to introduce the Bill which he had prepared he would give ample notice of his intention to do so. THE IRISH REPRESENTATION. QUESTION. the Irish and Scotch Bills, and all three measures were before the House together; and if the same course was not pursued in 1854, it was only because the English Bill had no sooner been laid on the table than it became evident no progress could be made with it on account of the impending war. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply to the hon. Member for the King's County, stated that Ireland had recently got a Reform Bill of her own, and he seemed to imply that there was no occasion for doing much more, the Irish Members being satisfied with things as they were. It was true that an important and beneficial measure was passed by the Government of the noble Lord the Member for London; but when the noble Lord introduced his English Bill in 1852, although the Irish Franchise Act was then only two years old, he announced his intention to propose further changes in the representation of the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he had no prejudices whatever about Irish Reform. But, if not predjudices, the Government were bound to have opinions and intentions on such a subject, and, if so, he could see no reason why they should not communicate them at once to the House. The knowledge of what they intended to do in Ireland and Scotland might throw light upon their English measure, and he hoped, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would still favour the House with, not a detailed, but a general statement of the intentions of Government with regard to the Irish representation. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, he wished to ask what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the Bill to amend the Representation of the People of Ireland. He did not think that the Government had treated the Irish Members or the Irish people fairly with respect to the question of Parliamentary Reform. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced, the other night, his Bill for amending the representation of the people of England, though he made a long, able, and elaborate speech, he made no allusion whatever to the intended Bill for Ireland; and when a question was addressed to him upon that subject by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. O'Brien), he contented himself with saying, that after the English Bill had been read a second time, and after a great many other things had been done, he would submit the Irish measure to the House. The way in which the Government were dealing with this matter was opposed to all precedent, and was unreasonable not to say unfair in its character. When the noble Lord the Member for London introduced his plan of Parliamentary Reform in 1831, he gave the House a full statement of the principles and provisions of the intended Bills for Ireland and Scotland; and on every other occasion, although the English Bill was taken singly, the main provisions of the other measures were laid MR. VANCE said, that as representing before the House. In June, 1832, when one of the largest constituencies in Ireland, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) again he was anxious to observe that the circumintroduced his Bill, he unintentionally stances of England and Ireland, as regardomitted alluding to Ireland, on which Sired Parliamentary Reform, were entirely Robert Peel remarked that the Govern- different. For example, England had had ment ought to make known their intentions respecting Ireland and Scotland, inasmuch as it was impossible fully to judge of the English Bill without knowing in what way the representation of those countries was to be adjusted. Upon that, Lord Stanley, who was then Secretary for Ireland, rose and promised an early introduction of the Irish Bill, and accordingly it was introduced and read a first time some days before the English Bill was read a second time. In 1852, when the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) introduced his Bill, it was almost immediately followed by but one Reform Bill, whilst there had been several for Ireland. Thus, they had the Act of Union, when all the close boroughs were swept away, and only the most considerable towns left to return Members. Then they had the Reform Bill of 1832, and subsequently the Bill creating the county occupation franchise. Ireland was in possession of a county occupation franchise of £12; he had heard no complaints with regard to the present state of things, and he thought that all the interests of Ireland were pretty well represented in this House-the Protestant interest, the QUESTION. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY said, he wished for a moment to advert to the excess of expenditure in the Army Estimates for the year 1857 and 1858. He wished some information to be given to the House respecting this very considerable bill in. curred about two years ago. This sum of £1,050,000 had been spent without the authority of the House, and he wished to ask whether the Secretary of War would place on the table some documents showing how this considerable debt had been incurred. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he also wished to know whether a tabular statement of the total expense of the Enfield establishment would be laid before the House. Roman Catholic interest, and the commer- ARMY ESTIMATES-ENFIELD FACTORY. cial interest. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, that there was no hurry to embarrass the House with another Reform Bill for Ireland until the measure upon the table had been disposed of. MR. J. D. FITZGERALD said, he must complain that no answer had been given to the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Fortescue). He thought it was essential that some answer should be given upon one or two short points as regards the Irish franchise. He must also give a flat denial to the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance), that the people of Ireland were indifferent on the subject of Reform they were anxious now, but what would they be byand-by when they found that a Reform Bill was about to be passed for this country and that no notice was taken of Ireland? If he understood the proposition of the Government it was intended that in England there should be a £10 occupation franchise in counties. In Ireland there was a £12 occupation franchise, and that too by rating, which was in reality a £15 or £16 franchise-being at least 25 per cent more than an occupation value. Surely taking into account the state of the two countries, this would be eminently unsatisfactory. Surely it ought to be placed upon the same footing as in England. He also wanted to know something as to what would be the state of the Irish boroughs. Would the Government extend to the Irish boroughs the same religious protection as they were prepared to throw round the borough of Arundel? MR. BOWYER observed that, no doubt all these were very interesting questions, but Irish Members might restrain their impatience till the Irish Reform Bill was brought forward. LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he did not know whether he had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly, but he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there was to be no Reform Bill at all for Ireland. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that until the House sanctioned the principles laid down in the Bill already presented to the House it would be inconvenient to discuss whether they should be applied in other instances. It was desirable before dealing with the latter that the principles of the Bill now on the table of the House should be affirmed. GENERAL PEEL said, he intended when the Army Estimates were brought on, to give an explanation with respect to the excess adverted to by the hon. Baronet. With respect to the expense of the Enfield establishment, information would be obtained by a reference to the Estimates. Motion agreed to. House at rising to adjourn till Monday next. THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES. OBSERVATIONS. It was well Order for Committee (Supply) read. MR. STAPLETON said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the organization of the Danubian Principalities, in as far as it was affected by the election of Alexander John Couza to be Hospodar of Wallachia, he having been previously elected Hospodar of Moldavia. known to the House that these provinces stood in the relation of feudatories to the Ottoman Porte, and that by the treaty of Paris the Suzerain rights of the Porte and the rights of the Provinces were specially provided for. At the Paris Conferences a question arose as to whether these provinces should continue separate or be united in one homogeneous State. The representative of the French Emperor proposed the union, in which he was supported by the Earl of Clarendon. On the other hand, the Turkish Envoy, supported by Austria, was opposed to any such arrangement. It was admitted, however, that the interest of the provinces themselves should be mainly considered, and even Count Buol, the Austrian representative, admitted that at some future period they might with of the policy they proposed to follow; and propriety be united. It was admitted that he trusted it would not be that of thwarting a constitution ought to be granted to the the desires of the people of the Principali Principalities which should be adapted to ties-that they would not oppose their the wants and the wishes of the country, and strong and repeatedly expressed desire for a Commission was appointed to ascertain union. He knew it was argued by some what those wishes were. A Divan was also persons that the question of union was a summoned in each Principality. The Divan mere pretence, and that some ulterior obof Wallachia, which was the larger project was behind it. To a certain extent vince of the two, was, with three excep- that might be true. It was in the nature tions, in favour of the union, and though of a generous people to seek the highest the first Divan of Moldavia was adverse, development of freedom. But though they a second Divan, when the question came might aspire to something higher, they to be better understood, was unanimous would not reject the good within their in favour of the union. Then it was sup- reach. He did not believe it would tend to posed by the people that the question the injury of Turkey to confer on them the was set at rest and that their wishes highest development compatible with the would be respected by the great powers. maintenance of her suzerainty. The only But a change came over the policy of Eng- terms on which Turkey could henceforth land, and the line of policy followed by the exist in Europe were the good government Earl of Clarendon was departed from by of her Christian subjects, and the free deHer Majesty's Ministers. Soon after a velopment of those provinces towards which Motion was brought forward by the Mem- she stood in the relation of suzerain. The ber for the University of Oxford, (Mr. stronger and more prosperous those fronGladstone) for an address to the Crown in tier provinces of Turkey became, the more favour of the union of the Principalities. powerful would Turkey herself be to resist That Motion was resisted by the Under Se- her real enemy. The Emperor of the cretary for Foreign Affairs, on the ground French lately said that the interest of that the people were not in favour of a union France lay wherever was the cause of jusunless they were to be united under a fo- tice and civilization. That was a grand reign Prince. The noble Lord the Member sentiment, and worthy of an Emperor. for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) con- He did not apprehend that any of the precurred in that view of the case. The Chan- sent generation would look upon the decellor of the Exchequer also adopted the struction of Turkey, but they ought not argument of the Under Secretary, and more- the less to be prepared for the evacuation over repeatedly stated that there was the of her Christian provinces, when that time most complete identity in their views and might arrive. The organization of a state policy between the Government of this coun- was not for a time, but for all time. The try and that of France. The Motion was strength of these Provinces, as well as of in consequence successfully resisted. The the other feudatories of the Porte, would Conferences soon afterwards assembled in be our best guarantee against the aggranParis, and a constitution was given to the dizement of Russia by the dissolution of Principalities which might well be called the Turkish empire whenever that event unexampled in political history. It might should occur. be described as duality in unity; for while there was to be a central governing commission, which was to sit at Fokschani on the frontier and dispose of questions that equally affected both Principalities, each State was to elect its own Divan and its own Hospodar. In the working out of this constitution the two Principalities had proceeded to elect their Hospodar, and M. Couza had been elected by both Divans and hailed by the enthusiatic voices of the people of both countries; thus showing the strong desire that existed in the minds of the people for unity. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would give the House some explanation MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD ɛaid, he would not detain the House with more than a few observations, for he was quite sure that the House and the hon. Gentleman himself must feel that it was impossible for him, on the part of the Government, to enter into a lengthened consideration of this very important question. On a former occasion, when the question was before the House last year, it was his duty to state the views which Her Majesty's Government generally entertained with reference to the question of the Principalities. Since that time a Conference of the European Powers assembled at Paris, and day after day and week after week the attention of the most able diplomatists in Europe was directed to this question, and their labours resulted in what must be deemed a solemn act on the part of the European Powers. The hon. Gentleman had stated that in his opiniou the election of M. Couza as hospodar of both the Principalities was not contrary to the letter or the spirit of the convention signed by the Conference of Paris. He (Mr. FitzGerald) would not venture to offer any opinion on that subject, but this at least he would say, that such an election as that was not contemplated by those who formed the Conference at Paris. Neither would he venture to enter into the question raised by the hon. Gentleman as to the intention with which this election had been carried out in the Principalities, or its probable results. But this at least was clear, that the Power which was most seriously interested in the election namely, Turkey - had protested against the election, on the ground that it was contrary both to the letter and the spirit of the convention, and had invited those who with her were parties to the Conference at Paris to meet in Paris and consider the very serious state of affairs at present existing in the Principalities. The European Powers had accordingly agreed to meet in Paris to consider what was best to be done. The hon. Gentleman said that before the Conference met Her Majesty's Government ought to state what were the views entertained by them on the subject, and what was the course they intended to adopt; but he (Mr. FitzGerald) thought the House would admit that Her Majesty's Government would be wanting in respect to those European Powers that had been invited to assemble at Paris to consider what was best to be done under the diffi. cult state of circumstances that had arisen if they were publicly, prematurely, and indiscreetly to state what were their views upon the subject. He thought, therefore, that, having thus shortly stated the grounds on which he asked the House not to enter into a consideration of this very important question, he should best fulfil his duty by declining to say anything more upon it. MR. ROEBUCK said, he quite agreed that the British Government ought not to speak on the present occasion, but there was no reason why the House of Commons should decline doing so. What was the question before them? It was that of a people endeavouring to be a people; and were they, as a House of Commons, not to express their opinion upon a question like that? In his opinion it would be no indiscretion on the part of the House of Commons, to say they hoped the efforts of the Moldavians and Wallachians to become a nation, and to gain their independence, would be successful. For his own part, he participated very much in their wishes, and hoped that, far from being the slaves of the diplomacy of Europe, they would retain their own dignity and work out unaided their own independence. NAVAL DEFENCES OF AUSTRALIA. OBSERVATIONS. LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL said, he rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the inadequate protection which is at present afforded to the Australian and New Zealand Colonies, through the small naval force which is at present stationed there, and to ask whether it is contemplated to erect a separate Naval Station for their better defence. Those colonies were justly entitled to greater consideration in this respect than they received, considering their immense wealth, which made them such conspicuous marks for attack in case of war. Many gentlemen connected with them, therefore, had been much disappointed that the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the Navy Estimates had contained no promise of the force stationed for their protection. There were never above three or four small vessels off the coast at any one time, detached from the Indian squadron, while the admiral, during the late war, had been engaged up the Chinese rivers. If despatches were sent to him from Australia, they must go round by India and Ceylon to reach him. He held in his hand letters from various officers who had served on the Australian Coast, and among others from Admiral Sir Harry Keppel, and Captain FitzGerald, of the Sheerness Dockyard, deprecating the slight force that was kept up on the coast of Australia. He might refer to the case of an officer who was ordered in arrest on the coast of Australia, and who was brought home to England a prisoner because there was no superior officer at hand who might have settled the case. He believed that our present naval force in the Australian waters consisted of only one frigate of 26 guns, the Iris, and of three small vessels of 10 or 12 guns each. That was manifestly an inadequate force for the defence of our very important and wealthy possessions in that quarter. The This French had established a naval station in | laide, and one at Hobart Town. They New Caledonia, and were endeavouring in would be manned by a colonial naval militia, every way to increase their influence on the the mother country merely furnishing a Pacific Ocean. They had now three islands body of some twenty or thirty men for the there, one of which-namely, New Cale- purposes of instruction and command. In donia-was only 900 miles from Sidney. the event of any hostilities they might be It was a beautiful island, surrounded by towed out by a colonial steamer and placed coral reef, and had an excellent harbour. broadside on to the enemy. Such a naval It was 400 miles in extent, and was pro- force would give confidence to the colonies; tected by five French vessels of war; but and the fact of their being there might its trade by no means required so large a prevent any attack. But the colonists force. For what object, then, were those generally were of opinion that there ought vessels stationed there? New Caledonia to be a naval station in Australia. was certainly inhabited by a very savage had been recommended by Lord Auckland, race; and the necessity of adopting vigo- but had never been carried out. If it rous measures for keeping them in subjec- should be impossible to carry out such an tion was the only reason assigned for the arrangement without making an addition presence of that large naval force. But it to the pay of the sailors, in consequence of was impossible that that could be the real the many temptations to desertion which reason. The object of the French must existed in that quarter of the world, he be to insure themselves the means of believed that the colonists would have no making a descent on the Australian colo- objection to meet from their own resources nies in the event of the outbreak of a war that increased expenditure. He did not see between them and this country. A very why the Admiral in the Pacific should not few years ago three American frigates had embrace within the limits of his command worked their way up to Sydney in the mid- the Australian colonies, and why he should dle of the night, and the inhabitants had not remove his head-quarters from Valknown nothing whatever of the movements paraiso to Sydney. The whole subject was of those vessels until they had seen them one which excited considerable interest in the morning lying close to the town. If throughout the Australian colonies, and that force had come on an unfriendly errand any statement which the right hon. Barothere was nothing to prevent them from net the First Lord of the Admiralty might reducing Sydney to ashes, or levying on make with respect to it would be sure the inhabitants any contributions they may to attract a large amount of notice among think fit. It was an important question to the colonists. In conclusion, he begged decide how far it was the duty of the mo- leave to ask whether it was the intenther country to protect her colonies, or how tion of Her Majesty's Government to erect far the colonists should provide for their a separate naval station for the Austraown safety. He held it to be the duty of lian colonies; and, if not, whether they the mother country to afford facilities to would take into their consideration the nethe colonies to form a separate naval force cessity of giving those colonies a greater if they chose, and to give them sufficient amount of protection from foreign attack protection till they had done so. He be- than they at present possessed. lieved that the people of Australia would readily respond to any call made upon them by this country to establish a naval militia for their defence; and one proposal he had heard thrown out upon that subject by gentlemen who spoke in the name of the colonists was that some of those old twodeckers, which the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had told the House the other evening it would not be worth while to convert into screw steamers, should be sent out to Australia. They could go out jury-rigged, carrying emigrants to defray the expense. They could take out heavy ordnance in their holds. Whey they arrived, one might be stationed at Sydney, one at Melbourne, one at Ade NAVY AND COAST-GUARD. RESOLUTION. Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." SIR CHARLES NAPIER said, he rose to move that as the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated that the Coast-Guard Ships are comparatively useless, the time has arrived when they ought to be replaced by efficient ships; and also to inquire when it is the intention of the Government to put in force the recommendations of the Commission for manning the navy? He complained that the Government, at the |