Sitting of 3 August 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Customs. Reported—Militia Pay.
3° Militia (No. 2); Militia (Ireland); Militia Ballots Suspension; Crime and Outrage (Ireland); Judgment Execution, &c.; Militia (Scotland).

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. CAYLEY moved the following proviso—
"Provided always, that in computing the due regard to be paid to the just and reasonable claims of the present holders of lands under lease or otherwise, arising from the long-continued practice of renewal, the basis of compensation shall be that laid down by the Episcopal and Capitular Revenues Commissioners in their Report of 1850; and, where that may not be applicable, to the recommendations laid down in the Lords' Report on the same subject in 1851."
The Committee would remember that in 1849 the whole question of church property was referred to a Commission of which the Earl of Harrow by was chairman, and which was constituted of gentlemen whose impartiality was unimpeachable. They made their Report in 1850. The conclusion to which they arrived was, that the lessees were entitled to considerable compensation, and a basis on which such compensation should be given was laid down. It was the recommendation of that Commission that he wished substantially to incorporate in the proviso he had moved. The lessees complained that the basis was vague and indefinite, and he on their behalf now asked that a more specific arrangement might be made. The object, therefore, was to define more clearly the mode in which the damages, so to speak, to be awarded to the lessees in consequence of the interference of Parliament should be assessed.
MR. LASLETTopposed the clause, on the ground that he would not consent to fritter away the property of the Church. He considered that the leaseholders and copyholders had already obtained a very great boon by the system of enfranchisement. The Church Estates Commissioners had behaved in the most fair and equitable manner, and he would venture to say that every man who had enfranchised his estates under the Commissioners had found that their value had been increased from 10 to 20 per cent. There was no evi-

1217
dente to show that any interference with the property of the Church was necessary, and he asked the Committee whether they were prepared to give millions of money in the form of compensation to individuals who were not entitled to it? If any claims to compensation were set up, let those claims be decided by the courts of common law, but he for one could not consent to see the property of the Church frittered away in the manner in which it would be dissipated if the clause of the hon. Member for North Yorkshire should be adopted. The Bill was at present a permissive measure, and he objected to the proposed clause because it would render the Bill a compulsory measure.
MR. SPOONERsaid, He should support the proviso on the ground that Parliament had already altered the relative position of lessors and lessees greatly to the disadvantage of the latter, unless some further consideration were shown them. The object of the clause was to define the manner in which the rights of lessees should be considered, and to afford clearer instructions to the Commissioners with regard to the mode of maintaining those rights. The great question was, whether the Commissioners had really and fairly carried out the intentions of Parliament? He contended that they had not. He complained that the Commissioners had adopted a scale of tables which was decidedly unfavourable to the annuitants, instead of basing their arrangements upon tables which bad been adopted by the Government in other cases, and which were much more fair to both parties. He considered that it was for the interest of the Church that the lessees should be fairly dealt with, and should receive a fair compensation. There was an existing right on the part of the lessees arising from a practice of renewal which had existed for three centuries, and that right ought to be recognised and fairly valued in the arrangements which were made for renewals. He must say that he thought the Church Commissioners had mistaken the duty which Parliament had imposed upon them. It appeared to him that they considered that they were only Commissioners for the Church, whereas Parliament intended them to act for both parties. He thought the Commissioners had acted upon a wrong principle, and he hoped that to prevent their proceeding in the same course the Committee would assent to this clause.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, it was proposed
1218
to revert to the recommendations of the Commission which had been embodied in a Bill that was brought forward in the other House of Parliament, and referred to a Select Committee. The parties who then opposed the Bill were the lessees themselves, who objected to it as imposing a permanent charge on their estates; but on the fullest consideration the House of Lords came to a different conclusion, and adopted the system at present in force, and under which in three years property to the value of several millions had been enfranchised. If they were prepared to go back to the system of having a large rent-charge imposed instead of permanent enfranchisement, they must enter into some more detailed regulations than could possibly be effected under a Bill which there remained but a short time to dispose of. He thought, therefore, they should not hesitate on the present occasion to reject the proviso.
MR. MULLINGScontended that the right hon. Gentleman had not said anything to destroy the force of the principle for which the hon. Member for Yorkshire contended. He was sure that every Member of that House was willing to give the Church its due; but he thought the tenant was entitled to consideration also, and he was of opinion that his claims had not been treated upon a fair principle.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that no doubt these lessees were under Act of Parliament; but it was quite competent for the Legislature to say, even at this great distance of time, that, having regard to the value of lives, great errors had been made in the manner of conferring those leases, and that those errors should now be corrected. The hon. Member for Yorkshire now contended that the lessees had not been fairly treated in this matter. That was a question which had been very much discussed, and be could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) should think that the Report of the Lords' Committee should be exclusively followed, and that no other terms than those specified in their Report should be adopted. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cayley) said that due regard had not been paid to lessees, and that their terms should be allowed. He should be sorry to make this Bill other than a voluntary Bill, and thought that the hon. Member would improve the clause by striking out the word "shall," and inserting words giving the Commissioners a discretion as to whether

1219
they should follow the recommendations in the Report of the Commission.
MR. J. A. SMITHwas most grateful to the hon. Member for Yorkshire for his proposition, which he trusted would be heartily accepted by the House. As to the system, the real nature of which he should be sorry to characterise as he regarded it, which the Church had formerly pursued, of valuing their own interest at 3 per cent and charging the lessees 5 per cent, it had received its deathblow under the evidence of the late Bishop of Lincoln.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he was quite ready to adopt the noble Lord's suggestion, and to substitute for the term "Shall," the words "may, at the discretion and with the approval of the Church Estates Commissioners."
Provision, as amended, agreed to.
MR. CAYLEYthen moved the following proviso—
"Provided always, that in all computations in any way dependent on the duration of lives, the expectation of life shall be calculated at the rate of 3l. Cs. 8d. per centum; and, so far as such rate can be applied, according to the data on which the life tables are founded which were appended to and published in the 12th annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, and such computation shall be made thereby at a uniform rate of interest."
MR. GOULBURNobjected to the framing of any computations of this important nature upon any other than the most authoritative tables; as to the tables proposed, there were no means before him of estimating their value, for they were not in the library of the House.
MR. J. A. SMITHsupported the clause.
MR. CAYLEYassured the Committee that he had been actuated by no other motive in selecting the Registrar General's tables than that the statistics in that department afforded, in his opinion, the fairest data for all parties concerned as to the general life of the country. In point of fact, Mr. Farr's were rather more favourable to the Church than to the lessees.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that, as to the general propriety of the principle, that the exploded Carlisle tables should not be acted upon for these computations, that was clearly expedient; but, on the other hand, he was of opinion that the proviso now under consideration would not furnish anything like a workable rule. It was very difficult to decide what tables would be most applicable for the purpose, and he conceived that the best course
1220
would be for the hon. Gentleman to leave this point for further consideration, and to bring up an amended clause on the Report. He should himself be most ready to afford his best assistance to the hon. Gentleman in devising a rule on the subject.
MR. CAYLEYwould gladly avail himself of the hon. and learned Gentleman's offer, and postpone the proviso accordingly.
Proviso postponed.
MR. HENLEYremarked that it was important that the same set of tables should be taken for basis which had been used by the parties themselves in entering into existing contracts, otherwise they would run the risk of selling a life on one valuation, and buying it on another.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLthen moved clauses relative to the investment and application of the moneys which are to be paid into the Bank of England under the 6th section of the Act; also in respect of purchases and exchanges; also in respect to the apportionment of moneys between the Church Estates Commissioners and Ecclesiastical Corporations and to the application thereof, which were agreed to without discussion.
Loan JOHN RUSSELLalso moved the following clause—
"The proviso contained in the first section of the said recited Act, with reference to the sale or exchange of tithes or tithe rent-charges, or land or hereditaments allotted or assigned in lieu of tithes, shall be and the same is hereby repealed; and all the moneys so paid or to be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England under the foregoing provision which may have been produced by the sale, purchase, or exchange of tithes or tithe rent-charges, or land or hereditaments assigned or allotted in lieu of tithes, which formed part of the endowment of any ecclesiastical corporation prior to the passing of the said Act, shall be subject to the provisions relating to local claims which are contained in the 67th section of the Act passed in the third and fourth years of Her Majesty's reign, chap. 113. And in every case in which any money shall as aforesaid be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England in respect of surplus, the last-mentioned Commissioners shall, in the annual Report to be next thereafter made by them to the Secretary of State, specify the period at which at the time of the settlement of the terms of the sale, purchase, or exchange in respect of which such payment was made, it was estimated that any and every previously subsisting lease or grant of the tithes or land thereby dealt with would have expired."
MR. MOWBRAYproposed, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "exchange of," and insert—
"Any lands, tithes, or hereditaments whatso-

1221
ever which formed part of the endowment of any ecclesiastical corporation prior to the passing of the said Act shall be subject to the following proviso—that in any application and expenditure of the said moneys due consideration shall be had of the spiritual wants and circumstances of the places in which such lands or hereditaments shall be situated, or such tithes shall have theretofore arisen, anything in any Act contained to the contrary notwithstanding."
The hon. Gentleman observed that it was calculated that within ten years after the passing of the Act of 1840 not less than 200,000 l. had been subtracted from the diocese of Durham, and applied to the purposes of the Act in other parts of England. He knew it had been said that the spiritual wants of the diocese of Durham were not so pressing as those of other dioceses, and on this ground the appropriation of the revenues of the see of Durham to which he had alluded had been justified; but he thought it could be easily shown that the spiritual necessities of that diocese fully equalled those of any other district. Even if that were not the case, however, he thought it was only a matter of justice that revenues arising within a particular diocese should be applied to the purposes of that diocese, so far as they were needed. During the ten years subsequent to 1840 the increase of population within the diocese of Durham had been double the increase that had taken place in any other similar district throughout England and Wales. The want of church accommodation in five of the principal towns of the diocese—Gateshead, Newcastle, South Shields, Sunderland, and Tynemouth—was so great that independently of the sittings provided by all the religious bodies in those towns, no less than 38,000 additional sittings were required. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would take into consideration the operation of the Act of 1840, and that the alienation of the revenues of the diocese of Durham would not be continued.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must object to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, because its adoption would subvert all the principles established by the various Acts with respect to the Ecclesiastical Commission. When the Commission first reported, in 1835, it was proposed that attention should be paid to the spiritual wants of various parts of the country, and the West Riding of Yorkshire and other extensive districts were pointed out, where the number of churches was utterly disproportioned to the population. But, beyond
1222
this, the first proposal of the Commissioners was, that sums should be contributed from the revenues of certain sees, and especially from that of Durham, to furnish an addition to the revenues of other sees, which were then only eked out by preferments held in commendam. They had proceeded upon the general principle that the superfluous funds of one district should be taken to supply the wants of other districts, and in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in Cheshire, and in Lancashire, where there was not sufficient provision for the spiritual wants of the people, funds had thus been provided for the establishment of new districts. The hon. Member now proposed to subvert that principle in regard to Durham; but if subverted in one case it must be subverted in all. In 1840, in accordance with the Report of the Commission, an exception was made with respect to tithes, and it was provided that regard should be had, in the appropriation of the funds, to the wants of the districts in which the tithes arose. He thought it might fairly be said that those tithes were given for the especial purposes of the parishes in which they were collected; but the same could not be said in respect to certain lands, the property of the Church, the produce of which might be applied to ecclesiastical purposes in other districts. It had, therefore, been laid down in the first Report that the property of the Church in one district might properly be applied to relieve the spiritual wants of another district. He could not agree to the Amendment; but he thought that the attention of Parliament should be directed more closely than had hitherto been the case to the appropriation of these funds. He considered that they should have a more specific account than had hitherto been afforded of the appropriation of the funds, and ascertain that they were really applied for the advantage of populous places where considerable spiritual destitution existed. He did not think that the diocese of Durham had bad much reason to complain, for he found that 19,000 l. had been appropriated to that diocese for the augmentation of livings, 7,500 l. for the endowment of new parishes, and 2,300 l. for the building of parsonage houses, besides donations to the Durham University. He did not think the diocese of Durham had been neglected, but he conceived that the House should have returns placed before it which would show the general disposition of the funds.
MR. BLACKETTconsidered that the attention of Parliament must speedily be called to the necessity of providing for the spiritual wants of the diocese of Durham from the funds which were now drawn from that diocese and applied to other districts.
Amendment withdrawn; original clause agreed to.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTmoved—
"That so much of the 11th section of the said recited Act as excepts the dean and canons of the cathedral church of Christ in Oxford from the operation thereof shall be repealed."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALexplained that, if the dean and canons of Christ Church were subjected to the operation of the Act, they would be invested with powers in direct violation of the trusts upon which they held certain property, and on that account they had been exempted from its operation.
Motion negatived.
Other clauses moved and agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported.
House in Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
(1.) 12,055 l., General Board of Health.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he would not oppose this Vote, but he hoped that the future President of the Board, whoever he might be, would try to reduce the expenditure. He did not think that both a secretary and an assistant secretary would be required, if the business of the Board was limited to a general supervision. The inspectors, it appeared, had 5,350 l. It was said that nearly the whole of that would be repaid by the local boards; but as far as the Members of that House were concerned, that was no sufficient answer. The people had repudiated these expensive processes. First, they had an inquiry forced upon them, to which they objected; next, there were the expenses of the survey, which they were called upon to repay. He would not, however, oppose the Vote, as it was only temporary.
MR. HUMEsaid, that he approved of the constitution of the Board of Health on the ground that it would relieve the House of a great deal of private business. He wished to see that Board placed on a right principle, but he objected to the men who composed it, and he was sure that by an alteration there, the interests of the department would be materially promoted. With respect to Mr. Chadwick, he did not wish to throw any slur on the past services
1224
of that gentleman. He knew him to be a man of great talent, and he believed that he would be found useful in some other departments of the public service, but he certainly did not approve of his remaining any longer in connection with a Board, in the management of whose business he had undoubtedly displayed want of judgment. He did not wish to see him any longer in the Board of Health, but he hoped that the Government would find employment for him in some other department, where his great powers of inquiry and grasping research might be made available for the interests of the country. In what he said on a former occasion he had no intention of depreciating the former services of Mr. Chadwick.
SIR G. PECIIELLthought that the Vote was excessive, and that the office expenses were unreasonably large. The whole system should be remodelled, and inquiry was inevitable. He admitted the great talents and the important public services of Mr. Chadwick—in particular his exertions in connection with the Poor Laws—but he was of opinion, with the hon. Member for Montrose, that his connection with the Board of Health should no longer be continued, for he had unfortunately contributed to the unpopularity of that Board, and so impaired in some degree its usefulness. He complained that the Board of Health seemed to spend a good deal of time in circulating the pamphlets of Dr. Southwood Smith.
MR. WILKINSON,as a friend of Dr. Southwood Smith, could not but regret that that gentleman, a man of urbane manners and fine abilities, should have fallen a victim to the great unpopularity of Mr. Chadwick. Provision had been made, or was going to be made, for giving Mr. Chadwick a retiring allowance, and he thought that a similar measure of justice should be awarded to Dr. Smith.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that the Estimate was altogether a temporary and experimental Estimate; it would be for the new President to consider what ought to be the composition of the Board, and he was sure that the arrangements would be on the most economical scale compatable with efficiency. As to an assistant secretary, it was his opinion that such an officer was essential to the working of the business of the Board, but this, as well as other points, would be for the decision of the President.
Vote agreed to, as were also the follow-

1225
ing Votes for salaries and allowances in the public departments other than legal—
(2.) 149,859 l., Departments (other than Legal) heretofore charged on Consolidated Fund.
(3.) 849,402 l., Law Courts and Legal Charges heretofore charged on Consolidated Fund.
(4.) 109,634 l., Miscellaneous Charges heretofore charged on Consolidated Fund.
House resumed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (RETIRING ALLOW ANCE).
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. HUMEhoped that the Government would take care to find some suitable employment for Mr. Chadwick, who, though at present in ill health, had before him the prospect of many years in which he might do good service to the public.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, it was an invariable rule with the Government in all cases where Parliament gave the discretion of granting pensions to public officers, to avail itself of any opportunity for finding active employment for such pensioners as should be capable of fulfilling it; and this rule would not be lost sight of in the case of Mr. Chadwick, confessedly a gentleman well adapted, when in health, for performing valuable public service.
Resolved,
"That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to direct the payment, out of the moneys that may be voted by Parliament, of a Retiring Allowance to one of the Members of the General Board of Health, whose office may be abolished by any Act of the present Session."

APPOINTMENT OF MR. LAWLEY TO THE GOVERNORSHIP OF SOUTH AUSTRA LIA.
On the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means,
SIR GEORGE GREY:—Sir, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) has given notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which Her Majesty has been pleased to appoint the hon. Francis Lawley to the office of Governor of South Australia. Circumstances, Sir, have come to my knowledge within the last few days which induced me, not long ago, to address a note to the right hon. Baronet to say that I was anxious before he addressed the House in pur
1226
suance of that notice to make a statement to the House, which with its permission I will now proceed to do. Of course, after I have made that statement it will be for the right hon. Baronet or any other hon. Member to adopt such course as his sense of public duty may lead him to think fitting. I am desirous in the first place—as I am responsible for submitting to Her Majesty the name of Mr. Lawley for appointment to the governorship of South Australia—to state frankly and unreservedly at once the circumstances under which I submitted that advice to Her Majesty. When I was intrusted with the seals of the Colonial Department, but a day or two before I had actually received them from Her Majesty, I had several conferences with the Duke of Newcastle, my immediate predecessor, in which was stated the various matters of business then pending in that department, over which he had presided. Among other things he communicated to me the arrangements which he had recently made with respect to filling up various important colonial governments which were becoming in course of time vacant. He stated to me the arrangements he had made with respect to the governments of Canada, of New Brunswick, and of Norfolk Island. He stated that Sir Charles Fitzroy's term of service having expired some time ago, it had been intimated to him that he would be released from his duties in the course of the present year, and he had submitted to Her Majesty the name of Sir William Denison, the present Governor of Van Diemen's Land, as the successor to Sir Charles Fitzroy, in New South Wales. The noble Duke told me also that he had submitted to Her Majesty the name of Sir Henry Young, the present Governor of South Australia, for the governorship of New Zealand, which had become vacant by the appointment of the Governor of New Zealand to be the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. He then informed me that, being of opinion that among gentlemen administering the government of other colonies of less importance there was no one who had particular claims on the grounds of public service or public conduct, upon the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he had offered the governorship of South Australia to Mr. Lawley. He stated to me that his acquaintance with Mr. Lawley was not of above six months duration, but that from the acquaintance which he had had,

1227
and the opinion which he had received of Mr. Lawley's character from those in whom he could place confidence, he was of opinion that it was desirable that a gentleman in his position, of his character, and with his abilities, should accept colonial service under the Crown. He stated to me that he had been anxious to obtain the services of Mr. Lawley as Governor of South Australia, but that, as he was then on the point of surrendering the seals of the Colonial Office, he had requested Mr. Lawley to give him an immediate decision with respect to whether he was, or was not, willing to accept the governorship of South Australia. Mr. Lawley was inclined to accept the governorship, but was anxious, as a man must naturally be under such circumstances, to hold some communication with his family and his friends before he gave a decision which might affect the whole course of his future life. He asked, therefore, that a delay of a few days might be given him for deliberation. The Duke of Newcastle informed me that he had stated, in answer to that request, to Mr. Lawley, that, as he only held the seals of the Colonial Department till I had received those seals, as I should do on the next or following day, and as he should merely transact the business of the department while I was absent from London during my re-election, he did not feel that he could give the three days for deliberation which Mr. Lawley had asked for, but that he must give an affirmative or negative decision at once. He undertook, however, if the decision were a negative one, to mention the name of Mr. Lawley to me, to state all that had passed with respect to his appointment, and to inform me that had he remained Secretary of State for the Colonies he should have submitted the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty for appointment to the governorship of South Australia, if Mr. Lawley, after the few days' deliberation he desired, had been disposed to accept that appointment. I am anxious to state frankly and unreservedly to the House—and I have the Duke of Newcastle's full permission to do so—what passed between us on the occasion to which I refer. Mr. Lawley was wholly unknown to me. I have seen him engaged within this House, and have sat on the same side of the House with him during the last year and a half; but certainly I have never been thrown into his society, nor been upon such terms with him as could authorise me to claim him
1228
as the most common acquaintance. The Duke of Newcastle informed me that he thought it right to state the only drawback which in his opinion might be alleged against the appointment of Mr. Lawley arose from a fact which, under the circumstances, he did not consider to be a sufficient bar to his appointment. The Duke of Newcastle told me that, like many young men, I fear, in his position in society, he had early in life been addicted to—I hardly know hew to describe it in ordinary language, but all will understand what I mean—had been unfortunately "on the turf." He had, in early life, been inclined to horse-racing, a habit adopted in common with many other men of high rank and society in this country; but he submitted to me that, so far from thinking this circumstance a bar to the appointment of Mr. Lawley, or as constituting an objection to his appointment, it was, on the contrary, a recommendation under the circumstances which I am about to state. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but I certainly should not have expected theta party which recognised the late lamented Lord George Bentinck as their leader in this House, and who have served under the Government of Lord Derby, would have considered this as an objection. I certainly should not have thought to have heard them sneer at the employment of a person who had been so engaged, or consider that it was an absolute disqualification for office that a man had been so engaged. I pass that by, however, because if hon. Gentlemen will wait till they hear the whole facts, perhaps they will find that their sneers might have been spared. The Duke of Newcastle told me that Mr. Lawley had become deeply impressed with the conviction that the course was one which could not be abandoned too early; and he had stated that his earnest desire was to break off from those habits in which, unfortunately, I say, and say it honestly, he had been employed. Mr. Lawley stated that he had accepted the office of private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to engage himself in higher and more useful pursuits, and that his desire for colonial government was partly prompted by a wish that he might be removed absolutely beyond the reach of temptation, and a recurrence to those habits which it had been his anxious desire to break off. The Duke of Newcastle further informed me that he did not con-

1229
sider I was bound by what had passed between himself and Mr. Lawley. He gave me his opinion, as I have already stated, that Mr. Lawley was well qualified for the appointment in question, and that it would conduce to the public service if he were so appointed. When I accepted the seals of the Colonial Office, I found that the governorship of South Australia was vacant by Her Majesty having approved of the appointment of Sir Henry Young, the then Governor of that colony, to another important government. I had not, as I said before, the slightest personal acquaintance with Mr. Lawley; and under these circumstances I did not feel myself bound, after what had passed between the Duke of Newcastle and myself, to renew the offer of that appointment to Mr. Lawley. I understood that I was perfectly free; and wishing to shrink from no responsibility in this matter, I wish to state explicitly to the House that I considered myself perfectly free to submit to Her Majesty the name of any gentleman for the appointment of Governor of South Australia. So much was I under that conviction, that I had actually made inquiries with respect to another gentleman, in order to ascertain his qualifications and his willingness to undertake that office, and I intended to have made the offer to that other gentleman, if, under all the circumstances, he, had been willing to accept it. But before any decisive steps were taken with respect to filling up this government—about three weeks ago, or less—I received a communication through my private secretary from Mr. Lawley, which, I confess, gave a very different aspect to the case from that in which I had before viewed it. I was then informed, for the first time, that Mr. Lawley was under a different impression from that under which the Duke of Newcastle was, and what he had communicated to me as his impression, and which, in justice to the Duke of Newcastle, I am bound to say, he has since most explicitly confirmed. Mr. Lawley stated that he conceived, from what bad passed between the Duke of Newcastle and himself, that he was not to be considered as having declined the appointment—that the time for which he asked had been allowed him, in order to consider the subject—and that for a period, during the continuance of the present Session, he had understood that it was at his option either to decline or accept the appointment. He stated that he had made up his mind, upon full consideration and com-
1230
munication with those with whom be had previously desired to consult, to accept the governorship of South Australia, and he expressed some surprise that he had not received any communication from me on the subject. I received this information, certainly, with some surprise, because it was contrary to the impressions which, as I have already said, I had formed from the statement of the Duke of Newcastle. I spoke to a right hon. Friend of mine, a relative of Mr. Lawley, in this House, and I found that he was under the same impression as Mr. Lawley, and that not only Mr. Lawley, but that his family and friends were under the impression that the governorship of the colony had been offered to him, and that it was in his power to decline or accept the office. I stated this fact to the Duke of Newcastle; and, again, I am bound to say, in justification of the noble Duke, he stated that the impression existing in the mind of Mr. Lawley, and of his friends, was not that which they were warranted in entertaining; that Mr. Lawley had not, it was true, declined the appointment, and that the Duke of Newcastle had undertaken to mention it to me; but that I was as free to deal with the appointment as if, instead of being a colleague of the noble Duke's, I had succeeded him as a political opponent. With me, therefore, must rest the responsibility of having submitted the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty, for the appointment to the governorship of the colony of South Australia. I had to consider what my public duty required of me. I knew nothing whatever of Mr. Lawley—nothing I may say against him, not even a whisper of suspicion with respect to any transactions in which he had been engaged; and, as honourable men as any that live in this country are engaged on the turf and in horse-racing, I did not think the circumstance of Mr. Lawley having been so concerned constituted a sufficient reason why I, in the position in which I stood, should reverse the decision to which the Duke of Newcastle had come to with respect to the person to be appointed to the governorship of an important colony. Upon the other hand, I knew nothing of Mr. Lawley, and not having known anything of him, I did not, as I have said before, feel justified in making any renewed offer to him. He certainly is not a gentleman to whom—entirely front the absence of all knowledge of him, whether positive or negative, as regards his character—to whom

1231
I should have offered the government, nor was his a name which I should have submitted to Her Majesty for the Governor of an important colony. But when I found that he had been for some weeks under the impression that he was to succeed Sir Henry Young in the government of South Australia—when I found from inquiries among his friends, and when, from contemporaries at the University—who certainly cannot be considered as inferior judges of a man's abilities, where he obtained high distinction—I received the highest testimonials as to the ability and character of Mr. Lawley—I felt that I was in this position—I must either submit his name to Her Majesty, confiding in the assurances of those who had the means of knowing him, and all whose opinions would lead me to suppose that he was admirably qualified for the post which he desired to occupy; or, upon the other hand, without a breath of suspicion having reached me against Mr. Lawley, that I should be acting contrary to their opinions by pronouncing his unfitness for the appointment, in refusing to submit his name to Her Majesty, and thus have cast a stigma upon him which was wholly unmerited. Having obtained all the information I could from every quarter with respect to the ability of Mr. Lawley, I told my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that although I knew nothing of that gentleman, and should not have chosen him myself, still that under all the circumstances of the case I was prepared, in accordance with his opinion, with that of the Duke of Newcastle, and of others who knew Mr. Lawley, and had had opportunities of judging of his character which I did not possess, rather than do any injury or wrong to him, and believing from all that I had heard that he would make an efficient Governor of South Australia, to submit his name to Her Majesty for that appointment. I did so submit the name to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty approved the appointment. For that recommendation I am responsible to Her Majesty, and for Her Majesty's approval of Mr. Lawley's appointment I alone am responsible. Immediately after that appointment was known—and it was known, I think, on the very day on which I received Her Majesty's approval of the appointment—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich placed upon the notice paper of the House a question to be addressed to me on the following day,
1232
asking whether Mr. Lawley had been appointed, and whether it was the intention of the Government to submit the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty for appointment as Governor of South Australia, or any other colony. When I saw that notice, I can assure the House I had not even a suspicion of any circumstances connected with Mr. Lawley to which that notice could point. I came down to the House prepared to have heard from the right hon. Baronet the grounds which would have justified his putting a question which certainly was one of an unusual character. The right hon. Baronet stated no grounds for putting his question, and I need not say I do not complain of this, because the right hon. Baronet is a political opponent, and was not bound to communicate to me any public or private information which he possessed. From that day to this I have received not the slightest information with respect to the grounds upon which that question was put. I answered the question, therefore, in the only way in which I could answer it in accordance with the strictest truth, namely, that Her Majesty had been advised to appoint Mr. Lawley to the government of South Australia, and that I had advised the appointment. That question was put to me this day week, and I stated, in private to Members of this House, that I was utterly at a loss to know what that question pointed at, and that I should be thankful to be informed, in order that any valid objection to Mr. Lawley might have been investigated fairly and fully, but I was unable to take the slightest movement towards instituting such an inquiry. I should state that immediately before I submitted the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Recorder of London (Mr. Stuart Wortley), in order to ascertain what his impressions were with respect to the effect of what had passed between the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Lawley with respect to this appointment. He, as I should have expected from him, fairly told me what the Duke of Newcastle had told me before, namely, that Mr. Lawley had been "upon the turf," and he felt that that might be an objection; but he stated at the same time, in the most explicit terms which I could desire, that there was not a single debt or liability outstanding to which Mr. Lawley was now subject, or in order to evade which he might be desirous of leaving this country on receiving

1233
the appointment. The facts, therefore, as they were known to me were—that Mr. Lawley, as I have said has been the case with too many young men to their loss, and it may be to their ultimate ruin, had been early engaged in transactions on "the turf;" but that not one whisper of dishonourable conduct in connection with that pursuit had then reached or has yet reached me; and that there was no outstanding debt or liability to which Mr. Lawley was subject on that account. If there had been, I should have felt that I was departing widely from my duty as a Minister of the Crown in submitting to Her Majesty the name of a gentleman with whom it might be an object to remove himself from the reach of those means which might be used against him in order to enforce the settlement of his liabilities. Upon this point the statement made to me by my right hon. Friend the Recorder of London was clear and unambiguous. On Friday last, after the morning sitting of the House, I returned to my office, and shortly before six o'clock, when about to return to the House, the Duke of Newcastle came to my room, and told me that he felt it his duty to come to me and inform me at the earliest moment he could, that from two separate quarters, in the course of that day, he had received information of rumours being in circulation highly injurious to the character of Mr. Lawley. He did not tell me from whom the information was derived, but stated that it was received in one instance from a Peer, and in the other from a right hon. Gentleman well known to himself as well as to me, but whose name he did not state. He told me the nature of those rumours, and as I am anxious that the House should be in full possession of all the circumstances connected with the case, hon. Members will think, perhaps, that I am only doing my duty if I state what was the nature of those rumours which were stated to me in the course of conversation. The communication was made in conversation, and I have no record of it, but I believe I shall be able to state the purport. The Duke of Newcastle stated that he had been informed that very recently Mr. Lawley had become subject to heavy liabilities and debts in connection with transactions on the turf. He told me besides that there were rumours of a much more serious character as affecting the conduct, position, and character of Mr. Lawley—namely, that Mr. Lawley had availed himself of the official knowlege ac-
1234
quired as private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to engage in extensive speculations in the funds. The Duke of Newcastle was on his way to the House of Lords, and was obliged to leave me almost immediately. I believe that I stated to him the course I should pursue under these circumstances, but at all events the purport of what the noble Duke stated to me I have now stated to the House, and there could be no doubt as to the course which I ought immediately to adopt. I immediately put aside the business on which I was engaged, and addressed a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Mr. Lawley then being out of town—and I told him the extreme surprise and concern with which I had just received this information from the Duke of Newcastle. I told him that I was assured of his entire concurrence in what I said, and that it would likewise meet with the concurrence of the Duke of Newcastle, that if there was any foundation of truth in these rumours it would be impossible that the appointment of Mr. Lawley could proceed. I stated my most earnest hope that he would be able to disprove the truth of these rumours, and that they would be found to be destitute of foundation, and that until the receipt of satisfactory information I should suspend all further proceedings with respect to the appointment of Mr. Lawley; and that in justice to him, in justice to myself, in justice to the Government, and in justice to the colony to which he was to be appointed, these reports should be communicated to Mr. Lawley at the earliest opportunity in order that he might have the means and opportunity which every man was justly entitled to, of knowing what had been said in regard to him, and having every opportunity of explaining or refuting the charges. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately came to me. He told me that Mr. Lawley was out of town, that he would be in London on the following night, and I asked him what course it would be best to take with the view of bringing these facts and rumours under the notice of Mr. Lawley. He said that Mr. Lawley was to be in town the next day, and asked my opinion as to whether it was desirable that he should transmit by the post of that evening my letter to him to Mr. Lawley. As Mr. Lawley was to be in town the following day, we thought that, by sending the letter, we might incur

1235
the risk of his not only receiving it, and I thought the best way was, that my right hon. Friend should write to Mr. Lawley to say that he had received such a letter, in order to ensure his early arrival in town. On Monday morning the House sat at twelve o'clock. I was present, and asked my right hon. Friend the Recorder of London (Mr. Stuart Wortley) whether he had seen Mr. Lawley, and I was informed by him that Mr. Lawley had gone to my office in Downing-street with a view to see me there. I was in this House at the time, and my private secretary, who is also a Member of this House, was likewise here. Very shortly after that communication was made to me, after I had been informed of Mr. Lawley's desire to see me, with the view of completely denying the truth of these reports, I received through my private secretary a letter addressed to him, which he put into my hands in this House, and which contained, as it appeared to me, a clear, satisfactory, and conclusive denial of by far the most serious charge and imputation which had been brought against Mr. Lawley, namely, the fact of his having speculated in the funds upon his official information as the private secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I transmitted that letter immediately to the Duke of Newcastle, because, as it was through his Grace alone that these reports had reached me, I was desirous that he should see the terms in which the charges had been met, and I was anxious not to rely wholly on my own judgment, though I fairly avow that in writing to his Grace, I stated my belief that the terms in which Mr. Lawley's denial was expressed were quite conclusive in regard to by far the most serious of these imputations. The Duke of Newcastle concurred with me in that view. Subsequently, on meeting the Recorder of London, he renewed to me, as he was empowered to do, the direct denial of there being any liability or debt existing to which Mr. Lawley could be subject, and with a view to avoid which he was desirous of leaving this country. And with reference to that matter, I am anxious to state that in the only interview which I had with Mr. Lawley—the only opportunity which I had of speaking to him on the subject of his appointment—he appeared desirous to fix a time for his departure from this country which I thought too remote, and I told him that if he accepted the appointment I should hold him liable to proceed to the colony whenever I required him to do so,
1236
without suiting his own convenience by waiting till a more distant period. I mention that circumstance, because I think it shows that in the only conversation which I had with Mr. Lawley, there was clearly in his mind no desire to leave this country, so as to avoid any liability to which he might be subject, and that, in truth, in accepting the appointment he contemplated a longer residence here than I thought consistent with the public interests to sanction. So matters stood until this day. The right hon. Baronet opposite, in the mean time, gave notice that he would call the attention of the House to the appointment; and I then thought that I should have the opportunity of making this statement to the House, in order that it might be known precisely under what circumstances this appointment had been made, and that I might have an opportunity of referring to the testimonials, certainly of the most satisfactory kind, so far as any man's judgment can be formed from such documents, which I had received as to the ability, the honour, and the integrity of Mr. Lawley. But in the course of this morning I received from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a communication which he made, no doubt, with the deepest regret and concern, and which I need not say I received with the same feelings. From that communication it appeared that Mr. Lawley had been engaged in transactions in the funds within the last few months which, to a certain extent, justified those rumours which had been stated to me, and with regard to which I had expressed my opinion—an opinion in which my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle entirely concurred—that if there was any foundation of truth in them the appointment of Mr. Lawley could not proceed. It is due, in justice to Mr. Lawley, to state—and it is within the knowledge of my right hon. Friend that I am able to state with certainty—that the information with regard to these transactions is derived exclusively from Mr. Lawley himself. I am informed that late last night he felt it his duty to communicate to my right hon. Friend the facts, the purport of which was communicated to me to-day. I have stated before that the charge which I understood to have been made against Mr. Lawley was this: that he had availed himself of his official knowledge as private secretary to my right hon. Friend to engage in these speculations in the funds. I have no reason to believe that that is

1237
the case. I am informed that the speculations in which Mr. Lawley engaged were losing speculations and not gaining speculations. Mr. Lawley is entitled to the benefit of that statement; but, however he may be affected by it, I am bound to say that in my opinion it did not in the least affect my duty to the Crown, to this country, and to the colony, and I immediately addressed a letter to Her Majesty, expressing my great regret and concern that I had recently submitted for the approval of Her Majesty an appointment which I now felt it my imperative duty, under circumstances which had just come to my knowledge, humbly to advise Her Majesty to revoke. I believe I have now submitted the whole of this painful case. Painful I may say to me it has been to make this statement. Though I have thought it right to state what passed between the Duke of Newcastle and myself before I accepted the seals of the Colonial Office in correction of the impression which existed in the mind of Mr. Lawley and that of his Friends, yet I feel that the responsibility of submitting the name of Mr. Lawley to Her Majesty devolves no doubt on myself; and any censure which the House may feel is due to that act I will humbly and patiently submit to, though, as I have already said, the motives which influenced me were such as I venture to think would have influenced any other man in my position. In the absence of the slightest shadow of suspicion which had been suggested to me as attaching to the integrity and honour of Mr. Lawley, and with the strong testimonials I had in my hand to his ability and qualifications from those in whom I had confidence, I think I could not have acted otherwise than I did. I believe I have now stated, fully, frankly, and unreservedly to the House all the circumstances of this transaction. Having done so, it is for the right hon. Baronet opposite to take any course which his sense of public duty may lead him to take with regard to this subject. I am at this moment absolutely in ignorance of the grounds upon which the right hon. Baronet placed his notice upon the paper. I am told that an application was made to him, before the facts I have stated were known, to ascertain whether he intended to impugn the appointment of Mr. Lawley upon public or private grounds, but that the right hon. Gentleman, in the exercise of a discretion which I do not question, declined to give any such information. If it had not been for Mr. Lawley's own act
1238
—if he had not stated fully, freely, and unreservedly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the whole circumstances of his transactions in the funds—I should have come down to this House to-night ignorant of the grounds upon which the right hon. Baronet meant to impugn the appointment, and I might thereby have been led to make statements which I might afterwards deeply have regretted, but which Mr. Lawley has now prevented me from being induced to make by the statement which he has himself made. The appointment, as I said before, Her Majesty has been advised to revoke; and I may state here that, when Mr. Lawley made his statement last night, he felt that he was making a statement which would prove fatal to his prospects in the Colonies, and at once declared that he considered his appointment altogether at an end. I have only to add that if, after the statement I have made, the House wishes for further information upon the subject, or thinks that an investigation into all the circumstances of the case should take place, Her Majesty's Government is in the hands of the House and is ready and willing to agree to whatever may be considered necessary.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: notwithstanding the observations with which the right hon. Baronet has closed his speech, I beg to state that I am deeply sensible of the perfect candour with which the right hon. Gentleman has now addressed the House, and that I am no less sensible of the honourable feeling which has distinguished that speech. I can assure the right hon. Baronet that, whatever political differences may divide us, I do not believe that he is a man who would recommend to the Sovereign the appointment of any person to exercise the high and responsible duties of a Colonial Governor, unless he was satisfied of the fitness of that individual; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do me equal justice, and will believe that I have approached this painful subject solely and exclusively from a strong and paramount sense of public duty, arising from the deep interest which I naturally take in the welfare of our colonial dependencies. I had no desire to impede the fair advancement of a gentleman towards whom I did not feel, or could not feel, a shadow of personal enmity; nor could I have any desire to wound the feelings of the friends of that gentleman, many of whom are personal friends of my

1239
own. But I am unable to agree altogether in the opinion which appears to have been entertained by the Duke of Newcastle, and which the right hon. Baronet, as I understood him, has himself avowed of the personal fitness. irrespective of these painful rumours and transactions, of Mr. Lawley for the situation to which he was appointed. The right hon. Baronet has stated that I gave him no grounds for the question which I put to him this day week. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he thought I was deficient in courtesy in the course I then took, or wanting in fairness in not having held communication with him, with regard to the course which I intended to take to-day, no such discourtesy was meant by me. I deeply felt the difficulty and delicacy of the duty which I had undertaken. I was desirous not to say a word more upon this painful subject than I could possibly help; and I can assure the right hon. Baronet, in consequence of the reference which he has made to me, that it was not till within the last few hours that I could conclusively make up my mind as to the course which my public duty required me to take. I have said that I could not concur in the opinion of the Duke of Newcastle with regard to the personal fitness of Mr. Lawley for this appointment; but I think the right hon. Baronet will agree with me, that among the patronage of the Crown, which is exercised by the advisers of the Crown, there is scarcely any which ought to be exercised with greater care and with a more anxious and single-minded reference to the public interests than the appointment of governors for our colonies. Those appointments ought to be made in such a manner as not only to secure the satisfaction and confidence of this country, but what is still more important, to satisfy the colonists over whom the gentlemen so chosen are to preside, that these appointments have been made solely with reference to the interests and welfare of the colonies. If this is true generally, it is especially and peculiarly so with reference to the Australian Colonies at the present moment. The discoveries of gold have put these colonies in a most critical position. They require the anxious care and attention of the Imperial and of the Colonial Governments. The Colony of Victoria at a very recent period, I may without exaggeration say, was almost disorganised. The Colony of South Australia, immediately contiguous to Victoria,
1240
although no discoveries of gold have been made within it, has undergone a period of great social and commercial disturbance; and it was desirable for the interests of that colony, and, indeed, of all the Australian Colonies, that any gentleman selected to be governor should possess statesman-like qualities and known abilities. He ought to be a man of great experience in public affairs, of great firmness, and of great judgment. He ought to be a man whose character should at once inspire confidence in his qualifications, and enable him to give a healthy moral tone to that society of which he is to be the head, and ought to be the leader and the guide. Now, sir, I do not think that I at all disparage the claims of Mr. Lawley—I think I say nothing to which the friends of Mr. Lawley can take any fair exception—when I state that, considering his age and position, and his limited experience in public affairs, the appointment of Mr. Lawley, under any circumstances, as governor of one of the Australian colonies at this moment, was one that was but too likely to excite feelings of dissatisfaction in the colony, and was one not likely to conduce to the advantage of those rising communities. But, irrespective of this consideration, when I gave notice of my intended Motion two days ago, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London (Mr. Stuart Wortley) adverted to what he spoke of as calumnious rumours, and expressed very naturally his anxiety for an opportunity to meet and dispose of those rumours. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies has now again referred to these rumours. He has given fresh proof of their extended currency. They have been commented upon by the public press. [Sir GEORGE GREY: I had not seen them.] They have become the subject of remark in society; and under these circumstances I did feel that my public duty required that I should call the attention of the House and of the Government to this appointment, in order that, before Mr. Lawley left this country to undertake the government of the important colony of South Australia, these rumours, which had become current in every circle, might be set at rest one way or the other. I did feel that it was due to Mr. Lawley himself, that it was due to the Government who appointed him, but, above all, that it was due to the colony, that Mr. Lawley should not commence his career under the dis-

1241
advantage of having these rumours preceding his arrival in the colony, and therefore under circumstances which could not but be disadvantageous to him as well as to those whom he was appointed to govern. It was, therefore, really as a matter of public duty, and in a spirit of fairness to all parties, that I did venture to give my opinion, that before Mr. Lawley commenced the important duties which the Government has assigned to him, these rumours should be disposed of one way or the other. After the speech which the right hon. Baronet has made, and after the distressing conclusion of that speech, I think it is hardly necessary for me to say that I should certainly not have considered that the mere fact of having been connected with the sport of horse-racing was of itself a disqualification for holding the office of Governor of South Australia or any other high appointment. I believe, without reference to party considerations, without regard to one side of the House or the other, I may affirm that noblemen rind gentlemen of as high and unimpeachable honour as ever adorned society in this country have taken an interest in the sport of horse-racing; and that it would be an absurdity to contend that a mere taste for that sport was of itself a disqualification for holding office under the Crown; this, however, must be a question of degree, but I will not further press that subject. The right hon. Baronet has asked me what course I intend to take. To that I can return but one answer—the course taken by the right hon. Baronet himself has spared me from a painful duty. I think that, under the circumstances which have occurred, Mr. Lawley has acted as a gentleman in his position ought to have acted, and so far as I am concerned, nothing further will fall from me upon this subject. The subject must now be considered to be at an end. I cannot but think that the information which has been communicated to us justifies me in the course which I thought it my duty to take. I shall say no more upon that point, but shall conclude by expressing the hope, which I trust may be considered almost as superfluous, that the House will believe that nothing but a paramount sense of public duty has induced me to take any part at all in this transaction.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: I need not say that I rise upon the present occasion with feelings of the most painful nature, not on account of the explanation
1242
which I feel to be due to the House with respect to what took place upon a former evening, but because I feel that I have in my hands the interests of one who must ever be dear to me, and because I am apprehensive that any imprudent expression on my part would be dangerous to a reputation which hitherto has been untarnished. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies has expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has up to the present moment never intimated, either to the minister who was responsible for the appointment, or to the friends of Mr. Lawley, the nature of the charge which he intended to make—whether it was upon public grounds as to the fitness of the individual selected, or whether it was upon such private grounds as those which have been referred to this evening. Under these circumstances, there was nothing for Mr. Lawley and his friends to do but to collect from public rumour what it was that the right hon. Gentleman opposite meant, and that public rumour undoubtedly embodied the charges which have been already referred to. By far the gravest and most important of these charges was this, that Mr. Lawley had availed himself of his official knowledge as private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to speculate in the funds. The moment that I heard that imputation I utterly disbelieved it. But before entering upon that subject, allow me to confirm some of the statements which have been made by the Colonial Secretary in justification of Mr. Lawley. I must tell the House, in the first place, that this appointment was obtained by Mr. Lawley solely by his own exertions. No person applied for it in his behalf; no influence was used by his relatives or others at the Colonial Office to obtain it for him; it was his merits, and his merits alone—his services in the last eighteen months, during which he has been a most able, efficient, and faithful servant of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which recommended him to official men for that appointment. I myself heard of the appointment with surprise. At first I was informed that the appointment was to the governorship of West Australia, and as a relative of Mr. Lawley I more than once remonstrated, and expressed my regret that so able and so promising a man should thus place himself in exile. I found I was mistaken, and that the appointment was to South Australia. But even then it was

1243
with great reluctance that the friends of Mr. Lawley could approve of his leaving this country. When, however, we were told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recommended him to accept the appointment, and that it would afford him an opportunity of withdrawing from that unhappy connection which has been the unfortunate cause of all this mischief, we rejoiced that an opportunity, which I knew he was himself anxious to obtain, had been placed within his reach. A connection with the turf, as it is called, is unfortunately one from which a man cannot withdraw himself in a minute. He has contracted obligations to which he must be attentive in order to avert great losses at a future time, and it is impossible to withdraw himself from such a connection suddenly. I was consequently aware that prior to the time when this appointment was offered to him Mr. Lawley had not been able entirely to extricate himself; but I knew at the same time that he was anxiously desirous to do so as soon as possible, and it was upon that ground that his family were prepared to recommend him to accept the governorship of South Australia, though they certainly were of opinion that the acceptance of such an appointment on the part of a man with his connections, with his fortune, with his abilities, and his determination to devote them to the public service, and above all, with a seat in Parliament, would certainly involve some sacrifice. Not that I mean to depreciate so high and important an office as the governorship of South Australia; I merely state what our views were; but at all events Mr. Lawley was advised to accept the appointment. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies, as he has already stated to the House, came to me and asked me what was the understanding of Mr. Lawley's family with reference to what had passed between him and the Duke of Newcastle. My answer was, that we had all understood that the office was placed at Mr. Lawley's disposal, but that he had asked and obtained time to consider the subject. The right hon. Baronet, in the handsomest and kindest manner, immediately said that there was an end to all further question in regard to the appointment, and that he was willing to take the whole responsibility of Mr. Lawley's nomination. I then thought it my duty to state to the right hon. Baronet that Mr. Lawley had not only been on the turf, but had also incurred losses and embarrassments—that
1244
he had made a full statement of all his difficulties to his friends, and that care would be taken, he having considerable expectations, that by the time he left this country he should not be a single farthing in debt. Under these circumstances, I was much astonished when a question was put by the right hon. Baronet opposite on the subject. I should not have been astonished if the right hon. Baronet had at once stated his objection to the appointment to be on political grounds, for, when I considered Mr. Lawley's youth, I had no right to be surprised that some objection would be entertained. I applied to the right hon. Baronet, and asked him if it was his intention to follow his question by taking any other step. The right hon. Gentleman declined giving any information on the subject. I then asked him whether he would found his objections on public or private grounds. The right hon. Baronet again declined giving any information.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I did not decline giving information, but what I said was, that I was unable at that time to give an answer, but that I would let the right hon. Gentleman know my intention as soon as I possibly could.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: You said that you would give me an answer on the following Thursday, which was the day on which you were to bring forward your question. This was by word of mouth; but I had received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman stating that he could not tell me what his intentions were. Mr. Lawley was out of town at that time. I wrote to him immediately that it was necessary he should come to London. He came. I saw him the moment he arrived. He told me that he had seen attacks against him in the newspapers, not on private, but on public grounds, and frankly admitted that the appointment of so young a man to an office of such importance might very fairly be made the subject of comment and animadversion in the press. I told him that there were charges affecting his personal honour, which he must be prepared to meet if he intended to hold the appointment. I said I was unable to ascertain the grounds or purport of the Motion which the right hon. Baronet intended to make in this House, but I added it was rumoured, and that the rumour had reached the Duke of Newcastle and Sir George Grey, that he had availed himself of the official information which he obtained as private secretary to the Chancellor

1245
of the Exchequer for the purpose of speculating in the funds. He denied that charge in the strongest and most indignant terms. I rejoiced that he did so, and advised him to write immediately to Sir George Grey to that effect. Such were the circumstances which led me upon a former occasion to refer to what I called the "calumnious rumours" which were afloat concerning Mr. Lawley. To this moment I believe I have Mr. Lawley's authority for saying that he never has used his official knowledge as private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of speculating in the funds; and, indeed, it is clear and manifest that he has never done so, for, as has been already stated, his speculations have been losing speculations, and have only increased his difficulties. Subsequently, however, he thought it right—having up to that time concealed the fact, under the false impression that he was bound not to disclose the names of others—to state to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had been engaged in speculating in the funds, but that those speculations had been wholly unconnected with any official information which he might have possessed. Under these circumstances, Mr. Lawley does not complain in the slightest degree of the step which has been taken by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies; on the contrary, he has no doubt that the public service required it, and that, after such a great indiscretion as he had been guilty of, it was of course utterly impossible that his appointment could proceed. I have stated that it was by his own merits alone that he obtained this appointment. I do not rely upon my own opinion upon that point. It might be biassed by partiality. Nor do I rely upon the opinion of his friends merely, but upon that of public men having the greatest opportunities of judging of Mr. Lawley, his capacity and qualifications. I hold in my hand a letter from one of the most distinguished public servants in the country—a gentleman unconnected with Mr. Lawley in politics—Mr. John Wood, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. He had frequently spoken to me about this appointment, and had referred in the highest terms to the ability and fitness of Mr. Lawley for the office. I asked him if he would have any objection to put his opinion upon paper. His words are these—
"I wish I had the opportunity to give my public testimony to his fitness for the appoint-
1246
ment. I could refer to my knowledge of him for very many years, and more particularly to my experience during the two Sessions he has acted as private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Seldom has a day passed during that period in which I have not had communication with him, and this is by no means the first occasion on which I have expressed my admiration of his talents, his indefatigable industry, and his singular aptitude for business. These qualities are enhanced by a most amiable temper and an earnest sincerity, which are peculiarly valuable in official life. I am well aware that he has long entertained a partiality for colonial government, and has been desirous to qualify himself for it; and, much as I wish that he had remained in this country, I am in some degree reconciled to his going, believing that an honourable career of distinguished usefulness is before him."
That is the opinion of a disinterested and certainly most capable witness. But I have another testimony—not from a gentleman belonging to the same political party as Mr. Lawley—not from an old friend—but from a distinguished man, holding a high and important office. It is to the following effect—
"I shall much regret your departure from Downing Street, whoever may be your successor, and you have my hearty good wishes for your success in your government, of which I cannot have a doubt, for you will bring to the discharge of your duties talents, activity, and honesty of purpose, and every quality requisite to ensure succes."
That is the opinion of the Chairman of the Board of Customs, Sir Thomas Free-mantle. I feel it due to the Government who made this appointment to bring before the House these testimonies to the fitness of Mr. Lawley; and I do so also for the purpose of confirming what I have already said, that he obtained the appointment, not by the influence of friends, but by his own merits, and of showing that it was an honourable ambition which prompted him to accept it. I likewise wish to state that until a late hour last night neither his own family nor any Member of the Government could have been at all aware of his transactions in the funds. I can only repeat most emphatically that I believe on no occasion has Mr. Lawley used his official information for the purpose of assisting in these speculations. They are the unfortunate consequence of a habit acquired in former years, when he kept the society of men who indulged in gambling transactions of this description, but in no instance has he availed himself of his official position. If there be the slightest doubt of that, Mr. Lawley is willing to lay bare his breast, and submit to any inquiry or examination, either by a Committee or any other tribunal the House of Commons may think

1247
necessary. I have again to assert that, though there may be, as I deeply regret there are, reflections on his prudence, on his honour there are none—that though there may have been a connection with transactions of the kind referred to, yet that that connection was not of a nature that could in any way detract from his usefulness as a public servant; and I trust he will survive to resume, at some future time, the career from which he is at present displaced, with better hopes and under better auspices.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, although he had not the honour of Mr. Lawley's acquaintance, and although it might seem strange that, sitting on the same side of the House, he did not even know that gentleman by sight, he was exceedingly desirous of having one question answered by the right hon. Gentleman the secretary for the Colonies, for the sake of Mr. Lawley himself, and he earnestly wished and expected the answer would be favourable to him. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had received information which satisfied him that Mr. Lawley, during the time he had filled the office of secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had not speculated in the funds. The right hon. Gentleman also stated, that subsequently he had received from Mr. Lawley himself a letter, acknowledging that unfortunately he had during that time fallen into the error of speculating in the funds, or entering into some transactions connected with the funds, although he had not availed himself of his official information in any way for the purpose of conducting those speculations. Many hon. Gentlemen near him understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had received a letter from Mr. Lawley, at first stating that he had not during the period he held the office of secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer speculated in the funds. He wished to know whether that impression was correct? Whether, what Mr. Lawley stated was—that he had not used his official information in speculating in the funds; or was it, that he had not speculated in the funds during the time he was secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
SIR GEORGE GREYhad stated before, that, in consequence of rumours which reached the Duke of Newcastle, which the Duke of Newcastle communicated to him, and which he immediately communicated in writing to the Chancellor of the
1248
Exchequer, which were that Mr. Lawley had made use of his official knowledge, as private secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to speculate in the funds, on Monday he received a communication, not addressed directly to himself, but a communication which he thought, and had a right to think, was satisfactory and conclusive on these grounds. He certainly understood the purport of that communication to cover the denial of any speculation in the funds during the time Mr. Lawley was private secretary to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, as he had distinctly stated, a reply was required directly to the point, had he made use of his official knowledge for the purpose of speculating in the funds? and he was bound to believe that the denial, whatever the terms, had reference to the charge which was communicated in writing to his right hon. Friend.
MR. DISRAELI: When the conduct of an individual is under discussion, it is not agreeable to interfere, especially after the painful conclusion which has taken place to-day; but there were some observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London, differing in some degree from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with respect to the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) which I do not think I ought to pass over unnoticed. Those right hon. Gentlemen seem to charge my right hon. Friend with want of straightforwardness and candour, because, after he felt it his duty to give notice that he should bring this subject of the appointment of Mr. Lawley as Governor of South Australia before the consideration of the House, he did not state explicitly what were the grounds upon which he was about to challenge the propriety of that appointment. I think the House will feel, after what it has heard this evening, that my right hon. Friend was placed in a situation of extreme difficulty, and that it was impossible for him definitely and precisely to state what were the charges he had to make against Mr. Lawley, or on what particular grounds he would challenge the propriety of that appointment. I am myself individually aware of the extreme pain which my right bon. Friend felt during the few days which have elapsed with regard to this question. On more than one occasion he did me the honour of consulting me, and certainly the opinion I gave him was not one which at

1249
all encouraged him in any precipitate conduct in the affair. My right hon. Friend was actuated by as pure a sense of public duty as would influence any gentleman. I am sure if the letter referred to by the learned Recorder were read to the House, it would show that my right hon. Friend was influenced by feelings of the utmost courtesy and cordiality, and I feel it my duty, after the observations which have been made, to express my own opinion (and I hope and believe it is the opinion of a majority of this House, of Gentlemen on both sides) that the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich has been perfectly justified by all that has passed.
MR. BRIGHT: I think the House will be disposed to pass from the consideration of a case, certainly the most painful that has occurred since I have had the honour to be a Member of it, and I should not say a syllable with regard to a gentleman who, possibly without intending anything wrong, is placed in a position which must give great pain to himself and his friends. But there is another point involved in this notice which has been very much concealed, or rather pressed out of sight by the urgency of the personal case, and that is the fact of the appointment of a gentleman to an office of high responsibility under circumstances, apart from all private character, which, I think, deserves the attention of the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary partly, if not entirely, admitted that when this appointment was brought under his notice, he himself had some doubt as to the propriety of it, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of the City of London said that he heard of the appointment with astonishment. I may say, I believe that feeling of astonishment was almost universal among Members of this House; and if a feeling of astonishment was created here, I should like to ask what must we expect to be the feeling in the Colony over which this appointment was made? I am not one of those who think that colonial appointments of this kind are unimportant; for let the House bear in mind, almost the only tie which connects our Colonies with the mother country is the tie of the colonial government, and probably nothing in the whole colonial system is more important than the appointment of the individuals who in those Colonies shall represent the Crown. My opinion is, that it is indispensable that
1250
in appointments of this character you should have, not men who have shown great proficiency at Oxford or great abilities as private secretaries here, but men, if possible, known to the public, whose conduct has been approved before the country, and in whom the Colony itself should have good reason for placing great confidence. Now, in this case it is admitted that this gentleman was almost unknown. There are not a few Members, I will undertake to say, on this side of the House, who actually have no knowledge of his personal appearance. It is admitted that he had been in this House for nearly two years, and taken no part whatever, that I have heard of, in its deliberations; and without saying one single syllable against him, but allowing everything which has been said in his favour, I put it to the House whether it be desirable, having regard to our position in connection with the Colonies, that appointments of men, however excellent or admirable, who are unknown, should be thus made. And I hope what has taken place to-night will have an influence on the Colonial Secretary with regard to other appointments which are before long to be made. I have heard also rumours of appointments which are looming in the not distant future, and although I have no expectation that we shall ever have such another scene as we have had to-night, yet I can quite conceive it possible that vast interests may be jeopardised—I will not say the peace, but the satisfaction and good-will of colonies may be jeopardised—by appointments for which there are no solid foundations. I think the Duke of Newcastle was wrong in the course he took in this particular matter, and that the present Colonial Secretary, out of deference and delicacy to what was done, was not sufficiently alive to the interests of the country and the wants of the Colony, in the appointment of its Governor. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), I cannot conceive that any one can say for a moment he has not performed precisely his duty in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman knew what rumours were afloat. He did not want to make a parade of these things, and to bring them unnecessarily before the House. He asked a question which was sufficient to create inquiry in the mind of the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich may have been in hopes that if any of these charges, the

1251
rumour of which was confined to himself, were true, that then, without any exposure such as has taken place, the appointment might have been rescinded, and the whole matter terminated without any unpleasant discussion such as has taken place to-night. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman, performing clearly his public duty with that knowledge which had come to him, performed it not only in a manner due to the public service, but also with the greatest possible delicacy towards individuals concerned. For myself, though extremely sorry that this question has come before the House as it has done, I hope it may be a warning to the present Colonial Secretary and his successors that the men to be appointed to these onerous and responsible offices—to be sent to the other side of the globe to represent the Monarch of these realms, and to carry out the behests of the Imperial Parliament—should at least be men to whom no one here can point a finger, and men who can at least deserve, if not obtain, the full confidence of the population they are intended to govern.
MR. ADDERLEYthought that everybody must allow that the appointment of Mr. Lawley was a most unfortunate one, and more especially unfortunate for that gentleman himself, though, after all, he had not been guilty of anything dishonourable. He was known as a young man of very first-rate abilities, and he believed that there was no reflection cast on his honour, the only charge to which he could be held liable being want of discretion in his private station. But he had been sacrificed by a still greater want of discretion on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers in making such an appointment. It seemed, from the statement of the Secretary of the Colonies himself, that he did not approve of it. The hon. Member for Manchester was perfectly justified in saying that this was not an appointment in times like the present for the improvement of our colonies in Australia. The colonies at this moment were very sensitive on these points. They had a suspicion that these appointments were made more with a view to the interests of those at home than to the interests of those who were on the spot, and, at all events, it must be admitted that the appointment of this gentleman had shown that such a suspicion was well founded. It should be borne in mind, too, that this was in sequence of the recent appointment of Mr. Stonor, as Judge in Victoria, which was another of
1252
these questionable appointments, and he thought that an appointment of so kindred a character occurring so immediately after was most unfortunate. In both cases the interests of the Colonies were not considered with that deliberation they should have been, and in both cases the unfortunate men had been sacrificed for want of discretion on the part of the Government who made the appointments. By those who thought that the loss of her Colonies would cause England to sink in the scale of nations, any want of discretion on the part of the Government must be considered as a matter of most serious concern. What did the colonists say? They said, "You give us constitutions, you want us to manage our own affairs, and if you want good governors and cannot find them at home we can supply them." The Colonies had furnished such men. Washington, as all knew, was one of the very first men in history. There was one observation used by the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London to which he must call attention. That right hon. Gentleman said that, when he heard of this appointment, he gave Mr. Lawley advice, and told him not to exile himself by accepting such an appointment. It might be, certainly, a great condescension on the part of a young gentleman to give up his prospects in this country and become an exile, although a governor in the Colonies; but, if that was the feeling of English gentlemen, the colonists themselves might seek to be raised to such positions of influence and dignity in the administration of their affairs which they best understood, and in which they were most deeply concerned.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think it necessary for me to enter on the personal and more painful part of this subject, except only that as I still feel a warm and affectionate interest in the future of Mr. Lawley, I cannot refrain from tendering my thanks to the House, and to those who have spoken in this debate, for the fair and considerate spirit in which they have approached this question. And I think it only justice to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) to tender him my thanks, particularly as I am one who might question the discretion in the exercise he has used of his undoubted right to bring this subject forward, and to say that the speech he has made to-night has entirely convinced me that he is not only governed in these proceedings by a sense of public

1253
duty, but that he is sincerely desirous to unite the performance of that duty with every consideration and tenderness towards the gentleman who is the subject of discussion. It is not altogether usual, perhaps, for colleagues to endeavour to do justice to one another in this House, or to offer explanations on one another's behalf, when they are challenged as to the mode in which they exercise their particular functions; but, at the same time, in the intimate relations I have stood to Mr. Lawley—first, as a private connection, and secondly, in my official capacity—and bearing in mind the peculiar circumstances under which my right hon. Friend near me (Sir G. Grey) has become, as he manfully says, responsible for this appointment—I feel that something is due to him, also, from me. But a few weeks have elapsed since my right hon. Friend assumed his present office, having immediately before occupied the position of an independent Member of this House; and I think the House will feel that although my right hon. Friend has challenged that responsibility, yet the greater part of it, in fact, belongs to those who, not ostensibly, were the authors of the appointment; and I am quite certain my noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle), who recently presided over the Colonial Departments, is the very last man to desire that any one should relieve him of one grain or tittle of any responsibility which attaches to him in the discharge of his official duties. Sir, undoubtedly the origin of that appointment, as I believe, lay in suggestions made to the Duke of Newcastle, not by my hon. Friend (Mr. Lawley), or any of his family, but by those who made the suggestions upon personal knowledge and public grounds, on the distinct conviction the appointment would be one beneficial to the interests of the Colony. I will not conceal the fact that my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle did not determine to recommend Mr. Lawley for that appointment without reference to me. He naturally looked to me to supply him with information, and to give distinctly an answer to the question, whether in my judgment Mr. Lawley was or was not a fit person for that appointment. Between the Duke of Newcastle and myself the principal part of the responsibility of the appointment is shared—the Duke of Newcastle, in the first instance, being the official author of the proposal, and I being the principal witness to whom he referred.
1254
I cannot consent—(and that is the main reason why I rose)—I cannot consent to leave this question on the footing on which it is placed by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I agree with him in all he has said with respect to colonial government. I may agree with him, though, perhaps, few will accompany us, that, if it were the desire of the people of South Australia to recommend their own governor, it would be a wise act of the Government of this country to gratify that desire. But when it is said on this occasion, "Why not let the people of South Australia choose a governor themselves," it is enough for me to point out that the people of South Australia had expressed no such wish, and my belief, I am bound to say, is this, that it is the desire of the people of the Colonies at this moment to receive governors selected, as best they can, by Ministers from among qualified persons known to them in this country. Can it be said that Mr. Lawley's was, on public grounds, a questionable appointment, and discreditable to the Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester says he was totally unknown in this House. I think he said he did not know him by sight. Why was Mr. Lawley unknown to this House? It may be perfectly true he was not well known, for as long as he held the office of private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it was impossible for Mr. Lawley to acquire that distinction in this House which his abilities and knowledge fairly entitled him to. There was something in the nature of the duties of secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would prevent an individual from doing justice to himself. My right hon. Friend near me (Sir C. Wood), who has filled the office, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), if he had not left the House, would bear me out when I say that the duties of private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not analogous to those of private secretaries to other Ministers, but are in a great degree official and departmental duties. In the anomalous position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is placed more outside the Treasury than inside it, and who has important communications with the Board of Inland Revenue, with the Customs, with the Bank of England, with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, in the discharge of almost all the important functions of his office, he uses his private secretary as the medium, and

1255
calls on him to discharge duties more usually discharged by officials in departments. I do not scruple to tell the hon. Member for Manchester that in my judgment, although my friend Mr. Lawley has not had an opportunity of acquiring distinction in this house so as to make himself well known, yet he has done more labour for the public during the last Session and the present, and acquired more experience in public business of an important and difficult character, than falls to the lot of most of those who sit here for, I do not say one or two, but who have sat five, six, or it may be ten, Sessions in this House. That I say on the strength of my own official knowledge. It is very well to say that you ought not to appoint unknown men to be governors of colonies. That is very sound doctrine, but those who call upon the Government to adopt it as an invariable rule should consider what we offer the governor of a colony, and what we have to expect from him. You have to ask that he should expatriate himself, that he should place himself in a society often comparatively rude, in a climate frequently insalubrious, with a great risk of not maintaining his popularity for any lengthened period; and, therefore, almost with the certainty of his term of office being short, and also with the liability of being recalled at any time through the caprice of a Colonial Secretary, without, perhaps, any reason being assigned. With this prospect, I do not hesitate to say the remuneration in most instances is miserably low. Therefore it is vain to come forward, like the hon. Member for Manchester, and say, "It is the duty of the Government to select only well-known men." You may ask well-known men, and they will not go. No man who is well and favourably known in this country will have such an appointment. Those who have had to make these appointments know the extreme difficulty of finding competent persons who will accept them, and the only resource is to fall back upon men not well known, but who, having had some opportunities of estimating their qualifications, you feel assured will hereafter be well known, and fit for the duties which you propose to impose upon them. That is no new doctrine. I should like to know who are the men who are now most distinguished in the government of colonies. There may be rare exceptions in which they were known to the public before their appointment, as in the
1256
case of Lord Metcalfe, who was sent out by Lord Derby to Canada. Lord Metcalfe being one of the most heroic and munificent spirits that ever entered the public service—one who disregarded personal advantage, but went straight to the performance of public duty after he had indeed become well known. I shall have to refer to another appointment of Lord Derby in terms of commendation. That appointment of Lord Metcalfe was a happy selection; but I should like to know how many other well-known men were well known when appointed. I need only mention the gentleman who has just been promoted to the governorship of New South Wales—Sir William Denison. Did the hon. Member for Manchester know him by sight? Had he been in this House? Had he ever been in political life? Had he ever discharged any political duties? No, nothing of the sort. He was an able engineer; and I am the person who selected him. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Hear, hear!] I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that cheer, but I think I am justified in referring to the case when it is made a charge against the Government that they have appointed a governor of a colony who was totally inexperienced in public affairs. Sir William Denison was then perfectly inexperienced. He is now well known, honourably known, and has well earned the promotion he has received. That is one case; but in point of fact, that case represents the general rule. But now we are told that no Government ought to appoint anybody but a man of distinguished abilities, and that Mr. Lawley's youth and inexperience unfitted him for this appointment. I will support the appointment of my hon. Friend by reference to an appointment which, I think, no man will question. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) condemns the appointment of Mr. Lawley because he is inexperienced and young, I want to know what he will say to the appointment of Lord Elgin. I refer to Lord Elgin as one of the most distinguished, and one of the most successful of colonial governors, and who has been recently engaged in political negotiations of the most difficult description. What was the age of Lord Elgin when he was appointed? I believe precisely the same age as Mr. Lawley. What was the post to which Lord Elgin was appointed as compared with that of Mr. Lawley's? Mr. Lawley was appointed Governor of South Australia, with a popu-

1257
lation of 40,000 or 50,000 persons. Lord Elgin was appointed Governor of Jamaica when the Colony was in the agonising struggles which followed emancipation, and with a population of 400,000 or 500,000 persons. Mr. Lawley was appointed after two years' arduous service as secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—after two Sessions in this House. Lord Elgin had been six weeks in this House, during which he had the opportunity of proving his ability by a speech which he made. But it must be recollected that the ability of Mr. Lawley is not called in question; it is only his inexperience in public affairs which is objected to. Lord Elgin had no opportunity of acquiring experience in public affairs. That appointment was made by Lord Derby? Does it reflect discredit on Lord Derby? Does not every one feel that it can only reflect honour upon Lord Derby, and that it supports the proposition that we must look in some degree to the responsibility of the Minister who makes these appointments. It is vain to appoint old men and distinguished men, who have served their time in this House, to posts of such a character as that of colonial governor. My right hon. Friend near me reminds me of another case, almost precisely similar, the appointment of Lord Harris. Is there a name more honoured than the name of Lord Harris? It was my lot to make that appointment, and I remember the circumstances. A gentleman wrote to me on behalf of his son, and speaking of Lord Harris, admitted that he was an amiable Peer, but of infirm health, totally without experience, and unknown. It was true Lord Harris was an amiable man in indifferent health, for he had gone to the West Indies on account of his health, and totally inexperienced; but, from my knowledge of the man, I thought he was qualified to serve his country, and offered him the appointment. He accepted it, and a most efficient servant he made. These are really considerations with respect to the appointment of colonial governors, which I feel bound to lay before the House, as they not only affect the present but every Government, and I am free to say, with the appearances which were before the Duke of Newcastle and my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey), that until within the last twenty-four hours I did not repent having borne testimony to them that Mr. Lawley was a qualified man, and in many respects an eminently and admirably qualified man,
1258
for this appointment. I again thank the House for the kind manner in which the question has been dealt with, and I earnestly trust that, inasmuch as Mr. Lawley is chargeable only with grave imprudence, and as it does not involve the smallest stain of pecuniary corruption, the door of hope will not be barred against him, and that his future career will not be stopped. I am confident the kindness of this House, and the forbearance and tenderness with which it has approached this question, will be an encouragement to him to repair his error by the sedulous performance of his duty, and that at some future period he will re-establish his character not for honour, but for judgment, which must be the desire, I am sure, of every Member of this House.
MR. VERNON SMITHagreed in opinion with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) and the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), that the question of the appointment of colonial governors was one of the most important to which that House could address itself. Totally independent of Mr. Lawley's character was the question whether he was a proper person to appoint at all. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he ought not to be disqualified upon the mere ground of age; but he considered that the fact of his being of so early an age made it a duty incumbent upon those who gave him the appointment to inform themselves thoroughly and especially with respect to steadiness of character. It was in that respect that the utmost investigation was essential, and he thought that it was in reference to this that great blame rested upon those who recommended Mr. Lawley, and not upon his right hon. Friend the present Secretary for the Colonies, although he had so honourably taken the responsibility upon himself. He agreed to some extent with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the difficulty of finding good colonial governors, and he thought that the measure of Lord Howick, by which the salaries of those officers had been cut down, was an impolitic and injudicious one, as the qualities required in a colonial governor were rare, and therefore they ought to be adequately paid for; but he also agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire, that the field was not so limited as had been represented, and that the Colonies themselves contained men whom it might be most proper to appoint.

1259
There could be no objection to the selection of men of known ability, to fill, in the first instance, the appointments of secretaries in the Colonies, and to be afterwards promoted as they might prove themselves deserving, and as opportunity might occur. The circumstances of this very Colony pointed out, in fact, the course which ought to have been pursued, for Sir Henry Young had filled the office of colonial secretary in British Guiana before he had been appointed a colonial governor. He had always understood that there was a rule in the Colonial Office that, instead of sending men long distances upon small stipends, there should be a regular rule of promotion, and that men who had distinguished themselves in the Colonies in subordinate positions should be promoted to superior positions. He thought that the salaries were too small, and that promotion should be substituted for salary; and he felt assured that if that course were adopted there would not be the same difficulty in finding proper governors hereafter. Parliamentary experience in this country might be valuable, but the right hon. Gentleman had deprived himself of this argument in the case of Mr. Lawley, for he had stated that his official duties as secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been so heavy as to prevent his attendance in Parliament, or gaining Parliamentary experience. He thought the moral to be learnt from all this was, that the appointment of a governor of a colony was a duty involving the most serious responsibility upon those who had to make it, and that Secretaries of State ought therefore to take great pains in investigating both the public and the private character of those who might be recommended to them to go out.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee of Ways and Means.

SUPPLY—WAYS AND MEANS.
MR. J. WILSONmoved the following Resolutions:—
"1. That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of 500,000 l., a part of the sum in the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or remaining to be raised on the 5th day of July, 1854, to complete the Aids granted by Parliament for the service of the years 1852 and 1853, be applied to the service of the year 1854.
"2. That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of 22,322,743 l 9s. 11 d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
1260
"3. That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty there be issued and applied to the service of the year 1854, the sum of 149,342 l. 15 s. 1d., being the Surplus of Ways and Means granted for the service of preceding years."
MR. HUMEsaid, he had collected from the very able speech of the noble Lord the President of the Council, in proposing the Vote of Credit, that of the sum of 3,000,000 l. intrusted to Her Majesty for the purposes of the war, it was possible that some portion might be applied as a subsidy, and he only rose for the purpose of expressing his opinion, grounded upon experience, that such a course would be imprudent, as it had in former instances proved disastrous. He should be prepared, if it were necessary, to show that subsidies had in every instance counteracted, rather than forwarded, the object for which they had been granted. He deprecated the idea of paying troops belonging to the Sultan, because he believed that if they paid them one month, they would have discontent, and perhaps still more unpleasant consequences, in the next. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would consider this subject well. He believed that the war was necessary. The House had placed cheerfully at the disposal of the Government all the resources which were necessary for carrying it on with effect, but it had a right to look to them, in return, to apply those resources in the best possible manner, and not to waste a single shilling. He thought that anything like a subsidy would tend to this result, and he rose to enter his caveat against anything of that kind being done without the gravest consideration.
MR. KINNAIRDhad not understood the noble Lord to shadow forth anything like a subsidy, but he confessed that, looking at the expense of transport, and at the difficulties of climate with which our troops in the East had to contend, he thought it was an admirable suggestion that we should endeavour to embody the natives of some of the countries in which the war was being carried on, placing over them officers of our own, Far from appearing to him to be at all objectionable, he confessed he should be very much pleased that such an attempt, even on a small scale, should be made, and he trusted that the Government would not he seduced, by what had fallen from his hon. Friend, from, at all events, trying this plan.
MR. HUMEsaid, the returns which he

1261
should move for to-morrow, when they were laid upon the table of the House, would prove that in case after case these subsidies had failed in their object; and he protested against any money being paid to any foreign troops while we had our own troops to rely on, since it was on these that the maintenance and vindication of the honour of this country must depend.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTconcurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird). They were engaged in a most important war. Did they intend to prosecute it to any efficient purpose? If they did, they must be prepared to make some sacrifices; and he thought that the best, the cheapest, and the most expeditious course they could take would be to take into their pay some of the natives of the countries in which the war was carried on. They all knew that the native troops in India, when officered by British commanders, gave as good an account of the enemy as any men that could be brought into the field, and he believed that no men fought better than the Portuguese, when under British officers, during the last war. He was convinced that some energetic measures must be taken if the present war were to be brought to a satisfactory result. Were we to increase our Army, then, to an enormous extent? He did not think the hon. Member for Montrose would like that. We had already a very large army for this country to have sent abroad, but it was a very small army when compared with those of foreign Powers. If we wanted to increase its numbers, would it not be a good plan to employ the natives, who would make excellent soldiers, and other foreigners who would be at our disposal, and who might be got at an infinitely less cost than must be incurred by an equal augmentation of our own troops?
Resolutions agreed to.

PUBLIC REVENUE AND CONSOLIDATED FUND CHARGES (No. 2) BILL—MAY NOOTH.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses agreed to.
Upon Schedule B (schedule of salaries and payments to be provided for by annual Votes or otherwise, as prescribed in Clauses 1 and 7),
MR. SPOONERrose to move the Amendment of which he had given no-
1262
tice; but said that it was not his intention to go into any details on the question of Maynooth, as it was a question he had argued fully before. His views were already well known, but he thought it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on the Amendment of which he had given notice. He would first beg to state that he objected altogether to the grant to Maynooth, and if he did not now go into the subject, it was not because he had in any way altered his opinions. He conscientiously objected to any grant for the education of the people of Ireland, or the education of any of Her Majesty's subjects in the Roman Catholic religion. He objected to it conscientiously, believing it to be a great national sin, and that it was the duty of all the Members in that House to put an end to it. He merely wished to show that his opinions were unchanged and unaltered, and he now objected to leaving the grant to Maynooth as a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said this was a question of form, but he differed very much from him. It was not a question of form, but a great constitutional one. The alterations in this measure in another place had been so great that the House of Commons could not agree with them, and they were obliged to bring the Bill in again. The question had thus been reopened, and that gave him an opportunity of protesting against the Maynooth grant being taken away from the control of Parliament. Formerly it had been every year subject to the control of Parliament, but in 1845 Sir Robert Peel thought fit to remove it from that control, and fix it on the Consolidated Fund. He had objected to that course at the time, and, consistently with his objection then, he now proposed an Amendment which, if it should be successful, would bring it under the control of Parliament again. The feeling against this grant was daily and hourly increasing, and the majority against it in that House had gone on year by year increasing. It was evident that the Government shrunk from placing it under the control of Parliament, while the country was decidedly against the continuance of the grant. He hoped the practical economists would support his Motion for bringing the practical control of the House to bear upon the expenditure of the country. He called upon the hon. Member for Montrose to support his proposition, as it was in accordance

1263
with the opinions he had always expressed with respect to the control that Parliament ought to exercise over that expenditure. If there had been any bargain or contract he would not interpose—if the Vote was in the nature of a pension or reward for services, be would be shy in bringing it under the annual revision of the House. That was not the case here; it was a free gift, granted with the view of conciliating the Roman Catholics, and of putting a stop to the angry discussions in that house. That object had, however, utterly failed; the discussions still continued. The Roman Catholics believed the grant to be their right—they took the money, but it did net conciliate them. They believed that they ought to be the Established Church of Ireland, and they took this money to carry out their own system of education. They did not thank the House for the Vote, and it had not induced them to alter a single opinion. Nothing in the world would satisfy them until they became the supreme Established Church in that country. If hon. Members viewed the question in any other light, they were only blinding and deceiving themselves. If the Government thought they were right in continuing this grant, let them prove their sincerity by bringing it before Parliament annually. The Government might resist the Motion this year or next year, but the Maynooth grant was doomed, its abolition was only a question of time. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that—
"In case the House shall sanction the principle of removing any charge from the Consolidated Fund now placed upon it by Act of Parliament, to add to Schedule B—'the president, vice-president, and students of Maynooth College, and the expenses of the establishment, enacted by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 25.'"
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend had stated at the outset of his speech that he would not enter into this question, but he had been more liberal than he had proposed. [Mr. SPOONER: A quarter of an hour.] He had watched the clock more accurately than his hon. Friend, and he could assure him that his observations had extended—not to too great a length, for the observations of his hon. Friend were always pleasant to listen to—but they had extended to about the length of an ordinary sermon. He would repeat the promise of his hon. Friend to be very brief, and he would endeavour to be more successful in keeping it than his hon. Friend had been. He did not feel it at all necessary to enter into
1264
the merits of the question which had been raised as to whether the grant to Maynooth ought to remain on the Consolidated Fund or to be placed in the annual Votes. He had a very decided opinion upon that point; but he thought there were reasons applicable to the Motion of his hon. Friend which were sufficient to govern, and which ought to govern, the decision of that Committee. They ought to recollect their position in reference to this Bill. Nothing could be more important and proper than the legitimate and reasonable vindication of the position of the House of Commons in reference to financial measures in the face of the House of Lords. There could not be a more satisfactory vindication of the privileges of the House as regarded financial measures than the Bill now before it; and when the House of Lords altered any financial Bill, it was most important that the House of Commons, when they agreed in the spirit of those alterations, should send up the Bill again in the same form as they received it. Another reason against the Motion was this—it was a most important question whether the grant to Maynooth should be put into the Estimates or remain on the Consolidated Fund; it was also important that when they discussed that weighty question they should do it in a manner and under circumstances which would show a due respect for the people of Ireland. But what had his hon. Friend done? There were grants from the Consolidated Fund in which other religions were interested. There were grants in which the Church of England was interested, and grants in which the Church of Scotland was interested, and he put it to the House that this question of the Maynooth grant was at least entitled to a serious discussion as a substantive proposition; that it ought to be considered upon general grounds, in connection with the other grants to which he had alluded; or that, at all events, it ought to be considered deliberately, upon a measure distinctly submitted to the House for altering the position in which it was at present placed. It ought not to be dealt with by a by-blow in a financial measure, which had been carefully restricted to its character as a financial measure, and from which the Government in framing it had carefully excluded everything upon which a political question could be raised. He hoped that for these reasons the House would summarily reject the Motion of his hon. Friend; but be must add one word with reference to the opinions and inten-

1265
tions of the Government. He believed it was the opinion of the House that this Bill contained most important and valuable provisions; but he must say, on the part of the Government, that it would be entirely at variance with their convictions of their duty to promote the further progress of this Bill, or its passing into a law, if it were to carry with it, under circumstances so extraordinary, the Vote which his hon. Friend proposed. It was a measure of fiscal reform; they proposed it as a measure of fiscal reform; and as a measure of fiscal reform he hoped the House would pass it. It would be easy for his hon. Friend, if he thought fit, to raise the question of the Maynooth grant, and to take the opinion of the House upon it; but he trusted that this Bill would be allowed to stand upon the ground upon which it bad been placed. With these observations, he would commit it to the decision of the House.
MR. DISRAELI: I confess, Sir, I do not agree with many of the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed both with regard to this Bill, and with regard to the more important issue that has been somewhat unexpectedly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire. Summary legislation, at this period of the year, may be very desirable, but I am not of opinion that it will prove easy of attainment. I certainly did not intend to discuss the question which my hon. Friend has raised, for I did not know that it would come on to-day. I, however, had placed on the paper certain Amendments to the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has now brought before us, and it is my fault certainly that I was not present to move them, but the transaction of business at this moment is carried on with such remarkable rapidity, that it is not always possible to vindicate those Resolutions which you wish the House to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, has laid down a principle the justice of which I must question—namely, that when a Bill has passed through the ordeal of the House of Lords similar to the present, all that the House of Commons has to do, is simply to reproduce the Bill which the House of Lords has virtually sanctioned, or vindicate its privileges by the introduction of a new Bill, but to exempt itself from the privilege of moving Amendments upon it. I very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able in an argument to substantiate that position. I have placed certain Amend-
1266
ments upon the paper with respect to the Second Consolidated Fund Bill; and I beg the Committee, after what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, to condescend to look to the nature of those Amendments. As my name has been mentioned in this House, and in another place, with regard to the object of the measure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced, I beg to state, to prevent any misconception, that this is not a Bill to carry into effect that which the late Government expressed their intention to do. What the late Government intended to do was a very simple, and, I think, a very admirable thing; it was to introduce a Bill which should ensure that the gross revenue of the country should be paid into the Exchequer. We should have proposed that the course of raising that revenue should have become a matter of estimate, and with regard to those charges which formerly, and I believe now, legally press upon the revenue, we should have proposed that some of them should have been placed on the Consolidated Fund, and that the rest should have been brought before the consideration of the House by way of estimate. We did not in any way propose that any charges upon the Consolidated Fund should be transferred to what is now popularly called Schedule B, and become the subject of an annual Vote. It was not at all from the opinion that the charges at present on the Consolidated Fund are not liable, or should not be subject to criticism, for had it been necessary that the charges at present existing on the Consolidated Fund should be subject to Parliamentary criticism, it was our opinion that the best course to have pursued would have been to ask for the institution of a Parliamentary Committee, in order that the whole question of the charges on the Consolidated Fund should have been examined. Now, the fault which I find with the Bill of the Government which has led to the Amendments I have put on the paper is—that, in the first place, it is not a Bill which brings the gross revenue really into the Exchequer. It certainly does provide that there should be an estimate for the cost of the collection, which should be subjected to Parliament, and it also provides that the amount of drawbacks and of bounties—that is, of repayments—should be deducted at the time of collection; but it still leaves a considerable amount of public money, under the name of charges, and so on, to the discretion of the Treasury, and

1267
it still leaves the Treasury the power of making considerable payments without the control of Parliament—without the revenue being on the Votes. I think that a great objection, but there is another great objection that I have to this Bill. The reason for taking the course to which I have adverted, and for proposing that Amendment in the preamble, is, that we should have an opportunity of examining the many things that are left out now, that we should state exactly what Parliament means, and what the Government ought to mean—namely, the declaration that it is expedient that the gross revenue of the departments of the Customs, the Inland Revenue, and the Post Office, should be paid into the Exchequer, with the exception of such sums as may be necessary to be retained in order to defray the charges of drawbacks, pensions, and superannuations heretofore charged and paid out of the said branches of the public revenue. Now, the House will observe that the Bill before us has no recital of the kind. If you look at the preamble of the Bill which is in your hands, you would not for a moment guess that that is the object and intention of the Government, for it merely refers to particular charges, divided in a particular manner, and the great object and scope of this financial reform appear to be altogether lost. I have, also, in another clause, or, rather, a proviso added to the clause, proposed that this amount of 4,000,000 l., which will now be voted in Parliament as an estimate for the cost of collecting the revenue, should be subject to the same restriction, as far as appropriation is concerned, as the rest of the revenue. I don't think that any hon. Gentleman can doubt the wisdom or the expediency of such a provision. What reason is there that the 4,000,000 l. which we are now going, for the first time, to vote as the cost of the collection of the revenue—what reason is there that this 4,000,000 l. should not be subject, as respects the issue, to the provisions of the Act of the 4 & 5 Will. IV., the Act which regulates the charges on the Exchequer, in the same manner as all other sums issued for the public service? I think the Government made a very great omission when they did not introduce a provision to that effect, and I cannot understand why there should be any question of the expediency or the importance of such a provision, or why we are to be estopped from now considering it by any idea that we are acting in a manner
1268
contrary to our usual course when a Bill has been thrown out of the House of Commons and a second Bill has been sent from the House of Lords in compliance with their suggestions. There is also on the paper a proposal, on my part, that there should be a clause which would place before Parliament the charges on the Consolidated Fund, and when the right hon. Gentleman first introduced this measure of financial reform, he said that Parliament ought to have a due acquaintance, and, I think he said, control with respect to the charges on the Consolidated Fund; but the right hon. Gentleman has made no preparations in this Bill for that purpose. What I propose is a simple matter, perfectly in unison with all other regulations in regard to the revenue—namely, that the quarterly warrants of the Treasury for certain payments out of the Consolidated Fund should be laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament in ten days after the issue of the last warrant; and, of course, if Parliament be not then sitting, taking the first opportunity of doing so. The three Amendments I propose are—first of all, to carry into effect the purpose, which I believe the House has at heart—namely, that the gross revenue shall really be paid into the Exchequer; secondly, that the 4,000,000 l., which we now vote by way of estimate should be subjected to the same restriction as the rest of the revenue of the country; and thirdly, that every three months the House should have, not the power of control, but the power of inspection, as regards the charges on the Consolidated Fund. Those are the three Amendments which I have made, and, in my opinion, it is most important that the House should adopt them, and by adopting them, so far as I can learn, being influenced, in my opinion, by the highest authorities, they will not at all interfere as regards the position of this Bill with the other House of Parliament. Now, I felt it my duty to make these observations on a subject of great interest before us, and, as my name has been mentioned with respect to this measure, both by the right hon. Gentleman on another occasion, and also in another places I hope it is no great intrusion on my part to have made them. I must now touch on another topic—and, I think, a much more important topic—that has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, he hopes the House will sum-

1269
marily dispose of this question. I don't say I wish the same; and, with great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, I don't think the tone that he has taken on the subject and the language in which he has expressed himself are at all fitted to the occasion or the subject, and I was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have expressed himself in such a manner and adopted such a tone on one of the most important questions which can possibly interest Parliament. I do not know what hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House feel on the subject; but I am of opinion that none of us have been inattentive observers of what has taken place in the present Session of Parliament, and in the Session of Parliament which preceded this, if not on other occasions. Why, Sir, this Motion of the hon. Gentleman is a repeated Motion; it is made for the second time. I gave a silent vote on the previous occasion when it was introduced to our attention; but I will confess I am not prepared to give a silent vote, and to continue to give silent votes on questions of this nature. Why, Sir, we must have all seen that questions of this character have been repeatedly introduced to our notice in the present and the preceding Sessions of Parliament. One day we have had a discussion whether there should be an endowment for Roman Catholic education; then there has been a question raised as to the inspection of conventual establishments; again, there has been a question regarding the Roman Catholic oath—as to what it really means—what is its main purpose and import; that is hardly noticed before we have some other question respecting the establishment of Roman Catholic chaplains in gaols. All these questions are brought forward by what are called independent Members of Parliament; not Members associated in the same particular connection, but sitting on different sides of the House, and influenced generally by different political opinions. Is it possible to be blind to circumstances so strange as these? Is it a wise thing for a Minister of the Crown to get up and treat a question of this kind by saying, "This must be summarily disposed of? It is August—Parliament won't be sitting for six months; the country will have no means, therefore, of expressing its opinion, and we really cannot listen to these questions, which in a thousand forms have already worried and perplexed us." I, Sir, come to quite a different conclusion from that of the
1270
right hon. Gentleman. I think these are perplexing questions; they are very serious questions, and I do not think it is at all desirable that we should evade this discussion or endeavour to evade coming to some conclusion on them; I think it a most unfortunate thing that in the first instance, when the hon. Member for Warwickshire made his Motion, from causes which I need not now dwell upon, but which are numerous, the House and the country were baulked of any decision on that question. Now, Sir, what are these various Motions, all of an analogous character? What are they symbolical of? What are the consequences to which they will lead? Surely they are questions not unworthy of the closest attention of statesmen. I think they are significant of this, that the people of this country are dissatisfied with the political status, if I may use such an expression, which our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects occupy with respect to the Protestant constitution of this country. In whatever form the question presents itself I find that at the bottom; and what, I ask, will be the probable consequence of this uneasiness expressing itself in all these various modes of inquiries as to the expediency of the endowment of Roman Catholic colleges, of the inspection of Roman Catholic convents, of the interpretation of Roman Catholic oaths, or of the establishment of Roman Catholic chaplains? What must be the necessary consequence of such questions being left in perpetual controversy without any one coming forward with authority to lead or to inform public opinion on the subject? What must be the consequence? It denotes, in my mind, internal dissensions, perhaps violence and disorder, and as I sincerely believe, great injury to the principles of civil and religious liberty. Well, Sir, I confess, as this question is brought before us in a summary way, and, as we are told, in a manner which does not at all take away from its importance, I think we are bound, particularly as it has been so often repeated, finally to meet it. I don't want at all to dwell on my individual feelings on this subject. I am rather placing the question on broader considerations, and I will not say in vindication, but in explanation of my vote with respect to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman which I gave some weeks ago, and which I shall give to-night, that it is the same I gave originally on the Motion of Sir R. Peel, with regard to the endowment of Maynooth. I shall

1271
not go into the reasons which influenced me then, and which influence me now, on the subject, not wishing to introduce individual feelings into the question; but what I want to press on the House is, that it cannot be permitted—it cannot be tolerated with any regard to the public safety—that Session after Session, an important question with respect to the relations, I may say, which exist between our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects and the Protestant constitution of this country should be left in doubt, matter of public controversy, so that every Member of Parliament, whatever may be his general political opinions, may rise and excite the public mind, interrupting by such discussions the whole course of public business. I think this question has come to such a pass that it is the duty of the Government to come forward to meet and solve this difficulty, and so to determine this controversy which breaks out in so many forms and from so many sides. Have we or have we not a Protestant constitution? If we have a Protestant constitution, what does it mean? Let Government come forward—let it declare by legislation what are the functions, what the attributes, what the influence, and what is the bearing of that Protestant constitution. Let every man, whether he be a Protestant or a Roman Catholic, clearly understand what are the rights and privileges which he enjoys under that constitution—what he may do and what he may not do. I think that this is a question which ought to be solved, that these are matters which do demand the consideration of statesmen, which ought to be met without reserve, and settled in a manner which shall satisfy the public mind—I say, without the slightest reserve, for I know no public man of the times in which we live, who I think is placed, and has been placed, in a more happy position to attempt the solution of this question than the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council. The noble Lord has associated his name through a long career with his successful labours in favour of religious liberty; he is, therefore, entitled, and justly entitled to, and I believe he possesses the confidence of a large body of his countrymen, who look up to him with respect and reverence. The noble Lord is an eminent Member of a party which half a century ago offered him power in order to secure the political privileges of their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and that is a claim to the
1272
confidence of the Roman Catholics of this country which may be forgotten in moments of passion, but which, on the whole, I think, must last in the grateful feelings of a nation. Well then, if the noble Lord, both as regards the question of religious liberty and as regards the question of the political franchise of the Roman Catholics, can come forward on a matter of this imperial importance, with circumstances of great advantage, when he addresses the public mind and attempts to lead it to a result which he desires, it cannot be forgotten that the noble Lord is the individual who, when he was Prime Minister of this country, felt it to be his duty, in the name of his Sovereign, in the Parliament of England, to denounce the Ultramontane conspiracy against the liberties of Europe. The noble Lord has never for a moment shrunk, and I am sure never will shrink, from that most solemn expression of his, which, during the existence of the present Government, in conjunction with a similar expression of his opinion, led to such a misconception and misunderstanding, that some of the subordinate Members of the Government even resigned their posts, were only induced to return to their position by an assurance from the First Minister of the Crown that the Protestant opinions of the noble Lord were not shared by his colleagues. I only refer to that to show that the noble Lord has on this subject been influenced by strong predilections, and I think it is due from the noble Lord to come forward—not now—not in a summary manner, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, but after due reflection and study of this question—after examining it in all its bearings and during the recess—I think it is the duty of the noble Lord, and the duty of the existing Government, that they should come forward and lay down some principle of regulation which shall precisely define the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's subjects, whether they are Protestants or whether they are members of the Roman Catholic Church, and that it should not become a subject of controversy every night almost of the Session whether the Roman Catholics should enjoy the privilege of conventual establishments, whether colleges should be endowed by the State in order to educate the priesthood who are not the priesthood of the State, whether there is any meaning in the oath that is taken by Roman Catholic Members, or whether all these regulations with re-

1273
spect to our prisons or other establishments involve or do not involve a breach of the Protestant constitution of the country? Sir, I hold that—and I know not whether I agree with the opinions on this side of the House or that—in saying you are prepared to maintain the Protestant constitution of this country, you are advocating the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty as well as her Protestant subjects. I look upon the Protestant constitution to be the guarantee of the civil and religious liberty of the people of this country, and because I am of this opinion, I feel that if the Government neglect their duty, and if these fragmentary parts of the question are, under its various shapes and aspects, brought under public discussion and Parliamentary debate, the result will be a heavy blow and great discouragement to civil and religious liberty. It is because I see the danger ahead, and because we cannot avoid it, that I call upon the Government, not in haste, or prematurely—not in a "summary manner"—not to tell us in August what they will do, but I call upon the noble Lord, in whom I have great confidence, upon this question to come forward and say, on the part of the Administration, that he will at the earliest period, notwithstanding the smiles and whispers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, come forward on the part of the Government and propose a measure that will be satisfactory to the public mind, and attempt to solve these difficulties, and not leave any gentleman to agitate the public mind on questions of this importance, but that he will be prepared on the part of the Government to bring forward such pleasures as will vindicate the Protestant constitution, and prove that the enduring existence of that constitution is not only consistent with civil and religious liberty, but is the only security also, and the guarantee, that we have for these unspeakable blessings.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I confess I was certainly somewhat alarmed until the right hon. Gentleman arrived towards the end of his speech, because, until the right hon. Gentleman said that this was not a question to be considered in the month of August, I thought he proposed that in the month of August the Government should introduce a Bill to define the whole bearings of the Protestant constitution, how far Roman Catholic endowments were compatible with, and how far the payment of
1274
Roman Catholic chaplains might be reconciled with that constitution, how far, in all respects, the limits of this Protestant constitution might be extended, and how far it might be reconciled with the general principles of civil and religious liberty. That was the task which I thought the right hon. Gentleman was about to enforce upon the Government at the beginning of August. But I rejoiced to find that the right hon. Gentleman gives us some months of respite before that task is to be performed. I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman, nor can I hold out a prospect, that so gigantic a task will be undertaken by the Government. At all events, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner), who brought forward this discussion, proposed a different course, because his proposal was that the Vote to Maynooth should be an annual Vote, in order that he may have the opportunity of making a speech annually upon Maynooth, and that after ten years of agitation the question may be brought to a conclusion. But if he were triumphant in this proposal, and if he were the slayer of Maynooth, we should still have those other questions of the Roman Catholic chaplains and the Protestant constitution unsettled. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have not had great encouragement this Session to undertake questions of this kind, because, with regard to one of them, I proposed that we should have civil equality among Members of this House, and that when hon. Members came to the table we should not inquire into their religious opinions and persuasions, and that we should all take one civil oath. I found a very strong opponent in the right hon. Gentleman, and it discouraged me so much that I am not disposed to bring in a code beginning with the rights of man, and ending with the privileges and limits of each religious persuasion, defining the bearing of the constitution on each of the different sects. I own that the discouragement that I have received from the right hon. Gentleman will prevent me from bringing in any such measure.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that Parliament bad placed the property of the University of Oxford in a Commission, and it would in that form come under the consideration of Parliament, and what was claimed with regard to Maynooth was, that, as in the case of Oxford, Parliament had based its proceedings on the Report of a Commission, and as a Commission had

1275
been issued to inquire into Maynooth, the House of Commons should, preparatory to the Report of that Commission, place the Vote to Maynooth upon the footing of an annual payment within the command of Parliament, so that the whole subject might be fairly considered when the Report of the Commission was in the hands of hon. Members next Session. It was quite certain that the public would have an investigation into the education given at Maynooth and its tendency, and they would consider the opposition to the present Motion as an attempt to evade that which could not long be successfully evaded.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 108: Majority 65.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that his proviso to be added to Clause 1 would now stand as a separate clause. It was as follows—
"That all Sums voted for the charges and payments set forth in Schedule B shall be subject, as respects their issues, to the provisions of the Act of 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 15, intituled 'An Act to regulate the Office of the Receipt of the Exchequer at Westminster,' in the same manner as all other Sums voted for any specified branch of the Public Service."
The object of the clause was, that all sums brought into the Exchequer under this new Act should be subject to the same restrictions as regarded appropriation as the rest of the revenue, and he therefore could not understand that there could be any objection to the clause.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was quite impossible that he could accede to any part of any one of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was only surprised that he should have made them. He did not know whether the person who had drawn the present clause for the right hon. Gentleman had accurately fulfilled the intentions he was supposed to entertain, but the clause was entirely and absolutely useless. It would produce no legislative effect, except an effect which was already secured by the present law, because the present law provided, in terms most explicit, that all sums of money voted by that House must uniformly go through the forms of the Exchequer issue and payment. The object with which the clause was drawn seemed to him one of which the right hon. Gentleman was probably not aware. It was to create a new Parliamentary title for the present Exchequer system, the utility of which was, to his mind, somewhat less
1276
than doubtful. He had not yet been enabled to discover any useful purpose that the Amendment would serve, but it would be very easy to show much mischief that it would do. The effect of the clause would be a new recognition by Parliament of the propriety of adopting provisions with regard to money which now passed through the Exchequer, and he hoped the House would not be induced to frame a system in respect of which it was more than doubtful whether it would be beneficial for the public service or not. He protested against any new recognition of the principles upon which repayment of money into the Exchequer now rested.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the right hon. Gentleman never gave hint credit either for drawing clauses or anything else; but he gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for being too clever by half. The clause of the 4& 5 Will. IV. had been submitted to men of good reputation as lawyers, who had very grave doubts whether its, provisions would apply to the 4,000,000 l. which had been referred to. He had, therefore, proposed a new clause, in order to bring this 4,000,000 l. under the same restrictions as the rest of the revenue. He granted that it might not be necessary, but every one would agree that it was a surplusage in the right direction. In his opinion, in order to have the same restrictions upon the appropriation of the 4,000,000 l. which were placed upon the rest of the revenue, it was necessary that they should have the clause he proposed.
MR. HUMEopposed the Amendment, and thought the regulations ought to remain as they were at present until the whole subject could be considered and decided upon. He thought the time had arrived for dealing with the question of bringing the whole gross revenue under the eye of Parliament.
MR. DISRAELIsaw no reason why, because it was desirable to have a full and ample inquiry, that he should be supposed to agree in crude measures. It was for the Committee to decide whether this sum of 4,000,000 l. of new Estimates, now brought for the first time under the control of Parliament, should be subjected to the same restrictions as the rest of the revenue with regard to its issue and appropriation. If the financial reformers were not disposed to support him in this he should not press his proposal to a division.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreminded the House that the exist-

1277
ing law contained words to the effect that any new sums of money granted hereafter should pass through the same channel as the rest of the revenue.
MR. BOWYERthought it satisfactory that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had called the attention of the House to the importance, of the gross revenue of the country passing through the Exchequer. It was said that there was 5,000,000 l. or 6,000,000 l. of money which never found its way into the Exchequer at all, but which was disposed of by different departments without being ever voted by Parliament. He thought the system of auditing the public accounts required reconsideration, with a view to the reconstruction of that branch of the public service.
Clause negatived.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYproposed the addition of a clause, to the effect that nothing in the Act contained should have the effect of facilitating any changes in the existing establishments of any of the superior courts of law in Ireland, without a certificate from the Judges to the Treasury having first set forth the circumstances rendering such changes necessary. If the clause was not carried, he should give notice of Amendments to place the English courts on the same footing as the Irish courts. He should also move to put in the English Court of Chancery, which was entirely omitted in the Act, but he trusted his clause would be so received as to render his Amendments unnecessary.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould not complain that the hon. Gentleman had brought forward this clause without notice, because he felt it was desirable that all Amendments should be brought forward now rather than on the third reading. It was, however, impossible for him to agree with this clause. The purpose of the clause referred to by the hon. Gentleman was to impose restrictions upon an increase of salaries. The purpose of the clause, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman, was to fetter the discretion of Parliament, whether in the increase or in the diminution of salaries. The only argument used by the hon. Gentleman which was of any weight was, that the Bill, as it at present stood, dealt unequally with the English and the Irish courts. The fact, however, was, that owing to the difference of circumstances, it was necessary to create a nominal inequality in order to do substantial justice. In Ireland
1278
they had proceeded further in the abolition of fees than they had done in England; and, therefore, the clause was accommodated to that altered state of things. When the fees in the English courts were dealt with in the same manner as the fees in the Irish courts, they would be put upon the same footing also with regard to this Bill.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that he did not mean to increase, but to diminish, the charges, and his clause would have no other effect.
Clause negatived.
MR. DISRAELIproposed the clause of which he had given notice—
"Copies of each of the Quarterly Warrants of the Treasury, issued under the Act 57 Geo. III. c. 84, and the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 15, to the Controller General of the Receipt and Issue of Her Majesty's Exchequer, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within ten days after such Warrants shall be issued, if Parliament shall then be sitting, otherwise within ten days after the commencement of the next Session, together with a Copy or statement of the disbursements actually made in virtue of the Treasury Warrant during the antecedent quarter."
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this measure he impressed the importance of a periodical inspection or supervision, on the part of the House of Commons, with regard to the charges on the Consolidated Fund. That was a feature of this measure of financial reform. Now, the Committee would observe that in the Bill before them there was no provision at all to effect this object. The object of the clause he proposed was, that quarterly warrants of the Treasury should be laid upon the table of the House, so that they might know every three months what were the charges on the Consolidated Fund. This was the only mode he could see by which they could attain the object in view, and he was sure the House of Commons must wish to exercise the power and the supervision to which he had alluded.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was a very invidious task to oppose proposals of this kind, but he must say he entirely objected to this proposal. Before he proceeded further, however, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman under what section or sections of the Acts of the 57 Geo. III. and the 4 & 5 Will. IV. he referred when he spoke of these quarterly warrants as being, issued under these Acts?
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had not those Acts then by him.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Here they are, at the service of the right hon. Gentleman. I took care to have them at hand for him; for I am rather curious to learn under what sections the right hon. Gentleman finds the authority for the issue of those warrants.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONasked, whether it was not the fact that these warrants were issued under the authority of those Acts of Parliament?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdeclined to be the interpreter of the law as stated by others, but wished to know the authority for the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that these quarterly warrants were issued under the Acts in question?
MR. DISRAELIreferred to the 12th section of the 4 & 5 Will. IV.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was entirely misinformed as to the application of the Act. The section quoted by the right hon. Gentleman referred to ordinary Treasury warrants, which in every case were required before an issue of money could take place. But these quarterly Treasury warrants which the right hon. Gentleman said were issued under the Act 4 & 5 Will. IV. were warrants of an entirely different description, and did not, in point of fact, cause the issue of any money whatever. He therefore again asked the right hon. Gentleman under what portion of the Act referred to so authoritatively by him it was that he considered these quarterly warrants of the Treasury were either authorised or required? As at present informed, he demurred altogether to the recital of the right hon. Gentleman that these quarterly Treasury warrants were issued under the authority of these Acts. His opinion was, that these warrants were not required by the law. They were certainly issued in principle; and he would go further, and admit that the form of the warrants and the words of the warrants might certainly be construed in favour of the position that they were issued under the authority of the law; but he knew of no ground for stating that they were either required or authorised by the law. What he said was this—that these were documents of a description the most complex, the most antiquated, the most absurd, the most calculated to maintain deception and mystification in matters of public accounts that this House could possibly conceive;
1280
and he did not hesitate to state—whether it were the object of this clause or not to do so he did not know, but its effect would be to give a legal sanction and authority to these Treasury warrants, which, in his judgment, at the present moment, they did not possess.
MR. DISRAELIwould withdraw his clause, as it was wrong in point of form; but this he clearly saw, from every observation which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the right hon. Gentleman was determined to put an end to the restriction which at present existed as to the issue of public money from the Exchequer, which restriction he believed to be of the greatest importance, and which he applied to these 4,000,000 l. of new revenue which was to be brought under the control of the Exchequer. Of course, it was useless to attempt to come to any decision now upon any particular point, but he begged the Committee to bear this in mind—that the principles of the right hon. Gentleman would render it impossible for him to go on for another year without bringing forward some Bill, the object of which would be to diminish the restriction upon the issue of public money which at present existed.
Clause negatived.
MR. DISRAELIhad now to allude to another point of great importance. They were all agreed that the object of the great change which, he might observe, he had had the honour of first bringing forward, was, that the gross revenue of the country should be brought into the Exchequer. The fault he found with this Bill was, that it evaded this great object. It certainly brought into the annual statement of public accounts a large amount which hitherto had not found its way there, but it still left a great portion of the public revenue under the name of charges, pensions, and superannuations, at the disposition of the Treasury, free from the control and cognisance of Parliament, and which amount of public money was still under the immediate control of the Treasury alone. Now, he proposed that the preamble of this Bill should express the meaning of Parliament upon this subject, and therefore he had placed upon the paper a preamble which should state that—
"It is expedient that the gross revenue of the Departments of Customs, Inland Revenue, and Post Office should be paid into the Exchequer, with the exception of such sums as may be necessary to be retained in order to defray the charges

1281
of drawbacks, repayments, pensions, and superannuations heretofore charged upon and paid out of the said branches of the public revenue."
Now, this was a simple and clear declaration. He proposed to have a public expression of the opinion of Parliament on the subject. He wanted, and he understood the House of Commons wanted, that the gross revenue of the Departments of Customs, Inland Revenue, and Post-office should be paid into the Exchequer. He had been informed since he entered the House that the preamble of the Bill was couched, if not in identical, in similar language to his own. He begged the Committee would observe the remarkable difference between the language in the preamble of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he had proposed. The preamble of the Bill said—
"And whereas it is expedient, in order to bring the gross income and expenditure of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man under the more immediate view and control of Parliament."
Now, he said, that the object of the House of Commons was not that the gross income and expenditure of the United Kingdom should be brought" under the more immediate view and control of Parliament;" their object was that the gross national income should be brought into the Exchequer. Such words as "the more immediate view and control of Parliament," might bring a large amount of that revenue under their control, but it would leave a very large portion beyond their control. The words which the Committee ought to adopt were the simple and plain words, that they would bring the gross income of the country into Her Majesty's Exchequer. The words in the preamble of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were so essentially evasive and equivocal that you might really draw almost any meaning you pleased from them, and he thought it would be much better to adopt the plain, straightforward language he had placed on the paper. He, therefore, begged to propose the alteration in the preamble of which he had given notice.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he felt bound to take the same course with this as with the right hon. Gentleman's previous Amendment. There were two important points, which, so far as a declaration of law was concerned, were raised by this Amendment. The preamble which the right hon. Gentleman proposed enunciated the principle that pensions and superannuations upon the reve-
1282
nue departments—that was to say, the great bulk of all the pensions and superannuations paid throughout the kingdom—something like five-sixths of the whole amount—should not be brought under the control of Parliament. Now, he demurred altogether to that object of the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have stated it, and to have made the House acquainted with the omissions which were included in his Amendment. In stating what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not before aware of, that the right hon. Gentleman was the first to bring forward a change like that now proposed, the right hon. Gentleman should have declared that his object was to remove from the control of Parliament pensions and superannuations chargeable upon the revenue departments, and which amounted, he believed, to something like 500,000 l. or 700,000 l. a year. On this ground he objected to the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee of the House of Lords had made in this Bill a most injudicious change, founded upon most insufficient grounds, for they reported that they had not sufficient information before them in order to enable them to determine whether it was proper that these pensions and superannuations should remain upon the gross revenue, or whether they should be voted in the Estimates; and, instead of sending to the Treasury for the information they required, they struck out of the Bill these clauses altogether. Now, he must say, that unless his anxiety had been so great to carry out what remained of this Bill, nothing would have induced him to acquiesce in such a change introduced into a money Bill, not by the House of Lords, but by a Committee of the House of Lords. This change certainly left the Bill incomplete. These pensions and superannuations would be left chargeable on the gross revenue. On another occasion it would be necessary to attempt to make clearer work upon this point, but the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman would tie the House, as a matter of principle, to that which the House of Lords had forced upon them as a matter of fact. But another point was involved in the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman. When this Act was introduced it was met by this objection on the part of those who wished to adhere to the present system. Those persons always said it would be most inconvenient to have all the money received at the various outports sent up to London,

1283
and then to send back again that part of it which was necessary for the maintenance of the establishments at those outports. Thus, at Liverpool, something like 70,000 l. was required to pay the charges of the establishments there, and this amount, it was said, would be most irrational to send up to London from Liverpool and then back again. Now, nobody had ever said it was rational to do so. All they wanted was the control of Parliament over this money. That being settled, they left the money received at the outports to be dealt with in the most economical manner in which it could be dealt with. It might be paid where it was received, but it would have to be accounted for, and a balance struck between the local and the central fund. That was the principle on which his Bill was framed. Lord Monteagle, who had always been a steady opponent of this change, had stated before a Commission, which was appointed to investigate the subject, this very objection, and urged the absurdity and expense of sending more work forward in this way. It was to avoid this absurdity and expense that he had framed the Bill in the way he had done. The inconvenience of the plan objected to by the noble Lord would be very great, and nobody—he was going to say—was foolish enough to propose it; but as the right hon. Gentleman had now proposed that very plan, he must withdraw the word "foolish," though he hoped the House would not adopt the Amendment.
Motion negatived.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he had seen a report published by some persons who were anxious for a reform in the Customs in which credit was given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposing to transfer the whole gross revenue of the country to the Exchequer which formerly has not been so paid into the public Treasury. The Commissioners of Public Accounts, in 1831, laid it down as a principle that the whole of the public revenue ought to be paid into the Exchequer, and then paid out of the Exchequer for the public service. No doubt there might be particular instances where it might be convenient that small local payments should be made on the spot; but the general principle ought to be that the whole of the receipts should be paid into the Exchequer. It would be satisfactory to know whether it was intended that this should be the case.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought he had already explained
1284
in distinct terms that the expense of collection was to be defrayed at the ports, leaving the balance to be settled as a matter of account, while the authority of Parliament was applied to the expenditure through the machinery of the Votes.
MR. HUMEsuggested that every accountant, and every other person who had any public money in his possession, should render his accounts regularly, in order that they might be settled. If this had been done, the country would not have lost so much by Mr. Swaby. He ought also to be called upon to give security, and that the securities ought to be revised from time to time. He submitted that it was the duty of the Government to have all public charges, whether fees, prize-money, or other payments, brought into the Exchequer.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not surprised to hear his hon. Friend advert to this subject, and in reference to which he hoped the Committee would bear in mind that that case was one of the consequences of the mode of dealing with public money which had been fashionable in past years—that of disposing of it either by placing the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, or by some permanent Act of Parliament which effectually removed it from the control of the House of Commons. That was a lesson which he hoped would not be forgotten. It also illustrated another dangerous practice which the House ought to correct—that of entrusting the management of public money to persons who were appointed for other purposes. It was not fair to cause large sums of money to be held under the responsibility of the Judges of courts of law. Their duty was to administer the law—a duty difficult enough for any man; and they ought not in any way to be responsible for the control and management of public money. With regard to the immediate question, the case did not admit of being dealt with upon a general rule. In some instances the amounts were too large to be dealt with by way of security, and other modes must be adopted; but certainly he thought there ought to be some review of the securities under which public money was held.
House resumed.
Bill reported without Amendment.

MEDICAL GRADUATES (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question

1285
[22nd July], "That the Bill be now read the third time;" and which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had charge of this Bill (Colonel Dunne), considering the late period of the Session and the nature of the measure itself, would allow it to drop. Her Majesty's Government intended to take up the general question at the commencement of the next Session, when he thought either a Commission or a Committee ought to be appointed, consisting in either case of gentlemen not belonging to the medical profession; and on the result of their inquiries some general measure might be framed, satisfactory to the wants of the profession and the interests of the community at large. The House, therefore, would agree with him that it would be scarcely advisable to lose time in discussing a Bill which had no chance of passing this Session.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had, of course, at this period of the Session, no alternative but to comply with the request of the noble Lord. He was glad to hear that the Government meant to take up the subject, for he felt sure that if it were left to medical men it would be a long time before it was settled. His (Colonel Dunne's) object was to place the Irish and Scotch Universities on the same footing, with respect to medical degrees, as the University of London.
Question put, and negatived; Words added; Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Bill put off for three months.
MR. WALPOLEentreated the noble Lord the Home Secretary not to consider the passing of the Medical Graduates (University of London) Bill as a pledge on the part of Parliament, that in considering the question the University of London was to have the power of conferring degrees with the consequential licence that followed from those degrees. That question was left open.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONconsidered the object of the Bill referred to was simply to place the degrees of the University of London upon the same footing as those of Oxford and Cambridge. Parliament dis-
1286
tinctly understood that the whole question was left open.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT BILL.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. EVELYN DENISONmoved the addition of the following clause—
"That in all dealings between the Church Estate Committee acting in behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, as to lands now vested or which shall hereafter become vested in the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the holders of such lands, the said Church Estate Committee shall pay due regard to the just and reasonable claims of such holders of land under lease or otherwise arising from the long-continued practice of renewal, and in every case where a treaty has been entered into between the said Church Estate Committee and the said holders of land, it shall be lawful on the application of either of the said parties to such treaty to the other of them, to refer to arbitration the finding of the annual value and of the value of the fee simple thereof, subject to the exceptions and reservations, if any, to be excepted and reserved there out, and such finding shall be adopted in computing the terms of the sale, purchase, or exchange of such lands, or of any interest therein, and the said last-mentioned parties shall for the purpose of such arbitration, be subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained as to the appointment of arbitrators and the payment of costs. That the provision in the hereinbefore recited Act as to information being required respecting the proceedings under it, shall extend and be held to apply to all proceedings respecting land vested, or which may become vested in the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners."
The object of this was, that all ecclesiastical property, whether held by bishops and chapters, or by the Commissioners, might be brought under the same management. It had been supposed by the House that a clause to this effect was in the former Act; but the Commissioners had held that it did not apply to the property which they held. A further object of the clause was to give the power of arbitration to the Commissioners in certain cases.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
MR. GOULBURNopposed the clause, which he said was irrelevant to the object of the present Bill, and should have formed the subject of a separate enactment. The hon. Member who proposed the clause seemed to assume that it went no further than the one which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Shields (Mr. Ingham). That, however, was not

1287
so. For this clause made arbitration compulsory at the will of either party, and would apply not only to lands held by Church lessees, but also to those which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners held at rack rent. If it were agreed to, every one of their tenants might claim to have their lands valued and enfranchised. The question of arbitration, as proposed in this clause, was a compulsory dealing with property, which every person said should be voluntarily dealt with.
MR. MULLINGSdid not read it as a compulsory clause, but at all events the words could be altered to prevent such a construction being put upon them as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped that the noble Lord the President of the Council would sanction the clause, and he would take care, before the third reading, words should be introduced to make the arbitration permissive.
MR. INGHAMsupported the clause, and did not consider that the objections urged by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, were well founded.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the clause was one to which he could not ask the House to assent. He did not know whether, if it were agreed to, it would act harmoniously with other Acts upon the same subject, but he objected to the practice of taking occasion, when a Bill was introduced upon one subject, to introduce a clause that had reference to quite a distinct subject. It was not fit that they should introduce in the Bill a rule with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commission more stringent than that which was applied to the Church Estate Commission. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Member for Malton to postpone his clause until the subject of the Ecclesiastical Commission came properly before the House.
MR. J. A. SMITHsupported the clause, and trusted his hon. Friend would press it to a division, as he would rather see the Bill lost than that the clause should be rejected.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLopposed the clause, on the ground that it gave too large a power to the lessees and was a departure from the intention of the Bill, which had worked beneficially hitherto, but which he considered it would be unwise to extend to the whole of the property under the management of the Church Estate Commission.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment made; Bill to be read a third time to-morrow.

CUSTOMS ACTS.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. J. WILSONmoved the following Resolutions—
"That from and after the 1st day of August, the Duties of Customs chargeable on the Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, hereafter mentioned, imported into the United Kingdom, shall cease and determine, viz., Sulphate of Potash.
"That from and after the 1st day of August, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on the articles under-mentioned, imported into the United Kingdom, the following duties of Customs shall be charged, viz.: Arms, Swords, Cutlasses, Matchetts, Bayonets, Gun Locks, Cannon, or Mortars of Iron, not mounted nor accompanied with carriages, 2s. 6d. the cwt., Cannon or Mortars of brass, not mounted nor accompanied with carriages, 10 s. the cwt., Cannon or Mortars, mounted or accompanied with carriages and other fire arms, viz., Muskets, Rifles, Carbines, Fowling pieces, or Guns of any other sorts not enumerated, and Pistols, for every 100 l. value thereof, 10 l. Ammunition, &c. namely, Shot, large and small, of lead, 2s. the cwt.; of Iron, 2s. 6d. the cwt. Rockets, and other combustibles for purposes of war, and not otherwise enumerated or described, for every 100 l. value thereof, 10 l. Hops, until the 1st August, 1855, 1l. the cwt.; from and after that date, 2l. 5s. Iron and Steel, wrought or manufactured, except Arms and Ammunition, viz., Machinery, Wrought Castings, Tools, Cutlery, and other manufactures of iron or steel, not enumerated, 2s. 6d. the cwt.; Fancy ornamental articles of iron and steel, 15 s. the cwt."
MR. FREWENasked upon what principle the proposed hop duty of 1l. per cent until the 1st of August, 1855, and 2l. 5s. per cent after that date had been framed?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there had been reason to anticipate a great scarcity and high price of hops. This would have an injurious effect upon those interested in the growth and sale of barley, as well as upon the consumption of malt, and the large revenue which depended upon that consumption. A scarcity being anticipated, Parliament had been invited to do that which in cases of scarcity it generally did, sometimes by immediate reference to the House, and sometimes by the discretion of the Government, with the subsequent approval of Parliament, to remit for a time a portion of the duty, in order to facilitate in times of exigency the supply of a necessary article to the consumer. He had

1289
seen three Gentlemen representing the county of Kent upon this subject, and at that period the proposition was, that the duty should be reduced until the 1st of November, 1855. They represented, however, that that would be going beyond the occasion, and he had yielded to their representations, and had altered the date to the let of August, 1855, so as, he thought, completely to remove their objections. He believed that those Gentlemen were satisfied with the alteration.
MR. FREWENsaid that, some years ago, the Customs duty upon hops had been 12 l. 10 s. per cent. It had then been reduced to 8l. 11 s., then to 4l. 10 s., and it now stood at 2l. 5s. The Excise duty, during the same periods, had remained the same, and he believed that it was the only tax which had been never either mitigated or repealed since 1805. In 1834 the appearance of the hops was much worse than at present; and, although it was expected that not more than 3 cwt. or 4 cwt. an acre would be produced in Sussex, some of the plantations there had produced more than a ton an acre. There was always much speculation as to what the duty on hops would be, and at that period the old duty had been put down at less than 60,000 l., whereas it produced nearly 190,000 l., and the old and new duty together produced 329,941 l. He disapproved of the lowering of the Customs' duty, unless the Government agreed to a corresponding lowering of the Excise duty to four-ninths of its present amount. A reduction of the duty on foreign hops would be unjust towards the English planter, unless accompanied by such a reduction. From information he had received from the hop plantations in all parts of the kingdom, and from the great improvement which had taken place during the last ten days, he believed that the crop would turn out very different from what had been expected a fortnight ago. He had not brought forward his usual Motion for a repeal of the excise duty on hops this year, in consequence of the war, but his opinion with respect to it remained unchanged. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that hops be omitted from the Resolution.
MR. DEEDESdenied that he had expressed himself satisfied with the explanation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given him, as he had pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of also lowering the excise duty if
1290
he reduced the import duty on foreign hops. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had no intention of making a permanent alteration in the duty this year, and he supposed be would not have departed from that determination had he not been justified by some extraordinary circumstances. It was not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other person at the present moment, to form a judgment upon the probable crop of hops until a very advanced period of the year. In 1849 the duty paid was only 75,000 l., but no interference was then thought necessary. He had this morning received a letter from a person in Kent well acquainted with hop plantations, who said that a very great improvement had taken place in them within the last few days, and that, in his opinion, a duty of from 80,000 l. to 100,000 l. would be paid if this weather continued. He, therefore, contended that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in calling for the alteration he now proposed. Supposing it were necessary that something should be done, were the grounds of the right hon. Gentleman fair and just towards all parties? Why was the relief to be given entirely at the cost of the home grower, and the advantage, if any, that attended the measure, be put into the hands of the foreign grower? The consumer would get nothing by the proposed change. The foreign grower would be the only gainer. If, however, the state of the crops justified the change, the right hon. Gentleman might carry it into effect by means of an Order in Council.
MR. MASTERS SMITHcontended that all the advantage of the proposed reduction of duty would benefit the holders in bond, and that neither the revenue nor the country would derive any benefit from it. The lowering of the duty had caused great dismay throughout the hop districts, and would, if sanctioned, have the effect of throwing the hop grounds of the country out of cultivation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought not, without great deliberation, to come to any decisive determination on this subject. When the Excise and Customs duties were combined he considered it was a wise arrangement; and that was the opinion of those hop-growers whom he represented. As to the Customs duty, it had from time to time been lessened to a great extent, whilst nothing was taken from the Excise duty. They were now about to inflict a blow on an interest

1291
in a state of panic. They were, in fact, about to take a crutch from a falling man. It took two years to prepare a hop ground, and the hop-growers were now in great doubt, owing to the measures of the Government, as to what course they ought to pursue. [The hon. Gentleman read several letters, detailing great improvements that had taken place this year in the growth of hops all over the country.] He would leave the matter in the hands of the Government, but hoped the measure would be modified.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYfelt satisfaction at seeing that the county of Kent thought the hop duty was a bad one, as evidenced by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; for that was what it proved, if it proved anything. He would support the proposal of the Government, because, at length, he saw some prospect of the duty being done away with altogether. The hop duty had no beneficial effect whatever in any district except the county of Kent. He was a hop-grower in the county of Sussex, and he felt sure that the Sussex hop-growers generally would feel grateful to the Government for the reduction.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, this was not a Kentish question alone. He was connected with the county of Worcester, and there the feelings of the hop-growers coincided with those in Kent, and felt it was most injurious to them to have these tamperings and sudden changes made at the end of a Session, by which the whole trade was affected. There was a strong suspicion current that although the consumer would not benefit by this change, there were a large number of persons who were holders of foreign hops, and who would benefit largely by the alteration; amongst whom he supposed, was the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), having observed him to be in close communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury, but hoped those Members of the Government would not be carried away by the blandishments of the hon. Member for Derby. He thought there was no adequate ground for the reduction, and he hoped either that he would reconsider the question, or if a reduction in the foreign duty was necessary, that he would answer that other proposition they had to make to him, namely, a similar modification of the Excise as of the Customs.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the measure had been introduced at the instance
1292
of the officers of the Inland Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman said the reason for the measure had been removed by the improvement which had taken place in the probable yield of the crop. In 1852 the duty was 244,000 l., and the price was 4l. 5s. per cwt. In 1853 the duty fell to 150,000 l., and the price rose to 11 l. 11 s. What then would be the effect if it fell again to 80,000 l., or 100,000 l., which was the most flattering estimate that had been made. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the hop-growers were losers by bad crops. On the contrary they were large gainers by a deficient yield in consequence of the enormous increase of price. The reduction of the duty, however, 1l. 5s. would just render it possible to introduce the fine Bavarian qualities. The effect of the proposal would only be to place hops for a single year on exactly the same footing as every other article of home production, and surely such a modest proposal ought to receive the support of the House.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take the responsibility of reducing this duty as the crop progressed, it was asking a great deal of the House to expect them to relieve him from the responsibility. He would be no party to a reduction of the Customs duty upon hops unless there was, at the same time, a reduction on the Excise duty.
SIR EDWARD DERINGadmitted that there was not that scarcity of the crop that was anticipated. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not listened to the suggestion of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Deedes) to carry out the change by an Order in Council. The House at present were not in a position to legislate. If the crop should turn out as had been anticipated, and the right hon. Gentleman advised an Order in Council, he would have the support of all the hop growers.
MR. BASSthought it would be unsafe for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wait, because the duty was not declared until the end of November, and as foreign hops came earlier than this, the opportunity would be lost of purchasing these hops. Seeing that hops were only grown upon 50,000 acres, while barley was grown upon 2,000,000 acres, he did not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to oppose the proposal of the Government to increase the quantity of hops available for the consumer.
MR. CAYLEYwas a representative of

1293
barley growers, and wished to see hops cheap. He was willing to vote for the reduction of duty on foreign hops, if the Government would only reduce the Excise duty.
MR. FREWENasked the hon. Member for Derby if he had not betted that the duty would this year exceed 150.000 l., and if he had not made that bet within the last few days? [Mr. BASS: Certainly not.] He believed the hon. Member fur Derby had betted upon this duty on former occasions, for the hon. Member had told him so himself.
Question put, that—

Hops, until the 1st of August, 1855, the cwt.

£1 0 0

From and after that date, the cwt.

2 5 0

stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 21: Majority 40.
The remaining Resolutions were then agreed to, and the House resumed.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Militia (No. 2); Militia (Ireland); Judgments Execution, &c.
2a Bribery, &c.; Stamp Duties.
3a Inclosure, &c., of Land; Standard of Gold and Silver Wares.

BRIBERY, &c., BILL—RESOLUTION.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, in moving the Resolution which shall enable your Lordships to give a second reading to the Bribery Bill, notwithstanding the Resolution passed by this House on the 2nd of May last, I am not aware that I can add much to the observations which I made to your Lordships on a former occasion, when the Bill was read a first time. When the discussion arose on Monday last as to whether there were any circumstances that would give this Bill a right to proceed, notwithstanding the Resolution to which I have referred, I stated that the main reason on which I grounded my appeal to your Lordships to read this Bill a second time was, that the writs for five boroughs had been suspended by the other House of Parliament, and that the issue of them mainly depended upon legislation on this question taking place. Before, however, touching upon that question, I must observe, that I think the Resolution to which we came in May last was misconstrued by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), when this question was last discussed. The noble Earl said that it was impossible to represent this measure as one of recent urgency, inasmuch as the circumstances on which it

1183
was founded had existed throughout the whole Session. Now, undoubtedly, if the word "recent," in the Resolution, applied to the word "urgency," I should agree with him; but I must say that I think that the House will be satisfied that the Resolution, either grammatically or intentionally, does not bear that construction. I am sure the noble Lord who drew the Resolution will bear me out in saying that this was not the intention of the Legislature, for I recollect that when he first gave notice of his intention to move the Resolution, I had a discussion with him in private, not only as to the object, but also as to the principle and the probable result of passing a Resolution of this kind; and I certainly understood him—otherwise neither I nor the Government would have been a party to it—that the word "urgency" was left free from being coupled in construction with the words that precede it. Besides that, I apprehend that, grammatically, the Resolution does not bear any such interpretation. The words of the Resolution except Bills from its operation when the circumstances which render legislation on the subject-matter expedient "are either of such recent occurrence or urgency as to render the immediate consideration of the said Bill necessary." It is, therefore, clear that the Resolution contemplates two cases—one, when the circumstances which render legislation necessary are of recent occurrence; and the other, when the measure is of urgency in itself. Now, I apprehend that the proceedings connected with the suspension of the writs in question are sufficiently well known to render it unnecessary for me to do more than re-state to the House the arguments which I advanced on Monday last; but I may add, that I did not quite accurately set out the grounds of the origin and intention of the other House of Parliament with respect to their Resolution referring to these writs. Early in the present Session a Bill was introduced by the Attorney General for the disfranchisement of such voters in the boroughs of Cambridge, Canterbury, Hull, Maldon, and Barnstaple, as had been proved before the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into those boroughs to have been guilty of bribery. After considerable discussion in the House of Commons these Bills were withdrawn, and upon their withdrawal a Resolution was passed—I believe without observation, at all events without a dissentient voice—that no writ for any
1184
of those five boroughs should be moved without seven days' notice having been previously given; it being distinctly understood by the House that the object of that Resolution was to give them time to consider any question that might be raised with respect to the issuing of the writ, pending the passing of this Bill, which was then before a Select Committee of that House, and which it was hoped would for the future put an end to the systematic bribery that had prevailed. That such is the view which the House of Commons took of the matter is an admitted fact, which no one will contravene; but I may mention in corroboration of the statement I have made, that Sir Wm. Jolliffe having given notice that he would, on Monday last, move the issue of a new writ for one of the boroughs, he was asked in the House of Commons whether it was his intention then to move the writ in pursuance of the notice. He replied in the negative, stating that he should postpone his Motion to a future day, in order to see what would be the fate of the measure for the suppression of bribery. I think that this occurrence, which took place only on Monday last, is conclusive with respect to the object which the House of Commons had in view when they passed the Resolution for suspending these writs. It was remarked on Monday last, by one of your Lordships, that the length of time consumed by the House of Commons in the discussion of this Bill, was in itself conclusive against your Lordships passing it in such haste as must necessarily be the case if it is passed before the close of the Session. I think, however, that there is not much validity in an argument of this kind with reference to any Bill, and especially with reference to a Bill that so peculiarly affects the constitution, and privileges, and character, of Members of the House of Commons. But I have often heard the very converse of this proposition made use of in this House as an argument against pressing Bills at the end of the Session. It has been said that Bills have been brought into the House of Commons at so late a period of the Session, and that so little discussion upon them has taken place, that it is quite impossible they can have been properly considered by that House, and that it is therefore wrong to press them on the consideration of this House. And if your Lordships are to be influenced by considerations of this kind, I think that this is a much better reason for postponing a Bill than that which was

1185
put forth on Monday last. We have not always been so unwilling to undertake the consideration of Bills of great importance, and to pass them through this House with great rapidity, and that, too, not under any pressure on account of the lateness of the Session, but even for the convenience of individual Members of this House. I will only state, as a simple matter of fact, that the second reading of the Oxford University Bill—one of great importance, no doubt—was taken in one day, and that, too, an early one after it had been brought up from the House of Commons, and that on the following day—a most unusual course—we went into Committee upon it, in order to suit the convenience of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby). These are matters of courtesy due from one side of the House to the other; and provided the public interests do not suffer, they may well be admitted. I merely mention the circumstance, to convince your Lordships that if for such a reason the Oxford University Bill was hurried through two important stages in this House, no complaint should be made at the Government now asking you to consider the Bribery Bill. I must say that I do think there is little reason for complaining that the same measures should now be taken with respect to a Bill that comes from the House of Commons, after being carefully considered not only in the ordinary form of a Committee of the whole House, but also by a Select Committee composed of many of the most competent Members of that assembly. It is really worth while to mention the Members who composed that Committee, in older to show that this is not such a crude and ill-digested scheme as it is represented out of this House, as well as in it. The Chairman of the Committee was Mr. Walpole, the Secretary for the Home Department under the administration of the noble Earl opposite; and amongst the other Members of the Committee were Lord John Russell, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, the late Solicitor General, the present Attorney General, Mr. Bright, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Phinn, and Mr. Ball. These names are, I think, sufficient to show that the Committee was fairly formed from both sides of the House, and that it was competent to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on this difficult and long-mooted question. It is no doubt true that an unusual circumstance, which all must admit to be inconvenient, took place in the House of Commons. Some very important alterations were made in it after
1186
the third reading; and these, no doubt—though on examination of the Bill they do not seem to affect its principle to the full extent which I apprehended when it first came from the House of Commons, have in one respect materially changed its character: it must, however, be remarked that this change is in the direction of diminishing some of its most stringent provisions. In order, therefore, to meet the difficulty which your Lordships feel with respect to passing this Bill, I shall, if your Lordships agree to the second reading, and we go into Committee upon it, propose to make it a temporary measure, and to limit its operation to two years; in order that, if any alterations which have not been sufficiently considered have crept into it, there may not only be time for their reconsideration, but that in fact their reconsideration may be forced upon Parliament. I think that making a measure of this kind temporary has on former occasions been attended with great convenience and practical benefit, and quite independently of the lateness of the Session I should have been prepared to recommend such a course. When Sir Robert Peel introduced an important alteration into the Grenville Act, the Bill which he proposed for that purpose received very careful consideration; but two or three years afterwards it was again brought before the House, and was passed in its present permanent shape, with such alterations and amendments as experience had shown to be requisite. lf, then, your Lordships consent to this Amendment, and pass this Bill for two years only, every danger will be obviated, and you will at the same time accomplish that most desirable object of providing by the best means in your power against the recurrence of that systematic bribery which has heretofore prevailed in the five boroughs to which I have referred. When I said that it was quite clear that the suspension of these writs had reference to this measure, I should have added that the Bill contained within itself conclusive proof on that head; for by the 15th clause, constituting a new officer in the election auditor, your Lordships will find that those five boroughs are specifically referred to, the appointment of the election officer being made requisite at an earlier period than elsewhere in these five boroughs, in order that the Bill may be brought into operation there when the suspended writs shall be issued. Although this Bill is no doubt in many respects of great importance,

1187
its provisions are by no means of a complex character. It is not like the Bills affecting the tenure of land in Ireland which were before the House at the latter end of last Session. Undoubtedly the character of those Bills was such that considerable time must be occupied in Committee if any bonâ fide opposition should be raised to their details. That, however, is not the ease with this Bill. Its provisions, though of great importance, are few in number, and there is not a Member of your Lordships' House who will pretend to say that if this Bill had conic before them in the middle of the Session, and when the attendance of Peers was usually greatest, the Committee upon it mould have been at all likely to last more than one night. Under these circumstances, there is no pretence for saying that there is no time to investigate the details of this Bill. And when your Lordships recollect tire complaints which exist within the walls of Parliament, and still more without them, as to the prevalence of bribery, which is believed to have extended of late years, I do not think that you are likely to refuse a second reading to this Bill, and to throw legislation over to another year; in the first place, because such a course would be very likely to be misrepresented in the country and in the other House; and, in the second place, which I know will be a stronger inducement to your Lordships, because you would be putting off for a year, if not for a longer period, a legislative measure which those who have had most practical experience in these matters believe to be most likely to cheek a system which has become so great a stain and disgrace upon the character of the constituency of this country. Even, indeed, if bribery has not extended as much as the public believe, it has from circumstances become much more patent to the world; and, therefore, as regards its moral effects on the country, much more prejudicial. I have no doubt that recent legislation has tended to bring before the public many practices which passed unobserved in past years. I believe that the amendment of the Grenville Act, which was passed by the late Sir Robert Peel, and to which I have already referred, was the first step to bring these cases of corruption more tangibly and obviously before the public eye; and I am confident that the measure which, at the instigation of Lord John Russell, was passed three or four years ago, and by which inquiry, by Royal Com-
1188
mission, was authorised to be made into the existence of corrupt practices in boroughs, under certain circumstances, had tended still more to bring these cases under the notice of the public. But if you say that there has been in reality, no, extension of corruption, but that we merely hear of it more now than formerly because the Legislature has made it more patent, I contend that the only conclusion deducible from that argument is, that the Legislature having heretofore brought these-crimes and offences to light, it becomes now more imperative upon Parliament to deal with them, and to endeavour to check them by the best means in our power.
I will now draw your Lordships' attention to the principal enactments in this Bill, and to the chief alterations that have been introduced into it in its passage. through the other House. One of the most important features in this Bill is, certainly one that should recommend it to your Lordships' favour. I have often heard it stated in this House that Bills entailing heavy penalties required the most careful consideration, and I think that is a valid argument. But, so far from increasing penalties, this Bill diminishes those which exist in every instance. The legislation affecting bribery has heretofore, failed in a great measure, as I believe, from the excessive weight of the penalties inflicted. They have been, especially as regards the poor voters, of so onerous a description, that there has been a feeling adverse to putting them in force; and I believe that the measures against bribery have failed as much from this cause as from any other. This measure, however, proceeds on a different plan; and,. instead of inflicting heavy penalties either on the person offering a bribe, or on the person accepting it, it proceeds on what I believe to be a much sounder principle of legislation, and one much better adapted to human nature, and rather endeavours to-render unattainable the objects sought by the briber and the bribed, than to punish those who engage in either the one crime or the other. Another provision in this Bill, and one which strongly recommends it to those who have sat on Election Committees, provides not merely for erasing from the list of voters the principals who have been found guilty of bribery, but for placing them on the registry of voters on a separate list, so that they shall be held up to the public remark and the observation of their neighbours. There has been, as cannot be unknown to your Lord-

1189
ships, great difficulty in dealing with this offence by Committees of the House of Commons, in consequence of its undefined character. In this Bill, therefore, an attempt has been made with great care, and a very considerable application of legal knowledge, to define the offence which it seeks to punish and prevent. As regards bribery, it commences by repealing—wholly in some cases, and to a large extent in others—the various Acts which have been heretofore passed with regard to bribery and corrupt practices; and the body of the Bill then contains a definition of what should be deemed bribery in future. The same course is taken with respect both to the offences of "treating" and "undue influence." Undoubtedly no part of this question is so difficult to deal with as the exercise of "undue influence." An attempt is, however, made to define it here; and if that definition he not perfect, it, at any rate, brings within its scope many of those forms of the offence which have heretofore passed scatheless, but which successive Parliaments have sought in vain to inclose within the meshes of their legislation. I now come to a provision of great importance—indeed, now that the declaration has been struck out of the Bill, the leading provision—that which relates to the appointment of the election auditor. That provision was introduced at the suggestion of Sir F. Kelly, the Solicitor General of the Government of the noble Earl opposite. The Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred took great care to invest him with such duties and powers as might enable him to attain the object for which alone he was appointed. The great object of appointing this officer is to ensure publicity, by requiring every candidate to send the bills of his election expenses to this officer. These bills will then be made accessible to the opposing candidates and their agents, and to the public generally, by the publication of them, which the election officer is authorised to make, in the newspapers. The commission of bribery, if any has taken place, will thus be made so obvious, as to render it probable that those who contemplate it will shrink from the exposure which will most likely follow its commission. In this Bill, the two very difficult questions of the payment of the travelling expenses of voters, and of their refreshments, are dealt with. All Members of your Lordships' House who have been formerly Members of the other House, and have sat upon Election Committees, must be aware that
1190
these questions have been two of the greatest stumbling-blocks to Election Committees. One Committee has given a decision that the payment of one was legal and the other illegal, or vice versâ, according to the individual views of the Members of the Committee who sat upon each case. The present Bill, however, provides that in future the payment of travelling expenses shall be legal, and that all payments for refreshments shall be illegal. I readily admit that questions may arise as to the propriety of these provisions. Some may say that while the travelling expenses ought to be paid, the charges for refreshment should not be allowed, and others may bold the contrary opinion; but, one way or the other, your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that it is most desirable that a decision should be come to, and that these conflicting views, which have hitherto led to the greatest possible embarrassment, should be put an end to, by deciding the legality or illegality one way or the other. I have already referred to a provision of this Bill which was introduced in Committee in the House of Commons, but struck out after the third reading, by which a declaration was provided to be taken by Members elected to the House of Commons declaring their freedom from all acts of bribery. It is unnecessary now, as this declaration is no longer in the Bill, to express any opinion as to the wisdom or danger of such a provision; I will, therefore, only say that there are two clauses in the Bill, the 33rd and 34th, which provide for a declaration not to be taken by Members of Parliament, but by candidates previously, which ought to follow the removal of the other clause, or which ought to be greatly altered or entirely omitted. I appeal to your Lordships not to refuse your consideration to this measure, and not to refuse to pass this Resolution, by which you will preclude all discussion, and shut the door peremptorily against the second reading. It by no means follows, if you agree to this Resolution, that you should subsequently pass the second reading, if on listening to the arguments, and hearing all that can be said for and against its provisions, you are satisfied that it is not such a measure as would meet the objects we all wish to attain. But what I wish is that, when a measure of this kind is brought from the other House of Parliament, you will not at once say you will not entertain it. When the writs for five boroughs are suspended, with a view to the passing of this measure, how can it

1191
be said that it is not one of urgency? I ask your Lordships to give to this measure that latitude which is extended by the Resolution of the 2nd of May to Bills of this description, and that you will consent to entertain the Motion for the second reading of this Bill. The noble Duke moved to resolve—
"That the Suspension of the Writs for five Boroughs by Order of the House of Commons, until new legislative Precautions shall have been taken to prevent the Recurrence of the System of Bribery which was proved by Royal Commissioners to have prevailed in those Boroughs, is (within the Meaning of the Resolution of this House of the 2nd May last) a Circumstance a such Urgency as to render necessary the immediate Consideration of a Bill brought from the House of Commons on the 31st of July, intituled, An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Bribery, Treating, and undue Influence at Elections of Members of Parliament;' and that accordingly it is reasonable that the said Bill be allowed to be read a Second Time this Day, if the House shall think fit so to order."
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that in rising to oppose the adoption of the Resolution which had been proposed by the noble Duke, their Lordships were not to expect that be would go into the question of the Bill itself. On the contrary, he thought it was desirable that the whole of the discussion should turn upon the question of their Lordships' Resolution of the 2nd of May, because the merits of the Bill had nothing to do with the question. The discussion was, whether this citadel be fitly considered a Bill of that urgency that it should come within the spirit of the exceptions of the Resolution passed by their Lordships on the 2nd of May; and whether their Lordships were, therefore, prepared to set aside that Resolution. He believed it was perfectly plain and expedient that the Resolution of the 2nd of May should he supported, because it must be evident not only to those who had considered the matter in that House, but also to those who had considered it out of the House, that it was necessary that a limitation should be put to the time when measures brought up from the other House should be taken into discussion. If that be the case, he trusted they would consider the question dispassionately and not with party views, for it was not a party question; be trusted they would support that principle which, if once adopted in a case like the present, would conduce more to improve the legislation of both Houses of Parliament than any other measure that could be adopted. He asked their Lordships not to pass the Resolution which had been moved
1192
by the noble Duke, first, because the Resolution itself was an improper Resolution for their Lordships to adopt; and secondly, because it was a proposition to set aside the Resolution of the 2nd of May without sufficient reasons for so doing. He did not mean the slightest disrespect to the noble Duke when he said the Resolution was of a character that should not, under any circumstances, be adopted by the House. It stated that which was not borne out by the fact; and which, therefore, would put that House in an improper position as regarded the other House of Parliament; and on that ground alone the Resolution was one that should not be adopted. The noble Duke's Resolution stated that "the suspension of the writs for five boroughs was ordered by the House of Commons until new legislative precautions should have been takers to prevent the recurrence of the system of bribery." Now, the House of Commons had never said anything that would in any way justify their Lordships in resolving that the House of Commons had declared that the suspension of those writs was to continue until there was new legislation. The only Resolution the House of Commons had come to with respect to these writs was, that no Motion should be made for the issuing of those writs except on seven days' notice. When that Resolution, was proposed, an Amendment was moved that no new writ should be issued until the 30th of December, and it was afterwards moved that no new writs should be issued until the 30th of June, which latter would have had the effect of postponing the issue of the writs for one month; but both those Amendments were rejected, and the Resolution with regard to the seven days' notice was passed. [See APPENDIX] Whether the House of Commons was right in suspending the writs was a great constitutional question, into which he would not now enter; but he would say that instead of acting as they were represented to have acted by the Resolution, the House of Commons merely came to what, under the proceeding they had themselves adopted, was a proper Resolution, namely, that in order that no hurry and surprise should take place with regard to moving for writs, seven days' notice of such Motion should be given. He would assert boldly—and he thought no one could controvert theassertion—that it would be unparliamentary, and contrary to a good understanding between the two Houses of Parliament, if either House should resolve that any de-

1193
termination of the other had been come to upon grounds which were not specifically stated by that other. Yet that was what the present Resolution did, and it would be offensive to the other House if their Lordships were to say that that House had done so. But, suppose the House of Commons bad come to such a Resolution as was stated in the Motion before their Lordships—that they would suspend the issue of the writs until legislation should have taken place—the moving of that Resolution as a ground for their Lordships' proceedings would be an improper manner of addressing their Lordships' House on the subject, and on that ground alone he would appeal to their Lordships to resist it; for how could it be considered but as an unfair pressure on their Lordships, if the House of Commons had said they would not do a particular act, except their Lordships should pass a certain measure on the subject. It was not fitting that this Resolution should be put upon the minutes of their Lordships' House, first, because the House of Commons bad not done that which it was stated they had done; and next, if they had done it, they would have put an improper pressure upon their Lordships as a reason for a legislative proceeding in that House. Having made this preliminary objection, he would now ask their Lordships to consider whether this Bill could be fairly brought within the meaning of the "urgency" contemplated by their Lordships' Resolution. The noble Duke had said that it was never intended by the noble Baron who proposed the Resolution that the word "recent" should govern "urgency;" and that it could not grammatically do so; but he (Lord Redesdale) certainly intended that it should govern both "urgency," and "occurrence." The question they had to consider was, whether this Bill could be fairly considered to come within the Resolution of the 2nd of May. The question of bribery was one that had been treated over and over again by Parliament, and could not be considered as a question—though important in itself—of "urgency." A delay for another year, before a new Bill on the question of bribery was made the law of the land, was one that could not be considered to constitute a case of "urgency." They had passed the Resolution in order that their Lordships should have time for the discussion of important Bills, and the consequence of passing it was, that a number of Peers had made up their minds to leave town. And what they were now asked to
1194
do was, that a Bill which had been brought into their Lordships' House on Monday should be read a second tune on Thursday, when the fact of the Bill having been introduced could not have been known to a number of Peers who had left town. Therefore, unless the case of urgency was made most clear, they would be setting aside the whole effect of their Resolution if they allowed this Bill to be pressed forward. The effect of rescinding this Resolution would be, that any party who could at the close of the Session command a majority in the House would be able to declare whether they considered a question to be of urgency or not. He, therefore, asked their Lordships not to agree to the Resolution of the noble Duke, and urged upon them to recollect what the effect would be of their introducing important Amendments into the Bill, and what consideration could be given to them by the other House of Parliament. He did not think it would be proper that they should send back to the other House a Bill affecting it, with Amendments, at a period of the Session when there would be unquestionably the smallest possible attendance of Members. For these reasons, and being convinced that their Lordships would by refusing to agree to this Motion, do much to give effect to the principle of the Resolution of the 2nd of May, he must say non-content to the Motion of the noble Duke.
THE EARL OF ABERDREN: My Lords, my noble Friend has not referred to the provisions of the Bill before the House, and it is not my intention to do so; but I wish to make a few observations upon the Resolution to which my noble Friend thinks it indispensable that we should adhere on this occasion. Now, I think your Lordships would do well in the present case to relax your adherence to that Resolution—which I admit has produced salutary effects, and which will still produce salutary effects if you treat it as it deserves. The Resolution itself involves no question of principle; it was adopted for the mutual convenience of Members of this House—of both Houses of Parliament, I may say—and so it must be considered and treated. Every effort has been made, in this House and elsewhere also, to effect the object aimed at by this Resolution. Only the other day, a very important Bill which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was dropped by him in consequence of the existence of this Resolution—I mean a Bill for the abolition of the usury laws. It has since been introduced in this

1195
House by a noble Friend of mine, and has been originated in this House in consequence of the existence of that Resolution, notwithstanding the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given notice of the Bill. Therefore every means has been taken to carry into effect the spirit of the Resolution as it was understood when proposed. But your Lordships should be cautious how you apply too stringently the provision which the noble Baron desires to interpret as belonging to this Resolution. Rely upon it that if you proceed in a manner so arbitrary and so completely without qualification, it is impossible to expect that the other House of Parliament will consent to act under the compulsion of a Resolution of the House of Lords, and it may lead to serious differences between the two Houses of Parliament. I am happy to say that hitherto there have not been any very serious differences between the two Houses of Parliament; indeed, nothing is more wonderful, nothing is more astonishing, than the continuing harmony of the two Houses of Parliament in the conduct of the legislation of the country. It seems hardly possible that between two bodies, each possessing such powers as the two Houses of Parliament do, so little difference, so little of contestation, should arise—and this is only owing to mutual forbearance, and to the deference of each House one to the other. If ever serious difference should arise between them, it will be an event not only deeply to be deplored, but which cannot but lead to the serious injury of the Parliamentary constitution of the country. I say that if this Resolution were to be enforced in the arbitrary manner proposed by my noble Friend, it would be an outrage upon the privileges of the House of Commons; for to tell them that they shall not send up a measure after a certain day is not far short of an insult to that House. As a means for the reasonable expedition of measures brought before you, they have acquiesced, and no doubt will acquiesce hereafter, in the Resolution, and expedite business, as we shall equally do, with the view of meeting the spirit and object for which the Resolution was affirmed; but anything further than this would be at variance with the privileges of the House of Commons—with what has been their practice, and probably will be still their practice, if you give to this Resolution that fair and liberal interpretation according to which only it can exist, and according to which I believed it would be considered, or I would never have agreed
1196
to it. I wish to avoid the possibility of leading to a serious difference between the two Houses, and I wish also to avoid the exercise of an arbitrary and unreasonable assumption of authority on the part of this House. I deny altogether the constitutional character of the reasons assigned by the noble Lord—of the Session being too far advanced, and the probability of there being too thin an attendance of Peers. Wishing to avoid these difficulties, I think your Lordships ought to agree to the Motion of the noble Duke. If there be too thin an attendance in your Lordships' House, it is no reason whatever for refusing to agree to the Motion. It is a reason, no doubt, to influence the convenience of your Lordships, but not to limit or abrogate the discretion of the House of Commons in the transaction of the business before them. I therefore entreat of your Lordships not to look upon this as an arbitrary Resolution which you have laid down, and to which you will adhere—not as a case of sic volo, sic jubeo. No one will deny that this is a measure which would justify your Lordships in taking it at least into consideration; for, as my noble Friend near me has said, you may if you think proper on full consideration reject the second reading of the Bill. That is perfectly intelligible and within your competence; but to interpret this Resolution as an arbitrary rule in the manner proposed by my noble Friend opposite, is a thing likely to lead to most serious and mischievous consequences.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Earl had altogether and very prudently abstained from taking the slightest notice of any of the observations that had been made by his noble Friend who opposed this Resolution. Not one word had fallen from the noble Earl in refutation of the statement that was made by my noble Friend, that this Resolution was one which it was impossible for their Lordships, with propriety, to accede to. It attributed to the House of Commons that it had passed a Resolution which it had not passed, and it attributed to them motives by which they were not influenced. If their Lordships had passed such a Resolution they would have failed in the courtesy which they should always wish to see reciprocated between the two Houses of Parliament, and yet it was proposed to make such a Resolution the basis for legislation in their Lordships' House, though by recognising such a Resolution they would in fact compromise the independence of their own legislative powers. It was not right to say by this Resolution

1197
that writs bad been suspended until their Lordships should have legislated upon the subject, for that was not what the House of Commons had done. What they had done, and what was very natural for them to do, was, that, while this Bill was pending, and it was uncertain under what system of law the elections would take place if the writs were issued, they suspended the writs until they should see if Parliament were about to legislate upon the subject; but for the House of Commons to say that they would indefinitely postpone the issue of the writs for those five boroughs until the House of Lords should assent to a measure they had sent up to them, would be to adopt a principle so unconstitutional that neither this nor any other house of Commons had ever dreamed of enunciating it. Their Lordships must observe that the proposition contained in the Resolution was not that the writs should not be issued until the House of Lords had decided whether or not they should pass this measure, or whether Parliament should or should nut pass this Bill, but that the writs should not be issued until fresh legislation had taken place. Their Lordships were called upon, therefore, not only to consider the Bill, but to pass it. They were in duresse with regard to their legislative powers, and they were to be compelled to pass it in the form sent up from the House of Commons, or, at all events, they were not to introduce any Amendments to which the House of Commons would be indisposed to assent; for the House of Commons might not choose to agree to any Amendments which their Lordships might make in the Bill, and in that case legislation would equally fail, and the writs would be indefinitely suspended. Now, what was the real state of the case? The House of Commons had refused even to suspend the writs to the 30th of December, and, anticipating an earlier Session than this, had refused to postpone them till the 30th of June. Indeed, if he were not mistaken, at that very moment there was a Motion pending in the other House for the issue of writs to the whole of these five boroughs. It was quite true that the noble Lord holding the high office of President of the Council announced in the other House his opinion, that these writs ought not to be issued until legislation had taken place; but the experience of the Session led him to the conclusion that what one Member of the Government announced as his view was not necessarily the view of any other Member of the Government. It was quite pos-
1198
sible that the view of the noble Lord the President of the Council might be declared by others of his colleagues to be "wholly unconstitutional," and even "sheer nonsense." Even if it so happened that the whole of the Members of the Government should, marvellously, be of one opinion—what security was there that that opinion would be in accordance with the views of the House of Commons? He must say this, that the House of Commons had never come to such a Resolution and had never affirmed such an opinion as this Resolution, which their Lordships were called upon to affirm, attributes to the House of Commons, and attributes to them in order to make it the basis of your Lordships' legislation. The noble Earl opposite had shown great prudence and discretion in abstaining from referring to these matters; but would their Lordships pass them over now that this objection had been taken? Would they, with their eyes open, declare that the House of Commons had done that which they had not done, and take as the basis of their legislation a supposed Resolution of the House of Commons, which, if the other House had passed, would be an infringement of the privileges of their Lordships? Would their Lordships so far stultify themselves as to adopt such a course? The noble Earl had abstained from entering into the merits of the Bill itself, and he should follow the example of the noble Earl; but the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) had said that the Bill had in many of its details the sanction of high authorities, and that it bad passed through a Select Committee. The noble Duke had reminded their Lordships what distinguished authorities had sat upon that Committee, but he had neglected to say that, when it came out of Committee, the House of Commons had not so great a respect as the noble Duke seemed to have for those high authorities, inasmuch as they had totally altered the measure, and, up to the very last moment, had made material and most important alterations in it. The noble Duke had himself intimated that he did not consider that at this period of the Session the House of Lords could fairly and properly consider and discuss the measure so as to make it as perfect as it might be made. If they were to overrule their Resolution and to pass this Bill in deference to the House of Commons it was certainly with some pleasure that he found the noble Duke prepared to make it a temporary measure, which was only to be passed for one or two years. But why should it be

1199
made a temporary measure? Manifestly because there was not time to make it as perfect a measure as it ought to be. He admitted the prudence and discretion of the noble Duke, and thought he was quite right in thinking that, if the Bill was to be taken as it was and considered at all, it should only be passed for two years, and that, having faith in the House of Commons, they should not enter upon what could be little more than a partial discussion, occurring at a late period of the Session, when but few Peers were likely to be in attendance. The noble Duke said, "Make it a temporary measure, because you have not time to make it a perfect measure." [The Duke of NEWCASTLE denied that he had made any such statement.] The only reason he could conceive for not amending the Bill, so as to make it as perfect a measure as possible, was, that they had not time maturely to consider the principles of the Bill. If that were the only proposition, he might perhaps be inclined to accede to the proposal of the noble Duke, to pass the Bill as it was, for the space of two years. But what did the noble Duke propose to do further? Taking it as a temporary measure, the noble Duke told their Lordships that there were two clauses in the Bill which he wished to expunge and to alter, and he proposed then to send the Bill, as amended, to the House of Commons. Now, the object and intention of the Resolution of their Lordships were to give to that and the other House of Parliament full time to consider measures passed at the close of the Session. If their Lordships were to waive their privileges, and assent to the passing of the Bill in violation of their own Resolution, and were to make Amendments in the measure, what would be the effect? The Bill would go down to the other House to be considered towards the last day of the Session, and it would be considered by perhaps forty or fifty Members, after having been passed by 200 or 300. He must say that this would be a most extraordinary mode of showing deference to the House of Commons; they would, in reality, be enabling the Government of the day to set aside the opinion of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and to do what they thought fit with any measure introduced into the House, provided they delayed to introduce it till towards the close of the Session. He thought that to pay proper deference to the House of Commons they ought not at this period of the Session to amend a Bill
1200
of this nature, and send it down, as amended, to he discussed in the House of Commons in the middle of the month of August. The noble Earl at the head of the Government said the Resolution of their Lordships was one which had produced and was calculated to produce very salutary effects; but how could it produce salutary effects unless it were adhered to? It was the knowledge that it was a Resolution of the House of Lords, and one which the House of Lords would adhere to, which alone could produce the salutary effect of hastening the legislation of this and the other House of Parliament. If, however, they were not to adhere to the Resolution, and were to suffer Members of that House to leave London, and go down into the country in the full assurance that they had passed a Resolution which would secure them from the possibility of dangerous measures being agreed to in their absence, and if the Government were then to say a measure was one of urgency, and that the Resolution of their Lordships must be set aside, so far from having a salutary effect, it would be a mere trap for noble Lords in that House, and would utterly fail in the effect which was intended upon the other House of Parliament. The noble Earl had talked about the arbitrary application of this rule. Now he (the Earl of Derby) knew nothing so arbitrary as the application of this rule just as the Government thought fit. If the Resolution was to be acted upon systematically and regularly, there could be nothing arbitrary in it; but if it was to depend upon a chance majority of one or two in a House of twenty or thirty Members whether the rule was to be applied or not, then, indeed, it would become an arbitrary decision, and a decision which must produce, instead of a salutary, a most mischievous effect. The noble Earl seemed to think it most astonishing and marvellous that there should be a general concurrence of opinion and good understanding between their Lordships and the other House of Parliament, and hoped this would continue to be the case; but at the same time he thought that the most dreadful consequences would result if their Lordships were to fail to show due deference to a measure of the House of Commons which had come up with a unanimity of assent. Now, what was the unanimity of assent given by the House of Commons? The unanimity of assent given to the measure upon the third reading was this—a material provision was struck out, and after that material provision was struck out the

1201
unanimous assent of the House of Commons was given by a majority of seven in a House of 200. Could it be contended, then, after the House of Commons had devoted six months discussion to the Bill, and a majority of seven only had decided that it should pass at all, that it would show a want of deference to that House if their Lordships were to fly in the face of the recorded opinions of the other House, simply because they were humbly of opinion that a Bill which had taken the House of Commons six months to consider, which had been greatly altered upon inquiry, and which had passed at the last moment by a majority of seven only, was deemed worthy of something more like discussion and deliberation than could be given to a Bill brought up with such haste and at so late a period of the Session as this? It had been brought up with such haste that it purported upon the back of it to have been printed upon—a day not in the calendar—the 31st of June, instead of the 31st of July. On the 3rd of August they were called upon to take the principle of the Bill into consideration, and on the 4th to examine its details; they must then send it back in the second week of August to be discussed again in the House of Commons. "But," said the noble Earl opposite, "this Resolution does not involve the adoption of the second reading of the Bill. Do what you like with regard to the second reading of the Bill, throw it out if you think fit." That, the noble Earl thought, would not indicate disrespect of the opinion of the other House; but if their Lordships, without any expression of opinion, as to whether the majority of 107, or the minority of 100, were right, simply ventured to say that they would like a little more time for considering the Bill, that, according to the noble Earl, would be a great violation of deference to the other House. Now, he (the Earl of Derby) looked at the matter in just the opposite point of view from this. His chief objection to the second reading was an objection as to time, and time only, and as to the necessity of adhering to the Resolution which that House had adopted as the rule of its proceedings, he said that there was everything in favour of the second reading of a Bill relating to the privileges of the other House, which came up to them with the favourable prestige of having received the assent of that House. Although he trusted they would exercise their right of discussing its principle and examining its details, yet much weight attached to it, inasmuch as it had received
1202
the approval of the other House. The measure was one of a very complicated character—much more so than the noble Duke seemed to think—and it involved penal consequences, and many serious and delicate questions; but he did not propose now to enter into its merits or demerits. He did not pretend to be able to do so. He had not had time to consider the Bill in detail; and he confessed he had not gone through and examined all the changes and vicissitudes to which it had been exposed in its progress through the other House. But, if it were not for the Resolution of this House, and if there had been proper time, he should say let the Bill be taken up and considered deliberately, and see if it can be amended; and if it is incapable of amendment, let it by all means be applied as a remedy for what everybody admits to be a great and crying evil. But his objection was, that since their Lordships had passed this Resolution, upon the faith of which Peers had left London, upon the faith of which their Parliamentary proceedings had been founded, and upon the faith of which Bills had been introduced in that House rather than in the other House of Parliament—since they had laid down this Resolution, which was likely to he most beneficial both to that and the other House of Parliament, but which could only work efficiently by their showing their determination to adhere to it, even at the risk of some trifling inconvenience—he should certainly advise their Lordships not to waive that Resolution in the present instance. If, indeed, this were a measure of paramount urgency, by the delay of which the best interests of the country might suffer—if it were anything affecting our foreign relations or influencing the vigorous prosecution of the war in which they were now engaged—not a single word would have been said on the subject, nor would the Resolution have been pleaded in bar to it. But this was a measure to which none of these considerations would apply; it was comparatively unimportant whether it were passed in the course of this year or the next; it was the very case, in fact, upon which their adherence to the Resolution they had passed could fairly be tested, without disrespect to the other House of Parliament, and without inconvenience to the interests of the country. Deeming it to be most important that the Resolution should not be set aside without due cause and upon full consideration, and believing that the ground for so doing asserted in the noble Duke's Resolution was inconsistent with the facts, and that,

1203
even if it were consistent with them, it would be a most improper ground for their Lordships to act upon, he should certainly say No, with his noble Friend, to that Resolution.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he should certainly give an unhesitating vote—not in favour of this Bill, for that was not the question before them—but in favour of making this an exception to the just, proper, and expedient general rule which their Lordships had adopted on the proposition of the noble Baron (Lord Redesdale). In proposing the adoption of this rule, he had never understood the noble Baron to say that it was to be adopted as an inflexible Resolution, liable to no exception; but if he had so meant it, he ought distinctly to have stated it, and if he had done that, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) believed the Resolution would have met with a very different reception from that House, and certainly from the other House of Parliament. The noble Baron, however, in his argument in support of the Resolution, and in the express terms of the Resolution itself, admitted that he did not intend it as a rule without an exception, for he had introduced into a provision that a case of recent occurrence or urgency should be a proper exception from the rule; and with that necessary and proper qualification, the Standing Order was unanimously adopted by that House. The Resolution was, that, after a certain period of the Session—and, for convenience' sake, a certain day was named—their Lordships would proceed with no Bill except in a matter of urgency. The question at issue, therefore, was, was this Bill from its nature and subject a measure of urgency, or was it not? He maintained that it was a measure of urgency; and the argument lay in a nutshell. If the noble Baron (Lord Redesdale) had so framed the Standing Order as not only to make an exception in it in favour of a measure of urgency, but had gone further, and attempted in express words to define what was a question of urgency, and if their Lordships had agreed to the Resolution in that shape, the definition which in that case must have been adopted must have been one that would exactly have included a Bill of this description—a Bill which the other House of Parliament in the exercise of its discretion had sent up, affecting its own peculiar interests and privileges. The noble Baron would admit that the interests and privileges of the other House were concerned
1204
in the present Bill. Another criterion of urgency would have been, that the measure was intended or calculated—or, at all events, endeavoured—to put an end to an evil that was universally admitted to exist. Well, this Bill sought to mitigate, if it could not entirely remove, an evil which everybody in both branches of the Legislature and in the country admitted, and held it to be the duty of Parliament to endeavour to check. So that there were two marks of urgency visible on the face of this Bill. Not only was this Bill directed against an evil which was eating like a festering canker into the very heart of our representative system, but unless the remedy it proposed was adopted, there would ensue this important consequence—that, as the representation of a certain number of boroughs had been suspended in anticipation of some steps being taken for this purpose, those boroughs must now be left entirely unrepresented, or they must be liable to be misrepresented, for want of a corrective to the existing corruption. It was clear, therefore, that this Bill came within the category of the exceptions contemplated by the Standing Order; and lie might add, that there was a danger that the universally admitted and serious evil against which it was levelled might be incurred within the next three months if they did not pass this Bill. But he went further, and if this was not a measure of urgency, he would ask the noble Baron what was a measure of urgency? Again, if the noble Baron did not intend to admit of cases of urgency, why did he not openly state it at the time the Standing Order was under discussion, and arbitrarily say that after a certain day in the calendar no Bill of whatever nature should be allowed to be considered, and that the action of the Legislature was to be chained down, for the House of Commons, although in a question affecting its own rights, and affecting the fair, honest, and true representation of the people, would not have its measures considered by their Lordships? He said, then, that this was a case of urgency; and this, he believed, would be the opinion, not of the other House only, but of the country. In regard to what had been said, that the Resolution moved by the noble Duke made an incorrect recital of the facts with regard to the proceedings in the other House, it was clear that in saying that the House of Commons had suspended the writs of five boroughs, the Resolution merely expressed the obvious interpretation that must be

1205
placed upon that fact by any man of common sense, namely, that it was the object of the other House, as it was their duty, to endeavour to secure that the returns from those boroughs where the writs had been suspended, should be as free as the ingenuity and skill of Parliament could contrive from the corruption which the noble Earl opposite acknowledged unfortunately to exist in many boroughs. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) knew too well that many previous Bribery Bills had been passed, and had failed; and it would be presumptuous to say that this Bill provided what so many former Parliaments and wise legislators had failed to discover —namely, an effectual and complete remedy for bribery. But that was no argument against their giving a fair consideration to a Bill which had been sent to them from the House of Commons, which, he believed, would tend to the correction of some portion, at least, of a flagrant evil. The noble Earl opposite had said that noble Lords had left town under the conviction that no "dangerous" measure would be introduced in their absence; but he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) thought it too much to say that a Bill to put down bribery and corruption was a dangerous measure. If there was anything dangerous in this Bill, let the noble Earl point it out; and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) must say that he thought noble Lords, knowing that a Bill was likely to come up designed to suppress corruption and improve the representation of the people, would have only done their duty if they had remained at their posts to consider it, and remove any lurking evil that might be found in a measure having so important and beneficial an object as that of putting an end to the evils by which too many elections were characterised. The noble Earl had also alluded to the fact that this Bill, notwithstanding the great labour which had been bestowed upon it, had not passed the other House by a very large majority, and that it would not have been very dissatisfactory to a great number of people if it had been lost. He really thought, however, that if their Lordships waited to pass a Bribery Bill until they should have one sent up which gave general satisfaction, they would have to wait for ever. They had all seen advertisements of quack doctors, announcing that they had discovered universal specifics, which not only cured and eradicated every complaint, but were most pleasing to the palate of the patient at the same time.
1206
Now, if their Lordships were sanguine enough to think that they would discover a panacea for bribery sufficiently stringent for its entire removal, and likewise agreeable to the taste of all candidates, past and future, he was afraid they were indulging themselves with a very pleasing hallucination; but, in the meanwhile, bribery and corruption would remain in rank and fatal luxuriance. All they were asked to do on the present occasion was to defer so far to the opinion of the House of Commons as to consider whether this Bill would not go some way towards the extirpation of a most serious evil, and whether it should not be allowed to be put in force for two years at least; seeing that the experiment might enlighten their Lordships and the other House as to the best means of coping more effectually with the scandalous abuses disgracing our representative system. Upon these grounds he trusted that their Lordships would consent, even by way of exception, to consider the present Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid that, after the clear and able speeches of the two noble Lords opposite who opposed the present Motion, he should not have troubled their Lordships with any explanations of his own, had it not been for the speech of the noble Marquess who had just sat down. The noble Marquess had commenced by stating very clearly what was the question before the House; but the rest of his speech consisted in a denunciation of the evils of bribery, and a not very just insinuation that those who did not agree in the Resolution of the noble Duke were not so alive to those evils as he was. This Bill was on the whole not a bad Bill, though far from perfect; but the question was, whether they should adopt the noble Duke's Resolution. The noble Marquess had not attempted to show that the Resolution was really true in fact or correct in reasoning, and, for his part, he maintained that the Resolution stated what was not the fact, and was most erroneous and dangerous in reasoning. The noble Marquess said, that the House of Commons and the public thought this Bill an urgent measure. Now he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had occasion to know that the greatest difference of opinion existed, both in and out of the House, with regard to this Bill. Many of the most eminent Reformers in the House of Commons. as well as men known for their zeal in that cause out of the House, and for their exertions to secure purity of election, thought

1207
that it would not be undesirable that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of reconsidering this measure. His objection, however, to this Resolution was, that it was an ignominious departure from the Resolution which their Lordships had deliberately arrived at. The Government seemed suddenly struck with the extreme urgency of this question; but how came it that they had not been alive to its urgency at an earlier period of the Session? The first Bill relating to this subject was brought in by Sir F. Kelly, and was printed on the 21st of February. Shortly afterwards the Government Bill was introduced—on the 24th of February, he believed—but nothing more was done with regard to either of them during the whole of the month of March, except to read them sub silentio a first time. It did not seem as though they were considered so very urgent then, for, though the Reform Bill had then been withdrawn, and several other Bills cleared out of the way, it was not until the 10th of April that these Bills were referred to a Select Committee, which, again, did not sit for the despatch of business, important business at least, until the 6th of May. The noble Duke had told them of the great value of the labours of that Committee; but, as the noble Earl opposite had observed, he did not state what was the opinion of the House of Commons on that point. In the proceedings of the Select Committee he found that they had divided no less than nine times on important questions; and so little weight was after all attached to the decision of the Select Committee, that seven days had been spent in the Committee of the whole House, and no less than twenty-eight divisions had taken place on the most important parts of the Bill; and in general the majorities had been very narrow indeed. On these divisions Gentlemen of the most opposite political opinions voted side by side—a fact which showed that they were not the result of any factious opposition to the Bill, but that the difficulties of the subject had led to its receiving the greatest care and deliberation; and when it was pretended that the House of Commons would be angry at their not suspending their rule to make way for this Bill, it should be borne in mind that it had only been finally carried through that House by a bare majority of seven. The subject was so complicated and difficult, that men who usually agreed together differed on its most important points, and therefore the Bill required the
1208
greatest consideration and deliberation. Therefore, if ever there was a Bill to which the Standing Order moved by the noble Baron (Lord Redesdale) was applicable, it was the present. It was a measure exactly like the Irish Lands Bill, which had been postponed last year for a similar reason, and like many other Bills which both Houses from time to time postponed on account of the lateness of the Session. It was said, in this case, that there were five writs suspended. Well, that was no new discovery. Why was not this argument used when Sudbury was disfranchised? It was no argument to say that Parliament could not proceed to business until the vacant seats had been filled up; because Parliament had this Session dealt with most important questions—affecting peace and war—and all the while the seats continued vacant. Why, then, could they not wait for another Session, until this subject could receive proper consideration? This was, therefore, no question of urgency, and to depart now from their rule would derogate from the character, the dignity, and the reputation of that House. The noble Marquess asked, what was a question of urgency? He could tell him that the Bill for the continuance of the Board of Health, introduced the other evening, was one, as, without that Bill, the functions of an important department of the State would have lapsed; and therefore it was right that the rule of the House should be suspended in favour of such a measure. But to suspend it for a Bill of this kind, which had occupied the attention of Parliament for several years, and which required the greatest care and sifting, would be quite absurd. The mode in which that House had secured the respect and estimation of the public was by acting with dignity, consistency, and character; but if they were to pass deliberate Resolutions and then lightly set them aside, either from caprice or at the beck of a Minister, their authority must be seriously weakened and impaired.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that if the noble Marquess who had last spoken had thought right to preface his remarks by saying, that after the speeches of other noble Lords on the same side of the question he would not have risen but for the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) who preceded him, how much more necessary was an apology due from him (Lord Brougham) for presuming to follow noble Lords who had supported this Motion, especially after that

1209
most convincing, most unanswerable—and (with all respect for his noble Friend who had just sat down) unanswered, and only unanswered because it was unanswerable—speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne). He must appeal to the acuteness and the candour of his noble Friend who had just sat down, who, if he looked at the Resolution moved by the noble Duke, would see that there was no ground for the assertion that it stated anything that was not the fact as to the intentions of the House of Commons or as to the urgency of this Bill. There could be no doubt that the House of Commons had suspended the writs of these five boroughs until new legislative precautions had been taken against the recurrence of bribery and corruption; but it was a great mistake to suppose, as had been supposed to-night, that this Resolution affirmed that the order of the House was to suspend these writs until Parliament legislated. The very form of the words used by the noble Duke in the Resolution excluded the supposition that he intended so to represent the proceeding that had taken place in the House of Commons. The only object of the other House was that the poll should not be opened in these five boroughs, where corruption might again be practised as it had been too much practised of late—where those abominable scenes of corruption which had been reported upon by Commissions and by Committees as having been almost habitual, might again be renewed if the writs were issued for a new election—the only object of the House could be not to allow the poll to be again opened in these five places until it had had an opportunity of taking measures to prevent the repetition of such abominations. He would ask any plain thinking man this question, and would abide by the answer he would make—for what purpose, with what possible design, could the House of Commons have suspended these writs? The suspension could only be temporary. No man imputed so absurd, so ridiculous, not to say unconstitutional a design to that House as the perpetual disfranchisement of these five boroughs. The very word "suspension" showed that that could not have been the intention—because suspension inferred that something was to follow. If it had been, the other House would have acted as it had done in the case of Sudbury, and have issued a Commission before proceeding to disfranchisement. Well, as the suspension was meant only to be temporary, how long was it to last?
1210
Until when? Could any man stretch his imagination so as to fancy that anything else could have been in the contemplation of the other House when it delayed the ssuing of the writs, except this, namely, the amendment of the laws relating to bribery and corruption, so as to take some security against the future recurrence of the same abuses that had previously taken place in the exercise of the elective franchise. He, therefore, looked upon it as perfectly clear that the fact was that the House of Commons delayed issuing the writs with no possible, with no conceivable, purpose except that in the meantime, and before a new election should be had, the laws respecting bribery and corruption might he made more stringent and more effectual. If any one who had examined the provisions of the Bill should be of opinion that it could not produce any good, and should say, "I have considered the measure, and I hold it to be utterly impossible that its provisions can effect any cure or any material diminution of the evil on all sides and universally complained of," then, undoubtedly, such a person would have a right to say, "There is no need of inquiry, there is no need of delay, there is no need of going on with the Bill at all. Let the House of Commons issue the writs, and welcome. If the evil must be submitted to, the sooner the writs are issued the better, because no one desires that five boroughs should for ever be deprived of representatives in Parliament." But no one whom he had heard argue, either out of the House or in it, at all pretended that the case was hopeless, or that it was perfectly evident that none of the provisions of this measure could secure any diminution of the evil complained of. On the contrary, all who had addressed themselves to the subject said, "Let the House wait, and inquire, and examine it more at leisure at another time." It would be a great evil to delay indefinitely, or to delay even to another Session, the filling up of so material a portion of the representation of the people in the other House as ten Members for five places—some of them, no doubt, of very little importance. He spoke without any disrespect to his noble Friend the noble Earl when he said that, if a borough about which he knew a great deal were never to have a writ issued to it, he should comfort himself under such a visitation; but Hull, Canterbury, and Cambridge were important places, and all these were to be practically disfranchised by the suspension of their

1211
writs. It would be said that the House of Commons might issue these writs even if their Lordships refused to take into consideration the second reading of the Bill. No doubt they could; but would it not be better, seeing the great disposition which prevailed among all parties to seek for a remedy, and to apply one upon which they were agreed—would it not be better, more courteous to the other House, more befitting their position as lawgivers upon this important matter, more useful for the public interest, and more useful for Parliament, and for the character, privileges, and dignity of Parliament, involved in the purity of Parliament and of election—would it not be infinitely better that their Lordships should help the other House to apply this remedy, and should not give up all hopes of the remedy being available until they had well tried it, and were convinced that it could work no cure? His belief was, that much of this Bill was calculated to produce a good effect. He thought that the appointment of an election auditor was a most valuable improvement. He wished he could say the same of a clause respecting what he would venture to call bribery and treating under a disguised form—that of travelling expenses and refreshments, though to a limited extent. He well knew that when a Bribery Bill was sent up to that House about half a century after the first Bribery Bill, in the reign of George II., limiting the power of paying travelling expenses to voters, it was thrown out at the instigation of Lord Mansfield, upon his statement that the authors of the Bill did not know what the existing law upon the subject was, because that law made the payment of travelling expenses bribery, and there was no occasion for an Act to make it so or to declare anything upon the subject. He (Lord Brougham) grieved to say that this Bill ran counter to that opinion, and authorised the payment of travelling expenses and the giving of refreshments. ["No!"] He was reminded that the Bill only permitted the payment of travelling expenses, but he apprehended that if a person might be brought to the poll, he might have all needful refreshments on the road; because, if not, he would not be able to benefit by the payment of his expenses. and could not be brought to the poll at all. He had also seen, with great regret, that the declaration was confined to certain persons—agents and others. He wished there had been a declaration of a more stringent nature and a more gene-
1212
ral form, and one applicable to candidates at the time of taking their seats, and which might be administered compulsorily during the election. These were amendments which might be proposed in Committee, if their Lordships read this Bill a second time; but he confessed that, however strongly he might be in favour of such amendments, he should be very slow to propose or to ask their Lordships to assent to them, for the reason hinted at by his noble Friend the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), that it would lead to the sending down of the Bill to the other House with these alterations at a time when the persons who might reasonably be expected most usefully to take them into consideration would probably not be there. At the same time, he held that their Lordships had a perfect right to deal with this measure as with any other which came up to them, and he thought that they grievously mistook the nature of our constitution, and lamentably forgot the history of that House in regard to Bills of this kind, who thought for a moment that their Lordships ought not to exercise the fullest discretion in regard to such a measure, to enter upon its consideration with the greatest latitude, and to amend it if they thought fit. The first Bribery Bill that ever came up to that House, in the year 1729—the 2nd George II—received very great alterations in that House; the best clause in the Bill was inserted there, and the penalty, notwithstanding the soreness of the other House in regard to money matters, was, if his recollection served him, increased from 50 l. to 500 l. When the Bill was sent back to the House of Commons, it was urged that the Lords had no right to interfere with an Election Bill; but Mr. Pulteney, afterwards Lord Bath, said that it was perfectly clear that it was within the province of the House to deal with the Bill, though an Election Bill, "especially because," said he, "it is a Bill touching the criminal law of the country." So in the case of this measure he (Lord Brougham) held it to be their right to deal with it exactly as they would with any other measure received from the other House; but it was quite another thing whether they should, in the exercise of a sound discretion, make alterations at this period of the year, and send back the Bill with those alterations. He inclined to think that they ought to abstain from doing so, and to postpone what he thought would be a great improvement of the Bill until another occasion, when—from what had been stated

1213
by the noble Duke, who only suggested that the Bill should be passed temporarily—they and the other House would have full time to consider these amendments. Though he considered this Bill to be, as it now stood, a great improvement of the law, he held that the only effectual means of preventing bribery would be by laying the axe to the root—inflicting an infamous punishment upon the person bribing as well as upon the person bribed. Considering who were generally the bribed and who the bribers, he had far rather visit the offence upon the briber than upon the person bribed.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 41; Not Contents, 33: Majority, 8.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor DUKES.

Canning

Sydney

Argyll

Torrington BISHOPS.

Newcastle

Wellington MARQUESSES.

Down

Salisbury BARONS.

Lansdowne

Ormonde

Brougham

Westminster EARLS.

Byron

Campbell

Aberdeen

Camoys

Albemarle

Poley

Bessborough

Leigh

Chichester

Monteagle

Clarendon

Overstone

Craven

Rivers

Effingham

Stanley of Alderley

Fortescue

Sudeley

Granville

Suffield

Harrington

Stafford

Scarborough

Seaton

Somers VISCOUNTS.

Say and Sele

Wodehouse

Bolingbroke

List of the NOT CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Nelson

Cleveland

Powis

Northumberland MARQUESSES.

Romney

Verulam

Bath

Waldegrave VISCOUNTS.

Clanricarde

Salisbury EARLS.

Hawarden

Strangford BARONS.

Bathurst

Beauchamp

Alvanley

Chesterfield

Abinger

Derby

Colville of Culross

Galloway

Colchester

Hardwicke

Congleton

Huntingdon

Godolphin

Lonsdale

Redesdale

Malmesbury

Sondes

Mansfield

Tenterden

Mornington

Wynford

Resolution agreed to.

BRIBERY, &c., BILL.
THE EARL or DERBYsaid, that as their Lordships had decided to proceed with the Bill, he begged to say that he concurred in what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend as to the expediency of not making any alterations in the Bill, so as not to endanger it by sending it down to the House of Commons to be considered and altered at a time when the other House would hardly be able to take such alterations into consideration. He regretted that his noble and learned Friend had seen this objection with regard to the other House, and had not also applied the same argument to the consideration of the Bill by their Lordships, and seen that it was equally objectionable that the Bill should be proceeded with by them at the present late period of the Session. He thought the best course now to be adopted would be for their Lordships to accept the Bill as sent up by the Commons, adding simply the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke, in order to make the measure temporary, and so give Parliament an opportunity of reconsidering the subject at an early period. On the part of himself and his Friends he begged to say that they should offer no further opposition to the progress of the Bill, and the noble Duke might, if he thought fit, suspend the remainder of the Standing Orders, and take the Bill through all its stages this night.
LORD BROUGHAM,in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl, said that if the Amendments to which he had referred as desirable had been of such a nature that without their introduction this Bill could do no good, it might have been a reason why he should have opposed the further proceeding with the Bill. The Amendments were not, however, of this character. He thought that they would improve the Bill, but he was not willing to risk the measure elsewhere by pressing them, because he thought there was quite enough good in the Bill to justify their Lordships in accepting it as it was.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEgave notice of his intention to amend the clause which allowed what were called "reasonable expenses," by moving the insertion of the word "not"—and so to alter entirely the whole purport of the clause. He reminded their Lordships that this clause was carried by but a slight majority in the House of Commons, and, therefore, might fairly be considered a subject of argument. He was one of those

1215
who considered it a monstrous proposition to allow those "reasonable expenses;" for it would leave a man with a long purse, who was inclined to bribe, immense opportunities of indulging in those practices, and of defeating a poor candidate. Upon the bringing up of the report he would therefore move that those expenses shall not be allowed.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEwith pleasure concurred in what had been said by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), and he rejoiced that he had adopted a different course from the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), and had stated his intention of moving an Amendment. While, on the other hand, he (the Duke of Newcastle) was not prepared to avail himself of the kind offer of his noble Friend to suspend the Standing Orders for the purpose of proceeding at once with all the stages of the Bill, he was, on the other hand, prepared to discuss with readiness any Amendments that might be proposed, and to adopt them if the Government approved them. Although the noble Earl had said that he and his Friends intended to wash their hands of the Bill and to take no further steps with respect to it, yet he (the Duke of Newcastle) was anxious that the Bill should pass in such a form as would prove beneficial and effect the object for which it was introduced; with this aspiration and hope, he trusted that other noble Lords would make such suggestions as they might think would conduce to that object. He had, in moving this Resolution, made a short statement and did not deem it necessary to enter into further details as to the Bill, but he would, either in reply to objections to the second reading or in Committee, give any explanations deemed necessary. The noble Duke moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
THE EARL OF DERBYtook this opportunity of observing to the noble Marquess, with reference to his proposed Amendment, that a division was taken in the House of Commons, and a specific vote was given in favour of excluding the word "not" from the travelling expenses clause, and if, against the sense of the House of Commons, the word were inserted, he thought that it would add great force to the argument of his noble and learned Friend as to not adding Amendments likely to endanger the Bill in the other House.
On Question, agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.