Commons Sitting of 25 June 1868

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Unwin Heygate, esquire, for Stamford.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class V. VI.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)*; Clerks of the Peace, &c (Ireland)*.
First Reading—Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment* [193]; Clerks of the Peace, &c, (Ireland)* [194]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* [195].
Second Reading—Railway Companies (Ireland) Advances* [177]; New Zealand (Legislative Council)* [185]; University Elections (Voting Papers)* [187]; Consular Marriages* [188].
Committee—Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (re-comm.) [63]—R.P.; Courts of Law Fees, &c (Scotland)* [158]; Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland) Act Extension (re-comm.)* [182].
Report—Registration* [167–190]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* [121–191]; Curragh of Kildare* [134–192]; Courts of Law Fees, &c, (Scotland)* [158]; Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland) Act Extension (re-comm.)* [182].
Considered as amended—Entail Amendment (Scotland)* [140].
Third Reading—Representation of the People (Ireland)* [71]; Petroleum Act Amendment* [171]; Railways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [123], and passed.

BRISTOL ELECTION.—REPORT.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
That John William Miles, esquire, is not duly elected a Citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Bristol.
That the last Election for the said City is avoid Election.
And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
House further informed, that the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
That the said John William Miles was, by his Agents, guilty of bribery at the last Election for the City of Bristol, but such bribery was committed without the knowledge or consent of the said J. W. Miles.
That it was proved to the Committee that treating prevailed to some extent at the said Election: but it was not proved that such treating took place with the knowledge of the said John William Miles.
That the Committee have no reason to believe that Corrupt Practices extensively prevailed at the said Election, regard being had to the number of Registered Electors for the said City of Bristol.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee to be laid before this House.—(Mr. Howes.)

METROPOLIS—NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.—QUESTIONS.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Judges of the Designs for the New Courts of Justice were unanimous in recommending the design of Mr. Street as the best for external elevation; and, if not, whether he will give the names of the Judges who supported the recommendation; whether the votes of Messrs, Shaw and Pownall were token on the question, and whether they or either of them concurred in the decision come to; whether the Lord Chancellor, as Head of the Courts of Justice Building Committee, has not announced that the object of the competition was to test generally the relative merits of the architects, so that Mr. Street's design was consequently adopted as the best architectural composition; and, whether the Secretary to the Treasury will exhibit Mr. Street's successful design in the Library, in order that the House may test the decision of the Judges?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he regretted that he was not in a position to answer the first two Questions of the hon. Gentleman, not being aware whether the Judges were unanimous, or whether the votes of Messrs. Shaw and Pownall, the professional Judges employed, were taken

2131
or not. All the information in the possession of the Treasury would be laid upon the table in a day or two. He saw no possible advantage in placing Mr. Street's design in the Library. It had been publicly exhibited for many weeks, if not months, in juxtaposition with the other designs for the Courts of Justice.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he wished to know, Whether the designs had been exhibited to the public at large or to privileged persons?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he believed that the public had the opportunity of gaining admission to the exhibition of the designs.
MR. BENTINCK: Would the hon. Gentleman take any steps to ascertain whether the Judges were unanimous?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not admit that it was any part of his duty to answer that Question.
MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If the intention of the Government to appoint Mr. Street (whose design was approved by the Judges for elevation only) sole Architect of the New Law Courts was communicated to the Royal Commission, and whether the Royal Commission has expressed any opinion on the appointment?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the intention to appoint Mr. Street was communicated to the Royal Commission without delay. The Commissioners had since held no meeting, and they had therefore expressed no opinion on the subject.

GENERAL CARRIERS' ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARTERsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government in withdrawing from the Railways' Regulation Bill the Clauses they had inserted in it for amending, in certain respects, the General Carriers' Act, were satisfied that the provisions of that Act, passed nearly forty years since, are suitable to the requirements of the present day; or whether the Government still remain of opinion that the Carriers' Act requires amendment, and ought to be revised by Parliament?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, in reply, that the Board of Trade had given great consideration to the question, and had come to the conclusion that the Carriers Act, passed in 1830, was unsuited to the existing state of things, especially in regard to
  2132
  railways; but, nevertheless, their experience had shown that the points in which the Act required to be amended were so much disputed, that any attempt at legislation without previous inquiry seemed to be quite hopeless. It was very evident that such an inquiry could not take place during the present Session; but he hoped that a Select Committee would be appointed early in the ensuing year for the purpose of reviewing the provisions of the Carriers' Act, with a view to bringing them more into conformity with the requirements of the present day.

UNITED STATES-POSTAL CONVENTION.—QUESTION.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the present position of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States on the subject of a new Postal Convention; and, whether the Government, in making new Contracts for the Conveyance of the Mails, intend to place all the Companies on the same footing as to terms of payment and conditions of service, carrying out the declaration of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 20th of March, "that the present arrangement was faulty, because it was wrong that the Companies carrying Mails to America should be under different terms with the Government?"
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States had been somewhat delayed by the state of business in Washington at the time the officer from this country arrived there. The matter was, however, still pending; and during the negotiations it would not be desirable that he should make any statement on the subject. In reply to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that it was the intention of the Government in making new contracts for the conveyance of the Mails to place all the companies on the same footing as to terms of payment and conditions of service.

COOLIE EMIGRATION.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government is taking any steps, in conjunction with France and other civilized Powers, to induce the Portuguese Govern-

2133
ment to stop the Slave Trade carried on between Macao and Cuba and Peru, under the name of Coolie Emigration?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, the abuses attending on the practice of Coolie emigration from Macao are grave and notorious. We have from time to time brought the matter under the notice of the Portuguese Government, and we have invited Portugal to co-operate with France, England, and other Powers in endeavouring to come to some satisfactory arrangement with the Chinese Government on the question of Coolie emigration generally. To that communication we have as yet received no answer from the Portuguese Government. With reference to the parallel drawn by the hon. Member between the Coolie emigration and the slave trade, I may remind him that in the case of the slave trade, wherever it is carried on, we have the right to interfere by treaty either with Portugal or with any other Power that may be concerned. In the case of the Coolie emigration, we have no right of interference whatever, except that right which every Government has to give such friendly advice to any other Government as it thinks fit. But beyond that we have no power.

ARMY—SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.—QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the hardship inflicted upon Officers of the Army, Ordnance, Navy, and Marines in respect of Civil Services performed by them, by Clause 16, c. 24, 4 & 5 Will. IV., which regulates the superannuation allowances granted to those Officers; and, if so, will he give the subject his best consideration?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, his attention had been very recently called to the operation of the clause in question, and it was the opinion of many persons well-qualified to judge that that operation involved some hardship upon meritorious officers. The clause had been continually interpreted in one sense only, and that interpretation could not be altered except by an Act of Parliament. It would be a very serious question to re-open the whole question of superannuation allowances; and he was not prepared at present to bring in a Bill to effect the object of his hon. and gallant Friend; but, having heard of the dissatisfaction which had arisen under this
2134
clause, he would undertake to watch its operation closely, and to give the subject his best consideration.

MONEY ORDERS AND STAMPED RECEIPTS.—QUESTION.
MR. CARNEGIEsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Miller), he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, By what authority the Board of Inland Revenue permits the Postmaster General to accept receipts for sums contained in Money Orders of £2 and upwards without payment by the recipient of the Stamp Duty of One Penny, in contravention of the Act 16 & 17 Vict., c. 59; and, whether the same privilege would be accorded to a Company conducting money order business, and charging the public a lower rate for commission than is charged by the Post Office?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, the authority under which the Postmaster General was relieved from the obligation in question was a letter from the Treasury of the 20th of October, 1853. The whole subject was fully considered then, and it was decided there was no ground whatever for requiring the use of stamped receipts. A company conducting a money order business would not be at all in the same position as the Postmaster General; and it must be remembered that a minimum commission of 3d. was paid upon a Post Office money order, and this paid the Stamp Duty and left yet a largo margin for commission.

ARMY—CASE OF CAPTAIN BROOKE.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, that no one deprecated more than he did the putting of Questions in that House on questions that had come before the Horse Guards; but he must beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If he can state to the House, whether, in the opinion of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, any reflection rests upon Captain Brooke's honour, as an officer and gentleman, in consequence of the dispute which has taken place between him and Captain Peel (late of 11th Hussars), and his subsequent arrest and reprimand? He wished further to ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman can state for what Captain Brooke was reprimanded?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I think, Sir, the House, and I think my hon. and

  2135
  gallant Friend behind me, will feel that this Question is put in an unusual form. I cannot refrain from saying I observe with some regret the great frequency with which military questions of this kind are made the subject of Questions and Motions in this House; because I cannot help fearing that the tendency of that great frequency is to impair and endanger military discipline. The dispute which arose between Captain Brooke and Captain Peel had relation entirely to a question of a private nature. The consequence of that dispute was, that Captain Brooke was led to use language of such great impropriety that when the subject was brought before the Commander-in-Chief his Royal Highness thought it necessary to make it the subject of a reprimand. I may add that, with a knowledge of the circumstances, I do not think that his Royal Highness could have taken a milder course than he did take, and further than that I do not think I am called upon to go.

CUSTOMS—EXAMINING OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTLERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Petition presented to the Lords of the Treasury by the Acting Examining Officers in Her Majesty's Customs, praying to be heard before the Committee of Inquiry, will be granted?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he was unable to answer the Question of the hon. Member precisely, and could only say generally that the petition had been received and considered, and would again come under consideration in due course. He could not say that as yet any decision had been come to respecting it, nor could he say that the Commission would be able to examine the officers personally; but the subject at all events was under consideration.

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF SERVIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is a cordial understanding between the Protecting Powers and the Porte that the National Assembly of Servia should be left at perfect liberty, on the occasion of the present catastrophe, to take such measures for providing for the succession to the Go-
  2136
  vernment as may appear to be in accordance with the wishes of the people?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, I think the best Answer I can give the hon. Member is, that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to attempt to influence in any way the Servian Government or the Servian people in the choice of a Prince, so long, of course, as they observe those international obligations into which they have entered; and there is every reason to believe that they intend to do so. I have every reason to suppose, so far as I can judge from anything that has yet reached me, that a similar decision will be come to and a similar course pursued by the other great Powers.

RULE OF ROAD AT SEA.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLLANDsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, When the Papers having reference to the "Rule of Road at Sea," and laid upon the Table in December last (but the issue of which has been delayed in consequence of some important Correspondence with the French Government on the subject), will be placed in the hands of Members?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE: Sir, the reply of the French Government has been recently received, expressing entire concurrence in the memoranda and diagrams proposed by the Board of Trade in reference to the "Rule of the Road at Sea." The Papers are now in the printer's hands, and I hope may be ready for distribution by the end of next week.

VALUATION (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the Government, having regard to their declaration that it is their intention to introduce a Bill for the general valuation of Ireland next year, have instructed the Revenue Department not to enforce an arbitrary rule for fixing the charge for licences in Ireland, based on an admittedly unequal valuation?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that he was not aware of any formal undertaking of the Government to introduce a Bill next year. He had stated that he thought it desirable one should be introduced in due course, but he was not aware that he gave any distinct promise. No instructions had been

2137
sent to the Revenue Department in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, nor were any instructions of that nature required; because, as he had formerly stated in answer to a Question, persons who complained had a remedy in their own hands. They were able to go to the Office and demand a re-valuation; and if they did so and proved that they had paid too high a duty the excess would be returned to them.

SCOTLAND—JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, If the Royal Commission about to be issued regarding the Judicial System of Scotland is to be a full and searching inquiry into the constitution, relative position, practice, and procedure of all the Civil Courts Superior and Inferior; and, if, in his opinion, the passing of the Court of Session Bill now before the House will tend to delay legislative action on the Report of that Commission?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, said, that a Royal Commission was to be issued for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the entire judicial system of Scotland; and he could also state that the passing of the Court of Session Bill would not tend to delay the Report of the Commission.

METROPOLIS—PARK LANE.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. GODDARDsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any probability of the long-pending arrangements with reference to improving the approaches to Park Lane from Piccadilly being shortly carried out, and which the large and increasing traffic through that narrow thoroughfare, as well as the improvements already effected in the upper portions of it, renders so very desirable on behalf of the public interests?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must refer the hon. Member to what happened two years ago, when the Metropolitan Board of Works promoted a Bill, for opening Hamilton Place, which was referred to a Committee, by whom it was rejected, and a year ago when another Bill on the subject and two other Metropolitan Improvement Bills were referred to a Select Committee, presided over by the
  2138
  hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, which recommended that a new improvement rate should be coupled with the continuance of the Coal duties. The late Government were considering the proposal when the change of government occurred; the Session was then so far advanced that the present Government could not take the opinion of Parliament upon the financial part of the question, and they were, therefore, obliged to drop the Bill. This year a Select Committee, to which the Bill for widening Park Lane was referred, rejected it, and recommended that Hamilton Place should be opened, and that the houses on its east side should be pulled down, in order to enable a roadway of sufficient width to be made. What course the Metropolitan Board of Works would be prepared to take in consequence of that recommendation of the Select Committee he could not say; but it would, he thought, be their duty to take the matter into their consideration.
  SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, although he had not given Notice of the Question, Whether, in any alterations that may be made, they will be so contrived as to avoid taking down half of Hamilton Place? He would suggest that an improvement might be made by removing a house and stables in Piccadilly, and running a new Street in a straight line from Piccadilly into Park Lane at Stanhope Gate.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Baronet has not given me Notice of his Question; but, so far at least as regards a part of it, I should imagine that it ought to be directed to one of the representatives of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE PEEL STATUE.—RESOLUTION.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose to make a Motion which had stood in his name for a long time. When Parliament met last February, the first thing that greeted hon. Members on their way to the House was a strange apparition in a dirty sheet, standing close to the railings by the carriage entrance in New Palace Yard. That apparition they ascertained upon inquiry to

2139
be the Peel Statue, and he ventured to give Notice—for a great many persons thought the site which had been selected for the statue a very bad one—that he would bring the matter before the House. The statue seemed to have been frightened by that Notice, for it one night suddenly disappeared, and remained away for some time. After the lapse of a fortnight, however, it came back again covered as before in a sheet, which was subsequently removed, and it now stood open to the public view, he could not say an object of beauty. The whole subject of the erection of statues throughout the country was one which, in his opinion, was well worthy of consideration. How were statues generally got up? Some distinguished Member of Parliament died, or retired from public life, and his friends and admirers deemed him to be sufficiently distinguished to have a statue of him erected. They formed a committee, collected subscriptions, and selected an artist to carry out that object, and, of course, the size of the statue depended very much on the amount of the subscriptions. The statue completed, they endeavoured to procure the best site in the metropolis in which to place it; and the whole proceeding was conducted in the absence of all system laid down by the Government or any other authority. Some years ago, for instance, there was in Trafalgar Square a statue of Dr. Jenner, which public opinion declared not to be well-matched with other statues in its vicinity, and it was, in consequence, removed to Kensington Gardens. Again, there were the statues of Sir Charles Napier and Sir Henry Havelock, the former of which, persons competent to judge, very generally disapproved; while in the neighbourhood of the United Service Club the admirers of Lord Clyde erected a statue, which represented that distinguished soldier standing on a sort of capstan with an impossible Victory, and a still more impossible lion by his side, and in its vicinity another statue with which it in no way matched. Again, there was the statue erected to the Duke of Wellington at Hyde Park Corner, than which he knew of nothing more monstrous, and which he had ventured to call the apotheosis of bad art in this country. Since he had seen the Peel Statue, however, he felt disposed to admit that there might be something even worse. But that which he rose chiefly to impress upon the House was the absolute want of system which prevailed in this country in connection with
2140
our public statues, which were of such a character, and the sites for which were so ill-chosen as to render them a disgrace rather than an ornament to the metropolis. When Lord Llanover was in Office, a proposition had been made to change the pedestal of the statue of Charles I., which he thought was the best thing of the kind in the metropolis. This want of system with regard to statues extended to other matters. Was there any control, for instance, over the construction of railways passing through the metropolis, and as to the nature of the viaducts crossing the streets and river? Cardinal Wiseman gave an interesting lecture some time before his death on this subject, and he drew an analogy between the way in which ancient Rome dealt with aqueducts, and the manner in which railways were allowed to be made in modern London. Cardinal Wiseman observed that if the acqueducts went near any ancient building, the Romans endeavoured to incorporate that building harmoniously with the new work. The little temple of Vesta was preserved, though threatened by three viaducts—while railways cut ruthlessly through any building, however beautiful. When the Commission in reference to the Royal Academy was moved, he ventured to suggest that in a reformed Royal Academy, by the addition of the element of lay honorary members, a sort of council of advice in these matters for the First Commissioner of Works might be obtained. The idea found favour with the Commission; but the Royal Academy had not been reformed in that sense, though the Professor of Architecture suggested that a Committee on public statues and works should be established. In order to avoid the great mistakes which were made, it was desirable to have some control not in opposition to, but as an aid to, the First Commissioner of Works, somewhat analogous, in fact, to that which the Council of India exercised over his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India. The Americans were said to build ships by the mile, and to cut them off as they were wanted, and it appeared to him that Peel's statue was made on the same principle. He was told that a regular system of manufacturing public statues had grown up in this country. When a man died, and his admirers desired to erect a statue to him, a sculptor got notes of his dress, and then clothed a lay figure in habiliments similar to those worn by the deceased, the lay figure being stuffed or not to suit the

2141
appearance of the person to be represented. A cast of the whole was then taken, and a head was then modelled and put on the old clothes. No one could maintain that Peel's statue was an ornament to the metropolis; and who it was that placed it in its present position, or what was now to be done with it, he could not pretend to say. It had been suggested that it should be buried, and another suggestion was that it should be put under the "Buxton extinguisher," which was close by. He was a subscriber to the statue, though he had never been consulted about it; and he would venture to suggest that it should be put into the smelting pot, and that another and different statue should be cast, and then they might hope to have a better statue of Sir Robert Peel. The question of a statue to Cromwell had been raised, but it would be a mercy for Cromwell to be without one if it were to be of the kind in question. As regarded the statues in Westminster Hall, he thought it would be much better without them. He had thought of asking for a Return of the statues outside the building in which they were assembled, for they were so numerous that it was almost impossible to identify them. He hoped the House would remove from the precincts of Parliament this disgraceful statue of that great man, Sir Robert Peel, and he concluded by moving "That, in the opinion of this House, the Peel Statue ought to be removed from its present site in New Palace Yard."
MR. BERESFORD HOPEseconded the Motion of his noble Friend with great pleasure, and for three reasons. The first was because it led up the general question of a more efficient Ministry of Arts. The second was his regard for the memory of the amiable and accomplished artist, so lately dead, who had unfortunately produced this statue. The third reason was his veneration for the great name of Peel, which was exposed to perpetual ridicule in connection with that unhappy effigy. He did not believe that it was possible to find greater general lack of art, or more overpowering mediocrity and heaviness than in that figure, stuck up in the corner of Palace Yard, as if it were an Inspector of Police taking the numbers of the cabs and seeing that the Members were not run over. He agreed with his noble Friend that it might be a desirable experiment to strengthen the hands of the Architectural Department by a Consultative Council; but, at the same time he must, by way of cau-
2142
tion, observe that due care would have to be taken for the infusion of new blood, and the gradual change of its personnel, otherwise it would become a focus of jobbery and prejudice, while it would only conduce to the stereotyping for long epochs of some passing phase of art, if the Councillors who had been named at the mature ages of forty or fifty years were to hang on as effete septuagenarians. But there was a further reform equally needed, which he had already advocated, and which he would continue to urge until he had won for it the attention which it deserved. The Science and Art Department must be separated from the Department of Elementary Education with which it is now so ill-mated, and must be combined with the cognate Commissionership of Works, and then the new office of Works, Science, and Art should be raised to the position of a first-class Ministry, whose tenant should be capable of sitting in the House of Lords. The last consideration was very important; for the other House is a body which has leisure to attend to such questions, and yet perpetually finds itself pulled up from never having within itself any Official charged with this responsibility. There would then be an Under Secretary, who would probably belong to the House of which the Minister himself was not a Member; so that both Lords and Commons would possess a Member of the Government charged with the official care of questions which were every day increasing in importance. In this case the Metropolitan Board might also be relieved of somewhat of its overgrown power, and the Imperial Government resume, as it ought to do, its general supervision of the improvement of the Imperial capital. In conclusion, he was surprised that his noble Friend had not pointed his case with a reference to Leicester Square, out of which the Court of Exchequer had a few days before ousted the Metropolitan Board, by a decision which affirmed that the garden, with its wooden-legged statue and all the accumulated abominations was private property.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the Peel Statue ought to be removed from its present site in New Palace Yard,"—(Lord Elcho,)
—instead thereof.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was not one of those who pretended to any particular

2143
understanding of matters of art, and therefore his few words would be directed to the facts of the case and to the arguments of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho). The way in which the statue originated was this—when Sir Robert Peel died his friends naturally met and subscribed to pay him that tribute of respect which no man ever better deserved, and a Committee was appointed to carry into effect the wishes of the subscribers. Of that Committee his right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Colonel Wilson Patten) was now the only survivor. The other members were the Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Hardinge, Lord Canning, Sir James Graham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Lord Ashburton. He (Mr. Cardwell) had the honour to be the honorary secretary. The Committee unanimously selected Baron Marochetti as the sculptor; his model was publicly exhibited at the Crystal Palace, and he made a statue in conformity with it; but when it was completed it was the opinion of Sir Charles Barry that it was too large to be placed in the immediate neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament, which was the only suitable locality. Baron Marochetti most handsomely offered at his own expense, to make a new statue, and accordingly executed the one which was now in Palace Yard; but he did not live to see it placed on the site first selected, though he approved of the site. The Committee asked the late Commissioner of Works to give them a site, and he gave them the one on which the statue was first erected with the sanction of Baron Marochetti. When, however the railings, the pillars and lamps were erected, the Committee were of opinion that the site was not a suitable one. The present Committee, consisting of the Duke of Buccleuch, Lord Stanhope, Lord Hardinge, Mr. Gladstone, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster consulted Mr. Barry as to the most suitable site, and he selected the one on which the statue now stood, and the Chief Commissioner very handsomely gave it to the Committee. The argument was that there should be some control in these matters; but would they have more responsibility by having a Minister in that House or by having some Council such as that which had been suggested by his noble Friend? If they were to have such a Council they would have a number of amateurs who would give very good or very bad opinions; and no doubt everybody would object to what everybody
2144
else had done, but there would be no responsible authority.
LORD ELCHOexplained that he did not wish to alter the responsibility; he only wished that the Head of the Department should have a Council.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought that a Minister who chose his own advisers was much more responsible than one who had a Council sitting by him with a sort of quasi authority, and whose own authority was only partial, imperfect, and, undefined. He thought that the best course was to leave the matter in the hands of the responsible Minister, and not to establish an amateur committee to advise him.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEagreed as to the miserable system on which art matters were managed in the metropolis between the Metropolitan Board of Works on one hand and the Government Office of Works on the other. The statement of the First Commissioner of Works showed that there was no sympathy between the two Departments, and consequently no great work was carried on properly, while, at the same time, the expenditure incurred was enormous. According to the Report on Public Buildings they were about to spend £4,000,000; and surely a system of management ought to be adopted which would be satisfactory to the House of Commons and the country. Let them look for a moment at the ornaments round that House—they were perfectly absurd. Mr. Ruskin had written a book called The Seven Lamps of Architecture, but in that neighbourhood they had seventy lamps of architecture, and the whole plan which had been adopted was very different from that of Sir Charles Barry. But he would not make any lengthened remarks on the subject now, as he had given Notice that he should in the course of next week call attention to a Report which had been laid on the table in reference to the Public Departments. He would then take the opportunity of going into the whole question.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that he would confine himself to the matter before the House. He quite agreed with what had been said by his noble Friend (Lord Elcho); but when, some time ago, in Committee of Supply, he made a few remarks on the Peel Statue, he was quite ignorant that Baron Marochetti was the sculptor. Having been on terms of intimacy with the Baron, and being acquainted with his good qualities, both social and artistic, it was with

2145
very great pain that he felt called upon to protest against the statue. This was a question of even more importance than the memory of the sculptor. The statue was, in his opinion, entirely unworthy of the site it occupied and of the person to whom it had been put up. It was ill-formed and clumsy, and possessed no artistic qualities whatever. He thought that the site first chosen was not a bad one; but then the architect put up railings and lamps and detroyed the effect of the statue, and thus the statue was made to be subordinate to the lamps and the iron railings. As to the new site, everyone would admit that they should not place a statue upon sloping ground, which gave the impression that the whole thing was sliding down. He did not agree that a Council was necessary for matters of this kind. The sculptor should know the site upon which his work was to be placed, so that he might study it with the view of producing a good effect. The statue of Lord Clyde was first placed behind the parade ground; but the position was so absurd that the Chief Commissioner was obliged to remove it to its present site. He begged to suggest the desirability of laying down a rule that, previously to the erection of any statue, a model both of the sculpture and pedestal should be placed on the site which it was intended to occupy, so that the opinions and criticisms of the public might be obtained before a final determination was arrived at. The French were about to build another great triumphal arch, and they had gone to the expense of ninny thousands of pounds in erecting a complete model of the edifice, and it having been fully criticized, they could now go to work with some knowledge as to what they were going to do. He trusted the statue would be removed.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to observe that his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had omitted to state that the Wellington Statue at Hyde Park Corner had been placed there in direct defiance of a vote of the House of Commons. What took place was this: the Statue Committee obtained the consent of the Crown to place the statue upon the arch; but an address was voted to the Crown that it should not be placed there. The Committee, however, waited upon Earl Russell, then First Minister, and said that their object was to place the statue on the arch be that the public might have an opportunity of seeing how it would look, and they pledged them-
2146
selves to remove it if it did not meet with general approbation. The First Minister assented to the arrangement, and, having got the statue there, the Committee said the House of Commons or the Government might themselves move it if they thought fit. He quite agreed that there should be some responsible authority in reference to the erection of statues in the metropolis.
MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTthought the Peel Statue ought to be removed, and that it was a disgrace to the memory of his late Friend Baron Marochetti. In his opinion it would be well if the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works would also remove all the statues from Westminster Hall, instead of adding to their number. He hoped that whatever experiments might in future be made, Westminster Hall would be held sacred.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought his hon. Friend who had just sat down forgot that a short time ago the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) brought forward the question of the statues in Westminster Hall, and the House decided by an overwhelming majority that the statues should remain there. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had suggested that in matters relating to public edifices and works of art the First Commissioner of Works should be assisted by a Council similar to the Council of India, which he would remind the House consisted of a number of gentlemen who were well paid, and who were debarred from sitting in that House. Probably, however, his noble Friend would wish that the members of his proposed Council should sit in the House; but the only result of that would be that their deliberations would be adjourned from the office to the House of Commons. Not many years ago the office he now held was associated with the Presidency of the Board of Health, and assisted by that kind of council which some were now anxious to associate with the First Commissioner of Works. The result was that when he succeeded to Office in 1852 he found a complete dead-lock. His predecessor, the Duke of Somerset, had taken measures to exclude every member of the Board of Health from his own office, so that no personal communication could occur between the President and the Board of Health. The House found it necessary to revolutionize that Department, and the Board of Health was now placed upon a more sensible foot-

2147
ing. If a Council of the nature now proposed were established the result would probably be very much the same. Then, as to advice on æsthetic subjects given by such a body, the House would recollect what happened on the subject of railway bridges. There was one to be taken across the Thames at Battersea Park, near the Suspension Bridge. Many leaders in the world of art—gentlemen who would, probably, form the council to assist the First Commissioner of Works—took the alarm and remonstrated against this monstrous proposal. They presented a protest, but no attention was paid to their aesthetic remonstrances, and the bridge was built. With respect to the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) be would remark that one of the wisest things the Legislature ever did was to release the Metropolitan Board from all ties to the office of Works, and if they now attempted to make the Metropolitan Board, whose revenues were provided by taxation upon the people of the metropolis, subservient to the Commissioner of Works, or any other Government office, there would be no end to the confusion and complaint that would ensue, and no metropolitan improvement would ever be carried out. When it was argued that there ought to be some strong Government authority to overbear the local authority in such cases as the delay in widening Park Lane, he would remind the House that such interposition would be at variance with the first principles of constitutional government, and that if a despotic authority were established it could only be by means of funds taken from the expenditure of the country. Unless the House were prepared to place the cost of metropolitan improvements on the Votes of that House, it would be unfair to overbear the free decisions of the local bodies. With regard to the removal of the Peel Statue the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) had stated so dearly and succinctly the facts of the case that he was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the House. The noble Lord had not said what he would do with the statue. [Lord ELCHO: Melt it.] The noble Lord was a subscriber to the fund, and he might make this or any other communication to the right hon. Member for Oxford. As to the removal of statues in general, he could not defend, nor was it any business of his
2148
to defend, many of the statues in the metropolis; but after the public faith had been pledged to the original subscribers a very strong case ought to be made out before the House could sanction such a violation of public faith and induce people to think in the future that Parliament might turn round and order the removal of a statue without finding any fresh site. He thought that the House would do well to accede to the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) and reject the proposition of the noble Lord.
MR. OSBORNEsaid, he was not sure what the precise view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) was. According to what he (Mr. Osborne) heard him say on the subject he was honorary secretary to a committee that had all expired. The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing for the statue, but that it was the work of Baron Marochetti. A most extraordinary speech had been made in reply to the Motion by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works. As he (Mr. Osborne) understood that speech the noble Lord's advice to the House was, not to let well alone, but to let ill alone. The noble Lord was desirous to let the horrible abomination remain where it was. He (Mr. Osborne) adjured the House in the name of the greatest Member of Parliament of our time to remove what might have been executed by a "stonemason" in the New Road, but what no one would ever suppose to have been the work of Baron Marochetti. If they had any respect for the memory of Sir Robert Peel they could not allow that dreadful effigy of the great and good man to stand in the place it now occupied. He was not going to enter into the question of the appointment of a Council of Taste or Art. For himself he abhorred all such councils for what they produced realized the "Groves of Blarney"—
"With Pluto and Venus, and bold Nicodemus
All standing naked in the open air."
He would appeal to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), who had taken such an interest in and endowed those precious statues in Westminster Hall, and whom he might call the leader of art in that House, to support his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) in bringing about the removal of this statue. He had known Baron Marochetti privately, and he had a high opinion of his abilities; but it was evident that when he executed this statue he was in his decadence as a sculptor. If the

2149
House of Commons was insensible to art—as he believed nine-tenths of the Members were—let them at least be sensible of what was due to the memory of a great statesman. Of this statue he said, in the words used by a right hon. Gentleman on another subject, Pull it down, and let it cumber the ground no longer.
MR. GREGORYasked whether they were to allow such a caricature of the lineaments of Sir Robert Peel to stand for all future generations because it was erected by private subscription, and because the Government could not answer the question as to what was to be done with it? He would say let the noble Lord hand it back to the subscribers. It was not their fault, but their misfortune that it was a bad statue. At the latter part of his life Baron Marochetti's works were inferior to his earlier productions. If the First Commissioner of Works would not give way, he trusted that the House would divide. But he hoped that the Government would not make it a political question and whip up their followers in a matter of this kind. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) would defer to the manifest wish of the House and consent to the removal of an eyesore.
MR. J. HARDYsaid, he held that no statue ought to be erected until a model of the same size had been put up, so that a judgment might be formed as to the effect of it. The Peel Statue was most objectionably placed upon a slope, a position which no statue ought to occupy. He would suggest its removal to a place where it could not be seen.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 182: Majority 111.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the Peel Statue ought to be removed from its present site in New Palace Yard.

METROPOLIS—ST. MARY SOMERSET, UPPER THAMES STREET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they
  2150
  will obtain, by purchase or otherwise, the materials of the Tower of St. Mary Somerset Church, Upper Thames Street, now advertised for sale by tender, with a view to the re-erection of the Tower in some fitting locality? He wished to know whether the Government would follow the precedent they had themselves so well set in the case of the screen of Burlington House? The value of the materials of the Tower was, he believed, very small, while the cost of their re-erection in some other locality would not, he was informed, be more than £800 or £1,000. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would take steps to secure that a work which was designed under the superintendence of Sir Christopher Wren would not be altogether lost to the country. He should also like to know whether it might not be possible to re-erect the Tower in the burial-ground near its present site, or some other spot near its present locality?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that after the decision just arrived at by the House the Government would be careful in accepting works of art even as a gift. The cost of what was suggested by the hon. Member would be fully £1,500, and he did not think the Government would be justified in proposing to the House a Vote for the erection of the Tower at some future time on some site now unknown. The case of Burlington House stood in a different position to that then before the House, for Burlington House was Government property, and could be dealt with by them. If the Tower could be retained in its present locality that might be a very desirable arrangement; but the question was one which should be settled between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the City authorities.

MR. DISRAELI'S SPEECH AT MERCHANT TAYLORS' HALL.—QUESTION.
MR. GRANT DUFF, in rising to put a Question to the Prime Minister in reference to some passages in his speech last week, at Merchant Taylors' Hall, said, the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have used on that occasion the following words:—
"When we acceded to Office the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet. There was no possibility of that cordial action with any of the great Powers which is the only security for peace; and in consequence of that want of cordiality wars were frequently occurring. But since we entered upon Office and public affairs were ad-

2151
ministered by my noble Friend, who is deprived by a special diplomatic duty of the gratification of being here this evening, I say that all this has changed; that there never existed between England and foreign Powers a feeling of greater cordiality and confidence than now prevails; that while we have shrunk from bustling and arrogant intermeddling, we have never taken refuge in selfish isolation, and the result has been that there never was a Government in this country which has been more frequently appealed to for its friendly offices than the one which now exists."
These were, surely, very wild words for a British Prime Minister to use, and although much might be forgiven to a man, especially to the right hon. Gentleman speaking after dinner, it must be recollected that he was not offending for the first time; for in the spring of 1858 the right hon. Gentleman made a speech at Slough which created at the time very great interest and excitement, and which was very freely commented upon in this House. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman used language which, when compared with that which fell from him the other day, could hardly be excused as the mere inspiration of circumstances, for it seemed to be a sort of common form which he kept by him for these occurrences when a Conservative Government happened to accede to Office. At Slough, in 1858, the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—
"But when I tell you, and I tell you seriously, that the question of peace and war when we acceded to Office was not a question of weeks or days, but of hours, I am sure you will remember that peace has been preserved while the honour of the country has been vindicated."
Now, who, he would ask, was the person who was Foreign Minister in the Administration which went out of Office in the beginning of 1858? Who was that "troubler of Israel" whose designs, whose machinations, whose un-wisdom were such that cordial co-operation between the great Powers of Europe was rendered wholly impossible? That man, if his memory served him right, was Lord Clarendon, the very person of whom Lord Derby was reported as having, in his Ministerial statement on taking Office in 1866, spoken as follows:—
"And, my Lords, desirous more especially at this critical moment for the public interest that the thread of foreign negotiations should not be abruptly broken, I was anxious that those hands which had so long exercised the power of dealing with foreign affairs should still continue to do so, and therefore the first person to whom I made an offer of Office was my noble Friend the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Clarendon). My Lords, I made that offer in all sincerity, believing that between my noble Friend and myself there existed no material difference of
2152
opinion on political matters, and believing also that it was of the greatest importance to the country that in that particular Office his services should be retained,"
Now, he was informed by some Friends of the right hon. Gentleman that when he rose to reply to the Question which he was about to put to him he would say that nothing was further from his intention than to cast any discredit whatsoever on Lord Clarendon, and that Lord Clarendon had been but a very few months at the Foreign Office when the Conservative Government acceded to power. It was however the fact that Lord Clarendon was a Member of the Liberal Cabinet for something like two years, and that during those two years many most eventful occurrences had transpired on the Continent. Lord Clarendon was responsible—and that noble Lord was the last man who would deny his responsibility—for all the acts of the Cabinets of Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell with respect to foreign affairs of any importance after he took Office. He undertook, too, a mission to Paris, which he would hardly have done if he had entertained a feeling adverse to the policy which was being pursued by the noble Lord who was chiefly responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. Before he sat down he must express a wish which he was sure was shared to the full by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, and to which he was sure he would in his heart give a most cordial "Amen," and that wish was that the First Lord of the Treasury would in his post-prandial speeches confine himself to observations on the internal affairs of the country. We, in England, thoroughly understood the right hon. Gentleman; we watched with interest his linguistic somersaults; we hailed him as the unequalled political Leotard. But, unfortunately, the reverse was the case on the Continent. There were very few persons who followed sufficiently closely the affairs of our country to understand them, and, consequently, the right hon. Gentleman had the misfortune to be constantly regarded as speaking seriously abroad when he did not mean to speak seriously at all. There was some little time ago an unfortunate man on the Continent—a most eminent political writer—who attempted to follow the career of the right hon. Gentleman, and he arrived at the conclusion that he was a demigod. Unfortunately, however, he became insane immediately after. But, among statesme

2153
and jurists on the Continent not one in a 100 really understood the exact political situation of England at the present moment. It could, however, he thought, be stated in a sentence. The Parliament of England, wearied with the labours which it had gone through since the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, had fallen asleep, and fancied in its dreams that the right hon. Gentleman was riding on its breast like a nightmare. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking the Premier, Whether he had used at Merchant Taylors' Hall the language which he had quoted?
MR. DISRAELI: I think the House will agree with me that it will be convenient not to recur on this occasion to observations which were made ten years ago at a meeting in the county of Buckingham. If we enter into that question, and into discussions as to the political situation at the time, I fear we should have an adjourned debate on foreign affairs in this House, which would not, it seems to me, be desirable, especially as I am informed there is some chance of there being an adjourned debate in the other House of Parliament on a different subject. I think further that the House will agree that if the hon. Gentleman had confined himself to the Question which he had placed on the Paper, and to which I was ready to give an Answer, the time of the House, which is now valuable, might have been spared. Though, I may add, I do not grudge the hon. Gentleman the change which he thought fit to make in his mode of attack, and though I was quite ready to listen to his observations, which I conclude from his criticisms to-night are meant to be models of observations which are not eccentric, it still appears to me that we have hardly been repaid by the exhibition to which we have just listened, for the deviation of the hon. Gentleman from that more modest course of merely putting a Question which he at first proposed to himself to pursue. Really, what the hon. Gentleman wishes to know is whether I made some observations at a banquet in the City, at which I had the honour of being a guest, and whether I am prepared to vindicate them, especially with reference to the noble Lord, who, he told us, has at various times filled eminent posts in the service of Her Majesty, and who has more than once held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? So far as I could catch the larger part of the passage read by the hon. Gentleman, and so far as I can judge from that which he printed
2154
for the public service in the Notices of Motion, the report appears to me to be substantially correct. I will not criticize expressions, which probably I may not have used, but as far as regards what would be attached to what I said the report appears to me to be substantially correct. In making these observations I spoke, as it was quite evident, of a system of policy that had prevailed for a considerable time, not only for a year, but for many years, and therefore the hon. Gentleman felt, as he was making his observations just now, that the application of my remarks to Lord Clarendon, who really had succeeded to the management of our foreign affairs only for a few months, must be of a slight and limited character. The hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to connect the career of Lord Clarendon with seven years at least of management of our foreign affairs, respecting which I have expressed my opinion, and I do not think he did a friendly act to Lord Clarendon in so doing. I do not think he at all substantiated his case. Lord Clarendon was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during two years of that time, and we know very well that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not take an active part in the management of our foreign relations. As for Lord Clarendon's visit to Paris, I do not want to enter into the causes of that visit. It is quite consistent with there being a state of foreign affairs of a very unsatisfactory kind, and which were not managed with adroitness and wisdom by those peculiarly responsible for them, that they should have recourse to the experience of Lord Clarendon to extricate them from their difficulties. As I am asked, I must state without any equivocation whatever that I believe this is substantially a correct version of what I said at the meeting in the City, and I believe that it expresses the literal truth, I believe that for five, six, or seven years, dating from the period when a Nobleman, once a distinguished Member of this House, took the management of foreign affairs in 1859, they were conducted, to use one of his own famous expressions, as they seldom have been, since the accession of the House of Hanover. It was obvious that Lord Clarendon who succeeded to Office for only a few months, could not be responsible for a system which had unfortunately prevailed for many years. Lord Clarendon inherited difficulties and he bequeathed them to his successors.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that having had the honour of representing the Foreign Office in that House for five years, he trusted the House would allow him to endeavour to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a straightforward answer to the Question. ["Oh!"] It was not his business to call the attention of the House to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but it was quite right that his hon. Friend should do so. The statements of the right hon. Gentleman were capable of proof or they were not; but they would not be proved by mere outcry and clamour from the other side of the House. He was concerned in the grave accusation made, and he thought the other side of the House might allow him to say a few words upon the subject. He did not attach much importance to the vapourings of the right hon. Gentleman; they were the subject of much merriment to many persons; but they were the cause of deep sorrow to those who desired to maintain the character of British statesmen whatever their politics might be. The right hon. Gentleman could not get out of what he said by "chaff," of which he was a master. He said—
"When we acceded to Office the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet. There was no possibility of that cordial action with any of the great Powers which is the only security for peace; and in consequence of that want of cordiality wars were frequently occurring.
With regard to Lord Clarendon, the right hon. Gentleman rode off with the excuse that Lord Clarendon had been only a few months Minister of Foreign Affairs; but the right hon. Gentleman kept out of view the fact that Lord Clarendon, holding at that time the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was constantly consulted upon foreign affairs, and had been sent upon the most important missions. He not only went to Paris, but he represented this country at the Conference upon the Danish question; and on various other occasions he was employed, if one might say so, on matters connected with our foreign policy. The right hon. Gentleman evaded the allusion of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) to his speech of 1858, in which he stated that peace or war was a question, not of months and days, but of hours and minutes, to the fact that the Minister who had so nearly involved this country in war was Lord Clarendon, and to the fact that, notwithstanding his knowledge of this, Lord Derby invited
2156
Lord Clarendon two years ago to join his Government and take the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state definitely what were the wars that were "frequently occurring" during Earl Russell's tenure of Office, and when he represented the Foreign Office in that House? He did not ask him for a great many, but he would like him to name half-a-dozen? And what were the nations with whom there was that "want of cordiality" which led to these wars? He did not want any "chaff;" he wanted distinct answers—he had a right to demand them, and the House and the country had a right to them. When he was at the Foreign Office there were two wars. One was the civil war in the United States, and he presumed the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say Earl Russell was responsible for that. Then there was the Danish war, which afterwards led to the Prussian and Austrian war. But what were the "frequent wars" which were caused by the then Government? He would remind the House and the country that the most persistent endeavours were made by the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman to violate the neutrality of this country and to involve us in war with the United States. It was perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman avoided committing himself; but did he restrain his followers? Why we might have been involved in war with the United States if a Motion upon the Alabama question had been carried, and it was defeated by a majority of only 11. Did the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion restrain his followers or urge them on? With respect to the Danish question, did not Lord Russell interfere to bring about peace? [Mr. BENTINCK: No, no!] The hon. Member for Whitehaven, who seemed to know everything, said "No;" but he (Mr. Layard) could answer on that point. Lord Russell did not succeed; but no one could deny that his endeavours were to preserve peace. If the noble Lord's endeavours failed, they failed in consequence of the speeches made by the party then in Opposition in the House of Commons—he would not say in consequence of speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by his supporters, who brought forward questions and urged the House to go to war in support of Denmark. A noble Marquess—no longer a Member of that House (the Marquess of Salisbury)—who by his consistency was an honour to it, and who, if he were present, would

2157
boldly admit the fact, wished to force on war. One of the main causes of the war between Denmark and Prussia and Austria was because the Danish Government were led to believe by their Minister in London that if they went to war they would be supported by the Conservatives, who would have a majority in that House. ["Oh, oh!"] He stated that as a fact, and no one acquainted with the subject would venture to deny it. He knew of no other wars except those he had mentioned occurring on the Continent or elsewhere during the time when Lord Russell was Foreign Minister. The House was aware, that while sitting on the Opposition side of the House, he had himself abstained from taking part in discussions on foreign affairs, as he was not desirous of showing any feeling against the noble Lord the present Foreign Minister, but, on the contrary, had always felt glad when he was able to support the noble Lord. He had never made a speech against the noble Lord, though he had disagreed with him on many points; but when it was said that the late Government were the cause of this and that war, and were never able to maintain cordial feelings with foreign Powers, he had a right to inquire in what respect there had been a change. The Danish war; was the inevitable result of events. The great principle involved was German unity, the Danish question being a pretence for the time. But after the war ceased a time of quiet came about, as generally happened in such a case. Since the present Foreign Minister had been in Office no question likely to lead to war had arisen ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Luxemburg!"] What credit had the noble Lord in settling the question of Luxemburg? The noble Lord had admitted that he had great difficulty in agreeing to mediation. Had it not been for pressure from without the noble Lord would not have mediated; and it was only at the last moment, when the Emperor of the French was about to apply to Holland to exercise a mediation, that the noble Lord at last consented. What happened afterwards? The noble Lord and the Earl of Derby stated that when entering into the guarantee it was not their intention to keep it; for that was the meaning of what was said by them respecting the efficiency of the guarantee. If any German statesman were asked what construction was to be put on the words used by those two noble Lords, he would declare that that announcement destroyed all faith in the mediation of this country. With Turkey
2158
the noble Lord opposite had followed the policy which Lords Russell and Clarendon pursued; and, indeed, that was the only policy which could have been adopted. As to the Spanish claims, in regard to the Mermaid and the Tornado, they were not settled to the present day. The noble Lord had told the House that the English claimants had right on their side, but that he would wait until some British subjects had done wrong to Spain and then he would set one wrong against the other. As regarded the Alabama dispute, matters still remained in the same state as when Earl Russell's Government went out of Office. He thought that the country would not accept the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given that evening, and he called on the right hon. Gentleman to state what were the wars in Europe, or elsewhere, which had been brought about by want of cordiality between this country and other Powers?
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down proved the truth of the saying that "Those who complain without cause always complain without temper." He could not compliment the hon. Gentleman on the diplomatic language of his speech. The hon. Gentleman found fault with the expression in the Prime Minister's speech that on the present Government acceding to Office "the name of England was the name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court." Was not that the truth? It was by a "meddling and muddling policy" and by going certain lengths in respect to Poland and Denmark and then withdrawing, that suspicion and distrust were excited on the Continent and great evils were produced in this country. Lord Russell, in a memorable despatch, had laid down the principle with respect to other nations that whenever the people of a country thought that they had a sufficient grievance they had a right to rise in arms against their rulers, mid after such a decimation was it surprising that Fenian and other disturbances should have broken out?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I had expected that after the remarks of my hon. Friend near me either the right hon. Gentleman opposite, appealing to the indulgence of the House, which is usually accorded under such circumstances, or some other Member of Her Majesty's Government, would have risen in his place and have replied to the observations which have been made from these Benches. I am, of course, assuming that the Members of Her

2159
Majesty's Government do not entirely shrink from accepting the responsibility which attaches to the language used by their Chief. However that may be, I cannot rise on this occasion without expressing my deep regret that occasion should have been given to the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Grant Duff), in the exercise of his discretion as a private Member of this House, and without any concert with me, to challenge the speech which was delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at the Merchant Taylors' Hall. I must confess that whatever appetite for controversy I may possess is usually abundantly satisfied by the occasions for controversy that arise within the walls of this House; and therefore it is to me a matter of the most sincere regret that the First Minister of the Crown should have used language in another place that has led to this discussion. But the hon. Gentleman behind me having brought forward the subject, I must take the opportunity of respectfully but firmly protesting, not merely against the particular passage to which reference has been made, but against the whole strain of this oration, and of many other orations which the right hon. Gentleman, departing in this respect from the practice of his predecessors, has made it his custom to deliver, sometimes to his constituents in Buckingham, sometimes to a sympathizing audience at the Merchant Taylors' Hall, sometimes at demonstrations of Conservative working men, and sometimes to the deputations of the supporters of the Established Church in Ireland, led on by the chief Orangemen of Ireland. In these speeches the right hon. Gentleman has systematically adopted a tone, in the first place, of inflated and exaggerated eulogy of himself and of his policy; and, in the second place, of censure and of condemnation so sweeping and so violent towards those from whom he differs as he rarely ventures to adopt in this House. Having thus entered my protest against the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in his speeches, I will now endeavour to state the facts which appear to me to bear strongly upon the particular passage to which the hon. Member behind me has drawn the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said in that passage that when he acceded to Office the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet; and then he proceeded to make other assertions of the same kind with which I will not trouble the House. On his asser-
2160
tions being challenged, and its being pointed out to him that his censure must principally apply to Lord Clarendon, the right hon. Gentleman takes refuge in the allegation that Lord Clarendon had only held the office as Foreign Minister for a few months before the present Government came into power, and he gives us to understand that it was to the policy of the Cabinet—and especially that of Earl Russell, the predecessor of Lord Clarendon—that he intended his observations to apply. I think it is obvious that after Lord Clarendon had been for nine months at the head of the Foreign Office, it is scarcely accurate to say that he was representing any policy but his own. But with respect to the policy of Earl Russell, I think that the censure of the right hon. Gentleman, if it falls anywhere, must fall, not upon the late Government, but upon Parliament, for the right hon. Gentleman himself thought fit to challenge the policy of Earl Russell in a Motion with respect to the Danish question, which, after being discussed many nights, was rejected by this House, which approved the policy of Earl Russell, and rejected that of the right hon. Gentleman. I admit that there is great temptation on occasions similar to that at the Merchant Taylors' Hall to resort to these sweeping censures of the policy of one's opponents. There is nothing so dangerous to a speaker as to know that he is speaking to an audience who cannot detect his errors and his fallacies. The right hon. Gentleman unfortunately yielded to the temptation. It is, however, true, as has been stated by the hon. Gentleman behind me, that this is not an accidental error on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a part of his system. The hon. Member has shown that in 1858 and in 1868 the right hon. Gentleman used the same established formula in passing a sweeping condemnation upon his opponents—a condemnation which in no case should I care to retort; and that on both occasions the statements of the right hon. Gentleman have been contradicted out of the mouth of his own Chief. In 1868 the right hon. Gentleman says that the name of England in 1866 was "a name of suspicion and of distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet;" to which the hon. Member replies that in 1866—the same year—Lord Derby urgently requested Lord Clarendon to give him that valuable assistance which had made the name of England "a name of suspicion and of distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet." I ask, had or had not the policy of Lord

2161
Clarendon rendered the name of England "a name of suspicion and of distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet?" The right hon. Gentleman endeavours to shift out of the words; but the hon. Member who has just sat down does not resort to any such subterfuge; he boldly takes the bull by the horns, and lays the blame upon Lord Clarendon.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: No; I said that the blame lay upon Earl Russell.
MR. GLADSTONE: But you told us that it was quite true that the name of England in every foreign Court was a name of distrust and suspicion.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Yes; I said it was brought about by Earl Russell's policy.
MR. GLADSTONE: And the state of things he brought about was continued by Lord Clarendon, who identified himself completely with the policy of Earl Russell. And yet this was the Foreign Minister whom Lord Derby was so anxious to enlist among his ranks upon the formation of his Government. Again, in 1858, the right hon. Gentleman attributed the fact that war was about to break forth in Europe to the fault of the foreign policy of the Government which preceded that of Lord Derby. But Lord Derby in that instance also gave similar testimony, for he had said, in 1855—
"I stated to Her Majesty that I conceived it would have been an immense advantage to any Government to have among its members one who is perfectly conversant with the whole diplomacy of the last two years, and with the feelings and proceedings of various Courts of Europe."…[That is to say, the feelings of suspicion and distrust.] "I took the liberty to add, with regard to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, (the Earl of Clarendon) that I entertained the highest opinion of the ability, the industry, and the zeal with which he had discharged the duties of his Office……The only part of the course I have pursued to which I look back with the least doubt or incertitude is with respect to the propriety of my abstaining from making any communication either to the noble Earl directly, or to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) near him." [3 Hansard, cxxxvi. 1347–8.]
In 1855 Lord Derby emphatically recognizes the services of Lord Clarendon, and asks him to join his Government; while in 1858 the right hon. Gentleman, referring to the accession of the Conservative Government, declared that war had become a question not of weeks or days, but of hours. In 1866 Lord Derby passes a similar eulogium upon Lord Clarendon; and in 1868 the right hon. Gentleman says that when Lord Derby's Government came
2162
into power the name of England was viewed with suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court. I must again protest against the language of the right hon. Gentleman; and it is only because I wish to spare the time of the House that I abstain from entering into a particular review of the speeches and the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, which much of their matter would go far to justify me in doing. I do not complain of these speeches because I do not think they are injurious to us in a party point of view. On the contrary, I think they are weapons perfectly harmless for any such purpose; and if they have the effect for a moment of exhilarating the spirits of those who pay visits to the right hon. Gentleman, and of causing an agreeable interchange of sympathy and compliments between him and them, I really cannot grudge either him or them any amount of such gratification as they can derive from them, especially when the statements of the right hon. Gentleman have been so fully contradicted by Lord Derby. An attempt has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to shift the gist of his attack from Lord Clarendon to Earl Russell; but before I sit down I must remind the House of one thing that had almost escaped my memory. Late in the days of the late Government, the right hon. Gentleman made a special and heavy attack, not upon Earl Russell, but upon Lord Clarendon. But it was impossible for him then, as it is now, to injure that distinguished statesman—strong as he is in the admiration and affection of this country and the esteem of foreign Powers—so long as we can place against these Phillipics an emphatic and point-blank contradiction from the mouth of Lord Derby, the Prime Minister under whom he served.
LORD STANLEY: Sir, I am sure the House will feel that it is with the greatest reluctance that, holding my present Office, I take a part in this discussion But I must say that if a general debate is to be raised on the foreign policy of this country it should be raised in a form more convenient than that which the hon. Member for the Elgin burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) has adopted on the present occasion. In a matter of this kind I do not complain of the want of Notice, because a Minister ought always to be prepared to defend his policy; but at the same time I must be permitted to express my opinion that a desultory discussion brought on in this way and dealing with half a dozen topics at a time is not a discussion that can result in

2163
any practical good. Now, the remarks of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, whatever they may be held to import, were not in any way a charge against either the capacity or the character of Lord Clarendon. The foreign policy of the Liberal party during their seven years' tenure of Office was in the main the policy of Lord Russell. For my own part I will abstain from criticizing that policy, although I think a great deal might be said against it, especially with reference to Poland and Denmark In regard to the American Civil War, on the other hand, I give Lord Russell credit for having endeavoured to maintain a position of neutrality for this country. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Layard) says, what I will do him the justice to say is correct, that during the term of my administration of foreign affairs he has abstained as a rule from party criticism on subjects of foreign policy, and has seldom called the acts of that Department into question; but I must say I think he has made ample amends to-night for his customary silence. The charges he has brought forward are, to say the least, as sweeping as any which have been attributed to my right hon. Friend; and I think I can show that they are as unfounded as they are sweeping. First of all, the hon. Gentleman referred to the question of the Spanish claims, and said, "What have you done with them; have you settled any one of them?" Now there are but three Spanish claims of any importance which have turned up since I have been at the Foreign Office. First of all there was the case of the Queen Victoria, which was settled by diplomatic action on the spot. Then there is the case of the Mermaid. Now I will not stop to comment on the interpretation put upon certain words which I used in the debate on that subject, for the important fact to be borne in mind is that within six weeks after that discussion in this House the Spanish Government determined, as I all along believed and hoped they would do, to refer the matter to arbitration, and accordingly it has been so referred, and the arbitration is now going on. Then there is the case of the Tornado. What was done in regard to that? I do not wish to prejudice the position of any of the parties who are now before the legal tribunals, but I think that everyone who reads the voluminous Parliamentary Papers on the subject must admit that that is not a case which would have justified us in pressing for more
2164
from the Spanish Government than that strict letter of the law to which the parties were entitled. Then the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Alabama question, and has stated that it remains in the position in which it was in 1866. Now I admit that the claims of the American Government are not settled, and, indeed, I stated in this House not long ago what was the actual position of the question; but it is simply the reverse of fact to say that the Alabama claims now stand in the same position as they did two years ago. I am not going to enter into detail as to events which happened before I accepted the Seals of the Foreign Office; I admit that the circumstances were different. But in 1866 the Government had given a refusal to the proposal to arbitrate. The position which the question at present occupies is as follows:—We have accepted frankly and freely the principle of arbitration, and there is now only one remaining point of difference between the two Governments. The American Government desire to couple that arbitration with one condition which I think is not very material to the real issue to be tried, but which we consider as inadmissible. At all events I believe the matter is placed in such a position that there is no probability of an international quarrel, or an acrimonious dispute arising out of it. Then the hon. Gentleman entered into another wide question of Luxemburg. He said, "It is all nonsense for you to pretend that you maintained the peace of Europe." Now I never made any such pretension, because I do not believe that any one individual or any single Government can, under such circumstances, claim to have preserved the peace of Europe. But I contend that in a critical moment, and under circumstances of great difficulty, we did all that it was possible for us to do, with due regard to the interest and the security of England, in order to preserve the peace of Europe, and that with the assistance of other Governments we succeeded in attaining our object. Of course, if France and Prussia had determined to go to war, we could not have prevented them; because no one can suppose that we intended to take an active part in the conflict, and it could only have been by a threat of such interference that we could have succeeded in compelling them to keep the peace. What happened was this—both France and Prussia were committed to a position from which it was difficult for them to recede, and under those

2165
circumstances they naturally looked for the friendly assistance of a third State in order to be extricated from it without loss of honour. What the hon. Member says as to the reluctance which I felt in giving the guarantee is perfectly true; I think any Minister in the same position would have felt it, and that anyone who did not feel it would have shown a reckless indifference to the interests of the country. I gave the guarantee unwillingly and as the only means left, as I believed and still believe, of preventing—I will not say a war, but at least, a rupture between the parties. To say, however, that it was given under any external pressure is entirely a misapprehension. I must say that the hon. Gentleman's survey of foreign politics, though rapid, was exceedingly comprehensive. But there now remains only one question for me to touch upon—namely, that of the East. The hon. Member seems to think that I recommended when out of Office a different policy from that which I have adopted since I have held my present position. Now that is not the case. I believe the Greek nation have a great future, and I shall be very glad to see them attain it; but I think we should not be justified in breaking through long-standing and recognized international agreements out of sympathy with any nation or any race of men. If I have seemed to show favour to the Porte at the expense of Greece I am not conscious of it; and if I have ever seemed to be so, it has not been from a desire to favour one side as against the other, but from a desire to adhere as strictly and rigidly as I could to the engagements into which England has entered, and to the principle of an impartial neutrality.

SUNDAY LABOUR IN THE POST OFFICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that the Lords of the Treasury in 1850, on the recommendation of the Commissioners appointed by their Lordships to consider the question of Sunday labour in the Post Office, communicated to the Postmaster General the following regulation for his guidance:—
  "That, in retaining a Sunday delivery of letters in a rural district, the Postmaster General be guided by the prevalent feeling of the locality; and that where the prevalent feeling of the district is opposed to such delivery, the Postmaster General, after satisfying himself of the fact, take the requisite steps for suspending it."
  2166
  He complained that the Postmaster General had in effect violated this regulation by insisting upon a majority of six-sevenths of the householders being obtained in each case against the Sunday delivery. In his opinion a majority of two-thirds would be quite sufficient. He trusted that the Treasury would make inquiry as to this non-observance of their own regulations, and ascertain whether it was the fault of the subordinate local officers or of the high authorities in London.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would inquire whether the Treasury regulations had been in any degree departed from. The matter could not be authoritatively decided except by the officials responsible for carrying out the regulations of the service. He doubted whether a majority of two-thirds of the householders ought to prevent the delivery of Sunday letters; because they might be persons who never received letters, and they would debar those who might have important correspondence to conduct from receiving a due share of the facilities offered by this very efficiently managed service. Such a rule would cause great inconvenience, and would lead to a strong expression of discontent against the suspension of Sunday letters at all. The rule that six-sevenths of the householders should unite in a memorial against Sunday delivery had, he believed, worked well; but he would inquire whether the present regulation was in conformity with the spirit of the direction laid down by the Treasury, and also as to the mode in which it was carried out.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £21,386, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the House had by a Bill and Resolution suspended all new appointments, whether to the Established Church, Maynooth, or the Regium Donum, and this proceeding placed him in rather a peculiar position. In 1834 the

2167
allowance to these ministers was only £26,100; in 1868 it had risen to £41,386. During the interval a feeling of distrust had sprung up in many quarters against this system of begging from the State, and he had himself presented a petition from the remonstrant body in Ireland who were opposed to it. To that portion of the grant which was allowed to widows and orphans of ministers of the synod of Ulster—£366—he did not object; but he should move that the entire grant be reduced to that amount.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £366, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland."—(Mr. Hadfield.)
MR. PEEL DAWSONacknowledged the consistency of the hon. Member for Sheffield in again bringing forward this Motion; but expressed his own opinion that the present time was most inopportune for the consideration of the question. The Northern district of Ireland was a model of what a British settlement should be, and much of this happy state of things was due to the Presbyterian Church. The Vote was a very small sum to give for the advantages which the State receives in return; for wherever Presbyterianism predominates the gaols are empty, and the number of police is infinitesimally small. As the larger question of the Established Church in Ireland had been taken up, it could not be expected that the smaller question of Presbyterian endowment could escape hostile criticism. Retaining the opinions he had often expressed, he should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield. The grant was paid in consequence of an agreement entered into between the State and the Presbyterian body, when they were induced to undertake the colonization of the North of Ireland in the reign of James I. He submitted that, considering the alteration in the value of money in course of years, there should be an augmentation of the original endowment.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, as the circumstances had been much altered since the Notice of this Motion was put on the Paper, discussions on the Irish Church and the Regium Donum having taken place, and Resolutions having been passed which could not then have been
2168
anticipated, he hoped the hon. Member for Sheffield would not press this Motion to a division. If he did so, as the elections were approaching, every Member for Ulster would feel bound to speak in favour of the Regium Donum; but if he withdrew it, those speeches would be made from the hustings.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the clause relating to the Regium Donum in the Suspensory Bill, which he hoped would pass, would prevent any fresh rights accruing under the grant. But for that clause he would have pressed for a division; as it was he would advise the withdrawal of the Amendment.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEobjected to the statement of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), that the Regium Donum caused the Presbyterians to cringe at the feet of the Ministry. He should give a decided opposition to the Amendment.
SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he had always supported the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) in this proposition; but would now suggest to him that, owing to altered circumstances, he would do well not to divide the Committee on this occasion. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Peel Dawson) said the Regium Donum had been given to carry out the policy of James I. That policy was that no Catholic should be permitted to exist in Ireland, and that the whole of the land should be held by imported Englishmen and Scotchmen. When it was assumed that the Presbyterians were so exclusively loyal, he begged to remark that within the memory of living men a serious rebellion had been organized in Ulster by Presbyterians.
MR. CANDLISHrecommended to the hon. Member for Sheffield to withdraw the Amendment; but he hoped that a subsequent Amendment against any increase in the grant would be adopted.
MR. HADFIELDwas understood to intimate his willingness to withdraw the Amendment.
SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEprotested against the Motion being withdrawn after the hon. Member had made a speech on the subject. Other hon. Members were thus debarred from expressing their opinions. The Dissenting congregations of Ireland were too poor to provide anything like the amount that was raised by the Free Church of Scotland. The voluntary system could not exist in Ireland to such an extent as to make it successful. He thought that it would be a great breach

2169
of faith to take away the grant, which, instead of being left dependent on annual Votes, ought to have been placed on the Consolidated Fund. He protested against the principle of leaving it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), or to any individual, however high his authority or ability, to say in his mercy what amount of compensation ought to be given to the clergy of the Established Church or of the Presbyterian Church. He contended that the Presbyterians had as much right to compensation if the Regium Donum was abolished as the clergymen of the Established Church would have if that Church were to be disestablished.
MR. M'LARENprotested against the principle that the grant was one which entitled parties on its withdrawal to compensation. The whole system connected with this grant was a rotten one, and he believed that no party would be more benefited by the abolition of the grant than the Presbyterians ministers themselves. Within the last month a meeting of the whole body of Presbyterian ministers in Ireland was held, and a motion was made to strike at the grant, and it was lost only by a majority of about 30 in a very large assembly; and he had no doubt they would find next year that there would be a majority of that body itself against the grant. As to Ireland being too poor for the voluntary system, he could only say that even in the poorest parts of Scotland the voluntary system flourished in the highest degree. The Free Church had raised on the voluntary principle last year upwards of £390,000—just nine times the pittance which the Presbyterians in Ireland came to beg from that House, to be paid by taxes out of the pockets of those who already paid for the support of their own ministers.
MR. VANCEsaid, that the House, instead of grudging this miserable pittance, ought to feel ashamed that the sum granted was so small. £150 ought to be the least stipend granted to any minister.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the principle upon which the Regium Donum was voted was a sound one. They had a curious illustration of the manner in which the provision for the Irish Presbyterian Church and the endowment of the Established Church in Ireland was assailed. The Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was supported by the hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), who was the Leader in the
2170
House of the Roman Catholic section, and perhaps also a leader of the Liberation Society. There was an unnatural alliance between those who represented opinions in favour of extreme voluntaryism and the Roman Catholic section, who were opposed to the whole body of Protestants in this country. That alliance had proved fatal to foreign countries, and would prove fatal to this if the people were not made aware of the aims and ends of the allies.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKobserved, that the voluntary system worked admirably in Ireland; but, under all the circumstances, it would perhaps be better now to agree to the Vote, on the understanding that the matter would be fully discussed next Session.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £3,701, to complete the sum for the Treasury Chest.
(3.) £19,656, to complete the sum for Bounties on Slaves and Tonnage Bounties, &c
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to ask a few questions respecting the Vote so far as it concerned liberated Africans. He found that in 1864 six slaves were liberated, and in 1865 none, and yet he found that in 1864, the sum granted for prize money was £7,061; and even in the years when no negroes at all had been captured, prize money was granted. He wanted to know how that happened? He thought the prize system was a had system, and led to much inconvenience.
COLONEL SYKESwished to know what had become of the negroes who were captured on the East Coast of Africa?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had given a full explanation of this subject a short time since, and was not prepared to enter into the question again without Notice. He might, however, remind the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) that the prize money was principally derived from the sale of the slave ships captured by Her Majesty's ships. The cost of these captured slaves was a decreasing cost. The Vote originally was very large. It was not merely for captured negroes, but also for captured slave ships. The slaves captured on the East Coast of Africa were disposed of in an economical way by being sent to islands in those seas. The great item was the Vote for the mainten-

2171
ance of the establishments necessary to keep up in connection with our captures.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £200, to complete the sum for Coolie Emigration to French Colonies.
(5.) £4,360, to complete the sum for Mixed Commissions (Slave Trade).
(6.) £126,178, to complete the sum for Consular Establishments Abroad.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that since 1866–7 the Vote had increased at the rate of about £20,000 a year. A considerable number of the establishments might, with great propriety, be suppressed. Some of the consuls, to his knowledge, in Spain and elsewhere, had literally nothing whatever to do. He last year mentioned the case of Seville, and he could mention it again as a place where the English consul had nothing to do. By not filling up many of the appointments when they became vacant, the expenditure might be reduced by between £30,000 and £40,000 a year.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he doubted whether the Vote had really increased to the extent mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He would also remark that the fact of there being a certain amount of security in these consular appointments induced gentlemen to accept them on comparatively low pay. He thought that when they had sent a man out upon a salary to a post which he had a right to consider a permanent post, they could not very well withdraw him from his employment. Such a course would inflict great injury upon the public service; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that in every case where he had to appoint a consul he considered first whether there was anything for him to do, and, secondly, whether the salary was excessive for the work required of him. It should also be borne in mind that a sovereign did not represent so much now as it did twenty-five years ago. The cost of living and of house-rent had increased greatly all over the world of late years.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he saw a Vote of £600 for house-rent, &c, for the consul at Massowah. Was there any reason why this Vote should be continued, seeing that the consul had been re-called years ago?
LORD STANLEYsaid, there was no intention to send a new consul to Abyssinia. Consul Cameron had been re-called; but the hon. Member was aware that he had been detained in Abyssinia by causes not within his own control.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he believed Consul Cameron had been recalled when Earl Russell was Foreign Minister.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it was quite right that these Consular Estimates should be carefully scanned; but it must be borne in mind that our consuls were not Diplomatic agents of the Foreign Office, but were appointed to look after the interests of our enormous trade, and as that trade increased, so it must be expected that the Vote for Consular Services would increase also. His impression was that this country was often very fortunate in obtaining the services of intelligent and respectable gentlemen in foreign forts at a very moderate salary.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that there was an item for Mr. Consul Cameron's salary and house-rent in Abyssinia, whereas he had been re-called two or three years ago. As to his house-rent he always understood that he had been provided with house-room by King Theodore.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the letter of re-call was written by his predecessor at the Foreign Office, but it never reached Consul Cameron as he was in confinement. A somewhat nice question thereupon arose whether Consul Cameron had been re-called or not. He had borne a severe and painful imprisonment. Whether he had been well-advised or not, he had acted to the beat of his judgment, and having suffered very seriously it would not be the wish of the Committee that he should be dealt with hardly.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £300,000, Post Office Packet Service (on account).
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (re-committed) BILL,— [BILL 63.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir Stafford Northcote.)
ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (re-committed) BILL,— [BILL 63.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5. (Establishment of Court of Elections.)
  MR. CRAUFURD MR. CRAUFURD moved, on behalf of the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Alexander Mitchell), in Clause 5, page 2, line 30, to leave out the words "Courts of Common Pleas," in order to insert "House of Commons." He thought before transferring their jurisdiction in such cases the House ought to be satisfied that the new tribunal proposed would be superior to the present one. The opinion of the Select Committee might be quoted against his Amendment; but it ought to be recollected that that Committee took no evidence on the subject, and that the first proposal to transfer the jurisdiction to the Queen's Bench had been withdrawn. It was not to be expected that at particular times—for instance, immediately after a General Election—two gentlemen would be sufficient to determine upon all the cases that would present themselves. He saw no case for parting with this jurisdiction. The decisions of Committees of the House were generally fair and impartial; and if anyone asked for proof of the satisfactory action of the present mode of trial, he would point to the decision of the Election Committee that very day in the case of the Bristol Election Petition. He believed that an Election Committee, the Members of which had gone through the ordeal of an election, and who understood all the artifices used to prevent agency from being found out, were more likely to discover cases of bribery than the tribunal proposed to be established by the Bill. It was said that: by the proposals of this Bill expense would be saved, but he saw no proof of this. If there were defects in the present system let them be removed. They should direct legislation so that a man guilty of bribery should be considered as guilty, not merely of a legal, but of a moral offence. He called upon the House not to part with a jurisdiction which they had possessed so long, and which had worked so well.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, to leave out the words "Court of Common Pleas," in order to insert the words "House of Commons."—(Mr. Craufurd.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the speech of the hon. Member was addressed to the whole principle of the Bill; for it was again raising the question that had been raised upon the second reading; and on going into Committee. The Bill was set down for to-night with a view of proceeding with the details. If the House was disposed to stop the Bill it could do so,
  2174
  but it was advisable that they should come to a decision whether they should discuss the clauses or debate the principle of the Bill at that late period.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he thought that the House, in affirming the principle of the Bill, declared not that it was prepared to part with its jurisdiction, but that it would feel itself justified in laying down more stringent regulations on the subject of Corrupt Practices at Elections. He was glad that the question was raised whether the House was prepared to part with its jurisdiction in reference to Election Petitions. The general feeling among the independent Members was in favour of the jurisdiction of the House being retained. He must say that he thought the argument of the Judges, that too much work would be imposed upon them, and that their office would be lowered if they were mixed up with elections, was unanswerable. It was said that the expense would be diminished by trying these questions on the spot; but he believed that it would cost more to take counsel down than it would to bring witnesses up. Moreover, it was intended to continue the system of Commissions for general inquiries, so that the Judges would be limited to particular inquiries. It would be derogatory to the dignity of that House part with its jurisdiction to try Election Petitions, and to hand such inquiries over to Judges who were the nominees of the Crown. Was it right that it should be left to nominees of the Crown to determine who were and who were not the representatives of the people in that House? It was unconstitutional, and if they wished to find anything like it they must go back to the days of the Star Chamber. There was, moreover, no necessity for adopting it; for he believed that the proceedings of the House on Election Petitions had generally been fair and just. The only thing wanting to their decisions was uniformity, and this could be obtained by having Judges or lawyers, in whom they ought to place confidence, to sit as assessors to Committees. The Bill proposed that the Judges should decide, without the assistance of a jury, questions both of law and fact. The present moment also was an unhappy one for adopting such a change, before they knew how the new constituency would work.
  MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, that all other representative assemblies retained in their own hands the power of verifying the election of their own Members, and on what ground was that House

  2175
  called upon to part with that power? He had observed, during twelve years, that the impartiality of Election Committees had not been questioned. If he were to be tried for his life he should be perfectly satisfied to trust his case in the hands of a Committee of that House. With regard to the case which had been decided that day, he should not have been at all surprised if the decision had been the other way, as the case in favour of the Petition was not very strong; yet still the Committee had considered it their duty to decide in favour of the Petitioners. He had not the confidence which some professed in the superhuman attributes of Judges; and he believed that, by changing one tribunal for another, you would not secure infallibility. At present the Judges were beyond suspicion, but he did not think they would long remain unsuspected if they were called upon to decide matters of fact in reference to elections. He was prepared to sit, if necessary, to the end of September in order to pass an effectual measure to put down bribery and corruption; but before visiting a man with the proposed disqualification, he would have him really convicted of bribery. In the Bristol case there had been no conviction of moral bribery, but only of an act made illegal by our preposterous laws—the paying of a lost day's pay—which was an old-established practice in other places besides Bristol. He admitted it was a vicious practice, but would any one say it was an offence against morality? He would punish the corrupt candidate as much as possible, but not the man who had no intention of breaking the law. The other day when he was going down to vote at a county election, to save him from inconvenience an hon. Member offered him a night's hospitality, and he believed that might have been treated as a case of corruption. He wished for certainty, which could not be obtained without a good definition of bribery; and he thought the present tribunal, at all events with a legal Chairman, was better than that proposed. But if a case was to be tried locally by a Judge, then he would give him a jury to decide questions of fact.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham Martin) was applicable to subsequent clauses, and had nothing to do with the present clause, which did not deal with punishment. He assured the hon. Member that there was not the smallest symp-
  2176
  tom of bribery or corruption in the incident he had mentioned; and he wished to explain that the unseated Member for Bristol had not been convicted of, but wholly absolved from bribery. His agents had been guilty of it, and therefore he lost his seat. That was not a new law, and it might be considered severe or wholly unnecessary; but it was a different thing from a gentleman himself being convicted of anything corrupt, and there was nothing in the Bill to condemn a person whose agents only had been guilty of corruption. The clauses only affected persons who were proved to have been knowingly guilty of bribery. Turning, however, from this digression of the hon. Member to the question really before the Committee, it must be obvious that all the argumenst adduced this evening were based upon the old objection to the Bill—namely, the objection to give up what was termed the authority and power of the House in the decision of election disputes. For his own part he had always been unable wholly to appreciate the force of the objection; for, in point of fact, the House did not really exercise any authority or power in deciding whether a Member should be displaced or not. This was obvious when it was considered that if the tribunal was a just and an efficient one, it had no choice at all; because, after the facts had been proved before it, the result followed as a matter of course. The truth was, that the House gave up its power 100 years ago, when it first allowed Election Petitions to be tried under a statute, instead of being investigated by the House itself. It had been urged in the course of the present debate that the House was not in a position to arrive at a decision on this question, as no evidence had been taken; but he begged to remind the House that the whole matter had been fully and carefully investigated by the Select Committee last year. Then it was said that the letter of the Lord Chief Justice was a conclusive answer to the view taken by the Committee. He wished, however, to point out that that letter was grounded on a misapprehension. One of the main objections raised by the Lord Chief Justice to the proposal of the Government was that the Judges would be required to inquire into Petitions which alleged general corruption, and that they would consequently be withdrawn from their ordinary duties for inconveniently long periods of time; but, in reality, the

  2177
  Committee carefully distinguished between the case of two Members claiming a seat and an inquiry into the subject of general corruption; for in the latter case it was proposed to continue the practice of sending Commissioners to the spot to investigate the subject. When they sent down Commissioners to the country to inquire into the existence of general corruption they did not send them down to act as Judges and to try cases, but only to collect evidence and make certain inquiries with a view to ulterior proceedings. He believed that the objections of many of the Judges were founded on the same misapprehension, and therefore he thought the letter of the Lord Chief Justice ought not to weigh very much with the Committee. It had also been stated that the proposed tribunal would be inefficient, as the two Judges appointed by the Bill would be unable to try all the Petitions after a General Election. Now, he did not think it was ever intended that Judges should be specially created for the sole purpose of trying Election Petitions. On the contrary, he had always imagined the intention to be that two of the existing Judges should be selected for the purpose, and he believed there would be no difficulty in seeming the services of the senior Judges. It had been said that it would be a degradation to a Judge to try questions of fact as well as questions of law; but this objection was easily disposed of, as every one connected with legal proceedings must be aware that the Equity Judges were constantly trying questions of fact without ever supposing that they were thereby degraded. The questions which the Judges would have to try would be comparatively simple, and he could not see that they would soil their ermine by trying election cases more than they did in trying any other cases. It had further been urged that the proposed tribunal would be ineffective; but could anyone declare that the present tribunal was effective? The great defect in the existing tribunal was that it sat in London. It was well known to lawyers of experience that the trial of a case in the town where the facts had arisen was of the utmost consequence in getting at the truth. When a witness was examined in his own town with the people standing before and around him, who all knew what he had been doing, it was almost impossible, from the instant murmur or gesture that arose, for the witness to tell an untruth. The case was often very different when the witness was examined
  2178
  in London, and the Committee were quite right in saying that a local inquiry in election matters was of the greatest importance in getting at the truth. It was said that a local inquiry would add to the expense, instead of diminishing it, because the fees paid to counsel who went into the country would be larger than the expense of bringing the witnesses to London. This was a question of fact, and not of opinion. As to the fees which it was said would have to be paid to counsel, the hon. Member ought to know that nothing was more exaggerated than the supposed amount of fees often said to be paid to counsel. Any one who had ever looked over an attorney's bill must know how small a proportion counsels' fees usually bore to the rest of the bill. With regard to the expense of bringing witnesses to London he had unfortunately had some experience in Election Petitions, and he could state that the great expense arose from bringing witnesses to London and keeping them there. They expected for some reason or other to be maintained in a lavish manner, and to be kept in a state of constant good humour and amusement. He did not imagine, as the hon. Member seemed to suppose, that the first counsel of the day would be brought down in these cases, because the services of other counsel could be obtained at a much cheaper rate. The main principle of the Bill was the change of tribunal. Three-fourths of the clauses referred to that subject, and if the Committee thought there ought to be no change of tribunal they might as well give up the Bill. The House had considered this question more than once; and would, he thought, do well to accept the principle of the Bill, and give up a power which added nothing either to its real influence or its dignity.
  MR. DENMANsaid, the discussion convinced him that it would have been better to have listened to his suggestion on a former occasion and have postponed all the clauses relative to the new tribunal, in order that those clauses might go before the Committee again. They would then have been in a better position to deal with the question of tribunal. His proposal need not have proved fatal to the Bill. The words now in question were of no vital moment, because they might as well enact for the present that an Election Petition should be presented to the House of Commons as to the Court of Common Pleas. If the words "House of Commons" were

  2179
  substituted for Court of Common Pleas, the next step would be the consideration of the Amendments of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). Though he had some Amendments on the Paper, he had placed them there with no intention of delaying the passing of the measure; all he wanted was to improve the measure, and make it such as would command the approval of the House. It was now admitted that the two Honorary Judges would not be sufficient for the trial of Election Petitions after a General Election. But here arose the point on which he joined issue with the Government. The Bill proposed that the Government should have the power of taking out two more Judges besides the Honorary Justices, and these two Judges were to be engaged for the nonce and for the job, and taken away from the trial of murders and other circuit business to hold Election Inquiries on the spot. Everyone must regard this as a proposal of a very monstrous nature, and it was to prevent such an interference with the business of the Courts and of the country by the nomination of two of the Judges by the Minister of the day, that he proposed to substitute the appointment of those who when there was a great deal of Assize business were thought well qualified to sit and assist the Judges. He did not care whether they were appointed by the Speaker and the two Honorary Judges, or by the latter alone; but they should be well-qualified barristers, say of twelve years' standing, who might assist in holding the inquiries that might be necessary after a General Election. The other Amendments he proposed were to provide that the tribunal should contain the element of a jury as well as that of a Judge. He asserted that it was most objectionable that an inquiry of this kind should be held before a single-seated Judge. Although there were tribunals of the Court of Chancery, where a single Judge tried questions of law and fact, there was no instance of a single-seated Judge having a very extensive and important criminal jurisdiction. The Bankruptcy Commissioners exercised, indeed, a somewhat analogous power; but could there be anything more ridiculous and unsatisfactory than the way in which that jurisdiction had worked? He believed that something in the nature of a jury would be requisite; and when there was a very expansive power of getting such jury among the Members of that House, they ought not to
  2180
  sacrifice the power of getting it from that body. There should be one person responsible for the law, and a body to decide as to the fact of guilty or not guilty.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he looked upon the Bill as the Bill of a Select Committee rather than of the Government, and he did not hesitate to say that the Bill, if passed, would defeat its own object. It would put an end to Petitions. There was scarcely any borough which could stand the test of an inquiry instituted before a local tribunal; and the consequence would be that candidates unwilling to kill the goose which laid the golden eggs would hesitate to petition against the return for a borough which they might hope to represent at some future period. Another disadvantage connected with a local tribunal would be that the services of a competent bar would not be likely to be secured. Then, the single Judge, from the fact of his sitting singly, must be open to suspicion.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, that, in the course of the rather severe criticisms which had been made upon the Bill, it seemed to have been forgotten that, whatever might be its defects, it provided one of the most important remedies for bribery and corruption—a local investigation. His own opinion was that the worst plan which involved such an investigation would be better than the best plan without it. But if there were a local investigation the jurisdiction must be altered; and the question was whether a tribunal should be constituted composed of one of the Judges of the land as proposed in the Government plan, or of a Judge sitting with a jury as suggested by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie)? However that might be he was anxious to impress on the House that any such tribunal would be only fit to be a tribunal of appeal, and that it would be necessary to have besides a tribunal of investigation. The best plan, therefore, to adopt, seemed to him that of which he had given Notice, and which he had drawn up with the assistance of Mr. Serjeant Pulling, providing that the Revising Barrister, an officer conversant with elections, and having a considerable acquaintance with the locality, should be the person to hold the investigation in the first instance. The investigation should take place before the return of the writ, and there should be a scrutiny. They must endeavour to put an end to excessive expenditure; and he thought the expense of the preliminary investigation should be

  2181
  borne by the public, either out of the borough rate or be charged on the Consolidated Fund. If the Amendment were pressed to a division he should vote for the provision in the Bill as against the Amendment.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the plan of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) would require 400 Revising Barristers, and he thought the appeal to the Court of Common Pleas was objection able. Local inquiry was admitted to be very desirable, and at the same time there was an objection to get rid of the jurisdiction of that House in the trial of Election Petitions. There could be no question, especially after the speech of the Solicitor General, that local inquiry diminished expense. ["No, no!"] He spoke from some experience, for when he first came into Parliament, it was after an inquiry conducted in his own borough, the parties immediately engaged in which were solicitors on the spot. But he thought that House should not he the first Legislature in the world to give up its jurisdiction in reference to disputed elections. They ought to ensure local inquiry on the one hand, and the retention of jurisdiction on the other. At a time when a review of the whole of our Courts of Justice was imminent, it was most inopportune to create two new Judges. He would therefore suggest that on the presentation of an Election Petition, a barrister should be appointed by some impartial authority to go down to the spot to which the Petition referred, and there take evidence. The barrister should then net before the Election Committee of that House as assessor, being in a position to afford them information as to the manner in which the evidence had been given. No additional evidence should be taken by the Election Committee, unless it was substantiated before them that for special reasons such evidence was desirable. The Committee would retain the entire power of deciding whether the election was or was not an undue election. His scheme was not yet completed, and he should therefore support the Amendment to retain the jurisdiction, with the view of bringing up a clause at a future time to carry out his view.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that the plan just suggested of a double inquiry would double the expense. What the House desired was that there should be a Court constituted which would give satisfaction, not only to the House, but to the public. He did not
  2182
  think that the inquiry before an Election Committee afforded entire satisfaction, and he would, therefore, give his support in a considerable degree to the proposal in the Bill. He conceived that it would be desirable to have Election Petitions tried by Judges of the land, as they were removed from the region of party; but, instead of having two Judges appointed for the special purpose, it would be better to make controverted elections a matter of criminal inquiry, and to let them be tried by Judges taken from the whole Bench. That would be much better than appointing special Judges for this purpose. The mere fact of the Judge going down to the spot to investigate the case would have a great tendency to check corruption, as the Inquiry would be held under the eyes of the borough. He could not support the Amendment by which it was proposed to retain the jurisdiction of the House upon this matter.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he could not agree with those hon. Members who advocated local inquiry, which would have the effect of reviving the animosities attendant upon the election, instead of allowing them to die out. Moreover, the appearance of one of Her Majesty's Judges in a borough for the purpose of conducting an inquiry of this nature would tend to prolong the saturnalia which hon. Members strongly condemned as one of the vices of the present system. Although inquiries into bribery might be of the highest importance in one sense, yet the questions which were raised upon such an inquiry could hardly be classed with the social questions which usually came before the Judges. They would be taken from their important duties to decide matters of minor importance, and such inquiries, conducted without the assistance of a jury, would tend to bring the Judges into disrespect. It would be said perhaps that a Judge was influenced in consequence of his having recently been a barrister upon that particular circuit, or of his having recently given up a seat in the House in order to take his place upon the Bench. These matters should induce them to pause before they cast this duty upon Judges.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that last year the House of Commons delegated this most difficult question to seventeen of its Members, who entered into the inquiry free from all political bias, with the determination of seeing whether something could not be done to put down this crying evil, and those seventeen Members came to a unanimous Resolution which was in substance

  2183
  in favour of the principles embodied in the Government Bill. Under these circumstances, it would not be handsome nor even fair to the Government who had adopted their plan, if the Members of that Committee did not come forward and state the reasons which had induced them to come to the conclusions at which they had arrived. The shortest way of laying the matter before the House was for him to state what questions came before the Committee, and the decision at which they had arrived respecting them. He might state, in the first place, that every point that had been mentioned in that debate was well and fully canvassed by the Committee before they came to the unanimous resolution of placing the matter in the hands of one of the Judges. The Committee did not feel much embarrassed with reference to the question of taking away the jurisdiction of the House, because they felt that the House had already parted with it. It was true that the House retained the power of appointing from among its own Members a Court to try these Petitions, but having done that its power was exhausted. The Court thus appointed was as independent of that House as if its Members were sitting in Quarter Sessions. The Committee thought under these circumstances that the question of transferring the jurisdiction of the House was settled, and that all they had to consider was, whether the existing tribunal was the best and the most efficient that could be obtained? When they came to look at these Courts they found them thus constituted—they found—and he said so with no desire to speak slightingly of the decisions of these tribunals—that they were composed of persons who, from the very necessity of their situation, were political partizans, and were consequently liable to be suspected of political bias; and, indeed, it was not out of the question that they might be affected by an honest political bias. Another objection to the existing tribunals was that they could not be appointed until after the House had assembled, and therefore they could not meet to investigate the cases until months after the offences had been committed. They felt that the inquiry to be efficient must be speedy, so that there should be no time to tamper with the witnesses to see how the inquiry could be evaded or to square the petitioners. They felt, besides, the immense benefits that would arise from local inquiry. It appeared to the Committee that if the existing tribunals were to be
  2184
  retained all those advantages must be given up, and that they must make up their minds whether they would recommend the House, at such a sacrifice, to retain the shadow of jurisdiction that it possessed, or, by giving up that shadow, to obtain the realization of a satisfactory tribunal for the decision of these cases. The conclusion the Committee came to was that the House having already wisely and justly parted with any sort of power or direction over these inquiries, which nobody could be so unfit to exercise as this purely political body, the business of the Committee was to look out for the best tribunal that could be found—one combining certain specified conditions, such as a thorough acquaintance with the rules of law, and the power of controlling and shortening proceedings and of preventing time and money being wasted by irrelevant argument. Considering the enormous importance of the questions at stake, the Committee thought there was no tribunal too high or dignified to re-place Committees of the House; and therefore the question with him, and he believed with the rest of the Committee, was simply whether the present jurisdiction of the House should be retained, or whether that jurisdiction should be transferred to the very highest authority that could be found. The Committee were not prepared to recommend any compromise, and they were not prepared to delegate anything to barristers. The insuperable objection to the plan of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) appeared to be that a barrister would have immense power and latitude of conscience without responsibility, because, although he might manipulate the evidence cleverly, and advise on legal points, the decision would be that of the Committee. It was always wise, where it was possible, that the men who had to decide upon the evidence should hear it; for evidence taken secondhand never had the same weight as when you had listened to and watched the witnesses. It was a very different thing to read the evidence from a stupid blue book, sitting half asleep over the fire in dressing-gown and slippers. With great respect for the Gentlemen who had spoken he had heard nothing to shake his views. He could understand the House wishing to adhere to the existing plan; but he did hope that no compromise would be adopted. Let the House either boldly throw out the Bill or adhere to the present system. The opinion of the Committee was that the number of Judges should be

  2185
  increased, that there should be no selection, and that no one should know beforehand who would try a case. He would like to treat Judges in this matter as we treated jurors, who came out of and sunk back into the body of the community, thereby avoiding speculations as to their bias, politics, and private life which would be indulged in if jurors were always the same. Unfortunately this was not the course adopted in the Bill, owing mainly, perhaps, to the letter of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. This was a minor matter; but it would be better if the number of Judges could be increased. When there was a desperate duty to discharge the Duke of Wellington always took for it the regiment that was most available; he would not by selection make any distinction; and no doubt in that way he sustained the morale and confidence of every part of the army by showing that he had equal confidence in all regiments. On that principle he took objection to the measure of the Government. To conclude, a really efficient inquiry must be local and speedy, and must not wait for the meeting of Parliament. It could be obtained only by delegating the duty to Courts of Justice; and, therefore, he hoped the House would approve the decision of the Committee, which was most conscientiously arrived at with the single desire of doing what was best.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that the statement of his right hon. Friend had not shaken the opinion which he had formed when this Bill was first laid on the table of the House, and which all his subsequent reflection had confirmed. If the choice lay between the Bill, the plan of the Committee, and the present system, his own judgment would be in favour of adhering to the present system. He thought it was an error to say that the House—when it regulated by Act of Parliament the mode in which it would, by its Committees, decide upon Election Petitions—had already parted with its jurisdiction in the same sense, and with the same consequences, as it was now asked to do. When the Whole House decided on Petitions, it was party rallying against party, and it was impossible that an inquiry should be conducted judicially; but it was otherwise when a small number of Members, properly selected, were sworn to do their duty, with the eye of the House and the public resting upon them, within the walls, and, as it were, in the atmosphere of the House, The House
  2186
  still retained cognizance of what went on, and took constant interest in it, so that it could detect and check any tendency to corruption. In that way the House retained the control it ought to have over everything affecting its constitution, and he was decidedly of opinion that that authority should be retained, in whatever mode an inquiry might be conducted. Nor did he agree as to even the alleged incidental inconveniences of the present system, nor as to the tendency of the new remedy to correct the evils stated. Was it part of the plan that every Petition should be presented within a fortnight? To shorten the time for presenting a Petition would in many cases be as likely to have the effect of playing as much into the hands of corruption as it would be to have that of preventing the malpractices referred to. If the time were not shortened the people concerned would still manage things in their own way, much as they did at present. He did not hesitate to express his opinion that the plan proposed would diminish the number of cases in which corruption would be exposed and punished. It might be that an inquiry by a Committee was conducted more loosely than an inquiry by a Judge—but, if a Committee was not strict in applying technical rules, its very laxity tended to the discovery of truth in these matters. He was apprehensive that if a Judge was sent down to try these cases, according to the strict rules of procedure, the advantage would be altogether on the side of those who stood in the position of defendants. He apprehended it would be found that in many cases corruption might escape even in a more flagrant manner than it did under the present system. No doubt, in some cases, local inquiry would be most valuable and important, but not necessarily in every case; and he should like to see power given and machinery supplied to the Committees of the House to enable them to conduct such local inquiry when they deemed it necessary. As to the proposal of the Government respecting the appointment of two Judges, he ventured to say that of all the proposals which human ingenuity could possibly have thought of, it was the very worst. These two Judges would, in point of fact, be called upon to determine all matters relating to the constitution of the House, and of course they would not be removable unless they were guilty of grave misconduct. Judges, like other men, had their politics; but, at present, cases in which

  2187
  political bias might be supposed to affect their minds were rare, although, in those cases they frequently gave their judgments according to their politics. Indeed, this happened in almost all ecclesiastical cases. Still even in cases of this kind the public reposed confidence in the Judges, being aware of their high character, and the admirable manner in which they generally discharged their duties. But if two particular Judges whose politics would be well known were to be chosen to investigate Election Petitions, he ventured to predict that there would be an universal outcry in the country. A special jurisdiction was always an evil, and here it would be found in its worst and most exaggerated form. Then, two Judges could not get through the work with the necessary despatch; and if the whole Bench were employed, as was proposed by the Committee, they would be withdrawn from their ordinary duties in a manner most inconvenient to the public service. Therefore, if this proposal were adopted, it would soon become necessary to supplement it by the appointment of those barristers to whom his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) so much objected. In conclusion, he protested against a hurried change of this kind in a moribund Parliament. He believed that it was impossible by any machinery that could be invented, in the way of trial or punishment, to prevent corruption until there rose up in the constituencies a spirit opposed to corruption.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he agreed with what his hon. Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) had said as to the real remedy for corrupt practices; but he wished to point out that the present scheme of a local inquiry, surrounded by judicial forms, had been adopted with the view of changing the spirit of the constituencies by striking at the root of corruption. Local inquiry afforded the best chance of effecting the object they all wished to secure.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that having been a member of the Select Committee which sat last year, he was unable to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne that the decision of that Committee was arrived at unanimously. The Committee was unanimous only to this extent—that if the jurisdiction were transferred from the House it ought to be conferred on the highest existing judicial tribunal in the country, and not on a body of Commissioners or barristers. He himself had voted in conjunction with the hon.
  2188
  Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) in favour of a proposal that the House should retain its jurisdiction over Election Petitions until they were ready to be sent for trial to a tribunal to be fixed upon by the House. His opinion was that, as the Court of Chancery was able to direct an issue on a point of law, the House should be able to refer any questions respecting an inquiry of that sort to such Court as they might think best suited to try them. With regard to the scheme now under consideration he could not see how the jurisdiction could be transferred till the House knew what was proposed to be done as to Ireland and Scotland, for the Bill, it should be borne in mind, applied to England alone.
  VISCOUNT AMBERLEYsaid, he must acknowledge the value of local inquiry; but the House ought not to be misled into the belief that a mere transfer to a local tribunal would be necessarily an improvement. The House, he thought, should not be in a hurry to give up its jurisdiction without knowing that the tribunal which it was proposed to substitute for the present one would be an improvement. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. T. CAVEsaid, there was one argument which ought to carry weight. ["Divide!"] There were thirteen lawyers who had addressed the Committee, and only three from the general body; and since hon. Members would not listen to him he should move that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. DISRAELIhoped the Motion for the adjournment would would not be persisted in. He never knew a Committee in riper mood for discussion. The subject had been discussed with great ability on both sides, and if they did not come to a decision that night he should begin to despair of progress. He was sure that the House would be quite prepared to listen to the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who had perhaps unnecessarily spoken; but if he would only condense his observations he was sure the Committee would not refuse to hear what he had got to say.
  MR. T. CAVEsaid, that an hon. Baronet opposite had spoken of the borough which he (Mr. T. Cave) represented as "one of those nasty little corrupt boroughs like Bridgwater." Did not hon. Members expect the representatives of boroughs thus classed to show a little self-respect when a Bill like this was before the House. Well, his argument was this—they were about to pass a Bill which offered two more

  2189
  prizes to the legal profession, and they would consequently have their House besieged by the profession more than it was at present. Practical men of business who sat in that House saw that the front Bench on both sides was flattered by one body of lawyers and bullied by another. He said that the Bill must be a had one, because it offered two more prizes to lawyers, who obtained promotion by their speaking powers.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the words 'Court of Common Pleas' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 158: Majority 20.

  AYES.

  Adderley, rt. hn. C. B.

  Evans, T. W.

  Akroyd, E.

  Fane, Lieut.-Col. H. H.

  Antrobus, E.

  Fawcett, H.

  Archdall, Captain M.

  Fellowes, E.

  Arkwright, R.

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Bagge, Sir W.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Barrington, Viscount

  Forde, Colonel

  Bass, M. T.

  Galway, Viscount

  Beach, Sir M. H.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Goldney, G.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Gordon, rt. Hon. E. S.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Biddulph, M.

  Gorst, J. E.

  Bingham, Lord

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Bourne, Colonel

  Grant, A.

  Bowen, J. B.

  Graves, S. R.

  Brett, Sir W. B.

  Greenall, G.

  Bruce, Major C.

  Greene, E.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Grenfell, H. R.

  Buller, Sir A. W.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Burrell, Sir P.

  Gurney, rt. Hon. R.

  Cartwright, Colonel

  Gwyn, H.

  Cave, rt. hon. S.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Hardy, rt. hon. G.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Hardy, J.

  Clay, J.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Clive, G.

  Hayter, A. D.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Henderson, J.

  Cole, hon. H.

  Herbert, rt. hn. Gen. P.

  Cole, hon. J. L.

  Hervey, Lord A. H. C.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Cooper, E. H.

  Heygate, W. U.

  Cox, W. T.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Dent, J. D.

  Hogg, Lieut.-Col. J. M.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Hood, Sir A. A.

  Dimsdale, R.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Du Cane, C.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Huddleston, J. W.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Hunt. rt. hon. G. W.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Hurst, R. H.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Ingham, R.

  Edwards, Sir H.

  Karslake, Sir J. B.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Kavanagh, A.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Kendall, N.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Keown, W.

  2190

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Repton, G. W. J.

  Labouchere, H.

  Robertson, P. F.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Royston, Viscount

  Legh, Major C.

  Russell, A.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Russell, Sir C.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Schreiber, C.

  Lindsay, hon. Colonel C.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Lindsay, Colonel R. L.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Severne, J. E.

  Lowther, W.

  Seymour, G. H.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Simeon, Sir J.

  M'Laren, D.

  Smith, A.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Smith, J.

  Manners, Lord G. J.

  Somerset, Colonel

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Somerset, E. A.

  Majoribanks, Sir D. C.

  Stanley, hon. F.

  Mayo, Earl of

  Stanley, Lord

  Melly, G.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir W.

  Mill, J. S.

  Stone, W. H.

  Moffatt, G.

  Stopford, S. G.

  Monk, C. J.

  Stronge, Sir J. M.

  Montagu, rt. hn. Lord R.

  Stuart, Lt. Col. W.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Taylor, P. A.

  Morgan, O.

  Thompson, M. W.

  Morrison, W.

  Torrens, R.

  Mowbray, rt. hn. J. R.

  Tracy, hn. C. R. D. H.

  Nicol, J. D.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. H.

  North, Colonel

  Turner, C.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Otway, A. J.

  Walsh, hon. A.

  Packe, Colonel

  Warren, rt. hon. R. R.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Waterhouse, S.

  Parker, Major W.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Patten, rt. hon. Col. W.

  Welby, W. E.

  Pim, J.

  Whitbread, S.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Woodd, B. T.

  Potter, E.

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Powell, F. S.

  Price, W. P.

  TELLERS.

  Pritchard, J.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Pugh, D.

  Whitmore, H

  Rebow, J. G.

  NOES.

  Acland, T. D.

  Chambers, M.

  Adam, W. P.

  Cheetham, J.

  Allen, W. S.

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Amberley, Viscount

  Cholmeley, Sir M. J.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Cogan, rt. hn. W. H. F.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Bagwell, J.

  Coleridge, J. D.

  Baines, E.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Barclay, A. C.

  Cowen, J.

  Barnes, T.

  Cowper, hn. H. F.

  Barnett, H.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Crossley, Sir F.

  Berkeley, hon. H. F.

  Dalglish, R.

  Biddulph, Col. R. M.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Dering, Sir E. C.

  Bowyer, Sir G.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Dunne, rt. hn. General

  Bruce, Lord C.

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Bruen, H.

  Edwards, C.

  Buller, Sir E. M.

  Edwards, H.

  Buxton, C.

  Ellice, E.

  Candlish, J.

  Erskine, Vice-Ad. J. E

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Esmonde, J.

  Carter, S.

  Ewing, H. E. Crum-

  Castlerosse, Viscount

  Eykyn, R.

  Cave, T.

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  2191

  Fildes, J.

  Mills, J. R.

  FitzPatrick, rt. hn J. W.

  Milton, Viscount

  Floyer, J.

  Monsell, rt. hn. W.

  Fordyce, W. D.

  More, R. J.

  Forster, C.

  Morris, G.

  Foster, W. O.

  Murphy, N. D.

  Gaselee, Serjeant S.

  Neate, C.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Onslow, G.

  Goldsmid, J.

  Padmore, R.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Paget, T. T.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Graham, W.

  Parry, T.

  Gray, Sir J.

  Paull, H.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Pease, J. W.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Pelham, Lord

  Grey, hon. T. de

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Grosvenor, Capt. R. W.

  Philips, R. N.

  Grove, T. F.

  Potter, T. B.

  Guinness, Sir A. E.

  Ramsay, J.

  Hankey, T.

  Rearden, D. J.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Harris, J. D.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Hay, Lord J.

  Samuda, J. D'A

  Headlam, rt. hn. T. E.

  Samuelson, B.

  Heneage, E.

  Sandford, G. M. W.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Saunderson, E.

  Henley, Lord

  Seymour, A.

  Henniker-Major, hon. J. M.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  Speirs, A. A.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Howes, E.

  Stuart, Col. Crichton-

  Hughes, W. B.

  Surtees, C.F.

  Hutt, rt. hn. Sir W.

  Sykes, C.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Synan, E. J.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Vance, J.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Vanderbyl, P.

  Lacon, Sir E.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Lamont, J.

  Vernon, H. F.

  Langton, W. G.

  Waldegrave-Leslie, hon. G.

  Leader, N. P.

  Lentham, E. A.

  White, J.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Winterbotham, H. S. P.

  Lee, W.

  Wise, H. C.

  Leeman, G.

  Woods, H.

  Locke, J.

  Wyld, J.

  Lopes, H. C.

  Young, R.

  Lorne, Marquess of Lusk, A.

  TELLERS.

  Lyttelton, hon. C. G.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Martin, P. W.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Milbank, F. A.

  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he rose to express his willingness to proceed with the discussion of the Amendments which stood on the Paper in his name. At that late hour, however, he doubled whether it would be convenient to do so.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bouverie.)
  MR. DISRAELI: I have no objection to reporting Progress if the right hon. Gentleman will allow this clause to pass.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he had given way to several hon. Gentlemen that evening who had no more right than himself to address the House on the question before it. He had not sufficient confidence in himself to go against the feeling of the House; but he must say that after the discussion which had taken place he saw no good reason why Progress should not at once be reported.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock would withdraw his Motion and allow the clause to pass.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYthought the right hon. Gentleman's object in making the Motion must have been to stop the progress of the Bill.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that if the Motion were not withdrawn a very bad impression would be produced in the country. It would be thought that the House was not sincere in the desire to put down corruption.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that it was too had that hon. Gentlemen should rise in their places and talk of what might be said by the country. What did that House, he should like to know, care about such threats? Its object was to put down bribery and corruption, and that could not be done by passing this Bill which was absurd as it stood. It was therefore necessary that the Amendments should be fairly discussed. It was too late an hour to proceed with so important a subject with advantage.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, that questions had been repeatedly addressed from his side of the House to the Government with respect to the Bill, and great eagerness professed that it should pass this Session. The Government, in his opinion, had shown themselves most sincere in their endeavour to carry out that object, and yet the obstructions to the progress of the Bill that evening came from Members of the Liberal party. He for one was anxious to dissociate himself from such a line of conduct.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, he hoped the Motion for reporting Progress would be persevered in. As far as he was concerned, at the risk of being accused of factious opposition, the clause should not pass tonight. The Bill, should it pass, would, he felt convinced, be received in Ireland with the utmost dissatisfaction and dismay. He

  2193
  would warn hon. Members that it was a measure which would dangerously touch the tenure of their seats.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 201: Majority 133.
  MR. ESMONDE MR. ESMONDE moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope this course will not be pursued. On several occasions hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed the greatest anxiety that this Bill should be proceeded with. By no one has that anxiety been expressed more strongly than by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), Well, Sir, having just passed what have been called the Supplementary Reform Bills, we have taken the earliest opportunity to proceed with this Bill. But what do we find? That the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire votes to report Progress, so as to obstruct the passing of this measure. No doubt hon. Gentlemen have expressed in speeches and by votes their objections to particular portions of this Bill; but those objections afford no reason why we should report Progress. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) said he did not care about the country.
  MR. DENMAN: I beg your pardon, I said nothing of the kind; what I said was I did not care about the impression that was produced.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am in the recollection of the House. The words which I caught were that the hon. Gentleman did not care about the country.
  MR. DENMAN: That I did not care what the country would say.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I accept the statement of what the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to say; but, for my part, I confess I am anxious about the impression produced in the country. I am anxious that the country should understand who it is desires to obstruct the Bill, and who it is desires that it should proceed. I do hope that, having had several hours' discussion and a division substantially affirming the principle of the Bill, we shall now be allowed to pass the clauses of the Bill, and not be met by alternate Motions for reporting Progress and the Chairman leaving the Chair.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
  2194
  chequer, on the part of the Government, is anxious to promote the progress of the Bill, I must say I never heard a speech more indiscreetly framed with reference to that object than the speech which he has just delivered; and in the defence which I shall endeavour to make against the charge he has so unexpectedly brought against me my principal aim will be that what I may say shall be as unlike as possible to what he has just said. Now I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that for thirty-six years this is the first time I have ever heard it stated in this House, even by any private, inexperienced, and independent Member, much less by a Minister of the Crown, that the vote for reporting Progress on a single Motion at one o'clock in the morning upon a Bill of great difficulty was a factious proceeding, which the Minister was justified in denouncing and exhibiting to the country as an obstruction of the Bill. Were I to approach the question in the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman has approached it, I should examine the proceedings of the Government, and should go night by night over the arrangement of the Business, and should make minute inquiries as to the signs which that arrangement shows of the anxiety of the Government to proceed with this Bill. But I refrain from such a course because I know well that when the right hon. Gentleman launched his unwise and unjustifiable charges, if I, with a not less plausible excuse, were to reiterate them the effect out-of-doors would be greatly to discredit Parliament in the face of the country. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that which he has very little title to ask from me—the reason for my vote. We have just rejected, though not by a large majority, the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd). My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) has a medium scheme, between that for retaining and that for parting with the jurisdiction of this House, which was completely excluded from consideration in the late debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock is a Gentleman who has held the Office which you, Sir, so ably fill. He has sat in this House for many years, and he is certainly entitled as well as any Member in this House to be heard upon any question connected with its proceedings. He desires to have the opportunity of explaining fully to the House the particulars of his plan, for

  2195
  which I may say I hare no violent prepossession, and to do this at a time when the House is not exhausted by lengthened statements. And what I contend is that to divide with my right hon. Friend upon a single Motion with a view to obtain for him the opportunity which he asks does not in any respect justify the extraordinary charges which have been made. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know much more of this House and of its proceedings before he ventures to make such charges; and if there are those who object to that statement, I want to know what title their experience or close observations of the proceedings of this House gives them to utter opinions in so singular a manner. This, I venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman—let him show me one single case where any man occupying his high position—I will go as far as to use the word presumed—["Oh!"]—yes, has presumed—["Oh, oh!"]—has taken on himself, if you like it better, to charge a Member of this House with faction and obstruction, because of a single vote to report Progress at one o'clock in the morning, in order to have a new question fully and fairly discussed. Let him show me one single case of such a charge made by a Minister of the Crown, and I will retract and apologize to him. But the right hon. Gentleman will find no such case; and in its absence I will venture to say that it does not become him to create a precedent so adverse to the liberty and independence of Members of the House. My sentiments with regard to the Motion just made are the same as those of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not in favour of alternate Motions such as the right hon. Gentleman has so unreasonably supposed are part of a scheme for obstructing the progress of this Bill. I challenge any hon. Gentleman opposite, and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to point out any case where a similar charge of obstruction has been put forward by a Minister of the Crown. I cannot consent to have my liberty in any degree diminished or impaired by the right hon. Gentleman or by anybody who desires to pursue a similar course.
  MR. PAULLpaid, it was not astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) should exhibit extraordinary anxiety to clear himself from the charge of factious proceedings, seeing that, after what had occurred, both the House and the country must be disposed to entertain a very strong
  2196
  opinion. When anybody—to use the right hon. Gentleman's own word—"presumed" to get up and rate a Minister, he ought to be very careful as to the facts in his own statement; and the facts in this case were that it was at half-past twelve, and not at one o'clock, that the Motion to report Progress was made.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not understand the exact position of the question, or he would courteously have complied with the suggestion to report Progress. To pass this clause would put an end to the plan he (Mr. Bouverie) had to propose. Having been in the House nearly ever since twelve o'clock yesterday he felt tired, and he thought it not unreasonable to defer bringing forward at so late an hour a new and important Motion, which was favourably viewed by many influential Members of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think there is any misunderstanding upon my part. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman depends upon whether Petitions are to be presented to the House of Commons or to the Court of Common Pleas; and that question has been already decided. That decision has disposed of the plan of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). That being the case, it is utterly impossible that the right hon. Gentleman can propose his plan at all; and it seemed to me that decision having been virtually come to on the clause, to report Progress in order to prevent the clause being carried was really trying to cause delay for no purpose whatever.
  MR. CARDWELL: I have been most extremely anxious to hear the plan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) argued in this House. It has been long before the public, it has been advocated by high authorities out of doors, and by persons holding Conservative opinions; and, although I do not wish to pledge myself to it, I am extremely desirous of hearing it argued, as we have just heard another plan argued. Although that which has been argued has been supported by all the strength of the Government, they have only had a majority of 20 in a full House; and in the opinion of many of us the plan was effectively disposed of in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer). Before we finally put the clause into the Bill we want to hear the other plan dis-

  2197
  cussed; and fairness and the forms of the House are on our side. The Bill does not embody the original plan of the Government, but only an alternative one, substituted on the receipt of the letter from the Lord Chief Justice. If we insert the clause in the Bill we are shut out from discussing the plan of my right hon. Friend, who is in fair play entitled to an opportunity for its discussion; and in granting it we shall only be doing justice to our view as Members anxious to suppress corrupt practices.
  MR. DISRAELI: There seems to be a desire on the part of many Members of the Committee to discuss the plan of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). Looking at the great quantify of Business that remains, and also at the period of the Session, perhaps the best thing we can do is to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEcomplained that the Bill had purposely been kept back until a late period of the evening.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he wished to know when the Committee would be resumed, and whether the Bill could be taken at a Morning Sitting?
  MR. DISRAELI: I have put the Bill down for Monday; but, candidly, looking
  2198
  at the Business on the Paper, I see little prospect of its being brought on. I think it, however, most convenient to put it down for that day. With regard to Morning Sittings for this Bill, no doubt there is a time when Morning Sittings will considerably help us; but until we have settled the general principles of the Bill I prefer that discussion should be confined to Evening Sittings.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again upon Monday next.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 2.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," and the Acts amending the same, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH and The Earl of MAYO.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 195.]

  CLERKS OF THE PEACE, &C. (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Earl of MAYO, Bill to make provision for the payment of Salaries to Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of the Crown in certain Boroughs in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Earl of MAYO and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 194.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.