Sitting of 14 June 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWOKN.—For Huntingdon County, Viscount Mandeville.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Public Health Act (1848) Amendment; Representative Peers for Scotland Act Amendment.
3° County Courts Further Extension.

NEW RIVER COMPANY BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, that so far as the rights of the Duchy of Lancaster were concerned, he had no objection to the third reading of the Bill. He understood, however, that another department of the Government were opposed to its further progress.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that on the part of the Board of Ordnance, he regretted to be obliged to oppose the Bill on public grounds. The New River Company proposed to insert clauses in the Bill which would materially injure the powder mills at Watford, on which the public had expended upwards of 250,000 l. The Company, in his opinion, had no right whatever to take a greater supply of water from the river Lea than they now took, and this alone was an argument against passing the Bill. If the Company consented to introduce clauses which would protect the Government works, he would withdraw his opposition; but, inasmuch as the Company were at this moment infringing the law, by taking more water than they were entitled to, they had no right to come to that House for increased powers. The proposition in the present Bill was to take water from the river Lea, above the mills, when they might just as well take it from a part of the river below the mills, because the water could not be in any way injured by being made use of in the mills. The Standing Order Committee had, however, raised an objection to the clause he proposed to introduce, and he was, therefore, compelled to oppose the further progress of the Bill.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he must defend the Standing Orders Committee for refusing to insert the clauses proposed by the hon. and gallant Member on the part of the Board of Ordnance, He quite admitted the right of the hon. and gallant

591
Member to take the course he had adopted; but the question whether the Company had violated the Act of Parliament was still under consideration in the Courts of Law, and he thought, therefore, that House was not in a condition to come to a decision on the matter before it. The Committee were of opinion that the 68th Clause reserved those Crown rights for which the hon. and gallant Member contended. The Committee of Standing Orders had no feeling in the matter; they were quite independent on the subject, and had come to an unfettered decision on the question.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would not, after what he had heard, give any further opposition to the measure, but he would move the insertion of the clause of which he had given notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now brought up."
MR. BARROWsaid, he considered that the Clause submitted to the Committee by the hon. and gallant Clerk of the Board of Ordnance was, in effect, a prejudgment of the question, and though he (Mr. Barrow) was desirous of maintaining to the full the rights of the Crown, he could not consent to adopt such a suggestion.
MR. HENLEYsaid, when the second reading of the Bill was agreed to the other night, he was not in possession of the exact position of the Bill. He was of opinion, under all circumstances, that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne) had much better allow the question to be decided by a Committee of the House of Lords. He should, therefore, advise his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the clause.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he thought it would be better to leave the law as it was, to be decided by a competent tribunal, than to interfere by the introduction of new clauses. But a far more important question than the abstract rights of the New-River Company was the supply of water to the metropolis; and he was compelled to notice a passage in the letter from the Board of Ordnance, accompanying these clauses, because the same opinion which it expressed had been repeated to-day by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance. The passage was, that as the whole of the water for the supply, of the metropolis must be filtered, the: water might as well be taken from the; stream below the Government works, and that it would be as pure as if taken from
592
above those works. If the whole impurity and refuse of dye and other works in the lower part of the stream was thought to make no difference in the water pumped up for the beverage of the people of the metropolis, there was an end of the question how to obtain a supply of good water. He regretted the Board of Ordnance should have sent a letter to the Committee containing such an opinion, and he hoped when the subject was again under consideration, they would not take that view of it. He was sure the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Ordnance would not lend himself to any opposition on the part of the River Lea, or any individual whose interests might be affected by this Bill, but would look at this Bill strictly as it regarded the supply of water and the interests of the Ordnance establishment.
MR. COWPERsaid, he did not think the 68th Clause would meet the point, because, although no greater quantity of water was to be taken than was before authorised, it would be taken with greater rapidity than at present. It might be desirable the Company should have the water, but they ought not to rob the mills of it, without paying proper compensation. He supported the clauses because they would do justice to all parties, and inflict no injury upon the New River Company.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had no object but to promote the public good and to preserve the rights of the Crown. He would therefore withdraw the clause.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MOWATTthought the Bill was a very artfully drawn-up Bill, and would do much injury to the interests of the metropolis. But as several other Bills of a similar character had been allowed to pass, he did not see why this Bill should be the only exception. He should reserve what he had to say on the general question to another time.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

RAMSGATE ROYAL HARBOUR BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be read the Third Time."
MR. HUDSONsaid, he should move as an Amendment, that the Bill be considered that day three months. The shipping interest of the north of England complained with great justice of the toll which was now levied upon their vessels, and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to say

593
whether it was fair, or even honest, to tax this body of men for purposes from which they derived no advantage whatever. 2,000,000 l had already been paid by the shipowners of the north of England towards the improvement of this harbour. He called, therefore, on Her Majesty's Government for assistance in throwing out this Bill, which would only relieve the steamers of the metropolis, at the expense of coasting vessels; and he hoped that the Bill would be rejected by such a majority as would induce the Commissioners of Ramsgate Harbour to come next year before Parliament with a better measure.
MR. PLOWDENsaid, be had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and in doing so he considered that it was unnecessary for him to add anything to the arguments which the hon. Gentleman had adduced against the third reading of this Bill. He would, however, just observe that he entertained strong reasons for opposing this measure. One was, that the harbour of Ramsgate was said to be of little use as a harbour of refuge, except to vessels of small tonnage. A second reason was, that the tax levied on passing the harbour, operated in an unjust and oppressive manner upon the coal trade; and a third reason was, that the tolls thus raised were, he (Mr. Plowden) had been given to understand, not altogether appropriated to the improvement and repair of the harbour, but also to the improvement of the town of Ramsgate, which he considered an unjust and improper appropriation. On these grounds he felt great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the subject of Ramsgate Harbour had been a good deal under the consideration of the Government. The present Bill was not altogether satisfactory, but as far as it went it took off tolls. The power of the Ramsgate Harbour trustees was limited to the levying of tolls in a certain manner, and in the present measure it was proposed to give them the power of taking off some of these tolls. Some parties objected to that. The opinion of the Government was, that the question ought to be more extensively dealt with; but under the circumstances of the late period of the Session, the Government declined taking any part on the Bill one way or the other.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he regretted to hear the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman had just expressed, as the late Government had declared manfully that these tolls should be abolished. These dues were a plunder of the shipowners of the country, and he hoped the hon. Member for Sunderland would be successful in his Motion.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had never stated the Government were satisfied with this Bill. What he had said was, that it was not possible for the Government to deal with the subject this Session in the way they thought desirable, as there was not time to give the Parliamentary notices.
MR. FREWENsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment on the third read-for the abolition of the tolls except on vessels entering Ramsgate Harbour. Two years ago a Committee had reported that the harbour could be kept in repair without the passing dues, and that they should cease.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, a Committee of the House had reported on this subject; but, as every one knew it was not difficult to get recommendations upon such questions on both sides, he sent down Mr. Walker, the engineer of the Admiralty, to report on the subject, and he reported that it was impossible to get rid of the passing tolls and maintain the harbour. Under these circumstances, he (Sir F. Baring) advised certain alterations to be adopted by the commissioners and trustees of the harbour, with a view to obviate certain complaints that were considered to be well founded. But it was stated that those grievances could not be removed without an Act of Parliament; and this Bill was for the purpose of enabling the commissioners and trustees to carry those alterations and improvements into effect. He was undoubtedly of opinion that it was better the harbour should be managed by the parties themselves, than that the management should be thrown on the Admiralty or the Government; for if the passing tolls were abolished, the harbour would have to be maintained out of the public revenue.
MR. HUMEsaid, he regretted to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.Henley), and still more so the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It surprised him to find that the right hon. Gentleman had lived so long and learned so little, and that he did not seem to know the general opin-

595
ion which existed against these passing tolls. With respect to Ramsgate Harbour, the whole business from the first had been the job of a City alderman, the late Sir William Curtis, in order that his yacht might be able to enter the harbour. Upwards of 2,000,000 l. had been spent on the work. The present Bill proposed to give the trustees power to alter or reduce the dues as they should think fit. Every Member who supported the principle of the Bill would support in so doing the principle of passing tolls. He hoped the House would reject it.
MR. MASTERMANsaid, he was sorry to find the opposition which this measure had met with from the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson). It had not been brought forward without much consideration on the part of the trustees, who were anxious to relieve any inequality that might exist in the levying of the toll. It was a mistake to suppose, as some had done, that the harbour was of no use as a place of refuge. This year upwards of 300 vessels had taken refuge in it from stress of weather. He hoped the House would agree to the further progress of the measure.
MR. BENNETT DENISONsaid, he was opposed to the Bill, because the parties to be taxed under it had had no opportunity of being heard before the Committee against it. The shipping and colliery interests had a large stake in the country, and their representation of the grievance they would sustain under this Bill, deserved the serious consideration of the House. The Bill ought certainly to be rejected, especially as the Government had promised to consider the subject with a view to legislation in the ensuing Session.
MR. GROGANsaid, he should vote against the Bill on account of the injury it would inflict on the shipping interests of Ireland.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, as the representative of one of the largest seaports, the shipping of which was most affected by the Bill, he should offer his strongest opposition to the third reading.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he felt it to be his duty to say a few words with reference to this Bill. Following up the investigations of the right hon. Gentleman lately at the head of the Admiralty (Sir F. Baring) the present Government had come to the conclusion that it was indispensable to make some new arrangements respecting it. Hon. Members who opposed the
596
third reading of this Bill, had made no attempt whatever to controvert the position laid down by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Baring), that it was, pro tanto, a relief to the shipping interests. ["No, no!"] It might be denied, but it had not been controverted. The difference between himself and the right hon. Baronet the late First Lord of the Admiralty on this subject was, that he (Mr. Stafford) did not consider the maintenance of the passing toll to be so necessary as the right hon. Baronet considered it to be. At the same time, whatever might be the fate of the present measure, the Government would not feel themselves precluded against legislating upon the question in a future Session. At the same time, he could hold out no encouragement to those who promoted this Bill that the Bill which the Government would introduce would in any way meet with their sympathy. The time had come when some bold, decisive, and final measure ought to be taken with reference to the question of passing tolls. Whilst he should not record his vote against the Bill, he should leave the House to decide as it pleased, pledging, at the same time, the Government, definitely and distinctly, that a Bill should be brought forward in the ensuing Session for grappling in the best manner possible with this somewhat difficult question.
SIR BROOK BRYDGESsaid, that the harbour of Ramsgate was of great advantage and convenience to the coal shipping trade, inasmuch as in severe weather as many as three hundred sail frequently found refuge within it.
MR. H. CURRIEsaid, he should support the Bill; and he begged to state to the House that the proposed reduction of dues from shipping that passed the harbour of Ramsgate, if the Bill were agreed to, would amount on steam vessels to 1,170 l.; on colliers to 1,720 l.; on vessels in ballast to 1,400 l.; and on the Channel Islands trade to 500 l.; making a total reduction of 4,790 l.
SIR CHARLES BURRELLsaid, that lifter the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty, that the Government would be prepared to bring in a Bill on the subject next Session, the House ought not, in his opinion, to press the present measure.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he must express a hope that in the Bill to be brought forward by the Government next Session, the passing tolls would be altogether done away with.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 28: Majority 102.
Words added; Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Bill put off for three months.

MILITARY INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION AT ENNISKILLEN.
On the Order for going into Committee of Supply being read,
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. the Secretary at War whether any inquiry had been made, or would be instituted, regarding the alleged proceedings of General Thomas at Enniskillen, on the 19th of May last, for the purpose of exercising an undue influence over Sergeant M'Kinley, a pensioner residing in the said town, with reference to the disposal of his vote at the next general election? On a former occasion, when he mentioned this case, the Government informed him they would institute an inquiry—he hoped they had done so. Since then he had been furnished with a document containing the statement of Sergeant M'Kinley himself, which, with the permission of the House, he would read:—
"STATEMENT OF SERGEANT M'KINLEY,LATE OF THE 27TH FOOT, AT PRESENT ON A PENSION OF 2S. 0½d PER DAY.
"That on the 19th of May, 1852, having received directions from Major Beaufoy, staff officer of pensioners at Enniskillen, to collect the pensioners of the 27th Regiment of Foot in the barrack-square of Enniskillen, as General Thomas was to be in Enniskillen on his round of inspection and would be glad to see them, Sergeant M'Kinley accordingly collected twelve pensioners of that regiment, and accompanied them to the barrack-square, when he received directions in the square to bring them into Major Beaufoy's office, which is situate in the barracks. He did so; he saw the General in the office, who was accompanied by Colonel Cole, Captain Corry, Adjutant to the Fermanagh Militia, several officers of the 91st Regiment, and Major Beaufoy, Staff Officer. General Thomas said he was glad to see them, and inquired where they had served. After they had informed him, he (the General) handed two sovereigns to Sergeant M'Kinley, and desired the pensioners to drink his health, and then said that if any of them had votes he would like them to give them to his friend Mr. Whiteside at the ensuing election, in preference to a common attorney. Major Beaufoy then replied that none of the pensioners present had a vote except Sergeant M'Kinley. General Thomas then asked Sergeant M'Kinley to give his vote to Mr. Whiteside, when he (M'Kinley) stated he had voted for Mr. M'Cullum at the last election, and, from the
598
treatment he had received for doing so, having had his family ill-treated by a party who broke into his house, he did not intend to change his mind. The General then said, would he not give it to Mr. Whiteside at the ensuing election, and let bygones be bygones? To this he (M'Kinley) made no reply, when Major Beaufoy directed him to give the General an answer. M'Kinley then said he was sorry he could not give a satisfactory one, immediately after which the General, accompanied by others, left the office. Some time after M'Kinley and the other pensioners left the office, and went into the barrack-square, where General Thomas was with some other officers. The General, on seeing the pensioners, turned round and came in the direction of M'Kinley, and shook his clinched fist in a most violent manner at M'Kinley, and said he (M'Kinley) was a disgrace to the name of Enniskillen, and unworthy to be classed with the name of an Enniskillener. The foregoing is a correct statement.
"T. M'KINLEY.
"May 26, 1852.
"Present at the foregoing statement,
"JAMES HAMILTON."
He (Mr. S. Crawford) had no hostility against General Thomas, but, having had that document forwarded to him, he felt it his duty to lay it before the House, and he hoped the Government would now inquire into the facts of the case.
MR. BERBSFORDbegged leave to inform the hon. Member and the House that immediately after the first conversation upon this subject, which took place preceding the Whitsuntide holydays, he felt it his duty to make the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman now called upon the Government to institute. The hon. Gentleman had now renewed the accusation against Major-General Thomas, and had brought forward a memorial signed by a pensioner named M'Kinley, which memorial reiterated certain accusations against Major-General Thomas, but which accusations he (Mr. Beresford) had long known to be unfounded, and which, by documents he should now proceed to show, were so. Not only had he himself made inquiry into the matter, but Sir Edward Blakeney, the commander of the troops in Ireland, had also made inquiry, and he had now before him the whole of the correspondence. And when he (Mr. Beresford) should have read that correspondence (which he was about to do) he trusted, if it should appear from it that the Lieutenant General commanding the forces in Ireland was satisfied of the falsehood of the accusations brought against Major-General Thomas, that that gallant officer would be considered to have come out of the inquiry in a perfectly honourable manner. The correspondence commenced by a letter from the assistant military secretary to the lieutenant-general command-

599
ing-in-chief in Ireland, and was in these terms:—
"Free Hospital, Dublin, May 24.
"The enclosed copy of the Freeman's Journal newspaper of this day's date is transmitted to Major-General Thomas, commanding the Belfast district, with reference to the paragraph marked with red ink, and headed 'Military Intimidation,' and with a request that the lieutenant-general commanding may be informed if there is any truth in the statement.
By order,
"CHARLES FORESTER,
"Assistant-Military Secretary."
To this letter Major-General Thomas returned the following answer:—
"Belfast, May 25.
"Sir—I have but this moment returned from my inspection of the troops at Londonderry and previous stations, and hasten to acquaint you, for the information of the lieutenant-general commanding, with the circumstances that really did occur upon the occasion referred to in the paragraph of the Freeman's Journal, herewith returned. The morning after my arrival at Ennis-killen I was welcomed by several men, pensioners from the 27th, or Enniskillen Regiment, in which I had served some six-and-twenty years, principally in Gibraltar, Malta, Naples, Sicily, Portugal, Spain, France, and America. I told them I had not time then to speak with them, but should be happy to do so after the inspection. After it had terminated I was informed they still were waiting to see me, and that, as it was raining, they were in the Pensioners' Office, where I immediately joined them. After conversing with each man individually upon many a heartstirring occurrence of past service, several having been in my own (the light) company, and receiving from them many assurances of respectful attachment (which, I do believe, were sincere), I said 'If any of you are voters for this town, you may soon have on opportunity of proving the sincerity of your professions by supporting the Queen's Solicitor General, Mr. Whiteside, who is my particular friend.' A pensioner named Sergeant M'Kinley expressed his great regret that he had not been able to support the friend of the Cole family at the last election, a family he had always looked up to with respectful regard, but that he had got bad treatment at the election, and suffered much from intimidation. I said I should not have expected to hear an old Enniskillener admit that any mob could intimidate him. He explained that it was his own family he meant, from whom he experienced ill-treatment and much trouble. I subsequently learned that the allusion was to his own wife (a Roman Catholic, and who had brought up their son one), and that they had coerced him, in consideration, also, of the opposing candidate having established the latter in a shop. Colonel Cole and Major Beaufoy, who had been my subaltern for some years, were present, and never said a word while I was in the office. It is also wholly untrue that I attempted to intimidate any man, nor had I the power, as must be well known; neither did the man make any promise to vote for the Cole nominee at the next election. In conclusion, I may feel confident the lieutenant-general must have too many similar calls upon himself not to understand that the small gratuity to these men, under the circumstances stated, was fully
600
expected, and certainly most freely given by me, and not in this instance alone, since I came among the pensioners of the Enniskillen Regiment in all parts of the north. I have, &c.
"HENRY THOMAS, Major-General."
In reply to that letter Sir Edward Blakeney directed the following answer to be sent:—
"Royal Hospital, Dublin, May 26.
"My dear Sir—I am directed by Sir Edward Blakeney to write and say that he regrets very much any allusion whatever to the forthcoming elections should have been made by you on your meeting with your old comrades at Enniskillen, as it gives a foundation for any exaggerated statements to be published by those who are continually watching for such opportunities.
"Sir Edward desires me to add, that you cannot be too cautious on this point, and he is quite satisfied you will be so for the future.
"Believe me, yours very faithfully,
"CHARLES FORESTER.
"Major-General Thomas, C.B., &c., Belfast."
Perhaps it might not he improper for him (Mr. Beresford) here to state that, although Major-General Thomas might not have been guilty of that of which he was accused, yet in his opinion there was an imprudence on the part of a general officer himself coming fresh off duty and in his military garb, at such a tittle to have said to those men, though not as soldiers, for they were not on duty, but had assembled there to congratulate their old commander; yet it was an imprudent opportunity for him to take to speak to them on an election subject. But that Major-General Thomas on that occasion used any intimidation or exercised any power over those men on the subject of their votes, he (Mr, Beresford) most distinctly and decidedly believed every circumstance clearly negatived. With regard to the man M'Kinley, he was not even an enrolled pensioner. He was an old man of sixty-eight years of age, and was admitted on the pension-list on the 13th of May, 1835. He was not called out, and therefore he was, neither on that day nor on any other day, under the command of Major-General Thomas, and could not, consequently, he liable to any intimidation from him. He wished, however, distinctly to state that, on the occasion in question, there were only thirteen men present, every one of them old soldiers, who had served in Major-General Thomas's own regiment, and who had assembled together to show their respect to their old commander, under whom they had served for twenty years. At the present moment there were in the district of

601
Enniskillen 607 pensioners, and in the town itself three companies of pensioners, amounting to 214. Now, if Major-General Thomas had desired to call together all the pensioners for the purpose of asking them to vote for the Government candidate, how was it that he mustered only thirteen men; and those men only who had served in his own regiment for twenty years? Besides, it was a fact that that regiment was an Enniskillen regiment, and therefore there were more men belonging to it in Enniskillen and in the immediate neighbourhood than to the other regiments stationed there. He (Mr. Beresford) now came to the statement of this Sergeant M'Kinley, a copy of which, by the courtesy of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford), he had before him, and respecting which he had made some inquiries. That memorial had not been written by M'Kinley, who signed it; and the signature did not seem written by a person who was sober. What was more suspicious about the memorial was, that it was in the same handwriting with that of the witness Hamilton. Going, then, to the truth of the memorial, the House would find, first, that what Sergeant M'Kinley wanted to draw attention to was, that Major-General Thomas, in his round of inspection, had something to say to him. He also stated that Major-General Thomas told him to go into the Pensioners' office. The fact was that it rained hard at the time, and the pensioners went into that office for shelter. He also stated that there were officers of the 91st Regiment in that office. Letters from two of those officers (who were on the ground) showed that there was not a single officer of the 91st Regiment present. M'Kinley said, Major-General Thomas requested him to vote for Mr. Whiteside, and not for a common attorney. Major-General Thomas denied that he ever used the words "common attorney." The whole gist of the accusation, however, was, that Major-General Thomas, coming into the yard, shook his fist in a most violent manner, and said M'Kinley was a disgrace to the regiment. [The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read several letters from officers who were present on the occasion, who all denied M'Kinley's assertions.] He (Mr. Beresford) thought these documents would convince every man who gave credence to the word of an officer and a gentleman, that the accusations were not proved to be well founded, and that Major-General
602
Thomas never did or thought of doing such an action as had been imputed to him.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
(1.) 12,000 l. Hong Kong.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had formerly objected to the amount of the vote for Hong Kong. He thought there were ample materials with which to enter on a reconsideration of the expenditure there. The judicial establishment was quite disproportionate to the population, which was only 18,000 persons of all classes, not so much as the population of a small borough or town, and capable of being managed by a corporation or individual magistrate. He was not about to throw difficulties in the way, but he urged the Government during the recess to examine the information with which they would be supplied. Sir George Bonham, the Governor, was at present at home, and would be able to lay before them the real state of the Colony. It was a question for consideration how far it might be expedient to make the commanding officer of the troops also the Governor. If the Colony had succeeded, and the population had risen to 80,000 or 100,000—if Hong Kong had become the depot for the trade with China, there would have been no necessity for making such observations; but as he understood there was no hope or chance of Hong Kong ever becoming the large depot which had been anticipated, he wished merely to press on the Government the propriety of reconsidering the Estimate.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the very fair way in which the hon. Member had referred to this Estimate, rendered any lengthened reply unnecessary. So far as the request that the Government would another year take into consideration this Estimate, he had no doubt they would not for a moment hesitate to comply with the hon. Member's wishes. He confessed that when he looked over the Estimate, he had been struck by its large amount. He had been particularly struck by the large amount of the salary given to the Governor; but he found an explanation in the circumstance that the duties of several officers were combined. When the hon. Gentleman complained of the expense of the Colony—and he (Sir J. Pakington) was not prepared to deny that this Colony was expensive—it was only just that the House should be aware of the great diminution

603
which had taken place.; In 1845 the Vote was not less than 49,000 l., whereas now it was reduced to 12,000 l.; and he certainly hoped the Government would he able to effect a further reduction. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman in what he said respecting the trade of Hong Kong, rather underrated the importance of that position. The number of ships of all nations arriving at Hong Kong had gradually increased from 381, with a tonnage of 136,000, to 883, with a tonnage of 229,000, in 1850.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the services of a very old and faithful officer of the Government, now employed at Hong Kong, Mr. Alexander Johnson. Mr. Johnson went out as secretary to Lord Napier, and was appointed one of the Commissioners for superintending trade, with a salary of 2,000 l, a year. Subsequently that Commission was very properly reduced to a Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent; and Mr. Johnson's salary was reduced to 1,500 l. a year. Hong Kong was ceded to us in 1841, and the establishment of the Colony having been entrusted to Mr, Johnson, he acquitted himself in such a manner as to obtain the approbation of every one acquainted with the subject. So effectually was the Colony formed, that it had continued the same from that time, and with a little management might be made to pay its expenses. Mr. Johnson, during this period, spent a considerable portion of his own resources; and unfortunately the climate of Hong Kong affected his health, so that now, after seventeen years' service in China, he found himself with a salary considerably less than he enjoyed fourteen years ago, although the responsibility was thrown upon him of senior member of the Executive and Legislative Council. Mr. Johnson was a man of patriotic feeling, and did not ask for any increased advantages; but he thought it proper to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary to the position in which he stood. He (Lord D. Stuart) was more inclined to do so, because Mr. Johnson belonged to a family which had long been conspicuous in the public service, and remarkable for disinterestedness. The late Sir Alexander Johnson, the father of this gentleman, when Chief Justice of Ceylon, surrendered 1,000 l. a year for four years, to the exigencies of the State, without any necessity: and he held the office of
604
Judge of Appeal before the Privy Council from 1831 to 1848, and discharged the duties, and although entitled to receive 400 l. per annum, he declined ever drawing a penny for it. That was a species of disinterestedness very rare, and when such circumstances occurred, it ought to be made known to that House. Mr. Patrick Johnson, this gentleman's brother, was employed by the Foreign Office to go to Portugal and Spain to settle the claims of Don Pacifico, which he did to the entire satisfaction of the Foreign Office, without any remuneration for his services, being only repaid his travelling expenses. He trusted, under these circumstances, the Government would give that consideration to the case of Mr. Alexander Johnson which it deserved.
SIR GEORGE STAUNTONsaid, he fully concurred with the noble Lord in his opinion of the value of Mr. Alexander Johnson's services. With respect to what had been said by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), he begged to remark that Hong Kong was not ceded with reference to trade. It was of importance to have a place where British subjects might take refuge in the event of a breach of the treaty with China, and where measures could be organised for the defence of British interests. There was at this present time a rebellion raging not far from Canton, which had increased to a degree far beyond what had been anticipated; and it was not improbable that the insurgents might even take possession of that city. Under these circumstances, it was obvious that measures must be taken for the defence of British subjects.
MR. F. SCOTTbegged to express his satisfaction at the prospect which seemed to be held out by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies that so large an establishment would not be kept up as hitherto for the Colony of Hong Kong.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) 4,000 l. Labuan.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of bringing under the consideration of the Government the subject to which he had given notice that he intended to call attention, namely, the dispute which had been carried on now for some years, and which was still pending, between the Eastern Archipelago Company and Sir James Brooke, Governor of Labuan. He wished to call the attention of the Government to that dispute, because it had been carried on in such a

605
manner as not only to cause detriment to the interest of the Company, at whose instance he (Mr. W. Patten) had more immediately Drought forward the subject, and also of Sir James Brooke, but, what was of even more importance, to inflict very serious interest on all British interests in those seas. He believed that, if the dispute were continued, our interests in that part of the world would be seriously compromised. He had no feeling against Sir James Brooke, and was not bringing forward what he had to state as a charge. His object was less to enter on the dispute now going on, while he abstained as much as possible from making it matter of crimination, than to state the circumstances, with the view of impressing on the Government how desirable it was that they should take cognisance of the whole subject. It appeared from the correspondence on the table of the House, that about the year 1847 a grant was obtained from the Sultan of Borneo by Sir James Brooke for the working of certain coal districts, and giving an exclusive power of working those districts. The agreement was very brief, and was contained in a memorandum, of which the exact terms were as follows:—
August 23, 1847.
"This memorandum, or agreement, is accorded by Sultan Omar Allie Safeidin, son of Sultan Mahomed Jarmarlal Allum deceased, of Borneo, by which the whole of the coal found in the country extending from Mengkabong as far as Tanjong Barram, is granted to James Brooke, Esq., the Rajah of Sarawak, the coal to be considered at the entire disposal of Mr. Brooke or his assigns, without any interference whatever on the part of the Sultan; but on the distinct understanding that the Sultan is to receive 2,000 dollars for the first year the mines are opened and worked, and ever after the annual sum of 1,000 dollars."
On Sir James Brooke obtaining this power from the Sultan, and taking a very just view of the case, he said that he had received it not in his private, but in his public capacity, that he was not the person to carry it out, and that he should therefore hand it over to some other persons. He consequently passed over his rights obtained from the Sultan of Borneo to Mr. Wise, with the view of forming a Company under the title of the Eastern Archipelago Company. That Company proceeded to obtain a Charter. The usual Charter was granted, giving exclusive and very extensive powers for working mines, buying land, &c. In the meantime Sir James Brooke obtained other rights as an individual from the Sultan of Borneo in the neighbourhood of the land conveyed to the
606
Company; and the Company's view of that transaction was, that from that period Sir James Brooke's views were materially altered with respect to them. From that moment commenced a certain number of observations in his correspondence, not only with the Home Government, but on the spot, which threw every impediment in their way, and prevented them from carrying out their proceedings as a Company. Very soon after a Charter had been obtained, Sir James Brooke took a different view from the Company of the extent of their privileges, and of their rights from the Sultan of Borneo. Though it certainly appeared to him (Mr. W. Patten) that the whole power of working coal was given, he should not go into the question whether Sir James Brooke was right or wrong. But the view taken up by Sir James Brooke was taken up in his altered circumstances, and not when the grant was originally given. That question not being satisfactorily decided by the Colonial Office, another objection was very soon after taken to the proceedings of the Company by Sir James Brooke. He said, looking to the transactions of the Company, they were not fulfilling in the way they ought the duties imposed by their Charter; the Charter, he said, was given for public objects. Sir James Brooke brought a number of accusations, into which he (Mr. W. Patten) would not go; but it appeared that Sir James Brookes's representations at the Colonial Office did not carry the weight he expected, and it was not surprising to find a letter, in a return from the Colonial Office, stating that Sir James Brooke originally took the same view as the Company, namely, that a certain allowance must be made for the position in which they were placed. Sir James Brooke, writing to Mr. Wise on June 2, 1848, said—
"All I urge upon you is, not to hurry forward and fancy that great results must follow the outlay of large capital; it requires patient consideration and great attention to details."
Sir James Brooke must be perfectly cognisant that the Company which was only formed in 1847, could not carry out its object with that speed which might have been desirable. Great commercial embarrassments then existed in this country, and the greatest undertakings were crippled and stopped. It was, therefore, not very surprising that a Company established in the remote region of Labuan should be stopped. Throughout the correspondence, he (Mr. W. Patten) found that the Govern-

607
ment had refused to attend to the suggestions of Sir James Brooke, that the Company were not carrying out their Charter. Another charge was then brought against the Company, that they had introduced the truck system into the Colony, although Sir James Brooke was one of the very persons who had suggested to the Company the opening of a store in order to encourage trade. The matter of complaint was urged upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) when he was at the head of the Board of Trade; but he had fully stated, in answer to a question put to him, that in his opinion, after making inquiry, if the Company had not carried on their operations as they ought, it was not their fault, but that they had been influenced by others, who had endeavoured to throw difficulties in their way. Sir James Brooke, not satisfied with the result of his application to the Colonial Office, proceeded to take up another point, and charge the Company with having obtained their Charter by fraud. What was the ground of that charge? It was this—that they had induced the shareholders to embark their money under false pretences, and had induced the Government to grant a Charter on grounds which they were not able to carry out. So far from this being the fact, he (Mr. W. Patten) knew that many of the principal shareholders were induced to join the Company by no other motive whatever than that of a desire to assist in carrying out the views of Sir James Brooke himself. But in this attempt also Sir James Brooke failed, and he then looked out for other grounds on which to assail the Company. He endeavoured to find some shareholders who were dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Company, and he at last succeeded in finding one of the name of M'Bride, who filed a bill in Chancery against the Company to upset the Charter, on the ground that it was obtained on false pretences. He would read the judgment of Vice-Chancellor Turner in that case, namely, "M'Bride against Lindsay." He said—
"Now, it is perfectly clear that the Court has nothing whatever to do with those questions, so far as they affect either Sir James Brooke or the Crown. If the Crown thinks that there has been any injury worked to its rights by its having been induced to make an improper grant, it is for the Crown to proceed to set aside that Charter which has been fraudulently obtained from it. So, again, if Sir James Brooke considers that he has been deceived by Mr. Wise, it is for Sir James Brooke to proceed to set aside that grant."
608
This was a perfect answer to the first charge of Sir James Brooke to upset the Charter by one shareholder. But he (Mr. W. Patten) was aware there was another suit going on in Chancery, and of this he was perfectly convinced, that, whatever the decision might be on the point, it was impossible to escape from the judgment of Vice-Chancellor Turner, that it was for the Colonial Office, and not for Sir James Brooke, to come forward and convict the Company of fraud. He, of all living men, was the most unfit to file a bill against the Company, for he had a large interest on the opposite side. The Company did not at present know in what capacity Sir James Brooke was attacking them, whether as a commercial rival in a foreign country, or in the exercise of his power as the Governor of Labuan. These were the few points he felt it his duty, on behalf of the Eastern Archipelago Company, to state to the Committee. He considered it to be the duty of the Government to take the dispute out of the hands of Sir James Brooke, and themselves to institute whatever proceedings might be deemed necessary. There was, however, one point which, at the urgent request of the Company, he wished to impress upon the Government, and that was, that Sir James Brooke should not be permitted to return to Labuan in his character of Governor until this case should be settled. Without wishing to say anything against Sir James Brooke, it must be obvious that he was placed in a most anomalous position, and was discharging the duties of two offices which were totally incompatible with one another. He (Mr. W. Patten) therefore called upon the Government to come to a speedy decision, that the matter might be settled before Sir James Brooke resumed his authority in the Colony of Labuan, and which he (Mr. W. Patten) had no doubt he would make available for inflicting great injury upon the commercial interests in that part of the world.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had not the least complaint to make of the manner in which his hon. Friend had brought forward this question, and was ready to admit that he felt it to be one of considerable importance. But he hoped he should not be thought acting inconsistently with that feeling if he declined to enter into any discussion of the matter, believing, as he did, that it would be altogether premature. Whatever were the merits of the case between the Eastern

609
Archipelago Company on the one hand, and Sir James Brooke on the other, they were now the subject of proceedings in a Court of Law. Unfortunately, great differences had arisen between the Company and Sir James Brooke, which formed the subject of a very voluminous correspondence, in the course of which various charges were made; but, as he had stated, those charges were now before a Court of Law, and it would be wrong on his part if he were to attempt to anticipate what the decision of the Court would be. He was willing to admit that, looking at the state of Labuan, and at the small extent of its population, its commercial advantages to this country might altogether turn upon the means possessed by the Company of working the coal mines; and he was free to acknowledge, therefore, that nothing in his mind could be more unfavourable to the prosperity of the Colony than the disputes which had arisen between the Governor and the Company. It was, therefore, a grave question for the consideration of the Government whether it was right that these differences should be allowed to continue, and whether Sir James Brooke should continue to be the prosecutor, or virtually the prosecutor, in those matters. He felt that it was a question into which it was the duty of the Government to look seriously, and he hoped to be able soon to turn his attention to it with a view to take such steps as might be deemed advisable.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that with respect to the charge which had formerly been brought against Sir James Brooke for improperly using the force under his command as Governor of Labuan to put down certain tribes who were supposed to be carrying on a trade in rivalry with him in the Eastern Archipelago, he (Mr. S. Herbert) at the time expressed his opinion that the charge against Sir James Brooke was unfounded; but he availed himself of the opportunity of asking whether Sir James Brooke was in any way connected with mercantile speculations, because he (Mr. S. Herbert) understood, that on his appointment by the Government, Sir James Brooke bad no connexion with such matters. He was represented as having gone out to that part of the world in his yacht for pleasure; that he was a man of great energy; that he established for himself an advantageous position in Borneo; and that he was actuated in all his proceedings by philanthropic views. He (Mr. S. Herbert) did not dispute Sir James Brooke's philan-
610
thropy, hut he did not think it was sufficiently known at the time that that gentleman was engaged in mercantile speculations which must influence him, and give a counter interest to those of the public. He would only instance a letter from Mr. Lindsay, in which it was stated that Sir James Brooke had threatened certain tribes to send a ship of war to attack them if they permitted any Englishmen to work the antimony mines in their districts, he being himself the proprietor of mines of antimony, for which he wanted to secure a monopoly. Such a proceeding, if true, must be the subject of grave consideration with the Government how far it would be permitted to continue.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought he had made it clear that the question was one entirely pending between Sir James Brooke and the Eastern Archipelago Company as to the legality of that Company.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDwished to say that the Committee must not suppose that there was no answer to be given to these statements against Sir James Brooke, he (Mr. Drummond) was himself in attendance to give an answer to them; but, looking at the time (a quarter to 4 o'clock), he would not attempt to do so then.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that he also had some explanations to give to the Committee on the subject; but, for the same reason as that assigned by the hon. Member for West Surrey, he should not trouble the Committee on that occasion.
MR. HUMEsaid, it had been supposed that he had on a former occasion acted as an agent of the Company, but be had no connexion whatever with it. he had done his duty in bringing the matter before Parliament, and it would now be the duty of the Government to vindicate the British Crown. He himself would not interfere further in any way. With regard to the civil establishment at Labuan, he considered it altogether disproportionately large for so scanty a population, he did not wish to destroy the settlement; on the contrary, he thought it might be made the means of communication with the Eastern part of the word; but he was anxious that the public money should be saved, and, above all, that these disputes should be put an end to.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was willing to admit that these Estimates were very large; but he could assure the hon.

611
Gentleman that it was one of those subjects which he proposed to look into.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(3.) Transfer of Aids.
(4.) Militia.
House resumed.
FEARGUS O'CONNOR, ESQUIRE.—Petition of Harriett Bernard Browne O'Connor, stating her belief that her brother, Mr. Feargus O'Connor, is of unsound mind, and praying that he may be discharged from custody, in order that he may be immediately placed in confinement under proper medical treatment.
Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the facts contained in the said Petition:"—Committee to be nominated To-morrow at One o'clock.

THE NATIONAL SOCIETY AND THE QUEEN'S LETTER.
MR. J. A. SMITHrose, according to notice, to put a question to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, and said: I will state as briefly as I can the circumstances which have suggested the question of which I have given notice. The National Society, which is one of the great establishments for the promotion of education, and which is more particularly connected with, and maintained by, the Established Church, is managed by a Committee, of which every one of the bench of Bishops is a member, and of which also there are many other members, lay and clerical. During the last few years there has been an almost perpetual discussion and controversy going on between the Committee of the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council of Education, in reference to the management clauses under which schools receive assistance from the Committee. Up to a very recent period the Government refused all attempts to change those management clauses in pursuance with the request of the Committee of the National Society. But it is understood that recently the Government have decided on making changes in those Minutes such as meet the views and requirements of a section of the members of the National Society. It is unquestionably believed that the Government have consented to make certain changes in the Minutes of the Committee of the Privy Council which meet the views of certain members of the National Society. The Archdeacon of Taunton has publicly stated that he has seen a rough draft of those Minutes so altered; and, further, that those altera-
612
tions have mot with his approval. Upon that statement a deputation of gentlemen, comprising almost every class and shade of opinion, went (on Friday last) to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and laid before his Grace the grounds on which they conceived a change in the charter of the National Society had become absolutely indispensable; and they gave his Grace formal notice that unless a change in the charter was assented to, the gentlemen comprising that deputation would separate themselves from the National Society, and would establish another society carrying out the views they believe to be most advisable. Now, as the National Society is partly supported by public subscriptions, and partly supported by the Queen's Letter, under which large sums are triennially collected, and transmitted to the treasurer of the National Society, forming the principal funds of that society, the deputation felt that while this strong dissension existed as to the management of the National Society, it was no longer proper that that Queen's Letter should be issued, or that large funds, under that letter, should be placed at the disposal of a Committee from whom the deputation so greatly differed. My question, therefore is, whether, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to issue the Queen's Letter this year; and if so at what period of the year it will be issued?
MR. WALPOLE: I beg to state that the issuing of the Letter depends on application being made to me by the Archbishop of Canterbury for that purpose in the usual course of business. No such application has been made to me as yet; and, strictly speaking, I don't think I can or ought to give an answer to the question, until I know more of the facts of the case. But, perhaps, I may take this opportunity of stating—as the hon. Gentleman has referred to alterations, or more correctly speaking relaxations, in the management clauses—that I hold the Minute in my hand, and that I intend to lay it on the table of the House this evening, in order to disabuse the minds of hon. Members, and of persons out of doors, of some errors on this subject, and in order that a just interpretation may be put upon the intentions of the Government.

FROME VICARAGE—THE REV. MR. BENNETT.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) had

613
a Motion for appointing the Select Committee on the case of the Rev. Mr. Bennett:—"To nominate the Select Committee on Frome Vicarage:—Mr. Horsman, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Sir David Dundas, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Evans, Mr. Stuart Wortley. Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Langston, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Shafto Adair, Mr. Gaskell, Sir Harry Verney, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Edward Ellice, and Mr. dimming Bruce." He wished to ask the hon. Member whether he intended to proceed with that Motion to-night; and whether he proposed that the Committee should consist of eighteen Gentlemen instead of fifteen, the usual number? He also begged to ask him whether he meant to accede to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) who had given two notices on the subject:—
"After the nomination of the Select Committee on Frome Vicarage, to move that the hon. Member for Cockermouth do reduce into Heads or Articles the several Charges which he has made in his place against Richard Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, and do present the said Heads or Articles to this House."—"Alter Mr. Horsman shall have presented the Heads or Articles of his Charges against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, to move, that the said Heads or Articles of Charge lie referred to the Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the Vicarage of Frome, and that it he an instruction to the said Committee to report their opinion thereupon to the House."
MR. HORSMANsaid, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, that it was his intention to proceed with the nomination that evening. He did not propose that the Committee should consist of eighteen Members. He had given in a list of fifteen names to the clerk at the table, and the three extra names had been inserted by a mistake of the printer; the Committee, therefore, would not consist of more than the usual number. He had been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was rather in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to nominate the Committee after the Committee of Supply, in order to avoid the doubt that might arise if it were put off to a very late hour of the night. It was quite obvious that there was the best chance of its being appointed if they got to it at an early hour. With respect to the last question, it was a matter for the House to decide rather than him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the
614
University of Oxford had given notice that, after the nomination of the Committee, he would "move that the hon. Member for Cockermouth be directed to reduce to heads or articles the several charges he had brought against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and to present them to that House;" and the right hon. Gentleman stated, when he gave his notice, that he was prepared to show to the House that what be proposed was strictly in conformity with precedent. He would only reply that if the right hon. Gentleman did show that, and if it was the pleasure of the House that he should submit the heads of charges, as proposed, he should willingly bow to the wishes, or rather the commands, of the House, and do whatever lay in his power to conduct the inquiry in the manner that would be most satisfactory both to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as the hon. Member had referred to the conversation he had had with him, he wished to state that, it was certainly his desire to facilitate the appointment of a Committee; and if he could be sure that no discussion would take place, he would willingly waive the privilege of the Government with respect to the order of business. But be was not satisfied, from the inquiries he had made, that there would be no discussion, and therefore he felt it his first duty, as there was a great deal of business that must be attended to, to watch over the progress of the Government Bills, many of which were of the greatest importance. He would, however, endeavour to assist in obtaining an opportunity for the nomination of the hon. Gentleman's Committee in the course of the evening, if possible, but be could not at present pledge himself to afford that opportunity after the Committee of Supply.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, having been referred to, he wished to observe that, as the hon. Member (Mr. Horsman) had not seen cause at once to express his assent to the Motion of which he had given notice, and as it was a point of the highest constitutional importance, it would be necessary for him to detain the House at considerable length in making that Motion. He was perfectly prepared to perform his part, at whatever hour it might be; but he thought it only fair to give this notice that hon. Gentlemen might take their measures accordingly.
MR. HORSMANunderstood that the

615
fifteen hon. Gentlemen whose names were put down were willing to serve.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had stated distinctly the other night that nothing would induce him to serve on the Committee unless the hon. Gentleman observed the course of laying before it the written charges which he had made.
The SOLICITOR GENERALcomplained that his name had been placed upon the Committee without his sanction.
MR. HORSMANcould only say that he had shown the list of names to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had struck out one name, and had, instead, put in that of the Solicitor General. Under those circumstances, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be of opinion that there had been no want of courtesy on his part.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it right to state, in justification of the Solicitor General, that he had had no communication with the hon. and learned Gentleman since he had suggested that his name should be placed upon the Committee. What he had said to the hon. Member for Cockermouth was this:—"If all the other Gentlemen mentioned by you have consented to serve, I have no doubt you may put the Solicitor's General's name down." He had, however, certainly understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had specifically promised to serve.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL,of course, must exonerate the hon. Member for Cockermouth from having made unwarranted use of his name. When, however, the time arrived for the appointment of the Committee, there were two questions of which he should give full notice to the hon. Member before he (the Solicitor General) could consent to serve.

ESTIMATE FOR MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he had two questions to put to the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Cornewall Lewis), who was Secretary to the Treasury in the late Government. On Friday last he (Mr. Monsell) asked the Home Secretary why it was that the annual grant for the repair of Maynooth College had been left out of the Estimates this year? To that question the right hon. Gentleman replied, that the reason why it was omitted was, that the Government did not consider there were any circumstances that rendered any such vote
616
necessary, and therefore it had been omitted from the Estimates that the present Government had adopted. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Herefordshire, first, whether it was within his knowledge that the Estimate had been sent in by the Board of Works in Ireland (the proper authority) for the repair of the College of Maynooth this year; and, secondly, whether the late Government gave any direction for the omission from the Civil Service Estimates for this year of the annual grant for that College before they went out of office?
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that in the course of last autumn the usual circular was sent by the Treasury to the different departments, calling on them to furnish their answers with respect to the Estimates for the ensuing year. Before the late Government went out of office, an answer was received from the Irish Board of Works, in which there was a sum proposed for repairs to the College of Maynooth, amounting, according to the best of his memory, to the sum of either 1,000 l. or 1,200. Before the change of Government took-place, the Estimates had not been prepared to be laid before the House; they were not put in the form in which they are printed, nor had they been considered by the Government. No directions had been given by the late Government for the omission of this item from the annual Estimates; and he could only say that he had no reason to doubt that if the late Government had remained in office this item would have been continued in the Estimates as before.

CASE OF MR. MATHER—REVIEW OF THE SESSION.
On the Order of the Day for receiving the Report on Supply,
LORD JOHN RUSSELLrose, according to notice, "to call the attention of the House to the case of Air. Mather, and generally to the present state of Public Affairs." Sir, I am at all times unwilling to bring questions relating to the foreign policy of the Government before the attention of the House; for I think that, generally speaking, it is difficult to judge of the conduct of the Government with respect to particular transactions in which they may have been concerned with foreign Powers on terms of amity with this country; and I am so little disposed to press the Government upon this subject, that when, the other day, I asked the noble Lord (Lord

617
Stanley) the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if it were true that a protocol had been signed with the great Powers as to Neufchatel, and whether it could be laid on the table—the noble Lord having informed me that there was such a protocol, which he described as being one of considerable importance—when he went on to say that it would not be desirable to lay it on the table (meaning, I presume, that reasons of public interest would prevent the Government from laying it on the table)—I did not say one word more, or press for its production. But in the case to which I am about to call the attention of the House, the Government have, of their own accord, without any pressure on the part of the House so far as I am aware, produced the correspondence respecting the assault committed upon Mr. Erskine Mather at Florence; and this correspondence was presented to both Houses "by command of Her Majesty." And, Sir, having read those papers, it could not but occur to me that if they were left altogether unnoticed by Members of this House, such Gentlemen as might have the good fortune to be elected to the next Parliament would be told that they had taken no notice of these papers, though they had been presented to Parliament in June, and that, therefore, it must be presumed that they had no fault to find with the conduct of the Government. Now, Sir, upon reading these papers, it appears to me that though it is not necessary nor advisable to come to any resolution upon the subject, yet that it is advisable that Members of the House should not be supposed to be committed to an approbation of the course that has been pursued; and, therefore, I think it necessary to call the attention of the House to the contents of these papers. Sir, the House will recollect that at the end of last December, two gentlemen of the name of Mather, one of the age of seventeen and the other nineteen, being in a crowded street in Florence, and having in their attempt to cross come between a detachment of an Austrian regiment, and the regimental band, one of these young gentlemen (the elder of them) received, first a blow on the back, next a severe blow on the face, and, when he was recovering from that blow, he received a cut with a sword, which opened his skull, and placed him in a situation of some danger, so as to require his immediate conveyance to an hospital—I do not, of course, mean to say that the injury was of such a kind
618
as to place his life in danger, but at all events it was an injury of some magnitude. A complaint was made to my noble Friend Earl Granville, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who immediately wrote to Mr. Scarlett, our acting Minister at Florence, and to the Earl of Westmoreland, our Ambassador at Vienna, stating the facts of the case as they had been reported to him. But in the meantime a despatch had been received from Mr. Scarlett, stating that a formal inquiry had been demanded from the Tuscan Government; that that formal inquiry was to be instituted, and was to commence immediately. Earl Granville, therefore, added to the end of the despatch to the Earl of Westmoreland, that at that moment he had no official instruction to give. These were his words:—
"I have now received a report from Mr. Scarlett, stating that at his request and ii> conformity with a desire expressed by Mr. Mather, the Tuscan Government has consented to a judicial inquiry. I have, therefore, no official instructions to address to you; hut if this inquiry is not fairly conducted, and influence is used to suppress the truth, the British Government will be obliged to ask for reparation for this outrage upon an unoffending and unarmed British subject, from Austria, and to express the confident expectation of Her Majesty's Government that such reparation will he promptly afforded by the Austrian Government."
I should now, however, mention that Mr. Mather has made a representation with respect to what was said in this House, in which he has not been correctly informed. He has stated that it had been said in this House by myself, that it was proposed by Mr. Mather that there should be a proceeding before the legal tribunals of Florence. Now, I never said any such thing. There may have been some report to that effect in a newspaper which I have never seen: but it was correctly and exactly reported in Hansard, that I said—
"The British resident had already taken steps to comply with the request of the injured gentleman to procure a judicial investigation of inquiry."—[3 Hansard, cxix. 199.]
In this position the case stood when the present Ministry came into office. Mr. Scarlett had obtained from the Tuscan Government a promise of inquiry, and that inquiry was, after a time, instituted by that Government. Now, the first question which arises upon this subject is—What was the nature of the offence given; and, secondly, what would be the reparation to be required? Of course, the second question depends entirely upon the first. If

619
the offence was of a certain nature, entirely wanton or unprovoked, one kind of reparation would be required; but if it were merely an accident, a different kind of reparation would be sufficient. I looked, therefore, to these papers, in order to ascertain what was the view taken by the Earl of Malmesbury. It appears that the statements made upon [this subject by the two parties are more conflicting than I had at first supposed. Mr. Mather states—
"On the forenoon of the 29th of last month a detachment of the infantry regiment Kinsky was marching down the Via dei Martelli, preceded by its band. The usual crowd of persons accompanied the music, some of them (including Mr. Mather and his brother) walking between the band and the troops. An obstruction was created in a narrow part of the street by the passage of a carriage. Mr. Mather came accidentally in the way of the commander of the detachment, Lieutenant Forsthüber, and admits that he may possibly have touched that officer. He then received a blow from the flat of Mr. Forsthüber's sabre on his back, and on turning round indignantly to expostulate, was struck in the face by another with his fist. While staggering from this blow he received a sabre-cut on the head from Lieutenant Forsthüber, which wounded him so severely that his life is still in danger. He was then taken to the hospital, and still lies there."
The account given by the Austrian officers is very different. It is stated by the Austrian Minister—
"The detachment of infantry which, preceded by military music, was mounting guard, was passing through the narrow street which leads from the Via Larga to the Piazza del Duomo. There was a stoppage, and many people were pushing themselves between the music and the troops, insomuch that the latter were forced to shorten step. One man in particular walked the whole time precisely before the officer, who being in command of this detachment was in the place prescribed to him by our military regulations, and prevented him from continuing his progress. The officer told him politely in Italian to give place to him, at the same time touching him with his sabre in order to make him understand that he was speaking to him. This man thereupon turned round, looked at the officer, but continued to walk in the same manner. After this proceeding had been several times repeated, the officer became angry, and forcibly thrust aside the man who prevented him from continuing his march, and who he could not but think did so with mischievous intent, as he did not attend to words spoken politely.
"Another officer who accompanied the guard, without being on duty, gave (under a like impression) another blow to this individual, who turned round with an irritated look, and was no other than Mr. Mather. Upon that Mr. Mather putting himself in a boxing attitude advanced with his fist uplifted towards the officer—who was on duty, and had his sabre in hand. The officer, who certainly could not submit to be treated after such a fashion, and who was exposed to the risk of receiving an outrageous insult at the head of his detachment,
620
made use of his arms by giving Mr. Mather a stroke of his sabre."
The House will see that there is the greatest difference between the two statements. In the one case there appears to have been a wanton and unprovoked attack—in the other case the officer had, if not a justification, at least an excuse or palliation in this, that he imagined Mr. Mather was about to strike him, and that he could only prevent the dishonour of the insult by striking him with his sword. Sir, I naturally looked to see what was the character Lord Malmesbury gave to the transaction—whether he took the one view or the other of the circumstances connected with it. It appears to me. that one course he might have taken, without deciding at once what was the character of the transaction, was to have had the parties who gave these two contradictory accounts confronted with one another and examined. This is the way in which we proceed in this country in similar cases. It appears, however, that in this case no such course was taken. It never seems to have occurred to the Government to ask to have the facts ascertained, although, on the one hand, Mr. Mather and his witnesses concur in one story—that the unfortunate young gentleman was struck on the back with a sword, that he received another blow in the face with the fist, and that while staggering under this second blow and had not yet recovered himself, he received the cut on the head from a sword; while, on the other side, it is stated as positively that the menacing attitude of the young-man provoked the sword-cut. I will read to the House, for the purpose of putting them in possession of the very different account of the circumstances which the Austrian officers give, what Marshal Radetzky says; in doing so, however, I must say, the Marshal sets altogether aside the proceedings of this Tuscan court of inquiry, which had been granted at the solicitation of Mr. Scarlett. He says—
"On the 29th of December last, First Lieutenant Forsthuber, marching at the head of his detachment directed to occupy the post at the Palace, was passing through a narrow street. At that instant the Englishman Mather placed himself between the band and the commander of the detachment. The latter, inconvenienced in his advance, intimated to him to withdraw, first by a slight pressure with the flat of his sword, and afterwards with his left hand, the first intimation having been ineffectual. In complying with this injunction, Mr. Mather, apparently without intention, knocked against Lieutenant Baron de Karg, who, not being on duty, was walking by the side

621
of the detachment. The latter had the imprudence to strike him a blow in the face with his fist. The Englishman, irritated, turned round, in a threatening attitude, and with his fist uplifted after the manner of boxers, against First Lieutenant Forsthüber, towards whom he advanced; when the latter, fearing to be exposed to a dishonouring insult, from which it necessarily behaved him to secure himself, struck him immediately a blow on the head with the edge of his sabre. Mr. Mather, whose wound, moreover, did not seem serious, was carried to the hospital.
"Although the civilians heard as witnesses by the Tuscan authorities do not represent the matter exactly as I have stated it, inasmuch as they pretend not to have remarked, or at least not to have perceived, the menacing attitude assumed by Mr. Mather against First Lieutenant Forsthüber, that circumstance is not the less proved by the depositions of the soldiers; and there is the less doubt attaching to it, inasmuch as all the civilian witnesses assert that Mather was walking between the band and the detachment, and one of them expressly declares that he had observed that a sharp dispute had taken place between him and the officer in command.
"The character and previous conduct of First Lieutenant Forsthüber not allowing me to suppose that he acted without sufficient reason, I am of opinion that that officer was perfectly in the right, and that he absolutely did nothing but what he was bound to do to defend himself from an outrage and its inevitable consequences.
"That being the case, it is my opinion that, saving better information, the conduct of First Lieutenant Forsthüber is fully justified.
"Unfortunately, I cannot say so much for Lieut. Baron do Karg, who, by striking an Englishman in the face, without cause, necessarily excited in him a degree of passion easily to be accounted for, and who must consequently be considered as being the principal cause of the menacing gesture of Mr. Mather.
"Although, in general, the previous conduct of Lieut. Baron do Karg is equally altogether blameless, and although the proceeding of that officer, who is moreover well-conducted, cannot assuredly be attributed to anything but hastiness, I have nevertheless caused him to be put under arrest for a week."
Sir, this seems to me rather a peremptory declaration upon the part of Marshal Ra-detzky. He is a person whom all Europe respects for his gallantry and his distinguished character; but I must say he seems in this instance to set at nought anything like civil testimony, and to conclude that nothing but the evidence of soldiers is worth anything: jura negat sibi nata, nihil non arrogai artnis. Not a word do we hear in his despatch, except as to the testimony of his own soldiers; and at the same time no pains are taken to have that testimony; it is all to be taken on the word of the Marshal himself, who ordered a separate military inquiry; and there are no means of ascertaining whether the testimony of the soldiers was enti-
622
tled to credit, or whether it were shaken by that of the civilians, or whether it is obviously in contradiction to the facts. But Her Majesty's Government having taken no means to ascertain the truth, one would think that at least they would have decided themselves which was the story to be believed, and that they would have said either "here is a most unprovoked assault"—as Mr. Mather says—or,"it was a mere accident," occasioned by Mr. Mather having placed himself in a provoking position, and a menacing attitude towards an Austrian officer at the head of his detachment. Now, Sir, I find on looking through these pages, to my great astonishment, that Lord Malmesbury actually adopts both these views. lie speaks of it sometimes as an "unprovoked and wanton outrage;" and at other times as an "accident, purely fortuitous." The noble Earl, writing to Mr. Scarlett, calls it an "unprovoked outrage," and says—
"Although it would unquestionably have been more satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, and in their opinion more conducive to the ends of justice, if the party aggrieved had been allowed to be present, either in person or by his advocate, during the examination of the various witnesses, yet as it is stated that such a course would have been inconsistent with the practice observed in Tuscany in regard to such matters, Her Majesty's Government are content to take the evidence as it has been communicated to them, and they readily admit that as far as they can judge by the documents, the Tuscan authorities engaged in the inquiry appear to have been actuated by a sincere desire to elicit the truth.
"Now the evidence which has thus been obtained conclusively establishes that a most unprovoked outrage was committed on an unarmed and unoffending British subject by an officer in command of a military party acting for Tuscan purposes in the Tuscan dominions.
"But Her Majesty's Government have such entire confidence in the honourable and just sentiments by which the Grand Duke of Tuscany is distinguished, that they are satisfied that the Government of Tuscany must be anxious to mark their abhorrence of this outrage inflicted upon an innocent individual by a becoming reparation.
"And even if Her Majesty's Government could take a lenient view of the conduct of the Austrian officer, and consider the blow inflicted by him as the result of a misapprehension on his part, still it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to release the Tuscan Government from the performance of an international duty by making reparation to Mr. Mather for the personal insult and bodily suffering which he has sustained."
But when the noble Earl writes to Lord Westmoreland, he speaks of it as a "fortuitous accident:"—
"Her Majesty's Government entirely agree with his Highness that there is no reason to believe that any national feeling of animosity to

623
Englishmen moved the Austrian officer on duty to repel so hastily and with such violence an anticipated affront from an unarmed man. It is equally certain that no object of private or personal malice provoked the act.
"Assuming therefore with his Highness that it was caused by a 'concourse of fortuitous and unfortunate circumstances' (concours de circon-stances fortuites et malheureuses), it is nevertheless the duty of the Tuscan Government, on whose territory these occurred, to present the sufferer with such pecuniary compensation as he would have obtained in his own country if his life had been endangered either by a premeditated or an accidental injury. With the conviction that such a demand is consonant with those principles of justice and humanity which are equally binding to nations and individuals, Her Majesty's Government has required of the Tuscan Government this reparation for the severe sufferings and great peril which Mr. Mather has experienced."
This was giving up altogether the statement that the assault was an unprovoked and wanton outrage; and Count Buol, very naturally, as far as I can see—and I must observe here that the Government of Austria appears to have been very conciliatory with respect to this matter so far as Her Majesty's Government has asked them, and really pressed upon them to look into the case—Count Buol added, in his reply to Lord Westmoreland—
"Count Buol also stated that during the occupation of the northern provinces of France by the Allied Armies, the soldiers were not under the civil tribunals of that country. Count Buol added, that as the question at present stood, he did not see that he could do more than wait for information from Tuscany as to the line that Government had taken upon the reply they had received from your Lordship; and in the meantime he would recommend an arrangement upon the principle of compensation, not for an insult—for, according to your Lordship's correspondence, that was not the ground upon which you placed this question—but for an unfortunate accident in which no nationality was concerned; and he would at the same time state the disposition of the Emperor (upon such an understanding) to come forward himself with the proposition I have already mentioned for the arrangement of this question."
There it is. In the first place it is an unprovoked and wanton outrage; and, in the next place, it stands in the despatches as the result of accident. The House cannot but have remarked, too, that when the despatches were directed to Florence, the assault is represented as unprovoked and wanton; and when to Vienna, it is then nothing else but an unfortunate accident. Again, when the noble Earl is writing to Florence, however, there is a curious passage in one of his despatches, which it is difficult to understand. He says—
"You will thank Count Buol for his amicable offer respecting the Mather case, and state that I
624
consider it as an earnest of his friendly feelings towards this country and its Government. You will, however, explain that as Her Majesty's Government have always insisted on the independence of Tuscany, and its responsibility either to open her civil courts to foreign plaintiffs, or, if she closes them, to entertain the complaint through the Executive, there would be considerable awkwardness in our receiving compensation from Austria, with whom we have had no official correspondence in the matter. If Count Buol wishes to serve us in this dispute, he can best do so by giving his advice to Tuscany to refer the amount to an arbitration which Mr. Scarlett is instructed to propose at Florence. My determination is that Mr. Mather should get what he would have obtained from an English court had be been cut down at a review in Hyde Park by accidentally hustling, a violent soldier.
"I have before stated that there is no reason whatever to suppose that malice or any anti-English feeling stimulated the act; but certainly ninety-nine out of a hundred would, under the circumstances, have only struck the supposed offender with the hilt or flat of their sword. It was, therefore, a brutal act, although unpremeditated; and as I understand the skull of the sufferer is injured, and he is not in opulent circumstances, a pecuniary compensation is both an equitable and a legal demand on his part."
I cannot understand how a man could be "cut down-by hustling a soldier." The "hustling" might, perhaps, have the effect of provoking the soldier to cut the man down, but one can hardly speak of its being an "accident," that a "violent soldier" should cut a man down. However, after all, Mr. Addington writes to Mr. Mather thus:—
"I have the satisfaction of informing you, by the direction of the Earl of Malmesbury, that after long and vexatious negotiations with the Tuscan Government, Mr. Scarlett has succeeded in obtaining for your son a practical atonement for the unmerited and brutal treatment he received at Florence, by the payment by that Government of the sum of 1,000 francesconi. Although Her Majesty's Government do not consider that this sum is equivalent to the injury which Mr. Mather suffered, or to that which an English Court would have awarded him as damages for his sufferings; and although it is less than Mr. Scarlett was instructed to demand, Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that Mr. Scarlett acted to the best of his judgment in thus concluding the controversy."
This quite contradicts the idea of an "accident." "An unprovoked and brutal outrage" cannot be an accident. An accident may be violent, but if it be once admitted to be an accident, that takes away its "brutality," and it cannot have been an "unprovoked outrage." With regard to the first question, then, the character of this injury—that young Mr. Mather had his head cut open with a sword, that he had previously been struck in the face—

625
these are facts which no one denies; but whether these were acts which wore done wantonly, brutally, and unprovoked, is a question which Lord Malmesbury would appear never to have decided, because, what was an "unprovoked outrage" when the noble Lord writes to Florence, becomes an "unfortunate accident" when he writes to Vienna. Well, then, it is not surprising that Her Majesty's Government, having taken no steps to ascertain the truth of this charge, having never made up their minds which of the witnesses are to be believed, whether they would believe Mr. Mather himself and his brother, or the Austrian officers—and I must say the Messrs. Mather seem to me to be unexceptionable, plain, and straightforward in their story, and they are corroborated by all the Florentines upon the spot—Her Majesty's Government, I say, do not appear to have made up their minds whether they would believe these gentlemen or Marshal Radetzky, as to a military inquiry, the result of which was that Lieutenant Forsthübcr was entirely in the right, and is not to be blamed. And it is no wonder, therefore, being in that doubt as to the character of that transaction, that the Government have not behaved very consistently with regard to the reparation they should exact. I have said that Lord Granville had asked for ample reparation from the Government of Tuscany, it being true that, that being the Government under which the injury was committed, was in the first place responsible for that injury. But Lord Granville likewise said that if that inquiry did not result in due reparation being given by the Tuscan Government, the Austrian Government would likewise be hound to give reparation; and that was the true view to be taken of the case, because I think both Governments were responsible. Well, Mr. Mather, I must say, in the first instance, placed the question in the hands of Lord Granville, and expressed himself in as fair a manner as could be. He stated very fan-objections to taking it before the Tuscan courts; but he said—
"We are, however, entirely in the hands of your Lordship and the British Legation here. If it be deemed best, for reasons of state which I do not understand, to take such a course, or any other, by our receiving official authority and instructions how to act, as far as we are concerned, they shall be promptly and willingly obeyed. What may be fitting for the honour and satisfaction of our country, of which your Lordship in such a case is the guardian and judge, cannot but be so for us."
626
Nothing could be more fitting or becoming than the tone taken by Mr. Mather on the occasion. His son had suffered a great injury; he had gone out to Italy in great anxiety, and found his son still weak from the effects of the injury; and he felt that he had fair claims for redress; but he says to the Foreign Minister, "You will prescribe the course to be pursued to vindicate the honour of the country, and though it may not be according to my judgment, it will be the judgment of my own Government, and a decision to which [shall bow." No one could take his stand better than Mr. Mather in using that language. Well, Sir, Lord Malmesbury has so contrived that Mr. Mather, who was the object of the injury, and Mr. Scarlett, who was the person endeavouring to obtain reparation for him, should be the only persons insulted, and that the officer who inflicted the injury should be the only person to get off with applause; for Mr. Mather's character is injured, and Mr. Scarlett has a very cruel censure passed upon him by his Government. Mr. Mather is invited to a conference with Lord Malmesbury, and is told that the noble Lord has demanded pecuniary reparation. Of that conference the following is a memorandum:—
"Lord Malmesbury having been pleased to indicate that he thought personal reparation should be obtained for Mr. Erskine Mather, and to desire Mr. Mather's opinion on this point, he begs to state that it is with the utmost pain that he addresses himself to it, and that nothing but the official commands of his Lordship should have made him deviate from the uniform course which he and his unfortunate son have invariably taken in this matter, of refusing to make it a personal question, but one of a higher and more important nature.
"Mr. Mather taking into consideration the grievous injury inflicted; the risk of his son's life; his sufferings; the continued injury to his health; the eventual uncertainty of future results; the party that inflicted it being the officer of a Government which has been implicated by his act; and the probability that an appeal for reparation in an impartial court, and on the principles universally recognised, would have produced a large amount of reparation in such a case; Mr. Mather names to his Lordship 5,000?. as what seems to him, under all these circumstances, just and proper, and is not overvaluing the injury and its probable consequences to his son.
"Mr. Mather again begs to repeat to his Lordship that this is the most painful part of the duty imposed upon him in all the trying circumstances with which this unfortunate affair has been attended, and that respect for the views and wishes of Lord Malmesbury have alone induced him to express an opinion upon this point of the question."
Nothing could be clearer than that Mr.

627
Mather did not desire it to be made a question of pecuniary reparation, but showed a due deference to the opinion of Lord Malmesbury, and was induced to name a sum to be demanded. He named 5,000 l., at the same time stating that this was the sum he deemed due, not only to himself for his anxiety, and his son for the injury, but to the injury done to the honour of his country, and for the breach of international law. But it is perfectly clear that, whether the sum he named were right or not, Mr. Mather had no business to fix the sum due for the breach of international law; that was a question entirely for the noble Lord. That was not a question for him, and he had always so felt it; and when he was asked again to name a sum, he said it was with the greatest reluctance that he named a sum by way of reparation for the injury he had sustained. Well, Mr. Mather might have named 50,000 l. or 100,000 l. He might have thought that if the Government ought to ask for money, it ought to be a large sum. But, evidently, Lord Malmesbury was the person to fix the sum, for he represented the Government, and he was quite wrong to call upon Mr. Mather to name a sum as reparation. Lord Malmesbury might have told him, "I will inquire of the Queen's Advocate the proper sum to be given by the Tuscan Government as reparation, and I will inform you." I remember a case which occurred when the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) the Member for Tiverton was at the Foreign Office—of an English merchant in South America, who was unjustly imprisoned. My noble Friend asked the Queen's Advocate what the reparation ought to be, and he said it ought to he 20 l. a day; and my noble Friend asked for that sum from the South American Government. The merchant was not satisfied with that, and thought it not enough; but the noble Lord, who understood' the business of his department, never thought of saying to him, "I will listen to you, a private merchant, as to the reparation I shall demand: state what is the amount you think proper." The noble Lord said, "I shall consult persons who are competent to give me an opinion, and I shall ask that which the Government have a right to ask." But Lord Malmesbury, having committed this very great mistake, was so far from repairing that mistake as to say, "I will put aside the question whether the reparation shall be 1,000 l. or 500 l. I think it ought to be
628
in money; it is tangible," as the noble Lord says in one of his despatches. "If so," Mr. Mather said, "I am quite content with anything that the Government of my own country think fit. Theirs is the responsibility, and not mine." But what did Lord Malmesbury do? He did not fix a sum—he did not tell Mr. Mather what he thought he ought to ask—but he writes a general direction to Mr. Scarlett to obtain a sum of money:—
"You must, if possible, got 500 l. for Mr. Mather, or he should have such a sum as could buy him an annuity. That is what he would have got in England. As a last resource you might ask for arbitration."
The noble Lord also writes:—
"The sum asked by Mr. Mather is exorbitant; but you will be able to judge what can be got. A pecuniary compensation is at least tangible. You must hold firm language on both subjects. I do not think we should take less than 1,000 l. If, however, you get the Tuscan Government to admit that some compensation is due, it will not be very difficult for us to fix the sum."
Now, look at the injury done to Mr. Mather. He stood in the position of a man saying, "My son has suffered a cruel injury, and I have suffered a cruel injury. I put my case in the hands of my country; I submit my case to my Government, to do what they think fit." And, then, the Secretary of State has no better means of obtaining the redress that is asked than asking him how much he thinks his son's wound is worth in money? which the noble Lord says is "tangible;" and then, having obtained the estimate from him, he sends it out to Florence to be published about that Mr. Mather is a man who has made an "exorbitant demand." That is the position in which the Secretary of State places a man who has been cruelly injured—representing him as a man greedy of money, and only anxious to obtain a large amount. Thus the character of Mr. Mather is injured by the very Minister who ought to have undertaken his defence and obtained redress from him. Lord Malmesbury should have written to Florence that Mr. Mather would never have thought of naming a sum as reparation for the injury his son had sustained, and that he would not name a sum until he desired him to do so. But Lord Malmesbury left it to be understood at Florence, as if there were a demand on the part of Mr. Mather of what was most unreasonable and out of the question. And what directions are given by the noble Lord to Mr. Scarlett as to the sum he should demand? The noble Lord

629
does not name a certain sum, and say that no less must be taken; the noble Lord merely says—
"It now becomes necessary for Her Majesty's Government to point out in what that reparation should consist, and it may facilitate the settlement of this question on the part of the Tuscan Government if they are informed that the father of Mr. Mather (who is a minor) is himself inclined to consider that the injury done to his son may be atoned for by a pecuniary payment on the part of the Tuscan Government. On this point the undersigned is instructed to stats to the Duke of Casigliano that Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having heard from Mr. Mather's father, subsequently to that gentleman's return to England from visiting his son at Florence, the representations which he had to make upon the subject of the injury done to his son, requested him to put in writing the nature of the reparation which he demanded on behalf of his son, who is under age; and Her Majesty's Secretary of State shortly afterwards received from Mr. Mather's father a statement that he would he satisfied if a sum of 5,000 l. was paid to his son.
"Her Majesty's Government, however, consider that sum to be greater than they ought to demand of the Tuscan Government to pay."
And accordingly Mr. Scarlett says—
"The undersigned is therefore instructed to state to the Duke of Casigliano that Her Majesty's Government expect and require that a sum proportionate to the sufferings and indignity inflicted on Mr. Mather, jun., should be paid to Ins father, as compensation for the outrage inflicted on his son."
In another despatch the noble Earl says—
"Her Majesty's Government have seen with deep regret that the Tuscan Government do not appreciate the arguments you have used and the spirit you have shown in advocating Mr. Mather's just claim to a pecuniary compensation, when all other opportunities of redress which independent and civilised nations afford to injured persons have been denied him.
"It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to abandon the demands they have made, and although they again repeat that they consider Mr. Mather, sen's valuation of 5,000 l. to be exorbitant, that opinion in no way alters the question of principle involved, nor diminishes the alt-solute necessity that some compensation should be paid."
The noble Lord, however, having used these words, "You must, if possible, get 500 l.," Mr. Scarlett, finding that he could not get that sum, came to an arrangement with the Tuscan Government, which was not satisfactory, and which he ought not to have concluded without referring home for instructions. Up to this time, however, he had never been informed what he was to ask, and the very words—"Yon must, if possible, get 500 l.," left him a
630
large latitude of discretion. Had he been told, "You must get 500 l.: no less will be received, "he could have understood his instructions. He agrees, however, to take 220 l., saying (strangely enough):—
"If I treat the Mather question by itself, my instructions absolutely prevent mo from consenting to any minimum but that of 500 l. sterling, as I had the honour of announcing to you in our yesterday's conversation.
"The only way in which I could venture to take upon myself the question of fixing a sum more nearly approaching to yours, would be by persuading Monseigneur the Grand Duke to exorcise at the same time his gracious clemency in favour of the Messrs. Stratford."
No doubt Mr. Scarlett was to blame for finally making such an agreement; but it is a great palliation of his conduct that he never received instructions as to the sum he was to ask. Lord Malmesbury thereupon writes thus:—
"Mr. Barron informs Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Scarlett has brought the negotiations which have so long been pending on the Mather case to a close, by receiving from the Tuscan Government a compensation of 222 l.; and he explains the acceptance of a sum so inferior to that which I instructed Mr. Scarlett to demand for Mr. Mather by stating that the release of the Messrs. Stratford from prison was also obtained as part of the bargain.
"Her Majesty's Government cannot for a moment doubt the zeal which Mr. Scarlett has uniformly shown in carrying out till now the various orders which he has received from this office, bearing upon questions of a difficult and vexatious character, and they are ready to admit that in this last transaction Mr. Scarlett has acted to the best of his judgment.
"I should not, however, he strictly performing my duty were I not to express to you that Her Majesty's Government regret that Mr. Scarlett should have taken a view of what was expedient in the settlement of Mr. Mather's compensation, as much at variance with his instructions as with sound reason and equity."
It is rather unaccountable how Mr. Scarlett could have "acted to the best of his judgment," and have "zeal in carrying out the orders he received," and yet have "taken a view as much at variance with his instructions as with sound reason and equity." The result is unfortunate: the object being to obtain reparation for Mr. Mather, the only persons who are found to suffer in the transaction are Mr. Mather, who was injured, and the agent to whom was entrusted the negotiation for reparation! Do not tell mo that Mr. Scarlett is incapable of carrying out his instructions He has had considerable experience, and if he had been duly instructed would have

631
conformed to his instructions. But it is the old story of the bad workman—one man will carve a statue with a penknife, while another with the best tools will only produce a shapeless mass. Mr. Scarlett, if he had been informed what sum his Government would have accepted, would have demanded it and taken no less. Be it observed that during all this time the Austrian Government, which professed throughout the most conciliatory disposition, and showed every wish to gratify the Government in any reasonable request, was not asked to take any steps on the subject; and this, after a communication had been made by the Tuscan Government to the effect that a convention had been signed with Austria, by which Austrian officers could not be brought to trial for any offences committed against civilians. If it were beyond the power of the Tuscan Government to arrest an Austrian officer for such offences, the Austrian Government became responsible for their conduct; and to that Government a request for reparation might properly have been made. If it had only been that the Austrian troops should not be indulged in the wanton habit of cutting down men for an insult offered, that would have been a satisfaction: but as it is, every Englishmen who goes into any part of Italy where there are Austrian troops—and, unhappily, they are in all parts, and where they ought not to be—even in independent States, as the States of the Church and the Tuscan States—every Englishmen in these States is exposed to any injury which an Austrian officer may think proper to inflict upon him, without any chance of redress, according to the mode in which the Government had behaved in this case. I have heard lately of a non-commissioned officer of marines who has been punished in one of the towns of Italy according to the Austrian code—a case which ought to be considered. But though the present case was simple in itself, and though neither the Austrian nor the Tuscan Governments seem to have been disposed to resist any reasonable demands, such is the mode in which Lord Malmesbury has conducted the case that it has only tended to ridicule and contempt. I will say only a few words as to the conclusion of the transaction. On the 21st of May, Lord Malmesbury wrote to Sir Henry Bulwer, "Although I have with much regret explained to you that Her Majesty's Government cannot approve of the arrangement thus
632
concluded by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Florence, they will, of course, not refuse to recognise it;" but it appears that after this despatch was sent off, namely, on the 24th of May, a despatch was read by Lord Malmesbury, which, however, arrived on the 22nd of May, and which totally changed Lord Malmesbury's view of the whole transaction. It certainly does seem extraordinary—considering the regularity with which business is transacted at the Foreign Office—considering more especially the regularity with which Mr. Addington, the Under Secretary for the Foreign Office, is sure to transmit every despatch of importance to the Chief Secretary—that the despatch in question should have arrived on the 22nd, and not have been read until the 24th of May. However, Lord Malmesbury, not having seen the despatch until the 24th, it would, I think, have been better for him to have remained satisfied with what he had already done, and not have receded from the decision at which he had arrived; instead of which his Lordship wrote another despatch, reopening the whole question, and desiring Sir H. Bulwer to leave Florence and break off all communication with the Tuscan Government unless it should make what was deemed sufficient reparation. He says—
"Should you find the Tuscan Government absolutely resolved not to agree to the sum named to Mr. Scarlett as the minimum which Her Majesty's Government would consent to accept, you are at liberty to refer the amount to arbitration; but if the Tuscan Government should be so ill-advised as to refuse all payment whatever, you will then inform the Tuscan Government that Her Majesty's Government can no longer recommend Her Majesty to allow Her representative to sanction an act of such great injustice by his presence at Florence, and you will close Her Majesty's mission at that Court. You will also state to the Tuscan Government that ulterior measures will be adopted by Her Majesty's Government to obtain redress.
It appears to mo that the character of the transaction is not improved by desiring Sir H. Bulwer to leave Florence. The only consequence of this proceeding will he, that British subjects, residents and travellers in Florence, will not have an able and intelligent Minister there to protect them. After the manner in which this transaction has been managed, I really cannot see what can now be done. This is not the only case that has occurred. I received a letter to-day from a gentleman, saying that he had some time ago been seized by a Con-

633
tinental Government, and thrown into prison for twenty-four hours. He states that his case was taken up by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and subsequently by Lord Granville, who remonstrated with the offending Government, but that the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs had taken no notice of the matter. The only advice I can give this gentleman—and I take the opportunity of giving it him thus publicly—is not to ask the present Government to interfere in his case at all. If lie has a good grievance to complain of, I recommend him to follow the example of the great Captain Gonzales de Cordova in a similar position, who, when his sovereign wanted to pacify him by a gift of the city of Lucca, told His Majesty that he liked his grievance better than the city. The gentleman aggrieved at Berlin had better be content with his grievance than seek any redress through his own Government. As far as Mr. Mather is concerned, the result to him is the offer of a thousand francisconi, which he rejected with disdain; in addition to which his character as a man of independence and disinterestedness has been blasted by the interference of our Government. All I can say on the subject is, that I will not take the course which Lord Derby did when he saw reason to censure the conduct of the late Government in regard to the affairs of Greece, but I will content myself with protesting against what has been done in Mr. Mather's case in terms similar to those which his Lordship then employed. Lord Derby said on that occasion—
"Surely it becomes the British Legislature to step forward and say that the Foreign Office of England is not England—that the high-minded, generous feeling, of this great people is opposed to measures such as have been taken by the Government of the country—that we separate our actions from theirs—our feelings from theirs— our views of justice and good faith from theirs."—[3 Hansard, cxi. 1331–2.]
So, Sir, I say I separate my feelings, my notions of justice and good faith, from the conduct the Government have pursued in this transaction. I beg leave to enter my protest against the conduct -which seems to have degraded the Government in the eyes of all Europe; it could not degrade this country, because this country takes better and higher views than the Government of what is due to our national character. Sir, I trust, however, this will be recollected before the Government; interfere again to obtain redress for a British subject—I trust it will be recollected that
634
in the present state of the Continent of Europe, this is almost the only country where there can be a free expression of opinion—where a free press can speak, and free discussion can take place, and where the discussions of the Legislature can fairly make themselves felt; because, although the forms of constitutional government exist in several States of Europe, those forms are in some cases so perverted, while other countries in which they are not perverted, and where real liberty exists, are so small and so dependent on their more powerful neighbours, that no bold and loud expression of public opinion can take place in them. No such addresses as are delivered in our Legislature, and no such publications as that which, to his immortal honour, the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) issued from the press last year, can be made or put forth in any other country of Europe. Sir, if all this he the case, it more especially behoves us to keep our character unhurt and our honour untarnished. It becomes us, if we have occasion to ask for redress from a foreign Government, to proceed mildly and with temper; but, at the same time, to insist on that which we really think duo to us. It would be an inestimable loss, not to this country alone, but to all the world, if our character as a great and independent nation should be in any degree lessened or impaired. I trust, therefore, that before the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office again writes such despatches as these, he will consider how great is the charge that has been entrusted to him, and that he will not lightly commit the great interests and the high character of this nation by heedless expressions.
I gave notice that when I should make these observations on Mr. Mather's case, I would also call the attention of the House to the present state of public business, and I will now proceed to do so as shortly as I can. The House will recollect that immediately after the accession to office of the present Government, those who sat on this side of the House, having heard declarations from the present Government that they could not bring forward measures which they considered were essential to be brought forward to repair in some respect the ruin which the measure of 1846 and the subsequent commercial policy had inflicted on the country, in the present Parliament, but would look to the next Parliament with the view of sub-

635
mitting to it measures by which the alleged calamity and ruin might be repaired, we on this side of the House contended if no measures which Government thought essential to the prosperity of this great country were submitted to Parliament, we thought in the first place it behoved us to make the Session as short as was consistent with the course of needful public business; and next, that Government should declare the nature of their policy. Sir, I cannot say with regard to the first of these demands we have' obtained full satisfaction, but at least there was some admission as to the intention of Government going through the regular Session, and summoning Parliament again at the beginning of next year; and it then appeared to me and other hon. Gentleman, that, the principle conceded, none but necessary measures should be proceeded with, and that before the Parliament closed, the intentions and measures considered necessary should be submitted to us. So far as this first request is concerned, we did not obtain immediately what we desired, but we made no further objection to certain measures Government proposed being carried into effect. But with respect to the second question, our expectations, I must say, have been totally and entirely disappointed. We asked Ministers to do what had been done by other Ministers under similar circumstances. If we referred to the dissolution of the Government of Lord Grey, in 1832, we should find that the reform measure was before Parliament, and that a dissolution took place on that question. When Sir Robert Peel advised a dissolution in 1834, he issued a statement of his opinions—a clear and explicit statement as to his course of policy, and one of the principles laid down being inconsistent with the vote which had been arrived at, the Government resigned office. Again, when Lord Melbourne advised a dissolution in 1841, he declared what measures of commercial policy he should propose, and the country having refused its confidence any longer, he resigned. But the present Government from the first minute they took office to the present day, so far from publicly announcing and declaring their policy, seem only studious to conceal what their intentions and policy are. With regard to the question respecting which for six years they have agitated the country—the great question of the abolition of the corn laws—in the beginning of February this year we were told by the noble Earl at the head
636
of the Government, then in opposition, that it was, in his opinion, desirable to impose a duty on the importation of foreign corn. When the noble Earl came into office, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said it was most desirable that some such measure should be passed. But by degrees it began to be understood that this desirable measure was to he abandoned; but, at the same time, we were left as much in the dark as before as to the precise course which was to be taken. What we and the country, generally, desire to know, is not so much the particular measures to be proposed, as the spirit in which they are to be framed. Sir, it appears to me that the clear question to be put to Government ought to be the question, What are the precise and practical measures you mean to propose? Do you, or do you not, adopt the financial and commercial policy which was established in 1842, and which was continued until now? Is the policy of the last ten years beneficial to the country; ought it to be followed and adhered to, and care taken that it shall not be abrogated? Ought that policy to be your guide, as it had been the guide of the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel, and the Ministry lately displaced? Or is that policy injurious, mischievous, and will the injurious effects be averted by alteration? Now, Sir, to these questions the House and the country never have had anything like an answer. At one time I was deluded into the belief this step would be taken when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his able speech on opening the Budget; for we on this side of the House looked upon it as conclusive in favour of a free-trade policy, and we believed that thenceforward that policy would be the rule of our proceedings. Everybody here was delighted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, and no one thought of taunting the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his Colleagues, with inconsistency. The right hon. Gentleman, however, found a critic, a commentator, and an adversary; and who was he? He appeared at the Mansion House in the person of the First Lord of the Treasury. That was the scene which Lord Derby chose for criticising his Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Earl pointed out a great omission in his Colleague's address, and supplied it by something, not as lucid and conclusive as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, but by something that was eminently ob-

637
scure and ambiguous. This was certainly a novel proceeding. As a Member for London, I have often had occasion to dine in the City, but it never occurred to me to avail myself of any of those opportunities to answer my own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, we have not had, either from the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman, any clear explanation of their policy; but we have had explanations from members and supporters of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke out; and the hon. and learned Solicitor General, in his speech, reviewed the policy of the last ten years, and both declared themselves anxious to reverse our existing commercial policy. A number of Gentlemen had gone down to constituencies as the professed supporters of Government. One of these hon. Gentlemen said he wished, above all things, to see a new corn law imposed. The address of the hon. Gentleman to the Maidstone electors stated that the hon. Gentleman rejoiced to say that at that moment no Government bad a chance of imposing a tax upon bread, or that by any change in the commercial policy cheap bread should he taken from the people. I am told by an hon. Gentleman near me that an hon. Gentleman—a delegate, as he is called— who addressed the electors of Greenwich, marched about with a big loaf before him, declaring that he was for the Government that gave a large loaf and cheap bread; that, at least, seems free from ambiguity. At the same time it did seem we got something like light when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed his constituents, and told them that the time for restoring the protective duties of 1846 had gone by; that the spirit of the ago was opposed to such a course of policy; and that no Minister could safely oppose the advancing spirit of the age. This was a wise maxim, and the only thing which astonishes me is, that this light has been so long in reaching the right hon. Gentleman. The question was raised at the general election of 1847. Since then it has undergone repeated discussions in Parliament, and it has been obvious to nineteen persons out of twenty, for the last three or four years, that the time for the reimposition of the corn laws was gone. It seems, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make this discovery until the other day. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer says be-
638
sides in his address is not very reassuring. He tells his constituents that the rent of land has diminished no less than 5,000,000 l. a year, as appears by the returns of the Property Tax. I will not stop to inquire whether that circumstance is attributable to the cause to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers it; but if the right hon. Gentleman puts that forward as a ground for giving the landowners compensation, by imposing general burdens on the rest of the community, I can only say the idea is preposterous. The ease appears to be this: Some person—say Lord Derby—had an estate of 5,000 l a year, which was claimed by the parish from which it had been derived. The inhabitants say, "This 5,000 l a year belongs to the parish, for the use of the inhabitants, and not you." The case is heard and decided by the Lord Chancellor, and goes to the House of Lords, who decide with the Lord Chancellor that the 5,000 l. a year was intended for the whole of the inhabitants of the parish, and must be given back to the whole of the inhabitants. If Lord Derby had any such estate, and discovered that it was claimed in this way, and that he must submit to the award, how much would the Lord Chancellor he surprised if Lord Derby should say, "You must find means to restore to me the value of this 5,000 l a year, which belonged to the poor of the parish." Be it observed that the corn laws were never defended by any man of sense on the ground that they should give an additional income to the landed proprietor. The grounds taken by the advocates of these laws were, that it was for the advantage of the country—that the country would have its supply of food within itself, and should be independent of foreigners for their supply of food. But, in addition to the national advantage, undoubtedly the landed proprietor might take a benefit by the corn laws; but the principal reason in favour of the corn laws was the advantage in the end, and the benefit they must confer on the country. The nation now being of opinion that this was a fallacy, and that it is unnecessary to continue the laws, there is no pretence for saying that compensation ought to be given to the landowners. Speaking of the interest of the landlords themselves, I am of opinion that nothing would be more injurious than for them to defend the corn laws, not as a national benefit, but as imposed for their own benefit. They were told by the right hon.

639
Gentleman that there was to be a revision of taxation, and that the burdens would be adjusted so as to benefit the farmers. I am afraid that will not give satisfaction to the farmers, after what has been constantly said by the Duke of Richmond—"Get in Lord Derby—get him into office, and you will get back protection." Such language had been constantly held—they said, "Only get Lord Derby in for Minister— only get rid of the free-trade Ministry— have a dissolution and you will get protection back. Do not carry out any improvements on your farm—do not lay out money for drainage—the only way to get rich is to turn out the free-trade Ministry." That was the language of the Duke of Richmond, endorsed, he must say, by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. After these promises it will be but little consolation to the farmers to be told that a chance of lightening burdens "looms in the future." With respect to benefit from revised taxation, I should say that the farmers, from the experience of the past, ought to be able to understand the policy which must surely lighten their burdens. That the political system begun in 1842, and continued to this time, without any new system of policy, without any new invention, had lightened the burdens without injury to the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a striking instance. He said with regard to sugar duties last year, though 300,000 l. had been taken off the country, the loss of the Exchequer was only 300 l. I recollect that was said in the right hon. Gentleman's statement; and can there be a better proof of the advantages of the policy, and the propriety of going on with it? All I beg now to say is, that I hope after the farmers have been deceived for the last four years about protection being restored, that they will not allow themselves to be again deceived by the promise of measures which are to give them prosperity—which indeed is really to be attained by no other means than by the exercise of their skill and industry. Well, then, with regard to the measures for which Her Majesty's Ministers claim credit—what they have done, and what they propose to do. I will say with regard to what they have done, that with the exception of the Militia Bill, which is entirely their own, and which I willingly resign to them, they derive all the credit from the measures of the last Government. Some of those measures are of importance, and
640
I think likely to be carried. Of these, Chancery reform was one of the most important. That was no party question. I am far from asking credit for it as a party measure; but a Commission having been instituted by the late Government, made their report upon the subject, and it was announced in the Queen's Speech that on that subject a measure would be introduced. The Government introduced a Bill, but even at the last moment there were clauses in it so objectionable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham), who belonged to the Commission, had to insist on the report of the Commissioners being carried into effect in order to make it a good and useful measure. While other pressing measures were passed over, Government made, with respect to one measure, not immediately under discussion, a dangerous proposition. It had reference to education in Ireland. The plan of mixed education settled by Her Majesty's Government had given general satisfaction; but the present Government were no sooner in office than they said they would make a change with respect to the system of mixed education, and do a favour to the Established Church by which the Established Church might obtain a portion of the grant. I cannot conceive anything more dangerous for Ireland than this, for it was admitted by Lord Derby himself and the Bishop of Ossory, at a meeting of the Church Education Society, that if you grant separate sums in order to have children educated and taught the Scriptures according to the Authorised Version, you must, as said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, at the same time give the same advantage to the Roman Catholics. And I observe that those who belong to the Roman Catholic community, who are most opposed to the mixed education, are quite ready to meet you on that subject. I have seen to-day, in an address published by the Catholic Defence Association, these words: "Catholics of Ireland, do you especially trust no man who is not distinctly and explicitly in favour of Catholic education for Catholics, Protestant education for Protestants." If you give way to the Protestants in this case, you must give way to that demand, instead of having the mixed education established by Lord Derby himself, and so highly creditable and honourable to him, but which he is now ready to forego. Supposing, however, you adopt this principle, are there no other questions raised there-

641
by? You now give 150,000 l. for education; and it will be impossible to give more than 30,000 l., or perhaps 50,000 l., to the Established Church for that object. You will then be giving 100,000 l. for exclusively Catholic schools. But that will come to be another Maynooth question. If you give 100,000 l. for educating children in the Roman Catholic faith, will there not be as much objection to that as there now is to the 26,000 l. which you pay to Maynooth? See the danger of raising a question that was settled. For twenty years you have gone on without disturbance, and you might have so gone on still, but for what has been said by the present Government, which has unsettled the question, and once more tossed it up into the air. Then it appears they are not satisfied with disturbing education in Ireland—they are disturbing also the plan of education adopted in England. I have seen what I wish I had seen six weeks ago—for the vote for education was only taken a week ago—I have seen it stated that the Government have made up their minds to do that which they say they have always been anxious and earnestly desirous to do—to do justice to the Church of England in the matter of education, as they thought there was undue restriction upon the Church in that matter. Then why should not the Minute containing this announcement have been introduced before the vote for education was agreed to? They must know that this question produces, and will produce, the greatest excitement. They must know that the condition of the National Society is now such that many persons wish there should be an alteration in the charter of that society. Surely that was a question to be kept, at least, in abeyance. Or, if they were determined to make an alteration, they should have made it some time ago, though the better course, I think, would have been, not to take it up at all till they had found time to look into the whole question. Then I must say that the Government have suffered from the mode in which they had themselves prepared to accept office in the present state of affairs. We all know that in the course of last year, when called upon to form a Government, they declared themselves incapable of doing so, because they were unable to find persons to fill the several offices of the Government. Soon after that it was publicly announced that they had made their dispositions, that they had the means of forming a Government,
642
when called upon to do so; and the event showed this rumour to be perfectly true. A very eminent person accepted the office of Lord Chancellor, and several Gentlemen, pursuing the agreeable pursuits and easy business that belong to an English country gentleman, and which makes life so easy and agreeable, were ready to accept the troubles, the responsibilities, and the obloquy of office. So a Government was formed; but there was one thing they seem to have entirely forgotten, and that was, what were the principles and opinions upon which as a Government they were to act. They entirely lost sight of that which appears to me to be an essential preliminary, but which I suppose they thought trivial. They seem to have had no fixed opinions on any one subject. No sooner does any Gentleman start a subject, than the Government avow themselves quite ready to agree to his proposal. An hon. Gentleman opposite proposes to raise the question of Maynooth. That is another dangerous subject to meddle with; but no sooner is it brought forward than the Government exclaim—"We are quite ready to go into that question; we have, to he sure, not made up our minds what to do; we have no present intention of abolishing Maynooth, but we will leave Ireland to be disquieted till we make up our minds on the subject." Then Mr. George Denison says he wants an alteration of the management clauses in the system of education in England, and they exclaim, "With all our heart, let us have an alteration in that scheme." A party in the Irish Church come forward and say they wish a change in the mixed system of education in that country. "By all means, we are quite willing," is the answer of the Government. Indeed, all that seems necessary is that some Gentleman should start a crude notion upon any subject, in order to have the Government saying, "We have not made up our minds upon it, but we are quite ready nevertheless to go into the consideration of it." Why, here is a direct premium upon agitation. I have said that it was our object, after obtaining an assurance that Parliament would be dissolved as soon as possible, to get some explanations from the Government as to their policy. That explanation we certainly have not obtained; but we have obtained that which is quite sufficient; we have obtained enough to enable my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham) to say that the question before you is,

643
whether you have confidence in Lord Derby's Government, or whether you have not. I know that some people say my right hon. Friend is very unreasonable— that he is in the situation of Sir Lucius O' Trigger when he said to Captain Absolute, "I think we did differ in opinion," to which Captain Absolute replied, "That is a very odd thing, for I gave no opinion whatever." My right hon. Friend says he differs in opinion with the Government, and they say, "That is a very odd thing, for we have no opinions whatever." But, with great deference to them, in this country of England that is a good and sufficient reason for my right hon. Friend's distrust. This country will never he satisfied unless they have men ruling the country who have some principles and some opinions. It may seem to be a popular thing to say that the country has only by a majority to express an opinion in favour of a corn law, and that the corn laws will be reimposed; or that, if there is a majority against such a policy, then we shall have free trade. That may seem to be a popular declaration, and one likely to attract popular favour; hut, depend upon it, it is not so. The people of this country would be better pleased to see men who had some opinions, and who were ready to bring questions clearly before them. Is the country likely to place its confidence in a Government that has no opinions, no principles, and which is ready to be guided by any wind that may rise into any port that is open for them?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, it is not a duty which devolves on me to vindicate the general conduct of the present Government from those grave and sweeping, though I must say most unfair and unfounded, charges, with which the noble Lord has thought fit to conclude the review of a Session which he may he excused for regarding with no particular complacency. In the subordinate post which I occupy, it is not my duty—it is not my privilege— officially to explain, or officially to defend, the measures of a Conservative Cabinet. But when a distinct and personal charge is made by the noble Lord, first, against the head of the Government, for differing, as the noble Lord alleged, in opinion from some of his principal Colleagues; and when the noble Lord goes on to make another personal charge against my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of incapacity to conduct the business of his department (for the noble Lord's words im-
644
plied nothing less), I am justified in saying that such charges come with the worst possible grace from the leader of a party which fell to pieces in consequence of no hostile assault, but solely and exclusively from its own internal weakness and disorganisation, from its incapacity to carry on the business of the country, and from the discussions which divided its leading Members. Sir, in turning from the general issue which the noble Lord has raised, to that more confined and merely departmental question with which alone I am entitled to deal, I have personally to solicit the indulgence of the House, not merely because I now for the first time rise, in a case of such magnitude and importance, charged with the defence of the Government—not merely because during by far the greater part of the transactions detailed in these papers I was absent in a distant country, insomuch that most of the letters contained in that volume from which the noble Lord quoted have been seen by me only in their printed form; but I ask it because I cannot help perceiving, that from the very first moment when this subject was brought before Parliament and the public, even down to the present time, there has prevailed upon it a degree of prejudice (I mean prejudice in its most literal sense—a prejudging of the question—an amount of misapprehension, and even actual misstatement of facts, to which in my brief political experience, I can recollect no parallel. The noble Lord began his address by stating that two different stories, resting upon separate and independent testimony, and mutually contradictory the one of the other, had gone forth with regard to the outrage committed upon Mr. Mather; and he observed that my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, instead of adopting either the one or the other of these statements, had appeared to admit the accuracy of both, opposite and incompatible as they were, and had, in fact, mixed them up into one. Now, I think that if hon. Gentlemen will look into the volume from which the noble Lord has quoted, they will see that the discrepancy to which he alludes entirely vanishes. Lord Malmesbury, it is true, states in one place, that the outrage was accidental, and in another place he spoke of it as "brutal and unprovoked;" but this apparent discrepancy disappears on looking more closely at the connexion of these statements. There are

645
two ways of looking at the question: one is with reference to the Government, and the other is with reference to the individual outrage. I can quite understand that my noble Friend used the word "accidental" as applied to this country and the Government: he said—and his opinion is justified by the evidence before us—that the outrage had nothing to do with any intended insult to the national character. Now, I believe that if hon. Gentlemen will give themselves the trouble to look into the volume from which the noble Lord quoted—and I need not remind the House that mere quotation of extracts prove nothing at all—I say that if hon. Gentlemen will give themselves the trouble to look into the volume itself, they will see that the discrepancy which the noble Lord alleges to have existed, will vanish altogether. It is true that Lord Malmesbury speaks, in some instances, of the outrage on Mr. Mather as having been accidental, and that, in other places, he speaks of it as one of a brutal and unprovoked character. What is the mode of reconciling this apparent discrepancy? It is this. There are two ways of viewing the question; the one in reference to the Government, and the other in reference to the individual. I cannot think it surprising that my noble Friend should have spoken of the transaction as an outrage as far as regarded Mr. Mather personally; and when he referred to it as being accidental, I believe he used that expression for the purpose of showing that, in his opinion, the outrage had nothing of a national character—I believe he meant to imply that it was not a studied and premeditated insult to England, and that it was so far an accident that it arose out of a sudden occurrence which no one could foresee, and out of the hasty and blameable conduct of a single individual. Now, using the word in that sense, in which my noble Friend certainly did use it, I say that it was a perfectly fair and natural expression, but that does not prevent its being equally true that as regards the individual who committed the outrage it was as brutal and as unprovoked an attack as any which has ever been perpetrated upon a British subject. The noble Lord likewise complained—at least I understood him to speak in the language of complaint on the subject—the noble Lord complained that immediate reparation had not been demanded in the case of Her Majesty's Go-
646
vernment, but that the case had been submitted to a Tuscan tribunal. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: No!] The noble Lord at least, as I understand him, spoke of that court as being one which afforded no facilities for eliciting the truth. Now, I do not for one moment pretend that a tribunal, sitting in secret, can be as safe and as trustworthy a means of eliciting the facts of a case as one of which the proceedings are conducted according to our English mode. But I must say, that looking not at the construction of the tribunal, but at the result of the inquiry which took place before it—I am bound to admit that that tribunal appears to have done its duty as fairly and as impartially as could under the circumstances have been expected. I believe it is impossible for any one to read the mass of testimony brought forward before that court of inquiry—testimony undoubtedly kept secret at the time, but which was subsequently published to the world—I say I believe it is impossible to look at that testimony without seeing that the other version of the case which was given in evidence before the Austrian court-martial was utterly unfounded in truth.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I said nothing against that Commission of Inquiry.
LORD STANLEYresumed: The noble Lord undoubtedly alluded to it briefly, hut he alluded to it as a tribunal from which justice was not to be expected. But then the noble Lord came to what is really the most material point in the case. He took up the case at the point where the tribunal of preliminary inquiry having substantiated the story of Mr. Mather, that tribunal and the Tuscan Government declared that their power was limited—that it stopped there—that they had elicited the facts, and that they could do nothing more. Two questions then arose for the consideration of the Minister at Florence and of the British Government. These questions were—first, from what party reparation for the outrage that had been committed was to be sought? and, secondly, what should be the nature of that reparation? Now, I must say, that I look upon the first question—namely, the question as to the party who was to be held responsible in the case, as even more important, if possible, than it was represented to be by the noble Lord. I look upon it, however, as important in a different point of view from that taken by the noble Lord. I look upon it in that light

647
because the effect of the decision thereon pronounced in this particular case must be the establishment of a precedent applicable to all cases of a similar nature that might in future arise. Her Majesty's Government had ostensibly only to decide what was the best means of bringing an offender to justice, and of obtaining reparation for an injured British subject; but there was in point of fact involved in the case a grave question of international law, which related to the position of the auxiliary force of Austria in Tuscany. I need not say that if that force were acknowledged as possessing the right to act in Tuscany without any control on the part of the Tuscan Government, such a doctrine would involve the gravest consequences, and would possibly affect even the territorial integrity of Europe. And it will be seen, on referring to various parts of the papers which I hold in my hand, that such a right has actually been asserted, and that attempts were made to support it by adding what were alleged to be parallel cases. The first parallel which was adduced by the Tuscan Government when seeking to remove from themselves the responsibility in the case, and to throw it on the Austrian Government, was that of the occupation of France by the Allied Powers in the years 1814 and 1815. Now to that parallel it is sufficient to reply, that it cannot in any way be considered as a case in point; and for this reason, that every one knows that the occupation of France by the Allied Armies at the time referred to was a hostile occupation, and one not even professing to be friendly; while the Austrian force occupying Tuscany is stationed there with the consent and concurrence of the Tuscan Government. Then, again, it is stated that the French army in Spain, under the Duke of Angouleme, in the year 1823, which army had been sent there for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs of that country—it is stated that that army was under its own officers exclusively, and was in no manner subject to the Spanish tribunals. I think it must in fairness be admitted, that we have here an historical precedent which, so far as it goes, is in point; but I do not believe that that peculiar, and anomalous, and most dangerous state of things was ever admitted or recognised by the other European Powers. There is a third case adduced, which is, if possible, even less applicable as a parallel to the relative posi-
648
tion of Austria and Tuscany than either of the other two. It was one of the arguments employed against the English representative, that if in the territory of the Nizam, in India, where there is a large British auxiliary force, officered by British commanders, and maintained by the British Government, although at the expense of the inhabitants of the country—it was argued that if in that country one of those British officers so circumstanced had insulted or injured some foreigner, reparation would undoubtedly be sought, not from the native prince, who had no power of controlling those officers, but from the British Government, to whom alone they were responsible. Now, that is a very fair and accurate statement of the law; but I must remark that, as a precedent, it fails in just the most important particular; because the State of the Nizam has not, and by treaties entered into with us cannot have, any external relations. It is independent in its internal affairs, but in its internal affairs only, and with regard to all foreign affairs it is absolutely dependent. It appears, therefore, that of these three precedents, which were alleged for the purpose of removing the responsibility from Tuscany and throwing it upon Austria, two are, in fact, no precedents at all; while the third is admitted to be an anomalous and exceptional case, not recognised by the European Powers. But there was one precedent which was brought forward by the British Minister, and which, I really think, is of far more value than any which has been adduced upon the other side: I refer to the position which our own army occupied in the Peninsula under the Duke of Wellington. It should be remembered that that army was quartered there during a time of actual war— a time when the country was greatly disturbed, and when the legal tribunals could not be expected to act with all the regularity which might be desired; and yet, even under these circumstances, so strongly were the British Government and the chiefs of the British Army impressed with the danger of destroying the responsibility of the native tribunals that our army was actually made amenable to those tribunals, and remained so during the war. Suppose we had taken the opposite course; suppose Her Majesty's Government had said to the Government of Tuscany, "We admit your excuse, we know you have no power to compel those officers to appear

649
before your tribunals, and that being the case, we will go to the Austrian Government at once, and hold it responsible in the matter." That is the course which the noble Lord recommended.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I said that both Governments were responsible.
LORD STANLEYcontinued: But the noble Lord stated, and I think we have Lord Granville's assurance to the same effect, that the Government of the noble Lord intended to apply to Tuscany in the first instance, and that if they failed in obtaining reparation from Tuscany, as they must have done, they would then have been prepared to go to Austria, and to hold Austria responsible. But what would have been the results of that course? The noble Lord professes to dread any increase in the influence of despotic Governments in Europe. But the noble Lord and his Colleague would have taken the very course most calculated to increase the power of these despotic Governments. The noble Lord would have recognised that which we objected and refused to recognise from the first—the absolute military occupation of Tuscany by the Austrian troops. I say that the noble Lord who professes so much jealousy of the increasing influence of despotic Powers—who professes himself, and I dare say, justly, to be a warm advocate of liberal government throughout Europe—I say that the noble Lord has acted in a very extraordinary and inconsistent manner in recommending such a step. Again, turning to another part of the question, it must not be forgotten by the House, that whatever may he thought of the nature of the trial, and of the justice and impartiality of the tribunal before which the officer was brought—it could not be denied that he had been tried by a court comprised in accordance with the laws of his country, and that by that court he had been acquitted. [Sir A. COCK BURN gave marks of dissent.] I will not enter into a legal controversy with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I imagine that a court-martial was the regular and legal tribunal to try military officers. I believe it would have been impossible, under the circumstances, to bring an Austrian officer before any other tribunal. Under these circumstances, and admitting, for argument sake, that the Austrian Government was to be held responsible instead of the Tuscan, I think there could be hardly a more difficult question for diplomatists and Cabinets than to say what
650
is the course which a Government ought to take when one of its subjects has been injured and insulted in a foreign country, and when the person who has committed the injury or the insult has been brought to trial according to the legal forms of that country, hut has been acquitted, on that trial manifestly in defiance of all law and justice. I say that I can hardly conceive anything more difficult than to say to what extent a foreign Government is justified in interfering in such a case. In considering that question, I dare say there is one instance which will recur to every one's mind. I do not mean to adduce it as an exact parallel; but I will suppose a case for the purpose of elucidating the point to which I am now referring. It is well known that a gross and unprovoked act of violence was committed in this country some time since on a distinguished subject of Austria. I will put an imaginary case, I will suppose that that person, having been so injured and insulted at a time when there existed among certain classes in this country a very strong prejudice against him personally, arising nut of political feeling, I will suppose that he prosecuted the offenders in a court of justice, and that, acting under the influence of that prejudice to which I have referred, a jury had returned a verdict of "not guilty," in defiance of law and of the evidence in the case. I believe that in such a case it would not have been in the power of the British Government to do anything except that which the Austrian Government have done in the present instance—namely, to express their regret at the occurrence. I am sure that no Government, either constitutional or despotic, could take upon themselves the responsibility of punishing a person after he had been once tried and acquitted according to the laws of his country. I mention this as a further difficulty which must have been overcome if Her Majesty's Government had determined on making Austria responsible in this case, independently of that more general question which I have already discussed, the question how far they could, without violating a great international principle, admit that, in the Tuscan territory, an Austrian officer serving the Tuscan Government should be held responsible to no Government except that of his own country. Another point to which the noble Lord referred was the nature of the reparation to he exacted in the case. And here I must advert to the

651
statement of the noble Lord that the character of Mr. Mather has boon damaged by the language held by my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, with respect to the nature and amount of Mr. Mather's claim—language of which, according to the noble Lord, the object was to injure Mr. Mather's character.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Not the object.
LORD STANLEYcontinued: That was certainly implied in the words of the noble Lord. But we will say that in his opinion the result, at least, of the language employed by my noble Friend was to damage the character of Mr. Mather, Now I do not think that has been the case. If it had been, I am sure the Government ought to take the earliest opportunity of fully and frankly bearing their testimony to the conduct and character of that gentleman. Throughout this whole transaction Mr. Mather suffered much pain, anxiety, and annoyance; and even if, acting as he did, sometimes with a partial knowledge of what took place, and sometimes under the influence of feelings naturally excited—-even if, under these circumstances, he did not always do justice to the conduct of the Government, that is no reason why the Government should not do justice to him, I do not think there is anything at all reprehensible in the conduct or the demands of Mr, Mather. I admit fully the difficult position in which that gentleman was placed by the demand made on him that he should name the amount of his own compensation. But I think that upon that point there was, on Mr. Mather's part, something of a misunderstanding. Mr. Mather evidently took the national view of the question—that an Englishman had been insulted—that it was a premeditated insult on the part of a foreign Government, and that on that foreign Government a fine should be inflicted—I will not say proportionate to the insult, for it is difficult to measure the extent of an insult, but—sufficient to express the indignant sense of injury on the part of the British Government, I dare say—I am willing to believe—that was the view which Mr. Mather took of the transaction, and in that case I do not think there is anything unreasonable or exorbitant in his demand of 5,000 l But supposing there had been no premeditated injury in the case— supposing there had been no intended insult, merely as it affected the individual concerned in it, that individual having in
652
consequence only the right to claim the amount of damages to which a native of the country would, under the same circumstances, have been entitled, then I say that a demand of 5,000 l. was an unreasonable one, and that such a sum was far beyond what could have been expected. The noble Lord commented—and commented, I cannot help thinking, a little unfairly—on the various sums which were named at various times. In one respect I must take the liberty of setting the noble Lord right. He stated distinctly and positively that Mr. Scarlett had received no order to take 500 l., and nothing less, but that his orders were to get 500Z. if he could; and if not, that he was authorised to accept a smaller sum: and he tried to represent Mr. Scarlett as having suffered ill usage, in that a large discretion had at first been left him, and that he had subsequently, as the noble Lord made it appear, been disavowed for having used that discretion to the best of his judgment. Now Mr. Scarlett had himself stated, in one of the papers before the House, "If I treat the Mather question by itself," which his instructions strictly enjoined him to do," my instructions absolutely prevent me from consenting to any minimum but that of 500 l. sterling, as I had the honour of announcing to you in our yesterday's conversation."[Mr. Scarlett to the Duke of Gasigliano, May 6, 1852.] I do not wish to say one word that can be considered harsh or unjust to Mr. Scarlett, and I will only repeat what is already stated in these papers, that Mr. Scarlett was suffering at the time under an illness from which he has not yet recovered, and which at the time seriously endangered his life. If under those circumstances Mr. Scarlett committed an error of judgment, that was an error which ought to be dealt with as leniently as possible. But the real question—and here is the point which the noble Lord seems to avoid—with reference to which Mr. Scarlett was disavowed, was, not that he had taken 222 l instead of 500 l.—not that he had consented to accept, as part of the bargain, the immediate liberation of two political prisoners, whose release had been, indeed, previously promised—not for one or other of these deviations from his instructions, but he was disavowed because he had expressly and in contravention of his instructions, disclaimed that principle which it was the great object of Lord Malmesbury and the Government to assert—the respon-

653
sibility of the Tuscan Government, in such a case as the one under consideration. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Where is that?] it was stated in one of the despatches—
"Although Her Majesty's Government were; willing to consider that Mr. Scarlett, under a combination of difficulties, acted to the best of his judgment when he agreed to receive a sum so much smaller than the minimum which his instructions permitted him to accept, and under that impression informed you, on the 21st inst., that they recognised his act, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to sanction the renunciation of so important a principle as that which Mr. Scarlett now appears to have surrendered, and still less to admit that a British subject cruelly injured on Tuscan territory is indebted to the charity of the Grand Duke for that protection and compensation which he has a right to claim from justice and international law."
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Mr. Scarlett does not say that.
LORD STANLEY: No; but Lord Malmesbury does. That despatch was sent from the Foreign Office to Sir II. Bulwer on the 29th May. I am endeavouring to show that Mr. Scarlett was not disavowed for taking 222 l instead of 500 l., or for accepting in a most unusual way, as part of the bargain, the release of two political prisoners, but for expressly surrendering that important principle of international law which it was our main object throughout the whole negotiation to establish. I have now gone through in succession the principal points which were touched upon by the noble Lord: and I will no longer detain the House from the larger and more general issue which has been raised. But this I will say, that searching carefully, and inquiring minutely, I have looked in vain through the record of this negotiation contained in the published correspondence— I have sought in vain in every detail of these transactions with which I had it in my power to make myself acquainted—for one act, for one word, or one sentiment, on the part of my noble Friend or of the Government, which could be held unworthy of an English Minister, or derogatory to the honour of the Crown. Strong in this conviction, and satisfied that nothing more is required for the justification of the Government than a full and fair perusal of the evidence adduced, I leave this case confidently and without fear of the result to the decision of Parliament and of the country.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he was one of those who lamented the course taken by the noble Lord the Member for London,
654
because, if ever there was a question which ought to be brought forward and considered separately on its merits, without the general imbecility of the present Government being mixed up with it, it was the case of Mr. Mather, and the conduct of the noble Lord whom the country had the misfortune to see installed in the Foreign Office. It appeared to him that that question had been diluted by going into extraneous topics relative to the shuffling of Her Majesty's Government, which was at present patent to the whole country. He would ask the House, putting aside all party feeling, whether it ever heard a statement so lame and impotent as that made by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Stanley)? The noble Under Secretary had said that that House was not easily convinced; but would the country be easily convinced that the department over which the Under Secretary did not preside—and he (Mr. Osborne) lamented that, because he thought the noble Lord's hereditary spirit would at least impel him to conduct the affairs of the country bettor than the Earl of Malmesbury—had treated this case with common decency or propriety? The noble Under Secretary had referred to our expedition to Portugal; but he was bound to have told the House that the convention by which the Austrian troops had possession of Tuscany was peculiar in every respect, and such as had never been entered into by one independent State with another. When the Grand Duke was restored, in 1848, by the intervention of the Austrians, a convention was entered into, to the effect that 8,000 Austrian troops were to march into Tuscany and take possession of the country, and were not to be amenable to any Tuscan tribunal, but solely to the Austrian Minister of War. There was also a remarkable stipulation, that those troops were not to leave the country without the mutual consent of both Governments. Consequently, though the Tuscan Government might say that they no longer required the services of the Austrian troops, they could not be removed without the consent of the Austrian Government. The very head and front of Lord Malmesbury's offence was entering into this petty huckstering with the Tuscan Government, and not calling the Austrian Government at once to account for the insult. The noble Under Secretary had attempted to lead the House to believe that Mr. Mather was the person who first suggested the subject of pecuniary compensation; but the papers before the House

655
showed that the suggestion of pecuniary compensation first appeared in a despatch of Mr. Scarlett to Lord Granville, who took a proper view of the case, inasmuch as he early displayed an intention, in case of any difficulty, to apply to the Austrian Government for reparation. From the papers it appeared that Lord Malmesbury asked Mr. Mather whether he wished the Government to go to war, which was a most monstrous expression for the Foreign Minister to use to a British subject. Lord Malmesbury then, in the true spirit of a pedlar, asked, "What will you take for your injury?" Lord Malmesbury, therefore, suggested pecuniary compensation— a suggestion which was accepted by Mr. Mather with pain and reluctance. But on Mr. Mather naming 5,000 l, for which he stated his reasons, Lord Malmesbury did not tell him that he considered the sum at which, considering the national character to be involved, be had fixed the compensation, to be an exorbitant sum; but, behind his back, and without giving him any information on the point, wrote a letter to Mr. Scarlett, designating this as an exorbitant demand, and naming 1,000 l. as the sum for which a British subject might be cut down in the streets of Florence. Lord Malmesbury, in one of his despatches, stated that the sum named by Mr. Mather was exorbitant, but Mr. Scarlett would be able to judge "what can be got." If the noble Lord below him (Viscount Palmerston) had written such a despatch when he presided with distinction and honour over the Foreign Affairs of the country, what would have been said by the then Opposition? "A pecuniary compensation is at least tangible," said Lord Malmesbury to Mr. Scarlett; "you must hold firm language." Firm language, indeed, on the theme of "what can be got." That was in the true spirit of the peddling instinct which presided over the Foreign Office. That was on the 9th of March; but soon after, Lord Derby made his memorable speech at the Mansion House on the doctrine of compromise, and Lord Malmesbury, acting on that doctrine, wrote a very laconic despatch, in which he instructed Mr. Scarlett to "split the difference," and came down to 500 l, in a spirit which was worthy of the Board of Trade; and Mr. Scarlett endeavoured to come to some arrangement with the Tuscan Minister on that footing. The noble Lord, who said he did not know much of this matter—an assertion he was very ready to believe, for he doubted if he
656
had read the whole of the papers—remarked that Mr. Mather's character had not been much damaged, though Lord Malmesbury had endeavoured to make it appear to the Tuscan Government that Mr. Mather had been the first to ask for a pecuniary compensation.
LORD STANLEYexplained: He never intended to say that Mr. Mather's character might not have been damaged; but he said there was not the slightest intention to damage it on the part of the Government, and that Mr. Mather had borne testimony to the fair and candid way in which the noble Lord had acted towards him.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: If Mr. Mather was satisfied with such an apology at the eleventh hour, he was not the man he took him for. He said it was Mr. Mather who first suggested a pecuniary compensation; whereas it was clear Lord Malmesbury had proposed it; and he knew that the English at Florence bad passed Mr. Mather by in contempt, under the impression that he bad first put the question on the national honour, and then said he was ready to take 500 l., while Lord Malmesbury was ready to encourage that belief in the mind of foreigners, and of the Tuscan Government, that Mr. Mather had made an exorbitant demand. There was another matter which had never been explained to the House to this day-—the case of Corporal Baggs; he believed that to be one of the worst insults ever offered to the British power. What security had we for the life or honour of a British subject, when Lord Malmesbury was ready to act in such a way? The boast of Civis Momanus sum was gone now—it seemed merely to ticket a man to be insulted with impunity. The greatest temper, knowledge of law, and firmness, were required for the office of Foreign Secretary; and he regretted the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) had ever left his natural post, for no other man was able to take up the position with foreign Powers he had done; and if he had been at the Foreign Office, such disgraceful despatches would never have been written for the purpose of ascertaining what would be got from the Tuscan Government. That noble Lord would speedily have obtained reparation from the Austrian Government, who expected some demand to be made upon them. To show that the Austrian Government expected that a demand would be made for reparation, Prince Lichten-stein had, with the sanction of Marshal

657
Radetsky, put Baron de Karg, the officer who commenced the outrage, under arrest for a week. It was the Austrian Government they were hound to call upon to show Lieutenant Forsthüher was justified in his conduct; and if they failed to do so, then to demand some mark of regret for what had occurred; hut the Austrians, so far from expressing contrition, had commended Lieutenant Forsthüher's conduct, and he was going about Florence as a sort of hero, as "as the man who had cut down the Englishman."["No, no!"] Yes, he knew it to be the case; and it was said Lord Malmesbury had given Lieutenant Forsthüher "a step." The noble Lord was distinguished not so much by absolute incapacity as by great infirmity of purpose and great ignorance. He might have asked for the opinion and advice of the Queen's Advocate; hut it did not appear that he had thought proper to do so, but went on with the pen of a ready but ungrammatical writer to suggest 1,000 l. and then to split the difference; and up to this day the only person who had reason to feel proud, and of whom the country had reason to feel proud, was the father of Mr. Mather. What did the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton do in a somewhat similar case in 1847? When Mr. Russell, our Consul pro tem, at New Grenada, was assaulted and imprisoned, and had his papers taken from him, General Santander refused to grant any reparation until a British fleet appeared off the coast, and then Mr. Russell's papers were restored, and 1,000 l. were paid to him as a compensation for the indignity he had sustained. Lord Malmesbury was bound for the credit of the country to have; taken a higher tone, and ought to have insisted upon an inquiry by the Austrian authorities, instead of peddling with the Tuscan State. He was at a loss to know which was most culpable—the low views entertained by the Foreign Office, or the total mismanagement of Mr. Scarlett. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a short time ago, in reply to a question as to the education of diplomatic servants, that none but men of classical attainments, and such as had been brought up at the Universities, would be admitted. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I never used such words at all.] Then the right hon. Gentleman had been grossly misrepresented; indeed, be was a man of too just a spirit to follow such
658
views, and, to use a popular phrase just now, there was "looming in the distance" a chance that the right hon. Gentleman would break away from the very bad company about him. But as to Mr. Scarlett, he was on excellent visiting terms with Prince Lichtenstein and the Duke de Casigliano, hut he was not fitted for the conduct of any serious business; and, as Mr. Mather said, he at first treated the case very coldly. He seriously impressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expediency of sending Mr. Scarlett to some quiet place where there were no foreign troops, and to put Lord Malmesbury on the half-pay list, if there was such a thing at the Foreign Office. He regretted very much the question had been brought before the House in its present shape, and that he was prevented by the forms of the House from moving a direct vote of censure on Lord Malmcsbury for trifling with the honour of the country, and for having disgraced us in the eyes of the whole Continent of Europe.
The MARQUESS of GRANBY: Sir, it is not my intention to enter into this part of the question that has been brought before us by the noble Lord the Member for London, or to make any remarks on Mr. Mather's case; but I am very desirous of making a few observations on the subject of the commercial policy which, for the last few years, has prevailed. And I am the more anxious to do so just now, inasmuch as an election is imminent, and I may not have another opportunity of addressing this House on the subject before that event shall have arrived. I must say that there never was a time when so many rash and reckless statements were made, of the advantages which, it is alleged, we have derived from the adoption of the commercial policy of 1846; and I really am anxious that the country should know what is its present position in a commercial point of view, in order that the people of this country may he able the better to decide whether that policy shall be maintained, or not. And I say that, if it can be shown that that policy has benefited the people of this country at large, it should in that case, be continued, and carried out gradually to its full extent; but if it has had, and will have, as I in my conscience believe it has and will, an evil effect on all classes in this country, then I say that that policy should be gradually modified, and eventually reversed. The noble Lord

659
(Lord John Russell), in the remarks he had addressed to the House on this subject, though he made a very violent attack on Her Majesty's Government, and said that they were desirous of concealing their opinion, yet he said very little as to his own opinions on the point—he did not tell the House whether he was prepared to carry that policy fully out—or that he was going to the hustings with a recommendation that the farmers should have justice, that the malt tax should be repealed, that he should be allowed to grow what crops ha pleased, that all classes should be put on an equal footing under this policy, that all the protective duties still remaining on manufactures should be taken off, and that the 20,000,000 l. of our customs, and the 13,000,000 l. of our excise duties, should be swept away. On all these points the noble Lord was very careful to say nothing, and to say very little with regard to the present state of alleged prosperity in this country. The hon. Member for Grates-head (Mr. Hutt) put a notice on the paper, too, the other day, in which he declared the prosperity which the country derived from these free-trade measures; but, somehow or other, that Motion has never been made, and it now appears that that notice has been quietly withdrawn. The fact is, you are afraid of the case coming to argument—you are afraid to meet it—for you well know that your policy has failed, and you dare not meet the assertions that are made on the side opposed to you. I call upon you to point to any class in this country that can be said to be in a state of prosperity. I assert, in the first place— and the fact has been admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite—that the agricultural interest is not in a prosperous condition. Are your colonies so? Is Jamaica—is Antigua—is Trinidad, or any one of those that are similarly situated, in a state of prosperity? It was only the other day that the noble Earl at the head of the Government presented a memorial from the clergy of all denominations in Jamaica, in which they stated that not only were the inhabitants of that colony not in a state of prosperity, but that they were actually relapsing into a state of barbarism, and this owing to your recent free-trade measures. Can Scotland he said to be in a state of prosperity when we see a Highland Emigration Fund advertised in the newspapers, and when we find the hardy Highlander unable to support himself in his own coun-
660
try, and ready to leave the land of his forefathers, and to seek in Australian climes that reward for his labour which is denied him in his native land? What is it that these Scottish emigrants want? Employment; and yet the things that you are daily bringing into the country under your present commercial system are the produce of foreign labour, and not the work of native hands. Look, again, at the state of the working-men of Spitalfields. These are not your agricultural labourers, or your farmers that I am referring to; and what do they say? They have passed but very recently a resolution, in which they state that they are painfully convinced that the distress that prevails among the operatives engaged in the silk manufacture is unprecedented in character—that their wages have been reduced 25 per cent since 1845, that one-half of the trade are unemployed—and they declare that it is the duty of the present Government to take steps for putting a stop to the existing system of reckless and unrestricted competition, by introducing a principle of external protection and of internal regulation. If, again, you turn to the shipping interests, are they a state of prosperity? Is it not admitted that the British tonnage inwards has decreased since 1849, whilst the foreign tonnage has increased to an enormous extent? Is it not true, also, that British tonnage outwards has but slightly increased in comparison with the increase of foreign? Take the list of the number of ships and steamers built of late years, you will find that the number built in 1849 was 730; in 1850, 689; and in 1851 but 672. It was but the other night that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney), who is not only a free-trader, but one who has the interests of the industrious classes deeply at heart, said in this House, that the labouring population in the agricultural districts had not advanced in comfort and independence, and he related the state in which the people were, even in the manufacturing districts, where the rate of mortality was from four to four and a half per cent, while in the agricultural it was but two per cent. What, interest then can they point to that is prosperous? Perhaps I may be told that the manufacturing interest is so; but I must be permitted to say that I much doubt the fact. You tell me that your exports and imports have in-increased, and I don't deny that they have; hut if you will take the time and

661
trouble to look a little deeper into the matter, I think you will see that the prosperity you lay claim to has not been in proportion to the increase of trade—that profits have not been increased, but have, on the contrary, diminished, and that your commerce is rather in a state of feverish excitement than of a healthy prosperity. We are told the large importations of corn are proofs of the advantage derived by the country from free trade; but an hon. Member now compelled to absent himself from the House owing to illness (Mr. G. P. Young), and whose place I have inadequately endeavoured to fill, has written a letter in which this point is set in the clearest light. The cereal produce imported last year was 9,618,026 quarters, of which 5,330,412 only were of wheat. In 1846 there were imported 2,344,142 quarters, which, deducted from the above, loft an increase of 2,986,270 quarters only. But in Ireland there was a decreased production of 1,376,537 quarters last year as compared with 1847. In England we have no account of wheat grown; but, taking the return of wheat sold in 290 market towns, there was a decrease as compared with the year 1846, of no less than 1,471,921 quarters, which, deducted from the 2,986,270, leave only as increase 137,812 quarters; or, doubling it, as I have a right—as these towns do not include half the towns in which wheat is sold—a decrease of 1,334,109 quarters. I want to know what answer can be made to that statement; and if no answer has been, or as I firmly believe can be given, to it, I do hope that we shall hear no more of these assertions about the increased quantity of bread consumed by the people of this country. We were told, too, that if we took the corn of foreign countries, our exports to such countries would increase, and be taken in exchange for the corn imported; but what do I find are the results as regards Prussia, Russia, France, Holland, the four countries from which we import the largest quantity of wheat and flour? Why, our exports have not increased; they have diminished. I find that from Prussia, in 1846, we imported 832,731 quarters of wheat, and that while, in 1847, our exported goods to Prussia were of the value of 544,000 l., they tumbled down, in 1850, to 424,486; that from Russia, in 1846, we imported 638,000 quarters, and that our exports to Russia, in 1847, were 1,725,000 l., and that they
662
fell, in 1850, to 1,454,771 l.; that from France, in 1846, we imported 595,000 quarters, whilst our exports to France, which, in 1847, were to the amount of 2,715,926 l., fell, in 1850, to 2,401,956 l and that from Holland, in 1846, we imported 277,000 quarters, while our exports to that country, which, in 1847, amounted to 3,576,469 l., fell, in 1850, to 3,542,632 l., showing that our exports to the four countries from which the great bulk of our corn is imported have absolutely diminished; and I may add that it has been to the United States and to the British East Indies to which the principal portion of our exports have boon made; and the United States has rigidly maintained the principle of protection. Now, with reference to the condition of the working classes, we have heard much of their improved condition: it may be the case that they have benefited to some extent in some few districts; but, generally speaking, it has not been the case. I have letters here from gentlemen, clergymen, and others, who are intimately acquainted with the poorer classes of the community whore I live. I won't trouble the House by reading them; but they state unequivocally their opinion that the condition of the agricultural labourers is worse than it was before the repeal of the corn laws. It was said that one of the great benefits which free trade would confer upon the poorer classes would be the cheapening of the cost of their articles of clothing. Now, Sir, I do not see the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) in his place, and I am sorry for it, because I should wish to call his attention to the fact, that, although the poor get their gowns and their fustian jackets cheaper now than they did before the adoption of free trade, yet they have to buy infinitely worse materials now, which do not last nearly so long as did those that were purchased under the protective system. Two of their present gowns won't last as long as one of the old ones, therefore this promised advantage as to the cheapening of the cost of clothing by free trade proves to be altogether chimerical. The poor generally prefer higher wages and dearer provision and clothing to their present wages and the present price of food and clothing. Now there are four tests by which I wish to try free trade, and I think that you will admit that they are tests of very great importance in helping us to come to a right con-

663
clusion upon the subject. I refer to the poor-laws, to emigration, to the amount of crime, and to the deposits in the savings banks. Now, the amount of money paid for the support of the poor in England and Wales, in the first three years after the adoption of free trade, 1845, 1846, and 1847, was 20,556,454 l., and in the last three years, 1849, 1850, and 1851, it had increased to 21,696,553 l. Then I go to Ireland, and find that the sum paid there for the relief of the poor during 1845, 1846, and 1847, was 1,317,925 l., but during the last three years it has increased to 1,555,000 l. Then, with regard to crime in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, the following were the results shown in each year respectively:—

England and Wales.

Scotland.

Ireland.

1844

18,919

3,575

8,042

1845

17,402

3,537

7,101

1846

18,144

4,069

8,639

1847

21,542

4,635

15,233

1848

22,900

4,909

18,206

1849

21,001

4,357

21,202

1850

20,537

4,468

17,108

With regard to emigration, the House is already aware of the enormous extent to which emigration has proceeded. In the year 1846, there were only 129,851 emigrants; in 1851, the number rose to 333,959; and, Sir, it is not with regard to the emigrants to Australia, nor to our own Colonies, that this increase has taken place. There has been an actual diminution with regard to the number of emigrants to Australia—it is to North America that the bulk of poor emigrants have gone, and not to your own Colonies. The bone and sinew of your fellow-countrymen have gone to another country—to a country where they will be protected—where they will find employment, and where their labour is protected. Well, Sir, I now come to the savings banks. Sir Robert Peel, who, as an authority, is always looked back to with the greatest respect by this House—Sir Robert Peel ever regarded the savings banks as one of the surest tests of the prosperity or decline of the labouring population. Now, Sir, I find that, in the series of years from 1834 to 1846, there was an increase of about 1,000 annually in the depositors in the savings banks, and of 1,000,000 l. in the amount of the deposits; while in the last four years of free trade there has been a diminution to the same extent, as is shown in the following table, namely—
664

Depositors.

Amount.

1834

—

£15,369,844

1835

—

16,456,104

1836

—

18,805,884

1837

—

19,624,015

1838

—

21,303,312

1839

—

22,425,812

1840

—

23,471,050

1841

—

24,474,689

1842

—

25,319,336

1843

—

27,177,315

1844

—

29,504,861

1845

1,062,930

30,748,868

1846

1,108,025

31,743,250

1847

1,095,554

30,207,180

1848

1,056,881

28,114,136

1849

1,087,354

28,537,010

1850

1,092,581

27,198,563

Now, Sir, I have gone through these four tests, and I do ask the House whether they are of opinion that the labouring population is in a better or a worse condition than before the repeal of the corn laws. Sir, I have said, and I repeat it, that it is not the large landed proprietors that are suffering from free trade—it is the small occupiers—it is the freeholders of this country. Aye, Sir, if it was your large landed proprietors, this House of Commons would soon reverse free trade. I am sorry to be obliged say, that if it was the large landed proprietors that were suffering, I should not now be advocating the cause of the poor agricultural proprietors and the labouring classes. The battle that is to be fought is not one between the agricultural and the manufacturing interest—between one class and another—but the battle that is to be fought is between capital and labour—between industry and idleness. Do not think that you can escape the issue, for the people are becoming enlightened, and have studied the question for themselves. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London may go to his election with a loaf upon a pole; but he will be laughed at by the labouring people. Go and ask the man in the street who is without employment whether he cares much for bread as long as he cannot obtain employment. He will tell you that a sixpenny loaf is of no avail to him, if he has only 4d. to buy it with. He will tell you that without employment he cannot live, and that it is employment that he wants. The labouring classes of the country are beginning to study these questions. What I ask for is, that you will allow them to say aye or no to the question that shall be put to them—have they or have they not been benefited by free trade? Let it not be said the question is decided, and that

665
no one will now dare to impose a duty upon corn. We, Sir, will dare to impose a duty upon corn, if we have the people with us, as I believe we shall have. Let the question be put before the people, and let them fairly decide. There have been two remedies proposed for the present lamentable state of things: one is a return to a protective duty, and the other is a revision of taxation. Now, Sir, I say that the advantage which the community at large would derive from the one, would be infinitely greater than that which the upper classes would derive from the other. The one is an external policy, and the other internal. The one protects every one against the foreigner, the other merely provides that justice shall be done between one class of Englishmen and another class of Englishmen. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London, in his speech to-night, said—"I want to know whether you, who have long advocated protection to the great national interests, condescend to accept a pecuniary remuneration for the evil that you say has been done to you?" Now, I say this, that I would infinitely prefer, on public grounds, a return to protection, because in my conscience I believe it to be essential to the maintenance of the general prosperity of the country. But if you will not return to protection, then, I say, reduce the burthens that peculiarly press on the agricultural interest, or any interest that is suffering from your late policy, or else you will do great injustice. The present Government are, no doubt, placed in a position of great difficulty, because they are a Government that are young in office, and young in official experience; while they have opposed to them Gentlemen of the greatest abilities, of a very large amount of official experience and great influence; and I must say that they have not shown very great forbearance to Her Majesty's Government. ["Oh, oh!"] Why, did you not when they first came into power, force on an immediate dissolution? Did you not before they could pass those measures which even the safety and welfare of the country demand—did you not, by every argument, endeavour to force them to come to a premature dissolution? And having failed in that attempt, because the country would not go with you, did you not retreat from that unpopular position? Having failed in that attempt, you then did everything in your power to retard the dissolution. You opposed the Militia Bill, although it
666
was a measure which you yourselves said was necessary; and then you say that you have not pressed hardly upon Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London, in his speech to-night, did everything he possibly could do to damage Her Majesty's Government. He raked up everything he could find against them. He went from Florence to Ireland, and from Ireland he came back to England and our national reputation. He taunted the Government—"You have no policy; you have no opinion of your own." Well, Sir, I cannot say the same of the noble Lord, for I believe that the noble Lord has one opinion, which is this; that there is nobody fit for the government of this country except himself. The whole of the noble Lord's speech appeared to be directed to this object, namely, to make the country exclaim, "What a pity it is that the noble Lord is not sitting on the Government benches! The Government have received no little embarrassment from the noble Lord and his supporters; but I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will fulfil the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that they will carry out, now that they are in power, those measures, which, when in Opposition, they said were necessary for the good of the country. I rely upon that statement. I rely upon the good sense and good feeling of the country. You cannot contradict the statements that I have endeavoured, however feebly, to lay before you to-night; I only wish that I could have commanded the eloquence of my hon. Friends around me in doing so. I am so convinced of their truth that I know that no one will attempt to contradict them. And if I look with any anxiety to the coming elections, it is not so much with regard to Protection, because I have no doubt that ultimately this country will return to a system of protection; but it is because I would avert the misery that I foresee must come upon us during the existence of free trade. It is that feeling that has induced me to trespass on the House at so great a length.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, it is not my intention to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down into a comparison of the relative merits of the miseries of free trade, or the blessings of protection, or to compare the calamities of cheap food and abundant subsistence, with the blessings of a high price of corn and other concomitants of the system of which the noble Lord

667
is the advocate. I look, Sir, on all discussion of that question as an idle waste of the time of this House. The principle of protection is dead. I rely, like the noble Lord, on the good sense and judgment of the country, and I am quite sure the country will act the part of registrar general, and that at the next election the death and interment of the venerable principle of protection will be duly and universally registered. But, Sir, I wish to address some few observations to that which was the first topic of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and from which the noble Lord opposite has led the House by that which may in some respects have been a convenient diversion. Sir,I certainly must confess that I have read with anything but feelings of satisfaction the papers which have been laid on the table of this House relating to the affair of Mr. Mather. I own, Sir, that for the sake of the country—for the character of the country'— I wish the whole of this correspondence had been buried in oblivion. I am sorry to say that that observation applies to the whole Case, from the beginning to the end of it, for I must own it seems to me that it was not a comedy, but a tragedy of All in the Wrong. I must say that I find much to criticise in the conduct of almost all the parties concerned, except Mr. Mather and his son. I think the late Government took a wrong view of the case, I think, also, the present Government took a wrong view of it; and I am sorry to say that our Chargé d'Affaires at Florence took a wrong view of it too. What is the course which in the case of a personal outrage committed upon a British subject abroad—what is the course which I think the British Government ought to have pursued? Why, it is the first duty of the Government to ascertain clearly the facts of the case—to ascertain clearly the character of the injury which the British subject has sustained, and how far he was in the wrong, or, if not in the wrong, how far those by whom the injury was inflicted were unjustifiably aggressors, Having clone that, if the Government find that an outrage has been committed, reparation ought to be demanded. That reparation may consist, first, in a demand for the punishment of the offender; and next, also, in a demand for compensation to the sufferer. Upon these points it has been always the practice of the Secretary of State to consult the Queen's Advocate, to lay the facts of the case before him to ask him what, according to his
668
view and his knowledge of the habits of courts of justice in other countries—what might be a fit sum to demand for pecuniary compensation; and how far, according to international law, the Government would be justified in asking for the punishment of the wrongdoer. That does not appear to have been done by either Government in this Case, But the first question which arises is, what was the injury inflicted, or was there any injury inflicted? I think no man who has read these papers can hesitate one moment in acknowledging that A grievous injury was committed; that a British subject was exposed to a most violent, a most cowardly outrage, for which no adequate, in fact no provocation whatever was given. A British subject was accompanying a band of music in the streets of Florence; and he was struck, first by a sword by one officer, then by the fist of another, and then, in a cowardly manner, was cut down with the sword of the officer who first assaulted him. Now, what is the feeling of different countries with regard to an attack by an armed against an unarmed man? Why, Sir, we all know the old anecdote of the English butcher, who, while employed in the avocation of his profession, was struck by a man with whom he had had words, and whom he reproached with the good old English sentiment, "Why, what a mean, cowardly fellow you must be to strike a man who has a knife in his hand, and who cannot return the blow." That is the English feeling. What is the French feeling? Why, Sir, many of us know that there was a distinguished officer in the British service in the cavalry (Colonel Harvey), who had lost an arm, but who served in the Peninsular war, mutilated as he was, In an action in which he was engaged, he got into the melée, and a French officer rode up to him with Sabre uplifted, and was going to cut him down, But the Frenchman saw that his opponent had only one arm, and, seeing that, he dropped his sabre point, and passed on to seek out an opponent with whom he might contend on equal terms. That is the French feeling. Then, I shall be told that this case is a proof of the Austrian feeling in such matters. Sir, I don't believe any such thing. My conviction is that the cowardly conduct of that lieutenant who cut down, without provocation, an unarmed British subject, has met with as much disapproval and disavowal on the part of his comrades in Tuscany as they in their service dare show by their conduct towards their of-

669
ficers. I am persuaded that if Marshal Radetzky had known the true facts of the case at the time when he said that the officer was fully justified in what he did—I am fully convinced that such a brave man would have sympathised with Prince Schwarzenberg, who, when appealed to by the Earl of Westmoreland, who said to him, "We are both soldiers, and we, I am sure, never raised our sword against an unarmed man," replied, "No; such a thing could never happened to either of us;"—I am persuaded that had Marshal Radetzky known the truth of the matter he would never have written the despatch which we find among these papers; for, whatever we may think of the policy which is pursued by the Austrian Government, no man who knows the Austrian people and army can for a moment doubt their generosity and personal courage. Well, then, how was the outrage committed? By whom? By an Austrian officer in Florence. Who should be responsible? Upon a primâ facie view I believe the Government of the country in which the outrage was committed. But responsibility is the companion of power. Those are responsible for injuries who could have prevented them, or who could have punished those who inflicted them; but where there is no power there ought to be no responsibility. That Austrian garrison was in Florence, and, as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) their continuance there depended upon the will of the Government of Austria, and not upon the will of the Government of Tuscany. It is not now known for the first time by these despatches—it is a fact which the English Government knew before I quitted office— that the Austrian troops, while there, were not amenable to Tuscan authority. We perfectly well know they are not. In the course of last autumn a rude assault was offered by a detachment of Austrian troops to members of the Grand Ducal family, who were stopped in their carriage while taking a drive and compelled to get out, and in that carriage out of which they were taken, the Austrians oldiers put a drunken comrade, who was too drunk to be able to return to town on foot. The Government of Tuscany could not punish the offenders; they were compelled to apply to the Austrian Commander-in-Chief, and the delinquents were punished militarily by their own officers. It being known, then, that the Tuscan Government have no power or authority over the Aus-
670
trian troops, it seems to me, firstly, that primâ facie the Austrian Government is the party from whom redress should have been demanded. That redress was of two kinds: in the first place, the Government ought to have demanded the punishment of the officer—the punishment of a man of whom this at least was known, that he, an armed man, had cut down an unarmed British subject. The Austrian Government might have made reply. "No doubt," they might have said, "an outrage has been committed; but there are certain regulations in the Austrian service which render it imperative on the officer to do what he did, and if he had not done so, we should have punished him." That would have been undoubtedly an answer that would have required further explanation. The English Government would have been entitled to say, "Show us your regulations." But if those regulations had been shown to bear out that assertion, and if the Government of Austria could have proved that the officer had no alternative but to do what he did, or receive punishment from his own superiors, I admit that any demand for the punishment of that officer could not with propriety have been pressed. But then you would have had the right to say to the Austrian Government, "You may make what regulations you like, provided they are not attended with injury to a British subject; but when a British subject suffers by those regulations they become improper, and we expect that you shall at all events make an apology." I must say that from the handsome manner in which this matter has been dealt with, as far as the Austrian Government is concerned, I think that they would have made, had that course been taken, as ample an apology as, under the circumstances, was due from one Government to another. Well, but then I think I have a right to criticise the conduct of the late Government; because, whereas the noble Lord who introduced the subject to-night remarked upon the difference of tone assumed by the present Minister towards Florence as compared to that assumed towards Vienna—I must observe that in making the communication to the Government of Austria there were no instructions given to the Earl of Westmoreland with regard to any application he was to make to that Government. Lord Malmesbury distinctly said in his despatch, "I have no instructions to give you," and no application was made to the Austrian Government, There, I think, an

671
error was committed. Another part of the reparation demanded would have been to require compensation to the individual for the injuries sustained by him, and that would have been a proceeding borne out by innumerable precedents. You may say that though pecuniary compensation may apply as to cases of individual injury, the honour of a country should not be measured in pounds sterling; but, nevertheless, the Power giving such a compensation makes an admission that an atonement is due, and it is, perhaps, the only compensation which can be paid to an individual who has suffered a severe bodily injury. The late Government, in their first communication to the Tuscan Government, instructed Mr. Scarlett to demand "ample reparation," and expressed their expectation that that reparation would be promptly given. But they omitted to state of what kind that ample reparation was to be, and in so far I think Mr. Scarlett was left in a situation in which no agent of the Government ought to be placed, because he was left to determine what should be the reparation in question. He was not told whether it was to be an apology, the punishment of an individual, or a money reparation; he was to be the judge what the reparation was to consist of, and I think that was not a matter which ought to have been left to the discretion of an agent. It reminded me of a conversation I had a few days since with an agriculturist in the country, who was lamenting, like the noble Lord (the Marquess of Granby) the unfortunate condition of the farmers, and who, in reply to my question what we should do for them, said, "Give the farmer a fair chance;" and when I asked him, "But how?" his reply still was "Give the farmer a fair chance." The man clearly imagined that that was a sufficiently intelligible description of the precise remedy that was necessary. In the same way, "ample reparation" seemed to be a sort of term convertible into some definite quantity; it was like the x of an algebraical problem which, when it came to be worked out, was made "equal to nothing." It seems to me, then, Sir, that the demand might have been fairly made in the first instance upon the Tuscan Government. There was a presumption that they were liable to make this compensation. It was impossible for them to execute punishment upon the Austrian officer, because he was plainly beyond their reach; but they ought to have made a compensa-
672
tion to Mr. Mather, the Queen's Advocate ought to have been consulted; the sum to be demanded ought to have been such as he recommended, and that sum being demanded, the Government ought to have abided by that demand. Now, I come to the conduct of the present Government; and I must say that I think their course is still more open to criticism than the course of the late Government, because they did what was perfectly unusual in calling on the sufferer to assess his own damages. That never was thought of before. The sufferer in such a case could not be a judge of what was fitting as compensation to himself: that must depend on the judgment of impartial persons, and the law adviser I have mentioned was the proper person to fix it. I must say I think the noble Lord the Member for the City of London was very well borne out in his remarks upon the course pursued in forcing Mr. Mather to name a sum against his inclination and against his protest, and then showing him up to the Tuscan Government as having made an exorbitant demand. Indeed if that sum was thought exorbitant, I cannot for the life of me understand why it was communicated to the Tuscan Government. If we had been acting as mediators in a dispute between two Powers of equal weight, we might, as mediators, have boon bound to convey to the one the proposals made by the other. Supposing Austria and France had been the parties concerned, and a claim of 5,000 l. had been made by the latter for an alleged injury to one of her subjects; if we had been unable to prevail upon France to diminish the amount of her claim, we should have been bound to make known to Austria the demand, and we should have been bound to say that we thought the amount was more than Austria ought to be called on to pay. But I cannot understand, under the critical circumstances of this case, why, before the demand for this 5,000 l. was communicated to Tuscany, Mr. Mather was not told that the sum was considered exorbitant, and why the sum was not reduced by communication with Mr. Mather to that amount which the British Government; might have thought was just. I think that the course adopted by the Government was open to that objection. I am sorry to say that I cannot approve of the manner in which Mr. Scarlett executed his instructions, because he evidently went below the minimum which he was told to require. He was told that

673
the least sum he must ask for was 500 l., and if that were not acceded to he was to propose arbitration. That is a very intelligible instruction; but Mr. Scarlett asked less than half the sum fixed as the minimum, and then takes in part payment the release of the two Messrs. Stratfords. This last proceeding puts me in mind of what has been said of it, that "it ought to have made up the difference." But the fact, in regard to these Messrs. Stratfords, is, that they were accused of that which was in itself an offence—that is to say, they had in their houses a private printing press, which is prohibited by the law of Tuscany; and it was shown that with this printing press they had printed papers inveighing against the Government, for the purpose of distribution. No doubt they had incurred the liability to punishment; but they were tried by an Austrian court-martial at Leghorn. Well, the Government, when I was a Member of it, protested against this proceeding. We consulted our legal advisers, and found that by the fundamental law of Tuscany even the Tuscan Government could not establish martial law to the supersession of the ordinary tribunals, much less could a foreign garrison acting under the orders of a foreign Government do so. We protested, both at Florence and at Vienna, against the competency of the court, and consequently against the validity of the sentence; and I presume, from what I have heard tonight, that that protest was insisted upon; that its force had been admitted; and that these two young men were to be liberated in consequence of the incompetency of the court and the invalidity of the sentence; therefore, their release, while it was no great satisfaction to Mr. Mather, was, diplomatically speaking, not, I think, a fair arrangement, inasmuch as we should have had them released without it. Well, then, Sir, I should say that Mr. Scarlett acted unwisely in acceding to that arrangement; and I humbly think that Her Majesty's Government acted very hastily and not wisely in sanctioning that arrangement when it was first communicated to them. They seem to have been under the impression that whatever a British agent abroad agrees to, whether in conformity with or against his instructions, it is incumbent upon the Government to adopt all his acts. That is not diplomatic or international practice. If you can show that what your agent has done is at variance with his instructions, you are per-
674
fectly at liberty to disavow him and refuse to sanction the arrangement he has come to. The Government would, therefore, have been perfectly justified in refusing to agree to the arrangement made by Mr. Scarlett. I confess, myself, that I do think, if any pecuniary compensation was to be demanded, whether from the Tuscan or the Austrian Government, in a case of that sort, the sum of 500 l. demanded was altogether inadequate, whether to the circumstances of the individual injured, or as an acknowledgment from the Government of one country to another; and I think that that, Sir, ought not to have been reduced to the insignificant amount demanded by Mr. Scarlett. But so far I think that the Government, having adopted that arrangement, and having consented to the 500 l and the exchange of the Mr. Stratfords—I think that they acted with great haste, and with an imperfect examination of the documents, when they disavowed Mr. Scarlett in the last despatch, upon the ground that he had abandoned the principle of the responsibility of the Tuscan Government; because Mr. Scarlett did no such thing. Mr. Scarlett, whatever mistake he may have made in his anxiety to come to an arrangement, and accept what I think a very inadequate compromise, did not abandon the principle; he waved the discussion of the principle, but he by no means abandoned the principle itself; he distinctly affirmed it, instead of abandoning it. If the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Malmesbury) will look to Mr. Scarlett's note to the Duke of Casigliano, he will sec a transcript of the instructions sent him; he will see that that note, of the 18th of March, contains, word for word, the assertion on the part of the British Government that Tuscany is responsible for what happened to Mr. Mather. Well, when Mr. Scarlett and the Duke of Casigliano came to their final arrangement, it was agreed that the Duke of Casigliano should offer 240 l and the two Mr. Stratfords, and that the discussion as to the principle of responsibility should be waved. The Duke of Castigliano did not adhere to the bargain; he did so in regard to the money, but he perseveringly pokes into his note a reassertion by implication of his doctrine that Tuscany was not responsible. What says Mr. Scarlett in his reply, dated April 18?—?
"I accept your arrangement; but as you have thought right to reaffirm your principle as to the

675
non-responsibility of Tuscany, I think it right to refer you to my note of the 18th of March, in which the principle of the British Government is laid down that you are responsible; and I tell you that the British Government maintains that principle in all its integrity."
I am at a loss to understand how the Government could consider Mr. Scarlett as abandoning the principle, which he seems to me to have maintained fully. I think Mr. Scarlett was not to be blamed for that part of his arrangement. We demanded payment of money from the Tuscan Government, as a compensation for the injury done to Mr. Mather. They said, "We will give you a sum, but we give it as an act of generosity on our part, denying our responsibility, and denying that in any similar case we should be liable to make good the injury done to a British subject." I think, if the Government were not satisfied with the amount which the Tuscan Government offered, the more handy way of dealing with that case would have been to say, "We take the money in our sense; and remember, that if ever the same thing happen again, we will compel you to give us what we think ample compensation; and we don't care a pin what you say about your non-responsibility—we will make you responsible." I think if the British Government had said that, which, indeed, was pretty much what Mr. Scarlett did say, the negotiations need not have been broken off simply because the Tuscan Government would not pronounce the words which we wished to put in their mouths. I think, Sir, that the present state of things is not one which need lead to any serious interruption of relations between this country and Tuscany—relations, however, to which it is evident the Tuscan Government think we attach infinitely more importance than I am convinced is attached to them by any persons in this country. We should be very sorry, of course, to see those relations indefinitely suspended; but I do think we could manage to survive the calamity if it were to befall us. I quite agree with Her Majesty's Government in thinking it a matter of great importance to maintain the principle of the independence of Tuscany; but I do not think that you maintain very particularly the independence of a country by compelling that country to pay for something done by another country. It is something like making Tuscany the whipping-boy of Austria—when Austria sins Tuscany is to be flogged. I dare say the Austrian Government wishes well to Tus-
676
cany; but nevertheless I think the Austrian Government will bear with great fortitude anything you may inflict on Tuscany. If you wanted to inflict a practical lesson, I think it would have been better read by applying it to Austria. The practical lesson read to Tuscany was this—and it is applicable to all small States—you say to Tuscany, "You possess practically an independence, but you have, nevertheless, let in a foreign garrison, over which you have no control; we will teach you to do that again, for we will make you pay for the conduct of that garrison." No doubt there is a moral in that; but I am not sure that greater European good could not have been accomplished by reading a lesson to the other party, and by saying to a great Power, "If you take advantage of your superior force to impose upon a smaller Power, and occupy and garrison that small State, you shall continue responsible for the conduct of that garrison; and if that garrison misbehaves itself towards English subjects, we shall come to you instead of to the weak Power which you have overruled and overborne." Both lessons are good, but, in a European sense, that would have been best. I am very much interested, as the Government naturally are, in the independence of Tuscany, and I must say these papers do call for serious attention on the part of the Government to the unfortunate condition of large portions of the Italian States. The Italians are a people endowed with very great and eminent qualities; they are gifted with great intellectual ability; they have shown in former times that they produce men not inferior as statesmen and warriors, and in political knowledge and capacity, to the people of any other part of Europe. I apprehend their qualities remain the same, though the cultivation of those powers by the possession of opportunities of employing them are not the same as they possessed in former periods. It is lamentable to see the present state of Tuscany, the Roman States, and of Naples. It is difficult to say where the greatest misgovernment prevails. It has been said of Austria that they wish the people of Italy should draw a comparison favourable to them between the condition of the States which they govern, and those which other Governments administer; but, like the gentleman from the sister island, who complained of his bootmaker that, whereas he had ordered him to make one larger than the other, the bootmaker had made one less than the

677
other, so the Government of Austria, instead of making a comparison in such guise that the Italians should think the Lombards and the Venetians are better governed than the rest, only compels them to think that the other territories are worse governed than the other States. This is, I say, lamentable, and I do not believe there is another example in modern times of such a system of cruelty, tyranny, and violence of every sort as exists in the Neapolitan and Roman States. It is a disgrace to modern Europe. The position of affairs in Tuscany is not so had; hut the people there are exposed continually to acts of violence from a foreign garrison, for which they have no redress, and which, if committed in England, would arouse the indignation of every man from one end of the kingdom to the other. This occupation of the Italian States, especially of Tuscany, by foreign troops, did not escape the attention of the late Government. It is evident that that occupation cannot cease, except by common consent between the Government of France and the Government of Austria. France would not withdraw until Austria has evacuated Tuscany and the Legations, which it cannot be expected to do until the French have retired from Home. We have been told that nothing could be done until the month of May had passed; and there was much force in the arguments and statements then made. But May was anticipated by December. May has now gone by. I do entreat Her Majesty's Government to turn their minds to this question. It is one which really concerns—not merely the happiness and welfare of a most interesting- part of Europe—but which also involves great international questions, and which deeply affects the balance of power in Europe. I should hope that Her Majesty's Government, being on good and friendly terms with the two Governments mainly interested in a decision upon this matter, will exert that influence that justly belongs to the Government of this great country, and will endeavour to persuade the Governments of France and Austria to put an end to the anomalous and irregular state of things which now prevails in so great a part of the Italian peninsula. I shall be told that the condition of the Roman States is such that, if the French garrison were to retire, a great revolution and disturbance would take place. But let me remind the House of what possed in 1831 and 1832, when the five Powers of Austria,
678
Prussia, Russia, France, and England, gave to the then Pope advice with regard to the improvement of the internal organisation of his Government, which, if it had been acted upon and carried out, would have secured the tranquillity of the States which he governs. Some such arrangement might now with advantage be adopted. I shall be told, perhaps, that some steps have been already taken with that object; but I feel that they are practically illusive, and that no practical step has been taken with the view to those improvements which were then recommended, and which are now more wanted than ever. I ought, perhaps, to apologise to the House for the time during which I have occupied its attention. I am sure, however, that the subject I have mentioned is one that must engage the sympathy of every man in this country; and I am persuaded that if Her Majesty's Government will take it up in the spirit in which I think they are disposed to act, great good will result to Europe from their endeavours.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am extremely glad that in the course of this debate we have been favoured with the opinions of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. On these subjects he is a very high authority, and I am sure that the temper and tone in which he has treated the question to-night will lend an additional influence to the opinions he has expressed. The noble Lord, we have been informed by the right hon. Member for the City of London, is a very high authority, because he understands the business of the department in question. On hearing this, one is tempted to ask the right hon. Member for the City why, if so highly qualified, he turned the noble Lord out of office? and when he contrasts the abilities of his Foreign Secretary with the Foreign Secretary whose conduct we have now to defend, we cannot forget the remarkable circumstances under which the two noble Lords separated. These questions, in which individual injury is experienced in a foreign country by one of Her Majesty's subjects, although not so important at the outset as those in which the nationality of the country is concerned, are really, from that very circumstance, the most difficult and the most troublesome to deal with. The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne), who spoke in his usual airy tone, said it was easy to settle these things. Look at the

679
case of Mr. Russell. He said Mr. Russell was our Consul at New Grenada; the people there insulted and illtreated him; they seized his papers; and see, the hon. Gentleman said, how the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton acted. He immediately ordered a British force to the spot, and reparation was instantly obtained. Why, Sir, that was a case in which the nationality of this country was concerned. When a consul, a person who certainly in South America may be looked upon as a quasi diplomatist, and who represents the authority, if not the Crown, of England, is insulted and illtreated by those who may be said to represent the people, there can be no doubt as to the course that is to be pursued; and when the remedy is at hand, as it always is upon those coasts, nothing can be more prompt than the redress obtained. But in the case in question there were none of these circumstances. The nationality of this country was not involved, and although it was an outrageous, a wanton, and a cruel act, it still was, as Lord Malmesbury said, an accidental one; and I must say I was quite surprised at the manner in which the noble Lord the Member for the City of London alleged that there was an inconsistency in the language of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In my opinion these epithets are perfectly consistent with the circumstances of the case, and present a clear and accurate description of the incident. We are told that we did not apply for redress to the right quarter; that we ought to have applied, not to the Tuscan, but to the Austrian Government. Now I shall not defend the conduct of the Government by the example of Earl Granville, or any other Minister. The conduct of the Government, whether right or wrong, was at least founded upon principle, and upon a principle adopted only after mature deliberation and the most anxious inquiry. It was our opinion that if there be a State which maintains diplomatic relations with Her Majesty, with those public rights there must be correlative duties; and it was our opinion that, as Tuscany is recognised and treated by us as an independent State, an outrage committed upon a British subject in Tuscany ought to be brought under the notice of the Tuscan Government. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton has done justice to the tone which, throughout this business, has been exhibited by the Austrian Government—that they have behaved with great courtesy, with some approach
680
even to sympathy; and their treatment of the case being so encouraging, the noble Lord asked why we did not go for redress to the stronger Power—the Power which actually committed this outrage. I have no doubt that Austria would have been willing to concede to such a demand for reparation; Austria would have been very willing to have yielded to a demand which certainly would have been a virtual acknowledgment of the supremacy of Austria in the Tuscan State. It would have been very agreeable to Austria that we should have applied to Vienna for redress, because that would have been treating Tuscany as a mediatised State. But that is not the policy which Her Majesty's Ministers wish to maintain with reference to that country; and though the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton has, I think, in a manner more superficial than becomes one so well acquainted with these matters, commented upon the facility of obtaining redress from Austria, and the invidious position in which we placed ourselves in negotiating with the Ministers of a small Power like Tuscany, I think the noble Lord might have foreseen that circumstances might occur under which the power of holding Tuscany as the responsible party in a controversy might prove of very great importance to England, and circumstances, for example, might arise in which it might be of the greatest importance for England to show herself in the ports of Tuscany in a manner which might considerably influence the decisions of Austria. But if, at the very first moment at which a misunderstanding takes place, we apply for redress to the Government of Austria, that is, treat Tuscany as a province of the Austrian Empire, because a convention has been entered into which we have never acknowledged—that is a doctrine that I, for one, could not in any way sanction; and I believe that if the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton were in a more responsible position than that which he now holds, he, also, would not maintain this opinion. At any rate, it does not seem to me that the late Government acted on that principle, and I think that they were wise. But we were not idle at Vienna; although we did not officially call upon Austria to make reparation, we exercised the influence which we possessed at that Court in a manner calculated to facilitate and accomplish a friendly and satisfactory result. The next considerable point in this case relates to what has been treated in the discussion

681
as the only means by which the Secretary of State endeavoured to obtain reparation for this injury. Now, I wish not to say one word that would seem to reflect upon the conduct or character of Mr. Mather. I have no reason to believe that he is otherwise than a respectable Englishman, and who, placed under circumstances of great difficulty, and to which, from his previous habits of life, he was unaccustomed, appears to me to have conducted himself with discretion and good sense; and any attempt to criticise his conduct or his language would, I think, be not only wanting in good taste but in good feeling. But when I am told that the Secretary of State sent to Mr. Mather, and proposed a pecuniary indemnity as a means of settling this affair, I am bound in justice to my Colleague and to the Government, to say that that is a statement that conveys to the House and the country an impression not perfectly accurate. There is no appearance, in any of the papers that have been placed on the table, of such an incident. There is a statement of Mr. Mather, which I do not wish to refer to further; but I beg the House to take that view of the case which, as men of the world and Members of Parliament, they will take, and that they will understand that, in the interview between Mr. Mather and the Secretary of State, such a subject might have been brought forward and entered into with perfect propriety on the part of the Minister, and on the part of the gentleman complaining of the conduct of a foreign Power. I have here the minute made by Lord Malmesbury after that interview. I shall not read it, because that might introduce into this debate expressions which might hurt the feelings of individuals who are not present; but I say most distinctly that Lord Malmesbury did nothing and said nothing but what any of his predecessors might have said and done, and would probably have said and done. The question was treated in a natural and proper manner, and in a manner quite different from that which is conveyed by this discussion, and the statements that have been made. There were two points in the discussion between the Secretary of State and Mr. Mather. The one was the reparation due to the honour of the country for an injury offered to a subject of Her Majesty; the second was the reparation due to the individual injured. Lord Malmesbury very properly
682
said as to the first point—"The honour of the country is under my custody, and, therefore, we need not converse about that; but it is my duty to confer with you on some means by which reparation may be made to your injured son;"and, therefore, they naturally came to that mode which is the only mode in which reparation can be made. I hear great squeamishness expressed as to a man taking money who is suffering under an outrage of this kind. Why, it is a mode of reparation recognised by the habits and by the laws of this country. Gentlemen, on a subject in which their most delicate honour is concerned, appear before the courts of this country, and accept pecuniary damages. Does any one suppose that when damages are awarded under such circumstances, they are merely offered as a reparation for the injury? They are accepted because it is the only mode according to the custom of the country by which certain punishment can be inflicted on the person who has done the injury, and at the same time a certain recognition of wrong can be offered to the person injured; and to pretend that there is anything novel or monstrous in recommending an individual in the position of Mr. Mather, who had suffered as he had done at Florence, to accept as an avowed acknowledgment of the wrong inflicted by the Government a pecuniary fine from that Government, is a proposition which I think, upon cool reflection, no one will attempt to substantiate, and which I am sure the common sense of this country would not for a moment entertain. Well, then, firstly, Sir, as to the quarter to which we applied for redress—even the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, notwithstanding the many ingenious observations he made, learned as he is in public law, docs not for a moment deny that it was the right quarter. And secondly, Sir, as to the mode by which redress was to be obtained from that quarter—it cannot be denied' that the mode of redress was the usual one. But I am told that Lord Malmesbury showed great infirmity of purpose: that was the expression used by the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne). I say, on the contrary, there was no infirmity of purpose; because I find in every despatch that Lord Malmesbury is consistent, in trying to obtain the same end. In his very first letter to Sir H. Bulwer, dated the 26th of April, he desired him not to lose sight in any manner of the prin-

683
ciple upon which our demands had been made, namely, that an independent State is responsible for every outrage committed in its territory. Mr. Scarlett's despatch, written on the 23rd, and received on the 1st of May, stated that no objection was made to 500 l., as the minimum of compensation. Still, under these circumstances, the Secretary of State instructed the Minister, who he had supposed by that time had arrived at Florence, not to wave the recognition by Tuscany of the principle insisted on, although the compensation he had fixed upon had been conceded. Suddenly he found the whole circumstances changed—that the principle was given up, and much less compensation was accepted. But then the noble Lord said, "You are in error in supposing that Mr. Scarlett waved the principle of responsibility." Mr. Scarlett did not wave that principle; but what the Secretary of State required was, that there should be an acknowledgment of that principle. If it was a question between 250 l. and 500 l., it would certainly not be an object that would have justified having recourse to the measures which were recommended; but the pecuniary sum was not the great object. The great object in our eyes, not merely with respect to this particular instance, but with regard to circumstances that might exercise an influence on the fate of Europe, was that the Tuscan Government should acknowledge the principle of their absolute responsibility, and then we should have been justified in taking the sum we fixed. But, said the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, what indiscretion could be greater than when Mr. Mather had after reflection fixed upon 5,000 l., the Minister should let the Tuscan Government know that Mr. Mather had fixed upon that sum as a sum required, in his opinion, for compensation, and at the same time acknowledge, on the part of the British Government, that they thought that demand was exorbitant? What could be the reason of such strange conduct? said the noble Lord. It appears to me that the reason is obvious. The object of the Government was to get, not an exorbitant but an ample compensation for the party suffering, not as vindicating the national honour, or satisfying the outrage committed against this country, but as a compensation to Mr. Mather for a gross insult and injury to him; and, knowing that the views of the Italians as to compensation are very different from the views
684
entertained in this country, I certainly do not see that it was very indiscreet to let the Tuscan Government know that Mr. Mather claimed 5,000 l., although the British Government were not prepared to sanction a claim of that amount, which of course they knew it would be impracticable to realise. But of course the Tuscan Government would be and were more prepared, hearing of the extent of Mr. Mather's demand, to offer the sum they ultimately did—namely, 500 l., for that was the sum they were prepared to give until that remarkable change took place in the circumstances to which reference has been made. No doubt there may here be room for difference of judgment. Some may think that was not the most adroit way of obtaining the end; but when the noble Lord says he cannot understand the reason why the British Minister should let the Tuscan Government know the individual had fixed his compensation so high that the Government could not recognise it, I think the noble Lord cannot perceive the possible consequences that I should otherwise have thought would have been very obvious. The noble Lord has called our attention to the state of Italy; and he only does justice to the feelings of the Government when he assumes that they look with great interest and some anxiety to that important country. But he spoke in a tone as if the Government were responsible for the state of affairs there. The state of Italy is no worse than we found it. The noble Lord has been making these speeches on the state of Italy for a considerable time, and very just are his observations, and very ingenious his policy; but the state of Italy has not been improved hitherto by the counsel or conduct of the noble Lord. Not only has he made speeches on the state of Italy, but he has sent some of his friends on missions to that country; and when we find that, notwithstanding the vast ability of the noble Lord, and his great experience and eloquence, the state of Italy is rather aggravated than not, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government is sensible that they must proceed in such affairs with very great deliberation and foresight. That the time may come when the fairest part of Europe may not be possessed by hostile garrisons is a result which every man must desire who sympathises with freedom, and is grateful for what the Italians have done for modern civilisation. The former Government were

685
responsible for the position of the affairs in which Mr. Mather was so much concerned. It is a painful subject; for every one must feel for one of our fellow-subjects when he is injured, and particularly for a youth of such tender years, and who has, in my opinion, behaved with such good feeling throughout the whole of this transaction. But it is not well to impeach a Government upon such a subject, even with a dissolution impending; and no one knows that better than the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), because, after due reflection upon the subject be had announced, he added a very interesting postscript. Sir, I must not follow the enviable example of my noble Friend (Lord Stanley), and leave that postscript altogether unanswered; nor must I leave the reply to it altogether to my noble Friend the Member for Stamford (the Marquess of Granby). I am bound to notice the elaborate attack of the noble Lord. He has taken a review of what has occurred during the brief period that we have sat upon these benches. We have heard from him a statement of that kind before during the course of this Session. The very first night that I took my seat, the noble Lord rose and opened his batteries. He has since recurred to the attack, but his drums were muffled and the fire slackened. Now we have a last effort—but it is a forlorn hope, that will not take the citadel. The noble Lord has, amongst other things, criticised an address that I have recently issued to my constituents; and, if I understand him correctly, he would seem to convey to the House that I have declared that the abolished corn laws were altogether passed to maintain rents. I wish the noble Lord, who has read extracts from despatches to support the first part of his case, had quoted any passage from my address which might have seemed to substantiate this statement. I have said, as I am always ready to say, that laws that are passed with a view to maintain rents, are laws that cannot be tolerated. I have never said that the corn laws were passed with that object. The noble Lord himself has never said it; but hon. Gentlemen behind him have said it every night of their lives; and it was in reply to their observation that I wrote the sentence to which the noble Lord has referred in so mistaken a manner. Laws passed to maintain the rents paid in this country are not to be tolerated; but, at
686
the same time, laws that inflict upon the land burdens, imposts, and regulations that other property and other industry are not subject to, are equally unjustifiable. And if at any time I have recommended a revision of taxation with a view of equalising the burdens upon land, I have never recommended such measures as compensation for rent, which the noble Lord quoted as if words used in my address. I never have and never shall recommend them on such a ground. If, however, the consequence of the legislation of this country is a diminution of rent, and if it can be shown there is a pressure of taxation upon land which is not shared by the other great properties of the country, then I think there is a legitimate claim on the part of the property the value of which is thus depreciated, for redress and relief. The noble Lord has also said, that although I have referred to the great things that the present Government have done—I am sure I was not conscious of it—he is not aware that we have done anything of any consequence since we have been in power, except passing the Militia Bill—that he could not pass. But the noble Lord said, "I make you a present of your Militia Bill; but your great measure of Chancery Reform on which you plume yourself so much, you have only stolen from our Commission, and when you introduced it you made changes in it which, had it not been for my trusty Friend the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), would have marred all its good effects." Sir, if these measures for the reform of Chancery should pass, I believe they will confer upon this country the greatest blessing that society has for a long while experienced; and, no matter who the Ministry who brought it forward, or the Parliament who passed it, that Ministry and that Parliament will not be forgotten. But, Sir, there is something which I remember also—it was on the 15th of March, when the noble Lord, proud of the new Opposition of which he is the recognised leader, said it was incumbent upon me to declare the measures that the Government considered it necessary to pass; and when I, with a modest catalogue of those measures, said that Chancery reform was one that we meant to try to pass, the noble Lord received that intimation with derisive scorn. He was supported by all the sections of the new Opposition— yes, even by that section, small in num-

687
ber, but of great power, led by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and who trusted that the House and the country were not going to be embarked in a Chancery suit. I thought there was, and is, a fair prospect of the passing of our measures of Chancery reform; and I claim no more credit except this, that when the chance was offered us of passing this measure, we did it in spite of the opposition and the derision of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. But the noble Lord said, "Then there is another subject of great importance, besides your equivocal conduct towards the agricultural interest. Besides the support of the agricultural interest, and the false plumage in which you have arrayed yourselves with this Chancery reform, you have acted in the most unconstitutional, most equivocal, and equivocating manner, for some object of the hour, in tampering with the great question of education." Now, what have we done to justify all this indignation on the part of the noble Lord and all those brokenhearted inquiries which have been addressed to us by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. J. H. Smith)? The noble Lord wishes to convey to the country that, for party purposes—nay, for a viler consideration, for hustings purposes—we have been tampering with the question of education in this country. ["Hear, hear [" from the Opposition benches.]"Hear, hear!" Yes, you shall hear. The noble Lord can't endure that subjects of religion or education should ever be used for party purposes. He remembers the Appropriation Clause, and shrinks with horror from the repetition of such manoæuvres. Here is, according to the noble Lord, a Government that is having recourse to most unjustifiable proceedings; it seems that a Minute has been issued by the Committee of Privy Council on Education, which has been laid upon the table to-night; a Minute which I think it would have been more prudent if the noble Lord had read before he delivered his observations, because he would then have seen that this Minute does not alter the management clauses. They still remain as they were; but we have, consistently with the opinion we have always professed, offered an alternative to those who would not accede to the management clauses, which however we have not relinquished, and which are still regulations in force. Let the alternative we have offered in certain cases be considered by the House;
688
and, if the House does not approve of it, take your means to express your disapprobation. But, confident am I that every person who has the interest of the Church of England at heart—nay, I will not limit it to such—but say that every person who is sensible of the value of justice in the conduct of public affairs, will agree with us in the course we have taken. I do not now wish to enter into details upon the nature of the Minute—it will soon be in everybody's hands—and everybody can judge of it for themselves; but I must somewhat more particularly refer to the noble Lord's statement. The statement of the noble Lord is, that we waited until the vote upon education was taken before we passed that Minute and placed it on the table of the House; so that we possessed ourselves of the public funds, and are about to administer them in a manner which has not been sanctioned by this House, and has never before been adopted. I address myself to this grave accusation, and I assert that, without any exception, there is [no instance in which the Minutes of the Committee of Education of the Privy Council upon the management clauses have been laid upon the table of this House as a separate paper preceding the vote for education. This grave charge has been made in another place, by one whose high authority and eminent virtues I freely recognise, and it has been freely circulated. Let us look to the facts of the case. My position is this— that no Minute referring to the management clauses has ever been placed as a separate paper upon the table previous to the vote for education, but, on the contrary, has always appeared in those blue books which have been circulated long afterwards—on an average, some six months after the adopting of the Minute. The first Minutes with respect to the management Clauses A, B, C, and D were signed June 28, 1847, during the Administration of the noble Lord; and in that year, 1847, the vote for education of 100,000 l. was taken upon the 26th of April, while no announcement was made during that Session of Parliament of the management clauses having been signed; indeed those clauses were never presented to Parliament until they appeared next year in the blue book, amidst a mass of other documents. That was the first precedent, and a very important one. But these clauses received important alterations two years afterwards—in the year 1849. I am told upon official authority,

689
that the date of the signature of the Minute effecting the alterations was the 26th of May, 1849; and true it is that the money vote of 125,000 l. was not passed until the 4th of June, in that year; hut the amended clauses were never laid before Parliament—were never noticed in Parliament—and they were only known in Parliament by being printed in the blue books containing the Minutes of the Council, which were not circulated until the month of January in the following year. Now, I acknowledge that there was an occasion on which a Minute of the Committee of Education was laid upon the table previous to a vote, and it was that which effected that important alteration, the institution of pupil teachers, involving new pecuniary arrangements, and rendering- necessary a new distribution of the funds. It was thought that Parliament ought to be made aware of that new system before the money vote was obtained, and Lord Lansdowne placed the Minute on the table of this House before the vote was taken; and I am quite sure the noble Marquess, who is incapable of misrepresentation and of making an unfounded charge against his political opponents, must have been misled by that solitary precedent, which does not at all apply to the management clauses, and which had betrayed him into an unfounded charge against the Government, to which he has given the weight of his authority very recently in another place. But the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), who is so well versed in the business of this House— who has been conversant with the proceedings of Parliament for I know not how many years—who is, in fact, the highest authority in this House wherever he may sit—the noble Lord must not shrink under the gabardine of the noble Marquess to justify the statement he has made. There have been great concessions made in the management clauses as regards Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, and Jewish schools. These were three great changes made under the Government of the noble Lord, and the latter might have provoked great controversy in this House; but in no one instance was the Minute of the Council of Education laid upon the table before the vote for education was passed. And now, I ask the House and the country, was the noble Lord justified in making that statement to-night? When he was accumulating every possible means of creating odium against his opponents, beginning with the unhappy squabble
690
at Florence, and ending—but I have not come to his ending yet—I do not think he wa3 justified in making that statement. He has accused the Government of tampering with the system of education in this country. He charges us with having stealthily obtained and cheated the House out of a money vote. He has lent his—I will say—illustrious name to the circulation of a statement that must agitato every hearth in the country, that the Government are tampering with a system of education that has received for so long a period the approbation of Parliament; and that they have done this in a manner the most disingenuous and the most disgraceful, by procrastinating their movements until Parliament has been betrayed into a generous vote of upwards of 150,000 l., which is now to be distributed and applied to a new system that they have disingenuously established— thus making the House of Commons an unwilling confederate with us in a revolution which the noble Lord deprecates and denounces. But what is the fact? I have shown that in no one instance where the management clauses are concerned has the Minute of the Privy Council ever been laid on the table of the House of Commons: in every instance, whatever changes might have been made, Parliament has always voted the sum for education in perfect ignorance and in total disregard of what might be the change in the management clauses which the Government, in its responsibility, might think fit to recommend. I have shown to the House that when the management clauses were first introduced, they wore signed after the vote was passed in this House, and were not communicated to the House of Commons until six months afterwards. That was in the year 1847. I have shown the House that great alterations in them took place in 1849, and that the Minute was signed only six days before the vote was passed, but was never communicated to the House of Commons until six months afterwards. That recently, within the last eighteen months, three most important changes have been made in the management clauses with regard to the education of Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, and Jews; and not in one single instance has the Minute been placed on the table of the House of Commons until six months afterwards; and that, in every instance, has the vote for education been continued by the House in total ignorance of those changes. I hope the House

691
will excuse me if I have attempted to vindicate the Government from the most serious charge which has been made against them; one which I think affects their character as Gentlemen, as well as their conduct as Ministers—conduct of which I trust that no Government from whatever side of the House it may be deputed—of whatever party it may be formed—would willingly be guilty in this House. Certainly, had we for a moment believed that in recommending—as I believe—the temperate, wise, and salutary alternative that we have recommended with regard to the management clauses for Church schools—if I thought that we had been taking advantage of the House of Commons—that we had been cheating the people, through their representatives, of their money to support a cause which they do not approve, and maintain a system which they look upon with dislike, I should have conceived that we were acting in a manner totally unworthy of our character as Ministers, and should have thought, that even in the last days of this Parliament, there would have been spirit enough in the House of Commons to have, by some expression of reprobation, shown the country how undeserving we were of the position in which we were placed. Sir, the noble Lord may rest assured that we shall go to the country, with no undue confidence, I trust, but at least in a manner which will allow us to meet the people without shame. And whatever the noble Lord may say of our change of opinions, I shall be prepared to vindicate them here or before my constituents in a manner which I trust will entitle me to maintain their good opinion which I now possess. I deny that there has been, on our part, at any time since the unfortunate circumstances of 1846— circumstances which I ever deeply deplored—I deny that there has been any attempt to change the position which we then took up. Sir, I do now, and ever shall, look on the changes which took place in 1846, both as regards the repeal of the corn laws and the alteration of the sugar duties, as totally unauthorised. I opposed them, as most of my hon. Friends about me opposed them, from an apprehension of the great suffering which must be incurred by such a change. That suffering, in a great degree, though it may be limited to particular classes, has in some instances been even severer than we anticipated; but, Sir, I deny that at any time after
692
those laws were passed, either I or the bulk of those with whom I have the honour to act have ever maintained a recurrence to the same laws that regulated those industries previous to 1846. You cannot recall a single speech to that effect; I defy anybody to quote any speech that I ever made, or any sentence that I ever uttered, that recommended such a course as desirable or possible. Why, what is your charge against my Lord Derby? You say that he recommended a fixed duty, and now that he has intimated his belief that the country would not support such a policy. Well, but is a fixed duty a recurrence to the laws which regulated the introduction of corn or sugar prior to 1846? If my Lord Derby had declared that he counselled a recurrence to those laws, don't you think that you would be ready to refer to his speeches—that night after night you would din in our ears your quotations from what he said? I defy you to produce a single sentence of the kind. When we come to this question of a fixed duty, that is talked of so much, I must say now what I have said before in this House, that I will not pin my political career on any policy which is not, after all, a principle, but a measure. I should be very glad, as a financier, that there was a moderate fixed duty on corn. I admit that; and I see opposite me numerous great authorities who have often admitted it also. But, Sir, when I find that, by circumstances which I do not wish now particularly to describe, by arts which I have no wish now to denounce, a fiscal proposition is invested with so much popular odium that it would be one of the unwisest things which a Minister could do to propose such a tax, thus disliked by the people—whether rightly or wrongly I will not say—I do not feel myself bound in honour to make that the basis of my policy, or to hold it up as the only measure which I can offer as a panacea to a suffering community. I could offer authorities in favour of a duty on corn, not culled from Gentlemen on my own benches, but from Gentlemen whose writings you particularly quote, from men whose political opinions entirely agree with yours, from distinguished public writers, from members of the Political Economy Club. I could quote you not merely the writings of Mr. MacCulloch, whom once you always quoted, though now you shrink from his authority, but from the pages of Colonel Torrens, from the writings of Mr. Mill. I might bring you

693
scientific authorities in support of such a measure, which you would find it very difficult to cope with; but we must look to something beyond the mere consideration of scientific propriety; and if a measure, though recommended by the highest economical authorities, is one that the popular will repudiates, I do not think that any Minister is bound to propose it. But what is this measure that you seem always wishing us to propose?— that you, with such anxiety, press for, and appear so jealous if for a moment we lose sight of it? It is, after all, nothing but a countervailing duty against certain inequalities of taxation; and if we can remove those inequalities of taxation, and redress the fiscal injuries and injustice which we believe exist, without having recourse to odious means, I consider that we are acting in strict consistency with all we have said if we adopt those means, that we are acting in perfect unison with all that we have counselled if we follow the course which we think preferable, and which we believe to be popular. Why, Sir, Session after Session, at the desire and with the sanction of my friends, when on the other side of the House, I have repeatedly urged upon Parliament a variety of means, all of the same character, by which that great result might be obtained without a recurrence to those unpopular measures which you, in your secret heart, seem so anxious that we should have recourse to. Is it anything inconsistent in me, and those with whom I act, that now we should counsel the course which for years, under great obstacles and difficulties, we supported on the benches opposite? Our wish is that the interests which we believe were unjustly treated in 1846 should receive the justice which they deserve, with as little injury to those who may have benefited more than they were entitled, as it is possible for human wisdom to devise. Sir, I call that reconciling the interests of the consumer and the producer, when you do not permit the consumer to flourish by placing unjust taxes upon the producer; while, at the same time, you resort to no tax which gives to the producer an unjust and artificial price for his productions. Those are the views which we supported in Opposition. Those are the views which we are resolved, if possible, to carry into effect. Our object is to do justice to those classes towards whom we believe that in 1846 you acted unjustly; and we attempt to do that without disturbing the system which is now established. Sir, I believe,
694
that the country will support these views. I believe that that temperate, that remedial, and that purely conciliatory policy will be by the country ratified. And when the noble Lord the Member for the city of London talks of our being a party without principles, why, he seems plainly to admit that he is an Opposition without a cry. In his woefulness he confesses his desolation; no principle, no opinion, no movement, no agitation. What is left to the noble Lord? With the imagination of a poet—for he is still a poet—at his last gasp, to my great surprise he discovered a resource. "Something," says the noble Lord, "we must rally round. We must rally round the only thing that is left to us, that profound apophthegm of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham)." The right hon. Gentleman has emblazoned on his standard the original, the inspiring inscription, "Don't put any confidence in Lord Derby. "A year ago was emblazoned on that self-same standard," Do not trust in the noble Lord the Member for the City of London." Sir, we shall survive the want of confidence reposed in us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon; and if the only way in which the noble Lord thinks he can make the present Government unpopular—if the only mode by which he thinks he can unseat the present Administration—is by announcing to the country that it does not possess the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, why, then, Sir, I must express my heartfelt conviction that this time next year we shall still have the honour of serving Her Majesty.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTregretted that the noble Lord the Member for London should have added the postscript to this Motion, as it gave an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to get up a corn law and an education debate. Without the speech of the noble Member for Stamford, the country was aware of the differences that existed in the Cabinet on these subjects. He, however, was anxious to call back the attention of the House to the more legitimate topic for consideration—the case of Mr. Mather. Any one who road the despatches upon the subject must feel, despite any respect they might entertain for Lord Malmesbury's private character, that if it had been his Lordship's object to lower the country in the estimation of the world, and sacrifice the character of Mr. Mather, he could not have

695
taken a better course. He felt bound to suppose that Lord Malmesbury desired to obtain the best redress he could for the injured party, as well as for the honour of the country, but his proceedings showed a desire to pay court to Austria. Any one who had listened to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been surprised at his making statements so utterly at variance with the real state of the case. He did not think that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this question was such as it should have been. So far from his showing any generous indignation that a British subject should be cut down in a foreign city, the right hon. Gentleman described the injuries inflicted on Mr. Mather as arising in "an unhappy squabble." He should like to know what there had been in the conduct of Mr. Mather deserving of criticism unless that he had too easily yielded to the demands of Lord Malmesbury, to name a pecuniary compensation for the injury he had received; and when he had done so, Lord Malmesbury, in a despatch to Mr. Scarlett, which he desired should be read to the Tuscan Government, said that Mr. Mather, the father of the young man so brutally used, had demanded a sum as compensation greater than he should have asked. Lord Malmesbury had on this question pursued a course such as might have been expected from an attorney of sharp practice, except that the Foreign Secretary had pursued that course in the character of an attorney for his own client—he first urged Mr. Mather to demand pecuniary compensation, and when he had acceded to that, said to him—"You shall have that, but not so much as you ask." He would here take the opportunity of observing that he had been misrepresented by Mr. Scarlett, in his despatch of the 10th of April, and that he had been perfectly correct in his statement that no apology had been offered to Mr. Mather. Mr. Scarlett, who he must say had been ill-treated by the Foreign Office, though in his opinion he had not altogether acted rightly, took the view he had done, that reparation should have been demanded from Austria and not from Tuscany. He would ask the Government what they now proposed to do? The country wanted to know whether they were going to do anything further, or whether they were going to sit down under this outrage to the honour and dignity of the country. Lord Malmesbury, in one of his early despatches
696
to Sir H. Bulwer, had written to say that if reparation were not afforded, the mission to Tuscany would be closed, and that ulterior steps would be taken. Would the Government take those ulterior steps? If not, they would suffer the deepest humiliation. And now he would ask why all the despatches relating to this case had not been laid on the table? Why were the letters of Mr. Mather and other letters excluded? It could not be on the ground that they were trivial, for others were given of so trivial a character that they could hardly be expected to be found in a list of despatches. It appeared to him that the whole affair from beginning to end had been a bungle on the part of Lord Malmesbury. He would remind the House that this was not the only outrage on a British subject that had occurred in Tuscany, for they found Lord Granville in one of his despatches telling Mr. Mather that more outrages had occurred in Tuscany than in any other State; and Mr. Scarlett expressing a hope that such outrages would not occur again. He would ask if the Tuscans had since then mended their manners? He believed not. If these outrages were allowed to pass unredressed, it would encourage foreign nations to repeat the insults heaped upon England. The character of this country was not so degraded under the administration of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. He took care to sustain the honour of the country. He did not know whether a British frigate was going to Leghorn; he did not know whether the Government were prepared to insist on redress; but if they did not, the discontent in the country would increase. They talked of appealing to the country; but he could tell them that if they went with this case of Mather and Baggs in their hands, it would not conduce much to their chance of obtaining the confidence of the English people.

SUPPLY.
Resolutions (10th June) brought up, and agreed to.
Resolutions (11th June), first three Resolutions, agreed to.
(4.)"That a sum, not exceeding 100,000?. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of Civil Contingencies to the 31st day of March, 1853."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he objected to the Vote. He would not avoid commenting upon the wickedness and, folly of that Exhibition, which was instituted in

697
order to gratify the vanity of one person, and after extorting money from the poor operatives and workmen, the Government had the intolerable meanness to come now for a public grant of money to defray the salaries of various persons who were foisted into snug berths at the expense of the people. He should move the omission of 1,505 l. from the Vote.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "one hundred thousand pounds," in order to insert the words "ninety-eight thousand four hundred and ninety-five pounds," instead thereof.
Question put, "That the words 'one hundred thousand pounds' stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 23: Majority 93.
Resolution agreed to.

DISABILITIES REPEAL BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he must object to the Bill being proceeded with at that late hour.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that he was exceedingly surprised that any opposition should have been made to the Bill. It had been introduced by a noble Lord in another place (Lord Lyndhurst), upon whose judgment and experience every reliance could be placed. The object of the Bill was simply to relieve an individual, Mr. Alderman Salomons, from certain disabilities of a most peculiar and painful character which he had incurred in consequence of acts which must be known to all hon. Members, and in the performance of which he was justified to a great extent by the diversity of opinion which prevailed in that House, and among many professional persons, with respect to the state of the law as affecting the Oaths required to be taken by hon. Members. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to be proceeded with.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he should object to the passing of the Bill, on the ground that it would interfere with a suit pending in a Court of Law on the subject, and should move the postponement of the third reading until Friday next. With respect to any disabilities which had been incurred by Mr. Alderman Salomons, he had incurred them with his eyes open, and well knowing the consequences of his acts.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon Friday next."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he would accede to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn; Third Reading deferred till Monday next.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [11th May], "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the system of Education carried on at the College of Maynooth:"—(Mr. Spooner:)—And which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering of a Bill for repealing the Maynooth Endowment Act, and all other Acts for charging the Public Revenue in aid of ecclesiastical or religious purposes,"—(Mr. Anstey,)—instead thereof.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Debate resumed.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that after hon. Gentlemen had refused to read his Bill in respect to polling places in counties, on account of the lateness of the hour, it was most inconsistent to press this question at ten minutes past two o'clock. He should, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
MR. BAGGEsaid, he should oppose the Motion for adjournment, which he treated as another obstacle thrown in the way of a decision on the Maynooth debate. The Members on his (the Government) side of the House were very much interested in the question, and were prepared to take a division upon it, which might go forth to the country as the expression of opinion by the House.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the absence of Members proved the unexpectedness of this discussion, at least on the Opposition side of the House, at the same time he would suggest the impropriety of the Government consenting to allow any division to be taken at that hour of the night. The noble Lord the Member for

699
the City of London (Lord J. Russell) was absent, for instance; yet that noble Lord had an Amendment on the Motion, proposing that a Commission should be appointed instead of a Committee to conduct the inquiry; and, as it was a farce to suppose that any Committee could sit that Session, of course the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) meant to alter his Motion, so that the Vote should be, whether or not the management at Maynooth was a fit subject for inquiry. With such benches, a division would be no test of the opinion of the House.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he should certainly take the division. He had heard of no such Amendment as that attributed to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell); it was not on the paper. He himself could not alter his Motion; he had no power. This question of adjournment was interdicted. It was the wish on that (the Government) side to divide on the main question.
MR. MAGANsaid, the course taken by the hon. Member was of a piece with the whole conduct pursued in reference to this question. The hon. Member had told him that he would not bring on the debate that night.
MR. SPOONERbegged to explain that what he said to the hon. Member was, that he did not expect the debate would come on, but he would bring it on if he had an opportunity.
MR. MAGANsaid, after his conversation with the hon. Member, a clear impression was left on his mind that the question would not be brought forward; and many hon. Members, to whom he had spoken, had left under that impression.
MR. ELLIOTTsaid, it was the most unfair proceeding he had ever heard of, to propose a division on such an important question at that hour and in the then state of the House. It was clear the Government wanted to steal a division, so as to make a show out of doors.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the House would recollect the character of the last discussion on this subject. It was intended on the last occasion to defeat discussion, and he had expressed his determination to take the sense of the House on the question. He should consider that those hon. Members who voted for the adjournment were opposed to inquiry.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYprotested against the debate being resumed at this very late hour, near three o'clock in the
700
morning, and after the House had been sitting from twelve o'clock at noon on the previous day. He objected altogether to a division upon this Motion for an adjournment being regarded as any decision of the main question. Such a decision would come entirely by surprise upon those Irish and English Members who had already left the House under the conviction that no important business could be transacted at that very advanced hour. The debate on this great question had occupied only a portion of one evening and of two morning sittings, and but three or four Roman Catholic Members had as yet been heard upon it. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had had full opportunities, both in and out of the House, for ventilating every abominable imputation against the Catholic religion and the College of Maynooth, to desire now to come to a premature decision before those slanders had received their full exposure. He had taken an opportunity, some weeks since, to state distinctly that, although he did not object to, but on the contrary desired, an impartial and searching inquiry, he should certainly require to have the matter fully discussed, and should resist any inquiry of an unfair or insulting character. He did not consider that the true circumstances connected with the College of Maynooth had been as yet sufficiently laid before the House, so as to enable it to form a correct judgment. He could assure them, that in submitting the remarks he had already made, he had been actuated solely by a wish to supply material information, and not by any desire to protract discussion. Should the debate be resumed at a future day, he would feel it necessary to submit some further observations, which he would endeavour to compress into the shortest compass. This, however, was not the hour at which to renew so important a debate, although it might be an appropriate time for those who meditated such a deed of darkness as this plundering inquiry. It was exceedingly harassing to Irish Members to remain here night after night, as they had frequently done during several weeks past, watching the movements of the two Members for North Warwickshire up to two and three, and sometimes near four o'clock in the morning, acting upon the caution conveyed in the well-known lines of Horace:—
Ut jugulent hominem surgunt de nocte latrones; Ut teipsum serves non expergisceris?"

701
He observed an unusual array of Members of the Government occupying the Ministerial benches, as if through some preconcerted arrangement with the Member for North Warwickshire, and to assist him in carrying out this unworthy surprise upon absent Members. He thought the Government ought not to sit silent on this occasion, but that some Member of it should rise and state their feelings in regard to the present proceeding. A few night since he had heard the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer interpose at two o'clock in the morning, for the purpose of stating that in his opinion the House had sat quite long enough. He wanted now to know the opinion of the same right hon. Gentleman, in regard to a continuance of the Maynooth debate at this most unseasonable hour, after other business had been already postponed, and when another measure affecting Ireland was fixed for twelve o'clock the same morning. He was aware that the Government had hitherto acted upon the policy of endeavouring to conceal their real sentiments in regard to all great public questions, including the continuance of the Maynooth grant, as to which the Premier had stated that he had "no present intentions" on the subject. He thought, however, that delusive system of concealment could not fail to be seen through at the coming elections, and that the country might well apply to the present silence of the Government those lines of Dryden:—
"Fair hypocrites! you seek to cheat in vain; Your silence argues your desire to reign."
He would call upon them now to break through their deceitful silence, and to declare frankly and fairly their present intentions in regard to the continuance of the debate at this hour of the morning, and by way of surprise upon absent Members. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had just announced most positively that he was quite determined upon having that very night a division on the main question. Now, in reference to that assertion, he (Mr. Scully) should take the liberty of observing, that having been cut short in the delivery of his speech the other day, he would be in the possession of the House upon any renewed debate, and though not wishing to trespass unduly on their time, he was equally resolved that no unfair division upon the main question should take place on that occasion.
ADMIRAL STEWARTsaid, he must protest against the principle laid down by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire
702
(Mr. Newdegate), that all who voted for the adjournment expressed an opinion that there ought not to be a fair and impartial inquiry.
MR. P. HOWARDthought it would be a surprise to the House to go on now with the renewed debate at nearly two hours and a half after midnight. He was determined this debate should not be carried by a sidewind; he would meet every argument fully and fairly. He had sat and listened to a debate of nine hours' duration the other night about one clergyman (the Rev. Mr. Bennett), and he was determined that this question, which affected the welfare of 500 clergymen, should not be carried by a sidewind. He did not deem it right to go into the general question at this hour, but he would give his vote in favour of the adjournment, upon the distinct understanding that he did not mean to shrink from an inquiry.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he was also in favour of an adjournment at that late hour; but he thought the Government wore hound to state whether they sanctioned the view of the question propounded in such an arbitrary manner by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that those who intended to vote for the adjournment would vote against an inquiry altogether.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the House did not agree to the adjournment, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Y. Scully) would be in possession of the House, and would continue his speech. It was then his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) intention, with the greatest respect for that hon. Member, to go home. He was, however, very anxious, as he saw that a division must take place, that it should take place at once without any discussion. He had no desire to put upon the proposed division for adjournment the construction which the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate sought to put upon it; but, of course, every Gentleman had a right to put upon it whatever construction he pleased.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that if the debate was to be resumed that night, he should be very happy to pair off with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and go home too. But if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) wished the debate proceeded with, he ought to stay and listen to the hon. Gentleman.

703
If he remembered rightly, the hon. Member (Mr. V. Scully) left off his speech at the year 1814; he had therefore thirty-eight years still to go on with.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he roust confess that he could not help looking with great regret at the course which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) was pursuing on this question, which he believed would defeat the object the hon. Gentleman had in view, namely, to have a division that would go with some moral weight to the country. He (Mr. Palmer) should be glad to have an opportunity of expressing his views on this question, if the debate were postponed to another day; but it was a cruel proceeding either to ask Gentlemen to remain in the House at that hon. of the morning [half-past 2 o'clock], or to go away and leave a small House to represent the opinion of Parliament on so important a question.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 103; Majority 74.
Question again proposed.
MR. P. SCULLYsaid, he must protest again pursuing the discussion at this late hour. He would suggest that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) should withdraw his Motion for this Session, and bring it forward next Session in a more tangible form.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that he did not wish to detain the House at that hour. He was satisfied with the division which had just taken place, and he would therefore not press the Motion.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, he was anxious that an inquiry should take place into the state of Maynooth; and whenever a fair Motion came before the House for that purpose, he would support it. He protested, however, against the course pursued by the hon. Members for North Warwickshire, as an understanding had been entered into that no business to which there was an opposition would be entered upon.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he did not think that the hon. Member had so much ground for complaint as he supposed, against the hon. Members for North Warwickshire. They had announced that they would put a certain construction upon the division that might bind them; but he did not think it would equally bind those who took a different view from them.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he felt bound to make protestation on behalf of the mean-
704
ing of words. There was something in them of a stubborn and independent character, which could not be got over by a mere arbitrary construction. If the Motion on which they had just divided, could, according to the fair meaning of words, be made to mean a Motion, aye or no, to the main question, so let it be. But he must confess that the matter was very different when such a determination was not in the least understood. Many of the most eminent men in that House had not yet had an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon this question, and when it was brought on between two and three o'clock in the morning, after a portion of the other Orders of the Day had been disposed of, on the ground that the time for useful discussion had passed, it was not fair to ask the House to go on with the discussion. He therefore, although he was friendly to an inquiry, gave his vote in favour of the adjournment of the House; and he therefore, in common with many others, protested, against the arbitrary construction which was attempted to be put upon that vote.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that it had been intimated to him that this Motion was to be talked out of the House, and seeing that the time had come when it was necessary to have some decision, he had given notice that it was his intention to take the next division, whether upon the main question or upon an adjournment, as a final decision.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he must also protest against the construction attempted to be put on the division which had just taken place. Could he, or others, have foreseen the possibility of such a construction, they might have acted differently, but he charged the hon. Members for North Warwickshire with having misled the House on the matter.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was only the factious opposition which the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) had met with that had induced him to declare that, whenever the subject again came on, he would proceed to a division on the question.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he trusted at such an unusually late hour (five minutes to three) a termination might be put to the discussion. He thought that some consideration ought to be felt for the labours of Mr. Speaker; and he further proposed that the House should meet the next day at one o'clock, instead of at twelve.
The House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Lunatics, Reported.—School Sites Acts Extension.
3ª Differential Dues.

THE GREAT WESTERN, &c., RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for taking into Consideration Standing Order No. 185, sec. 1, in order to its being dispensed with, read.
LORD BEAUMONTmoved that the said section of the said Standing Order be dispensed with. The question involved in the Motion was, in reality, whether there should be only one means of communication between London and the Mersey and between London and Ireland, and whether the vast and important traffic now conducted between those two points of the kingdom should be confined to one single means of communication, and that the proprietors of that communication should possess a monopoly. If his Motion was negatived, their Lordships would come to a contrary conclusion to that which they had arrived at upon a former occasion. Some time ago their Lordships gave their consent to two Bills creating railways, the one between Birmingham and Shrewsbury, and the other between Shrewsbury, and Chester. It was well known that since those railways had been constructed, the amount of traffic had enormously increased; in fact, so much so, that it would be dangerous to entrust it to one line. Their Lordships wisely foresaw that this would be the case, and therefore sanctioned these Bills. The London and North Western Company exerted every means in their power to oppose the passing of these Bills;

547
but they failed in their opposition, in consequence of both Houses thinking it advisable that another and competing line should exist between London and the north-western parts of the kingdom. The two smaller companies were then harassed by their formidable rival in every way possible, and their opponent at last had succeeded in placing such impediments on their working that they were gradually losing their traffic; they therefore felt that their only resource was to seek an alliance with some other Company. They accordingly sought that of the Great Western, in order to carry out a proposition that there should be two continuous lines between London and the Mersey; and if this Bill passed, the public would be in possession of those two lines. A Bill to carry out this great object was introduced into the other House of Parliament, and the House of Commons adopted a Resolution, that it was for the public advantage that two lines of communication should thus exist. The Bill then arrived at their Lordships 'House; but before they could discuss its merits, it was necessary that the Standing Orders should be complied with. One of those orders, known by the name of the Wharncliffe Order, was extremely important. It required that the assent of four-fifths of the shareholders should be given to every new Bill before it could receive the consideration of the House. This order was for the purpose of protecting a minority. Originally the assent of only three-fifths wa3 required, but it had been subsequently increased to four-fifths; giving a protection to a still smaller minority. The shares in the Shrewsbury line were extremely low in the market, and a powerful and wealthy Company like the North Western, of course, found very little difficulty in making itself possessor of a large proportion of the shares. That was done accordingly, for the protection of its interest, and to prevent the amalgamation; and the consequence was, that when the meeting was held, the four-fifths could not be obtained. The Standing Orders Committee had reported that they saw no reason for recommending the suspension of the Standing Order. That Committee, however, could only look at the technical question, and leave it to their Lordships to suspend the Standing Order, although it had not been complied with, if they considered that the merits of the case justified them in doing so. The Standing Order might generally work well; but cases must arise in which,
548
if acted upon, it would occasion great public inconvenience and injury. If their Lordships refused to suspend the Standing Order, and thus prevented the Bill from being considered upon its merits, they would confirm for ever the great monopoly in the hands of the London and North Western Company, because, by throwing out the Bill, they would utterly destroy the chance of a competing line being established. If their Lordships sanctioned the continuance of the present monopoly of communication, they would not only endanger the interests of commerce, but they would peril the lives of persons travelling upon a line so encumbered and overwhelmed with traffic. He entertained the strongest conviction, from the evidence before the Committee, that the minority of shareholders opposed to the amalgamation was composed of persons interested in the London and North Western line; and if their Lordships persisted in enforcing the Standing Order, the Shrewsbury and Birmingham and the Shrewsbury and Chester Companies must be annihilated.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that their Lordships might perhaps recollect that three or four years ago a Bill was pending in that House for the purpose of making a railway from Oxford to Birmingham. That Bill was zealously opposed by the London and North Western Company, with the same feelings, and he believed by the same means, as they had adopted on the present occasion. He took a part then in opposition to the North Western Company; and with the assistance of his noble and learned Friend, who then presided in that House, the late Lord Cottenham, succeeded, for the benefit of the public, as it now clearly appeared, in frustrating that attempt. He approved entirely of the Standing Order to which the noble Lord had referred. It was passed to protect the minority against the wild speculation of the majority; but it was never intended, he apprehended, to stand in the way of any great public interest. A railway was, to a certain degree, by its very nature, a monopoly. Their Lordships conferred great powers upon these establishments; but it was, at the same time, the duty of their Lordships to take care that those powers were not used for the purpose of extending that monopoly, or for the purpose of crushing less powerful companies. At the present time there was but one line of railway communication between London and the Mersey, and it was, therefore, particularly the duty

549
of their Lordships, not only to see that there was no abuse of the powers conferred upon that Company, but that those powers should not be used to extend that monopoly. Now, what was the railway proposed to be established by this Bill? It was a railway passing through Staffordshire and Shropshire, counties rich in minerals and the seats of manufactures of the most important character; and by the Bill it was sought to give them the advantage of communication on the one hand with Liverpool, and on the other with London and Southampton. Of the three railways interested—the Great Western, the Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and the Shrewsbury and Chester—which had now entered into an alliance for the purpose of effecting this object, the Chester and Shrewsbury was the first established. On its starting, the North-Western Company foresaw the consequences which must flow from the establishment of that railway; and they had, therefore, exhibited towards it the most incessant hostility, and had sought to lower the value of its shares, in order to get possession of it, and by that means to break one link in that chain of so much importance in the communication to which he had referred. The Chester and Shrewsbury Company, in consequence, had had to apply over and over again to the Court of Chancery, and had obtained injunction after injunction to protect themselves under these assaults. In May last, the directors of these companies held a meeting to see if they could make an agreement under which they might form an amalgamation. They agreed upon the terms; but the agreement was, of course, subject to the ratification of meetings of the different Companies. There were meetings held of the Great Western, the Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and the Chester and Shrewsbury Companies. Those meetings were advertised in the ordinary way; and now let us see the course pursued by the London and North-Western Company. The North-Western purchased a large number of shares, and divided them in such a manner as to give an undue preponderance to their own shareholders. Some of these shares were distributed among clerks, porters, and others connected with the Company, in the hope that by resorting to that means they might succeed in overpowering the other Companies. But this was not all. They had allies of the greatest power and influence, the leader of whom was a man of great note, of great name, and
550
the head of a great league—the Anti-Corn-Law League—Mr. George Wilson— clarum et venerabile nomen. Mr. Watkins, the secretary, and many of the committee of the Anti-Corn-Law League, all united together for the purpose of assisting the North-Western Company. These enemies of all monopoly, who hated monopoly except that in which they were themselves deeply interested, were the zealous friends of the Company, and assisted them in accomplishing their object. What was the result? The North-Western Company was defeated, not by a majority only, but by between three and four-fifths of the shareholders, who voted in favour of the plan of amalgamation, and the Bill was carried in spite of all the combination, contrivance, and trickery he had mentioned. The Bill was then introduced into the House of Commons, and referred to a Select Committee, the chairman of which was Mr. Christopher, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who examined it with the most scrupulous care. It was opposed by the North-Western Company; hut notwithstanding their most strenuous exertions, the Committee passed the measure, so satisfied were they of its propriety. According, however, to the Standing Orders of their Lordships' House, it was necessary that the three Companies should again meet and agree to the amalgamation; and the man must be credulous, indeed, who supposed that the same barefaced practices which wore formerly adopted were not resorted to on that occasion, though, perhaps, in a more cautious and moderate manner. It was in this way that the Bill, which he considered of the highest importance to the districts affected by it, had been defeated; and on the grounds of public policy—that the great majority of the shareholders of the three Companies had acceded to the arrangement, and that there were reasons for at least suspecting unfair conduct on the part of the opposing Company—he would support the Motion for dispensing with the Standing Orders.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, the subject under discussion was one of no ordinary importance, for that was the first time an attempt of the kind had been made in their Lordships' House, to set aside the decision of the Standing Orders Committee when those orders had in no way been complied with. On all former occasions, he believed, when their Lordships had suspended the Standing Orders, they had done so on the recommendation of the

551
Standing Orders Committee, except in the Smithfield Market case, when the House resolved (in his opinion most dangerously) that the notoriety of the intention of the Government to take steps for its removal might he held to excuse the giving regular notice. He thought no sufficient grounds had been shown to justify the House taking the course suggested by the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont). The noble Lord said that the question was, whether there should only be one line of communication between London and the Mersey. But this Bill was not for opening up a new communication between London and the Mersey—it only amalgamated certain lines which formed at present a communication between those points. Those lines were sanctioned for the purpose of affording the advantage of railway communication to a district which did not possess such accommodation, and there was at the time no notion that they would form a competing London line. The noble Lord said it was impossible to give such a communication without an amalgamation of the lines; but the experiment had never been tried, and no opportunity had been afforded for judging how far existing arrangements might enable his object to be attained. Was the noble Lord certain that an amalgamation would secure two competing routes of railway? It was his (Lord Redesdale's) impression that as soon as the Great Western Company became amalgamated with these minor companies, instead of there being a competition between them and the Northwestern Company, from London to the Mersey, the two Companies would ultimately come to a traffic arrangement, to avoid, as it is called, "cutting each other's throats," which would put an end to all competition. The case of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company was a very peculiar one, and showed the necessity of the Standing Order. Last year the directors came to an arrangement with the Great Western Company; but the shareholders called a meeting to consider the subject, and they passed, by a majority of 2,000 votes, and in the very teeth of the directors, a proposition in favour of an amalgamation with the North-Western Company. This decision of the proprietors had been overturned by the management of the directors. It came out in evidence before the Committee, what the directors of a Company could do—that they had it in their power to use the money of the Company for the purpose of obtaining votes;
552
and in the Shrewsbury and Chester case one of the directors admitted that they had made many thousand votes by getting their friends to split their shares, and that all the transfers and retransfers had been effected at the expense of the Company. The case of the Great Western, and the Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and the Shrewsbury and Chester Companies, had been referred to the Standing Orders Committee; but their case broke down on their own evidence; and now they wished to set aside the Standing Orders, to have the Bill tried on its merits. The public had a right to look to the Standing Orders as a protection, and if they were to suspend them on the present occasion, they would open a door, which they would be unable to close, to jobbery, and vicious proceedings of all kinds.
LORD LYNDHURSTexplained, that what he said was, that unless an amalgamation was to place the Companies under one direction and one set of officers, it would be impossible to have any opposition to the rival line.
The DUKE of RICHMONDprotested against the merits of the case of the particular railways being gone into, inasmuch as they had not been tried before the Committee. He believed there never was a Standing Order which worked better than that known as Lord Wharncliffe's, and he trusted that their Lordships would not consent to its suspension. Unless their Lordships supported the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, they would never be able to get noble Lords to slave and listen to all the particulars of these cases in Committee.
LORD BEAUMONTexpressed his firm conviction, that by refusing to suspend the Standing Order in this case, they would be placing the order itself in considerable jeopardy hereafter; and would, by so doing, show that larger Companies might with impunity successfully crush and destroy their smaller rivals. While he expressed his determination to divide their Lordships upon his Motion, he felt bound to say that, in his opinion, the Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with upon any occasion without a sufficient case being made out for so doing.
LORD BROUGHAMobjected for obvious reasons to the principle of bringing the decisions of the Select Committees on questions like the present before the House itself. When such a course was departed from, and when they were asked to sus-

553
pend the Standing Orders, it behaved the parties asking for such suspension to show the necessity for such a proceeding. They were called on to adopt this stop in the present instance on some allegations of fraud, which allegations were denied on the other side. The question then to be determined was, whether the Standing Orders Committee had an opportunity of exercising their judgment in the truth or falsehood of these allegations. That was an issue of fact which the House was not competent to try, and yet upon that depended the vote of every Member of the House. He understood that the Committee had had that opportunity, and that it had not thought proper, upon investigating the allegation, to report in favour of the justifiableness of suspending the Standing Order. If that were so, he was against suspending it.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, when he was on the Committee he thought the Standing Orders ought to be suspended; but subsequent consideration made him arrive at a different conclusion. In reply to the noble and learned Lord, he had to state that the Committee came to a resolution which was framed by his noble Friend behind him (Lord Beaumont)—to the effect that nothing had been proved to justify them in recommending the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), that breaking down a great monopoly, and substituting a competing interest, was desirable; but he did not think the House had any right to call on the shareholders in any particular railway to sacrifice their interests in order to procure the public such an advantage. It was proved that shareholders representing stock to the value of 500,000 l dissented from the amalgamation; and there was no evidence to prove that the North Western, or any other company, had made any undue acquisition of shares. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) that the proposition, if carried, would establish a very dangerous precedent, and open a door to abuses which it would be difficult to close.
LORD BEAUMONTregretted the defection of his noble Friend, and the silence of some noble Lords from whom he had expected support. The question to which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) referred had come before the Committee, and the evidence produced by the alleging party amounted to this, that 15,466 voted altogether; of those, 1,0257 voted for
554
the amalgamation, and 5,209 were in the minority against it; and of that minority 230 votes were traced to the North-Western Railway Company; and the decision of the Committee therefore was, that as only 230 votes out of 5,209 votes were traced or proved to be in accordance with the allegation, they were not justified in recommending that upon that, allegation the Standing-Orders should be dispensed with.
LORD BROUGHAM: The answer of the noble Lord was perfectly fair, perfectly candid, and perfectly fatal to his own case.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that though it was not proved that more shares had been traced to the possession of the London and North Western, there was ground for strongly suspecting that it was used to a much greater extent.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he considered that if this Motion were carried, it would be fatal to the authority of their Lordships' Committees. But after the statement of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), as to the previous proceedings affecting this transaction, whether the power which the noble and learned Lord had referred to as having been used by one of the great railway companies had been exorcised in this instance or not, it nevertheless appeared that it was in the power of a great company to make use of this Standing Order as an instrument not to advance their own legitimate interests, but to defeat the substantial interests of others, and of the public; and, therefore, if their Lordships should decide that night that they were not justified in going into the merits, he trusted that no long time would elapse before their Lordships reviewed this Standing Order; for he believed that, in its present state, it afforded a great temptation to powerful companies to enter upon agreements with other companies for the purpose of establishing monopolies.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, there were many points connected with this case which he had not touched upon, and he warned noble Lords not to form too hasty an opinion upon the demerits of the existing order, as in the whole of his experience he had not remembered a single instance in which the regulation had operated with greater advantage, or more for the protection of the interests of the shareholders, than in the present case.
On Question, Resolved in the Negative.

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION—THE MANAGEMENT CLAUSES.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill read.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he was about to move that the Order of the Day be read for the House going into Committee on this Bill; but before the House went into Committee, he wished to set himself right in the opinion of the House, and in that of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), in reference to a statement made by him with regard to a supposed alteration having been made by the Committee of Privy Council in their Minutes subsequent to the vote being taken in the House of Commons for educational purposes. It was stated by the noble Earl the other night that the Committee of Privy Council of Education under the late Government had made an alteration in the management clauses in reference to the Jewish schools, after the vote by Parliament of the grant for the year. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) stated in general terms that he was convinced that no material alteration had been made by the late Government subsequent to the vote for the year being taken in the House of Commons; but he had since had an opportunity of referring to the merits of the case, and he found that, so far from the proceedings of the Committee of Privy Council with respect to Jewish schools affording any such precedent, it actually appeared, by a paper on their Lordships' table, that a letter had been addressed by the Committee of Privy Council on the 8th January to the Jewish Committee, in which they were informed that unless a satisfactory arrangement could be proposed by them previous to the vote on education being taken, no such vote could be taken by which they would benefit. That did not rest on his own authority, but on the authority of the Minutes actually on their Lordships' table. At the same time he begged to state his belief that it was from mere inadvertence on the part of the noble Earl that that statement was made. He begged also to add his perfect satisfaction with the assurance which he understood the noble Earl to have given on Friday night, that no alteration should take place of a material or novel nature in the proceedings of the Committee of Council on Education until opportunities were afforded to Parliament, especially to the House of Commons, for judging of the nature of those alterations. He might be al-
556
lowed also to add, that no actual proceeding whatever had taken place with regard to the Jewish schools.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that on Friday last he had the honour of receiving a private note from the noble Marquess, in which he stated that it Was his intention to put a question as to whether or not a new Minute had been prepared by the Committee of Privy Council on Education, but, as he understood the noble Marquess, without intending to raise any discussion upon the subject. The noble Marquess did put his question, and he (the Earl of Derby) answered it, simply detailing the circumstances; and he confessed that it was with some surprise he then heard from the noble Marquess the expression of a rather severe censure on the course Her Majesty's Government had pursued, not with regard to the substance of the Minute itself, but from the fact of having laid it on the table at all. That, he thought, was hardly consistent with the noble Marquess's declaration that he did not intend to raise a discussion. Now, expecting that no discussion would be raised, he (the Earl of Derby) had come down to the House altogether unprepared for the accusation which the noble Marquess had made in such strong terms—that the Government had purposely abstained from laying this Minute on the table of the other House of Parliament until they had obtained the grant for education by a vote of the House of Commons. He (the Earl of Derby) must say that he felt that to be an accusation highly discreditable to Her Majesty's Government, and one which he could not and ought not to pass over without observation. The noble Marquess asserted that on no previous occasion subsequently to passing the educational vote for the year, had any important alteration been made in the Minutes of the Committee of Privy Council without submitting that alteration to Parliament, in order to obtain its sanction thereto—indeed, he went further, and said that on no occasion had any important alteration been made without submitting it to the other House of Parliament previous to asking for the educational vote for the year. Now he (the Earl of Derby) was not prepared at the time with any precedent in reference to the conduct of the Committee of Council; but it did occur to him that in the course of last winter a declaration was made on the part of the Committee, by means of a Minute, that they would

557
consent to grant assistance to Jewish schools—they having in the year 1849 (and no alteration having been made by them in the meantime) declared that those schools were not, under the terms of the Minutes, admissible to participate in the grant for education. But though the case of the Jewish schools might not afford him a precedent of the sort, yet he was quite sure that he should satisfy their Lordships that, in the declaration which the noble Marquess had felt himself called upon to make, he was speaking in error and misapprehension in the general assertion which he made on Friday; and he (the Earl of Derby) was in hopes when he saw the noble Marquess rise that evening, that he was about to correct that misapprehension. The House would recollect that the statement of the noble Marquess was, that it had never been the practice to make any material alteration in the Minutes of the Committee of Privy Council subsequently to obtaining the sanction of Parliament to the educational grant for the year. Now he begged their Lordships' attention to the following facts:—In the year 1847, 100,000 l. was voted on the 26th of April, and on the 10th of July there was passed by the Education Committee a supplementary Minute, that supplementary Minute being represented by the noble Marquess himself, in a discussion which afterwards took place in this House, as one of very great importance, and which would enable the Committee of Council to give assistance to many schools to which they were previously debarred from giving such assistance by the Minutes which had been laid before the House. That supplementary Minute was agreed to on the 10th July, 1847, and the effect of it was to admit to the benefit of the public grant for education all schools which refused to submit to any inspection or report with regard to the religious instruction which was given in those schools. Surely the noble Marquess would admit that that was an important alteration in principle. The vote being passed on the 24th of April, the supplementary Minute was agreed to on the 10th of July, and laid upon the table of this House on the 16th of July; but it was not even then, nor until it had been called for, laid upon the table of the other House of Parliament. He (the Earl of Derby) took the liberty of commenting upon this fact on the 22nd of July, and on the 23rd— the following day—Parliament was prorogued
558
previously to a dissolution. Passing over minor instances of the same kind, he presumed that their Lordships would be of opinion, since great stress had been laid upon the proposed alteration of the management clauses by the present Committee of Council, that these management clauses themselves formed a rather important portion of the system. Well, the vote for the year 1847 was taken on the 26th of April, and the management clauses A, B, C, and 1), which regulated, for the first time, the whole of the restrictions imposed upon grants to Church of England schools, bore date the 28th of June, 1847; and for the first time they were laid before Parliament, not in the course of that Session—not only not previously to taking the grant for that Session—but they were not laid before Parliament until they appeared as part of the blue book; subsequently taking the vote—not for that—but for the succeeding Session of Parliament. In short, the management clauses were passed after the vote for the year was taken, whilst Parliament was sitting, and were not submitted separately to Parliament at all. The vote for the following year, 1848, was taken on the 23rd of August, and the management clauses so contained in the blue book were laid before their Lordships' House on the same day; but they appeared not to have been laid before the House of Commons until the 22nd of August, the day after the vote was taken, and then they were produced without any explanation. Again, after considerable discussion with the National Society for Education, the management clauses were revised and altered materially in the year 1849. But, from that day to this, alterations so made had never been separately laid upon the table, of the House, but were inserted in the blue book. The Vote for the year 1849 was taken on the 4th of June, and the revised management clauses appeared in the Minutes of the Committee of Council of 1848, but they were for the first time submitted to Parliament on the 28th of June, 1849. He had now stated the important occasions upon which, contrary to the statement of the noble Marquess, material alterations were made whilst Parliament was sitting, and subsequently to the Estimates for the year having been granted; and which alterations were not communicated to Parliament at all until the following Session— one of these alterations being the alteration of the whole system of the manage-

559
ment clauses, of which the present Minute was not so much an alteration as an alternative offered to the Church schools for the acceptance of the management clauses in their present or amended state. He hoped he had now said enough to satisfy their Lordships that in the course Her Majesty's Government had pursued, they had not been without a precedent to support their views. At the same time he must positively disclaim, for himself and for his Colleagues in the Government, any desire whatever to withdraw from the fullest cognisance of Parliament this or any other alteration that might he proposed; and if the noble Marquess would like to discuss the merits of the particular alteration now contemplated—which, being substantially agreed to a week ago, was finally arranged on Saturday last, and which he (the Earl of Derby) had brought down to lay upon their Lordships' table to-night—he should be most happy to give him the opportunity of doing so. With regard to the particular time at which that Minute was agreed upon, he could assure the noble Marquess that, at that time, he did not himself knew whether the specific Vote for education had passed the House of Commons or not; but if it would be any satisfaction to the noble Marquess, he would tell him the ground upon which that particular time was chosen for no longer delaying to come to a conclusion upon the Minute. The fact was, that on the following Thursday there was to be the annual meeting of the National Society; and Her Majesty's Government were extremely desirous, by making an alteration which they hoped would meet the views of moderate Churchmen, to prevent a repetition of the very painful discussion which took place last year, and to prevent the bringing forward of extreme opinions on either side, and to reconcile, previous to the annual meeting, the great body of Churchmen upon a subject with regard to which there had hitherto been most unfortunate, and he thought unprofitable, discussions between them.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he wished shortly to state that he placed the most implicit faith in the statement made by the noble Earl as to the circumstances under which this Vote was moved in the other House of Parliament. He had not intended to cast any imputation whatever on the good faith of the noble Earl. But with regard to the other point to which the noble Earl had adverted—that of the management clauses—he
560
(the Marquess of Lansdowne) admitted that if the noble Earl could prove that the alterations made by the late Committee of Privy Council were alterations of the system, and not such as were adopted in consequence of explanations given in Parliament—that they could not be considered in any other point of view than as a change of principle—he would be justified in the observations he had made. It would be obvious to their Lordships that he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not go into the question in that incidental way; but he should be prepared to do so on a future occasion. But he believed the alterations in the clauses in question were not alterations of the system, but were strictly in furtherance of the assurances given to Parliament for the carrying out of that system.
The EARL of CHICHESTERbegged to corroborate the statement of the noble Marquess, that the management clauses were not in themselves an alteration of the principle of the system, but were merely a more perfect carrying out of the system to which Government were previously pledged; in proof of which he referred to communications he had had with the noble Marquess on the subject of a Motion which he had intended to bring forward with the view of making the imposition of the clauses compulsory, but which Motion he had abandoned when he learnt the intentions of the Government.
The BISHOP of OXFORDthought that the assistance which the noble Earl had intended to give the Government by his statement was rather of an unfortunate character; inasmuch as the fact that the noble Earl had mentioned, that he had himself intended to bring forward a Motion on the subject, showed that he considered the matter to be one of very great importance. The noble Marquess had described the former alteration of the management clauses as an unimportant charge, and not falling within the category of an alteration at all.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: No, no; far from it.
The BISHOP of OXFORDhad understood the noble Marquess to say that it was merely a carrying out of what had been done before, and was therefore not necessarily laid before Parliament. He, on the other hand, thought it was an operation of the greatest possible moment, and one on which Parliament ought to have been fully consulted, and had the opportunity of expressing an opinion. He thought

561
that if this noble Marquess would fix a time when the question could be properly discussed, he should be able to show the noble Marquess that very important changes had been repeatedly introduced by the late Government after the annual vote had been taken.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he should have felt it highly improper to go into the general question: all he wished was to set himself right. He admitted that the management clauses were an important change as to the mode of administering the grant, but there was no change in principle. The object was that schools of every denomination complying with those conditions might derive the benefit of the grant.

SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL.
LORD BROUGHAMrose to implore his noble Friend opposite, before the next stage of the Bill, to reconsider the propriety, which he would strongly urge upon them, of withdrawing the measure. They had the best possible opportunity of doing so, on account of the total change in the law of France which had taken place upon the very subject of extradition since the Convention was entered into.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: It is not at all necessary that I should detain your Lordships before I give an answer to the request which the noble and learned Lord has addressed to me, because I have already made up my mind upon the subject. I had come down to the House intending to inform your Lordships at the proper time that Her Majesty's Government thought fit at present to withdraw this Bill. I think at this moment, after what the noble and learned Lord has said, that I need not exculpate myself for a mistake into which I fell on a previous evening, which originated in an error of the person who wrote the despatch to me, and which our Ambassador at Paris has desired me to explain in the manner I have now done. Before I leave this subject, I only wish to state that it would be extremely dangerous, I think, at the present moment, for Her Majesty's Government to continue this Act of Parliament under the new law which has been passed in France. In the first place, I cannot yet understand the full bearing of that law; but, as far as I do understand it, it would seem to give the French Government a power to reclaim any criminal from any part of the world
562
wherever he committed the offence— though it was not committed on French ground, and though the party were not a Frenchman.
LORD BROUGHAM: Yes; an Englishman in London.
LORD MALMESBURY: I would beg to suggest to your Lordships that we should have no discussion at present upon this Bill. Suffice it that, on these grounds, I had intended at the proper moment to have told your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government had for the present suspended the further progress of the measure.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that nothing could be more satisfactory than this course, and nothing could be more complete than the justification of the noble Earl for so acting. He could do no other, after finding that he had been misinformed as to the actual state of the French law. The new law was, that an Englishman for an offence committed in London, or alleged to be so committed, might be brought to trial in France, and dealt with by the French authorities. It was not for the first time that a law of this sort was propounded in France; it was in a great measure the same under the Emperor Napoleon, in 1808, when France, England, and Europe were in totally different circumstances. Since then, owing to that diversity of circumstances, the law had been a dead letter; but it had been now revived, and with a very material extension, having reference to misdemeanours as well as other crimes.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that by the existing French law, supposing the Bill before the House to have been carried, an Englishman might have been apprehended here after he had been in Paris.
[Subsequently, Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendment, read, and discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.]

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE,in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, said the measure was one of great importance, and he would endeavour, in a few words, to state its object, having, by arrangement with the noble Earl opposite, refrained from doing so on the second reading. The noble Marquess, after referring to the disgraceful proceedings which had taken place in the borough of St. Albans, and to the conse-

563
quent inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons, said that this inquiry had not come to a satisfactory conclusion, owing to certain witnesses being prevented attending, whereby the ends of justice had been defeated. A proceeding of a different kind was, therefore, adopted, with the almost unanimous consent of both Houses of Parliament; and a Commission was appointed to make an inquiry on the spot. In consequence of the success of that measure, and of the apprehensions entertained (he feared justly) that practices similar to those at St. Albans extended to other places, the late Government had thought it expedient to introduce a measure, the object of which was to convert that which was a particular law into a general law, applicable to all cases, and which might be brought into operation whenever the House of Commons thought such an inquiry as took place at St. Albans necessary. It was needless, he was sure, to dwell on the importance of extinguishing corruption wherever it existed; for he apprehended that it was not in that House that persons would be found to raise their voices in favour of so flagrant a vice, and one so utterly subversive of constitutional principles. He wished to show how far the measure was calculated to attain its object. The House was aware that various attempts had been made from time to time in the other House to extinguish corruption, but they had proved comparative failures. Young aspirants for the honour of statesmanship had sought to win their spurs, and the most experienced men in the other House had turned their attention to the abatement of this evil; but the result was that corrupt practices remained just where they were before. The inquiries of Election Committees had led to a perfect manual of corruption in the shape of blue books, by which the unscrupulous, combining with the vulgar, were enabled to defeat the law. These details showed that in some places every man's conscience was for sale, and the precise price defined. Such being the case, it became an object of the greatest public necessity to introduce a Bill which should remedy this state of things. And nothing was more likely to promote—what all considered so desirable—the pure and unbiassed, choice of the electors, as holding over every borough the certainty in prospect of an investigation, such as that which had been made by the Commission in the St. Albans case, not confined to
564
the particular matters or the particular corruption of the election which was the immediate cause of the inquiry, but going back, if necessary, to other elections and preceding transactions, to exhibit what was the general state of the constituency, and to enable Parliament to judge, by positive evidence, as to the degree in which corrupt practices had taken root in such places. Upon these grounds the Bill had been brought forward. It armed the Commissioners with great powers, but not more so than were justified by the occasion—if they were an inquisition, they were a holy inquisition, engaged in the prosecution of a moral and justifiable undertaking. They had evidence that the Commission had acted well, and had discharged its duty in the case of St. Albans; the results were unexceptionable, even to those whose interests were affected. The Gentleman who was the principal victim of that Commission, had had the candour and justice to admit that the conduct of the Commissioners had been perfect and unexceptionable; he went the length of saying that he had the same respect towards those Commissioners that a child would feel for the parent who had corrected him. He hoped that was also the feeling of many of the electors. The result had been the disfranchisement of St. Albans, so justly deserved. He trusted that their Lordships would not object to this extension, considerable as it was; remembering that they would still have it in their power to review the decisions of the Commissioners before they were carried into effect. He rejoiced that he did not feel himself called upon to enter into questions to which a noble Friend of his on the cross benches had recently called their attention, relating to the improvement of the existing constituencies; for whatever those constituencies might be—whether they were large or small—that had nothing to do with the principle of this Bill, the object of which was to remove the reproach which in the eyes of the public and of foreign countries attached to our Constitution, namely, that various individuals, or bodies of individuals, had the power of influencing the return of those who were supposed to be the representatives of the whole nation. He anticipated the assent of the noble Earl to this measure, being convinced, if it were adopted, that it would afford the most effectual means for the castigation and exposure of that corruption which, unless it were laid bare and exposed, would remain for ever a

565
corroding canker at the root of the electoral system.
Moved—"That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, the object of the Bill, as explained by the noble Marquess, is one which, no doubt, will meet with the general concurrence of your Lordships, as it has that of the other House of Parliament. None of your Lordships can desire that that system of bribery and corruption, by which, of late years especially, many cities and boroughs have been disgraced, and which is, I am afraid I must say, increasing, should remain unchecked. And I admit that it may be necessary, for the purpose of effectually repressing this system, that Parliament should consent to a measure of a somewhat exceptionable character, and not rely upon meeting each individual case by a separate Act of the Legislature; but that you should provide the means by which Parliament may have the opportunity of inquiring into the proceedings of delinquent boroughs. Inasmuch, however, as this Bill is of an exceptionable character, inasmuch as it constitutes a tribunal exempted from all the ordinary forms of judicature, and invested with extraordinary powers, I am sure that your Lordships will think that it is due to the best interests of the country that not only the powers proposed to be confided to that tribunal should be carefully considered, and strictly limited, but also that you should consider the circumstances to which these powers are to be applied, and the conditions under which they are to be brought into action. My Lords, the Bill which you are now called upon to pass is a general enactment to enable tribunals to be constituted, with all the extraordinary powers with which by special Act of Parliament you have felt it necessary to invest similar Commissions, first with respect to the borough of Sudbury, and afterwards that of St. Albans. That tribunal, besides having the power to call before it all persons to give evidence, even such as may criminate themselves, has the very extraordinary power of giving an indemnity to those persons who in their judgment shall have given fair and candid evidence, which otherwise would have subjected them to a prosecution in the courts of law. This applies also to what has hitherto been deemed the exceptional case of confidential communications. I think that there being extraordinary powers proposed to be given, not merely for the pur-
566
pose of inquiry, hut leading to ulterior consequences in the form of disfranchisement, you ought not to consent to confer them upon any Commission without due consideration. Hitherto it has been required that when a Committee of the House of Commons should by investigation come to the conclusion that extensive bribery has been committed in any particular borough, and has so reported to the House, a Bill should be introduced and submitted to the consideration of your Lordships' House, specifying the particular powers intended to be given, nominating the Commission by whom the powers are to be executed, and asking for your Lordships' concurrence, and the sanction of the Crown, for the establishment of a tribunal in the individual instance for the purpose of previous investigation. This Bill, however, proposes, as a general rule, to establish this tribunal for the trial of delinquent boroughs. I think it is important that you should consider whether these powers should be conferred without some safeguard that the House of Commons will not exercise the authority entrusted to it in an arbitrary manner. But I find that it is proposed in this Bill, as it stands, that whenever the House of Commons, upon the report of a Committee which may have sat for the purpose of inquiry into the circumstances of an election, shall have arrived at the conclusion that bribery has prevailed, and shall have voted an Address to the Crown desiring further inquiry, such inquiry shall take place at once without reference to your Lordships' House. It cannot be said that this is a matter which concerns the jurisdiction of the House of Commons alone, or that it is analogous to an inquiry before an Election Committee, the result of which was that A. or B. was the sitting Member, and which did not affect the borough or county itself; for this is a Bill which introduces inquiry preparatory to disfranchisement, and which has for its end to bring down penal consequences upon the delinquent borough. It is true this must be done by further legislation; but the appointment of the Commission itself is, for the first time, to be left in the hands of the House of Commons exclusively; and it is put out of the consideration of your Lordships, whether or not it is a case to which these extraordinary powers of investigation are to be applied. It is well worthy of consideration, whether your Lordships are disposed to part so far with the power you at present possess as to sanctioning

567
by vote the application of this machinery to any county or borough at the mere will and pleasure of the House of Commons, on a simple Address to the Crown, or whether your Lordships will, as I confess I think you ought to do, require that the House of Commons, having taken a preliminary examination, and obtained the evidence on which they think it expedient that such a Commission should issue, to communicate that evidence to your Lordships; and that the further proceedings should take place, not upon the Address of the House of Commons only, but upon an Address of the two Houses conjointly. There is a further security also, which has hitherto always been adopted—Parliament will not confer these powers in blind confidence, without knowing the agents to whom the execution of them is to be entrusted, and we have always hitherto required that the Commissioners should be named in the Bill. In this Bill we go somewhat further, for we are asked to give the House of Commons the power for all future time, of putting this machinery into operation—ousting your Lordships of all jurisdiction hereafter, and vesting these arbitrary powers in the other House, to be exercised by persons nominated by the will of any Government which might be in office. I much doubt whether we ought to confer this extraordinary power upon the House of Commons alone, whether it is not just and equitable that we should reserve to ourselves the power, not of joining the House of Commons in passing an Act for each separate case, but of concurring with that House in an Address to the Crown to institute an inquiry in every particular occasion. I think the remedy ought not to be applied beyond the exigency of the case. There is another point also which is worthy of consideration. As the Bill was first introduced by the late Government, it only applied to those places where bribery and corruption had been proved to exist—its operation was confined to cities, towns, and boroughs; but upon the third reading an Amendment was proposed and carried by a small majority, extending the jurisdiction to counties, divisions of counties, and the universities, with respect to which no allegation of bribery has ever been brought. I must confess that, in cases where you are called on to apply extraordinary remedies to great grievances, I think those remedies ought to be confined to those cases simply where the grievances are proved to exist. It is
568
an invidious thing to involve in the reputation of corruption those places against which, I believe, no accusation has ever been made. I shall, therefore, propose that your Lordships restore the Bill to that form which it bore when originally introduced to the other House of Parliament, by confining it to cities, towns, and boroughs, and by rejecting those words which were inserted in the manner I have stated. I also object to that provision of the Bill which gives the Commission power to carry back their investigation to any length of time they may think fit. I think that is a power beyond the exigency of the case. It may be quite right, where the prevalence of corruption has been ascertained in in any borough, to give large powers to the Commissioners; but it appears to go beyond the exigencies of the case to give to unknown and unnamed Commissioners the power of carrying back their inquiries to any period, however remote, which they might think fit to inquire into, without there being any allegation that in the intermediate period bribery had been committed. I think it is monstrous that, in inquiring whether bribery has existed in any particular borough in 1852, in 1847, or even in 1841, you should give power to carry the investigation back to a period even antecedent to the Reform Bill, under a different constituency—so different that it might involve a different generation of men, and be an inquiry into the sins of a generation long passed away, in the time and under the auspices of their grandsons. It would be unjust to visit the errors of a former generation on their descendants; and I think, moreover, it would be exceedingly inconvenient to certain persons of elevated position in the cases of old boroughs, to go into all the instances of bribery which have occurred there, and to call before the Commission all parties who had been concerned in these transactions, for the purpose of stating all they knew about the corruption of the borough. I do not refuse that an inquiry should take place into systematic corruption, limiting it to such elections in the course of which a Committee of the House of Commons may have reported that bribery had existed. I think also that power might be given, supposing that bribery should have been proved to exist at that particular election, to go into the next preceding election; and if it should have been proved to exist at that also, to the next preceding; and so on to unravel a systematic course of bribery and

569
corruption existing in that particular borough for a long course of time. Another objection I take to this Bill is, that for the first time it puts bribery and treating upon precisely the same footing. You must remember that you are examining with a view to penal consequences, and that while bribery is an offence well known to and punishable by the law, there is no legal definition, as far as I am aware, of the offence of "treating," and certainly no punishment affixed to it by the law. The House of Commons has also hitherto always drawn a broad distinction between the two; the fact of bribery being proved to have existed at an election incapacitates the Member from sitting in that Parliament, while the fact of treating merely voids the election, but inflicts no kind of disqualification upon the Member who has lost his seat in consequence of it. You must also remember that it will depend upon the construction of each individual Election Committee as to the amount of treating which may be thought sufficient to justify the recommendation of a further inquiry by Commission. I am far from attempting to palliate that mode of influencing an election which takes the form of beastly intoxication, and which in itself is as discreditable as to receive a bribe of money; but you are to recollect that, although that description of treating may be as objectionable in character as bribery itself, yet there are forms of it so entirely innocuous, so free from all guilty tendency, and all guilty intent, that I am sure your Lordships would be reluctant to visit them with the severe penalty which is contained in this Bill. I think I may say with perfect confidence, that there never has been a contested election for county, city, town, or borough—I do not know about the Universities—in the course of which there has not been committed, by some agent, some offence which might, by a Committee of the House of Commons, be considered as treating. I think, with these modifications which I have enumerated, there will be not only no reasonable objection to the Bill, but we shall be following the precedent which, in reference to tribunals of this kind, has been already admitted—that is, on the principles adopted in the General Enclosure Acts. With these Amendments, I think the Bill will not only be harmless but useful; and from them I hope your Lordships will infer no desire on my part to interfere with the working and application of the measure, because I know the evil is
570
increasing, and will increase, and cannot be checked, except by some stringent measure; and, entertaining that opinion I will not examine very minutely even the extraordinary powers which are conferred by this Bill.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, it was impossible not to feel, with regard to the first Amendment proposed, or rather suggested, by the noble Earl, that by passing that Bill their Lordships would place unreservedly in the hands of the House of Commons a most formidable power; and that whereas now the action of the three branches of the Legislature was required to establish such tribunals as proposed by this Bill, they were asked to leave them to be constituted in future by the single vote of the House of Commons. This was a large concession on the part of their Lordships. The principle of our present law was, that all the movement and inquiry into the criminality of constituencies rested with the House of Commons, but that after that the legislation which might be required rested with all three branches; and this principle was now seriously invaded. But the main reason of his addressing the House was the strong objection he entertained to the noble Earl's second Amendment. It was an Amendment which altered the whole character of the measure. The preamble proceeded on a general assertion, that it was expedient to make a more adequate provision for inquiry into corrupt practices at elections. It contained no allegation against any one class of constituencies; but now, as thus amended, it would amount to a bill of indictment against a certain class of constituencies; and if they were to except counties and universities, why not great cities? To the latter, charges of corruption could not generally apply. He presumed the noble Earl would not assert that no corruption ever existed in the counties; nor would he himself say so much of great cities; hut he did argue, as he thought fairly, that on the same ground on which it was proposed to except counties and universities, they might reasonably be required to except the great cities of the country; and this would be impossible. His objection, in short, to the proposed exceptions was, that they implied a charge of general corruption against the boroughs; and though he knew that the extreme Liberal party went upon the principle that all small boroughs were corrupt, and should have their franchises given over to larger constituencies,

571
he thought their Lordships were scarcely prepared to receive and act upon this opinion as correct. The alteration, he said, would change the whole principle of the Bill, and would have a most injurious effect on the future consideration of those great questions of Parliamentary Reform yet to come before their Lordships. The right principle was to enact a general law against electoral corruption wherever it existed. In conclusion, he confessed that he was very much inclined to agree with the observation made by the noble Marquess at the very outset of his remarks— though he thought the observation a very remarkable one to come from him. The noble Marquess said that this was the most important of the measures of the late Government with reference to the representation of the people, and that it was the least open to objection. He (the Duke of Argyll) thought that this implied a very strong opinion with regard to the operation of this Act—that it should be considered by the noble Marquess the most important and the least open to objection.
The EARL of DERBY: With regard to the Amendment mainly objected to by the noble Duke, I am not proposing a bill of indictment against any class of constituencies. I am proposing to restore the Bill to the precise state in which the late Government introduced it.
LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEYsaid, this was no Bill imposing pains and penalties, but one that was intended simply to facilitate inquiry. It conferred no new power on the other House of Parliament; it simply enabled them to establish new machinery for inquiring into the corruption practised at elections. But when the noble Earl complained of the power the Bill gave of going back into former allegations of corruption, he would remind him how often in small boroughs there were compromises between the contesting candidates, entirely with a view of saving the constituency from the notoriety which their corruption was gaining. He should, therefore, not be at all disposed to limit either the House of Commons or the Commissioners from using their discretion as to how far back they were to go in such an inquiry. But what if they should do so? It was, after all, a mere report upon which a Bill was founded that had to go through all its stages in this House; and if their Lordships should think that it was ill-founded, or that the evidence had not been properly collected, it was still per-
572
fectly open to their Lordships to reopen the inquiry, and to summon evidence to their Lordships' bar. He did not recollect more than one petition being presented against a county for corruption, and of course he did not suppose that corruption prevailed at the Universities; but when there was a Bill for establishing machinery for the purpose of checking bribery, he did not think it at all an imputation upon either the counties or the Universities that they should be included in such a measure. As to treating, although it was not a crime in law, he thought it was a subject which the House of Commons had very properly taken cognisance of, in order to preserve the purity of election. He hoped the noble Earl would not insist upon his Amendments.
LORD REDESDALEconsidered the Amendments of the noble Earl well entitled to the approbation of the House. He believed every party desired to get rid of corruption, and no party more than the Conservative party; but when a Bill was introduced, conferring powers of an extraordinary nature, it was important that they should be restricted in their application. He reminded their Lordships of the extent to which party feeling not long ago prevailed. Let an allegation of corruption be made against any place, let that be reported to the other House, and then upon the address moved by an individual, and upon the vote of the majority, this Bill would be brought into operation. He thought more protection ought to be afforded the constituencies. He thought, also, it was important for their Lordships to consider how far the privileges of. the House would be affected by this Bill, which empowered the other House to proceed upon an Address to the Crown without the concurrence of their Lordships. Moreover, he was of opinion that the other House ought to insert the names of the Commissioners into their Address, and not to leave it to the Minister of the day, whoever that Minister might be. It was very proper that Parliament should have cognisance of the parties who were to investigate the matter. Parliament had already given a precedent of that kind in the two Bills which had recently been introduced; and he hoped they would not in any case depart from it. But as to the question of the privileges, he thought it very desirable, when the other House was about to call into exercise powers which went quite beyond the ordinary limit of the law, that the initiative

573
ought not to be adopted without the concurrence of both Houses.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, with regard to the first Amendment, he could not so readily come to the conclusion that had been arrived at by the noble Lord who had just sat down. If the Bill were to deprive the House of Lords of any privilege it at present possessed, if it made any alteration in reference to the relative position of that House and of the House of Commons, he should concur in the Amendment; but, when they looked carefully at the Bill, they would find that no new power was conferred on the House of Commons, no means were given to that House of punishing delinquent boroughs, no power of evading any existing checks or control of the Upper House, but that it was merely affording a new mode of carrying out those investigations which it was in the power of the House of Commons now to effect by other, but more tedious and less effective means. It was necessary that an inquiry should take place before an Address was agreed to. In the St. Albans case, their Lordships did not rest satisfied with the evidence given before the Commission, but gave the parties liberty to examine witnesses at the bar of the House to rebut the evidence; and they would be at liberty to do that again in reference to any other case, even though the Bill should pass in its present shape. He thought the other Amendments of more practical importance, and one of them still more objectionable. The noble Earl proposed to omit counties and the Universities. He saw no reason for including the Universities, but he could not go so far as to omit counties, which were certainly not free from corruption, though less tainted than boroughs; and he thought it was possible to do all that was required, and in a preferable form, by omitting any enumeration at all of the various classes of constituencies to be subjected to the operation of the Bill. With regard to the Amendment, as to an inquiry into retrospective elections, he agreed that some limitation was desirable; but the Amendment proposed would not meet the case, and would go greatly beyond the professed object, frequently operating as an effectual screen to the very practices which it was sought to expose, and as an immunity to the most flagrant cases and the most notoriously corrupt constituencies. In cases where the corruption had been most systematic, they
574
might find an occasional pure election by arrangement between the parties; and if they were stopped by that accidental and isolated case of purity from going back to previous elections, inquiry would be evaded. Then the noble Earl proposed to omit altogether the words relating to treating. He certainly thought that a Commission should not issue where there was no greater allegation than the issue of half-crown refreshment tickets. He, for one, however, would sooner run the risk, which he thought extremely small, of inquiring into cases of treating which were quite harmless, than let slip the chance of inquiring into such a flagrant case as that which took place the other day at Monmouth, and which, as regarded moral guilt, could not be considered as in any degree less worthy of punishment than bribery by means of money; and he therefore hoped the noble Earl would turn his mind to this subject, and see whether some arrangement could not be made by which that species of treating which, practically, was for the purpose of influencing voters, might be inquired into under the enactments of this measure.
LORD BROUGHAMthanked the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) for the course he had taken, according to a pledge he had previously given him in 1847, on the eve of the last general election, when he (Lord Brougham) moved a Resolution, pledging the House, after the meeting of the New Parliament, to investigate all cases in which corruption should have been stated to have taken place. He greatly approved of the measure, with one or two exceptions; but they could not close their eyes to the fact that by the Bill they were creating great changes in the law. By the Bill, they might, for the first time in the history of the law, compel a witness, whether he was a party or an accomplice, or whether he was neither one nor the other, but the confidential and professional agent of a party, or of one who was the party, to answer all questions that might be put to him, and to produce all documents, books, and papers, although his answers, or the production of the documents, might criminate himself; and the only protection afforded to him was, that in giving his evidence before the Commission which instituted so searching an inquiry, they might, if they pleased, give him a certificate indemnifying him from any further proceedings. By the provisions of

575
the Bill, they denounced with serious pains and penalties him who should give false testimony before the Commission. Now, it was only from the utter abhorrence with which he regarded these awful crimes of bribery, of corruption, and of perjury, and from the painful conviction under which they all laboured, that those crimes were too generally, too habitually, perpetrated, that he, or he believed any of their Lordships, could be induced to vote for the passing of a measure creating such a tribunal as was contemplated by this Bill. It was said they were giving no new powers to the House of Commons. In one sense they were not. In the ordinary sense the House of Commons would be endowed with no new powers; but if the Bill stood as it was, the House of Commons would be armed with the power of creating a tribunal endowed with the extraordinary powers to which he had referred. Then the House of Commons were to be the judges on such questions. But there was an important check or safeguard, for there was to be a Committee of the House of Commons, which Committee was required to report to the House, so that there could be no want of due consideration of the address for inquiry. He thought, however, it might be well for their Lordships to consider whether they would not add their interposition to that of the House of Commons. He considered that if general powers were given to the Commissioners—powers of going back for the purposes of inquiry fifteen or twenty years-it would give rise to the greatest inconvenience. Yet if they could only go back for a year, no contest might have taken place that year, and still the greatest corruption and bribery might have occurred in the year before. He thought on the whole it would be much better to lay down a fixed rule, and that it would be the most convenient course to take a certain number of elections—or, better still, of years. For instance, what harm would there be in taking six or seven years, which would generally include two general elections? He saw nothing in this Bill in reference to the intimidation exercised at elections—it was limited to corruption only. He admitted there was much difficulty in getting at intimidation. Yet if a case could be made out, he did not see why that should not form a subject for inquiry. However, he would not risk the fate of the Bill by proposing any addition of this kind. The
576
subject of treating was also one most difficult to be dealt with. Treating was the colour and the shift for bribery, and they who had undergone—he ought to say the misery, but he would only say the honour of a contested election—well knew this. He recollected that he was concerned many years ago in a contested election, where the currency was in beer tickets; and, on speaking of the enormous expense incurred for treating, that is, for bribery, under the form of treating, amounting to 50,000 l. or 60,000 l., he was told it was much worse the other side of the estuary, for there the tickets were for wine; so that the difference in the expenses was the difference between the price of beer and the price of wine. There were at all those places central committees, where the beer or wine tickets could be exchanged for anything which was not either wine or beer. But why, he might be asked, should they prevent a man who came a great distance to record his vote from partaking of some trifling refreshment? but this hardship was as nothing, compared to the importance of stopping bribery and corruption; and this they could never do if they did not altogether close the door against treating. He was convinced that if the knowledge that all circumstances connected with an election could be entered into upon petition—could be made to reach candidates and their agents—it would greatly diminish the evils complained of. In every contested election where bribery took place, a petition might be brought; and where a petition was brought, a Committee might be appointed to inquire into its allegations, and before that Committee any party might be subjected to examination. Under the new law, his (Lord Brougham's) Evidence Act of last Session, the party as well as his agent might be subjected to the most searching and stringent examination—an examination conducted with all the ability and all the zeal—he would not say all the unscrupulousness, for in such a case there ought to be no scruple—but with all the searching zeal and practised skill of counsel who would inquire not only into what the party knew to have taken place, but into what he believed or suspected to have taken place. Every one knew the effect of refusing to answer, on the ground that it might criminate the party: his seat, or his chance of a seat, was gone. When these things were known to persons engaged in electioneering contests, it was his sanguine

577
hope that the evils so much complained of would be greatly diminished. Sooner or later they must be known; and then the operation of the new law would be, he trusted, effectual.
The EARL of HARROWBYwas in favour of including the counties and the Universities, because it would be invidious to draw a distinction; but that made the question of treating one of more delicacy. To pay country clergymen their expenses in going to vote at a University election was not with a view to bribery. Should not the thing prohibited be bribery by money or by entertainment—a thing done with the effect and intention of corrupting the voter? In respect of some of the provisions of the Bill—it was an evil to be making conventional offences of what public opinion did not stigmatise as offences; a law of this kind should be such as to carry with it the feeling that the offence was not merely a political, but a moral one. As to a concurrent Address, the objection of the noble Earl well deserved consideration. It would be inconvenient to have investigation after investigation, and their Lordships might not be satisfied with an investigation in which they had no share, and which was made at the instance of a Committee not upon oath, receiving evidence not upon oath. He thought their Lordships ought to insist upon their concurrence in the inquiry as a security for the liberty of the subject; for everything that gave to an investigation a grave and judicial character, was of the highest importance.
The LORD CHANCELLORconfessed that, with regard to the first point, namely, whether the Bill should extend to counties and the Universities, as well as towns, he approved of the Bill as it stood formerly. The introduction of the words "counties and Universities" was a sort of compliment to towns and cities. He did not wish to speak harshly of the latter, but many of them were notoriously corrupt, and it was on account of their corruption that the Bill was introduced. That, however, was not the case in regard to the Universities, and, in common justice, they ought to be excluded. Then, in respect to counties, though he did not deny there had been bribery, yet no one would venture to say it had been practised to such an extent in counties as to call on the House to include them in this measure. If bribery had not been extensively carried on in boroughs, it was perfectly clear the
578
Bill would never have been introduced. He asked, then, on every principle of justice, whether counties and the Universisities ought to be included, simply because a necessity had arisen to apply stringent provisions to boroughs and cities? In regard to their Lordships' privileges, he asked them to consider for a moment what they were doing? By assenting to it, they would give up their right to the first step founded on the Report of the Committee. The House of Commons was to originate the inquiry by a Committee; but when that Committee decided on an inquiry taking place, how was it to be conducted? The Bill proposed to give the Commission the most unguarded powers, which no man would apply to himself personally, and which nothing but the strongest and most urgent reasons would justify that or any other country granting to a tribunal. By assenting to this arrangement, their Lordships would give up any power they might now possess. The Bill proposed to meet all the cases that had been mentioned by one operation; and if it passed in its present shape, this House would not have the slightest power in regard to the issuing of the Commission. And then, to whom were those powers to be entrusted? The clause provided that they should be barristers of seven years' standing. He had great respect for the Bar; but there were many barristers whom he would not intrust with the inquiry: before he did so, he should like to know their antecedents, what they had been doing for the past seven years, and whether they were likely to exorcise the powers to be entrusted to them properly or recklessly. It was not enough that they were even of seven years' standing at the bar—they ought to be persons of recognised ability, and in whom confidence might be placed. The Bill asked their Lordships to abrogate their powers for the time to come; and he understood the Amendment to be to maintain those powers just as they were at present. He trusted the hope expressed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) as to the Bill deterring persons from being concerned in corrupt practices, would be fulfilled, for that was a consummation very much to be desired. He should like to know what good purpose would be effected by this crusade against all past offences. Was it desirable that they should reopen all those past transactions? He maintained that it was not, and that it was most convenient some stop and limitation should be pu

579
upon the Commissioners, in order that they should not extend their investigations beyond a specified period. As to treating, no reasonable man would put it upon the same footing as bribery. There ought to be some provision against treating, provided that it did not strike at the root of fair and legitimate treating. He would, therefore, propose that treating should not form part of this Bill, but should be made the subject of a separate measure. If the Amendments proposed by his noble Friend were adopted, they would greatly improve the measure, and render it somewhat more satisfactory to the public.
LORD TRUROsaid, that the House of Commons did at present possess extensive powers in reference to bribery, but they had been found inefficient, and all parties had agreed that it was proper and necessary that those powers should be increased. The object of this Bill was no doubt to confer upon the House of Commons increased powers—powers to investigate and discover the existence of evils in reference to elections, and to apply a practical remedy. It had been suggested that this Bill would in effect take from their Lordships some of their privileges. He (Lord Truro) was not aware of anything contained in this Bill which was at all open to such an objection. The House of Commons possessed at this moment extensive means of inquiry; hut these means had been found not sufficient to effect the object they all professed to desire. The House of Commons did not ask to have the power of themselves to institute such an inquiry: all they asked was that their Lordships should be parties to the creation of such a power on their part. Doubts had been expressed as to the manner in which the powers so created would be exercised. No doubt it was a matter of great importance that these powers should be so exercised as to furnish ground on which reliance could be placed, when they came to further legislative interference with the borough or city in respect to which the Commission had been issued; and he warned their Lordships against interposing any obstacle in the way of such an inquiry, lest they should suffer in public opinion. If the Commissioners misconducted themselves, what would be the result? Simply, that; the House would not act upon their report. In his opinion it would not be politic to limit the period for inquiry. They did not want to know whether there was bribery at any particular election—they de-
580
sired to arrive at what was the character of the borough. If proper persons were appointed Commissioners, they would be able to decide what ought to be the limit of the inquiry. If they found bribery at the last election, they would refer to the preceding, and so on. His noble Friend had referred to some former Bills brought in upon the subject. Now, all former measures had fallen short of the end proposed. No one objected to the present Bill because it would not effect the purpose for which it was designed. The objections were, first of all, that it interfered with their Lordships' privileges, and then that its powers were too extensive. The first of these objections, he thought, was untenable; and the second was an advantage rather than objection. The legislation of past times was always defective because it did not go far enough; and he trusted their Lordships would not, by impairing this Bill, render the measure open to the same reproach. He was anxious that their Lordships should manifest to the country that they were desirous of putting an end to bribery, and of keeping the representation of the country pure. They had good security that the Commissioners would take care that their inquiries did not stretch too far back, in the fact that it would be useless. They had also good security that proper persons would be appointed, in the fact that important interests were at stake, and in the fact that they would have the opportunity of questioning the propriety of their judgments. If they found that they were questionable, it was in their Lordships' power to refuse to act.
LORD CRANWORTHtrusted the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) would not press the Amendment, by which an Address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament, instead of from one only, would be rendered necessary, because it appeared to him that to introduce such a provision into the Bill would make the whole measure a mere nullity. The House of Commons at present could, without legislation, appoint a Committee of Inquiry, and could address the Crown for a Commission, and could introduce a Bill to enable such a Commission to work efficiently, and such a Bill must necessarily come before their Lordships for their sanction; and, moreover, for the purpose of disfranchisement, a legislative enactment must pass both Houses. If, therefore, the Amendment were passed, the Bill would confer, in effect, no powers

581
beyond those already possessed by the House of Commons. ["No, no!"] In what, then, would the difference be? There must be an Address in that House, and an Address in the Commons, and exactly the same discussion must ensue in both Houses. ["No, no!"] To say "no" was to cast a reflection upon that House; for would not their Lordships take as much pains to discuss a question of so much importance as that of depriving a borough of its ancient rights, as the House of Commons? As to the appointment of the Commissioners, he felt that there would be an infinitely better selection made if it was left to the Crown, than if the power was vested in either House of Parliament. The feeling of responsibility would influence the Crown in its selection. If they left out counties and Universities, he did not see on what principle they could include cities or boroughs. With regard to treating, he must say that in the case of the Universities, alluded to by the noble Earl on the cross benches, it seemed to him that of all places in the world exception was least required in them, because the voter from a distance could go to his college and obtain the refreshments he needed without difficulty.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; House in Committee accordingly.
On Clause 1,
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that the reason he had given notice of the Amendment to omit the Universities and counties from the Bill, was, that they had been inserted in the Bill in its third reading by a surprise; and the noble Lord who was the author of the Bill voted in the minority against their being included. After the discussion which had taken place, however, he was satisfied that, practically, the Bill, in reference to the Universities and counties, as far as bribery was concerned, would be a dead letter; and he should therefore withdraw that Amendment. Their Lordships, however, must remember that the purport of this Bill was disfranchisement. ["No, no!"] Yes! for the House of Commons already had the power of instituting any inquiry they might think fit, and of unseating the Member; but they could only affect the seat for a time. To disfranchise the borough permanently, legislation was now necessary. The object of the Bill must, therefore, be inquiry, with a view to disfranchisement; and he would remind their Lordships that never yet had there been a proposition to disfranchise town, city, county, or University for mere
582
treating. It was, therefore, most necessary to define the grounds of inquiry. The noble Earl then moved his other Amendment that the words "Address of the House of Commons" in the first clause should be omitted, and the words "a joint Address of both Houses of Parliament" be substituted.
LORD CAMPBELLthought that the Amendment would be detrimental to the Bill; but admitted that, at the same time, it was most necessary to watch and guard against the encroachments of the House of Commons, in which, he regretted to say, that he had of late seen a disposition practically to legislate for and govern the country alone. The conduct of the other House in reference to an Address to the Crown, touching the better regulation of the Post Office, afforded a bad precedent. Nothing could be more dangerous than that one House should attempt to legislate for the whole Empire. As to the Commissioners, there was no fear of any encroachment in respect to them, as their Report was to be presented to their Lordships' House equally with the Commons. He thought the Amendment was quite unnecessary, and extremely detrimental to the measure.
EARL GREYsaid, that he could not help expressing a little astonishment that their Lordships should be called upon to divide on this question. He would remind the House that this measure had been introduced into the other House of Parliament by the noble Lord lately at the head of the Government, and had been prepared by it with the greatest care; and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated at a very early period after the late Government leaving office that it was one of the measures which he was anxious to carry through Parliament. The Bill was read a second time by a majority of 281 to 6. No Amendments were moved in the Bill during its progress on the part of the Government, with the exception of the insertion of words making it applicable to counties and Universities. It was under these circumstances, most unexpectedly and without notice of any kind, that the noble Earl now proposed the present Amendment. He did not believe that their Lordships' privileges required the protection afforded by the proposed Amendment. The best possible results might be anticipated from the operation of this Bill, even in cases where it was not considered necessary to agree to the disfranchisement of any place to which the inquiry had been direct-

583
ed. For instance, he could easily suppose that extensive bribery and corruption might be found to exist in a large county or borough constituency, such as the county of York, or the town of Liverpool. It might not be considered necessary to disfranchise either of these constituencies; but even if it were not, still the exposure of the corrupt practices could not fail to be attended with beneficial results. The single object of this Bill was to obviate the risk that every man knew practically existed of a difference between the two Houses of Parliament, as to whether there should be an inquiry or not, and to make provision, once for all, that upon an address of the House of Commons an inquiry should take place. The noble Earl now called upon their Lordships to accept an Amendment, the adoption of which would be only an indirect, and therefore a less honest and straightforward way of throwing out the Bill. If they were to agree to this Amendment, it would be idle to go on with this Bill, for every one knew there would be no chance of the other House agreeing to it with the words suggested by the noble Earl. He thought it would be much better at once to move that the Chairman report progress and sit again next week.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that the noble Earl had thrown new light on the motives of those who had introduced the Bill. He (the Earl of Derby) had previously thought that the Bill had been introduced for the purpose of putting a stop to bribery and corruption at elections, by affording the means of a very extensive inquiry into those alleged practices before a competent tribunal. But the noble Earl had just informed them that the Bill had been introduced for the single purpose of enabling the inquiry to be made by a vote of the House of Commons, without the necessity of asking the concurrence of their Lordships in the inquiry; and the noble Earl had further said, that this mode of proceeding would obviate the inconvenience of a difference of opinion between the two Houses. Why, the very same argument would apply to every other subject of legislation; but he begged to say that this was setting their Lordships' House and authority altogether out of consideration, and giving them no weight in the constitution of the country; for he believed that by the constitution of the country it was intended that in all matters of legislation their Lordships should have a full and equal share with the House of Commons.
584
What the Government proposed to do by the Amendment which he had proposed, was to facilitate the operations of Parliament—not the House of Commons alone, but of both Houses—in exposing and punishing gross bribery and corruption; and the noble Earl could not go further than he (the Earl of Derby) would in obtaining that end by a regular and constitutional mode of proceeding. But the noble Earl said that the Amendment would make an alteration with respect to the authority of that House. He (the Earl of Derby) would take the liberty of contradicting the noble Earl upon that point. The Amendment would not add to the existing power and authority of their Lordships' House, hut would retain it precisely where it stood at present. While agreeing now, once for all, that a machinery should be adopted for the discovery and punishment of bribery in all future cases, their Lordships, by this Amendment, claimed for themselves—and he believed they were entitled to claim—the same power which they now had of deciding in each case whether the machinery which was intended to be applied was applicable to that particular case. It might he that this point did not strike the mind of the Members of the House of Commons so forcibly as it would strike their Lordships in the maintenance of their own privileges; but could it be said that their Lordships were really seeking a single extension of the powers of that House when they asked that the same concurrence should be given in future in regard to the single stage of an Address, as was now given in all stages of legislation?
EARL FITZWILLIAMwas of opinion that if the Amendment were adopted, the House of Commons would have some reason to say that it was an encroachment on their privileges; but that was not precisely the ground upon which he objected to it. He objected to it principally because it appeared to him that in many cases it might place their Lordships in a position of difficulty and embarrassment, for they must institute some inquiry of their own before they could join in any Address of the Commons, as proposed by the Amendment. He was not satisfied with the manner in which the Commissioners were to be appointed. He thought it would be much better to take their appointment out of the hands of the Executive of the day, and vest it in some high legal authority.
EARL ST. GERMANScomplained that no notice had been given of the Amend-

585
ments which the Government intended to propose in Committee on the Bill. It was quite in the power of their Lordships, if they thought the inquiry had been improperly conducted, to reject the Bill which happened to be sent up; but the Amendment of the noble Earl, if adopted, would entirely alter the character of this Bill.
The EARL of POWISasked what chance there was for an effective inquiry under the Bill as it then stood? Suppose the Address carried, and Commissioners appointed to make a Report to the Crown against some borough, their Lordships would be placed in the position of being obliged either to accept the Report, in the obtaining of which they had given no concurrence, and which had been made by persons in whom, perhaps, they had little confidence, or to institute an inquiry of their own, and exposing themselves to the charge of trying thereby to screen a corrupt borough. It had not always followed that evidence which had satisfied the House of Commons had succeeded in satisfying the House of Lords, as their Lordships would remember in the case of the borough of Stafford. He therefore supported the Amendment, which he did not consider as any interference with the privileges of the House of Commons.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEthought that the argument which the noble Earl had urged in favour of the Amendment was an exceedingly strong argument against it. His noble Friend very truly said that there had been cases in which the House of Lords were not satisfied with the evidence which had been taken by the House of Commons, and he deduced from that circumstance the inference that they would probably dissent from the report of the Commissioners appointed under the Address by the Commons. Now, that was an argument which was directly opposed to that which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) asked them to do. The noble Earl asked them upon the strength of a report of a Committee of the House of Commons to join that House in an address to the Crown, which report their Lordships could have had in no proper sense before them unless they requested a copy of it by an address to the Crown.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that if he thought the privileges of their Lordships' House at all interfered with by the present Bill, he should have been the first to accede to the Amendment of the noble Earl. He should have acceded to
586
the Amendment, although he had not had the opportunity of considering it before; for, until he heard the Amendment from the lips of the noble Earl himself, he was not aware that any such Amendment was intended to be proposed. But he felt satisfied that in no respect did it do so. It should be borne in mind that the whole object of the Bill was simply to provide the means for a preliminary inquiry, and to render such inquiry more efficacious. The noble Earl had said, that the necessity of the Amendment was not so likely to strike the Members of the House of Commons as it would their Lordships; and certainly it would seem that there was a great difference between the atmosphere of the two Houses—and that the difference had affected even the noble Earl's own Colleagues in the other House, for although those eminent persons were enjoying the confidence of the noble Earl, and were in weekly, daily, nay, hourly communication with him during the three weeks that the Bill was before the other House, they never discovered by the light of their own understandings, assisted though it was by the light of the understanding of the noble Earl, that there were any constitutional objections whatever to the Bill. Night after night these eminent persons had moved the Bill—they were invited to state their opinions—night after night they heard Amendments moved by other hon. Members, some of which they supported; but on behalf of the constitution, on behalf of the head of the Government, it never once occurred to them to move this Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Content 78; Not-Content 34: Majority 44.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Erne

DUKES.

Harewood

Cleveland

Hardwicke

Manchester

Harrowby

Montrose

Jersey

Northumberland

Lonsdale

Richmond

Lanesborough.

Rutland

Lucan

MARQUESSES.

Mansfield

Drogheda

Malmesbury

Salisbury

Macclesfield

EARLS.

Mountcashell

Abingdon

Nelson

Airlie

Powis

Cardigan

Roden

Cathcart

Romney

Cawdor

Rosse

Dartmouth

Rosslyn

Derby

Sandwich

Desart

Selkirk

Donoughmore

Sheffield

587

Stradbroke

BARONS.

Talbot

De Ros

Wilton

Berners

Winchilsea

Boston

Verulam

Calthorpe

VISCOUNTS.

Clarina

Hereford

Castlemaine

Combermere

Colvile of Culross

Gough

Colchester

Hawarden

Downes

Gage

Dunsandle

Hill

Dynevor

Melville

Forester

Ponsonby

Gray

Sidmouth

Rayleigh

BISHOPS.

Redesdale

Bangor

St. John

Cashel

Sandys

Chichester

Southampton

Gloucester

Tenterden

Rochester

Walsingham

The LORD CHANCELLORproposed an Amendment, in regard to the appointment of the Commissioners, that they should be named in the Address to the Crown before it left the Commons.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE was understood to oppose it.
LORD CAMPBELLwould have supported a proposal that the Government should name them, or rather that the Lord Chancellor should do so; hut, although he had been a Member of the other House, and felt a great respect for them, the last thing he would have them to do would he the appointment of Judges. In the case of St. Albans, the appointment was made by the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. He should be very sorry to hold the patronage, however, for he had just now to appoint two revising barristers on the Northern Circuit, and 150 applications had been sent in to him.
The EARL of DERBY: By the Bill as it stood at present, the names of the Commissioners were to be inserted in the Bill as it passed the House of Commons. It was afterwards sent up to their Lordships' House for their concurrence. But the names would now be inserted in the Address to the Crown, and instead of being considered by their Lordships in the Bill, they would now be considered in the Address.
EARL FITZWILLIAMopposed the Amendment.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEwished to know what would be the exact course and purport of the joint Address? If there were two separate independent Addresses, the House of Commons Address might contain the names of individuals selected by that House, and the other might con-
588
tain separate and distinct names. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) perhaps meant to have recourse to a conference between the two Houses; but he (the Duke of Newcastle) apprehended there would not be an opportunity for a conference between the two Houses, so as to arrange the matter of the names to he inserted in the Address.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the object of the Amendment was to secure the nomination of competent persons upon the commission; and the names would be selected with great care, diligence, and inquiry, under the spur of the knowledge that they would he submitted to the approval of the Crown and the House of Lords,
Amendment agreed to.
On Clause 6, giving the Commissioners power to inquire whether there had been corrupt practices at elections "for such a period retrospectively as they should think proper," and "whether any corrupt practice by way of treating has been carried on at any such election,"
The EARL of DERBYproposed to strike out the words "for such a period retrospectively as they should think proper," and to introduce words providing that if the Commissioners found that there had been corrupt practices at the election which was the subject of the report of the Committee, they might inquire into the next previous election, and so on in like manner from election to election, as far back as they should think fit, until they reached an election where, upon inquiry, they found no corrupt practices to exist, and then they should not inquire further back. It had been suggested that this limit should have reference either to a certain number of years, or a certain number of elections; but neither of those limitations were satisfactory. There might be, as in the case of Harwich, five elections within a very brief space, and then, if the limit was that of a certain number of elections, it might not extend over six months. On the other hand, there might be a place which had had no election for seven years, and then, unless the period extended over many years, the inquiry would be limited to one election. It appeared, therefore, to the Government that the only method of really carrying out the objects of the Bill would he by first examining into the election which the Committee of the House of Commons had decided as being tainted with corrupt practices, and then to go back until they came to a pure election,

589
at which point it was proposed by the Amendment to stay the inquiry. The noble Earl also proposed to strike out the words relating to treating. Cases of treating could still be investigated by Committees of the House of Commons; but it had not been made cause of disfranchisement, and the powers of the Commissioners should be reserved for the gravest offences. It was exceedingly difficult to deal with treating, and impossible legally to define it, and it would be better not to place it on a footing with that which was a statutable offence.
The Marquess of LANSDOWNE and Earl FITZWILLIAM were understood to object to this mode of limitation.
After a few observations from the Earl of HARROWBY and Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
Amendment agreed to.
On the Amendment respecting treating being moved,
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved that systematic corruption had been effected by treating, and if all other means of bribing were cut off by an Act of Parliament, treating would be still more resorted to for the same purpose.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, the fact of Parliamentary Committees having disagreed as to what amount of refreshment constituted bribery, showed how difficult it was to deal with such an undefinable offence.
EARL GREYadmitted it was perfectly true there was a great difference of opinion on the question of treating. He thought it would be very hard to deprive a Member of his seat because he gave some trifling refreshment to the electors; but the practice was blameable, inasmuch as it was capable of considerable extension. There was one form of corruption which had not been mentioned in the course of the discussion. It was a very common practice, in small boroughs, to buy up the public-houses; and he recollected when he was canvassing for a seat in Parliament, he was told by a publican he would not vote for him unless some money was spent at his house. In some instances the publicans got up a contest themselves, in the hope of personal gain. In conclusion, he thought no reason had been shown for excluding the Commissioners from exercising their discretion whether treating was or was not one of the forms of corruption practised.
Their Lordships then divided: Content 68; Not-Content 35; Majority 33.
Other Amendments made. Report to be received on Friday next.
House adjourned till To-morrow.