indian Government altogether from any improper conduct in this matter. He could not quite agree with the hon. Member as
1334
to the state of ignorance of the House relative to the causes of this war. The public newspapers had given a very fair account of the outbreak, and its causes, and nearly all the transactions of importance that had occurred had been detailed with considerable fidelity. He was certain that, when the proper time came, the Governor General and the Indian Government would be absolved from all blame, and it would be found that they had taken the only course they could take consistent with the security and honour of the British empire in India.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he could easily conceive that there would be some inconvenience in producing the papers at present, as hostilities had not yet been terminated. But he hoped there would be no objection to the production of the despatch of Sir Joseph Thackwell to Lord Gough, which, as he understood, was in the hands of the Government, and which the friends of Sir Joseph Thackwell were anxious should be made public.
SIR J. C. HOBHOUSEsaid, he believed that despatch was a letter written by Sir Joseph Thackwell to the Governor General. He knew there was such a document, but he thought it had not yet been forwarded to the Home authorities. He knew it had been alluded to, but he would not say for certain that it had come over. However, he would make inquiry, and let the hon. Gentleman know the result; and afterwards, if it were shown that there were special circumstances making the production of that paper desirable, and if he found that there was no objection to giving it, he would do so.
MR. G. THOMPSONsaid, the papers relating to the military operations in Scinde had been laid before the House while the army was still in Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUCKINGHAM SUMMER ASSIZES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. G. C. DUPRE, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, the object of the measure was merely to place the county of Buckingham upon the same footing as every other county in England and Wales, with regard to the provision of a convenient place for holding the county assizes. The town of Buckingham, where the summer assizes for the county of Buckingham were held at present, was

1335
very inconveniently situated for all parts of the county, and great complaints had recently been made because the summer assizes were not held in a more central part of the county. Aylesbury, where the spring assizes for the county were regularly held, was situated equidistant from almost all parts of the county, and a large gaol had recently been erected there at great expense, and fitted up for the separate system of confinement of prisoners; and this circumstance, together with the general accommodation and convenience the change would afford to the whole of the county, rendered it highly desirable that the summer assizes should be removed to that town in future. The Judges of assize had frequently complained of the inconvenience of holding the assizes in the town of Buckingham, and repeated memorials, from a full bench of magistrates assembled in quarter-sessions, had been addressed to the Privy Council, praying for an alteration. The ratepayers of the county, too, were strongly in favour of the change he proposed to effect by this Bill, which would empower the Privy Council to avail themselves of the powers of the Act of William IV., enabling it to appoint a convenient place for holding the assizes. The removal from the town of Buckingham to the town of Aylesbury, would, as he already said, be a great public good. He saw the hon. Member for the borough of Buckingham (the Marquess of Chandos) in his place ready to oppose him. Now, he could assure the noble Marquess that he had no wish to injure the town of Buckingham; but he trusted that no old associations, or personal feelings, or personal interests, would be allowed to stand in the way of conferring this boon upon the public at large.
The MARQUESS of CHANDOSsaid, in reference to what had been said by his hon. Friend, he begged to say that he stood there on no hereditary right, and would not oppose a Bill of this kind on any such ground as that suggested. He would not oppose the Bill if he were convinced by the argument of his hon. Friend that the proposed change would be for the convenience of the county generally; but he was not quite convinced, from what had been stated by his hon. Friend, that such would be the result. On a former occasion there had been a meeting of magistrates, at which a proposal for a measure similar to this had been defeated by a majority of three to one; and he should also remark, that he thought he had the pleasure of numbering
1336
his hon. Friend himself amongst those who voted with him in opposition to this measure on that occasion. On a subsequent occasion he believed his hon. Friend would have voted in the same way, but the question was not brought to a division. The question was not one between Aylesbury and Buckingham, but it was a question of great importance to the two ends of the county; and the measure, if carried, would cause great inconvenience to many of the magistrates of the county. If the question were again brought before the magistrates, not at an adjourned sessions, but at the quarter-sessions, he felt assured that the result that had occurred on the former occasion to which he had alluded would again take place. He felt it his duty, not only on the part of his constituents, but also on behalf of many of the magistrates of the county, to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment proposed—"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"
SIR G. GREYhoped, that the noble Marquess would not press his opposition to this Bill. It was not a measure that would necessarily cause a change in holding the assizes; the single object of the Bill was to place the county of Buckingham in the same position as every other county in England; that is to say, that the Queen should have the power of changing the place for holding the assizes, by an Order in Council, pursuant to the provisions 3 and 4 William IV. A communication had taken place with the Attorney General on this matter, as it was thought that the general Act would include Buckingham, notwithstanding the specific Act of Parliament, the repeal of which was now sought; but on looking into the subject, it was considered that as the specific Act was not referred to in that general Act, it therefore was not included in it. After this explanation, he trusted the noble Marquess would not press his opposition, more especially as the grounds on which the specific Act was passed no longer existed.
The MARQUESS of CHANDOS, after the explanations that had been given, would not press his Amendment.
Question proposed—"That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.
House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.