sury minute awarding him 2,500l. The item would be found in the account of "civil contingencies" laid before the House. MR. DISRAELI, while readily acknowledging the great services rendered by this Gentleman, could not forget that the Order of the Bath had been conferred upon him-a reward bestowed as for services which could not be paid for by a pecuniary grant. The vote of 2,500l. was surely conceived in rather bad taste; and a preux chevalier, like Sir C. Trevelyan, bearing his blushing honours, might well be supposed to recoil from receiving an extra year's salary. MR. SPOONER considered that the Government had no right to reward any public servant, however great and meritorious his services might be, without coming to the House of Commons and stating his services, and letting the reward come from the House and not from the Minister himself. It was a dangerous principle. MR. BRIGHT asked from what fund the money was paid? Was it from the fund voted for the relief of Irish distress? If it was, it might be a necessary salary for distributing that relief. He also wished to have an explanation with regard to the sum of 8,6501., which was distributed among the officers and crews employed in the service of Ireland during the period of 'distress. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER had stated before that the former sum was paid out of the civil contingencics, and that the other was contained in the estimates then before the House. MR. GLADSTONE condemned the conduct of the Government in this matter. It was their duty to have submitted a vote to the House; not to have taken on themselves to reward a public servant. If there was one rule connected with the public service which more than another ought to be scrupulously observed, it was this, that the salary of a public officer, more especially if he were of high rank, ought to cover all the services which he might be called upon to render. Any departure from that rule must be dangerous. The particular payment to Sir C. Trevelyan was not even mentioned in the estimates before the Committee. All that the estimates stated was, that 4,0451. were required on account of services performed in connexion with the distress in Scotland and Ireland. Who could suppose that a single charge to the amount of 2,500l. was included in what appeared to be an aggregate of small items? If it had not been for the hon. Member for Middlesex, the House would have known nothing of the matter. LORD J. RUSSELL said, that the subject had been referred to in the report of the Committee which sat on the civil contingencies; and therefore the House was not indebted exclusively to the hon. Member for Middlesex for the notice of it. The Government thought that the services of Sir C. Trevelyan were deserving of reward; and the question was, whether they should bestow the reward during the recess, or wait until Parliament met, and then propose it. They decided on the former course. MR. GOULBURN begged to say, that he had laboured with Sir C. Trevelyan for many years, and was deeply impressed with the value of his services; and he had no doubt that, whether he had applied his talents to the ordinary business of the Treasury or to the extraordinary business of the famine of Ireland, he had done so in a manner to entitle him to the cordial approbation both of Government and of Parliament; and if he (Mr. Goulburn) said anything as to the mode in which the remuneration had been granted to him, it was not for the purpose of disparaging Sir C. Trevelyan's services or doing him dishonour, but from a feeling that the honour due to him had not been properly paid. According to all precedent the House of Commons ought to have fixed the amount of Sir C. Trevelyan's remuneration; and the House had just reason to complain that they had not been asked to do so. With respect to the other question, of the abolition of one Lord of the Treasury, he begged to say, that he entertained an opinion entirely at variance with that expressed by the Committee. LORD J. RUSSELL said, that however Sir C. Trevelyan might have employed his intelligence, the Ministers of the Crown were responsible for his acts. The Public Works Act was adopted after several meetings of the Cabinet with Lord Besborough; and whatever errors might have been committed, the Government were to blame for them. Sir C. Trevelyan stated in his evidence that he worked three hours before breakfast; that he then went to the Treasury, where he worked all day; and that the pressure upon him was such, that he wondered that he had been able to get through it alive. If the Government had done wrong in including the vote in the civil contingencies, he hoped that their error would not be visited upon one of the most intelligent and laborious officers that he had ever known. MR. B. OSBORNE said, he must really recall the attention of the House to the question before it, with which he would not consent to mix up the policy of the Government in Ireland. The question was, whether a certain sum of money should have been given to this officer, from any fund whatever, without the consent of Parliament? He thought that the whole transaction was illegal. Vote agreed to. ceived the support of a united Government in the other House. He supported the propriety of the amendments, which, he said, had been adopted with the best intentions. He objected to the amendments. of the Commons, as they might lead to jobbing in the local boards. He deeply regretted what had passed as to this Bill; but at the same time he would not, on his part, even if he had the hope of inducing their Lordships to agree with him in rejecting any of these amendments, give the House of Commons an excuse for rejecting this Bill. The Bill was not what it ought to be; it was not what he trusted it would be, but it was still a great public good, and The House resumed. Committee to sit they should not have, through him, the again. House adjourned at Two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, August 15, 1848. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Steam Navigation: Assessionable Manors Commissioners (Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster). Reported.-Constabulary Force (Ireland); Parliamentary excuse of depriving the public of it. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE agreed that it was necessary to waive their Lordships' amendments, at the same time. regretting that the Commons had not acceded to them. He and his noble and learned Friend had entertained a strong hope that the House of Commons would have waived, as regarded this Bill, that Electors; Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Proclamations on portion of their privileges which, although Fines (Court of Common Pleas); Churches. 3a and passed:-Unlawful Oaths Acts (Ireland) (Continu. ance and Amendment); Militia Ballots Suspension. PETITIONS PRESENTED. From King's Sutton, and several other Places, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays. From Halfmorton, North Uist, and several Churches (Scotland).—From the Parishes of St. Marylebone, and St. Luke, for the Prevention of Sunday other Places, for Facilitating the Attainment of Sites for Trading.-From Parish Schoolmasters within the Presbytery of Cupar, for the Improvement of Parish Schools of Scotland. PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. LORD CAMPBELL moved the consideration of the Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amendments to the Public Health Bill, and after stating the amendments made by the Commons to their Lordships' amendments, the noble Lord said that it was for their Lordships to choose whether they would waive their amendments, or throw out this Bill. There was no alternative it was hopeless to insist on their Lordships' amendments. He trusted that their Lordships would show an example of moderation and forbearance; and, for the sake of the safety of the Bill, that they would agree to what the Commons had proposed, and would be satisfied with the amendments which they had accepted, waiving those which they had rejected. The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH said, that after what had taken place in this House, their Lordships had a right to expect that their amendments would have re sacred in many constitutional respects, were impediments in matters of this kind. LORD REDESDALE said, of all the clauses in the Bill he considered that relating to the consumption of smoke to have undergone the greatest care; and he very much regretted its rejection by the Commons. The clause had been introduced by the Committee upstairs, with the full sanction of Her Majesty's Government; he therefore thought the Government were to blame for having allowed it to be struck out by the Commons. The reason assigned for its rejection was the reverse of the fact, namely, that it was the subject of separate legislation. Every attempt to make it so had failed; while, on the contrary, as a subject in connexion with other measures it had always succeeded. In Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and Derby, the enactment had been applied; why, therefore, it should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill he could not understand. It was essentially a poor man's question, for the weavers of this town were obliged to work from morning till night with every window of their small rooms closed, because the smoke which came from the neighbouring factories injured their work. The parties who were against the abolition of this nuisance were the great chimney owners. They were a small class, but a very important one. If, however, the Govern ment gave way to that influence, there would be no chance of any measure on this subject being carried. He hoped the Government would assent to the reintroduction of the clause. LORD PORTMAN regretted as much as his noble Friend, that these clauses had been rejected by the Commons. He thought, however, that it would be unwise to risk such a Bill, by pressing this clause at such a late period of the Session. He trusted that at an early period of the next Session a Bill would be introduced to remedy this evil, and which he hoped would prove suc cessful. The DUKE of ARGYLL entirely concurred in the feelings of regret which had been expressed, that the Commons had rejected the amendments introduced by their Lordships. LORD CAMPBELL in reply, said, that the Protestant Inhabitants of the United Parishes of PAROCHIAL DEBT AND AUDIT BILL. On the Motion for bringing up the Report, MR. C. BULLER stated, that the ob ject of this Bill had been much misunderstood. It did not increase the power of the Poor Law Commission, or aggravate the severity of the present law. On the contrary, it limited the one, and decreased thorise certain payments of the boards of the other. Its object was, in fact, to auof the existing poor-law. The present guardians not allowed by the strict letter system of auditing had had the effect of making the law unduly stringent upon this head. The fourth clause was the most he could assure the House that the Goimportant one in the Bill, giving, as it did, vernment had used every exertion to carry power to the Commissioners to hear and these amendments; but they had been un- decide on appeals with reference to allowsuccessful, in consequence of the irregular ances and disallowances, and to decide combination of parties against them. It was not until the Government saw that He had received from all parts of the county the merits of each individual case. upon there was no chance of success that they general expressions of satisfaction at the were induced to abandon all hope of carry-provisions of the Bill, and the prospect ing these amendments. He trusted, howthey held out of mitigating many of the ever, that they would be carried into effect severities complained of under the present at some future period. He was glad to law. find the unanimity which prevailed as to the course to be pursued by their Lordships; and he trusted that the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) would not persist in his proposal, but take the judicious advice of the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough). This Bill was not now so perfect or beneficial as it might be, still it contained many most beneficial enactments. The EARL of DESART expressed a hope that some arrangement would take place so as to put the privileges of both Houses on a better footing than they now were, as many of them were productive of great inconvenience. Commons' Amendments agreed to. Report received. being only thirty Members present. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, August 16, 1848. MINUTES.] Public Bills.-1o Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); 20 Labouring Poor (Ireland). Reported.-Sheep, &c. Contagious Diseases Prevention. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir R. H. Inglis, from the Town of Youghal, and its Vicinity, for declaring the Agitation for Repeal of the Union with Ireland to be High Treason.-By Lord Alfred Hervey, from Inhabitants of Brighton, for Adoption of Vote by Ballot.By Sir R. H. Inglis, from the Village of Wolvey, Warwickshire, for Discouragement of Idolatry in India.By Mr. Octavius Duncombe, from the Township of Hawes, Yorkshire, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day. By Mr. Pole Carew, from several Persons connected with the Mines in Cornwall, against the Copper and Lead Duties Bill.-By Mr. Cobden, from the Inhabitants of Henley-upon-Thames, Oxford, in favour of a Revision of Taxation.-By Mr. Spooner, from the Trustees of the Rugby Charity, for Exemption from the Charitable Trust Regulations Bill.-By Dr. Bowring, from Inhabitants of Heywood, Lancashire, in favour of Secular Education. By Mr. Cardwell, from the Proprietors of Bedford New Mills, in the Parish of Leigh, Lancashire, for an Alteration of the Factories Act.-By Mr. Christy, from Alexander Isbister, for Inquiry into the Conduct of Robert MacTaggart, late Schoolmaster under the Poor Inquiry respecting his Case.-By Sir W. Somerville, from John Classon, of the City of Dublin, for Licensing the Frederick William Campin, of 210, Strand, for Alteration from the Clergy of the Diocese of Elphin, Ireland, for an Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).-By Mr. Octa vious Duncombe, from the Board of Guardians of the Helmsley Union, Yorkshire, for an Alteration of the hart, from the Presbytery of Hamilton, Lanarkshire, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill. SHEEP, &c., IMPORTATION PROHIBI- On the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill, wards of 80 per cent, of the sheep at- LORD GEORGE BENTINCK could not but take occasion to offer his thanks to Her Majesty's Government; indeed, it would be the height of ingratitude on his part did he not, in the name of the farmers of England, render to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, his and their thanks for and congratulations on the courage with which he had come forward to take this-the first retrogressive step-this, the first step towards the repeal of their free-trade measures. The House would not forget that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, the source whence the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord opposite derived their commercial policy, had at a time when mutton was 7d. per pound, thought it right to admit duty free the MR. LABOUCHERE acknowledged sheep of Germany as a benefit and a boon that a compliment proceeding from the to the poor people of this country. But noble Lord was so rare that it certainly what had been the consequence? Only came upon his ears with a pleasing sound; 100,000 or 120,000 sheep had been im- and if in this instance he could honestly acported in the course of two years-in fact, cept it, he would be happy to do so. But he about two days' supply for Smithfield did not think that the noble Lord was jusmarket, and now in the second year of tified in saying that he had shown any coufree trade, they found Her Majesty's Min- rage in departing from the principles of free isters obliged to come forward with a mea- trade when he introduced this Bill—not sure prohibiting the importation of the the most ardent free-trader would contend agricultural produce of foreign countries. that free trade implied the admission of And why? Because the great boon of diseased stock, or of articles, whether free trade had been the means of importing living or dead, which would be likely to into this country a foul, fatal, and con- spread contagion or generate disease. He tagious disease, which, as they were told would take the opportunity of saying that on the high authority of the hon. Member he had recently received from our consuls for Westbury, had ravaged the flocks of abroad valuable statistical information on Germany for many years, and which, ac- this subject, to which he wished the atcording to the authority of the inspector of tention of the agricultural public to be disheep at Norwich, was unknown in Eng-rected. The general impression among land until September last-a disease so fatal in its consequences that the inspector in question stated that in no instance less than 25 per cent, and in many cases up our consuls was, that the only real way of checking the progress of the disease was by inoculation. Every other way was ineffectual; but inoculation was found to re Bill read a third time and passed. SUPPLY-INTERVENTION IN ITALY. House in Committee of Supply. On the question that 57,5001. be granted to complete the amount required for the salaries and expenses of the Foreign Department, being proposed, duce the rate of mortality to a very small | then took place was an unnecessary one. amount. There was a prejudice among It is in the recollection of every Gentleman veterinary surgeons against inoculation, that a very remarkable incident occurred he believed; but in foreign countries, at the capital of one of Her Majesty's allies where they had the benefit-if it could be that a Minister, who may be styled the called a benefit-of experience, the uni- virtual representative of the Queen of Engversal conclusion was, that inoculation was land, was expelled from that capital; and the only real preventive against the spread I do not think that the House of Commons, of the contagion. or our constituents, or Her Majesty's Ministers, can for a moment maintain that some observations on an event so remarkable, almost, I might say, unequalled, constituted any surplusage of discussion in this House. In both those cases the discussions, so far as any allusions to the Government were concerned, were conducted in any other spirit than that of party acerbity. Notwithstanding the important events which had occurred, and the favourable opportunities offered to the Opposition, and which at another time and in another age, I doubt not, would have been readily seized, there have been only those two very legitimate occasions on which subjects connected with our external relations have been brought before the House; and, certainly, in both those instances Her Majesty's Ministers have no right to complain of the spirit in which those discussions were conducted, or of the objects which they sought to attain. I now feel it my duty to call the attention of this Committee to another branch of our foreign relations, and one to which, from its vast importance and the consequences to their constituents that may ensue, I conceive it is incumbent on them to give their earnest consideration. The subject to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee is the state of Italian politics, and our relations at this moment with the Italian States. It had been my intention, on looking over the various items to be brought before us on these miscellaneous estimates, to have called the attention of the Committee to the subject on the vote of money for one of the Ministers of the Crown, namely, the Lord Privy Seal. I had thought that that would have been a very appropriate occasion for introducing this interesting subject; because he is an individual who has figured in a very conspicuous manner in the transactions which have taken place in reference to Italy; and because it will be totally impossible to place the circumstances fairly before the consideration of the Committee without adverting to that nobleman. But on reflection it appeared to me that this would give to the observations I wished to put before the Committee MR. DISRAELI said: Whatever may be the justice of some complaints we have heard from Her Majesty's Ministers as to the time of this House being occupied by too much discussion-complaints, by the by, which I cannot admit to be valid there is certainly one Member of the Government who, I think, has no right whatever to join in those complaints. I think that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, so far as his department is concerned, cannot for a moment pretend that any criticisms on the policy which he has recommended, or of the transactions which have occurred abroad, have given rise, during this momentous and protracted Session, to any very frequent or prolonged discussions. Indeed, though this year has witnessed, throughout Europe, events more important than probably have occurred within the recollection of the vast majority of this House, I cannot at this moment recall more than two occasions on which the attention of this House has been called to anything connected with our external relations. For one of those occasions I confess that I myself am responsible; but in that instance I was warranted in calling the attention of the House of Commons to the circumstance that an ancient ally had claimed the fulfilment of a guarantee from England; and the sympathy expressed by the House when I ventured to make those observations on the position of England and Denmark, at least showed that, however imperfect my advocacy of that subject may have been, it was not considered by the House intrusive. There was another instance of a discussion on foreign topics; and I should be very much surprised if any Member of the Government can for a moment pretend that the discussion which |