The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-04 00:00:00

FRIDAY E VEINING, JUNE- ' 4, 1848.

IMPERIAL PAR LIAMENT.

lIOUSE OF COMMONS.---(YEsTnRDAY.)
The S:.'EAKEII took the chair at four o'clock.

SUPPLY.
On the bringing up of the report,

Mr. lIORSMAN defended himself from the insinua-
tion thrown out on a former night, by the hon. member
for Wexford, relating to the manner in which he (Mr.
Eforsman) conducted his official business when Secretary
for Ireland.

Mr. McMAFION- -complained of the right hon. gen-
tleman selating his remarks on which. td found a charge
prejudicial to him (Jr. McMahon), whilst he had passed
over stronger remarks from his friends on the same sub-
ject. He (Mr. McMahon) had intended to have retracted
what he had said about the right hon. gentleman being
above his office, which was a matter of opinion ; but he
now thought he should bo able to prove that the right
hon, gentleman, so far from being above his office, and
looking down on it, was very much beneath it. The
Lou. and learned gentleman then referred to his state-
ments on a farmer occasion, and to the right hon. gen-
tleman's reply, and reiterated his charge against him in
not having trusted him, 39 one gentleman ought to trust
another, in matters of public business. The aristocratic
gentleman had selec:ed him (Kr. McMahon) as a vic-
tim, whilst he bad allowed the hon. and learned gentle-
man the member for Roscommon to make use of stronger
language against - -his official conduct and in his
presence without resenting it. The general impression in
Ireland was that the right hon. gentleman was the most
inefficient Secretary for Ireland they had ever had.
Sir G. GREY regretted the time of the hoase bad
been taken up in a personal difference beween the two
hon. gentlemen. He bore testimony to the efficient
manner the right hon. gentleman had discharged official
duties that came within his (Sir G. Grey's) knowledge
relative to Irish affairs.

Lord NAAS detailed the duties that devolved on the
Chief Secretary for Ireland, and said they were not of
that light and unimportant character which the right
hon. gentleman the member f Strood considered them
to be.

Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD said the right hon.
gentleman, during the time they were colleagues, paid
the greatest attention to his official duties, and appeared
to be well informed on Irish affairs. He also found him
courteous in manner, attentive to all applications made
to bim, and most anxious to give every information pos-
sib!e. He regretted to find the right hon. gentleman
(qr. Horsman) had disparaged the duties of the office
of Chief Secretary for Ireland.

Mr. VANCE complained of the conduct of the right
hon. genthman whilst ha teas Chief Secretary for
Ireland. He invariably put Irish bills at the bottom
of the list, and it was impossible to get from the right
hon. gentleman if ho intended to proceed with them.;
and Irish members were put to the inconvenience of
remaining ttl: the adjournment of the house to watch
the course he intended to pursue with them.
Mr. BLAND repeated his statement, made on a
former evening in Mr. Horsman's absence, to the effect
that he bad always met with great courtesy from that
gentleman.
Mr. BAGVVELL made a similar statement.
Mr. HORS M AN said a few words in explanation.
The remaining items in the report were then agreed to.

courts, but it waq found that it would be impossible to
do that in London.

Mr. WILLIAMS doubted whether it was expedient
to maintain a court of insolvency in London. • -
Mr. WALPOLE said a diminution of expenditure
might be effected by an amalgamation of the courts of
insolvency and bankruptcy, though not to any great ex-
tent immediately, because compensation would have to
be given to the judges and cfficers of the courts. It was
also under the consideration of Government whether it
would not be wise to abolish imprisonment for debt,
where it was unacclmpanied by fraud. (Hear.) .
Mr. J. FITZGERALD said that the amalgamations
of the bankruptcy and insolvency courts had been sue-
cessful in Ireland. .
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 35,1631. for the axpensea of the Court
of Probate.,
Mr. BUTLER wished to know whether this vote in-
cluded the expenses of the Prerogative-office ? The vote
was very large.
Mr. HAMILTON said the vote was large, and he
feared it would be larger ; but, on the other hand, the
sum received from fees was very considerable. The
amount received between January and May was 19,6521.
(Hear) It would be the duty of the government to
keep down the expenditure,
Mr. HADFIELD complained that the Court of Ad-
miralty had not been thrown open to the. whole profes-
sion. The public had given ample compensation, but
they had not got what bad been promised.
Mr, WILSON said that the fees had been fixed with
a view to make the court self-supporting. Of course that
was a speculation. When the salaries were fixed the
present judge proposed them at a low rate—also as an
experiment. The amount of fees and salaries was
therefore subject to revision.
Mr. WARREN said that the late Lord Chancellor
introduced a bill t 3 amend the Court of Probate Act,
and when that bill came to the House of Commons it
was his intention to move clauses throwing open the
Court of Admiralty to the whole profession.
Mr. SALISBURY said that considering the large
amount of compensation which had been given be
thought the e,,urt should be thrown open.
Mr. 11A.DFIEL D pressed foran expression of opinion
from the treasury bench.

Mr, WALPOLE had nothing to do with the bill, and
therefore could not give any explanation of the reason
why the clauses on the subj-ct were struck out in the
Lards. His own opinion wa., that all the ecclesiastical
courts should have been dealt with together. There was
a proviso in the act for the future union of the Probate
and Admiralty Courts under one judge.
The vote was then agreed to.

157,0501. for salaries—and expenses of county courts.
Lord DUNCAN said there was a reduction in the
total of this vote from last year, but there was an item
to which he wished to call the attention of the house,
that of the expense of providing court houses, which was
55,0001., an increase of 10,0001. on last year. By the
original act the treasurers wera obliged to provide court
houses, but in the last act a clause was inserted throw-
ing the expense on the country at large. A. deputation
had lately waited on the Earl of Derby with regard to
the cou❑ty courts in Scotland, and his lordship ex-
pressed an opinion that all such courts should be pro.
vided by the distrisits. It was most unfair to call on the
people of Scotland to provide county courts unless the
game principle was extended to the sheriff.' courts. He
begged to move that the vote be reduced by the sum
of 85,0001.

Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said that if the system of
the county courts was to be maintained in efficiency to
the extent the public required, it was absolutely neces-
sary that court houses should be provided. There was
a considerable decrease this year in the vote; the ex-
penses of the registry amounted to 272,0001., the fees
produced 216,0001. ; leaving 56,0001. to be provided for
by the vote. In addition to the vote there was a sum
of 87,0001. charged on the Consolidated Fund. With
regard to Scotland, the question was not then before
them, If the noble lord thought the system ought to be
extended to that country, he ought to introduce a bill on
the subject.

Sir G. C. LEWIS hoped his noble friend would not
prees his amendment ; tho vote for the registry was only
45,0001., although the hon. gentleman stated the diffe-
rence was 56,0001.

Mr. MACARTNEY remarked that in Ireland the
courts were provided at the expense of the county.
Mr. WILSON said that by the original act the ex-
pense of providing court houses was charged on thefees.
Before he left office his attention had been called to
some officers connected tsith these courts ; the high
bailiffs were ltrgely paid, but had very little to do ; one
judge appointed his brother-in-law, a medical practi-
tioner some miles off.
Mr. SALISBURY had before called attention to this
subject. The high bailiffs were not required at all, and
he hoped Government would take steps to do away with
them.

Mr. HAMILTON said that the difference between the
fees and expenses last year was 511,0001.; it was esti-
mated for next year at 45,0001. With regard to the
bailiffs, he was pursuing the inquiry into the subj
and hoped to be able to make some reduction.
Atter some further discussiou, the vote was agreed to.
On the vote for 25,428/. for the expenses of the police
courts of the metropolis,
Lord DUNCAN said on the last vote he was a,ked to
produce a cams where criminal courts were provided for
out of the consolidated fund, and here was one.

Mr. HADFIELD moved that the vote be reduced by
5,0001.
The CHAIRMAN asked that the bon. member should
move in respect to some particular item.
Mr. HADFIELD then moved that the first item of
7,430/. for clerks' salaries should be omitted.
Mr. WILLIA MS complained that the estimate was
not drawn in an intelligible manner.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said it should be more ex-
plicit next year.
Tne amendment wal negatived without a division.
Mr. D. NICOLL asked for explanation as to an item
of 2,0001. for rent of pretni-es, for 17,9001. had been ex-
pended this year in building new police offices.
Mr. HARDY explained that there were a great num-
ber of hou,es rented.

Mr. A.YRION said that the police of London was on
an entirely different footing from that of the country. It
was under Government control, and the inhabitants of
the metropolis had no right to interfere. The inhabi-
tan' s of the metropolis paid large sums of money for the
police, police-courts, and prisons; and the force was not
metropolitan, but national to a great extent.
Mr. COX quite concurred that it was desirable that
there should be no application to the consolidated fund
fur the police of the metropolis; but then their police force
should be on the same footing as that of the country.
Three-fourths of the expense of the police of the
by the Government to enable them to use the police metro-
polls was maintained by rates, and the other fourth was
paid
—to use them as foreign spies, to attend at places where
discussion societies were held, and to obtain evidence
against Dr. Bernard, or against some publisher. That
was the reason why one-fourth part of the charge was
plan :d on the consolidated fund.
Mr. HADFIELD said the country had to pay to-
wards other things for London. There were parks,
Westminster-bridge, and a park for Finsbury.
e paid for it ourselves.
LD—Yea; but 50,000/, had been asked
Mr. WILLIAMS said the inhabitants of the metropo-
forMilrrH: liCe°ll:Dou—fld oppose the whole grant.
IWE
metropo-
lis paid as much as 400,000/. a year for the police force,
and had nothing to do with the management of it.
The vote was agreed to.
On the vote of 128,607/. for the police force,
Mr. GRIFFITH wished to make some observation as
to the impediments of the public streets. (A. laugh.)
Many of the streets were infested by prostitutes. In
King-street, St. James's, you could not pass without be-
ing impeded by these unfortunate women ; and he wished
to know what was the duty of the metropolitan police
in this respect.
Mr. C. GILPIN did not know how it was, but per-
haps hon. gentlemen bad more personal attractions than
he bad—(laughter)—and that might account-for his not
being insulted when going home from the house. He
wished to ask the S cretary for the Home Department if
he could give any explanation as to the very large in-
crease in the amount to be v.itel in payment of salaries.
There was an increase of about 25,0001. He wished to
know whether there was any sum paid for the expense
of foreign police. The increasevsvas from 103,6451. to
128 6071.

Hr. WALPOLE said that a large additional sum was
raised last year for the improveuient of vat ions new dis-
tricts, but he was not prepared with any more detailed
explanation of the increase.

Islr. MASSEY confirmed this statement, adding that
the rapid increase of London and the F pri nging up of
new neighbourhoods must frequently cause increased
demands under this bead.

Mr. D. NICOLL ail that the increased txpense of the
p ,lice might, to some extent, be accounted for by the
variety of duties they had to perform. They were often
employed in attending private parties and public compa-
nies, and recently it came under his notice as a magis-
trate that the police bad been constantly employed in
protecting one of the worst of the recently suppressed
dens of Many in the metropolis. Besides the increase
Aprotection
an
o bse
r wasv t
i from
or eqer
in the expense, this practice was attended with anotherevil, viz., the absence of the police from the streets when
ired.
their f
te
a or most
m Mr.
ALPOLE,
Mr. AYRTON complained of the haste with which
much of the police legislation was carried through the
house.
Mr. D. G RIFFIT El again complained of the obstruc-
tion to be met in the public thoroughfares at night in
consequence of the prevalence of what was popularly
known as the social evil.
Mr. WALPOLE said that power was given to the
police to preserve order in the public streets, and so far
as possible order would be preserved. But he appre-
hended that to go further than pr3serving order and de-
cency in the streets would be a stretch of arbitrary power
which would be highly oljeetionable, and one to which
be could not give his sanction.
After an observatien from Sir J. TRELAWNEY,
Mr. WILSON entered into some explanations respect-
ing the causes cf increase, which he said were mainly two
—viz,, the creation of new districts, and the demands of
the superannuation fund, which, previous to the present
grata, was nearly bankrupt. Three-fourths of the vote
was paid I,y the lis, e metrep
' • and only one-fourth by the
consolidated fund. - -

, -
Mr. HADFIELD cotnplained that the country should
be taxed for the metropolis, and divided against the vote.
For the vote
For the amendment
The vote was consequently agreed to.
3,4951. for this Queen's Prison, Scotland, was also
awieed to.
o.i the vote of 3,3421. for the Lord-Advocate and Soli-
citor-General of Scotland,
Mr. MenAHON complained that the cost of admi-
ciAtring justice in Scotland v;ils ono:* higher than in

England, and drew attention to several defects, as he
conßidered them, in the Scotch law.
Mr. EWART eapressed a IfeVa-that the attention of
the Government would
_he directed to the appointment
a.public prt-r,acutor for England; siinilar to the procu-
rator-fiscal in Scotland.

Mr. MILES hoped the Government would, daring
the recess, take the recommendation of the committee
which sat some time ago on this subject into considera-
tion, with a view to the carrying it into effect.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that his at-
tention had been so much engaged on other subjects of
law reform that he had not yet bad an opportunity of
turning his attention to this particular branch of the sub-
ject. The question of appointing a Minister of Justice
was under consideration, and he hoped soon to submit
several bills for the purpcse of consolii:ating the statutes,
and to move for a committee for considering that and
other matters of a similar nature; and he hoped to be
able to take into consideration during the recess that
particular subject to which his hon. friend (Mr, Miles)
had now directed his attention, viz , the ricotnmenda-
tion of the committee in refertece, to the propriety of ap-
pointing a public prosecutor for England.
Mr. M‘MAIION contended that criminal justice was
-better transacted in England than it was either in Scot-
ltnd or Ireland, and instanced as proof that the directors
of the Royal British Bank bad been brought to punish-
ment, whereas the directors of the Western Bank of
Scotland, with all the appliances of procurators-fiscal
and public prosecutors that (xisted in Scotland, had not
yet been put upon their trial.
The vote was agreed to.
5,570/. was voted for the expense of penal prosecu-
tions in Scotland.

18,577/. for expenses of Court of Session, Scotland,
25,0001. for the charge of procurators-fiscal, and some
other votes connected with the administration of the law
in Scotland, were then passed.

On the vote of 15,1181. f•or the Registry House in
Scotlsnd,

Mr. COWAN said there a as an item of 1,0001. for the
s3la-y of the Registrar of Seising. He wished to know
whether this was not a sinecure office, and whether a
Treasury minute was not made two or three years ago,
that wnen a vacancy occurred it should be abolished. Rs
wished also to aek whether the late Government did not,
when in a moribund state, appoint a gentleman to this
lucrative office.

Mr. WILSON said his hon. friend was quite right in
stating that about two or three years ago the Treasury did
cal the attention of the Home Depaitment to the facithat
thiA office was a sinecure. The salary at that time was
1,5001. It was then proposed that the office should be
abolished, but the Lord Advocate proposed that the
duties should be amalgamated with those of some other
cffice. The appointment was then made, but the salary
was reduced to 1,0001.
The LORD ADVOCATE said there had been no
amalgamation of duties. At the same time he was bound
t.) say that he considered the office absolutely essential,
and therefore he entirely approved of what was done in
the way of filling up this office, There was a desire that
the different local registries should be centralised in one
place at Ed nburgh. There was no doubt the effect of
that would be to diminish considerably the expense of
the whole establishment, and he had been engaged in
drawing up a bill to effect that object.
Mr. COWAN said he felt so strongly on this subject
that he would move the vote be reduced by 1,0001.

Sir G. C. LEVV IS observed that the Lord Advocate had
explained that the office was necessary, and that the per-
son who was appointed discharged the duties effectively.
Mr. DUNLOP supported the amendment.
Mr. C. BRUCE bore testim my to the ability with
which the Registrar of Seisins fulfilled his duties.
Mr. DUNDAS remarked that the office was given to
a great supporter of the late Minister, and he thought
that giving it to him under the circumstances was in
come measure a job.
Atter a little more conversation, the CHAIRMAN put
the amendment, which he declared to have been carried.
lie was then proceeding rapidly to put the whole vote,
when

Mr. JACKSON interposed, and entreated the hon.
gentleman not to go quite at the rate of GO miles au
hour. (Loud cries of • Hear, hear.")
Mr. WILSON then resumed the discussion, remark-
ing that the functionary whose salary had been stopped,
wa-4 the only per,on responsible for tt!c accuracy of the
work performed by his clerks. Some ycar,;a4o the per-
son who held the office had actua ly had to make goo i a
loss of between 3,.001. and 4,0001., which had been oc-
casioned by an error.

Mr. MILES observed that the oaly question was
whether two years ago this office had been declared to
be a sinecure. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILSON said it was true that a recommenda-
tion had been made two years ago that on the nest va-
cancy occurring it should not be filled up—(hear, hear)
--but a correspondence on the subject had afterwards
taken place between the Lard Advocate and the Home•
office, and it had been determined to contiaue the office
iu tne modified shapA.

The LORD ADVOCATE said that the Receiver, if
his ,alary was stopped, cont.! not of course be expected
to perform the duties of the office, and no assistant would
be responsible. (Hear.)
It was here objected by several members on the Mi-
❑isterial side of the house that they had challenged the
chairman's decision, and that there ought to have been
a division.

The CEIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sug-
gested that as there seemed to have been some mistake
abut putting the question, the vote had better be with-
drawn, in order that it might be reconsidered. (Hear,
near, and "No, no.")
Mr. KINNAIRD said be had never in his life heard
a questi.m put more distinctly. (Hear, hear )
Mr. BAXTER, recurring to the question of the vote
itself, submitted that though the committee had de-
prived the Receiver of his ka!ary, his responsibility had
sill remained.

Sir G. C. LEWIS thought that as the only reason why
the Chairman's decision had not been challenged in time
was an inadvertence, it would be unusual and discour-
teous not to allow the vote to be withdrawn. (" No, no.")
Tae CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he was a perfectly impartial witness in this matter,
for he had not at the moment been attending to what
was going on. Afterwards, finding that there was
some little confusion, he had asked the reason of his
friends around him. He still thought that the with-
drawal of the motion would be the best coarse.

Mr. HORSMAN said the ounissionOr gentlemen
opposite to challenge the Chairman's decision had not
risen from any inadvertence. It had arisen from inde-
cision. (Hear.) The ge4leinaa opposite did not make
up their winds what course to pursue till it was too late.
(Cheers.)

Lord J. MANNERS denied the aeon! au of the
right hon. gentleman's impression. He had himself said
" No."

Mr. HORSMAN—The noble lord, no doubt, said
"No" when the question was first put ; but he believed
he had done so alter the chairman said "The Ayes
have it."

Lord J. MANNERS--That was not the fact. I
raid "No" on both occasions. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAMILTON admitted that the fault was his. It
was his duty to have challenged the vote; and he sup-
posed he said "Neat the wrong moment. (Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE declared that nothing could be
further from his intention than to impugn the conduct
of the chairman, than whom he had never seen a gentle-
man conduct himself in the chair with greater fairness
and propriety. (Hear' hear.) At the same time he
would remind the hoese tbat the Government
had no interest in resisting his decision in the
present instance, except what arose from their wish to
carry out the assurance given by the late administration.
Lord PA LMERS roNsuggeste4 that if the diminished
vote should be agread to, on bringing up the report it
would be competent to the Government to move that it
be recommitted.

Tue CIIAIRHAN said that course would be quite
consistent with the rules of the house.

Toe vote for 14,1181. 10s. 7d. was then agreed to, as
were also tt.e following ,votes :-
1,1241. for the Commissary Clark of Edinburgh.
1,6751. for the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland.
26,622/. kr criminal prosecutions and other law
charzes in Ireland.

3,7261. for the Court of Chancery, Irelard.
2,599/. for the Court of Queen's thud), Ireland.
3,4801. for the Court of Common Pleas, Ireland.
3,9711. for the Court of Exchequer, Ireland.
2001. for taxing-officers and their clerks, Ireland-.
5,8491. for salaries of registrars to the judges, Ireland.
1,9501. for the consolidated offices of Writs, Four
Courts,

2,348/. for the office of Registrar of Judgments,

9,5461. for the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency,
Ireland.
8,8721. for the Court of Probate. Ireland.
8301. for the Dublin Revi,ing► Barrister.
2671. for the Clerk of the Court of Errors, Ireland.
1,6001. for the Police Justices, Dublin.
24.5001. for the Dublin Metropliran
384,0001. for the Constabulary of Ireland.
17,7001. for the inspection and superintendence of
prisons.
140,0231. for the maintenance of prisoners in county
gaols, reformatory institutions, and lunatic asylums.
24,7151. for exprisas connected with the transporta-
tion of convicts.

225,9681. for the expense of the come': establishment
in the colonies.

The house then resumed,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
The order for the second reading of this bill was post-
poned till Thursday the 17th inst.
JOINT•STOCK BANKING COMPANIES BILL,
Mr. HEADLAM moved that the house should go
into committee on this Lill.

After a conversation, several members oljeeting to
proceed with the hill at that hour,
Mr. BUCHANAN moved the syljournment of the
debate, and the house divided
For the adjournment 77
Against it
Mr. WILSON rose to move an instruction to the
committee.

Mr. WALPOLE objected that this could not now be
d'ne, a division having taken place ou the question of
going into committee,
Tito SPEAKER hell that Mr. Wilson was in order.
Mr. WILSON moved that it be an instruction to the
conmittee to extend the provisions of the bill to insur-
ance companies.

Mr. CO IN opposed the motion. He said that
Liva years ago the hon. gentleman wag of a very different
opinion, and he expressed that opinion as chairman of a
committee which sat to inquire into the subject of ir.-
snrance companies.
Mr. LYGON rose to order, asking the Speaker whether
the house was not precluded from entertaining this
motion.

The SPEAKER said that the rule applied to the most

,

convenient mode of conducting the business of the
house in this respect, which was thought to be by
making a motion of thii kind on the motion for leaving
.the _oJmir, but them was ❑othing to prevent the course
nr)?? takea from being pursued.

Mr. COWAN renewed his observationi against the
motion, stating that he had hoped the hon. gentleman
would have introduced a bill founded on the report of
the committee in question for the purpose of amending
the existing state of things with reference to insurance
companies. He moved that the motion be rejected.
Mr. HEADLAM said that insurance companies
could now obtain limited liability by means of their
policies, but 'he did not object to the extension of the
bill to those companies.
Mr. BUCHANAN objected to going on with what
he believed would be a very long discussion.
Mr: WARREN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Sir. W. HE4VIRCOTE thought the form of the in.
structio❑ was not in conformity with the rules of the
house ; it ought to be tlt the committee have " power"
to extend the provisions of this bill, and the proper time
for discassing it would be iu the committee itself, and
there need be no lengthened debate on it now.
Mr. REA.DLA.NI proposed that they should pass the .
instructio❑ as giving power to the committee, and he
could not then ask to go any further to-night.
Mr. HENLEY said there was some difficulty in' the
f.,rot of the motioc. It was put as an amendment on
the motion for going into committee, and if it was car-
iied, the motion for going into committee could not be
put,

Mr. BOUVERIE said the form of putting the in-
struction was not usual or convenient, for any one
voting for it would vote against going into committee.
He suggested its withdrawal.
Mr. WILSON had n,) objection to withdraw the mo-
tion, on the understanding that no further steps were
taken.

Too motion for the instruction was then withdrawn,
and the debate adjourned to this day.
OXFORD AND CAMBRID.3rE UNIVERSITIES,
&c., ESTATES BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered and ordered to
be read a third time this day.
HAINAULT FOREST (ALLOTMENT OF COM-
MONS) BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2,

Mr. CAIRD proposed that the remuneration of the
surveyor should not exceed 2001. About 6,0001. had
been already expended in the survey, and as 2001. was
considered sufficient remnneration for the commissioner,
he thought it ought to ba sufficient for the surveyor.
(Heer, hear.)
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON opposed the amendment.
The house was cleared for a division, but none took
place, the amendment having been accopted by th•
government _

The clause then passed as amended.
The other clauses were agreed to.
ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS LEASING
BILL.
Tl.is bill was read a third time.
PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.
Mr. L. KING moved the third reading of this bill -
Mr. BENTINCK said that it was not his intention
to give any further opposition to the bill. (Cheers.) He
retained his opinion with regard to it, and only regretted
that by one of those accidents which were sometimes so
Common, they had not the benefit of the noble viscount
(Palmerston). who left his seat about two minutes ego.
(Laughter.)

Mr. DRUMMOND repeated his objection to the bill,
which involved a very important principle, but unfor-
tunately questions of principle were not paid much
attention to in that house. The noble lord the member
for the City of Landon referred to the act of Queen
Anne, but that act bad no more to do with this question
than the man in the moon. This was one of the five
points of the charter, which was carried with the sanc-
tion of Et Conservative Government. (Hear, hear.) He
hoped they would hear no more of the great Conserva-
tive principle of the constitution. (Cheers.)
Tue bill was read a third time and passed.
THE FUNDED DEBT.

On the motion of the CH&NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
13ave Wai given to bring in a bill to repeal certain pro-
visions for the issue out of the consolidated fund of fixed
amounts for the reduction of the funded debt. The bill
was subsequently read a first time.
FOREIGN•OFFICE RECONSTRUCTION.
On the motion of Mr. HOPE the following member"
were nomioatei as the committee on this subject :—Mr.
Hope, Lord John Manners, Sir Benjamin Rail, Mr.,
Hamilton, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Akroyd, Mr. Buxton, Lold
Robert Cecil, Lord Elcbo, Mr. Seymour Fi'zgerald,
Mr. Lygon, Sir John Shelley, Mr. Stephenson, Mr.
Stirling and Mr. Tite. Power to send for persons,
papers, and records : five to be the quorum.
The house adjourned at a quarter past one.