Sitting of 10 June 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Tenant Right (Ireland); Accidents on Railways; Administration of Criminal Justice Improvement.
2a Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Linen, &c., Manufactures (Ireland); Population.
3a Judges of Assize.

POST OFFICE.
SIR G. GREYappeared at the bar, and said that the Address which had been agreed to on the subject of Sunday labour in the Post Office had been presented to Her Majesty, and the following was Her Majesty's most gracious Answer:—
"I have received your Address, praying that the collection and delivery of Letters may in future entirely cease on Sunday in all parts of the Kingdom; and, also, that an inquiry may be made as to how far, without injury to the public service, the transmission of the Mails on the Lord's Day might be diminished, or entirely suspended; and in compliance with your request, I shall give directions accordingly."
MR. THORNELYbegged to put a question to the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown with reference to this important subject. He wished to know whether there would be any exemption in favour of the foreign correspondence of the country? Suppose a packet from America arrived at Liverpool yesterday with some ten or twenty thousand letters. Under present circumstances those letters would be sifted in the Liverpool post-office late last evening, to be sent up by the mails, and would be delivered this morning in the metropolis, containing perhaps 100,000 l. worth of bills of exchange, stocks to a

981
great amount, and letters of the greatest possible consequence. He wished to know whether there would be any exemption in favour of such letters lying at Falmouth, Southampton, and other places?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that with respect to the delivery of letters, the directions to be given by Her Majesty would be in accordance with the orders of that House, and therefore there would be no exemption with respect to the delivery of letters. With respect to the transmission of letters, the Address only proposed inquiry.
MR. M. GIBSONdesired to put a question with regard to the answer to the Address. He had only heard the words "collection and transmission." [Sir G. GREY: And "delivery."] He presumed that in post-office language, the word "collection" meant bringing the letters from the branch offices. Although the collection of letters in the large towns might be put a stop to by the Government, he presumed it did not follow that letters put in the chief office would not be transmitted. He supposed there was no intention to prevent the sending letters from the principal towns on the Sunday evenings, although the collection might be stopped.
LORD J. RUSSELLpresumed that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the transmission of letters; but what the Government wished to do was, to carry into effect the orders of that House. It was not for him to say whether any advantage would be derived from the arrangement.
MR. M. GIBSONsaid, he supposed, although no mention was made of the circumstance, there would be no alteration with regard to Sunday newspapers.
Subject dropped.

SUPPLY—NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
(4.) 103,610 l. for the New Houses of Parliament.
MR. HUMEsaid, the object of his Motion was to put an end for the present to the proceedings of the Committee of Taste. But he had also another Motion on the paper, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and examine the various reports, statements, and plans of the architect relative to the New Houses of Parliament. He was aware that he was undertaking an unpleasant duty in submitting these Motions to the House; but he had been requested by several Members to do so; and it was evident that if something was not done, there would be no limit to
982
expense. He did not grudge the expenditure of a proper sum of money for a House of Parliament which would afford due accommodation to its Members; but seeing the enormous sums that had been already expended, and that proper accommodation had not been provided, it was full time that the House of Commons should interfere to prevent further waste of money. He would give a précis of the proceedings which had taken place, from which it would be abundantly clear, that if adequate care and precaution had been taken, such extraordinary delay would not have taken place, and they would not have incurred an expenditure of 2,000,000 l. instead of 724,986 l., which was Mr. Barry's estimate. If there was to be an end of expenditure even at 2,000,000 l. it would be some satisfaction; but no person could tell how much beyond that amount would be expended. It was their duty, therefore, to require a definite statement as to the further expenditure that was likely to be incurred. None of the requisites which had been pointed out by the Committee of 1835, had been carried out. They required that there should be sitting room in the body of the House, for from 420 to 460 Members, with accommodation for the remainder in the galleries. Well, they had been sitting in the New House, and instead of accommodation for 420 or 460 Members, there was not accommodation for anything approaching that number. The lobbies were required to contain—one 1,800 feet, and the other, 1,100. They had an opportunity of testing the accommodation afforded by them in case of a division. They had a division in which 287 Members divided, and he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen if the lobby was not crowded to an inconvenient degree. They might thus judge of the inconvenience when a full House divided, and he had seen an occasion in which 500 Members had divided on one side. It was likewise considered of importance that there should be accommodation for 200 strangers in one or more galleries at the end of the House. But he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen if that part of the House was not required for the accommodation of its own Members? The 11th resolution of the Committee of 1836 was, that there should be 10 Committee rooms about 40 by 30, from 18 to 20 feet in height; ten, 35 by 25, from 16 to 18 feet in height; ten, 30 by 20, from 14 to 16 feet in height. He would leave hon. Gentlemen who had sat

983
in these rooms to speak of the accommodation which they afforded. It was evident that the accommodation in the three points he had mentioned was deficient. The principal men in the House at that time sat upon the Committee which drew up these resolutions; and when Mr. Barry's plan had been adopted, the Committee stated that they did so "on the express understanding that it could be executed for a sum not exceeding, by any considerable amount, the estimate submitted to them by Mr. Barry—that was to say, 724,986 l." Now, he (Mr. Hume) had some reason to doubt the accuracy of Mr. Barry's estimate, for he had written to Mr. Hodgson, the eminent contractor of Bloomsbury, requesting his opinion of it, and Mr. Hodgson informed him that the expense would amount to 1,100,000 l; and when Mr. Barry amended his plan, he calculated the expenditure at 1,300,000 l. On the 13th of June, 1836, he (Mr. Hume) presented a petition from eighteen to twenty architects of the metropolis, in which it was stated the building would not be executed for less than 2,000,000 l., and that they founded their calculation on the expenditure of Henry VIIth.'s Chapel, to which Mr. Barry's plan nearly approached. Accordingly a Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Harwich was chairman, was appointed to inquire into the subject. He (Mr. Hume) put the following questions to Mr. Barry during the course of that inquiry:—
"Q. 170. What is the amount of your estimate, including everything?—724,986 l., exclusive of the site. 172. It is the maximum estimate, applying to the building only. 184. Ventilation is included in the plan.
"Q. 211. You have been making an estimate of this building: have you done it yourself, or employed competent persons to do so?—I have done it myself, and employed competent persons to assist me.
"Q. 217. Have the calculations been made from the plans which are upon the table?—They have.
"Q. 218. The amended plans?—Yes.
"Q. 272. Then are the Committee to understand that the estimates that you have given in are on that general principle that you have stated, as to the quantity and the amounts, such that you can rely upon?—Yes.
"Q. 290. May I ask you, strictly speaking, what style you consider this building to be?—It is of the third syle of Gothic architecture, including the Tudor period.
"Q. 404. How long would it take a person to make a detailed specification, and the working drawings, so as to enable a correct estimate to be formed of the whole building?—At least a twelvemonth.
984
The Committee made the following report:—
"The Committee are not satisfied on the head of expense; and before any part of the building be commenced, or any vote be proposed to Parliament, there should be the most minute and accurate estimate that can be formed."
It was then referred to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to inquire into and report upon Mr. Barry's plans and estimates. That report was made on the 18th of April, 1837, and was signed by Lord Duncannon, B. C. Stephenson, and A. Milne. The gentlemen appointed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to examine the estimate were Messrs. Seward and Chawner, architects; and they reported "That the new Houses of Parliament can be satisfactorily erected, according to the said drawings, for the sum stated by Mr. Barry (707,104.)" This was exclusive of the proposed embankment of part of the river Thames, the estimate of which was 44,000 l., and the purchase of the site, &c., which was estimated at 85,000 l.; making a total of 129,000 l., which was to be added to the 707,104 l. It appeared that a great many deviations had been made from the plan, whether on the motion of Mr. Barry himself, or at the suggestion of some other person or persons, he did not know; but it was full time for them to see that some limit was put upon the expenditure. He had been informed that very day that it was intended to take down all the buildings on that side of the bridge next to the new Houses, not to speak of the courts of law, and thus one thing would lead on to another, heaping up the expenses more and more, unless some control was established. He found in a paper published by one of the Commissioners (Lord Sudeley) in 1844, some remarkable statements as to the deviations made from the original plan with reference to the House of Lords. According to that paper, the original way by which the Queen's state carriage was to pass through the great tower, had to be materially altered by Mr. Barry. A pillar had to be removed in consequence of the passage not being wide enough; and the Queen's carriage, instead of going out by the way at first intended, was now to go by a subterranean tunnel—a passage of only nine feet in width. But as the width of Her Majesty's carriage was eight feet nine inches, he thought there would be some danger in passing through. If any person happened to be in the passage, he could not well es-

985
cape being crushed. He was astonished that any Government could allow these things to go on in this manner. He was not authorised to blame Mr. Barry; Mr. Barry might have authority for what he did. He did not mean to cast the least reflection on the eminent talents of Mr. Barry. He was ready to acknowledge his taste and imagination. He only meant to say, that having undertaken to make a House of Lords and Commons, he failed to do that. It was not many days since that Mr. Barry had received a gold medal from the Institute of Architects; and he begged to call the attention of the House to the language used on that occasion by Earl de Grey, one of the Commissioners appointed to control Mr. Barry. Earl de Grey Baid—
"We read that your predecessor, Sir C. Wren, himself laid the first stone of that superb edifice St. Paul's Cathedral, which is now the greatest monument of his genius; and I trust the same good fortune will await you. May you live to see the magnificent work now in your hands completed! St Paul's was thirty-four years in its erection; you have not occupied half that time as yet—and have made a progress which, if it had depended on yourself, would have brought the Houses of Parliament nearly to a completion; but the means of working have not been at your disposal. Tour work is to be devoted to I know not how many purposes. Sir C. Wren had to deal with men who knew what they wanted. Sir C. Wren, no doubt, received his instructions from men who knew the purposes to which the building was to be dedicated, and what was required to carry it out; but, I am sorry to say, that is not always the case with respect to the building entrusted to you. Sir C. Wren's masters were few—yours are legion. I am sorry to say, that au gust assembly which has most to do with the erection of this magnificent structure has in it a vast number of men who ask questions, make suggestions, and offer criticisms, while, at the same time, they do not know what is wanted, or, indeed, what they want themselves. It is not wonderful, then, that the architect should be impeded, and that fault should be found without any good substantial ground. And yet you have made a wonderful progress, &c. I have said the purposes to which it is to be applied are multifarious—there are wide and gorgeous palace halls, long corridors, short passages, lowly doorways, magnificent entrances, aspiring towers, groined staircases, every class of residences, porters' lodges, committee-rooms, offices, and even kitchens. As one of the Fine Arts Commissioners I have had more opportunities than, perhaps, any of his professional brethren, of seeing how cleverly and how readily Mr. Barry was able to make the suggestions he received from parties he was obliged to obey harmonise with his own conceptions, and thus preserve intact the beauty and unity of the original design.
Now, he left it to them to say whether that was or was not a fair description of the
986
conduct or proceedings of that House. His (Mr. Hume's) object was to ascertain who the parties were, and by what sanction and authority the expense of erecting the building had been increased from 724,000 l. to over two millions. It might turn out that Mr. Barry might be able to clear himself from all those charges, as he (Mr. Hume) wished he might, because it was through no personal or hostile feeling to Mr. Barry that he brought on the Motion, but because he conceived the House was bound to have a full and candid detail of every expense connected with the undertaking. He called on them, then, to disallow the 3,000 l. to the Commissioners of Fine Arts for one year; because by stopping the supply they would prevent their proceeding, further until the building itself should be in a condition to be used, and then they could see whether or not the money ought to be voted. He therefore called for inquiry into this, as it appeared to him, inextricable difficulty; and he hoped the House would support his proposition.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the "10" and insert the sum of "100,610 l."
MR. B. OSBORNEseconded the Amendment.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas not sorry that this Amendment had been brought forward, or the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, into which he had so fully entered; but he was sorry that he should have made that statement with reference to the whole question of the New Houses, when his Motion referred to a subject totally distinct—namely, whether they were to stop the proceedings of the Fine Arts Commission? This was the sole object of the hon. Gentleman's Motion; but nevertheless he had gone into a long statement with reference to the building of the New Houses during the last 15 years. He was sorry for the sake of the House, that he should have introduced these totally distinct subjects into one debate; but he hoped that the House would not accede to the Motion which he had made. It should be remembered that the House, on the recommendation of a Committee, came to a resolution that a good opportunity of benefiting and promoting the fine arts would be found during the time of building the New Houses of Parliament. That was determined on many years ago; and it was a determination which had been acted on ever since. It was only last year that an arrangement was announced to the House,

987
which received its unanimous approval—namely, that instead of proposing year by year the various objects on which the expenditure for the fine arts was to take place in the ensuing years, thus constituting themselves into what they were remarkably ill fitted for—a Committee of Taste—a certain limited sum should be annually placed at the disposal of the Commissioners of the Fine Arts for that purpose. And, certainly, though the hon. Gentleman might differ from the views taken by the Commissioners of Fine Arts on certain points, yet, on the whole, that was a more satisfactory mode of dealing with such questions than making them, in that House, the subject of interminable and unsatisfactory discussions. Last year, the sum placed at the disposal of the Commission was 4,000 l.; and, anticipating a similar sum for the present year, the Commissioners had entered into arrangements with artists for works to be placed in the New Houses; some of these works had been executed, and were ready to be handed over; and if the House of Commons now withheld this vote, he need hardly say that an act of injustice would be done both to the Commissioners and to the artists. Therefore, whatever resolution the House might choose to adopt with respect to such votes in future years—whether or not they wished to put an end to all expenditure on account of the fine arts—so far as this vote of 4,000 l. for the present year was concerned, they could not refuse it without being guilty of great injustice. Now, though it was a little inconvenient to go into those matters connected with the New Houses generally which the hon. Gentleman had introduced, he, nevertheless, would take that opportunity to address a few words to the House on the subject. He certainly thought it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had waited till he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was able to lay on the table a return which would have given the House information as to the whole state of the case—how far the estimates had been exceeded, what deviations had taken place from the original plan, and such other particulars as would have enabled them to come fully prepared to the discussion of the subject. From statements made by the hon. Gentleman, it might almost be implied that we had actually incurred an expense of 2,000,000 l. for purposes within the estimate; but, in fact, the whole amount expended for purposes included in the esti-
988
mate, with all the expenses of the deeper foundations and similar matters which could not be foreseen, was about 900,000 l. Then he talked of the additions to the plan as having been attended with an enormous extra expense, whereas the addition to the plan ultimately approved of cost exactly 20,000 l. It was quite true that in 1837, after minute inquiry, a plan was decided upon, the estimate for which, so far as buildings were concerned, amounted to 724,000 l., including the architect's commission and some other items of a similar kind. The actual estimate for buildings was 682,000 l.; but the hon. Gentleman spoke of all expenditure, other than that, as if it formed part of the original estimate. Now, it did no such thing. When the original estimate was made, it was distinctly stated that there were many other purposes for which expenditure must be incurred in addition to those estimated for—such as the cost of site, the river wall and embankment, carrying the foundation to an extra depth, sewers, and so on—those which he had named amounting to about 183,000 l. The House would see, therefore, that a large expenditure was necessarily incurred for purposes not included in Mr. Barry's estimate at all. Previous to 1844 some alterations had, no doubt, been made; but the Committee which sat that year reported that though they had been made without proper authority, they were nevertheless great improvements, and they entirely approved of their being made. And here he was reminded of what the hon. Gentleman said about the removal of a pillar to make room for the Queen's coach. It was true that a plan had been made such as that to which he referred, including a pillar, but it never appeared in the approved plan, so that the pillar could never have in fact existed. As to the operations which had led to the extra expense, they arose from circumstances over which Mr. Barry had no control. The additional expenditure arose from improvements which were afterwards sanctioned by the Committee of 1844, or for purposes which had been sanctioned by the Commissioners of the Land Revenue, and by the Commissioners of the Treasury. For example, he found that for a supply of water, temporary buildings, and other incidental expenses, there was an additional expense of 23,000 l., and for a better description of stone, the substitution of metal for wooden sashes for the windows, and other items, 82,000 l. Then there was

989
an extra cost owing to the change of circum-stances and the delay that had taken place, amounting to 68,000 l., making, altogether, 173,000 l. This was over and above sums not included in the original estimate, such as the expense of the site, the extra foundation and the river wall, &c., which was 183,300 l. Now, surely, there was no blame attachable to Mr. Barry that in his original estimate, he had not included things which formed no part of the buildings, nor was it fair to say that such things were included in the original estimate. His hon. Friend had spoken of the time which had been occupied. No doubt the works were continued much longer than had been anticipated by Mr. Barry, though through no fault of his; but it should not be forgotten that in many items this delay had led to much additional expense. Take the article of iron, for example, which had greatly increased in price while the operations were going on, and it would be found that in consequence of the delay a sum of 68,000 l., as he had already stated, had been incurred. Then, for warming and ventilating the buildings there were several items of expenditure resolved on after the original estimate was made, amounting to 120,000 l. In consequence of these alterations further fire-proofing was rendered necessary in order to protect the buildings from the danger thereby incurred, and these led to an expense of 80,000 l., making, under these three heads, a sum of no less than 200,000 l. But surely this could not be put down as the fault of Mr. Barry. In the original estimate, there was no allowance for fixtures and furniture and some other matters, amounting to 500,000 l. Including everything that could fairly be charged on the original estimate, the additional expense incurred was 230,000 l. The original estimate was 682,000 l., besides an addition to the plan of 20,000 l.; and the excess consisted of supply of water, temporary buildings, &c., 23,000 l.; improvements by means of better stone and other articles he had mentioned, 82,000 l.; the cost caused by the loss of time, chiefly by the increased price of iron, 68,000 l., and a sum of 37,000 l. put down for contingencies. Then the charges produced by innovations upon the original plan were for cost of site, river-wall, embankment, &c., 183,000 l., and for warming, ventilating, and fire-proofing the buildings, 200,000 l.; furniture and fixtures, 500,000 l.; approaches, if ever made at all, 32,000 l.;
990
taking down St. Stephen's Chapel, 3,000 l., restoring the crypt, 22,000 l., and the architect's remuneration, 75,000 l. This, including the sum of 912,000 l., which was the amount expended for purposes included in the original estimate, and those added to it, made a total expenditure of 1,927,000 l. It would be much more convenient if the House were to abstain from taking any steps till put into possession of the information which would be laid before it. The hon. Member for Montrose adverted also to the accommodation in what was called the New House of Commons. A morning sitting would be held there to-morrow, and an evening sitting in the course of the week. In order to enable Members to come to some unanimous opinion, it was not undesirable that a Committee should be appointed on that subject. There was not the same objection to such a Committee as to one on the whole works; and he felt confident that the information it would be his duty to produce, would obviate the necessity for any general inquiry. [Mr. HUME said, that if the right hon. Baronet would consent to the appointment of a Committee, he should be quite satisfied.] He did not think it desirable that a Committee should be appointed to rip up all that had been done since 1836; but it might be advisable to have a Committee appointed for the minor purpose of inquiry into the accommodation in the New House of Commons, and ascertaining how far it was adapted to meet the wishes of, he did not say all, but a great majority of the House.
SIR R. PEELsaid, he apprehended the practical question on which the hon. Member for Montrose intended to take the opinion of the House was the vote of 3,000 l. which it was proposed to apply to the decoration of the two Houses. Before adverting to that topic, he wished to say a few words on that collateral point to which the hon. Member devoted nine-tenths of his speech. The hon. Member referred to an address made by Earl de Grey to Mr. Barry in presenting him, at the Institute of British Architects, with a medal, in admiration of his genius, and approbation of his conduct. He (Sir R. Peel) rejoiced that Earl de Grey had made that address—had taken the opportunity of recording the estimation in which Mr. Barry was held by the architects of this country. His noble Friend did not act against the House of Commons or its recorded sentiments; but he had a perfect right to entertain his own opinions; and the House of

991
Commons ought not to be so critical with respect to expressions of opinions. They were not exceedingly reserved themselves in expressing condemnation, and they ought not to be fastidious in objecting to the course pursued by any one who, on a fit and proper occasion, gave expression to his views. But his noble Friend Earl de Grey might have found in the report of 1844 an expression of opinion on the part of the House of Commons, that if there had been an alteration in the original plan, Mr. Barry was not responsible. In that report it was expressly stated that the Committee, having examined various persons with respect to the course hitherto adopted by Mr. Barry in regard to alterations in the interior arrangements, imputed no blame to Mr. Barry, and declared that they "had every reason to believe all the alterations hitherto made had conduced to the convenience and general effect of the building." In 1844, then, there was a complete acquittal of Mr. Barry by that Committee appointed by the House of Commons. Earl de Grey referred to various changes of opinion which had taken place, and said Mr. Barry had met with critics who did not understand their own mind. The hon. Member for Montrose was one of the main suggesters of alterations; and, therefore, he ought to be especially chary of impeaching Mr. Barry on the ground that alterations had been made. The evidence of the Earl of Bessborough, then First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, referred to the original plan of Mr. Barry, and showed, if deviations had been made, and expenses incurred on account of them, that Mr. Barry was not responsible. But certain Members of the House of Commons, thinking important alterations might be made for the more convenient accommodation of Members, and the residence of persons connected with the House of Commons, suggested modifications of the original plan. The Earl of Bessborough said the first deviation was providing a house for the Sergeant-at-Arms. Being asked if he could state when that was proposed, he replied, "During the sitting of the Committees of both Houses which altered the plan of 1836. I can speak to that from a conversation I had with Mr. Hume." He (Sir R. Peel) read that evidence in vindication of Mr. Barry and of Earl de Grey, who, having expressed approbation of Mr. Barry, had incurred the censure of the hon. Member for Montrose. He should have read it, if only to convince that hon.
992
Member that he ought to be tolerant of the opinions of others. A plan was offered by Mr. Barry, among other competitors, and adopted. [Mr. HUME: And altered.] It was altered in 1836, and again at the instance of the hon. Member. From the Earl of Bessborough's evidence it appeared that the Treasury consented reluctantly, and that the noble Lord himself had objected in consistency with the advice of Sir B. Stephenson, who said, if they once consented to make alterations, more would be suggested. But who overruled that opinion? "I recollect," said the Earl of Bessborough, "Mr. Hume coming to me, and stating that it was absolutely necessary the Sergeant-at-Arms, who had charge of the House, and so had a great responsibility for so large a building, should have an apartment." Lord G. Somerset inquired in what character did Mr. Hume make such applications? The answer of the Earl of Bessborough was, that he made the applications as a member of the Committee. Being asked if be acceded to the representation of the hon. Member, the Earl of Bessborough replied, "I assented to it, but with very great reluctance. I got the consent of the Treasury, but they objected very much." Here were these two reluctant departments consenting to new buildings and fresh expenditure in consequence of the suggestion of the hon. Member who now asked the House to curtail the vote for the New Houses of Parliament by 3,000 l. It might be questioned whether it would not have been better had the Woods and Forests resisted the fascinations of the hon. Gentleman. When the Earl of Bessborough was asked whether Mr. Hume stated the suggestion as his own opinion or as that of the Committee, the answer was that the hon. Member described it as the general opinion. [Mr. HUME: Who was the chairman?] Who was the chairman? It was not, he believed, the hon. Member for Montrose. Every precaution, however, was taken by the departments, and this question was asked, "Mr. Hume was not the chairman of the Committee, was he?"—"No, he was not." That made the conduct of the hon. Gentleman still more improper then. He was very sorry to make this exposure of the hon. Member. He (Sir R. Peel) was anxious to have stated to the hon. Member before he brought on his Motion, in what a strait he was placed by his conduct with respect to this suggestion. The witness stated "he was not chairman of

993
the Committee, but I think he said that it was the opinion of the majority of the Committee." [Mr. HUME: That's all very well.] If the hon. Member denied it, he (Sir R. Peel) could only say that he was quoting from a Parliamentary document, and it was quite sufficient to vindicate his noble Friend Earl de Grey from any reflections upon his conduct, and to show that Mr. Barry ought not alone to bear the blame of these alterations. Some observations had been made with respect to the inconvenience of divisions in the new House. He (Sir R. Peel) had a similar impression that the mode of taking divisions in this House was more convenient. But Mr. Barry was not responsible, for the Committee appointed in 1836 considered the principle on which the New House of Commons should be constructed, and they expressly recommended that the New House should not be so long as the present—in which he thought they made a mistake; the defect was its breadth relatively to its length. It would have been more desirable to afford accommodation in the centre of the House than in the gallery, and to have had its proportions more resembling those of the present House. But Mr. Barry for that was free from blame. He offered a plan, which was submitted to the Committee, and the Committee recommended that the House of Commons should be broader, and that the length should be curtailed. They expressly recommended an apartment on each side of the House of Commons in which divisions should be taken in the very matter Mr. Barry had provided. The House of Commons must, therefore, adopt the whole blame with respect to the construction of the New House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted prudently in proposing, before new alterations were made, or fresh expenses incurred, that there should be a Committee of the most experienced Members appointed with the view of ascertaining what alterations might be necessary. So much with respect to the House of Commons. As regarded the particular vote on which the hon. Member for Montrose intended to take the opinion of the House, the House of Commons appeared to have a short memory in these matters. They thought they were going to revise an act of the Crown—to express disapprobation of the course pursued by the Crown with respect to both Houses of Parliament. The House was perfectly at liberty to do so. If they did not think the
994
Commission of the Fine Arts appointed by the Crown the proper tribunal to decide on the matters committed to its charge—if they thought the House of Commons should withdraw the vote altogether, they were perfectly at liberty to do so. If they thought all the great artists of the country—many of whom had been brought into prominence by the competition which took place under the auspices of the commission—ought to seek encouragement elsewhere; if they thought it necessary to mark their disapprobation of the delay which had taken place, or their anxiety to promote economy by withdrawing the grant, they were perfectly at liberty to adopt that proceeding. As a member of that commission, so far from deprecating such a step, he should be heartily glad to be relieved from the duties, particularly if it were intimated that the commission had not the confidence of the House. But no step had been taken by the Executive Government, or by that commission, except in the belief, and the justifiable confidence, that the Commission and the Government were acting in consonance with the views of the House of Commons. That commission was issued solely in consequence of an unanimous recommendation of a Committee appointed to consider whether it was not fitting that the opportunity should be taken for constructing that magnificent building to promote the fine arts. He should feel it to be his duty to put it beyond all possibility of doubt, that the acts done had been so in consequence of the sanction and recommendation of the House of Commons. In 1841, during the Government of Lord Melbourne, a Committee was appointed on the 6th of May, to consider the promotion of the fine arts in this country, in connexion with the rebuilding of the New Houses. That Committee came to a unanimous report; and, strange again to say, one of the Members of that Committee, thus making a unanimous report, and compelling the Government to undertake the consideration of the subject, was Mr. Hume. What did the Committee recommend? They said they had examined several distinguished professors and admirers of art, who were unanimously of opinion that so Important a national work afforded a fitting opportunity for encouraging, not only the higher, but every subordinate branch of the fine arts In this country; mouldings, design in the most extensive signification of the term, the manufacture of ornaments in brasswork

995
&c. Everything relating to the fine arts was comprehended within the scope of the Committee's recommendation. It was the House of Commons which recommended that a department of the Government should be solely responsible for carrying out the measures which the Committee's report contemplated. It was thought right to take a collective and united view of the whole question. The Fine Arts Commission thought they were acting in deference to the authority of that Committee when they asked the Treasury to intrust them with the expenditure of an annual vote, in order that they might ascertain to what extent the ingenuity, talent, and industry of this country might he employed. The Committee observed that doubts might he entertained with respect to the encouragement of fresco; some might think it a foreign taste; but the commission did not encourage fresco painting without their understanding that it was the wish of the House of Commons that that mode of painting should be tried. The Committee observed that it had been lately revived on the Continent, and tried, especially at Munich—that the subjects it was fitted to illustrate pointed it out for a national building as almost the only subject by which full effect could be given to the qualities which distinguished it of grandeur, breadth, and simplicity. The Committee recommended that that style should be adopted, and not oil-painting only. It was the House of Commons which suggested the encouragement of a branch of art not unknown to this country in former times, but which had remained dormant for above a century; and that the artists of this country should be asked to compete in that novel department of art. Reflections might be east on the selection made by the commission of eminent men whose effigies should adorn the New Houses, as well as of subjects illustrating the national history. But by making a selection of historical subjects, and of men distinguished in British annals, they thought, up to that night, that they were adopting the recommendations and acting in conformity with the wishes of the House of Commons; for the report of the Committee concluded by observing that they unanimously recommended the evidence to the favourable consideration of the House, with the view of its receiving the immediate attention of the Government. Such was the opinion of the House of Commons at that time—an opinion which the Crown
996
was obliged to respect, because it referred to the decoration of the edifice appropriated to the House of Commons and the House of Peers. The report of the Committee concluded by saying—
"We humbly recommend the evidence herewith presented to the House to its favourable consideration, with a view to its receiving immediate attention at the hands of the Government, in the hope that the new Houses of Parliament may hand down to posterity a memorial as well of the genius of our artists as of the importance attached by the country to the nobler productions of art, and that subjects embodied in such representations, whether by painting or by sculpture, may serve to perpetuate the facts of our past history, and to preserve the memories of our public benefactors in the grateful remembrance of our people."
Supposing the Crown had neglected that recommendation of the House of Commons, had appointed no commission, had done nothing with reference to the declaration of the two Houses in promotion of art, would not the House of Commons have taken credit with artists and the lovers of art for a disposition to give them encouragement? Might the House of Commons not have said—"Here you have evidence of our disposition to provide the means, but the Crown, the natural patron of art, has done nothing in furtherance of this great national undertaking?" The Crown acted on the suggestion of the House of Commons. It appointed a commission. If that commission had abused the functions intrusted to them, that was a legitimate ground for refusing to assent to their proceedings. But the commission, on their own part, were not aware of any dereliction of duty which a sense of justice ought to make them acknowledge. They obtained a public competition; they gave prizes to the best works; without restriction as to any particular class of art, they opened a competition to the whole talent of the country. Three prizes were awarded of 500 l. each, three of 300 l. each, and three of 2002. each. A commission was appointed to award those prizes, and, greatly to the satisfaction of that commission, they were, in almost every instance, awarded to young men whose names had hardly been heard before. Latent genius was brought to light. These were the names of the successful candidates:—Mr. Pickersgill (not the Royal, Academician), Mr. Watts, Mr. Armitage, each received prizes of 500 l.; prizes of 300 l. were awarded to Mr. Frost, Mr. Poole, and another; prizes of 200 l. were awarded to Mr. Lauder, Mr. Lucy, and Mr. Foster.

997
It could not be said that the opportunity had been thrown away for the encouragement of art, or that any favour had been shown in awarding the premiums; for he doubted whether the names of any of the successful artists had been known to those who awarded the premiums. The commission certainly thought they were acting in conformity with the wishes of the House of Commons when historical subjects were selected. A Committee was appointed. The recommendations on that subject were offered by that Committee, which was composed of the following members:—Prince Albert, the Marquess of Lansdowne, Lord J. Russell, Lord Morpeth, Lord Mahon. Mr. Macaulay, Sir E. Inglis, Mr. Hallam, and Mr. Wyse. If the House thought that Committee badly selected, and objected in any respect to the course taken in the matter, he did not deprecate their rescinding the vote, and withdrawing from the commission the power of encouraging art; but, in doing so, he wished the House distinctly to understand that they were rescinding an act not of the Crown, but of the House of Commons, and withdrawing encouragement which the Crown had given, acting in compliance with the express wish of the House of Commons. He ought to inform the House—it might be an additional inducement to withdraw the vote—that the commission had proceeded in the confidence that not only in this but in future years the grant would be continued. They had selected an artist of the highest eminence, to whom they had given a commission to execute a series of works. [Mr. OSBORNE: In how many years?] He should be sorry to be charged with any concealment whatever. Mr. Herbert was the artist. They had selected him for the decoration of an apartment, the commission being given on the distinct understanding that he could only enter on it bearing in mind the precariousness of the tenure by which the commission held the grants. But, with reference to one particular apartment they thought that there would be an advantage in intrusting the decoration of it to one artist of eminence than to several hands; that more uniformity of design would be insured; that it was more in common with the practice of former ages to take that course; and they had invited Mr. Herbert to commence a series of paintings for that apartment. [Mr. OSBORNE: Which apartment?] He thought it was the Peers' robing-room. If any doubt existed of the merits and
998
genius of Mr. Herbert, hon. Members who had not had an opportunity of seeing it, ought to look at the magnificent fresco of King Lear, painted by him. The character brought out in the Cordelia bending at the side would attract particular attention; and hon. Members might judge for themselves whether a better selection could have been made than of that artist. He did hope the House of Commons would be of opinion that it would not be creditable to the country, were the opportunity allowed to pass without affording what encouragement they could to art; that if they thought the commission had not taken a course calculated to encourage other departments of art as well as the highest, they would give the commission credit for anxiety to discharge its duties aright. If, on the other hand, the House thought the commission had abused its trust, had given given encouragement to departments of art which it ought not to have encouraged; if they thought a Committee of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons generally, would be a better tribunal for the consideration of these matters of taste, without murmur and without complaint, he, for one, would see the commission extinguished, and would only hope the House of Commons would appoint a better authority for the purpose of executing its purpose—if it were its purpose—to make this magnificent building conducive to the advancement of the fine arts.
MR. B. OSBORNEwished to call back the House to the real question, and hoped they would not he deluded by the "fine arts" of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who had never delivered a speech, even when he sat on the Treasury bench, supported by a majority, in which the question was so entirely evaded. There were two points in the right hon. Baronet's speech; one of them, that the hon. Member for Montrose, in a moment of weakness, suggested that the Sergeant-at-Arms should have a house. That house had never been built to the present day; and the topic so admirably brought forward by the right hon. Baronet had as much to do with the New Houses of Parliament as St. Paul's. The other point was, that a commission had been given to Mr. Herbert to decorate one of the apartments; but, although a Commissioner of the Fine Arts, the right hon. Baronet was puzzled to know which of the rooms it was that was to be decorated. But the question before the House was not whether

999
they were to destroy the commission, but whether they should suspend its operations, and have the money which was proposed to he laid out on what he considered monstrous frescoes and narrow-shouldered barons devoted to putting the House of Commons in a proper state. Let them finish the House first, and proceed with the commission afterwards. The commission consisted of a number of gentlemen—he supposed men of great taste—who were employed in spending other people's money, and passing most agreeable mornings in giving orders to Mr. Herbert and all those artists of whom the right hon. Gentleman read a list. But the right hon. Gentleman rather threw a slur upon his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and said, "You are not tolerant of other people's criticisms." The complaint, however, of his hon. Friend was, that Earl do Grey, who was a Commissioner to expedite the building of the Houses, was bandying compliments with Mr. Barry, presenting him with medals, and holding out inducements to him to copy the example of Sir C. Wren, and not to finish the Houses for thirty-four years. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet, or some other of the Commissioners, might explain the reason of the delay in the building; but Mr. Barry, to use his own words, attributed it to—
"Want of time experienced by all modern architects, and of that proper frame of mind to produce, with full effect, the æsthetical development of design which he was unable fully to explain."
If an architect was to tell that House that he was not in a proper frame of mind to continue this building, and it was received with a cheer by Earl de Grey, was the House to be satisfied with that sort of rubbish? But the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets, when anything was ever said on this subject, always praised the building. That reminded him of the story told of John Kemble, who, when he was asked his opinion of Mr. Conway, the actor, said, "He is a very tall young man." In the same way it might be said this building was a very large building, but he denied that it was either beautiful or useful. And he said further, that if the country had seen a fine building, or an useful House of Commons, he should not have grudged the money, but when he heard, day after day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting up and saying, "you have had very little expenditure," he would observe that they had spent 200,000 l. for ventilation, and
1000
yet an hon. Gentleman got up on the other side—one of the country party who knew the value of fine air—and said, the air was so mephitic it was totally impossible he could breathe in the lobby. Why, he found that Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid, upon whose joint labours the comfort of the House depended, had not spoken for six years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware of the enormous expense of pulling down what Dr. Reid had set up, and of setting up Mr. Barry's designs. They had now three systems of ventilation. They were parboiling the House of Lords; they were going to kill the whole country party in the lobbies—he believed it was a design of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's; and then they had those enormous boilers—God knew what they were going to do with them, but he understood Mr. Barry, when asked, refused to say. He asked the House to come to some vote, not as a mark of censure on the commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had read the names of the Commissioners, and read them with an emphasis, as though the House would be deterred by it from doing anything; but he would remind the House that this was no vote of censure—it was only a vote to suspend the commission—though he would say, if it were suspended sine die and never met again he should be the better pleased. This was a question whether a sum of money voted should be applied to complete the House of Commons, or whether, whilst they were paying 2,000 l for the residences of the officers, because they would not finish the Houses, they should spend it on frescoes. He said, finish the Houses first, and adorn them afterwards. After what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, he did not think there was any great encouragement for the House handing over its business to Committees, for it was proved that all these expenses arose out of the Committee. His hon. Friend wished to give the Sergeant-at-Arms a house, and the right hon. Gentleman wished to give Mr. Herbert an order for a picture, and they were running up an enormous bill, building abominably bad houses, and, if their legislation was not better than the Houses, the longer they remained in their present chamber the better. He hoped some hon. Gentleman would express a decided opinion that they ought to remain in the pre-

1001
sent House until the new one was put into such a state that they could hear, and sit with ease. One word now as to the Fine Arts Commission. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth would state the number of artists who were applied to to paint pictures for the refreshment room; he wished the right hon. Gentleman would state whether Mr. Stanfield refused, whether Mr. Roberts refused, whether the commissioners were not going to put Mr. Landseer's pictures into a room not so good as a billiard room, because there was not light from the top to see them; and he wished the right hon. Gentleman would state whether Mr. Landseer had asked whether there was another room, and whether Mr. Landseer did not consent to paint, and did not say he would paint, the picture for nothing. And in extenuation for the vote he (Mr. Osborne) had given the other night, he did it as much to save the reputation of that gentleman as to save the money of the country, because he thought it an affront to that artist that the commissioners should put his picture in such an abominable place. He hoped, therefore, the House would do their duty to the country, and support his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.
SIR R. PEELwould assure the hon. Gentleman that his (Sir R. Peel's) omission of all reference to the circumstances under which Mr. Landseer was invited to paint certain pictures in the apartment to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, was intentional, because he thought the House had decided on the point. He was influenced solely by a respectful feeling toward the House—that he would not call in question a decision of the House, however strongly he might feel upon it. The three artists to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, were called before the commission. The commissioners accompanied them to the apartment in question. Upon entering the apartment they found that the greater number of the panels which could be appropriated to the particular pictures were opposite to the light—and every Gentleman was aware that that was an unfavourable light for the exhibition of pictures—but there were three compartments in which the light was excellent. Those were at the end of the room, and were lighted at the side. The commissioners had a picture painted by Mr. Stanfield, one by Mr. Roberts, and one by Mr. Landseer. They were brought to the apartment—the com-
1002
missioners made an actual experiment of the light before the pictures were placed there; they made it in the presence of the three artists; the commissioners themselves thought the situation of the panels opposite the light was not suitable for the exhibition of paintings, and they therefore did not give a commission to Mr. Stanfield or Mr. Roberts, because they thought a more suitable place for works of those distinguished artists might be found; but the panels selected by the commissioners for the pictures of Mr. Landseer were selected with the full and entire concurrence of Mr. Landseer himself. That gentleman thought the purposes of the apartment were not unsuitable for the exhibition of works in that particular department in which he had attained a higher eminence, he (Sir R. Peel) believed, than any artist of any country or of any ago. He entirely approved of the light, and in no respect objected to the apartment. Of the liberality of Mr. Landseer, he (Sir R. Peel) could not speak in terms of too high praise; whatever sum might be awarded to Mr. Landseer for these pictures, he (Sir R. Peel) was confident it was not one-third of the real intrinsic value of them. All that the hon. Gentleman could say in favour of the eminence of Mr. Landseer was entirely justified. All the hon. Gentleman had said of his liberality was equally deserved: he hid not believe there ever lived an artist of greater eminence than Mr. Landseer; but the selection of these panels for his pictures was not made without his full and entire approbation.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex began his speech by saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had not spoken to the question, and that he misled the House by referring to a question totally irrelevant; but the fact was that the right hon. Gentleman did address himself to the question, which was, whether those sums of money which were voted in Committee of Supply should likewise be consented to by the House for the purpose of certain decorations and of the fine arts as proposed by the Fine Arts Commission. Now, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not address the House upon that question, because his speech was almost entirely on the merits of Mr. Barry and the building of the two Houses of Parliament. According to the logic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, there ought to be a vote for the House very much diminishing the sum to

1003
be apropriated to Mr. Barry for the Houses, and not interfering with the Commission of Fine Arts, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he did not wish to pass any censure on the commission; and yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's conclusion after his speech was, that every farthing asked for by Government for Mr. Barry and the Houses of Parliament should be voted, and that the sum asked for the commission should not be voted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's object was not a censure on the commission, but merely to say that every sum they could spare, every penny they could afford, should be devoted to continuing and finishing the Houses of Parliament. If that were the case, they ought to vote the whole sum of 150,000 l, the sum asked by the Government and the Treasury of the House of Commons, only declaring that no part of it should be applied to painting and decorations. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman, so far from taking that course, would take away the whole sum proposed for these paintings, and leave the whole of the sum for the Houses neither increased nor diminished—therefore the Houses of Parliament would not have one farthing more money voted for them; they could not be proceeded with further; not one day's work more would be done in consequence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's wish. If the House of Commons really said that 150,000 l. was not sufficient, and that 4,000 l. more ought to be voted—if that were the deficiency, he thought the Government, in any supplementary estimate, might have applied for that additional sum to proceed with the Houses of Parliament; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not interfere with the sum for the Houses—he neither increased nor diminished it. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman said it was only suspending the works of art, and that when the building was completed they might be proceeded with. But would not that be departing from what the House had done? Did not the House originally say—he was not one of those who were most sanguine on the subject—but did not the House say that that opportunity should be taken to decorate the Houses with works of art—that it would greatly promote the fine arts in this country, and did not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth advise the Crown to appoint a commission for the special purpose of carrying into effect the wish of the country? Then, if they suspended that commission—
1004
if they told them, after they had led the people to expect that this money should be devoted to the purpose of the fine arts, that it should not be so devoted, the only result would be that it would be impossible for the commission, with any regard to their character, to proceed with the works, the House of Commons having declared that they were not fit to proceed with them. It would be a vote, in fact, declaring that their commission must be put an end to, and that they departed from their original purpose. He said this with immediate view to the vote. The question was not then with regard to Mr. Barry's merits—it was not whether that or the other House of Parliament did a wise thing in adopting Mr. Barry's plan in preference to a less expensive style of architecture; but whether after the House had gone on for five or six years in votes for this purpose, they would now put an end to them, and refuse to have the Houses decorated.
MR. HUMEwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman in the chair whether he could withdraw the Motion he had already proposed, for the purpose of substituting the other of which he had given notice for the appointment of a Committee? The noble Lord at the head of Government knew that all he (Mr. Hume) wanted was to have an opportunity of taking the sense of the House as to a Committee.
MR. SPEAKERasked the hon. Member whether he proposed to withdraw his Motion?
MR. B. OSBORNEobjected to its being withdrawn.
SIR R. PEELthought the hon. Gentleman was so convinced of the injustice and impropriety of his Motion, that he wished to withdraw it.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that not one word had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose which could justify the observation which the right hon. Baronet had just made. He protested against it; but he thought his hon. Friend wished to withdraw his Amendment in order that he might put another more consistent with the view of the House.
LORD J. RUSSELLhad no objection, if the forms of the House would permit it, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose should put his Motion exactly in the manner he thought best; but he understood the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex to say he could not consent to the Motion first made by his hon. Friend being withdrawn.
Question put, "That the sum of '103,610 l.' stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 62; Majority 82.

List of the NOES.

Alexander, N.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bankes, G.

Keating, R.

Bennet, P.

Kershaw, J.

Beresford, W.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Best, J.

Lacy, H. C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Lockhart, W.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Lushington, C.

Bright, J.

Morris, D.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Muntz, G. F.

Chatterton, Col.

Norreys, Lord

Cobden, R.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

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

Nugent, Sir P.

Codrington, Sir W.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Colvile, C. R.

Packe, C. W.

Corbally, M. E.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Disraeli, B.

Prime, R.

Dod, J. W.

Roebuck, J. A.

Drummond, H.

Romilly, Col.

Duncan, G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Dunne, Col.

Smythe, hon. G.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Smollett, A.

Evelyn, W. J.

Sullivan, M.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Thompson, Col.

Forbes, W.

Verner, Sir W.

Grattan, H.

Waddington, H. S.

Greene, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hall, Sir B.

Wawn, J. T.

Halsey, T. P.

Williams, J.

Hastie, A.

Williams, T. B.

Hastie, A.

Heyworth, L.

TELLERS.

Hotham, Lord

Hume, J.

Humphery, Ald.

Osborne, R. B.

Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
MR. HUMEsaid, that he should now move, as another Amendment, for the Select Committee of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and examine the various Reports, Statements, and Plans of the Architect relative to the New Houses of Parliament, and also into the manner in which the works have been conducted, and the different estimates made, with a view to ascertain the cause of the great increase of charge above the estimate for the plan delivered by Mr. Barry, and examined by proper officers, amounting to the sum of 707,000 l., on which estimate the sanction of Parliament was obtained for the adoption of the plan; and that the Committee be instructed to obtain from Mr. Barry plans and estimates of all the additions and alterations made by him upon his own responsibility; also, those that have been made at the suggestion of or under the authority of the Lords of the Treasury, the Commissioners of Woods and Works, or any other parties; also what further plans and projected works are in-
1006
tended to be carried out for the completion of the said Houses of Parliament, with proper estimates for the various items, so as to arrive at the total expense for the whole building, fittings, and decorations;"
instead thereof.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already stated, that in a few days a complete return would be made of all the details of the expenditure, showing what the excess of expenditure had been, and he thought the House should have an opportunity of seeing that return before they came to any decision upon this question.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, and complained that no person appeared to be responsible for all the expenditure. The main ground of his supporting the Amendment was, that it would give the Committee the means of an effectual control over it. The House of Commons could not act as an executive body; all it could do was to pass good laws, and to give the means of establishing a proper control over all expenditure.
SIR D. NORREYSsaid, that after all the expenditure incurred, had they not produced a monstrous failure, not only as regarded the architecture, but convenience itself? Was not the new building most unsatisfactory as regarded hearing, and was it not insufficient on the score of the number of Members it would accommodate? He thought that if a Committee were appointed, one of the first questions for it to consider would be, whether Westminster-hall had not been desecrated by Mr. Barry, who was now erecting a monstrous passage to a more monstrous staircase. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex in thinking that Mr. Barry was an accomplished architect, as far as one branch of the profession went; but he felt that the country had been misled by him in the adoption of a bad style of architecture.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that he scarcely knew what they were going to divide upon, and that it was most preposterous in them or any Committee that they could appoint to pretend to know anything about architecture. He thought that if they had appointed one man at first to build a house for them, and had not interfered with him, they would have acted more wisely. He thought it absurd to hear one hon. Gentle man getting up and talking about arches, and another about pediments, neither knowing anything about them. Everybody seem-

1007
ed to find fault with the New House of Commons; but he was totally incapable of forming a judgment on it. Everybody seemed to attack it as to hearing; but on the principle of acoustics he could not understand how one man talking on his legs could be heard when there were a hundred others about him talking on their heads' antipodes. The House which they were then in, he believed was as good a one as they could have; but he had no knowledge to guide him as to whether the New House was a good one or not. He thought that it would be better not to appoint a Committee, but to leave the responsibility on the Government.
MR. AGLIONBYwas quite sure that if the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had attended to the terms of his hon. Friend's notice, which was on the Votes, he would have given the Motion his support. The question before the House was for a Committee of Inquiry, and he denied that the responsibility rested with the Government. The responsibility fell on the House, and they ought not to shrink from it. If the papers promised would give the information required, he would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion; but the information that was wanted could only be elicited by a Committee. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could tell the House, within half a million, what sums had already been paid, and what liabilities had been incurred?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERentreated the House to wait until the return which he had promised was produced. In one of the returns laid on the table towards the end of the last Session, it was stated the total expenditure upon the New Houses up to May, 1849, was 938,000 l., and certainly not more than 100,000 l. had been expended on it since that time. It would be found, if hon. Gentlemen would wait for further information, that the great portion of the incurred expenditure had taken place in consequence of the demands for additional accommodation which had been recommended by Committees of both Houses, and by the Woods and Forests.
SIR R. PEELthought that a useful and practical Committee might be appointed, after they had sat in the New House four or five days, to consider what further accommodation was required in it, and also the cost of any such alterations as might be deemed desirable. Such Committee could state what steps it was desirable to
1008
take to avoid the risk which he feared might arise of Members not being able to hear comfortably in the New House. Great care must be taken to see what would be the cost of any alteration which might be made, such for instance as an extension of the side galleries. As to an investigation into what had been the cause of the past expenditure, he did not think it would be attended with any great advantage, and if they appointed a Committee of Taste to superintend the future progress of the building, it would be found to be perfectly incompetent, and they would lose the advantages which they might attain by such a Committee as he had suggested.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 55: Majority 30.
Resolution agreed to.

LORD LIEUTENANCY ABOLITION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
LORD J. RUSSELL LORD J. RUSSELL moved that this Bill be read a Second Time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. GRATTANhoped that Ministers would abandon this measure, which, according to report, was not viewed with favour by individuals in high positions connected with the Government. The Legislature had no right to pass a Bill for abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant. The office was guaranteed to Ireland by the treaty of union between the two countries. The people of Ireland were as much entitled to have their Lord Lieutenant as the people of England were to have their Lord Chancellor. The law officers of the Crown had not attempted to answer the legal objection which was taken to the abolition of the office. That the people of Ireland were opposed to the removal of the Lord Lieutenancy was apparent from the circumstance, that whilst many petitions had been presented against the measure, not one had been presented in favour of it. It had been expected that an important petition from Dublin would that evening have been presented against the Bill by one of the Lord Mayors of that city; but it would appear that now there were two Lord Mayors of Dublin neither of them could come to London. The state of public feeling in Ireland with respect to

1009
this Abolition Bill might be inferred from a declaration recently made by a gentleman who had hitherto been a supporter of the Government, who said, "I am not a repealer, I am a rebel; for the Government is driving us to madness." It was the fashion now to assert that the Lord Lieutenant had nothing to do; but the time had been when Ministers stated in that House that his duties were most onerous. Ireland had been deprived of her nobility and gentry, and now it was proposed to deprive her of her Lord Lieutenant. Do that, and how would you govern the country? The Marquess of Wellesley once said to him, "If things continue to go on as they do at present, Ireland will be governed either by the mob or by the military." That declaration was made as the Marquess was leaving his Council of State in Dublin at two o'clock in the morning—a proof, by the way, that the Lord Lieutenant had some business to occupy his attention, and if further evidence upon that point were desired, it would be found in the Earl of Clarendon's letter upon the table of the House, describing the measures adopted for preserving the peace of the country after the suppression of what he must be allowed to term the mock rebellion two years ago. It was a significant fact that this Bill was warmly supported by the party which was supposed to have looked with approbation on that insurrectionary movement. The noble Lord at the head of the Government must believe the people of Ireland to be a mere besotted race if he supposed that they could possibly regard this as an advantageous measure. One of the most objectionable provisions of the Bill was the transferring to Her Majesty the power now possessed by the Lord Lieutenant of issuing proclamations. Why, the Irish people were born under proclamations, they lived under proclamations, and under proclamations they died, and were buried. But how were these proclamations to reach Ireland from Downing-street? They must resort not merely to the parachute, but to the electric telegraph itself. Did the noble Lord think that the people of Ireland would submit to this? The noble Lord did not know of what kind of spirit those people were. When he (Mr. Grattan) was a young man, he could have adopted means of agitation under such a law which would have upset any Ministry of the day. He would refer to a reply of the Earl of Clarendon in answer to a memorial that was
1010
presented to him, which would at once show the advantage Ireland must derive from having a man high in authority on the spot to superintend the administration of justice in that country. In the case of certain individuals who had been transported from Ireland, an address was presented to the Lord Lieutenant in their favour, and particularly requesting that those individuals should not be treated with severity. The Earl of Clarendon, being on the spot, knowing the circumstances of the case, and being satisfied that the safety of society was secure, made this reply:—
"I fully appreciate the motives of humanity which have dictated your address, and in reply, I am at present only able to assure you that the Government in the performance of its duties can have no other desire than that justice should be administered without any degree of severity beyond that which the interest of society demands."
That was a proper, an honourable, and a constitutional reply. Now, one of those individuals who was so transported to Maria Island, was a gentleman whose friendship he had long had the honour to enjoy. How had the humane treatment so strongly recommended by the Earl of Clarendon been carried out towards that individual? Mr. Smith O'Brien had 50 l. forwarded to him, and he wished to purchase some tea, but he was prevented doing so; he wanted to read the papers, but that privilege was denied him; he was anxious to take exercise, but that he was not allowed to do without being constantly accompanied by some official person; in short, they would not allow him to expend any portion of the 50 l., either in a way conducive to his health or to his amusement. Such was the treatment Mr. Smith O'Brien experienced at Maria Island. Such was the humanity of the generous mind of the Earl of Clarendon, in Dublin, on the one hand, and such the inhumanity of the officials at Downing-street, on the other. But, in the case of the administration of justice at home—suppose a man tried in Ireland on a Thursday, sentenced on a Saturday to death, and the execution of that sentence to be carried into effect on the following Monday. In such a case what appeal could be made to the Government in Downing-street to arrest that sentence? Was it not clear that instead of having justice promoted by the transferring of the criminal administration from Dublin to London, the risk would be incurred of the people of Ireland receiving no justice at all? But there were many other difficulties in the

1011
way of this measure. The Bill would bring a number of onerous duties on Her Majesty which she would never be able to discharge. Without intending to make the assertion himself, it certainly was generally supposed that the creation of this fourth Secretary of State was a job, and that it was for the purpose of giving increased power and influence to the Crown. He would request the House, at all events, to consider whether it was not calculated to have that effect. His own opinion was that it would not only very largely increase the expense of the government of Ireland, but that it would increase most formidably the power of the Sovereign. The effect of the measure would be to desolate Ireland. If the Lord Lieutenant were removed, the landed gentry, who were already too few in that country, would immediately depart from it, and those whose welfare they ought to promote would be left entirely without resource. What was the condition of Ireland, even now? Prom his own personal observation he could declare that it was getting worse and worse every year. He had, within the last few months, visited the north of Ireland, not having been in that part of the country for six years previously, and there he saw the people in the greatest state of wretchedness and misery. A Mr. Mauleverer had been recently murdered, and great indignation had been expressed of the management of the estates under that gentleman; but what was the fact? Talk of Irish landlords neglecting their duty! Why, the manner in which English landlords managed their Irish estates was a disgrace to the name of England. The hon. Member for Manchester, in one of his philosophical dissertations on free trade, thought it proper to give a description of the character of Irish trade; and observed that the exports from Ireland consisted now of Irishmen only; who went abroad, not to found flourishing colonies in amity with the mother country, but that as soon as they planted their feet on a foreign shore, wherever it might be, it was their boast that they harboured a feeling of unabated hostility to this country. These words of the hon. Member for Manchester were received with cries of "Hear, hear!" and cheers. Now, that in England a body of English labourers should have cheered the hon. Member on making such a statement as that, was to him very surprising, and he could attribute it but to one cause alone. There was in the English labourer an innate love of justice. They knew that
1012
no Government would dare to treat Englishmen as they had treated the Irish. That was the meaning of the cheer; and so far it was a proper cheer of caution. He once attempted to allude to a difference between America and this country, and he was sneered at; but he had heard this Session a like allusion made by an Englishman, and it was received with decorum. He could assert that a proposition, and that not very long ago, had been made to send 70,000 men from America to Ireland. He had himself, when in France not many years ago, been offered to land in Ireland 30,000 men from that country. But he was a loyal citizen, and he would never invite the Americans over to his country, though in five days a communication could be effected by the Viceroy—meant, not the Viceroy of Dublin, but the steamer from Galway Bay—with the American shores. He had once declared that he never would sharpen his sword but on one side, and that was as a loyal subject and in support of the constitution; but now so stricken down and doomed had his country become by the insane policy of the Ministers of this country, he would not sharpen his sword on either side, but would leave the Government to fight out their battle by themselves. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Tant mieux.] Tant mieux, said the hon. and learned Gentleman. It might well be, so much the better for him, for a very little sword would soon cut him in two. He must say that, after nearly 25 years of intimate connexion with England, and after upwards of 50 years' strict observance of public affairs in Ireland, he was as much at sea in regard to what was the policy of the Government of this country towards Ireland as ever he was in the earliest days of his life. No set of Ministers bad had the spirit to act boldly towards that country. In all their measures they had halted half way. What had been their policy in regard to the Church? They had abolished ten bishops—a measure of which he had never approved, but they had made no provision whatever for the real working clergy of the Church. Then, how had they dealt with absenteeism? For years men living in London had been receiving vast sums from their estates in Ireland, leaving those estates and the people living on them to be managed and cared for by others. Could such a system last? It might last his day, for he was old; but would it last with the young men who were now growing up.

1013
What did those young men say now of the system which the British Ministers were pursuing? Why, they declared that so thoroughly did they detest that system that there was not one man amongst them who would draw his sword for that Ministry to-morrow. They were giving constitutions to the colonies, to Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape of Good Hope; why would they not give a constitution to Ireland? It was because the young men who were their public writers in that country, and who gladly earned their money, were deceiving them. Therefore it was that he condemned the removal of the Lord Lieutenant, because he knew how easily the Ministers were deceived. The present system of government in Ireland was demoralising the people; a general apathy was coming over them. But bad government was not only demoralising them, it was sending them by thousands and tens of thousands away from the country altogether. The people would not remain in it. Repeal was once the question, but you refused it. You would not give King, Lords, and Commons to Ireland. But what was now the question? It was not repeal, it was separation. 408,000 individuals had loft Ireland within the last three years. That was separation; but there was not only separation, there was war. Here, then, they had a pretty state of affairs. There was a quarrel between the different members of the Church, where they had baptism without regeneration—sin without remission; while, again, there was marriage without regard to blood; and, lastly, there was in Ireland separation without repeal. It appeared to him that the proceedings of the Government would involve Ireland in conflicts which would be interminable, unless, indeed, they were terminated by the good sense of the House and the spirit of justice and humanity which ought to in fluence the Ministerial benches. The truth was, the hard work of legislating for Ireland had killed Ministers of State as well as Members of Parliament, and the decimation would go on so long as we approached the task in our present spirit. England took away Ireland's nobility and gentry, and supplied their place by 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 police. He appealed to that spirit of humanity which ought to animate the Government and Parliament not to permit the errors of Ireland to perpetuate her misery and degradation.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Ques-
1014
tion to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on so important a question. He felt sure of this, that things in Ireland would never be in a satisfactory state—that Ireland never would cease to be England's difficulty—until a complete change was made both in the system of legislation and of administration in that country. [Cheers.] He need scarcely say the meaning in which he used those words was different from the sense in which probably the hon. Members opposite, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who had cheered him, understood him. What he meant was, that the system of legislation as regards Ireland should be so assimilated with that of England, that English Members would be actuated by precisely the same motives and feelings in legislating for Ireland as they were when legislating for England. He was far from saying or meaning that Englishmen were at all indifferent as regarded Ireland: quite the contrary; but so long as the system of legislation and the laws were so different—and he was sorry to say the differences were widening every day—it was impossible for English Members, engaged as they were with English legislation, to bring to bear upon Ireland that sound practical good sense, and those habits of business, which were eminently the characteristic of Englishmen; and when he spoke of administration, what he meant was, that the administration of affairs in Ireland should be on the principles of the British constitution—on those principles which were recognised as the only ones on which the conduct of affairs could be carried on in England—namely, that the law should be made and held paramount; that the rights of property should be maintained; and that the legislation and administration should be conducted for the good of the community, and not from any party or political motives. He had hoped that the noble Lord would have propounded some such policy as this: and as a part of such policy, he (Mr. Hamilton) would have supported him in the Bill before the House. He had watched anxiously the speech of the noble Lord, and he was unable to discover any indication of such a policy: on the contrary, the Bill itself, and nearly every Government Bill that had been laid

1015
on the table this year, indicated a different policy. In all there was a tendency to centralise, and a jealousy of the local authorities. The Bill for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy increases the power of the Poor Law Commissioners—the Petty Sessions Bill contained most absurd provisions indicative of their policy—the magistrates were not of themselves even allowed to fix the day for petty sessions, or a place for keeping their books without the consent of the Government. Would such a thing be tolerated in England? In the same way the Medical Charities Bill was full of the centralisation principle. It seemed from the measures of Government that Ireland was henceforth to be ruled by boards. The Poor Law Commissioners, the Board of Works, the Board of Health, were to be her governors. Now, he did not hesitate to say that the abolition of the Lord Lieutenant—except as a part of a new policy and of a new system on English principles—would be an injury instead of an advantage. There could be no doubt it would injure Dublin and its mercantile interests. It would give increased political power to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who, with the Privy Council, would constitute the local government. He thought there were many objections to that. Again, how was the patronage to be dispensed? Already, there were complaints of the disposition of patronage by the Government in Downing-street as regarded Irishmen. The right hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Harwich had taken offence at some observations that were made some time ago as regards patronage in his department. It was not intended to blame him in particular, but it was quite notorious, and was strongly felt in Ireland, that in foreign appointments, and in India and the colonies, Irishmen did not receive their fair share. He (Mr. Hamilton) had made out a list of one department; there were twenty-two colonial bishops and forty dignitaries; as far as he could discover, not one of them was an Irishman. These evils would be aggravated by the removal of the Lord Lieutenant. He also thought the time and manner of bringing forward the measure was improper. So important a measure involving so great a change in the constitution of Ireland, ought to have been announced formally in the Queen's Speech. Public attention would thus have been directed to it in the proper and constitutional manner. For these reasons, having given the sub-
1016
ject his best consideration, he felt bound to record his vote against the second reading of the Bill.
MR. M. O'CONNELLexpected that some Member of the Government would have favoured the House with a few reasons for the necessity of passing this Bill. Failing that, however, he was driven to look at the arguments adduced on the occasion of the first reading. The main argument appeared to be, that there had been abuses connected with the office in former times, and that the parties holding it had been abused in all times. He was not there to deny that there had been injustice and maladministration by Lord Lieutenants; but the argument, if it were worth anything, went not only against all offices, but all governments also. The Bill left the Privy Council and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to carry on the executive; so that, whilst they were going in England to separate the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor from his Parliamentary functions, in Ireland they were going to superadd to his judicial functions the duties of the Lord Lieutenant. Another argument in favour of this Bill had been founded on a reference to Scotland. The cases, however, were not parallel; for, in the Union with Scotland, the Church of the people had been left as the established Church of the realm; whilst in Ireland the Church of the few had been made all-dominant. With all those abuses standing before their eyes, and patent to all the world, the Ministers of the Crown continued to tell the House that the cases of Ireland and of Scotland were alike. They continued to tell Parliament that the case of Scotland was a precedent that might be quoted in favour of the measure which they now proposed for removing the Lord Lieutenant from Ireland. It might be all very well for them to talk of Scotland, but they left the government of that country to Scotchmen; they never sent a spendthrift there to rule the people, nor a political adventurer. The people of Ireland never had the nomination of their own Lord Lieutenant; they, on the contrary, were obliged to take whomsoever the English Government for the time being thought proper to send. Now, in the course of the present discussion, they had heard much of the evils attendant upon, and supposed to be inseparable from, the administration of the government of Ireland by a Lord Lieutenant. But he maintained that those evils were not inseparable from the ancient

1017
practice of ruling Ireland by means of a Viceroy. The present system was the abuse of the institution; and, though the remark might be old, it was not the less just, that no argument against the legitimate use of anything ought to be derived from its abuse. He would say to the present Ministers of the Crown, "Reform the abuse, and give to Ireland the benefit of that reform." He could supply to the House many instances in which the presence of a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland had been of the highest value and importance, not merely in maintaining order within the limits of the kingdom, but in preserving the empire intact. In 1745, when Prince Charles Edward landed in Scotland, and advanced at the head of his followers as far as Derby, the Earl of Chesterfield was the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and at that critical moment what kept the Catholics from rising on behalf of the exiled family? Nothing but the politic character of the Earl of Chesterfield, and the profound knowledge of human nature which he possessed. That wise and able man soothed the discontents of the people, and alleviated the mischiefs produced by former Governments in Ireland; there was, therefore, no rising there simultaneously with the rising in Scotland. He never, in his own person, had occasion to transact much business with the Lord Lieutenant; officially he knew but little of that functionary; no one, however, could be acquainted with events occurring in Ireland, and not know that, in proposing this measure, the Government were striking the first blow against the connexion subsisting between the two countries. It appeared to him scarcely possible that the Government of Ireland could be safely and efficiently carried on unless there was always to be found on the spot an eminent public officer, invested with full powers, and prepared to exercise those powers. He knew that Ministers would tell him that they, by the present Bill, gave those powers to the fourth Secretary of State in Downing-street, and that the improved facilities of communication rendered such an officer quite competent to the task of governing Ireland; but surely that wonderful ease of transit was equally available in Dublin as in London, and the fourth Secretary of State would possess no advantage denied to the Lord Lieutenant. He desired now to come to the argument founded upon the economy of the proposed change. The hon. Member for Montrose had often brought
1018
the subject under their notice, but he had rested his arguments chiefly on the ground of economy. Now, nothing could be more manifest than that it would not effect the saving which the hon. Member for Montrose anticipated. His opinion, deliberately adopted, was, that they would effect no saving whatever by the removal of the Lord Lieutenant; and they would prevent the spending of a certainly small sum—only 54,000 l. a year—in the capital of Ireland. There would, he repeated, be no saving to the united kingdom, but a great loss to Ireland individually. Unless the Government could show a very great saving, he should continue to hold the opinion that the sum expended in Ireland, however small, was a great loss to that country; and that the empire at large was deeply injured by the increasing centralisation of all the powers of Government in this metropolis.
COLONEL DUNNEthought that the Irish Members had derived no encouragement from the debate which should induce them to draw tighter the bonds between the two countries. On the last night of the debate, one of the Secretaries of State was left to answer the charges made by hon. Members as best he could; and this night the noble Lord, trusting to a majority in that House, and to the newspapers which vilified the motives of his opponents, had taken off his hat, and asked them to abolish the office of Viceroy of Ireland. He protested against this measure. It was fifty years since centralisation had been attempted, and during that fifty years Great Britain had attained a high pinnacle of glory. What advantage had, during the same time, accrued to Ireland, who shared in those conquests by sea and land which rendered England great? The Irish Members, being but one to five in that House, could do nothing but protest against their legislation. In the year '98, Ireland owed but nine millions and a half—she now owed one hundred and thirty-four millions and a half; and how was this incurred? By wars in acquiring those colonies by which England enriched himself. Their trade to the colonies had scarcely increased since the Union. Before that period, there were Peers and commoners residing in Dublin. One hundred Peers had residences there, and now he knew of but one, and so depreciated had house property in that city become, that some houses which had been mortgaged for 20,000 l. were lately sold for 5,000 l. Their

1019
taxes were increased, their trade was depressed, and, by the repeal of the cornlaws, their agriculture had suffered; in return for which they had got free trade, which was no free trade except to the foreigner. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that it was not the intention of the Government to remove the law courts from Dublin. This would come to pass in time, and they should not trust the assertions of a Minister, for no Minister could answer for the acts of his successor. In 1846, when there had been a discussion on this same subject, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth had declared, not that it would be impossible to remove the Lord Lieutenant from Ireland, but "that it must be done with the will and the wish of all the Irish people." The people did not wish it: he, as one of their representatives, protested against it. It was alleged, as two reasons for abolishing the office, that Lords Lieutenant governed by corruption, and that libels were heaped on their characters. The corruption was derived from the fountain-head in Downing-street; and as to the other reason, a governor of Ireland should be above libel. To proper censure he might be liable; and a fear of public opinion being unfavourable to him, would be the best motive for inducing him to govern with justice. He had lately noticed, with great surprise, an article in a paper remarkable for its aptitude at cooking statistics, and also as enjoying the confidence of the Government—the Economist—showing the rapid prosperity of Ireland. Nothing was more calculated to mislead public opinion than such paragraphs, in papers supposed to be clothed in official authority; and he was sure that the paper in question had no such authority for making the statements, which were a tissue of misrepresentations. Such statements might be taken as a specimen of the kind of information upon which the people of England were expected to form a correct opinion upon Irish affairs. The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex had ridiculed what he called the mock royalty of the Lord Lieutenancy. But if this was an objection, it was an objection which applied wherever a Viceroy existed. If the Lord Lieutenancy be done away—if the people of Ireland—the most loyal people upon the face of the earth—are to be deprived of the presence of a representative of their Sovereign in Dublin—let an assurance be given, as far as an assurance
1020
can be given on such a subject, that the presence of the Sovereign Herself may be occasionally depended upon. The right hon. Member for Tamworth, when arguing, in 1846, against the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, stated most truly that one of the effects would be to increase the amount of absenteeism. He (Colonel Dunne) was of opinion that the same result would inevitably follow from the adoption of the present measure, and that it would increase the plague spot of Ireland instead of removing it. He thought it would be far wiser to pass laws to discourage and prevent absenteeism, rather than to promote it. For the reasons enumerated, he would give every opposition in his power to the progress of the Bill, and, in doing so, he considered he was acting a consistent and honest part towards Ireland.
MR. ROEBUCKmight ask what was the real question before the House, because from the multitudinous array of arguments which had been brought forward, one could hardly believe but that they were engaged in a general debate, not only upon the measures of the present year, as regarded Ireland, but of every year since the union of the two kingdoms. It was proposed by the Bill before the House that the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland should cease to exist; and therefore the question before them was—whether that was an alteration which would be for the benefit of the people of Ireland? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin said he wished to see the Government of Ireland so like the Government of England, that nobody could distinguish the one from the other. In that case they would find in Ireland counties and boroughs governing themselves exactly as they did in England, and the same system in every respect in operation; but then the hon. and learned Gentleman desired that there should be in Dublin an officer called the Lord Lieutenant. Now, what did that Lord Lieutenant do for Ireland? He asked those who contended for the existence of that functionary, to point out, not by references to past history, but to the present state of Ireland, what benefit was conferred upon that country by his presence there? He denied that there was any hostility on the part of the English people to Ireland. Those who said there was, could not point out a single effect of legislation since the beginning of the Reformed Parliament, except one Act, in which there had been expressed any hostile feeling towards Ire-

1021
land. It had been said England ruined the manufacturers of Ireland. That he acknowledged; but when? Were they to look back upon the page of history without reference to the circumstances that then governed men, and ask if the English Parliament, in the reign of William III. in that of Anne, or of George III. or even of George IV. could be contrasted with the present House of Commons? Let any one point out the Act injurious to the manufacturers of Ireland passed in the present day? [An Hon. MEMBER: The abolition of the corn law.] An hon. Member spoke of the corn laws. Now, what was the fact? The English people provided money during the famine, and it went to buy foreign corn abroad to feed the Irish people; and yet they had been charged with sending their money abroad, and not thinking of the people of Ireland. Could there be a more senseless complaint than that? And he was ready to maintain that, whatever might be the case with Irish landlords, the abolition of the corn laws had been an inestimable boon to the great mass of the Irish people. But, the question recurred, what had Ireland received from its mock Royalty? They were told that it was the means of bringing up to Dublin Irish gentlemen and ladies to go through an imitation of what took place in St. James's; and then they were further told that there had been a rapid diminution of property in Dublin. But had not all this poverty been created during the existence of a Lord Lieutenant, and were they likely to be worse after his removal? If the office were abolished, would not the Secretary for Ireland be seen in that House with full power and responsibility, ready to answer at that table for every act and deed he committed? But at present he shrouded himself under the covers of divided authority in Ireland. To take an illustration from the poor-law in this country, formerly there were constant complaints and universal discontent with the working of that law; but from the time that the board was changed, and one Commissioner brought into that House, the rule was, a fault found a fault answered, discontent and dissatisfaction disappeared, and perfect contentment followed. In the same way when the Secretary for Ireland was made really responsible, they would find him with not half of the government, but the whole of the government in his hands, and the Irish Members able to deal with him in his place. He asked wherein, after this alteration, was the possibility of
1022
evil to Ireland? The only objection was, that the Court would be withdrawn from Dublin, and that the shopkeepers would thereby suffer; but was that an argument which ought to influence the House? He hoped that by breaking down the petty intrigue which characterised the present state of things they would give the Government of Ireland an imperial character, and, by making it imperial, promote the interests of England and Ireland under the same system of a free and liberal administration of public affairs.
MR. CONOLLY, in supporting the Bill, expressed a wish that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had, in doing the same thing, rested his arguments more on the real points of the question before the House, and indulged less in those personalities, of which, he regretted to say, he made too liberal use. He (Mr. Conolly) thought that the abolition of this office could fairly be argued on grounds of national policy; and that it was for the interest of Ireland at large that the office should be done away with. There appeared to be no real ground of opposition offered to the measure, but that of the city of Dublin; and, such being the case, he thought it was the duty of the Government to persevere with it. It was an old and acknowledged maxim, that union was strength; and it was on the principle that the union between England and Ireland was for the benefit of the imperial constitution that that union was originally promoted by Mr. Pitt. He believed, therefore, that they were only carrying out Mr. Pitt's policy in removing this last obstacle to the real union of the two kingdoms. On that ground, he supported the measure. He believed it was a measure for the benefit of Ireland, for whose welfare and future good government he considered it was of great importance that they should have in that House a responsible Irish Secrectary.
MR. GROGANconsidered it as somewhat remarkable that on a Bill of such importance as that then before them—a Bill for the abolishing an office which had existed in Ireland for centuries—no Member of the Cabinet should, up to that moment, have addressed the House. The first person to speak in favour of it was the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, a Gentleman whose arguments were easily answered. That hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Donegal, were the only persons to support the Bill. The hon. and

1023
learned Member for Sheffield desired to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant on the ground that they would have a responsible Secretary in that House. Why, that might be attained by having the Secretary for Ireland a Member of the Cabinet—that which the present Irish Secretary was not; but that the preceding Irish Secretaries had been. There was, then, no necessity for making this change, and in so doing abolishing an office, when it was notorious that the Irish people were induced to support the Union on the promise that a Lord Lieutenant should be continued. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield boasted of what the Reform Parliament had done for Ireland. He (Mr. Grogan) said that the policy pursued by that Parliament—he said nothing of its motives—had been most injurious in its consequences to Ireland. The trade of Ireland had been destroyed, upon an application from the Parliament here to that effect. The woollen trade had been so destroyed; but the hon. and learned Gentleman said that no such thing could occur at the present day. What was the fact? That which was the only trade of Ireland—its agriculture—was annihilated; and this happened for the benefit of the manufacturing interests here, who deemed it to be very convenient to increase their foreign trade. He asked them what single interest of Ireland had been benefited by their legislation? Let the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield show him one class in Ireland that had been benefited by their legislation. He (Mr. Grogan) could point to many that had been injured by it. That which they complained of in Ireland was the system of centralisation—the system which promoted absenteeism from Ireland; and the noble Lord's argument in favour of his Bill went to show that the evil would be extended still further by this Bill. The policy for establishing a fourth Secretary of State was more than doubtful; and as to their policy, it was proved by the fact that in the short space of three years not less than 500,000 acres of wheat land had been thrown out of cultivation.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed surprised that no Member of the Government had yet risen in defence of the measure now before the House. But the hon. Gentleman, and those who preceded him, could not, he thought, fail to perceive that the Government had taken the usual course; and that after introducing the measure,
1024
and stating the reasons which had induced the Government to bring it forward, they had been waiting, on the second reading, to hear what objections could be urged against it. Having waited, therefore, he found from hon. Gentlemen that in fact the objections which they had to urge were not directed against the present measure; but, whether they were good or bad, were almost all directed against legislation by Parliament for the united kingdom, and if these objections were good for anything, they tended, not to maintain a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, but to repeal the Union. One of the topics on which the hon. Gentlemen dwelt, namely, the repeal of the com laws, which the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington said had been most injurious to Ireland, was not connected in any way with the maintenance of the Lord Lieutenant. The decision for a repeal of the corn laws was come to by a Parliament of the united kingdom; and unless there had been a Parliament sitting in Dublin, that Act was sure to have passed, whether there was a Lord Lieutenant or not. The arguments which hon. Gentlemen had used, in some cases unceremoniously, had put them, not in the situation of objectors to the removal of the Lord Lieutenant, but of repealers of the legislative Union. He would not now enter into the question of the injuries said to have been inflicted on Ireland by William III.; he gave up William III. to those Gentlemen who had been pleased to attack him, and abandoned his memory altogether. The question at present before the House was that of the maintenance or abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that, by pronouncing a single word, they uttered the condemnation of a measure which the Government had brought forward after considerable deliberation. They said that the measure tended to "centralisation"—a word now in very common use. There were occasions when that word was properly used, as when local powers were proposed to be transferred to the central Government; it might be argued, whether rightly or wrongly, that these local powers ought to be preserved, and that such centralisation should not take place. With respect to the Imperial parts of administration, he had never heard any one deny, unless there were insuperable objections to it, that it was desirable to have the Government in one place, so that persons in different departments might

1025
readily confer with each other—that Ministers might easily communicate with their Colleagues, so that they might he enabled to form their measures in such a way as was calculated to promote the general welfare of the empire. These were advantages which he believed no one had denied. The objection hitherto urged against the adoption of such a measure as the present, was the time that was consumed in making communications with Ireland. This argument might have been of a valid character formerly; and at present, with regard to particular parts of the empire, it was of a binding character. With regard to India and Canada, those countries must have a local administration; for it never could happen that they could communicate in due time with India and Canada in the affairs of these countries. Did this obstacle now exist with regard to Ireland? He recollected the time when a Lord Lieutenant might be three or four days performing his journey to Holyhead, and be forty-eight hours more on his voyage to Dublin; or even, as had happened, he might be a week at sea. At that time the Government might justly say that it could not trust to the winds, or to the chances of the delays of a long journey, and therefore they must place a man in Ireland with the power of administering the affairs of that country in his own hands; by those means avoiding the stormy and adverse gales that [might impede the intercourse between the two countries. But now these evils had been done away with; and by means of the progress of mechanical science, they had succeeded in doing that which the gods had formerly been called upon in vain to do, namely, annihilate space and time. Those objections and obstacles which formerly were urged no longer exist; so that they might now observe the rule, that there should be one general Government for the united kingdom, which should take upon itself the administration of affairs. This was the reason for the introduction of the Bill before the House at the present time. He had stated, on a former occasion, the general reasons and arguments in favour of this measure; and he had also stated some evils which were connected with the continuation of the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin; and he had hitherto heard no answer to them. He had said, he thought that party spirit in Ireland, which was generally of a very violent and vehement nature, was embittered by the continuance of a separ-
1026
ate authority in that country; for if the Lord Lieutenant was known to be favourable to one of these parties, it gave rise to great hostility on the part of the other party, and thus it proved most injurious to the general administration of the country. He did not wish to repeat to the House what he said on that occasion; but there were instances which must be in the recollection of all. Such, for instance, as the hostility manifested towards the Government of the Marquess of Normanby by a great part of the nobility and gentry of Ireland; and, on the other hand, the hostility shown by large masses of the people to the administration of a Lord Lieutenant of opposite politics. In such instances, they found party spirit of a far more bitter nature than it would have been if the administration of affairs had rested in this country. Hon. Members had stated that a number of gentlemen residing in different parts of Ireland went at particular seasons to Dublin, in consequence of the Lord Lieutenant holding a court there, and that their expenditure in consequence amounted to a large sum. This might, no doubt, be a very excellent reason for the representatives of Dublin to urge; but if there was no court at that place, the gentlemen would still have their money to spend: and, for his own part, he believed it would be more advantageous if they spent it in living on their own estates, than in going to a distance to do so. He did not see any reason, as the two countries were so close, for the necessity of having more than one Court, which would be held by the Sovereign of the united kingdom; nor did he perceive the necessity of there being a reflection and imitation of Royalty in Dublin. The reason he had just alluded to could apply only to Dublin; but, with respect to Cork or Limerick, the Lord Lieutenant's court could have no more to do with those places than if it was in London. The same facilities for communications from these places would exist with the Secretary of State in this country as there now was with the Lord Lieutenant. That part of the Bill which he had heard the most objected to, but into which he did not then wish to enter, was in respect to the appointing an additional Secretary of State. It was said that it would be much better to have but one Secretary of State to administer the whole of the internal affairs of the united kingdom; but when they went into Committee on the Bill, he should be able to show that there were so many

1027
questions of administration relating to Ireland constantly arising, that it was desirable there should be a Minister to have this department, and this department only, and who should be responsible for its administration. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, that all the advantages which were proposed to be attained by having this additional Secretary of State could be effected by the Secretary for Ireland, as the office was now constituted, having a seat in the Cabinet; but the hon. Gentleman did not see the weight of the objection to this, as the circumstance was, that the Chief Secretary was only the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The Cabinet was appointed for the whole kingdom, in which the Ministers of the several departments had to bring forward their different propositions for consideration in framing instructions for the administration of affairs, so that when the I Chief Secretary for Ireland was sitting in the Cabinet, he was giving orders to the Lord Lieutenant; but immediately on his arrival in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant was his master. This was an anomaly that, could not be got over, and he believed that great inconveniences arose in the administration of Irish affairs, in consequence of there not being a person in this country who was responsible for that department, with whom the rest of the Government could communicate from day to day. That advantage would be obtained by passing this measure. They would thus have a Minister who would be able directly to confer with his Colleagues on the measures to be brought forward, and who would be able to defend either in that or the other House of Parliament the administration of any measures for which he might be responsible, and could show whether or not he was pursuing such a course as would afford satisfaction to Ireland, and at the same time promote the great interests of the empire at large. He believed this change would tend more and more to make the legislation for Ireland similar to that for England. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin said, if he (Lord J. Russell) had stated that the object of this measure was to make a change in the legislation for Ireland, so as to make it more in harmony with the legislation of this country, ha should not have opposed it. Now he (Lord J. Russell) thought that it was quite unnecessary on his part to make any such statement, for he had hardly ever spoken on an Irish subject in which he had not dwelt on the importance and advantage
1028
of attaining that object. He would refer on this point to what he had said on the Municipal Corporations Bill for Ireland, when he had repeatedly urged upon the House his anxious desire that the Irish should feel that they enjoyed all the advantages and privileges possessed by the inhabitants of this part of the united kingdom. The hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington must excuse him (Lord J. Russell) when he referred to the rather extraordinary language which fell from him just after that House had declared that it would make a large extension of the franchise in Ireland, and make it as far as possible correspond with the franchise which the people of England enjoyed. When a large majority of the House had so recently adopted a measure for that purpose, it was rather disappointing to hear an hon. Member say that no measures had been brought forward by the Government, or supported and adopted by that House, which were not introduced for the injury of Ireland. They had heard a great deal respecting ministers' money, and the evils which arose from its being levied in Ireland; and no doubt when they met next year, and Her Majesty's Ministers brought forward a measure for its abolition, they would be told that ministers' money was a blessing to Ireland, and that nothing but a determination on the part of the Government for the ruin of Ireland could have induced it to propose such a Bill. Such was the mode in which some Gentlemen argued on the affairs of Ireland. This measure had been under consideration ever since the Earl of Clarendon had been sent to Ireland; and last August he (Lord J. Russell) wrote to the Earl of Clarendon, and having referred to the termination of the famine in 1847, and to there being an end of the perils of 1848, he asked whether he should be justified, in the course of the present Session, in bringing forward a measure for the abolition of the office of the Lord Lieutenant. His noble Friend after having given the most mature consideration to the matter, assented to the proposal, and it was in consequence, with his advice and counsel, the measure had been brought forward.
MR. ANSTEYsaid, as he, with many other hon. Members connected with Ireland, were anxious to address the House on this subject, but who had not been fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye, he thought it was not too much on his part to ask for an adjournment of the debate, notwithstanding the understanding

1029
that prevailed during the Session that a debate should not he adjourned after the Prime Minister bad addressed the House.
LORD J. RUSSELLwould not agree to an adjournment. He trusted the very useful course which had been adopted during the present Session, of abstaining as far as possible from having adjourned debates, would not be departed from in this instance, as the measure would be often under discussion in its future stages.
MR. T. M'CULLAGHthought it would be better at once to assent to the adjournment, as it was desirable that the people of Ireland should see that the measure had been fully discussed.
MR. F. FRENCHobserved, that there were Members in that House, both Irish and English, whose opinions it was most desirable to have on this subject. He believed the greatest man in England, the Duke of Wellington, had not changed his opinion as to the inexpediency of such a measure as this. He believed also the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth had not changed his opinion on the subject; and it was most desirable, before they went to a division, that that right hon. Gentleman should let the House know what he thought of this measure.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 188: Majority 125.
Question again proposed.
MR. E. B. ROCHE MR. E. B. ROCHE moved the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that the discussion had not commenced before half-past eight, and there had not been afforded an opportunity of fully considering the Bill.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
The O'GORMAN MAHONseconded the Motion, and declared his willingness to persevere till six o'clock in the morning to gain his point. He thought Irish Members should have an opportunity of stating their opinions upon a Bill of such magnitude.
SIR R. PEELsaid, he had given his vote for the adjournment, as he did not think it unreasonable that, considering only four hours had been appropriated to discuss the second reading of a Bill making such a great change in the internal administration of Ireland, and many Irish Gentlemen wished to declare their sentiments upon it, there should be another opportu-
1030
nity for their doing so. At the same time that he was desirous of deferring to the sense of the majority of the House, and was perfectly prepared to state his opinion on this Bill, giving however precedence to Irish Gentlemen on this subject; yet, as he saw the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University was anxious to deliver his opinions, and he (Sir R. Peel) had never heard a speech from that hon. and learned Gentleman that did not make him desirous of hearing him again; and as many Irish Members wished also to speak, he thought the Motion for an adjournment was not unreasonable.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that after the division which had just been come to, he was ready to consent to the adjournment of the debate.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Small Tenements Recovery (Ireland).
2a Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Act Amendment; Manchester Rectory Division; Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancaster).
Reported.—Railway Audit Bill (No. 2).
Royal Assent.—Exchequer Bills; Process and Practice (Ireland) Act Amendment; Acts of Parliament Abbreviation; Sunday Fairs Prevention.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The MARQUES of WESTMEATHthen moved the Second Reading of this Bill, on the ground that under the Incumbered Estates Act no man owing a single shilling could be certain that his estates would not be swept away from him under the system of confiscation which it sanctioned and established. At the time that Bill passed their Lordships' House it was not intended to let it come into operation unless in those cases wherein the estate was incumbered to half the gross value. But an alteration was made in it by the other House of Parliament, whereby, if any man had a charge upon an estate to the amount of 101 l., he could apply to the Court of Chancery for a receiver, and thereby bring the whole estate under the jursidiction of the commissioners. Under this system the owner of an estate, if he were abroad, would have no notice of the proceedings instituted against him until he returned home, and when he returned he might have the satisfaction of finding that his estates were sold, or rather confiscated, during his absence. The commissioners were not content with administering this law in all its severity, but had actually set aside the law of the land in their anxiety to give effect to it. On leases renewable for lives the commissioners were required to give to the tenants six months' notice before they proceeded to sell; but in a recent case, on the estate of Lord Portarlington, they called upon the tenants to come forth within a month, and, if they did not, gave notice that they would foreclose and sell the property. Were experiments of this kind fit to be tried in a country like Ireland? The Irish landlords were treated like dogs—like dogs placed upon the table of the anatomist for anatomical purposes. But such treatment could not be continued with safety; such a burlesque of justice could not be tolerated. It was from a full knowledge of the mischievous operation of the Incumbered Estates Act that he now moved the second reading of this Bill to amend it. Having shown that the existing law had led to the sale of many estates at prices infinitely below their real value, the average price not being more than seven years or seven and a half years' purchase, he proposed to enact by his Bill that "a moderate minimum" of fifteen years' purchase should be

933
fixed as the price below which no estate: could be sold under the authority of this law. He thought that Her Majesty's Ministers ought to accede to such a proposition. If they did not, their object must be confiscation, and nothing else, for the existing law was going in a hand cantor, or, he should rather say, at full gallop, to confiscate all the land of his unfortunate country. He also proposed to introduce a clause into his Bill whereby the owner of any estate which was bought under it would have protection, as was now the case in bankruptcy, until his estate was sold. He could not suppose that any man who cared anything about justice could oppose so reasonable a proposition.
The EARL of CARLISLEassured the House that Her Majesty's Government was not wanting in sympathy for the landlords of Ireland; but still he must not conceal from it that it was not in the contemplation either of the Government, or, as he believed, of the Legislature, to repeal or dispense with any of the leading provisions of the Incumbered Estates Bill. He would not discuss with the noble Marquess, on that occasion, the policy of the Bill, either as it passed their Lordships, or as it passed the House of Commons, where an Amendment was attached to it very unpalatable, as it appeared, to some of their Lordships. It was very true that some estates had been sold under the Act at not very advantageous prices, but then others had been sold at rates which were considered unexpectedly high. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Marquess, he was quite certain that the commissioners would not allow a man's estate to be sold and swept away from him by surprise. He knew that great abuses, and he might even say great hardships, existed in Ireland owing to the facility with which receivers were appointed to estates where the debts were small; and the mode of remedying those abuses and those hardships was now under the consideration of the Government. That evils had resulted from the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act was not to be denied; but they were not of the aggravated character which the noble Marquess represented them to be. He should therefore discourage the further progress of this Bill.
The DUKE of RICHMONDobserved, that when an estate was sold for seven and a half years' purchase, a primâ facie case was established against a law which so ruthlessly took away an estate from a man
934
and his children. If the noble Marquess pushed his Bill to a division, he should certainly vote in favour of it.
The EARL of GLENGALLsaid, that the Act now in operation amounted to nothing less than downright plunder and robbery of the most infamous description. He could tell their Lordships that if the law as it stood was not altered, and that speedily, the people of Ireland would meet in Dublin and redress their wrongs themselves. They would not submit to have their property confiscated for the sake of a dirty theory got up by the Manchester school. He would remind their Lordships of the difference which had been made in the Bill after it left their Lordships, and that when it received its final assent at the hands of their Lordships there were not above twenty Peers present. This was the way in which this scandalous Bill became law, and it would be a disgrace to their Lordships as long as it remained on the Statute-book. Estates—he did not talk of house property, but land—had been sold at from one and a half to fourteen years' purchase. The noble Earl at the head of the Woods and Forests had told their Lordships that some of the estates sold well; and this statement was no doubt corroborated by the letters of the Irish correspondent of the principal newspaper of this town. But the letters in question conveyed false impressions; they were written according to order, and in them the whole truth was not told. He could assure their Lordships that, upon an average, landed property had been sold at from eight to nine years' purchase. Let their Lordships consider what was the value of the property being dealt with under the Act in question. There were now in the hands of the commissioners upwards of 15,000,000 l. worth of landed property to be dealt with in the manner favoured by these gentlemen. The commissioners paid the purchase-money into the Bank of Ireland. The creditors were then obliged to go into the Court of Chancery to prove their titles. The consequence was that years might elapse before the creditors could receive their money, whilst the owners were sometimes cast out within a few days upon the road-side. He knew one case of a gentleman whoso estate was ordered to be sold. He sent his son over with 6,000 l. to purchase it; but he could not got into the room when the sale was going on, and the estate was actually sold for 1,450 l. Such a state of things was unendurable. They were disgusted with

935
Manchester theories, and they would not have them tried upon them any longer. One gentleman's estate had been sold for another man's debt. He defied the Government to carry the Incumbered Estates Act into full effect. They would have a rebellion in Ireland if they attempted it; and they would deserve it. Charles I. and James II. had lost their thrones and their crowns for a less cause: and Strafford's case was nothing to the villany that was exercised upon those proprietors whose estates were brought within the operation of the Act. The Amendment made by the House of Commons in the Bill after it had left their Lordships' House was a mere swindle. It was brought back to their Lordships' House just at the close of the Session, and there were only three or four Peers present—not one of them an Irish Peer—when it was agreed to. Until the Act should have been repealed, there would be no end to the injustice done in Ireland.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYhad risen only for one purpose, that of entreating his noble Friend not to use language such as their Lordships had just heard—language which in Ireland, at the present time, might be attended with consequences of a very fatal description. He implored him not to talk about the people of Ireland meeting in Dublin to resist the laws by force. He (the Marquess of Londonderry) trusted that the loyal spirit of the Irish people would rise up against any attempt to resist the laws by violence. But when their Lordships heard a noble Lord possessed of large property complaining of the effects of a certain law, and giving as proofs of its unjust operation such facts as estates of value being sold for seven and a half years' purchase, they surely would not refuse to give lawful redress. For his own part he felt assured that if the Government went on with the measure, there would soon be not one man in Ireland who would not complain of injustice.
LORD CAMPBELLexplained how the Bill had been amended by the Commons, and subsequently passed by their Lordships, and said, one would suppose, from what had occurred in the debate of that evening, that this Bill was intended to repeal the Incumbered Estates Act; but that was not so; the carrying of this poor paltry Bill would not repeal more than one or two of the clauses of that Act, and would by no means satisfy those who thought it necessary to hold meetings at
936
Dublin, and resist by force the tyranny of the Imperial Parliament. This very slender and inexpedient Bill would not repeal the act of legislation of which those persons complained, but only a small and inconsiderable portion of it. It did not even touch the question whether the test should be applied to the gross, rather than to the net, value of the estate. It merely exempted from the jurisdiction of the commissioners those estates which were subject to receivers, or were in the hands of incumbrancers.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, that his noble Friend (Lord Campbell) had made a very excellent speech to a different purpose from that which he had intended; for he had attacked the noble Marquess's Bill because it did not attempt to repeal altogether the Incumbered Estates Act; and, after acknowleding that there were hardships existing under that Act, he refused to allow a Bill to be entertained which would go far to redress these hardships without entrenching upon those great principles of the original measure which his noble and learned Friend supported so strongly. He said that the change proposed to be made was so small, that it was not worth making. The House of Lords had originally confined those estates which were to be liable to the operation of the Act, to those which were incumbered to the amount of one-half of the "gross" value. The House of Commons altered it to one-half the "net" value. But the noble Marquess assured the House that there were estates brought under the operation of the Act in which neither of these conditions were fulfilled; but that a receiver having been appointed under the Court of Chancery, over a portion of any estate, an attempt was made to bring such estate forthwith under the operation of the Act, doing away thereby with the precautionary effect of the clause relating to the value. Now, under such circumstances, although his noble and learned Friend seemed to think that no one would support the Bill of the noble Marquess, he (Earl Fitzwilliam) would most certainly give him the benefit of his vote, if their Lordships went to a division.
LORD BEAUMONTobserved that his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack (Lord Campbell) had either never read the Bill of the noble Marquess, or else he did not understand it. The noble and learned Lord had led the House to believe that, by passing this Bill, those estates to which

937
receivers were appointed would be exempted from its operation. But that was not the fact. The case of the noble Marquess, as stated in his Bill, was this: By reciting certain extracts from the various Acts relating to this subject, he showed that where there were very large estates, with very small encumbrances affecting only a portion of them, then the estates could be sold under the operation of the existing law. Now, this had not been the intention of the Legislature. The object of the Legislature was to relieve estates seriously incumbered; and that there might not be an improper use made of the law, it was provided by their Lordships that no estate could be sold unless it was incumbered to half its gross value. An Amendment was made in the House of Commons, whereby it was provided that no estate could be sold unless it was incumbered to half its net value; and that Amendment was not repealed by the present Bill. Another Amendment, however, had been made in the House of Commons, which enacted that any estate or landed property could be sold, on which, or on any part of which, a receiver had been obtained, no matter how small the portion on which such receiver had been placed, and no matter how small the incumbrance on the whole estate might be. This was the enactment which the present Bill sought to repeal: that was the length and breath of the measure. He thought that their Lordships could not by any possibility refuse their assent to a Bill like the present, which was not only an act of justice in itself, but was well calculated to facilitate the working of the Incumbered Estates Act. At present nearly all the land in Ireland might be brought under the jurisdiction of the commissioners, if there were such a facility in procuring the appointment of receivers as they had just heard of. The competition of estates to be sold in the land market, would be such as to reduce prices to a mere nominal sum, the glut would be excessive, and a sufficient number of bidders could not by any possibility be found. If a receiver could be so easily obtained, the enactment of their Lordships was entirely evaded, and all the land of Ireland might immediately be sold. The plain mode of amending the Act would be by reinserting the original clause of their Lordships; but he was afraid that there was no chance of doing that at present. The next best thing which they could do would be to accept this Bill, for the whole extent of it was
938
simply this—it prevented the sale of large estates smally incumbered. He asked the Government whether, when they passed the Incumbered Estates Bill, they wished all the land in Ireland to be sold? If the Government had no such wish, it was bound in principle to pass this Bill. He should certainly give it his support: first, because he believed that it was never the intention of the Legislature to bring all the estates of Ireland under the Incumbered Estates Act; next, because he believed that it would facilitate the working of that Act; and, thirdly, because it was required by common justice. He regretted the noble Lords (the Marquess of Westmeath and the Earl of Glengall) should have strayed away so entirely from the Bill, and should have used such strong language, and he trusted they would see the necessity of withdrawing expressions of so violent a nature.
LORD CAMPBELLexplained. If his noble Friend meant to say that the Incumbered Estates Act subjected and required—
LORD BEAUMONT: "Subjects"—not requires.
LORD CAMPBELL: Subjected and required all lands in Ireland, under receivers, to be sold, he certainly misunderstood the Act altogether, and also the effects of the present Bill. At present, in a case where there were receivers appointed by the Court of Chancery over an estate, the commissioners might inquire whether the circumstances were such as that it might or might not be sold. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, such was the fact. But surely the commissioners would be most unfit to be entrusted with the great powers which they possessed, if they did not, before ordering a sale, first inquire whether their power ought in such a case to be exercised or not. Was it to be supposed that if a receiver were appointed over a small portion of a largo estate, that it would be at once sold by the commissioners without any inquiry into the circumstances? It was only where the receiver swept away all the profits, that the commissioners interfered and ordered a
The EARL of WICKLOWregretted that the arguments of those who were in favour of the measure had been rather against the Incumbered Estates Bill. He was very much in favour of the Incumbered Estates Bill. He pressed the Government to bring forward a measure of the kind, and nothing that had since occurred had

939
lessened his opinion in favour of that Bill. But it had come into operation at a most unfavourable time. He believed that if the Act had passed three or four years ago, its operations would have been highly beneficial; but coming into operation last year, when land in all parts of the united kingdom, but especially in Ireland, was depreciated in value, it was not so beneficial. He should oppose any measure for the repeal of that Act. But he had heard, with an astonishment he could not express, the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. He it was who appointed a Committee of their Lordships' House to investigate this subject. They went through a careful inquiry, and yet, in the various enactments that were proposed, it never for one moment suggested itself to the mind of the noble Lord to propose any such provision as that which it was the intention of his noble Friend now to enact. It was well known that the noble Lord opposite introduced a clause which was considered by many to be a great improvement of the Bill, that estates should not be sold unless they were incumbered to half their gross value. The other House altered it to the net value. A compromise was come to between the Government and the other House, and this extraordinary amendment was agreed to, of which none of their Lordships had any idea, that if any estate was put into the hands of a receiver, it should not be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. However, if Her Majesty's Ministers would assure him that the Bill which the noble President of the Council said the other night was likely to be brought into the House of Commons should contain a provision for the removal of this anomaly, he should at once advise his noble Friend to withdraw this Bill; but if they would not give that assurance, he should give his conscientious support to this Bill.
The EARL of CARLISLEsaid, he had certainly thought it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the adjustment that took place last Session respecting the amendments of the Incumbered Estates Bill; and bearing in mind the circumstances of that adjustment, he certainly did think it would be a loss of time for the Legislature to attempt to disturb it. When he mentioned that adjustment, he could not admit that there was any breach of contract; there was no contract, there could have been none. After the Bill left their Lordships' House, it was well known it was a matter of doubt whether the Com-
940
mons would consent to exempt all the estates on which the incumbrances did not amount to one-half. Being at liberty to reject it, they were, of course, at liberty to amend it. When the Bill came back, he was not aware there was any surprise. He believed the amendments were printed; there was a discussion on them, and though their Lordships did not approve of the amendments, yet they did not think them so objectionable as to reject them. He had stated that he believed it was a loss of time to attempt to disturb that adjustment; but, having heard from so many of their Lordships, especially from those who had property in Ireland, the strong opinion entertained that this very slight alteration of the Incumbered Estates Act should be adopted; having himself admitted the inconvenience which attended the appointment of receivers in many cases in Ireland, he did not feel himself called upon, having made no Motion, to divide against the Bill; and he was willing that it should go down to the House of Commons, there to be discussed, in conjunction with other measures, for the appointment of receivers, and that the whole question should be considered.
The MAEQUESS of WESTMEATHwas much gratified by the concession the noble Lord had made. He held in his hand a notice given to the tenants of an estate, from which it appeared the commissioners had taken upon themselves to set aside the law, and stated their intention to proceed to the sale of an estate on a notice of one month, although the law for the protection of individuals required six. The noble Marquess then read the notice in question, which was dated the 1st of June, which directed the tenants to pay up their rents and to take out renewals of their respective leases on or before the 1st of July next, and in default of their so doing the commissioners would proceed to sell. Was that confiscation or was it not? Hero were commissioners doing that in one month which the law required should be done in six months, and yet they were upheld by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) thought that his speech was against the Incumbered Estates Act, and that he wished it repealed. He had no such intention. But the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) had described what that Act was, that it gave the commissioners power to determine whether such or such a man should be sold up or not, that was to say, they were judge and

941
jury, and had power given them to masticate the landlords, and thus fill their political stomachs.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE, concurring entirely in the propriety of the very considerate course of his noble Friend (the Earl of Carlisle), wished at the same time to have it distinctly understood he did not in the least admit that the slightest imputation rested on the Incumbered Estates Commissioners. The last allegations made by the noble Marquess who had just spoken were not in the slightest degree connected with the Bill, and contained a grave charge against the commissioners, which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) believed to be utterly unfounded. If the Bill of the noble Marquess in any way convoyed that charge, he would have divided against it; but because it did not necessarily imply any such charge, and because he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) admitted it might be expedient that the whole of the subject should be reviewed and compared together—that subject being the propriety of selling an estate where a receiver was appointed, and where the incumbrances amounted to one-half the value—he had no objection to the Bill being sent to the other House.
LORD STANLEYsaid, it was true that this Bill contained no imputation upon the conduct of the commissioners, though it did propose that, in a certain degree, the discretion of the commissioners should be limited. He had risen to say, that he hoped the noble Marquess would not consider the House precluded, by adopting the principle of this Bill, from considering the expediency of a still further limitation of the powers of the commissioners. Last year, when the Bill was under consideration, they had two objects to attend to: first, as to the circumstances which ought to bring an estate under the operation of the Act; and, next, whether it was expedient to limit the discretion of the commissioners with regard to the price which should be sot upon estates. It was clear that the object of the Bill was, in the first place, to satisfy the claims of the creditor; and next that the proprietor should be in the same condition as nearly as possible as if the claims of his creditors were discharged in the ordinary manner, for if that were not done, they would be inflicting a grievous wrong upon the party. If, for instance, they were to sell an estate worth 2,000 l. a year, on which there was an incumbrance of 10,000 l., at the rate of ten or twelve years' purchase, they would sat-
942
isfy no doubt the demands of the incumbrancers, but they would leave the owner almost without a shilling. When these points were urged last year, it was stated that the discretion of the commissioners would be sufficient to guide the prices—that it was not to be supposed they would permit estates to be brought forward in such a way as to glut the market, or to allow the estates to to be sold for anything below a fair and reasonable amount of purchase money. Now, what was a fair and reasonable amount of purchase money? Would any of their Lordships say that ten, eight, seven, or even, as in one case, one and a half year's rent would be a fair and reasonable amount of purchase money for their estates? He wished, therefore, to say, without imputing any corrupt motive, that the commissioners had not exercised that discretion which last year they were led to expect from them; and as this was a serious matter, he wished to know from Her Majesty's Government whether they would have any objection to lay upon the table of the House an account of the different estates sold, the estimate of their annual income, together with the actual amount of such income, and the number of years' rental at which each estate had been sold. He believed if that paper were produced it would show that the average purchase money of all the estates—he did not speak of chief rents, such as one of 150 l. charged upon an estate of 8,000 l. a year, the security for the payment of which was as good as it could be in any quarter of the world, and which he was aware had sold, not, as might have been expected, for 30 years, but for 18, 20, and in some instances for 22 years' purchase. He was speaking only of freehold estates, and with respect to them, he believed it would be found that they had been sold for 10 or 12 years' purchase of the actual annual rent. He would ask their Lordships with what feelings they would view the provisions of a Bill which, because one-fifth of their property was under mortgage, should force the whole of their estates into the market, and sell them at 10 years' purchase. He asked for the papers he had alluded to, in order to see if the commissioners had exercised a proper discretion in the matter; and if it should be proved that they had sold various estates at from eight to ten years' purchase, then it would be the duty of Parliament, unless indeed they had given in their sanction to the principle of confiscation—it would be the bounden duty

943
of Parliament to place some further restriction upon a discretion which was so exercised.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, the Government had no wish to preclude any noble Lord from proposing any further restrictions that he might think proper. But if it were intended to lay down the principle that no sale should take place except for a certain number of years' purchase, then noble Lords must first come forward and define what year's purchase meant, because otherwise such a restriction would be about the most inconvenient, the most impracticable, and the most unjust limitation that could be enacted. Every person acquainted with the sale of estates in Ireland, knew that an estate sold nominally for 15 years' purchase, might often be of less value than an estate sold for 10 years' purchase; and with regard to the information which the noble Lord opposite sought to obtain, he must say that much more information would be necessary before a proper opinion could be formed of the propriety of the sale of each individual estate: such as the way in which it was cultivated, the amount of rent, the state of the poor-law, the number of paupers on the estate, and the amount of capital possessed by the farmers. When these particulars were obtained, then, perhaps, they would be in a condition to judge of the conduct of the commissioners.
LORD STANLEYsaid, nothing was more likely to swamp the information he wished to obtain, than to overload it by a mass of matter which was wholly irrelevant. He presumed that the annual rent of each estate was mentioned when it was put up to auction, and all he wished to know in each case was the name of the estate, the extent of incumbrances, the annual rental, and the number of years' annual rental at which it was sold; and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would have no objection to furnish this information.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: Let the noble Lord make a Motion, and we shall consider it.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL.
LORD BROUGHAMrose to present a petition from certain persons interested in the Australian colonies against the Australian Colonies Government Bill, and
944
praying to be heard by themselves or by counsel against the said Bill; and to move that the petitioners be heard at the bar, as desired. The petitioners objected to the franchise, as fixed at too high an amount, and not sufficiently comprehensive; to the proposed legislative council, as vicious in principle, consisting of discordant materials, and alien from the principles of our constitution; to the proposed federal institutions, as premature, and likely to produce complexity, confusion, expense, and discord; and, finally, after stating their view as to confiding the management of the waste lands to a local authority, they complained of the management of local affairs by a colonial administration here as the greatest grievance of all. There were numerous exceptions to the rule of abstaining from hearing private parties upon public Bills: he could adduce at least a dozen; and some of them were upon general and most important and constitutional measures. There was one in 1808, where the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack (Lord Campbell) was heard, on the Peruvian Bark Bill. In 1810 the barley-growers and agriculturists were heard against a Bill to prohibit distillation from grain; and in 1811 the same parties and the distillers were heard against the repeal of the Spirits Drawback Bill. Again, the owners of horses, waggons, and carts, were heard upon the General Turnpike Bill. In 1818 there was another instance upon the Factory Apprentices Bill. In 1808 he (Lord Brougham) appeared for the merchants of London and other towns, upon the subject of the Orders in Council. The slavedealers and the slaveowners had been heard by their counsel. Mr. Burge was heard as agent for Jamaica in 1839; and so was Mr. Roebuck upon the Canadian Bill. Substitute "Australia" for "Canada," and the latter case would be the same as that now before the House.
Then it was moved—
"That the said Petitioners, and also the hon. Francis Scott (whose Petition was presented on Thursday last), be heard by Counsel as desired."
EARL GREYsaid, if it were consistent with the practice of their Lordships' House to hear counsel at the bar on a Bill in progress, he, for one, would not object to it on the occasion of considering the present Bill, even though it would lead to a considerable waste of their Lordships' time if the precedent were once established. But in matters of great importance, he thought

945
they ought to adhere to the long-recognised practice of that House; and if there were one point on which that practice was clear and certain, it was in not hearing counsel on general measures unless in cases where the particular interests of the petitioners were directly involved. In all the cases to which the noble and learned Lord had referred, the facts were so. In fact, in the case to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, in which he had been himself heard as counsel, he admitted that he had been cautioned by Lord Eldon to confine himself to the point of the alleged injury done to the private interests of his clients; and yet, as he told them, even with this caution he had gone on for hours to declaim on every possible subject—a description which he (Earl Grey) had no doubt was perfectly accurate. A very important debate occurred in 1825, when Lord Carnarvon presented a petition from Members of the Roman Catholic Association, praying to be heard by counsel at the bar of their Lordships' House against the Bill for the Suppression of Illegal Societies, by which their association was sought to be suppressed. Lord Liverpool opposed the Motion; and one whose name he (Earl Grey) had the honour to bear, as well as others, strongly supported it; but on all sides the general rule was admitted and adhered to, that counsel should not be heard unless the interests of the individuals petitioning were directly affected. That rule did not, however, at all apply in the present case. In the Bill before their Lordships, not one single alteration was made in the existing laws that had not been petitioned for by the colonists themselves. It retained all the laws now in force, without making any alteration in them whatever, except with regard to points that had been repeatedly petitioned for by the colonists. Now, in the case of the Canadian Bill, where Mr. Roebuck had been heard as counsel, it should be recollected that the facts were entirely different. It was a Bill for the extinction of the Canadian constitution; and, besides, it was calculated to effect material and direct injury to the inhabitants of Quebec. It might be said that the Australian colonists had asked for more than this Bill contained; but that could not alter his argument; because all points not touched upon by the Bill were left as they at present stood. The small number of signatures to this petition was also a matter that could not be overlooked. Only five or
946
six were those of persons interested in the colony; while, on the other hand, it was to be recollected that there had not been a single petition against the Bill from New South Wales, though it was notorious to every one in the colony that the Bill had been presented and would be passed through Parliament this year. Notwithstanding this, there had not been a single petition from the colony praying that the Bill might be altered in any particular, or that it should not pass; but, on the contrary, several petitions had arrived from Port Phillip, praying that the Bill might be passed as speedily as possible. With regard to the other signatures to this petition, many of them were, he believed, those of most respectable individuals; but with the exception of three or four, they had no property in the colony; and altogether the petition contained only somewhere about twenty signatures. To take the contrary view, be held in his hand another petition that had been presented to their Lordships' House in favour of the Bill, and that contained the names of almost every great house trading with the colonies in the City, and so numerously signed as to cover four closely written pages. With regard to the question of hearing Mr. Scott, the agent for one of these colonies, there could be no doubt as to the propriety of letting him be heard at the bar, provided the Legislative Council had thought fit to instruct him to oppose the Bill. Accordingly, as soon as Mr. Scott's petition had been presented, he thought it right to have an application made to him, requesting that he would be good enough to inform him (Earl Grey) whether he had received instructions from the Legislative Council to urge any opposition to the Bill, or to suggest alterations in it; and stating that if he had any alterations to suggest, they would not fail to receive the immediate and best attention of Her Majesty's Government. The reply to that letter was that the petition contained the grounds on which he prayed to be heard against the Bill. [The noble Earl here read the letters.] On reading the petition he found, however, that it contained no statement of the petitioner having received any instructions whatever from the Legislative Council to make this application; and he felt, therefore, justified in treating the application as an entirely unauthorised act on the part of Mr. Scott, and, he would add, one which he was sure would not meet the approbation of his con-

947
stituents. So far had their Lordships' House carried this rule, of not hearing persons by counsel, unless they happened to be directly and personally interested as individuals in the measure, that in 1833, on the question of the abolition of negro slavery, their Lordships' House actually refused an application from the West India planters and merchants to be heard by counsel at their Lordships' bar. It was true that in the case of the Municipal Reform Bill counsel were heard; but then it was alone because the report of the Commissioners of Municipal Inquiry, on which the Bill was founded, contained allegations of very grave charges against particular parties connected with some of the former corporations. On the contrary, every change made by the present Bill was asked for by the colonists, or else would not come into effect until the colony formally applied to have them enforced. Besides, he believed that such an application was very seldom made to their Lordships, except in cases where a similar application had been made to the other House of Parliament also. On these grounds he should feel bound to resist the Motion of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he would meet the noble Earl on his own ground, and would undertake to show that, on the principles of justice and policy, the petitioners had a right to be heard against this Bill. He regretted, indeed, that the Colonial Secretary was not himself the party to present this petition, and he still more deeply regretted, that, when the petition was presented, his noble Friend should be the party to throw obstacles in the way of a compliance with its prayer. It should be recollected that this Bill affected the value of every acre of land in Australia; each landed proprietor had, therefore, the right to petition, which the noble Earl could not but hold to be essential to freedom. The noble Earl had compared the the two petitions, that which he had presented in favour of the Bill, and that which was now under discussion. That comparison, even if it had been justly made, furnished no argument whatever against the present Motion, because if the one petition had 1,000 signatures, and the other was the petition of a single individual, he having a locus standi before the House, their Lordships were bound to give to the latter equal consideration with the first, so far as permitting his petition to be heard. He had been
948
informed that the petition which the noble Earl had presented did not contain the signature of one single landed proprietor in the colony—
EARL GREY: That is quite a mistake.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he stated what had been represented to him from good authority. On the other hand, the petition now under their Lordships' consideration contained the signatures of several most respectable landed proprietors in the colony, the first name to it being that of Mr. Lowe, an Australian landowner, and late a member of the colonial legislature, who had just arrived in this country, and who was distinguished for his station, his influence, and his abilities. With regard to the objection raised against hearing Mr. Scott at the bar, he would remind their Lordships, that this was no party question, and he appealed to them in their judicial capacity to consider what had been their previous practice. Mr. Scott was agent for the colony, Mr. Burge; as agent for Jamaica, had been heard; Mr. Roebuck, as agent for one branch of the Canadian Parliament had been heard. Why was Mr. Scott to be rejected? But it was denied that Mr. Scott had not been instructed to petition. How could he? The Bill before the House was not the Bill made known in Australia. How, then, could the Australians instruct Mr. Scott to petition against it? The Bill of the last Session, which was the only Bill of which the inhabitants of the Antipodes could be forewarned, differed essentially from the present. His noble Friend at the head of the Government had last year pledged himself to introduce clauses that would bring under colonial administration the whole of the land revenues of the colonies. There was no single point on which the colonists felt so deeply interested as that of getting the control of the land revenues into their own hands. Even in the present year, in the memorable speech of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) made on the 8th of February, it was distinctly promised that this privilege would be granted to the colonists. In that speech his noble Friend had stated, "To the general assembly we propose to refer the question so important to the colonies, the price of the waste lands." His noble Friend (Earl Grey) had not even hinted why this intention was abandoned. It was but a few weeks ago this amended Bill was introduced, withholding from the colonists those pro-

949
mised privileges which it was the highest object of their desire to obtain. Now, as it was impossible that such alteration could be known in the colonies was it fair for the noble Earl to lay any stress on the argument that no petitions had been forwarded from the colonies against the Bill of which in its present shape they were uninformed? Again, in respect to the functions of the federal assembly, it should be recollected that this Bill created a double, or he might say a triple, power of taxation, which, in itself, should justify the petitioners in applying to be heard against the Bill as affecting the value of their property. It was true the Bill made no alteration in the constitution of the Legislative Council, but it made very great changes in the functions of that body, giving the council a power even to alter the constitution of the colony. When such was the character of the Bill, were they justified in rejecting the petitions of Mr. Scott and Mr. Lowe? How could there be any sympathy or attachment between the colonists and the mother country if colonists were deprived of their just right of being heard? He cautioned their Lordships against the danger of applying a less liberal rule of construction to their ordinary practice, where a people residing so far distant as in Australia were concerned, than they would apply in their own case if a Bill were proposed to affect their rights over their own landed property. Suppose a Bill were brought in to deprive the country gentlemen of England who sat at quarter-sessions of the powers they now possessed, would the notion be tolerated for a moment that a Minister of the Grown should come down and deny them the right of being heard as petitioners? If their properties were endangered, would they be refused to be heard by counsel at the bar? He contended that no man would have the desperate rashness to offer them a denial. In the present instance the petitioners were landed proprietors. They complained of the wrong the Bill would do them. Among them stood his honourable friend, Mr. Scott, the agent for the colonies; and he (Lord Monteagle) asked their Lordships whether, under the circumstances he had described, they would press on the Bill without allowing the petitioners to be heard by themselves or by their counsel? He believed his noble Friend the Colonial Secretary had spoken inconsiderately and hastily; he could not have been aware that
950
the petitioners were landed proprietors; but now that he was acquainted with that important fact, he would probably permit them to be heard. He should feel bound to take the sense of their Lordships on this question; if the petitions were refused, it would strengthen his case in Committee; and if the House granted the prayer of the petitioners, it would bring before their notice facts and arguments which he believed would be irresistible. It would have a further advantage—it would show to our Australian fellow-subjects that even at this distance persons are no less disposed to fight their battles when they are right, than prepared to speak the truth frankly should they conceive them to be in the wrong. On these grounds he most earnestly supported the Motion that Mr. Lowe, Mr. Scott, and the other petitioners, be heard against the further progress of this Bill.
EARL GRANVILLEregretted the opposition exhibited towards this measure, which had been brought forward by the Government in the belief that it was entirely consonant with the wishes of the colonists. The noble and learned Lord who had commenced the discussion had mentioned several cases as precedents in which counsel had been heard at their Lordships' bar; but in this instance, he (Earl Granville) considered that they ought to regard, not the interests of one class of individuals, but of the whole body of colonists collectively, and he thought they might as reasonably have heard counsel at the bar against the Reform Bill as against the Bill now before the House. If the Bill had been brought in for the first time this year, and there had since been no means of communicating with the colonies, then he considered those persons resident in the metropolis who were connected with the colonies might have fairly prayed to be heard by counsel against the measure, and it would have been only an act of fairness on the part of their Lordships to have assented to their request. But he might inform their Lordships that the report on which the Bill was founded, and the Bill itself as it now stood, reached the colony a month before the prorogation of the Legislative Council. He thought, then, that although in case of any sudden emergency the question of hearing the agent for the colonies might have been entertained, if the colonists had wished to offer any opposition to the Bill introduced last Session, they ought to have given

951
their agent some authority to represent their wishes. If he (Earl Granville) had entertained any doubt as to the feelings of the colonists on this question, it would have been removed by a speech which had been delivered the other day by Mr. Lowe, who, he was informed, was a person of great respectability and of some influence in the colony, who admitted that before he left New South Wales he had not been able to get up a petition against the Bill in consequence of the singular apathy and indifference exhibited by the colonists on the subject. The colonists had not expressed any feeling, by public meetings or otherwise, against this Bill, and he did not think any cause had been shown for assenting to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD REDESCALEconsidered that the colonists were entitled to be heard against this measure by parties who were independent of Parliament, and who were enabled to state the sentiments of the colonists on the question, and he therefore supported the Motion.
LORD KINNAIRDobserved that a promise had been distinctly held out to the colonists that they were to have the management of the waste lands; and he believed it was in consequence of that assurance that the colonists had not opposed this Bill. The present case had been compared to that of the Reform Bill; but it must be remembered that the people of this country were represented in Parliament, while, unfortunately, the colonies had no representatives in that assembly; and he thought that, unless there was a fear of some exposure, the colonists ought to have the advantage of being heard against this measure. He believed it would be extremely desirable if the House were to avail itself of the circumstances of the owners of property being in London, to hear any representations they had to make against the Bill.
EARL GREYstated that a newspaper published at Sydney on the 14th of September last contained a full report of the Committee of Privy Council, which was laid before Parliament in the previous May, and that the colonial legislature was not prorogued until the 16th of October. That report contained no recommendation whatever for any alteration of the Land Sales Act; on the contrary, the report was in favour of continuing that Act, and therefore the measure upon which the colonists had formed their judgment was the very mea-
952
sure with which the House now had to deal. It was true that Lord John Russell had undertaken that the federal legislature might amend the Land Sales Act; but that promise could not have reached the colony by any possibility until after the Legislative Assembly had been prorogued.
LORD MONTEAGLEremarked that at the close of the last Session the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that it was intended to resign the control of the waste lands to the central authority to be created in the Australian colonies; and Mr. Scott having communicated that intention to the colony for which he acted, had received instructions accordingly. On the 14th of February last the noble Lord repeated this intimation in the other House; but the intention of Ministers had been abandoned in the course of the present Session, and it was only just that Mr. Scott should be heard at the bar against that part of the measure, or that it should be delayed until he could receive fresh instructions.
EARL GREY: The Committee of Correspondence could only give instructions to Mr. Scott during the sitting of the Legislative Assembly, and that assembly had been prorogued before the intimation that Government contemplated leaving the question of the Land Sales Act to the colony.
The EARL of WICKLOWthought the discussion of that evening, in the infinite doubting, not to say ignorance as to facts, that it displayed, afforded a sufficient reason for assenting to the Motion. He trusted that the noble Earl would either consent to hear the petitioners, or postpone the Bill until next Session, so as to enable the colonists themselves to declare their views respecting it.
The EARL of HARROWBYsupported the Motion. It was clearly impossible for the colonists to express this Session their judgment upon the Bill as it now stood, and it was but justice, therefore, to hear their accredited agent.
LORD POLWARTHsaid, it would be very unjust not to hear the agents of the colony, when it was remembered that the main provisions of the Bill were very different to those which had been originally proposed and approved by the colony.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSthought an erroneous opinion would be formed in the colony of the purpose of their Lordships if they acceded to the prayer of the petition and heard counsel at the bar, on the part of the agent, against the Bill. The

953
expression of satisfaction by the colonists, which had been so much relied upon, had nothing to do with the declaration of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in respect to the sale of the Crown lands, because that declaration had reached the colony after that expression of satisfaction.
LORD BROUGHAM, in reply, said, that the aspect which the debate had assumed, after the speech of his noble Friend on the cross benches, who had taken a new view of the question at the eleventh hour, and with not the most paramount judgment and discretion, had totally altered the ground upon which the subject had been placed, and compelled him in reply (Lord Brougham) to enlarge more than he otherwise should. He contended their Lordships were bound, as constituting the highest judicial tribunal in the realm, not to depart from former precedents, and refuse to hear persons who alleged that they were injured by the Bill then before the House. With regard to Lord John Russell's promise, he was sure that promise could not have reached the colonies before the prorogation of the Legislative Assembly; and with respect to the instructions to Mr. Scott, they could not have been forwarded after the prorogation, as all communications by the Committee of Correspondence were interdicted. So far, then, he (Lord Brougham) admitted that facts and dates were against his argument. But Mr. Scott was the representative in general and at large of the colony: he was the person who was to be their agent, and to represent them with the Government and in Parliament. That was his commission and authority, and yet we were to be told on this occasion that he had no special instructions. Were his general instructions, then, gone to the winds? Was he to throw those instructions into the fire; and was all general authority and commission to represent them on all occasions to signify nothing, because in a given case, however important, he had not been furnished with specific instructions to meet that particular case? That would be rather a strong thing to say relative to the instructions of an agent. Cases might arise unexpectedly requiring discretion to be applied to them, and it would be monstrous to say to Mr. Scott, "You are Member for Berwickshire, and we will not hear you upon this sudden turn of Lord John Russell's opinion." Would they say that Mr. Scott's general commission and duty went for absolutely nothing, because he did not hap-
954
pen to have got—because it was impossible for him to have got—these special instructions? His noble Friend talked as if everything turned on Mr. Scott; but Mr. Scott was not the only petitioner. Were there no landowners' names to the petition, and were they not to be heard? It was argued, that if they heard Mr. Scott at the bar, his speech would be admitted to be the speech of the colonists; and how could that be, if he had received no special instructions? But had he not his general instructions? And Mr. Scott had expressly stated that he is to be guided, as a Member of Parliament, by his own discretion; but he had not said that, as their agent, he would not be bound by their instructions. It appeared to him (Lord Brougham) that this colony had been very hardly used. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, towards the middle of July, gave a promise, and, as it were, pledged himself, that the Bill should contain a land clause. That pledge was received in the colony about November; then December, January, February—three months—passed away, leaving the colony under the influence of that promise. Of this there could not be the smallest question—that, had it not been that the colonists had placed confidence in the promise which had been given to them by Lord J. Russell, the table of their Lordships' House would have been crowded with petitions similar to that which he had now the honour to present; for why should not those living in the colony who thought the measure injurious, think and feel so as strongly as those who entertained the same opinions, but happened to be over in this country? Were the landowners to be treated in this way? It was not only their right, but their duty, to employ their own agents. Whether their Lordships heard Mr. Scott or not, was perfectly immaterial. For his own part, he did not think it would be Mr. Scott who would address the House, but Mr. Lowe. He could speak as a landowner, and for his brother councillors; and Mr. Lowe being heard could give rise to no mistake, because he had no instructions. What he was saying was not mere speculation. There were great authorities who had given their opinions on the subject of this Bill, not so much indeed as their own opinions, but their opinion of the reception with which the Bill would be met. These were not private and paltry persons, they were not insignificant landowners—if landowners could be called insignificant—they

955
were not people whose rank was little, and authority less. What if he should tell their Lordships that they were actually eminent, nay, paramount people, and from their condition having intimate relationship with all the inhabitants of the colonies—whatif they were the governors of colonies?—the very men with whom his noble Friend was in daily official intercourse, and from whose representations he learned the condition of the colonies and the state of public feeling which prevailed there? The fact was so. Sir W. Denison, Sir H. Young, and Sir C. Fitzroy, had severally, in their official communications as governors representing the Crown in those colonies, stated their conviction that the Bill as it now stood would not give contentment; but that, on the contrary, it would produce the deepest dissatisfaction in the colonies. These were surely strong reasons for pausing before they proceeded, and for hearing these petitioners. The very debate of that night appeared to his mind to afford powerful reason for granting such a request. There had been grave assertions of facts, and doubts existed as to those facts. It had been argued that the Legislative Council had not protested; but let their Lordships beware how they listened too much to that, for the Legislative Council did not consist of the great body of landowners, or represent the great wealth of the colony. There were no leaseholders there. Could there be any argument more powerful for hearing these petitioners? To make the position more striking, he would remind the House that the Legislative Council was the very body upon whom the constitution was about to be conferred, and therefore he (Lord Brougham) had a right to suppose that the Legislative Council were for the Bill. But did they represent all the wealth and industry of the colonists? The Legislative Council did not contain either these landowners, or the representatives of them, and that was a conclusive argument in favour of their being heard, for the leaseholders were at their Lordships' bar, and the Legislative Council was not.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSexplained, that what he had said was, that accounts had been received from the colonies, conclusively showing that the feelings of the colonists at large were at variance with the views entertained by Mr. Scott.
LORD BROUGHAMbegged his noble Friend would tell them where he found the facts he had stated.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, he had seen them in the colonial newspapers.
LORD BROUGHAM: Oh, of course, as my noble Friend says he has seen these statements in a newspaper, they must be true.
On Question, their Lordships divided;—Contents 25; Not-Contents 33: Majority 8.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Oxford

Richmond

BARONS.

EARLS.

Stanley

Warwick

Polwarth

Talbot

Brougham

Fitzwilliam

Redesdale

Wicklow

Lyttleton

Lanesborough

Wodehouse

Mountcashell

Kinnaird

Enniskillen

Tenterden

Nelson

Monteagle

Waldegrave

Heytesbury

Harrowby

Walsingham

BISHOPS.

Colchester

Salisbury

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOP.

BISHOPS.

York

Down

DUKE.

Limerick

Norfolk

Manchester

MARQUESSES.

St. Asaph

Lansdowne

BARONS.

Anglesey

Ashburton

Breadalbane

Byron

EARLS.

Beaumont

Besborough

Campbell

Camperdown

Camoys

Carlisle

Eddisbury

Chichester

Elphinstone

Granville

Erskine

Grey

Foley

Lismore

Howden

Minto

Lovat

Morley

Say and Sele

St. Germans

Wrottesley

Scarborough

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOP.

MARQUESSES.

York

Anglesey

DUKE.

Breadalbane

Norfolk

Donegal

980

Lansdowne

Limerick

EARLS.

Manchester

Bessborough

St. Asaph

Carlisle

BARONS.

Chichester

Ashburton

Cowper

Byron

Granville

Campbell

Grey

Camoys

Harrowby

Dufferin

Minto

Eddisbury

Morley

Elphinstone

St. Germans

Erskine

Scarborough

Foley

Waldegrave

Howden

BISHOPS.

Lovat

Down

Say and Sele

Resolved in the Negative.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Then it was moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
The BISHOP of OXFORDrose to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. He rested this Motion, first, upon the grounds that by adopting this course their Lordships would avoid all that the noble Earl seemed to fear, namely, the violation of precedent, and at the same time secure what the noble Earl had admitted was exceedingly desirable, the valuable information which the parties whom they had just refused to hear at their bar would be able

957
to give them in the capacity of witnesses. But this was not the only ground upon which he rested the Motion. And here he must take the liberty of stating to their Lordships in plain language, although it might he distasteful to those who were the authors of the Bill—the estimate he had formed, after patient study, of the real character of the Bill. He could not but say that the Bill appeared to him to be marked by a hasty and most injudicious handling of the great and permanent interests of the colonies. He said this in the first place, because it proposed to institute a single chamber composed of discordant elements, which it was impossible to bring together into harmonious and successful action. This alone ought to induce their Lordships to pause before passing the Bill in its present shape. This alone ought to lead them cautiously and carefully to weigh in a Select Committee an Act the principal and main provisions of which were calculated to sow the seeds of division and un-quietness in those great colonies. But it was said that a single chamber, although no doubt liable to many objections, was desired by the people of New South Wales, and that therefore it was the duty of their Lordships to pass the Bill in that particular shape. Now, he denied that a single chamber was desired by the people of New South Wales, and he was prepared to produce evidence before a Select Committee which he thought would distinctly prove that it was not desired by them. The noble Earl told them of what had appeared in the colonial newspapers; but this was a point which required close sifting. The fact was that in the case of a colonial dependency which was labouring under gross evils and inflictions, singularly hard to be borne by persons of the English race and descent, it was scarcely to be wondered at if, in a moment of unthinking enthusiasm, they received with considerable favour a Bill which proposed to remedy some of the evils which pressed severely upon them, although in other parts it contained provisions of which they could not approve. It was not fair, therefore, of the noble Earl to argue that, because the Bill was admitted to contain alterations which were a great improvement upon the present state of things, therefore the people of New South Wales must be held to be in favour of a single chamber. The idea of a single chamber was doubtless favourably entertained by a certain class in the colonies, who foresaw, as well as any man in this
958
country could foresee, that a single chamber, composed partly of nominees of the Crown, and partly of popularly elected representatives, would give rise to an unlimited series of angry contests between the two parties, which contests could end only in one way; namely, in the exclusion of those nominees, and the final constitution of the chamber on the merest democratic basis. They had been told by one who had tried it, that it was impossible for a nominee to take either side of a question without suspicion and reproach. The parties, then, who were in favour of a single chamber, looked forward to the time when they would use the power granted them by this Bill of reconstructing their constitution by making a single chamber, consisting solely of themselves. The noble Earl might say that that would be the time to propose a double chamber when an alteration was introduced into the single chamber. But he begged the noble Earl to consider what would be the state of social and political feeling at such a moment. At the conclusion of a multitude of angry political discussions, when the elected representatives had extruded the nominees from the chamber, when the leading members of the democratic party had just drank deep of the intoxicating draught of success, and were in the full enjoyment of political power, it was not in human nature to expect that in that moment of their triumph they would consent to lay down the power which the Legislature had put into their hands; in other words, that they would consent to constitute another chamber, and take from themselves the political influence which they had learned fully to appreciate, and just begun to wield. He maintained, then, that that part of the Bill which provided a single chamber would most undoubtedly lead to future internal political conflicts in the legislative body, and the establishment of a powerful and dominant democracy. This, he maintained, was a fundamental error in the Bill. It had been said elsewhere, that there were not materials in the colonies for two chambers. He thought he could prove, if their Lordships would send this Bill to a Select Committee, that this was altogether unfounded, and that, at least in New South Wales, there were abundant materials for two chambers. He did not moan to say that it contained materials for an upper chamber nominated as their Lordships were by the Crown; but he did maintain that there

959
were abundant materials for one of another I description. To this, perhaps, it was answered that such a constitution of the two chambers would subvert its own purpose. He could not allow the assertion. For why were two chambers desirable at all? The reason was this:—In every self-governing country, especially in those inhabited by persons of our own blood and race, there was a continual conflict and collision going on between two classes of minds—namely, those who were in favour of things as they were, and those who sought to improve them by advance and innovation. It was desirable therefore that the latter should be represented in the initiative chamber, and that the other should be represented in an upper and separate chamber. As the members of the upper chamber, which he would make elective like the other, he would take older men, or men elected by a higher franchise, and he would have them to consist of a smaller number of persons, and be elected for a much longer term, say nine or ten, instead of three years, besides providing that only a third part should go out at one time. These or such like provisions, would, he doubted not, impart to that upper chamber the character he desired it to possess. With respect to the allegation that the idea of a single chamber was popular among the people in New South Wales, he begged to say that, supposing it were true, which, however, he was far from admitting, it could not justify the application of that provision of the Bill to the other Australian colonies, for which it was singularly unfit, and in which there was not a shadow of evidence to show that it was popular. So much for a single chamber, with respect to which he held that a complete case had been made out for sending the Bill to a Select Committee, where, with the help of the necessary evidence, the question might be calmly, maturely, and udiciously considered by their Lordships. But there were many other points in the Bill which exhibited the same hasty and imperfect treatment for great and permanent interests. The way in which it dealt with the franchise was altogether improper. The simple fact that it excluded from the power of voting for representatives the best blood of the colonies, ought alone to prove fatal to the measure. He said the best blood of the colonies, because those who held large tracts of land under the Crown in the capacity of
960
leaseholders, and who from their intelligence were peculiarly qualified for legislative functions, would be altogether excluded from the legislative assemblies under the Bill proposed by the noble Earl. He held, too, that the franchise had been fixed a great deal higher than it ought to be under the present state of New South Wales. He feared, also, that the effect of the Bill would be to give the convicts and the descendants of convicts absolute power in the colonies. The principle upon which this Bill had been constructed, was one of the most singular conceivable. It was said, "Set the colonists a-going with a single chamber, and at the same time give them an opportunity of amending it, and they will do so." Was there, ever since the world began, a set of political philosophers who came down to a solemn deliberative assembly, and urged such motives for the adoption of a Bill? He thought it afforded a good ground for any one to oppose the Bill, when its very authors confessed that it could not last; who, when its errors were pointed out, replied, "Aye, but we give the colonists the power of altering it when they choose." The argument of the Government seemed to be this: "The colonists are not capable of using beneficially for themselves the gift of legislative powers. We will, therefore, give them a sort of political 'gocart,' in order to teach them the use of their limbs. This will give a practice to their young and inexperienced minds, and will help to teach them how to conduct themselves, and when they have been so taught, it can then be swept away to make room for a better system." Was this political philosophy? The effect of the Bill would be, not to produce a wholesome collision in a united and harmonious assembly in which the different powers of the State would try their respective strengths and practise their powers for future action; but it would give rise to a perpetual series of irritating and embittering contests between the colonists and the Imperial Parliament, and would separate interests, which they ought to sacrifice everything but principle to unite. Surely the manner in which we had formerly dealt with our North American colonies was written in characters too broad to allow such doctrines to pass current in their Lordships' House. What was it that led to the loss of those colonies, and to the hostility and settled distrust which followed, but the disastrous policy which

961
had been again traced out by the framers of this Bill? He lamented that this measure would perpetuate what he believed to be the mischievous influence of Downing-street upon the colonies. He claimed the sanction of the noble Earl to his views upon this point. The noble Earl in another place, and under another name, had commented in words which he wished He could perfectly remember upon the mischievous absurdity of supposing that any Minister sitting in Downing-street could satisfactorily and usefully govern all our fellow countrymen in the colonies—and how utterly irrational was the desire to retain such a power in hands so utterly incompetent to wield it. He did not wish to say anything against the noble Earl's peculiar administration of the colonies; he objected merely to the general principle. He objected that no separation was attempted to be made between two things which broadly and widely differed—between local and imperial interests. He maintained that it was wholly impossible that their Lordships could usefully and safely legislate for distant colonies unless they met that difficulty—unless they marked out what were local interests, which ought to be administered by a local legislature under a resident governor representing the Crown, and what were imperial interests, which ought to be settled at the seat of empire, at the heart of our widely-extended kingdom. It was said that it was very difficult to say what were local and what were imperial interests; and because it was so they would not attempt to settle them. He thought it afforded a strong argument for his Motion, that if they appointed a Select Committee to consider the Bill, they would have the advantage of the presence of noble and learned Lords, who from their great learning in the law would help them to come to a conclusion as to whether or not it was impossible to separate local and imperial interests. They were bound in justice to these numerous and distant dependencies to send the Bill to a Select Committee, in order to ascertain and mark off the boundaries that belonged to imperial and local legislation. The great object of England in settling colonies ought to be to reproduce herself—to send out representatives of her various ranks and orders. It was difficult at any time to induce persons belonging to the higher ranks to leave such a country as this; and it was therefore the part of wise
962
legislation to remove this difficulty, so far as it could be done. But was it to be expected that a race of our own blood would tamely bear such an infraction of their rights as was involved in a Bill which, in fact, placed ultimately the whole government in a Secretary of State residing in another part of the globe? The Bill proposed to give to Englishmen accustomed at home not to the name only of freedom and of representative institutions, but to their reality, a form of government which they knew to be peculiarly distasteful to the Anglo-Saxon mind. But the most monstrous proposition in the present Bill was the provision for uniting these four colonies in one federation. This was, he could not help thinking, the most ill-considered proposal ever made in that House. Did the Government really mean to give this central federative body the power now exercised in Downing-street? If they did mean to transfer to any colonial body the absolute control of imperial questions, surely they would, in so doing, sow the seeds of the dismembrance of our empire. For the unity of our empire, in fact, consisted in the reserve to the centre of dominion of these very questions. Again, it was surely the most absurd of fallacies to say that what suited one of these colonies would suit another, because they were all Australian colonies. That was to be, indeed, governed by a shadow and a name. Did they remember that the capitals of these two in future confederated States were as far apart as London and Constantinople—that they had different interests, different wants, and different means of supplying those wants—that they had not only different, but in many respects opposing, interests? To unite these Australasian colonies, comprehending an extent of territory larger than the whole of Europe, into one confederate State, was one of the greatest instances of hasty, capricious, crude, and ill-considered legislation that he could charge against this Bill. If their Lordships believed that the race who had colonised these distant lands would one day grow into a mighty power—if they believed that they were to sway the future destinies of that portion of the globe—if they had not failed to remark the patient energy, the habitual courage, the likeness to ourselves in every element of character that made England great, glorious, and mighty upon the earth, which distinguished that race—and if their Lord-

963
ships, remembering all that, would forecast the future, and hear in mind that they were now called upon to lay the foundation of those institutions which would form, mould, and frame the temper of the people—institutions which would influence them through all future time—then their Lordships must acknowledge that a greater subject for the statesman, the philosopher, and the philanthropist could not be presented to their attention. He entreated their Lordships to remember that the history of other lands taught them that they could never undo that which had been done in the youth of a nation. They might now be about to form a character that would rebel against after influences—they might now be about to plant vices from which the land might have been kept free, but from which they might never be able again to free it. They were about to give them political maxims and moral habits, and all the germs of social habits, and let them not doubt that they would reap the work of their hands. There was one matter in which he took special interest. Their Lordships no doubt would all agree that the moral character of any people would be in a great measure determined by the wisdom and judgment with which its religious institutions were formed. Now, let them mark the present state of things in New South Wales and Van Die men's Land. There existed in the mother country a great and richly endowed Church Establishment. They had inherited with this establishment a system which, in order as it was supposed to guard the religious liberties of the people of this land, continually restrained the action of that religious body with needful, or, as some persons believed, often with needless restrictions. Now, if they passed this Bill, they would transplant to the Australian colonies every one of these stout and heavy fetters and restrictions, and give with them no one of the correlative advantages enjoyed by the Church at home. They were about to give to the members of the Church of England in the colonies all the restrictions of the English Church, without its rank, its wealth, or its social position. The Romanist in our colonies was able freely and fully to work out his own religious system, and the Legislature threw no impediment in his way. The Presbyterian and the Wesleyan Methodist were able to meet together and consider the rules which might best befit their infant institutions in that new land of their adoption.
964
He did not grudge them one atom of their liberty; on the contrary, he rejoiced that they possessed it. He would not take away that full and free liberty which the Legislature had left them, and which was necessary to enable them to fight against vice and irreligion. But he had a right to ask their Lordships to do as much and no more for the Church of their fathers. It was laid down by legal writers that the law of the mother country became, as far as was practicable, the law of what were called occupation colonies, like those of Australia. Now, by the 25th of Henry VIII, and by many other Acts, it was enacted that whensoever the members of the Church of England met together, unless they had previously obtained the written sanction of the Crown, they became subject to fine and imprisonment, and also to the nameless and inappreciable penalties of the prœmunire laws. Now, he did not wish to see the Church of England established by law in these colonies. If he could do it by a stroke of his pen he would not. Such an establishment would be alien from the temper and habits of these colonies; but just because he believed that the way to give true power and effect to the Church for working out its own highest vocation, was not to establish and endow it by law in these lands, he asked, as a matter of justice, that they should not in the colonies burden those who held the form of faith, the liturgy, and doctrines of the Church of England with the shackles which she were at home. The Crown had given certain powers in the letters-patent appointing one of the bishops, which would have made provision for the exercise of some spiritual discipline; but it appeared that the Crown had exceeded its powers, and in succeeding patents the provisions were struck out. What then was the result? That all things were in a most anomalous position; for instance, the canons of 1604 were binding in the colonies, but there were no ecclesiastical courts, and no power of administering the ecclesiastical law, which was thus made binding, to substitute an autocratic and despotic power in the hands of the bishops. The result was that which was most earnestly regretted by the bishops in the colonies. This was most inconvenient. Thus, in one instance, a clergyman was known to have been guilty of great immorality, and to have seduced the governess of his own children in his own house. There was the

965
greatest possible desire that this person should be proceeded against; but the bishop had not the power of calling a single witness, and he was liable to be proceeded against if he had taken legal means to redress the wrong. The bishop was obliged to act with autocratic power, and to refuse to allow him to receive any further stipend; and such was the distaste of the Anglo-Saxon race to any act that savoured of tyranny, that public feeling became enlisted on behalf of the clergyman, although the feeling had been strong against him in the first instance, because he could not be punished except by a punishment against which the minds of the colonists rebelled. Upon this point he should be prepared to lay before their Lordships, if they went into Committee upon this Bill, which he hoped they would not do, a clause which should introduce powers and provisions such as the nature of the case seemed to require. The House, however, had aright to expect that the Government would undertake the responsibility of settling a question of so much importance. He called, therefore, upon their Lordships to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, as well for what it omitted as for what it contained; for it was most injurious to the highest interests of the community to leave questions like these open to all the evils which must spring from applying old and obsolete rules to new circumstances, for which they were wholly unfitted. Let their Lordships remember their home experience on this point. They had seen the evil of fond and fanciful men trying to force things back to the adoption of long past customs. They had seen a cathedral city almost in the hands of a mob, while the mayor had to petition a clergyman to abandon the performance of bygone customs which by their mere discordance with present habits had created so much ill-will. How could they wish to subject the rising energies of the Church of England in these colonies to an obsolete code of laws such as the canons of 1604, without the power of altering them? For these high considerations—on grounds of a political, moral, social, and, above all, a religious character—and not upon any considerations of mere party politics, he, as a Christian bishop, thought it not unbecoming in him to move that this Bill be submitted to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House.
EARL GREYsaid, it would have have been more straightforward of the right
966
rev. Prelate, and far more candid, to have moved the second reading of the Bill that day six months. It would have been but the legitimate conclusion of his endeavours to prove that it was a mass of palpable blunders. The object of the right rev. Prelate was to obtain information on a great number and variety of difficult subjects; but such Committee could not possibly get through that inquiry before the close of the Session. But what was the principle of the Bill? Why, that, finding a certain state of things existing in New South Wales, they should continue that state of things as nearly as possible, merely carrying into effect such changes and improvements as the colonists themselves wanted. As to hearing counsel at the bar, he should oppose it as utterly useless. Counsel would have said nothing more than many of their Lordships were prepared to say. And as to Mr. Lowe, he happened to know that he had tried to get up a public meeting before he left, and had failed, for the reason as stated in one of the colonial papers, that the people did not trust him in consequence of his political tergiversations. He would no more admit that Mr. Lowe was expressing the sentiments of the colonists, than their Lordships would be prepared to admit Mr. Cob-den, for instance, to be their mouth-piece, if that Gentleman were to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, and go out to the colonies and state that he came there to express the opinions of both Houses of Parliament. The present system of government in New South Wales was exceedingly well adapted to its condition. He was fully convinced of this now, although he did not think so some time ago. But time had shown that it was well calculated for the colony. The Government of New South Wales had acted with more judgment and discretion, and with more enlightened views of the public welfare, than most of our colonies. They certainly stood very high amongst them; and as the constitution worked well, they wished not to have it altered without the consent or wish of the colonists. As the colony should become more opulent, and the society larger, he thought it would be well that a change to two chambers instead of one should take place; and no doubt it would. But his hope was that it would not take place immediately—that for some time things would remain as they were. What he contended for was, that when Parliament had once given a representative government to colony, it had no right to interfere

967
with that colony to produce any change whatever in the form of the constitution. He had never said that the people of New South Wales preferred the form of government in the Bill as an abstract principle. What he said was, that they were one and all opposed to any change in their form of government, to which they had not themselves assented. But the people of New South Wales, of South Australia, of Port Phillip, and even of Van Diemen's Land, had all declared themselves in favour of the present measure, and against any change in the system of government at present existing. The noble Earl proceeded to read extracts from a petition transmitted to Sir Charles Fitzroy, dated 7th February, 1848, and signed by 3,100 colonists; from a petition from the Penrhyn district, Cumberland county; and from one from the same county signed by the clergy and landholders; all of which protested against the alteration of their constitution without their previous consent. But he begged attention particularly to the resolution passed by the Legislative Council, in which they complained of the indignity with which they felt that the colonists were treated, by the announcement that a system of government, in which their destinies were involved, had been planned without an opportunity having been given to them of expressing their opinions upon it. And the division which took place upon that resolution in the council showed that there were—Ayes 14, Noes 5. And as a proof that the possession of office did not always destroy the independence of its holders, he might mention that the five "noes" were all members of the executive council. He had, therefore, pretty strong ground for asserting that the people of New South Wales were against alteration, be it good or be it bad, in the existing constitution, which had not been previously assented to by themselves. But the right rev. Prelate not only wished for an alteration in the existing constitution, he wished for such an alteration as had never before been tried in any other colony belonging to this country. The right rev. Prelate objected, and so did he (Earl Grey), to a second chamber composed of nominees; but he proposed that there should be a second chamber consisting of elected members, and he said there were various ways in which they might be elected different from the first chamber. They might be composed of older men, or they might sit for a longer time, or they might retire pe-
968
riodically at times different from those in the lower chamber. He was well aware of the invention of clever and ingenious persons in framing theoretic schemes of government. But there was one misfortune attending the whole of these plans, that they were all utterly unknown and unheard of in the colonies themselves. He could only say, that to impose such plans upon the colonies without their own consent, he would be no party. He would not be the Secretary of State to send out constitutions of an untried and of a novel kind to be imposed upon the inhabitants, without their consent. And what was the ground for advocating these schemes? Was it that the colonists desired them? The right rev. Prelate had abandoned that ground. But then the right rev. Prelate said, admitting that New South Wales is content with its existing constitution, why should they impose it upon the other colonies? But it so happened that New South Wales was the only colony which had not expressed a strong opinion on the subject. He had read to their Lordships when he introduced the Bill, resolutions agreed to at a public meeting in South Australia, in which thanks were voted to Her Majesty's Government and to himself by name for the measure, and praying that it might speedily pass into a law. At a public meeting held at Victoria, the only feeling expressed was that of regret that the measure did not pass last year. He now held in his hand an extract from a newspaper, which had arrived lately from Melbourne, containing a memorial adopted there, which he hoped shortly to receive officially, in which they hail with satisfaction and delight the intelligence that this measure is about to pass. In Van Diemen's Land the same thing had happened. At one of the largest and most important public meetings ever held in Launceston a petition was adopted and signed by 1,200 inhabitants, expressing their deep concern that the Bill of last year had been delayed, and praying that it may now be passed. He had not yet officially received this petition: but he supposed it was retained in order to receive more signatures. He had also received unofficial intelligence that another petition, to the same effect, was on its way from Hobart Town; and the evidence of this latter petition was the more conclusive, as as much as nine-tenths of it was couched in a tone of severe reprehension of Her Majesty's Government for continuing the sys-

969
tem of transportation. But, then, said the right rev. Prelate, the colonists were labouring under such gross inflictions from the present system, that they were grateful for anything that promised a mitigation of it; and he quoted speeches which he (Earl Grey) had delivered in the other House, to show that he was opposed to the interference of the Colonial Office with the local affairs of the colonies. Now there was no opinion he had ever expressed in the other House to which he did not adhere, and on which he had not acted steadily, regularly, conscientiously, during the time he had held office; and he challenged the right rev. Prelate to show in what way he had departed from those opinions. He said there ought not to be any vexatious interference with the colonies; but did he ever say that no authority whatever was to be exercised by the Imperial Government? Did he ever say that they ought to abdicate all Imperial authority? If that were so, he thought the sooner they got rid of their colonies the better, because they were liable to very onerous responsibilities for the defence of those colonies, while they would not be allowed to exercise any general superintending authority to prevent measures being adopted which were inconsistent with the general interests of the British Empire. But there was no occasion for running into either of these extremes. He thought there could be no difficulty, with the exercise of a little good sense and moderation on the part both of those who had to advise Her Majesty at home, and the legislative council in the colonies, to reconcile the most ample measures of self-government in the internal affairs of the colony, with the maintenance of as much authority as was required for the general interests of the empire. The right rev. Prelate said, they could not take such a simple step as the removal of slaughter-houses from the town of Sidney, situated in a semi-tropical climate, without first obtaining the consent of the Government at home. [The Bishop of OXFORD: Hear, hear!] Now really, if the right rev. Prelate chose to discuss colonial matters, at least he ought to obtain accurate information upon the subject. Did not the right rev. Prelate know that from the time this country had a colony with a legislative council, that the Governor had authority to assent to all acts passed by that council, with certain exceptions, which exceptions were practically reduced to the narrowest possible compass. But the Home Government re-
970
tained, and they must retain, if they were to retain the colonies at all, the power to advise Her Majesty to disallow the Acts passed by the Assembly, although, up to the period of their being disallowed, they came into immediate operation. It was absolutely necessary that this power of disallowing should be retained, for it was absolutely impossible to give a definition beforehand of the cases in which the Crown might give up, and the cases in which the Crown must retain the power of disallowing. He would give an instance in point. The Acts passed by the Legislative Council of New South Wales during the last Session had just come home, and there was only one of those Acts in which, so far as he had examined, he was afraid Her Majesty's assent must be withheld. Now, what did the House suppose was the character of that Act? It was an Act relating to vagrancy. Now, it would appear at first sight that a Vagrancy Act was one of the safest measures of internal regulation that could be entrusted to a local legislature; but the fact was, that it contained a flagrant violation of one of the acknowledged prerogatives of the Crown; and it did so happen, that on looking over the list of definitions which had been proposed in the other House, of what were to be regarded as Crown rights and what colonial rights, not one of the definitions of the prerogatives of the Crown there contained would apply to this measure. The violation of the Royal prerogative consisted in this, that all persons who had ever been convicts, though they might have received a conditional pardon, would be subjected in all time coming to very rigorous restrictions. He said, therefore, it was impossible to define with strictness beforehand what were the cases in which the powers of the Crown should, and in what they should not, be exercised. Further, he would add, that one of the most useful functions which he thought the Home Government could discharge to these infant States, was to give them the advantage of their greater experience, and, with all respect be it said, of their greater knowledge. But he contended that while it was necessary for the Crown to retain this power, no practical grievance arose from it. In 999 out of 1,000 cases, there was little difficulty in saying what Acts should receive, and what should not receive, the Royal assent. Since a representative legislature had been created in New South Wales, 127 Acts had been

971
passed by that Assembly, and of these 127 Acts no more than five had been disallowed; and of these five, if he was not mistaken, the majority were disallowed on technical grounds, and were substantially carried into effect ultimately. Five more had been sent back for amendment; but up to the period of their amendment they were continued in operation. Then they were told that it would be better to allow the Governor unlimited power than that he should be constantly checked and coerced by instructions from home. He supposed this referred to the appointments, for that was the only interference with the acts of the Governor which practically took place. He had the curiosity to inquire what the facts were with regard to appointments in New South Wales since his accession to office. There were four offices with salaries exceeding 200 l. a year, which the Governor was bound to report to the Secretary of State, and which he could only fill up provisionally. Now, during the four years that he had the honour of presiding at the Colonial Office, he found there had been fourteen vacancies in these offices, and every one of them had been filled up, on the recommendation of the Governor, from among the colonists themselves, while not one of the recommendations made by the Governor had been set aside or overruled. Therefore, during his period of office he had literally not advised or appointed in the case of a single vacancy in the colony, and his only interference had been in approving the appointments made by others. He claimed no merit to himself for all this, beyond his predecessors, because he believed the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had been influenced by pretty much the same feelings as he was on this subject, and had felt as well as himself, that this country had neither the interest nor the right to interfere where it was not essentially necessary in colonial affairs. When, therefore, he heard so much about interference with the colonies, he should like to know in what the interference consisted? His own opinion was, that there were no people on the entire face of the earth who practically enjoyed so great an amount of unrestricted freedom as these colonists. He might be told that giving the appointment of one-third of the Legislative Council to the Crown, was practically a great exercise of power, but the fallacy of that argument was this: that ninety-nine out of every hundred of the laws of New South Wales referred
972
exclusively to local matters, of which nothing was known in this country until the act was received. Again, when the right rev. Prelate denounced the Government for giving so small a measure of freedom to the colony, he wished to know how divisions were practically carried in the colonial Assembly. In order to ascertain this fact, he had got all the minutes of the proceedings examined for every year except the last, for which the minutes had not been received. He found that there had been 272 divisions altogether, out of which 184 had been carried by a majority of the elected Members. On 73 divisions the majority of the elected members voted in the minority, and on fifteen divisions, the elected members were equal on both sides, and the majority was carried by the nominees of the Crown. He perceived that a gentleman who had lately come over to this country, and whose name had been repeatedly mentioned in the course of this debate, was frequently returned as in minorities of the elected members, converted into majorities by the votes of the nominees. In a very able speech by that gentleman, recently published, he found that one of the great complaints was, that there was so much of political apathy in the colonies. Now of all the tests of good government, be believed that this was the very best, and that when political apathy prevailed, no real misgovernment existed, especially in a country inhabited by Englishmen. But the right rev. Prelate said that one of his reasons for rejecting this measure was, that it contained a clause by which the colonists were enabled hereafter to alter the constitution; and the right rev. Prelate prophesied that embittered conflicts would arise from such a clause being introduced. He thought they might safely postpone this discussion until that particular clause was come to; but as the right rev. Prelate had laid so much stress on the point, he hoped he should be excused if he said a few words upon it. The clause merely reverted to the ancient policy of this country, which was to enable the colonies to work out their constitutions as experience pointed out. Was the right rev. Prelate aware that in no one of the British colonies was the constitution contained in the original charter as finally established; but that in all cases it was worked out by experience and by discussions between the Crown and the colonists? Of the thirteen American colonies, not one had the constitution ulti-

973
mately accorded to them in their original charters. In Jamaica they practically began with one chamber, because the council appointed to advise with the Governor did not at first sit as a separate chamber, and even at this day the council does not claim the power of originating any bill, whether a money bill or otherwise, though it may amend all bills sent before it. At this moment, with the exception of Canada, there was not one of the colonies that was not free to frame a new constitution for itself, acting in accordance with the Crown. What he had witnessed during the discussion on this Bill more than ever convinced him of the impolicy of tying up too strictly by Act of Parliament the terms of constitutions applicable to future times; and he might add that the grounds on which that policy was urged were very difficult to be comprehended when put forward by those who called themselves the advocates of self-government in the colonies. He did not wish at that late hour to trespass on their Lordships' time, by going through some of the other clauses objected to by the right rev. Prelate; but there were one or two points to which he might be allowed briefly to allude. The right rev. Prelate objected to a power being given to the colonies to summon a federative council. He freely admitted that this formed no vital part of the measure. [Lord STANLEY: Hear, hear!] The provision would only come into operation when desired by the colonists themselves, and on that ground he thought it a most useful one; but if struck out of the Bill he did not see that any very serious injury would be done, the chief evil being, as he conceived, that it would create the necessity of coming back, to Parliament at a future period. He thought, however, that it was better to defer the discussion on this subject until the clause came before them. The right rev. Prelate had referred to the provision for the Church in the colonies. With regard to this subject, he might say that he could conceive nothing more important than that they should avoid any false step. He entertained the strongest desire that they should do whatever was practicable to promote the interests of their own Church in the colonies. He was satisfied that to bring that Church into active existence, and to promote its extension and vigorous action, would be attended with the best possible effects; and certainly since he had been in office he had done all that in his judgment was best calculated
974
to promote that result. But if their Lordships really took an interest in the promotion of the Church of England in the colonies, he would call on them to be cautious, in a matter on which the colonists were particularly jealous and sensitive, how they interfered with their legitimate prejudices. If it could be shown that there were restrictions on the Church of England in the colonies, they should be removed, and he, for one, would be found most anxious to remove them. But he had never yet heard what these restrictions were, or how they could be remedied. The right rev. Prelate pointed out cases in which a prelate could not exercise his powers in holding an inquiry into charges against one of his clergy, because the inquiry would not be a privileged one, and those who gave evidence before him might be indicted in a court of law. But that grievance applied equally to the Church of Rome, or to the Presbyterian, or any other Church existing in the colony, none of which could hold an investigation with the protection which the right rev. Prelate thought desirable. But if such protection was to be afforded within the colony, then he would say that it ought to be granted by an Act of the colonial legislature. A very estimable, and, as he believed, very devoted clergyman from Van Diemen's Land now in this country, in writing to him on this subject, distinctly admitted that it would be a proper province for the local legislature to interfere in, but that even with the influence which the Crown possessed in the existing legislature, he did not think an Act with such an object could be passed. He feared that this description was true, and that the feeling prevalent in the colony partly arose, perhaps, from too much having been asked in the first instance. But, if public opinion was in such a state in the colony that the local legislature was not prepared to pass measures of this kind, then he believed their Lordships could take no course more entirely fatal to the interests of the Church of England in the colony than by overriding the local legislature in a matter that was peculiarly within its own province, by the Imperial authority of the British Parliament; and that they should do so at the moment of giving them representative institutions, and thus declaring a jealousy and suspicion of them, would be still more unfortunate and dangerous to the true interests of the Church. When the present system was introduced, a state of the ut-

975
most intolerance and religious rancour prevailed in the colony; but Sir Richard Burke succeeded in passing a law by which equal rights were, as far as possible, given to all religions. The consequence was, that the whole of the former religious animosities had been lulled to sleep, while a great increase indeed had taken place in the members of the Church of England. They had merely given the Church of England fair play, and since then it had taken a strong hold on the feelings of the people; and, for the sake of the Church itself, he would ask them not to reverse that policy. He doubted that there were restrictions in the case of the Church of England that did not apply equally to other religions; but if the fact were so, they must necessarily apply to all the colonies, and ought to be removed by a general Act, and not by a provision in a measure referring to the Australian colonies alone. It was a question of extreme difficulty, for it would be an aim of no easy accomplishment to conciliate the degree of liberty that was to be left to the Church of every individual colony, and the maintenance of union with the Church of England at home. If the right rev. Prelate would suggest a measure for the purpose he had mentioned, he (Earl Grey) could assure him that it would receive the earnest and deliberate attention of Her Majesty's Government, who would be extremely glad if they could relieve the Church of England in the colonies from any difficulties and embarrassments under which she might labour. But they should be very careful of establishing a distinct and separate system of ecclesiastical administration for each colony, or of severing the ties which united them with the Church of England at home. He should conclude by most earnestly entreating their Lordships not to throw out this measure by adopting the Amendment proposed, nor to dash away from the lips of the colonists the cup just held out to them, and at the moment they expected a measure on which their minds were most anxiously set, by postponing it to another Session.
LORD STANLEY: I do not think there was any necessity for the noble Earl who has just spoken to apologise for having followed the lengthy and able statement of the right rev. Prelate opposite, or to apologise for the time which he has occupied in addressing the House; for, often as it has been my lot, and it may be again, to differ from the noble Earl, I cannot refrain from
976
offering the testimony of what I feel with regard to the ability, clearness, and temper of the manner in which he has just addressed the House. I am not about to allude to the details of the measure, or to the clauses which the right rev. Prelate proposes to introduce, because, not knowing the nature of them, I feel the difficulty referred to by the noble Earl, of inclausing in a Bill of this nature any provisions with respect to the Church of England in the colonies. I have, therefore, felt satisfaction in hearing that the Government are prepared to consider the question—for undoubtedly it is a most important one—in a spirit of friendly improvement. The noble Earl has been good enough to hand me some papers to which he had alluded, with the view of showing the favour in which the Bill is regarded in the colonies; but I find that the points which met the approval of the colonies are the separation of Port Phillip and New South Wales, and the establishment of a separate legislature for Port Phillip. And, my Lords, the papers go on to say that if, in the consideration of the subject, it should be found impossible in this Session of Parliament to deal with it, the colonists pray that the portion of the law may be passed which separates Victoria from New South Wales. They then go to another important point, omitted from the consideration of the Bill of the Government, I mean the consideration of the franchise. The original law in this respect has been defective, for persons owning a large amount of property in the colony have not the privilege of the franchise, because they do not happen to be freeholders. The qualification as it exists is a very high one. It was based upon the high prices of 1842, and has not been altered in consequence of the low prices which have since prevailed. The noble Earl who has the Bill in charge appears to be himself of opinion that the federal portion of it is not absolutely essential. [Earl GREY dissented.] Well, then, it appears that the noble Earl looks on every portion of his Bill with equal fondness; or, if there be any part of it which he regards with peculiar tenderness, it is—as in the case of parents who love with especial fervour the child whose person is the least attractive—that particular portion which everybody else is disposed to regard with the smallest favour. However, I am not disposed to offer any factious opposition to this measure. If the noble Lord will consent that Port Phillip shall be separated

977
from New South Wales—if he will extend to Van Diemen's Land and the other colonies the existing institutions of New South Wales—if he will not take out of the hands of Parliament the power to make such arrangements with respect to the institution of a double chamber as may hereafter appear desirable—if he will make such amendments in the existing law as experience may prove to be expedient—I do not see that there will be any necessity for referring this Bill to a Select Committee. On the contrary, I, for one, will give my concurrence to the measure without further objection. But I confess that I do see evils and defects in this measure, which, unless they be remedied, will be more than sufficient to counterbalance all that it contains of good. I object to the introduction, without adequate information, of the principle of a federal constitution. I object most strenuously against that provision of the Bill which will enable the Queen, or Her Minister for the time being, on the application of any of these colonies, to establish, at any moment he may think fit, a federal constitution and government, thereby abdicating, and altogether abrogating, the legitimate authority of Parliament. I object to the 35th clause from the beginning to the end, for I believe that nothing can be more unconstitutional in principle, or more mischievous in operation. Now, the power proposed to be given to the single chamber to be formed under this Bill, simply that of introducing trifling amendments in the franchise, or small alterations in the amount required, in order to constitute a qualification, I should not be disposed to take exception to it; but I certainly am not prepared to place in the hands of any single legislative body of any single colony in the world so extravagant a power as that of determining whether there shall be one or two legislative chambers, or whether the element of appointment by the Crown shall be set aside in the composition of the single chamber. This was a power which he would be unwilling to entrust to any single legislative body of any single colony in the world, but least of all would he entrust it to a legislative body confessedly imperfect—a body from whose ranks were excluded a large portion of the most respectable members of the community it represented. It is all very well to say that the single chamber shall be invested with a power to cause the formation of another chamber. I believe I am warranted in saying that there is no
978
instance on record of a single chamber having volunteered to abdicate its power for the purpose of interposing, if not a monarchical or aristocratic, at least a conservative check to the democratic tendency of the chamber itself. I do not object to the continuance for the present of the colonial constitution as it now works in Australia; and though I am free to confess I only regard it as in a state of transition, I look forward to a double chamber as an improved mode of legislation to be adopted whenever the colonists are fit for it; but for the present I am content that the present constitution should be continued, provided the Government and the Parliament be not deprived of the salutary control which they are now permitted to exorcise over it. This power should, I think, be reserved to future Parliaments as it is now left to the present; but I certainly do think that there ought not to be allowed to the colonists a power more formidable still than that of legislating for themselves—the power of legislating for their future constitution and fundamental laws. I am fully sensible of the difficulty of drawing the line of demarcation between local and imperial concerns; but the question, however difficult, ought to be examined and determined; and certain I am that it would be much better to give the colonies a more unrestricted freedom with regard to all matters of a purely local character than to allow them the dangerous and obnoxious privilege of altering their constitution. The noble Lord concluded by stating that, if the clauses from 30 to 35 inclusive were omitted, he would take the remainder of the Bill as it stood, and would endeavor to prevail upon his right rev. Friend the Bishop of Oxford not to press his Motion for a Select Committee to a division; but if it should be contemplated to pass the Bill in its present most unconstitutional shape, he should certainly feel it to be his duty to offer it an uncompromising opposition.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he should wish to make some observations on the general principle of the Bill; but he should prefer postponing them until after the Bill had been committed.
EARL GREYreminded the noble Lord that he would be out of order in speaking on the general principle of the Bill in Committee. He had better make at once any observations he might wish to offer on the subject.
LORD STANLEYrose and asked whether

979
the noble Earl opposite could not find it consistent with his duty to give him (Lord Stanley) such an assurance as would at least enable him to abstain from voting, if it would not preclude the necessity of a division.
EARL GREYfeared he could give no such assurance as that required by the noble Lord. On the contrary, he felt bound to maintain the Bill in its present shape. The proposal for expunging the clauses from 30 to 35 was a very serious question. The noble Lord had accepted the first 30 clauses. His (Earl Grey's) own opinion was decidedly in favour of retaining the clauses proposed to be omitted; but still if their Lordships were to overrule him in that opinion, he should not consider that as a necessary reason for abandoning the Bill. But as the noble Lord had proposed that five clauses be absolutely struck out, it would be more convenient, before the House decided on rejecting the Bill on account of those clauses, that there should be a discussion upon them in Committee. He would, therefore, suggest that their Lordships go into Committee.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the noble Earl must not infer that he approved of the first 30 clauses of the Bill, for there was one provision, relating to which his noble Friend near him had given notice of an amendment, to which that would not apply; he meant the establishment of a double chamber in New South Wales. Until he knew the views of the Government, he could not give an assurance that he would not join the right rev. Prelate, and his conduct would be further influenced and altered with respect to the Amendment of his noble Friend, if the clauses from 30 to 35 were to be still retained.
EARL GREYsaid, that the best course would be to proceed to a division. But at the same time he hoped the noble Lord would remember that this was a Bill of great importance—that at least great responsibility was incurred in the rejection of it.
On Question,
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Non-Contents 34: Majority 13.
Resolved in the Negative.
Then the original Motion was (by leave) withdrawn; and House to be put into Committee to-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.