Commons Sitting of 1 July 1859

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Wilts (Southern Division), Right he n. Sidney Herbert;
534
for Ashton under Lyne, Right he n. Thomas Milner Gibson; for Norwich, Viscount Bury.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Locomotive; Weights and Measures.
2° Newspapers, &c.; Jury Trial (Scotland) Act Amendment.

VOLUNTEER CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government adopt the views of the late Administration with respect to Volunteer Corps, or whether they will be disposed to supply a sufficient quantity of arms for practice.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: In answer to the question of my he n. Friend I have to state that the Government have taken into consideration the offers made by the various bodies of gentlemen who are willing to serve as volunteers; and I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing the sense which we entertain of the public spirit which has been evinced in promoting the formation of these corps. We propose to accept the services of the rifle corps upon certain conditions. The first of these is that a safe and sufficient range shall exist for their practice. In order to insure this —to secure that object—it is proposed that a military officer shall be sent down to each locality to examine the ground selected, and to report upon the safety of the arrangements which any of these bodies may adopt. I think it will be obvious that without such a precaution any corps that may be formed would become useless for want of practice, or that, if it did practice, it would become dangerous to the public. In the second place, we ask that there shall be a safe place for the custody of arms. Thirdly, that the rules for the government of the corps shall receive the sanction of the Secretary of State for War; and, fourthly, that there shall be a periodical inspection of the corps by a military officer. Supposing these four conditions to be fulfilled we propose to issue to each corps a certain proportion of arms sufficient for exercise, drill, and practice. It is not necessary for that purpose that every man in a corps should be armed; and we propose to issue Enfield rifles to the number of 25 per cent of the effective members of the corps. That arrangement would supply with arms one section of every company. Then, again, with a view to facilitate the drilling and practice of these bodies, we propose that a payment of one shilling a day with a billet should

  535
  be made from the funds of each corps to a sergeant of the disembodied militia or other competent person who might have to teach them their drill. In order further to secure the efficiency of the system it is proposed that twenty-five adjutants and 100 sergeants of the disembodied militia should receive instruction in musketry at Hythe, and that the latter should afterwards be available for the instruction of the volunteer companies. Lastly, arrangements have been made to enable a limited number of officers and men of the volunteer corps to repair to Hythe at their own expense, and there receive a short course of instruction, from the 30th July to the 15th August, it being necessary that this course should not be prolonged, lest it might interfere with the practice of the regular army. Another observation which I wish to make is, that the Government, taking the same course as their predecessors, are most anxious to encourage and to give a preference to the formation of artillery corps rather than of rifle corps in the maritime counties, where our chief commercial ports, our great arsenals and the batteries which defend them are situated. The men in the former case could receive their instruction in arsenals where there is a sufficient range for practice; and I think it is obvious that the public service would be more benefited by artillery corps than by rifle companies. The artillery corps would supply the place of the regular artillery employed during a war in the field, and they would thus materially add to the available force of the country, almost as much as if they were regularly engaged in its service. They possess other advantages over rifle corps. They have a precedence in rank, and they have no arms and ammunition to buy and no range to obtain. All these circumstances must tend to facilitate the formation of artillery corps. With respect to another question which has been raised, I have to observe that as far as the organization of Volunteer Corps is at present concerned Her Majesty's Government have no intention to do otherwise than to accept the offer of independent companies. We must recollect that a false step made at first in the calculation of numbers—one that is fallacious—will be very difficult to retrieve. At present, therefore, the offers of companies only will be accepted. When we see he w many companies there are, their force, and he w they are composed, it will be for us to consider he w far a higher
  536
  and more efficient organization may be carried out. I hope to be able, in the course of a few days, to issue a circular which will embody all these particulars, as well as some other details with which I need not now trouble the House, and which will enable Lords-Lieutenant of counties and other properly qualified persons to form these corps, without entering into any lengthened correspondence with the War Office. With respect to the arrangement for supplying arms for only 25 per cent of the men, it is to be understood, that in the case of a war, when they would have to be called out, they would all be armed.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished to know whether, in addition to the 25 per cent of the men who were to receive arms from the Government, the others would be allowed to supply themselves with arms at their own expense?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that there was nothing to prevent any number of the men from supplying themselves with rifles provided the gauge was the same as that of the arms supplied by the Government, so that the same ammunition could be used in both cases.
  LORD GALWAYasked what was the kind of arm that was to be furnished by the Government.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, it was to be of the pattern of 1853. He did not propose to make any change in the rule laid down by the late Government.
  MR. ESMONDEwished to know what course the right he n. Gentleman meant to pursue with regard to the formation of rifle corps in Ireland?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that the Government had only taken into consideration those cases in which offers had been made to them to raise volunteer corps. They had received no such offer from Ireland, and if any were to come it should be a subject of special consideration, inasmuch as the law in that case was not the same in Ireland as in this country.

  THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE LATE GOVERNMENT.—NOTICE.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he believed it would be more in accordance with constitutional practice that he should bring forward, on a Motion for a Committee of Supply, the Resolutions of which he had yesterday given notice, with respect to the policy pursued by the late Government upon the Italian Question, than that he

  537
  should introduce them on a Tuesday. He wished, therefore, to state that he would bring forward his Motion on Monday next, or on the first supply day that might follow.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the noble Lord having fixed a day for his Motion could not bring it forward at an earlier period.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he would then give notice that he would bring it forward on the first Supply night after Tuesday.

SEWAGE OF THE METROPOLIS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Metropolitan Board have commenced the construction of Low Level Sewers for the purpose of preventing the sewage of the metropolis from passing into the river Thames; or whether, on the contrary, they are merely proceeding with High Level Sewers, in order to divert the water from brooks and rivulets, and also the rain water, from passing into the river through the present sewers.
  MR. FITZROYsaid, the Department with which he was connected had no control whatever over the Metropolitan Board of Works as to the drainage of the metropolis. The whole jurisdiction, superintendence, and construction of those works was vested exclusively in the Board by Act of Parliament. But not to be wanting in courtesy to the he n. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Locke), he had put himself in communication with the Chairman of the Board of Works on this subject, and had received from him the following statement, which he would read to the House:—
  "The Board have commenced the intercepting scheme by the construction of the high level sewers, in order to divert the flood waters from the lower districts and to facilitate the construction of the low level sewers. They are deeply impressed with the necessity for affording the earliest possible relief to those districts, as well as of diverting the whole of the sewage from the river without any avoidable delay, and have therefore, directed their attention to providing the engines and machinery for raising the sewage, without which it would be impossible for the low level sewers to perform their office. They have further ordered the immediate preparation of the contract drawings for the southern outfall sewer, into which the contents of the low level sewer will have to be pumped, and have instructed their engineer to lay before them some suggestions for affording immediate relief to the localities referred to pending the execution of the permanent works,"

  OUDE. —QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg leave to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Proclamation confiscating the soil of Oude to the Crown is being acted upon, so that, while the rights of the talookdars have been restored in many instances, those of the peasants are considered to be forfeited?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, there was no foundation for the fears of his he n. Friend, and he would shortly state what had taken place. During the first ten months after the re-occupation of Luck-now, in March, 1858, a great many talookdars gave in their allegiance, and they were, for the moat part, admitted to a settlement (on the basis of the summary settlement made in 1856–57), their tenure being made conditional on their rendering active assistance to the British Government in all matters of police. From this there was some reaction; but, after the issuing of the Royal Proclamation a new impetus was given to the returning allegiance of the landlords, and many fresh settlements were made. Some of the great landholders, however, held out, and others wore suspected of having participated in the murder of Europeans. Their estates were confiscated, and new settlements either made with friendly chiefs or with the under proprietors; but no estate had been confiscated in Oude, the proprietor of which had tendered his allegiance under the terms of the Proclamation. The number of actual confiscations was very small. The settlement was made principally with the talookdars on the principle of a general restoration of the stale of things which was found on the first annexation of the province; but regard was paid to the claims of the village proprietors (who, during the rebellion, had in many cases voluntarily acknowledged the authority of the talookdars), and a certain quota of the net profits of each estate was fixed as their share, while the talookdar was left without the power of enhancing his demands upon them beyond the sum fixed in the village rent-roll. By these arrangements it would appear that the rights of all parties are protected, the object having been, while reverting to the old talookdaree system, to afford, at the same time, increased protection to the village proprietors. The old talookdar system had been restored, but the interests of the under tenants, or proprietors, had been cared for by fixing their proportion of the rent,

  539
  beyond which the talookdars could claim nothing from them.

MASTERS OF THE ROYAL NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he wished to ask the late First Lord of the Admiralty whether the petition of the Masters of the Royal Navy (which was presented to the Admiralty in November last, praying that their position and prospects might be improved), has been considered; and, if so, what conclusion has been arrived at?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had received a memorial from the Masters of the Royal Navy, such as the he n. Gentleman had described. It was only one of several memorials which he had received from different ranks of officers—namely, Medical Officers, Chaplains, Masters, and Paymasters. He was enabled to deal with the case of the Medical Officers and Chaplains, and he had hoped to be able to deal with those of the Masters and Paymasters also. He intended to have proposed some concessions to meet the wishes of those officers, which he thought reasonable and well-founded, but before he could complete the arrangements the Government of which he was a member came to an end. He had therefore left the matter, with all the papers relating to it, in the hands of his successors.

  THE ENGLISH MILITARY COMMISSIONERS IN LOMBARDY.—QUESTION.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why a Return, ordered on the 9th of June, relative to the Military Commissioner sent to the head-quarters of the French, Sardinian, and Austrian armies, has not been presented; and whether there is any objection to lay upon the table the Reports made by those officers up to the present time?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Return to which the he n. Member alluded was presented yesterday—the first day on which it could be presented—by his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury. With regard to the latter part of the he n. Member's question, "whether there was any objection to lay upon the table the Reports made by those officers up to the present time," he (Lord John Russell) must say there was very great objection to such a course. It was obvious that, if
  540
  those Reports were presented, the different Governments to which those Commissioners were accredited would very justly object to the publication of statements which might have a serious effect on the operations of their respective armies. He considered that it was a very friendly act on the part of those Governments to allow those Commissioners to be sent among them. He could not, therefore, for the reason he had assigned, agree to the presentation of the Reports in question.

  MANNING THE NAVY.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill during the present Session with the view of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Manning the Navy.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, as this was a very important question involving a large outlay of public money, and as the members of the Board of Admiralty had only taken their seats the day preceding, he thought it would not be unreasonable if he asked to be permitted to defer answering the question put to him until Monday. The Report of the Royal Commission on Manning the Navy was issued in February last, and his right he n. Friend (Sir John Pakington), so far as could be made out at the Admiralty, did not come to any decision on that Report until the month of June. He (Lord Clarence Paget) therefore thought it not unreasonable to ask to be allowed to postpone answering the question of his right he n. Friend until Monday.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.—RESOLUTION.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he begged leave to move, that upon Thursday, the 14th day of this instant July, and upon every succeeding Thursday during the present Session, Government Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motion. It was well understood he w essential such an arrangement as that was to the despatch of public business, and he should hope no objection would be made to it, seeing he believed the Motion he had just made was proposed at a later period than usual in previous Sessions. At the same time, perhaps the House would allow him to make a suggestion with the

  541
  view to facilitating the despatch of business. The House met yesterday at the usual hour, and, there Being very little private business before the House, the Speaker was kept in the chair, and he n. Members were kept waiting for a considerable time, until the clock pointed to the half hour at which public business commenced. He would suggest to the right he n. Gentleman and to the House whether it would not be convenient, on days on which there should not be a sufficient amount of private business to occupy the House until half-past four, that it should be understood that the public business would commence at a quarter past four. An unnecessary loss of time would be then prevented.
  Resolved—That upon Thursday the 14th day of this instant July, and upon every succeeding Thursday during the present Session, Government Orders of the day shall have precedence of Notices of Motions.
  On the Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday.

  BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the statement made by Mr. Dennis at a public meeting of the electors of Northampton, that an offer had been made to Mr. Gilpin by the agents of the late Government to influence his vote in Parliament; and to call upon the Secretary of the Poor Law Board to communicate the letters referred to by him, with the name of the person from whom they originated, to the House. He was happy to state that, since he last brought the question of which he had given notice for that day before the House, it would not be necessary to take the disagreeable course of summoning the innocent printer and publisher of The Times newspaper to the bar of the House. He might state that it was never his wish to interfere with the press, to which the whole community were under deep obligation for the accurate reports which they furnished of the proceedings at public meetings. In any observations he might make on this question he assured the he n. Gentleman whose name he should have occasion to mention it was not his wish to say a single word calculated to give him the least offence. The House was aware, no doubt, that the ques-
  542
  tion which he intended to put to the Secretary to the Poor Law Board (Mr. Gilpin) was founded on a statement which appeared in the public press, and which was made by Mr. Dennis at a public meeting at Northampton. That statement was to the effect that a pecuniary reward of the most direct and gross nature had been offered to the he n. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) to induce him to vote in a particular way on a division of that House. Since the subject was last before the House he had taken the opportunity of writing to Mr. Dennis, stating that in anticipation of his again referring to it in the House it would be advisable that be (Mr. Dennis) should inform him whether the statement imputed to him in the press was correct. That Gentleman had accordingly furnished him with a corrected statement of his speech. The House would remember that the statement in question was reported to have been made at a meeting of Liberal electors at Northampton which had been convened by Mr. Dennis in anticipation of an expected vacancy in the representation. Mr. Dennis came up to London and had interviews with the two hon. Members for Northampton. In the first instance he saw the late Member for that borough, now Lord Lyveden, and, without troubling the House with what was no doubt amusing, he (Mr. Stanley) might say that a statement was made by that noble Lord to Mr. Dennis as to the reason why he had been removed from that House to the House of Lords. Mr. Dennis had also an interview with the other he n. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin), on the subject of the election about to take place there. The part of the statement subsequently made by Mr. Dennis at the meeting at Northampton, to which he (Mr. Stanley) wished to call attention, was as follows: —
  "But he thought it perfectly right to state, as an illustration of the agencies that had been at work during the late struggle, that Mr. Gilpin read two letters which he had received from the agents of the Tory party, in which a direct attempt was made to corrupt Mr. Gilpin in the discharge of his duty as a Member of Parliament, and to influence him in giving his vote upon the late division, by offering him a consideration of the grossest and most direct character. He stated that at once, for the information of all people concerned, and for the consideration of the electors in case they thought fit to take up the matter. With what success the attempt had been made he need not there state, but he thought he was perfectly justified as an elector in exposing a transaction of so flagrant a character, and to tell the

  543
  gentlemen who at their own hustings held up halfcrowns to show the poorer electors of the borough what they thought of them, that if this was done by the Government of the country it could not be wondered at that its followers should do the same."
  With regard to that statement he had received a letter from Mr. Dennis which he would read to the House:—
  "Northampton, June 24, 1859.
  "Sir, I beg to acknowledge your letter of yesterday's date. As regards the newspaper report of my statement referred to by you, I have to correct it in two not very material particulars. The word 'pecuniary' attributed to me, if used, was inapt, as the letters to which I alluded held out the temptation of an appointment, and not of absolute money. The letters were communicated to, and not 'read by' me. The writer's name was not communicated. I do not understand Mr. Gilpin as disputing the accuracy of the statement, but it must rest with him to produce or withhold the documents, as it obviously does not he in my power personally to pursue the matter further.
  "I am, Sir, yours very obediently,
  "WILLIAM DENNIS."
  That letter was accompanied by the following extract from an account of the affair appeared in the Northampton Mercury of the 25th of June:—
  "There is nothing so simple as truth. We believe, therefore, we shall be doing our valued Member, Mr. Gilpin, a good service, by stating plainly a plain tale as it has come to our knowledge. Some short time ago, a member of Mr. Gilpin's family formed a casual watering-place acquaintance with a lady of some position, whoso connections lay among the Members of the late Ministry. Shortly before the recent division on the want of confidence vote, which proved fatal to the Derby-Disraeli Cabinet, Mr. Gilpin, to his surprise, received a letter from this lady, urging various reasons why, as an 'Independent Liberal,' he should vote in favour of the Ministry, repeating the old story of a Radical Reform Bill looming in the future, and concluding by a statement that the Ministry were prepared to reward politicians who proved awake to a sense of their true interests. This letter having failed to produce the desired result, Mr. Gilpin was favoured with another communication from the same quarter, stating distinctly that in case of his voting in support of the Ministry certain offices, among others that which he now holds under the present Government, or a colonial governorship, would be placed at his disposal. It would be almost an insult to our representative to assert more about his reply than that it was what any man of honour and integrity would have made to such a proposal. The contents of the correspondence have been communicated to us, and we can confidently declare that their publication, if advisable, would only tend to increase the estimation in which Mr. Gilpin's character is deservedly held. This division came on, Mr. Gilpin voted in the majority. The Derby Government was thrown out, and Lord Palmerston assumed the task of constructing a Ministry. After the post of Secretary to the Poor Law Board had bean offered to Mr. Gilpin, and
  544
  accepted by him—after, and not before—the letters in question were shown by him to his colleagues in the Ministry, and to those Gentlemen with whom he has acted in Parliament. By their advice, it was resolved, agreeably to Mr. Gilpin's own opinion, that no further notice should be taken of the matter. The grounds on which this Resolution was adopted were, we believe, the following:—First, that there was no good to be gained in stirring up ill blood now that the contest was over. Secondly, that any attack on a lady was in itself invidious; and, lastly, that there was a want of legal or indeed absolute moral proof that the lady in question had written with distinct authority from any of the late Government, or might not have exceeded her instructions. Under these circumstances it was considered only just to give the parties inculpated the benefit of the doubt. The decision was a wise one, and with Mr. Gilpin's wish the matter would then have dropped. Unfortunately, without Mr. Gilpin's knowledge or sanction, a somewhat garbled version of this story worked its way round into one of the London papers. Mr. Dennis communicated with Mr. Gilpin on the subject of this Report, and received the facts as we have told them. The matter had already attracted attention in the town, and at a meeting of the Liberal party, summoned on Monday last, for another object, Mr. Dennis very properly, in our opinion, made a statement to this effect."
  Now, he should have been very happy if the advice tendered to the he n. Gentleman had been followed to the letter, and if he had kept the letter entirely to himself. But the he n. Member had brought it upon himself if other Members thought that the affair ought to be properly noticed. It seemed that when an election agent came up to prepare for a new election for Northampton he was shown these letters. He was told the whole story, and when he returned he made political capital of it at Northampton. He said that he mentioned it for the purpose of exposure, and in order that the matter might be followed up. In his (Mr. 0. Stanley's) simplicity, he certainly thought it was the wish of the he n. Member that a public inquiry should take place, and that the party offending—he did not then know it was a lady—should be brought to justice. The House must remember the particular time at which this charge was made, and the nature of the situation in which the House at present stood. A dissolution had taken place, and a considerable number of seats had been gained by the late Government. When they came to count the relative numbers on the Motion of want of confidence it was well known that five or six votes taken from one side and carried to the other would have the effect either of leaving the late Administration in power or replacing them by their opponents. Rumours had

  545
  been rife, and he himself knew, that every means were taken by the late Government to secure, if possible, a majority in their avour. He might, indeed, go further and say that some means were taken which were not greatly to their credit. [Cries of "Name."] He would not do so at present, but in all probability before the Session was over these things would come out, The House had seen every means taken to influence Members. Some were influenced by Galway contracts, others by the prospect of obtaining what they supposed to be the rights of the Roman Catholics. Had they forgotten the public meeting in London on the subject? ["Question!"] It was the question. At a meeting of the Roman Catholic nobility and gentry in London it was stated that then was the time to press Lord Derby, and that if he did not yield them what they thought right they would find a means of making him. Considering all they had heard and that the statement was brought forward in a public way, it was for the dignity and credit of the House that any replies to it should be made in that House rather than at Northampton at an election, and in the manner in which it had been done. It was only the other day that a book was handed round containing the rules of the House, one of which—the 419th, dated May 2nd, 1695—set forth that any offer of money or advantage to a Member of Parliament was a high crime and misdemeanor, and tended to subvert the British constitution. That Resolution was passed at a time when direct pecuniary bribery was practised, which later, in the time of Walpole, had got to such an extent that it was said, "Every man had his price." He hoped that such times would never return, and that the House, in framing rules to put a stop to bribery and corruption in constituencies, would themselves come with clean hands to the work. With regard to this transaction, although the he n. Member for Northampton told them he would not give up the name of the writer of the letters, yet he put it to him whether, after taking the part he had done, and after raising so serious a charge, it was not his duty to follow it up, and give the name, so as to allow the House to judge whether the charge were true or false. He did not require the name of the lady. It was a poor flimsy pretext, however, to keep back the name because it was that of a lady. The husband and those who had incited her to
  546
  write the letters wore the real culprits. He believed the he n. Member for Northampton would tell the House that he had no reason to believe that the offer made to him was a he ax; and if the answer of the he n. Gentleman were read, there would be no doubt the he n. Gentleman thought it a bonâ fide offer. He had no power to compel the he n. Member to give up the name. It must rest with him, as a sincere Reformer, either to prosecute this matter further, or to take the responsibility of having gone so far, and now refusing to proceed. Feeling, therefore, that he was acting rightly, he would now call upon the Secretary of the Poor-law Board to communicate the letters referred to by him, with the name of the person from whom they originated, to the House.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that when a short time ago the he n. Gentleman first brought before the House the subject to which he had again called their attention, he then without notice called upon him (Mr. Gilpin) to defend statements which he had not made, and to explain a speech which he had not delivered. That was, he considered, rather hard justice, especially from an he n. Gentleman sitting upon the same side of the House as himself; but upon the spur of the moment he made a statement which he could not do better than repeat—that letters were sent to him containing suggestions which, had they been acted upon, would have biassed his political course in Parliament; that he could not trace them, and did not trace them, to the agents of the Conservative party, and therefore he was not going to take any further steps in the matter. He did not know whether he stated then what had since become sufficiently notorious, that the author of those letters was a lady, but he presumed his he n. Friend was perfectly well aware that it was not the first time that ladies connected with political parties had exerted themselves in canvassing Members or constituencies. He confessed the thing appeared so utterly ridiculous that he had to look more than once at the notice of Motion, and to speak more than once to the he n. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. O. Stanley) before he could be quite sure that a Gentleman, as he undoubtedly was, would come down to the House of Commons and ask a fellow Member to give up the name of a lady. He was surprized that a Gentleman should think it right to make such a request, but he was quite sure it was a request which no Gentleman

  547
  could comply with. [Mr. O. STANLEY: The language of the he n. Member is unparliamentary.] He hoped he had said what he had intended to say. He meant to say that he wondered he w a Gentleman should ask a question which no Gentleman could answer, but he had not meant to say anything unparliamentary or personally offensive. The he n. Gentleman has, however, put a notice on the paper, and it was his (Mr. Gilpin's) duty to reply to it. He had stated before, that inasmuch as that correspondence was not, as far as he knew, to be traced to the agents of any political party, he was not prepared to take any further steps in the matter. When the he n. Member had shown him on the previous day the terms of his Motion, they contained, he believed, no allusion to any demand for the name of the lady, and he was then prepared, if the House desired it, though he would venture to suggest that their time might be much better occupied) to place attested copies of the letters and his replies upon the table, but now that the he n. Gentleman had coupled with his question a demand for the name of his correspondent, he must tell that he n. Gentleman respectfully, but emphatically, that he declined to give it.
  MR. PALKsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion; but the he n. Gentleman who first addressed them had made a charge against Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House which reflected not only on the members of the late Government, but on all those who had supported them during the time they were in office. The he n. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O. Stanley), if he had not misunderstood his language, had charged them with endeavouring to obtain votes by means which were not justifiable; and which, therefore, he supposed were discreditable to themselves and to their party. He, therefore, called on that he n. Gentleman, as one who was not in the habit of making charges which he was not prepared to prove, to name either on the present or on some future occasion when it might better suit the convenience of the House those particular members of the Government and those particular acts which he had called in question.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he considered that the question was one that ought not to have been brought before the House; it ought not to have been treated seriously; indeed, it was impossible to do so, for neither any power existing in that House or elsewhere,
  548
  nor probably any tortures, would wring from his he n. Friend the name of his fair and somewhat indiscreet correspondent. The matter ought not to be treated seriously, because there was not one tittle of evidence, or any shadow of presumption, so far as he had been able to see, to connect any gentleman who had the power of carrying out the offer which the letter contained with the letter in which that offer was made. Nor had he understood the slightest charge to that effect to be made by the he n. Gentleman. Neither his he n. Friend nor any other person in his senses could have considered it possible that right he n. Gentlemen on the other side, when sitting on the Treasury benches, would have been guilty of such dishonest and exceedingly rash conduct; and even had they been inclined to do so, he doubted whether they would have pitched on his he n. Friend as the object of their blandishments. In common with many other he n. Members he had, from the first entrance into that House of his he n. Friend, admired his ability and straightforward conduct. They might have been somewhat awed by a little of the stern and Cato-like virtue which was apparent in his demeanour; and they had been certainly glad to find that he was the object of, and, perhaps, accessible to, other admiration than that of the House of which he was a Member. Having said this, and added very respectfully his advice, that in case any similar letter reached his he n. Friend the best course which he could adopt would be immediately to put it on the fire, he hoped, with deference to the House, that he had said all that it was necessary to say on this exceedingly trumpery matter.
  MR. O. STANLEYsaid, that referring to the statement that the correspondence had been shown to him, thought it right to say that the lady had written as the amanuensis of her husband.
  MR. BRADYsaid, that although on the occasion when this subject was last laid before the House, he had expressed himself as not being fully satisfied, having since been allowed to read the correspondence which had passed between the he n. Member and that celebrated lady, he must say that there was not a word in his reply which did not reflect credit on him as a man of honour.

  THE INDIAN LOAN.—QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he rose to put a question to the late Secretary for India

  549
  relative to the recent Indian loan. It would be in the recollection of the House that during the last Session an Act was passed by which the late Government obtained power to raise a loan of £7,000,000 for the purposes of India. Advertisements were issued calling for tenders, and Thursday, the 21st of April last, at 12 o'clock, was fixed for their reception. Upon that day many persons appeared, and were informed that a minimum price of ninety-five had been fixed, below which no tender would be received. The tenders were then opened, and out of 443, representing an aggregate of nearly £7,000,000, 310 for a total of more than £5,077,000 were accepted. Immediately after that transaction, the scrip bore a small nominal premium in the market, but in the course of the afternoon, the fact of the Austrian ultimatum having been sent to Turin was made known, and a kind of panic ensued. The script for this particular loan on the following Saturday fell to l½discount, and in the course of a week went to 4 or 5 discount, being, in fact, unsaleable. Under these circumstances it was natural that the public should wish to know whether the Government, at the time the tenders were accepted, were in possession of that intelligence, which was certain to affect the prices of all stock. In putting this question he did not wish to imply more than the words of his notice conveyed. He did not intend to suggest that there had been any unfairness on the part of the Government, but merely wished to elicit the facts which he hoped would be satisfactory to the public mind. It appeared from the papers recently printed, that intelligence of the Austrian ultimatum arrived in London on the evening of Wednesday, April 20, from Vienna, and the fact was communicated on the following morning by his Excellency the French Ambassador to the Earl of Malmesbury. It was simply with a view to ascertain the real facts that he now asked the late Secretary of State for India whether he was aware, when he proceeded, on Thursday, the 21st day of April last, to receive and adjudicate upon the tenders invited to be sent in for the Indian Loan, of the fact that the Austrian ultimatum to Sardinia had been made known to Her Majesty's Government on the previous evening by a telegram from Vienna, and also by a written communication from his excellency the French Ambassador to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, nothing could
  550
  be fairer than the manner in which the question had been put by the he n. Member for London. It was a question which he could have answered on the previous evening, when notice of it was given, but he thought that probably the he n. Member would wish to accompany it by some remarks. It was not the fact that either he or any other person connected with the negotiations for the loan or with the Indian Department was cognizant of the news to which the he n. Member referred at the time when the tenders for the loan ware received and adjudicated on. He did not know at what hour of the night or of the morning the intelligence in question was received by his noble Friend, the Earl of Malmesbury; but the intelligence in question was not received by him (Lord Stanley) up to four o'clock in the afternoon of the 21st of April, and the tenders for the loan wore finally adjudicated upon between twelve and one o'clock. A considerable time elapsed between the period when the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs received this intelligence and the time when it became known to the Indian Department, but the fact was that immediately on receiving it his noble Friend proceeded, as was natural, to summon a Cabinet Council, in order that deliberations might take place upon it; and it so happened that the Earl of Derby was in attendance on the Queen at Windsor, so that the Cabinet Council could not be held up to four o'clock in the afternoon. The first intimation he (Lord Stanley) received of the intelligence was at four o'clock in the afternoon, which was between three and four hours after the time when the transaction connected with the loan took place.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the noble Lord's explanation would be considered perfectly satisfactory.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SEAMEN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSEYsaid, he would beg leave to ask the late First Lord of the Admiralty what steps the late Board of Admiralty had taken with reference to the complaints which had been submitted to the Board respecting the treatment of Roman Catholic Sailors in the Royal Navy?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had no objection to answer the question, and he hoped what he was about to state would not bring him under the animadversion of the he n. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. O.

  551
  Stanley.) The facts were briefly these:—A few weeks ago a memorial was sent to the Earl of Derby complaining on the part of the Roman Catholic body that Roman Catholic sailors were subjected to certain disadvantages in respect to their religious instruction. The Earl of Derby sent the memorial to him, requesting his opinion on it, whereupon he wrote a letter to the Earl of Derby stating the views he entertained with respect to the different matters of complaint contained in the memorial, which were drawn up under a series of headings, to the number, he believed, of about eleven. The substance of his letter was this:—he was entirely of opinion that every fair and reasonable claim on the part of the Roman Catholic sailors with respect to the exercise of their religion ought to be conceded; and more especially that that should be removed which formed one of the main points of their complaint—namely, that Roman Catholic sailors were not allowed the same advantage with respect to their worship as were conceded to Roman Catholic soldiers; and he stated distinctly in his letter to the Earl of Derby that, so far as the different nature of the two services permitted, Roman Catholic soldiers and Roman Catholic sailors should be placed on precisely the same footing. He also proceeded to state that he thought that some of the requests contained in the memorial, which related to matters in respect to which there was a great difference between the two services, it would be impossible to concede, or could only be conceded under particular circumstances. Having sent this answer to the Earl of Derby, he caused a copy of the memorial and his letter to be circulated among his colleagues at the Admiralty Board, who considered them. As a change of Government was impending, it was impossible for him to take any further steps in the matter; but it was his intention, if he had continued in office, to direct instructions to be issued to concede such portions of the memorial as, he thought, in fairness and justice ought to be conceded. That was the position in which the question now stood, and he had left the papers he had referred to for the consideration of his successor at the Admiralty to deal with in such manner as he should think fit.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he viewed this question as an additional evidence of combined action on the part of certain Roman Catholic authorities to obtain concessions on various subjects. The notice
  552
  paper itself would inform the House that such was the case. The he n. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) was about to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intended to break in upon the Roman Catholic Oath, and the obvious consequence of such a step would be that they would see a considerable alteration in the settlement of 1829. The he n. Member for Dungarvan had also a notice for an early day that he was about to demand the establishment of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland. [Mr. BOWYER: A charter for an existing University.] He did not suppose the he n. Member would demand a new establishment of that kind if there were one already in existence. He knew that the House was inclined to devote it3 attention to foreign affairs, but this was a question at once both foreign and domestic. Since a meeting that was held on the 8th ult. there had been an obvious movement on the part of all those who obeyed the direction of Cardinal Wiseman. It was proposed, not only to move for an increase of Roman Catholic priests in the naval service, which, it appeared, had been under the consideration of the late Government, but they were going even farther than that, and to demand that Roman Catholic priests appointed by Cardinal Wiseman should have official access to all prisoners in gaols and the inmates of poor-houses. But what was the case at present? Every Roman Catholic prisoner could demand the attendance of a Roman Catholic chaplain in any gaol or workhouse, as the law now stood. The object of what was now sought for was to give an official right to Roman Catholic priests appointed by Roman Catholic authorities to enter gaols and poor-houses and inquire for themselves who chose to receive their ministrations. [" No, no!"] Well, then, the object had been abandoned, for it had been entertained. [An he n. MEMBER: There never was any such object.] He was perfectly prepared for these denials, but he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that Cardinal Wiseman, a foreign authority, lately boasted of the increase of the establishments under his command—by monasteries in London, &c, by increase of those missions which, as vicar apostolic, he had established for the Jesuit order. He drew the serious attention of the Government to these things, for it was the aim of Cardinal Wiseman, and those who acted with him, that no Prime Minister, however powerful or however jaunty, should

  553
  be able to resist the demands made upon him. He wished to see the freedom of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects preserved as well as those of Protestants; but let the House take care, for it would be assailed with Motions the result of which was intended to be the establishment of a power which in Austria had been proved incompatible with all freedom, which in Naples was a fruitful source of oppression, and which, he feared, was likely to cripple the action of France in seeking the liberation of Italy—a power to which, he trusted, England, while regarding the freedom of the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown, would never submit.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he must request the indulgence of the House while be explained away the bugbear which possessed the lively imagination of the he n. Member for Warwickshire. No such demand as the he n. Member described had been made at the meeting referred to, or at any other. One simple demand was made and no other; and it was made by some of the highest nobles in England, as well as by Members of that House, and was now under the consideration of the Government. That demand was to the effect that the Catholic clergy should have free access to prisoners registered in the books of the establishment as Roman Catholics and to paupers in workhouses similarly registered, whether adults or infants. He believed, then, that the he n. Member might dismiss his great alarm, for those who had the administration of gaols and workhouses in England wore not emissaries of the Pope of Rome or agents of Cardinal Wiseman, but as true supporters of the Established Church as the he n. Member himself, and consequently there was no danger of the Roman Catholics being allowed to tamper with Protestant paupers or Protestant prisoners. If the Government granted that fair demand which had been made, the Roman Catholic Members would give them every legitimate support, for they asked not for places for themselves, but only for justice to those they represented. He concurred with the opinion expressed by a noble Lord in another place that it was not degrading or dishonourable to make or to grant such demands. With regard to the grant of a charter to a Catholic university, he had received a letter from a Protestant Member of that House, who said, "Nothing is fairer than your demand. What do you ask for? Nothing but that a Catholic college shall have the
  554
  power of granting degrees to its own alumni." When the proper time arrived he believed he should be able to satisfy he n. Gentlemen that the demands made by the Catholics were only such as every Member of that House might fairly concede to them.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that upwards of four years ago a Committee was appointed, on his Motion, to inquire into the mode in which Government contracts were made, and in the course of their investigation it transpired that some extraordinary defalcations and irregularities had taken place in the Ordnance department at Weedon. A Commission was appointed to inquire into these circumstances, and he begged leave to ask whether that Commission had reported, and if so, when the report would be laid upon the table. The right he n. Secretary for War had given notice of his intention to move the appointment of a committee with reference to the War Department, and he (Colonel Dunne) wished to know whether that Committee would interfere with the functions of a Committee for which he intended to move, with reference to the reorganization of the civil branch of that department. The expenses of the civil department of the army had been enormously increased, but while larger armies had been recently moved by the French war department with the greatest case, he believed that if we were to go to war our system was so imperfect that great disasters would occur. He concluded by asking the Secretary of State for War whether the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Ordnance Department at Weedon, &c, has been received; and if received, when it will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTreplied that the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the transactions at Weedon bad not yet been received, but so soon as it had been presented, and the Government had had time for its consideration, it would be laid upon the Table. He had no wish to clash with the he n. and gallant Member with regard to the Committee for which he intended to move, and he might therefore state that he merely proposed the re-appointment of the Committee which sat at the end of last Session, whose labours he thought it desirable to recommence at as early a period as possible.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL COURT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he begged leave to ask the Attorney General if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any measure to remedy the delay which now exists in the trial of causes in the Matrimonial and Divorce Court, and to direct his attention to the mass of causes now existing in that Court. With reference to the latter point he might mention that there were now pending in that Court about 285 petitions, which had been filed for divorce or dissolution of marriage, and about 151 causes were standing for trial, many of which had been ready for trial some twelve or eighteen months. It was necessary to have the attendance of three Judges before a decree of divorce or dissolution of marriage could be pronounced, but the greatest difficulty was experienced in obtaining the attendance of the requisite number of Judges. But surely this was a needless guarantee, seeing that one Judge had the power to decide on a question of life or death; why not then upon the simple issue of adultery or no adultery. The country gave the Attorney General credit for being a sincere legal reformer; and, as he was the main author of the new law of divorce, there could be no doubt that he would be ready to remedy any defects which might be found to exist in the measure. The Judges were now about to proceed on their respective circuits, and the decision of the 151 cases to which he had referred—involving the happiness of families and the interests of children—must therefore be postponed for a considerable period. He wished to know whether the Attorney General would, during the present Session, endeavour to introduce some measure to remedy this delay.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied that the first legal subject to which the attention of the Government had been directed was the state of the Court of Marriage and Divorce. It must, however, be recollected that the arrears which had accumulated in that Court ought not to be regarded as affording anything like an indication of what might be expected to be the ordinary state of business. Many of the suits now pending had originated in circumstances which occurred as long as three, seven or eight, or even ten years ago, and an amazing amount of business had been brought before the Court simply in consequence of no tribunal of a similar nature having previously existed. When
  556
  the Bill was before the House he had been exceedingly desirous that the composition of the full Court should be enlarged, and, adopting a suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), he had been willing that the whole of the Judges should be competent to form the full Court. That proposition was, however, objected to, and the Judges eligible to form the Court were limited to the chief justices and to the senior puisne Judges of each Court. A measure would be submitted to Parliament without delay for the purpose of extending the number of persons eligible to form the full Court, with the view of at once reducing the arrears of causes. The Bill to which he referred would also deal with other matters, and would, he hoped, tend materially to improve the efficiency of the Court. He trusted that measure would receive the sanction of Parliament during the present Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at its rising to adjourn till Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it will be perhaps for the convenience of the House if the Government will inform us what is to be the course of business for next week.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In answer to the question which I understand the right hon. Gentleman has just put during my temporary absence—a question as to the course of public business next week—I believe that all the Estimates not yet voted will be placed on the table on Monday. We propose to take the Army or Navy Estimates on Friday next—I am not quite sure which; but due notice shall be given on the subject.

NEWSPAPERS, &c, BILL.

  SECOND READING.—DEBATE RESUMED.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [17th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, as there was really no principle involved in the Bill, he was not prepared to oppose its passing through that stage. The measure proposed to deal with various fragments of

  557
  Acts of Parliament which regulated publications of various descriptions, including newspapers. Whilst assenting to the second reading, he, however, wished it to be understood that he reserved to himself full power and liberty of discussion of any of the particular Enactments recited in the Bill, and which it was proposed to repeal. There was one important Enactment which the measure proposed to repeal—namely, that regarding the registration of proprietors of newspapers. Now, that was a question which affected not principally the public or the Government, but private individuals who might be the subjects of libellous attacks in newspapers. If the protection which the present law provided, in respect to a legal remedy were withdrawn, it was possible that those individuals might be placed in a disadvantageous position. That, however, was a question upon which he did not wish at present to express any opinion, but rather to reserve himself for further discussion in Committee. There were two other Acts recited in the Bill, and which he thought must have found their way into it by mistake. One was an Act to indemnify certain persons in respect to penalties incurred under previous Enactments not now in force. The repeal of that Act could not have any advantageous result. The other Act was one repealing the punishment of banishment for the commission of the second offence of libel. Now, if that Act were repealed the effect would be to increase the severity of the criminal law in regard to libel, for which he was not aware that there was any necessity. As he had already stated, he would assent to the second reading, upon the understanding, however, that all those details should be fully considered in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday next.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MIDDLESEX (ASSISTANT JUDGE), BILL.

  SECOND READING. DEBATE FURTHER ADJOURNED.
  The Order of the Day for the adjourned debate on the Second Reading [17th June] of this Bill being read.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, as the provisions of the Bill involved some serious considerations he was desirous of further time being allowed for their examination. So far as he understood it, the object of the Bill was that the salary of the Assistant Judge should be increased from
  558
  £1,200 to £1,500 a year, he being prohibited from private practice. Now that involved two considerations, one being that the addition to be made to the salary was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and the other was that the Assistant Judge should be prohibited from private practice. He therefore would propose the postponement of the measure until Monday.
  Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he rose to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of 5 & 6 Wm. IV., c. 63, relating to weights and measures. The measure was similar to that introduced last Session. It differed so far from the Bill of the he n. Member for Drogheda (Mr. M'Cann), that whereas the latter proposed that corn should be sold by weight, his (Mr. J. Locke's) proposed that it should be sold by measure. There was no doubt a great difference of opinion upon this subject. For example, those who were engaged in the corn trade in this part of the kingdom were in favour of the principle of measure; whereas in the north of England the people were strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill of the he n. Member for Drogheda. His Bill also proposed to punish persons using false weights and measures in the sale of goods in the public streets—an evil that was not reached by the existing law. It also contained a provision for the more frequent testing of weights and measures.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Act of the fifth and sixth years of King William the Fourth, chapter sixty-three, relating to Weights aad Measures, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN LOCKE, Mr. HUTT, and Mr. BUXTON.
  Bill presented; and read 1°; to be read 2°, on Wednesday 20th July.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.