THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY explained that he had said the noble Earl's particular Liberal nostrum failed to apply to that colony, because it was inhabited by diverse races and was so peculiarly placed geographically. That a Representative Assembly had a right to alter the conditions of its existence without appealing to those from whom its authority was derived was a principle which he believed to be fatal to the true working of any representative system. He regretted the conclusion at which the noble Earl opposite had arrived, and felt satisfied that he would himself have cause for regretting it in future.

division into two or more provinces, with | relieved the Government of responsia central government. It had been found bility, and probably would have been that there was a question not between preferred by the colonists themselves, if the East and West only, but between the matter had been referred to the conthe East, the Middle Provinces, and the stituencies. West, and it was a question how those Middle Provinces should be constituted, for it was exceedingly difficult, when they came to deal with questions of boundary, to determine the various points which arose. He was convinced that the Dutch and the English colonists and the East and the West did not entertain those incurable rancours which the remarks of the noble Marquess might lead them to suppose. Whenever the East had been in danger the West, notwithstanding their jealousies, had always been found ready to assist it; and he believed that that would still continue to be the case. In his opinion, the future prosperity and safety of the colony depended entirely upon the Dutch and the English settlers not cherishing those feelings of mutual aversion which the noble Marquess appeared to think so natural. In conclusion, he would only repeat that there had not been in any degree a forcing of responsible institutions upon the colonists of the Cape, who had had, on the contrary, a perfectly fair opportunity of determining for themselves which form of government they would adopt, and that he did not think it would be right, by adopting the course proposed by the noble Marquess, to throw the whole colony into the turmoil of a dissolution merely to enable the minority to see whether they could not obtain a majority against a measure which had been duly passed. With regard, however, to the Papers moved for, he had not the slightest objection to their production.

THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER said, it was to be regretted that a question on which a Representative House was equally divided should be decided by the casting vote of the Chairman. He had known in such a case of a Speaker or Chairman, without expressing his approval or disapproval of a measure, saying that he would give his vote in a certain way in order that the House might have another opportunity of considering the question. That was the course which he thought should have been followed in this instance in regard to the Colony of the Cape. As the Legislative Council was equally divided in opinion, it would have VOL. CCXIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

EARL GRANVILLE remarked that the noble Marquess' objection would. apply not merely to the Constitution of the Cape Colony, but to the British Constitution itself.

Motion agreed to.

METRICAL SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND
MEASURES-INTERNATIONAL CON-

GRESS.-QUESTION.

THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER asked Her Majesty's Government, What Instructions are to be given to the English Representatives at the _International Congress summoned by France on the Metrical System of Weights and Measures? He expressed a hope that these instructions would not be such as to encourage any hope of our adopting the metrical system. It was usually said that the metrical system was scientific, while our own was arbitrary; but the metrical system really rested on a basis which was arbitrary too. The truth was that that system of weights and measures was best with which the public were most familiar, and mere scientific accuracy would never compensate for the inconvenience which would be suffered by all classes in this country from a change of system. Moreover, it was unreasonable on the part of the French to ask us to give up our system of weights and measures for theirs, considering the vastly greater area and population of Anglo-Saxon territory, and the rapid spread of the Anglo-Saxon race and

C

MINUTES.] SELECT COMMITTEE - Report -
Elementary Schools (Certificated Teachers)
[No. 344].
SUPPLY-considered in Committee - NAVY ESTI-West African Settlements has been in-

I cannot announce any intention upon | to the Question being withdrawn ; and if the hon. the part of Her Majesty's Government, and gallant Gentleman was not in his place to put it, he should request some one else to put it." nor can I enter into the question of compensation. Now, with regard to the violent and thoroughly personal attack [Mr. BOWRING: "Unprovoked attack were the words.] Those who were in the House at the time will recollect that

LAW EXPENSES OF EX-GOVERNOR
EYRE. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.

COLONEL NORTH, who had given Notice of a Question to be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the commutation of Mr. Edgar Bowring's pension, granted on the abolition of the office of Registrar of the Board of Trade, said: In consequence of a letter which I have received from the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring), and of an explanation made by him on Thursday last, I must beg the indulgence of the

House while I make a few remarks be

I certainly did make the remark that I should have been the last-or one of the thought the hon. Member for Exeter last-Members of this House to lead the attack against Mr. Eyre upon the ground of saving the pockets of the ratepayers of the country, because by the which had been placed upon the Table Papers which were in the Library and of the House, it appeared that the hon. Member himself had received for some fore asking my Question. When I came £426 138. 4d. per annum, for the aboliyears compensation, to the amount of down to the House on Thursday last, I tion of the office of Registrar of the Board was asked by several hon. Members why of Trade, which he filled. I also remarked I was not in my place at the time for that I thought the taxpayers of this counputting Questions, because the hon. try, considering that the hon. GentleMember for Exeter had stated that he man was at the time but 38 years of age, had given me Notice to be in my place. would not feel satisfied that he should I did come down, but later; but the hon. at that age, and up to the present time, Gentleman, I suppose, instead of sendhave received that compensation. The ing the letter to my house, gave it to hon. Gentleman did not find fault either the door-keeper as he passed through, with the matter or the manner of my because when I was writing afterwards remarks on that occasion. I certainly in the Library, one of the officers of the do hope that whatever I did say was House brought me the letter, requesting said in a manner calculated not to give me to be in my place to day at Question pain to anybody; and the only interruptime at a quarter past 4 o'clock. If I tion that was made was an observation had received the letter in time I should from the hon. Gentleman himself—" Not have been in my place, to answer any one farthing of which ever reaches my Question which he might have had to pocket." Those were the words he put to me. I asked what statement the used, according to the report in the hon. Gentleman had made during my newspapers; and I think the report was absence, but nobody could tell what was the state of the case; and I therefore and said "If the money did not go a true one, because at the time I got up had to wait until next morning to see the into his pocket, I certainly should inreports in the papers, where I found the quire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer hon. Gentleman represented as saying into whose pocket it had gone." With that "following up the violent and tho-regard to not having given Notice, I roughly personal attack" [Mr. BowRING: "Violent and entirely unprovoked personal attack" were the words I used]

“made upon him in the course of the debate on Governor Eyre, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, without any previous Notice whatever, had placed on the Paper a Notice of his intention to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Monday next, a Question not merely un-Parliamentary in its terms, but, to those who understood its meaning, conveying an improper insinuation. Whatever explanation the hon, and gallant Gentleman might hereafter make, he (Mr. Bowring) should look upon the Question as conveying an imputation upon his honour and veracity; he should object

may say that I gave Notice on Wednesday, and it appeared on Thursday morning, and the hon. Gentleman being a Member of this House, and having the opportunity of seeing the Papers, I did not communicate with him, nor should I have thought it necessary, because the Question was not to be put to the hon. Gentleman, but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then, with regard to the Question being un-Parliamentary in its terms, I should be very sorry if any question I put was un-Parliamentary;

and I suppose that this one was not, or | is, Out of what fund, not raised from the the Clerk at the Table would not have taxpayers of this country, Mr. Edgar A. allowed it to pass. Then, the hon. Gen- Bowring received, according to the Retleman says that he objects to the turn No. 304, just issued to the MemQuestion being withdrawn. I cannot bers, a lump sum of £5,274 in commuunderstand on what ground he supposed tation of the sum of £426 138. 4d. per I intended to withdraw it; for I do not annum, granted to him as compensation think it is the custom of Members of for the abolition of the Office of the this House to give Notice of Questions, Registrar of the Board of Trade, held get them printed, and withdraw them. by him, and the date when that commuCertainly, I have sometimes withdrawn tation was granted? All I have to say a Question when I found that it had is, that if the House is of opinion that been previously put by someone else and I have mis-stated one single fact, I shall answered. My attention was next called be happy to apologize to the hon. Gento a letter published by the hon. Mem- tleman, and to withdraw any statement ber for Exeter in The Times, in which I may have made under a misapprehenhe statession; but so far as I am aware I have not done so, and I hope I have not said anything which the House will consider evinces a want of courtesy.

"The gallant Gentleman felt it becoming to taunt me with the fact-as if it had any reference to the grave subject under debate-that I was in the receipt of £426 a-year compensation granted on the abolition of the office of Registrar to the Board of Trade held formerly by me, and stated that on Friday night last that sum had, as he saw by the Estimates, been voted to me, and would have to be paid by what he called the 'ratepayers' of the country. My exclamation was Not one farthing of that vote will ever reach' (not ever reaches,' as reported) 'my pocket.' "The fact is-as I would have proceeded to state but for the evident disinclination of the House to attend to such a miserable personal charge that the compensation formerly held by me was commuted last financial year (the commutation being paid out of a fund not raised from the taxpayers of the country); and that I was, therefore, greatly surprised to see my name figuring in the Estimates this year. I had in tended to move the omission of the sum when the Vote was taken; but was assured by the Government that its insertion was necessary as a mere matter of account between the Government Departments. As I stated, not one farthing of it can possibly be received by me, and I am informed that the Vote will never appear again.

"I will only add that, previous to my election, I gave my constituents the fullest information respecting this compensation allowance, and voluntarily left it to them to say whether they wished me to draw the amount in future, as I was prepared to make an absolute surrender of it if desired. I was requested by an unanimous vote of an enthusiastic meeting of some 1,500 persons

not to do so."

Now, I think those 1,500 unanimous and enthusiastic voters do not represent the opinion of the taxpayers of the country.

MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. and gallant Member was not confining his remarks to the subject-matter of the Question, and was therefore out of Order. COLONEL NORTH: Then, Sir, without further preface, the Question I have to ask of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the hon. Member for Exeter is entitled to a pension of £426 138. 4d. for services to the Board of Trade. On the 16th of January last he applied for leave to commute that pension. That leave was given, and on the 12th of February the pension was commuted for the sum of £5,274, which was on that day paid over to the hon. Gentleman. That sum was borrowed from the Trustees of the Savings Banks, who advanced it to the Government on these terms-that it should be repaid by a Terminable Annuity of £636 138.4d., which would last for 10 years. The loan so made would be repaid by 10 instalments of that amount.

MR. BOWRING: Mr. Speaker, as the Question just answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer relates exclusively to myself, and therefore involves a Question of Privilege, I trust the House will extend to me the indulgence which it always allows to every hon. Member under similar circumstances. I may, perhaps, correct a slight mistake in the Answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He stated that my application was made on the 16th of January, and I have no doubt that is the date on which it reached the Savings Banks' Trustees; but it was made by me to the Board of Trade in November or December last, and accidentally mislaid in that Department for some weeks. I must, in the first place, state that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) is a perfect stranger

to me, and I have never spoken to him | worded his Question in a manner which in my life, except to offer him those must strike everyone as un-Parliamenminor courtesies usual amongst hon. tary. My last complaint against him is Members of this House. During the this-that being desirous, doubtless from four years in which I have had a seat in motives of patriotic and benevolent curithis House, I have never to my know- osity, to ascertain the meaning of certain ledge said one single word personal to words addressed by myself to The Times, any hon. Member whatever; still less instead of applying to the only human have I said anything designed to give being who could by possibility inform pain to any hon. Member; but least of him what my meaning was-namely, all has it ever entered into my mind to myself-and if he had done so I would say one word that could be considered have given him the information he as conveying any imputation upon any wanted-he has adopted the extraordihon. Member. Now, Sir, the complaint nary course of publicly applying to a which it was my duty to make on Thurs- third person, the Chancellor of the Exday last with reference to the Question chequer, for an explanation of my of the hon. and gallant Member for meaning, which the Chancellor of the Oxfordshire was the following. It is Exchequer could only give by means of unfortunate that he was not in his place information which I myself have supwhen I made it; but I hoped my letter plied to him. I leave the House to judge would reach his hands in time, as I gave of the conduct of the hon. and gallant it to the doorkeeper at 2 o'clock. The Member in this respect. In conclusion, newspapers, however, on the following I beg to give Notice that I shall move day gave a sufficiently accurate report that there be laid upon the Table of of what I said. The first complaint I this House, a Copy of a Letter which I made against the hon. and gallant Mem- addressed to the Chancellor of the Exber was that, following up the violent and chequer on the 25th instant, when I utterly unprovoked personal attack upon first heard of the attack of the hon. and me made by him a few nights previously gallant Member, and which gives the when the House was in Committee of fullest information respecting the whole Supply an attack which was indig- subject. nantly repudiated by the House at the time-the hon. and gallant Member felt it becoming, under the guise of a Question addressed to a Minister of the Crown, to attempt to convey, by way of insinuation and inuendo, an imputation which he would not have ventured to make openly, and the purport of which was understood only by those acquainted with the circumstances of the case. My second complaint against the hon. and gallant Member was, that when he thought proper to place upon the Notice Paper a Question relating to myself exclusively he gave me no Notice whatever of what he was doing, but left me to discover it by accident. I understand that in the case of a Question addressed to a Minister, it is quite sufficient to put it on the Notice Paper, because the Minister is supposed to read the Notice Paper; but, in the case of a private Member that is held not to be sufficient. My third charge against the hon. and gallant Member is, that having been a Member of this House for 20 years, and being, therefore, necessarily acquainted with its elementary rules of procedure, he has purposely

LAW AND JUSTICE-OFFICE OF QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. — QUESTION. MR. RAIKES asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can state to the House what provision has been made for the discharge of the duties formerly fulfilled by the Queen's Advocate as an adviser of Her Majesty's Government on matters of International Law; what was the amount of salary saved by the abolition of this office, and what is the present application of the fees which would have been received by the Queen's Advocate had the office continued to exist; whether it has been found necessary to call in the assistance of any lawyer conversant with International Law to confer with the Law Officers of the Crown on the advice which they might be required to give to the Government on topics of this description, and what remuneration, if any, is paid for such services; whether the present arrangement is to be considered permanent or only provisional; and, what are likely to be the legal expenses of Her Majesty's Government in the Geneva