Commons Sitting of 16 November 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° County Elections Polls; Bank Notes.

CASE OF MR. NEWTON AT VERONA.
MR. HUMEsaid, that seeing in his place the noble Lord the Under Secretary of the Foreign Department, he wished to ask the question of which he had given notice. Although it was most desirable that British subjects should be protected in foreign parts, they ought at the same time, when complaints were made, to endeavour to ascertain as fully as possible

199
the circumstances that caused those complaints. In the month of June last a letter was written by the father of the individual to whom the present inquiry had reference, making certain charges against the officials in a public department at Verona; and he (Mr. Hume) begged to ask whether any inquiry had been instituted into the complaints of Mr. Henry Robert Newton, who in June last was arrested in Verona, imprisoned, and treated with great indignity, and all explanation then and there refused; and whether any apology or explanation had been offered by the Austrian Government?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, in answer to the question of the hon. Member, I have to confirm, in the first place, what he has stated, namely, that in the month of June last a British subject of the name of Newton was arrested at Verona, and detained under circumstances of considerable hardship. The circumstances of the case were these: Mr. Newton was arrested on suspicion of sketching the fortifications, he being at the time, as he stated, and as we have reason to believe, not so engaged; but it is fair to say, that the suspicion was not unreasonable, inasmuch as Mr. Newton bad at the time a book and map spread open before him. I merely mention these trifling circumstances to show what, indeed, Mr. Newton himself acknowledges, that as regards his original arrest, he has no ground for making any charge against the authorities. The city of Verona was at the time in a state of siege, and there is no reason to suppose that he was treated, so far as the original arrest was concerned, with exceptional harshness or severity. Subsequent to the arrest he was taken to the guard-house, orders were given that his papers should be examined, and that if, on their examination, nothing was found tending to criminate him, he should be set at liberty. These were the orders that were given, but unfortunately they were not obeyed. The search took place, and nothing was found of a criminatory character amongst his papers. When the search concluded, it was late in the evening, and by a gross neglect of duty on the part of the officer of police in whose charge Mr. Newton was, instead of releasing him, when nothing was discovered against him, he detained him all night, and did not liberate him until the following morning. Mr. Newton unfortunately, in my opinion, did not immediately proceed to put the case in the hands of the British
200
Consul General at Venice, but preferred applying for redress in person, and without communicating with the Consul. He did not succeed in obtaining any satisfactory explanation from the authorities, and having so failed, he then put his case into the hands of Mr. Dawkins, who took it up with great energy and promptitude. Shortly afterwards complaints were made to the Foreign Office by Sir William Newton, the father of the complainant, and a letter was written by him, dated 16th July, stating the particulars which I have related. Immediately on that letter being received, a full account of the circumstances as they were stated by Sir W. Newton to have occurred, was sent to Lord Westmoreland our Ambassador at Vienna. An inquiry was instituted, and there being some discrepancy between the different accounts, a correspondence of some length took place; but the end of that correspondence has been that a full and ample expression of regret has been obtained from the Austrian Government, accompanied by a promise that, in future, care shall be taken to prevent British travellers from being ill-treated in a similar manner, and to see that the regulations in force in Austria are carried out with no unnecessary hardship on individuals. That expression of regret having been obtained—the original charge of misconduct having been against a subordinate officer, and the promise I have mentioned having been given by the Austrian Government, it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that, under the circumstances, nothing more could be expected or required.

THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendation of the Committee appointed last Session to inquire into the constitution and management of the Board of Customs?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have directed the recommendations of the Committee to be submitted to the Commissioners of Customs, and I received their Report—a very elaborate one —only last month. I have very much considered it, and it is the intention of the Government to place a Treasury Minute on the table, which I hope I shall be able to do before Christmas, indicating all those changes that we think ought to take place

201
in the present administration of the Customs, and some of those changes will require legislative interposition.

FUNERAL OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
SIR CHARLES WOODbrought up the First Report of the Committee appointed to consider the circumstances relating to the attendance of the House and their place at the solemnity of the Duke of Wellington's funeral. It was as follows:—
"Your Committee have examined the Journals touching the proceedings and circumstances relating to the Procession of this House, and their place, on the occasion of public funerals, and they find that, in the year 1694, the House, with the Speaker, attended the Funeral of Her Majesty Queen Mary; that seats were reserved and tickets given to Members, with the Speaker's name, and that of each Member, for his admittance.
"Your Committee also find that in the year 1708 the Speaker was deputed on the part of the House, to present an Address to Her Majesty Queen Anne.
"Your Committee are of opinion, that it would be convenient, on this occasion, that the Speaker should be deputed to attend the Procession on the part of the House, and that the House should attend in the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, and that the Speaker, when he arrives there, should take his place accordingly.
"Your Committee have examined respecting the arrangements for the accommodation of Members. They find that 500 seats are reserved for Members in front of the North Transept.
"Your Committee recommend that each Member should be furnished with a ticket of admittance with his name, and that the same should be distributed to Members, under the direction of Mr. Speaker."
Report to lie on the table.

CORONER'S INQUEST (SIX-MILE BRIDGE).
SIR JOHN F. FITZGERALD: Sir, as one of the representatives of the county where this sad event took place, I deem it a duty I owe not only to my constituents, but to the wives, children, and relatives of the unfortunate men who were slain at Six-mile Bridge, to move "for a Report of the evidence given before the coroner's inquest, held at Six-mile Bridge, in the county of Clare, in July last." I do so particularly at this moment, when I observe it is the intention of both the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Ireland to endeavour to quash the verdict of the jury, which verdict was one of wilful murder against a magistrate, and against eight soldiers who fired upon the people without receiving orders to do so, or without the Riot Act being read, and thus causing the bloody and untimely death of six of Her Majesty's
202
subjects on the spot, and one who died subsequently of the wounds he received. This attempt on the part of the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Ireland to quash the verdict of the coroner's jury, has, I fear, an ulterior object, which is, that when the bill of indictment against the magistrate and the eight soldiers, for their trial at the next assizes of the county, is presented, it will render such presentment void, and thereby destroy the only hope of consolation left to those bereaved families, that the perpetrators of so fatal an act should be brought before the courts of justice, to answer the charge ordered against them by the coroner's jury—that of wilful murder. I understand that the plea set forth by the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Ireland, to quash the verdict, is, that the persons of the soldiers who fired the shots at Six-mile Bridge, on the 22nd of July last, were not sufficiently identified. This attempt, I must say, is a most severe and unjust reflection upon a jury, composed of men among the most respectable in the county, and who, regardless of every inconvenience they were put to in a small village, as to the accommodation, delayed their verdict till they had heard all the evidence, and the learned arguments of the counsel on both sides for nearly one fortnight. The next point of argument to which I wish to call the attention of the House is as to what business the soldiers had to be present in any shape or way at an election? The election law is clear and precise on this matter. Roger's election law on interfering at elections, says—
"'From the first establishment of a standing army the jealousy of the House of Commons has been directed to prevent any military interference at elections, or overawing them by their presence. Thus the House of Commons resolved that all elections of any knight or shire, or burgess, to serve in Parliament be made without interruption or molestation by any commander, governor, officer, or soldier.'—17th November, 1645, 4 Journ, 316. Again, 24th, Journ. 37, 22nd December, 1741: 'That the presence of a regular body of soldiers at on election of Members to serve in Parliament is a high infringement of the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, and an open defiance of the laws and constitution of the Kingdom.'"
This resolution was passed in consequence of the proceedings at the Westminster election in 1741, The Westminster justices were Ordered into custody and reprimanded by Speaker Onslow, for unnecessarily calling in the military. The concluding part of his address was as follows:—

203
"What you have done is against one of the most essential parts of the law of this Kingdom. Had any real necessity been shown for it? There might be fears—there might be some danger—but did you try the strength of the law to dispel those fears and remove those dangers? Did you make use of those powers the law invested you with, as civil magistrates, for the preservation of the public peace? No; you deserted all that, and wantonly, and I hope inadvertently, resorted to that force, the most unnatural of all others, in all respects, to that cause and business you were then attending, and for the freedom of which every Briton Ought to be ready to suffer anything."
See also debate on this subject, April 3, 1827, on the occasion of calling out the military at Carlisle. The whole of the proceedings of the Government in this most calamitous event have been most extraordinary, and might well cause the excitement which did prevail during the last elections in Ireland. But let me ask what raised those excitements? The illegal acts of the Government, infringing on the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, by employing soldiers for the purpose of overawing them, in direct opposition to the law and constitution of this country. Finally, I must draw a contrast as to the manner the Government pursue in this country (England) and in Ireland, in the instance I now submit to the House. Here are a magistrate and eight soldiers, against whom a verdict of wilful murder is given by a coroner's jury. They are imprisoned to answer for so very serious a charge at the next assizes; but what do the Government legal authorities in Ireland? Bail is taken, and the magistrate and the eight soldiers are liberated. Now, mark the different line of conduct pursued here in a similar case. Two foreigners are imprisoned for being implicated in a fatal duel; their counsel makes an appeal for their being liberated on bail, and an instance is brought forward of bail being granted on similar events. What said the Chief Justice of England?—
"He was firmly of opinion that if a person of the highest eminence was found guilty of murder by a jury, no tribunal of the country would liberate him without trial."
Now, Sir, all I ask—all I pray for—is, that a trial may be granted to have this melancholy event thoroughly investigated. It is due to the people of Ireland—it is due to the bereaved families of the unfortunate men who were so inhumanly shot; and, above all, it is due to justice. I therefore move for the report of the evidence given before the Coroner's inquest, held at Six-
204
mile Bridge, in the county of Clare, in July last.
MR. NAPIER: Sir, there will be no objection to lay the evidence in this case on the table of the House when the proper time arrives; but at present the proceedings are under the consideration of the Court of Queen's Bench, and that Court has not yet given its decision. But judgment will probably be pronounced in a few days, and then the evidence can be furnished. With regard, however, to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member upon the conduct of the Government, I may be permitted to say that the Government had nothing to do with the calling out of the military. They were called out, as is usual, on the requisition of a magistrate of the county, who has shared in the fate of the soldiers, and who, by this very respectable Coroner's jury, has been declared guilty of wilful murder. Sir, before the proceedings of the inquest were laid before me, the soldiers had been committed to the gaol of the county on the Coroner's warrant, and the depositions then came up and were laid before me in the usual course; for whenever any person has been committed on a capital charge the course is to lay the papers before the Attorney General, in order to see whether he makes any objection on the part of the Crown to the parties being admitted to bail. The Crown does not interfere further than this. Whenever parties apply to the Court of Queen's Bench in these matters, the Court is always greatly influenced by the circumstance whether the Law Officers of the Crown have given or refused their assent to the motion to admit to bail. On receiving the depositions I felt it to be my duty not to lose a single moment in applying myself to them, and I read them twice over—an occupation which took me eight hours. I read them through before I went to bed, and I read them again the next morning, and having considered them, I felt it to be my duty to state my opinion that these parties should be admitted to bail. Judge Crampton, after hearing counsel for the next of kin of the persons killed, himself considered the depositions; and he, in pursuance of the authority vested in him as a Judge of the Queen's Bench, made an order admitting the parties to bail—a course for which he had, and has, my full concurrence. I may state, with reference to the case having been brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, that that Court was the Supreme Coroner of the Kingdom, and had the su-

205
perintendence of all the Coroners throughout the country. The course I took met the entire concurrence of my colleague, the Solicitor General, who argued the case in the Queen's Bench in my absence; and as the case is now pending, of course it would be highly improper for me to offer one word of comment, one way or the other. With regard to a bill of indictment, I may observe that seldom is the course, even supposing there was no objection to the Coroner's inquisition, to proceed upon that. With hardly one exception, the practice is to send up a bill of indictment, and not act on the Coroners' inquisition; for experience has invariably shown that Coroners' inquisitions obstruct rather than promote the ends of public justice. But whether the inquisition be quashed or not, that will not interfere with a bill of indictment being sent up, and a proceeding is now pending against a newspaper, in which the very question of the hon. and gallant Baronet will be settled. It is to be tried in the sittings after term, and the subject is likely to receive in the Court of Queen's Bench, and before a jury in the city of Dublin, a very full investigation. Throughout those proceedings I have endeavoured, and I shall continue to endeavour, to do my duty; and whilst I am resolved to bring to justice all who have violated the law, and against whom I can procure evidence, I am equally resolved to afford the shelter of the law and constitution to those who have, as I believe, discharged faithfully a most invidious duty under the most harassing and oppressive circumstances. When judgment has been pronounced, the evidence shall be laid on the table.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORbegged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to restrict the duration of polling for County Elections in England and Wales. It would be in the recollection of the House that at the close of the last Parliament he had moved for leave to bring in a Bill to restrict the days of polling in Counties from two days to one, and that Bill had obtained a first and second reading, and had passed through Committee. The Government, however, had thrown out the measure on the third reading, not because they objected to the principle of it, but because it was contended that the time intervening before the general election was so short that opportunity could not be afforded for
206
the new arrangements. He now moved for leave to bring in a similar Bill, not anticipating any objection on the part of the Government; but he might observe that he intended to carry restriction and reform a little further than in the previous measure. He proposed to reduce the days of polling from two days to one, and the period that elapsed between the nomination and the day of polling from two to one. He proposed also that the declaration of the poll should take place one day after the polling.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in the Bill."
MR. PALMERdid not rise to oppose the Motion, but he would observe that there was a considerable difference between this Bill and the one of last year. He acquiesced in the Bill of last year with some degree of doubt. He had had some little experience of county elections, and was very much inclined to think that it would be undesirable to adopt the proposition of the noble Lord. At times it would be exceedingly inconvenient to pin down the electors to one day. He would give an instance in his own county, where a poll was demanded without any one expecting it, and it happened that on one of the polling-days an important fair was held in the neighbourhood, which many of the voters were very anxious to attend, and consequently were incapacitated from performing their electoral duties. He had conversed with many of the electors on this subject, and they were of opinion that the change might be attended with considerable inconvenience.
MR. HUMEwould say, that the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman might easily be provided for by the sheriffs not fixing upon inconvenient days. The sheriffs ought to know when fairs took place, and not fix such days for polling.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that, seeing leave was given by the last Parliament to bring in a Bill somewhat similar to this, and that it even went to the third reading, it would be ungracious towards the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex to refuse him leave to bring in the present Bill. There were two points, however, he wished the House to bear in mind: the first was, that the objection taken on the part of the Government to the Bill of last Session was, that a sufficient opportunity was not given to Counties to provide polling places, so that every voter should have an opportunity of recording his vote. It

207
was a matter of great importance that provision should be made for enabling all the votes in every County to be taken. The other point was, that the noble Lord was now going to add to the Bill a new provision, namely, that the period between the nomination and the day of the polling should be reduced from two days to one. He thought that was a matter which would require great consideration. They must remember that there was a great difference between boroughs and counties in that respect. In the boroughs the voters were all living either within the bounds or in the neighbourhood; but in counties the voters had their residence sometimes at a great distance, and assuredly every portion of a County ought to have an opportunity of knowing whether more than one candidate had been put up on the day of nomination, in order that the voters might have an opportunity of coming up and recording their votes. He only pointed out these things in order that the noble Lord might have no reason to complain, should he find the Government opposing the Bill when it was brought forward.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that he thought that, whenever the discussion came on, he should be able to satisfy the House that the further changes he proposed were necessary.
Leave given.

ROCHESTER CONSISTORY COURT, &c.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he rose to move for a return of the appointment of Officers in the Consistory Court, Rochester, and also in the Archdeacon's Court in the same city. He apprehended there would be little or no objection to his Motion; but, inasmuch as the dignity and character of that House was in some measure concerned, he would state the reasons which had induced him to put the notice upon the paper. On the 2nd May, 1850, that House resolved that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that certain returns might be made in reference to the Ecclesiastical Courts; and he was informed by the officers connected with the Government of that day, that they had the very greatest difficulty in obtaining the papers from the Officers of those Courts—so much so, that thirteen months elapsed before they were presented to the House. Another Address was agreed to by the House on the 7th August, 1851, praying Her Majesty to order that certain further returns might
208
be made in reference to the same Courts; and similar difficulties had been experienced in obtaining those returns from some of the Courts, whilst others of them had made no return whatever. The fact was that some of these returns were not made until the 10th of May, 1852, exactly nine months after they had been called for by the House. He thought that when an order was made by that House, either through the medium of an Address to the Crown, or directly by the House, the persons to whom such order was sent ought to obey it. And no return having been made by the Ecclesiastical Courts of Rochester, he had no hesitation in submitting this Motion to the House, in order that the information in, question might be obtained. He would also take that opportunity of stating that should that order not be complied with, he should take further steps to compel a compliance with it.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, a return had been laid on the table of the House with the fullest information on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Courts of which the Government were in possession; and he could account for the absence of the returns of which the hon. Baronet complained only in this way. Several returns of that kind had been moved for by the hon. Baronet, and the officers thinking they had already made those returns in full, had neglected to continue the returns which were subsequently asked for. He was further informed that a return which had been moved for by the hon. Baronet in 1849, was presented to the House, and that the hon. Baronet never moved that it should be printed. If the hon. Gentleman would now move to have that return printed, he would gain from it fuller information than he could have from the return which he now asked for.
SIR B. HALLsaid, he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman was under a mistake. During the Session of 1849, he (Sir B. Hall) was unable to attend the House except on one day; he had not made any Motion on the subject except in the years to which he had referred, and the officers of the Ecclesiastical Court of Rochester had made no return whatever to those Motions.
Motion agreed to.

DAY MAIL TO LEICESTER.
MR. FREWENsaid, that the House was doubtless aware, from the statements which had recently appeared in the public

209
prints, that great injury had been done to certain lines of railway within the last few days, in consequence of the heavy rains, and in certain districts great inconvenience was occasioned, not only by the stopping of the regular communications, hut also by the delay of the usual mails. It appeared to him that there was some want of proper caution on the part of the Post Office authorities in not forwarding the mails with that expedition which they might have used; for even though some of the great lines had been damaged, the mails should have been forwarded in the old way—by the turnpike roads—until they had reached such parts of the railway as might be made available for communicating with the metropolis. During the last week several lines of railway in the Midland Counties were, he believed, stopped, in consequence of the damage that was done to them. At one place in particular within about four or five miles of Leicester a viaduct was carried away, which was not likely to be restored for about a fortnight or three weeks. The greatest inconvenience had arisen, in consequence, to the people of Leicester, from the non-adoption of proper measures for the forwarding of the mails by some other route. He knew himself of letters containing intelligence of the deepest importance and interest, posted in Leicester on Friday, not reaching London until Monday morning. The day mail, which was forwarded from London on Saturday morning, did not reach Leicester until seven o'clock in the evening. Now where there was another line open, the mails might have been conveyed at almost the same degree of speed with which they were forwarded for many years past. He was informed that the great line of communication near Tamworth had been stopped by an injury which had occurred to a bridge in the neighbourhood. He wished to call public attention to the subject, and more particularly to urge that everything should be done to facilitate the conveyance of the mails. He should conclude by moving that the Postmaster General be requested to order that the day mail between London and Leicester should be conveyed by way of Peterborough, Stamford, and Melton Mowbray, until the line of railway between Leicester and Rugby (which has been stopped in consequence of the injury done to it, caused by the late heavy rains) be re-opened.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was sure that the House would not agree in
210
the terms of this Motion when he informed them that the fact was, the Post Office authorities had used the greatest possible exertions to expedite the conveyance of the mails. He had just received a communication which stated that the day mail from Leicester had arrived on that day without the delay of a single hour. Under such circumstances he thought that the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to persevere in his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIAN TERRITORIES.
MR. HERRIESmoved that the Select Committee on Indian Territories do consist of thirty-one Members.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYbegged to suggest that the name of Sir Thomas Herbert Maddock be added to the Com-mittee, as the hon. Member was thoroughly conversant with the subject, having resided for several years in India.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he had intended to move the addition of two or three names to the Committee, in order that the groat commercial ports might be represented; but when he saw the names of the eminent persons nominated, he thought it unnecessary to persist in that intention.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought that all the new Members of the Committee should be put into possession of the whole evidence which had come before the former Committee on this subject. He wished to know whether any steps had been taken by the Government towards effecting this object?
SIR THOMAS MADDOCKsaid, he would also beg to suggest that natives of India capable of affording valuable information to the Select Committee should be summoned to give evidence before it. He was aware that among the educated inhabitants there was a large proportion of Hindoos who were precluded by the prejudices of caste from undertaking a sea voyage. But there were many who would not be so precluded could give evidence before the Committee; and he imagined with respect to the others that there could be no serions difficulty in obtaining the testimony of those Hindoo gentlemen of attainments and qualifications on the spot in India. That was the more important, because the evidence that had already been given, and the evidence which would in all probability be taken by the present Committee, had been and would be derived

211
from persons who had been officially engaged in the administration of the affairs of India, whether in this country or in that. It might be very useful that the evidence of all experienced persons should be made available for laying down the plan so far as concerned the machinery of Government; but in reference to all those matters which had regard to the welfare and happiness of the people of India, on which it was really the great primary duty of the Government in this country to legislate, their legislation could not be either complete or satisfactory unless the class of natives of India to whom he had referred were furnished with an opportunity of giving evidence before the Committee.
MR. HERRIESsaid, with reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), the best mode of proceeding would be to leave the matter to the Committee themselves, who would know what was necessary for the requirements of the House; and with regard to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir T. Mad-dock), it would be the duty of the Committee to determine what witnesses they should bring before them, and what evidence bearing upon the inquiry it would be desirable to have.
Motion for nominating the Committee was then agreed to.

FUNERAL OF THE DUKE OF, WELLINGTON.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. HUMEsaid, before the Order of the Day was proceeded with, he wished to state that he had made a request on a former night, that some estimate of the expenses of the funeral of the Duke of Wellington should be laid upon the table of the House. He found, upon referring to the journals of the House, that an estimate was laid on the table by Mr. Vansittart of the expenses of the funeral of Lord Nelson, and also of that of Mr. Pitt. The House was not sitting at the time of Lord Nelson's funeral, and therefore the estimate was not laid on the table until after the occasion; but as the House was now sitting, they ought to have an estimate laid before them. Not that he was desirous to abridge or to throw any difficulty in the way of a public demonstration, but they ought to relieve and disabuse the public mind of the extravagant ideas that had been formed as to the amount of the ex-
212
pense. The department upon whom the trust was devolved should be prepared to lay before them an estimate in some degree approximating to the amount.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not forgotten the intimation given some days ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, but, from the pressure of circumstances connected with this solemnity, it was quite impossible to lay an estimate before the House.
MR. HUMEsaid, that if the public money could not be accounted for, it appeared to him there must be great blame somewhere.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend had greatly misconstrued what he had stated, in supposing that the public money could not be accounted for. If the public money were expended in this manner, it would be accounted for to the last shilling; but, from the pressure of circumstances, it was impossible at the present moment to lay an estimate before the House.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTthought the House had heard a most extraordinary statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that they had been treated in a most extraordinary way by the refusal given to the request of his hon. Friend that an estimate should be laid on the table of the House. With regard to the expenses of the funeral of the late Duke of Wellington, all persons in the country were unanimous in wishing, by every possible means, to testify their respect for the memory of that great and illustrious man; but he did not think that respect would in any degree be diminished by the constitutional course of giving to that House, who held the purse strings of the country, an estimate of the probable expense attending the solemnity of Thursday. They all recollected the letter addressed by the Prime Minister to the Home Secretary on the occasion of the death of the Duke. In that letter, which he thought most admirable, and he believed was generally Be considered, the reason given for delaying the funeral from what appeared to be the natural time, shortly after the death of the illustrious hero, was, that it would be better and more constitutional to delay it until Parliament should be assembled, in order that Parliament might give its consent and approbation to the manner in which it was to be performed. He was sorry to see that

213
the proceeding of the Government on this occasion appeared to be like some other of their modes of proceeding—not characterised by much sincerity, but to be something of a deceptive character. ["Oh, oh!"] The Prime Minister was for waiting until Parliament could be consulted, and express its opinion on the subject. But had Parliament been consulted as to the arrangement or expense of this great national solemnity? On the contrary, everything had been done by prerogative. All the orders had been given and the expense incurred, and now the House of Commons, after being thus bamboozled—["Oh, oh!"]— was left without information, and had no alternative but to wait until after the expenses were incurred. ["Oh, oh!"] It was all very well for the adherents of the Ministry to cry "Oh, oh!" but he was sure the people were with him, and having to pay the bill, they would say the Government had done wrong in not being prepared to answer the appeal so properly made by his hon. Friend.
MR. S. CARTERsaid, he should be wanting in his duty to his constituents if he did not protest against the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had delayed the funeral solemnity for more than two months for the purpose of consulting Parliament, and yet was not now prepared to say whether the expenses would be 10,000 l. or 100,000 l., or whether, as some people said, they would amount to a quarter of a million. It seemed a somewhat invidious and ungracious task to address the House on that subject. But he was bound to say he felt last night he had not done his duty to his own conscience, in not having stood up when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer poured out, in well-turned periods, his eulogium on the Duke of Wellington, and resisted that which he (Mr. S. Carter) felt to be a national folly—for he could only term a national funeral a national folly. The right hon. Gentleman said the feelings of a great people could only find vent in a splendid pageant. If that was the only way in which they could express their feelings, it would be far better, in his opinion, not to express them at all. He thought it would have been much more to the credit of that House and of the country if the money expended on that funeral had been applied to some object of public usefulness, rather than for the pageantry,
214
parade, and pomp of a public funeral. He thought all this wore the aspect of impiety —it was man paying almost idolatrous worship to the clay of his fellow worm. He had availed himself of his privilege as a Member of that House to witness the ceremony of the lying in state. He did so from no idle curiosity, hut for the purpose of observation and reflection; but he confessed, when he looked upon all its pomp, the feeling in his mind was only one of deep disgust, to see the clay of a departed man hung round with all those emblems of heraldry, with jewellery and emblazonments, as if in mockery, and all to do honour to a being who was placed beyond the honour of this world, and could receive it no more, hut who, perhaps, had received more in his lifetime than any man of this or any other age. It was nothing more than a solemn mockery. The late Duke was now beyond the power of praise or the incense they might choose to bestow, therefore the pageant was a mockery, and ought to be put down. [Cries of "Oh!"] Gentlemen might cry "Oh!" hut they would find it impossible to oh him down. The pageant could only be justified on one of two grounds: first, upon the plea that it was a tribute to the dead; and, secondly, upon the allegation that it would be a benefit to the living. Now, he denied that it was in the power of that House to confer any honour upon the dead, and he also denied that it was likely to confer any benefit upon the living. The eulogists of the Duke of Wellington told them that his virtues were too great for imitation. They told them that he was the greatest man of a great age, and to a certain extent debarred emulation. The only thing which the pageant would do, in his opinion, would be to stimulate the military spirit of the people, and make militiamen come forward, and also foster in the minds of the poorer classes the love for expensive funerals, a folly to which they were already too prone. He must again protest against Government taking a carte blanche for the expense, and then coming to the people and saying the bill must be paid, as the debt had been incurred. He had not that confidence in hon. Gentlemen opposite; he had not that confidence in any Government, and although they might not spend more money than the Whigs, if in power, his want of confidence was an additional reason for this protest.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved that Mr. Wilson Patten take the Chair of the Committee.
MR. HUMEseconded the Motion. He was not aware that there was any person better qualified for the office than the hon. Gentleman, whose devotion to the business of the House had been unceasing; and although he (Mr. Hume) regretted the loss from that House of his hon. Friend the late Member for Rochester (Mr. Bernal), still he did not consider that they could have a better chairman than Mr. Wilson Patten.
MR. WILSON PATTEN(having taken the Chair), read the following extract from the Queen's Speech:—
"The advancement of the Fine Arts and of Practical Science will be readily recognised by you as worthy of the attention of a great and enlightened nation. I have directed that a comprehensive scheme shall be laid before you, having in view the promotion of these objects, towards which I invite your aid and co-operation."
The hon. Gentleman then read the following from the Address in reply:—
"To assure Her Majesty that we readily recognise that the advancement of the Fine Arts and of Practical Science is worthy of a great and enlightened nation; and to thank Her Majesty for having given directions that a comprehensive scheme shall be laid before us, having in view the promotion of these objects, to which Her Majesty invites our aid and co-operation."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen moved that a Supply be granted to Her Majesty.
MR. HUMEwould remind the Committee that they were not bound by the passage of the Royal Speech just read, to the adoption of any specific scheme for the purpose mentioned; for when the question should come before the House for discussion, it would be his duty to submit a plan for their consideration very different from that which he had understood was suggested, and which, he thought, would be the means of their availing themselves of public property for the purpose, without coming unnecessarily upon the public funds.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, due notice would be given for taking that paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech into consideration.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwished to express, on the part of some hon. Gentlemen connected with the militia, their discontent that some measures had not been adopted
216
for their attendance, by a deputation, at the solemn ceremony of Thursday next.
Motion agreed to; Resolution to be reported To-morrow. House resumed.

MR. VILLIERS' MOTION.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) was present, but if he was not, perhaps some hon. Friend of his was who could give him an answer. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had yesterday expressed an opinion that it would be convenient to the House that the terms of the Motion of which the hon. Member had given notice, should be communicated to the House at as early a period as possible. He had expected that yesterday they would have been furnished with its terms; but they had not, and now another day had elapsed and the terms of the Motion had not been placed before the House. Tomorrow (Wednesday) the House would only meet for a morning sitting, when it was not usual to communicate such Motions of importance to the House. On Thursday the House would not meet at all, and unless they were furnished that night with the terms of the Motion, they could not have them before Friday, if even then they might count on possessing them. He was sure the hon. Gentleman or some of his Friends would answer this inquiry. But hon. Gentlemen must feel that a Motion of that kind ought not, as far as its expressions were concerned, to be kept from their knowledge.
MR. SPEAKERthen put the question that the House do now adjourn.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that before the House adjourned he begged to take the occasion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Wilson Patten) being placed in the Chair of the Committees of the House, to advert to a subject which he had on a former occasion brought before the House. The House had enjoyed the services of its Speakers for an unusully long time without a single day's interruption of the proceedings. During the last seventy years, there had been but two occasions on which the illness of the Speaker had caused an interruption to the proceedings of the House, and then two subsequent occasions on which the Speaker, on account of the death of a near relative, had been obliged to absent himself. But, with these exceptions, the attendance of the Speaker had been unin-

217
terrupted. However, they could not always rely upon the continuance of such unbroken services; and it was obvious that the absence of the Speaker from illness or any other cause, without there being any person to supply his place, might occur at a crisis of our history when it might be of vital importance to the constitution of the country that the House should be sitting. It was in the recollection of many that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act being deemed necessary, that measure was on one occasion passed, he believed, through all its stages on one day. If, at the period of such necessity, Mr. Speaker had been ill, there could have been no House; and a Bill essential to the welfare, and even to the safety, of the State, could not have become law. No provision had been made for the appointment of a Speaker under those circumstances, and he now submitted both to the present leader of the House, and those hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side who had lately formed the Administration, whether it were not expedient to provide for such a contingency. The details of such a provision he would not presume to specify; but he thought they might obviate the difficulty by appointing two Privy Councillors on each side of the House, who, in case of any contingency such as he had referred to, might supply, as far as it was in the power of man to supply, the loss which the House and the country would sustain by the absence of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. If that were a fit suggestion to make, he thought it better to make it at a time when there was little likelihood that they would be deprived of the advantages of the Speaker's presence.
The House adjourned at half-after Six o'clock.