Sitting of 16 February 1857

MINUTES,
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Kingston-upon-Hull, James Clay, esq.; for Hereford, George Clive, esq.
NEW WRIT.—For Colchester, v. Lord John James Robert Manners, Manor of Hempholme.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Public Health Supplemental (1857).
2o Chief Constables.

PUBLIC JUSTICE—ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD(Viscount Castlerosse) reported Her Majesty's Answer to an Address agreed to on Thursday last.
"I HAVE received your Address respecting the formation of a Department for the Affairs of Public Justice, and shall give directions that the subject may receive the attentive consideration which its importance demands."

CEYLON—QUESTION.
MR. BYNGsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it was his intention to lay before the House the last annual Report of the Governor of Ceylon on the state of that Colony; and whether he would, at the same time, furnish a copy of the letter of Viscount Torrington to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the same subject, under date Jan. 17, 1857.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the Report from the Governor of Ceylon, to which his hon. Friend alluded, usually appeared in what was called the "Bluebook" for the year from that Colony, and would be laid before the House together with the Reports from the other Colonies in the course of the next month. Lord Torrington, who naturally took a great interest in the affairs of Ceylon, had asked him (Mr. Labouchere) privately to be allowed to see that Report, and after having seen it he took exception to some of its statements, which he thought contained a reflection on his own conduct. He (Mr. Labouchere) believed that that was a complete misconception on the part of Lord Torrington of the language used by Sir Henry Ward; but as his noble Friend considered himself aggrieved in the matter, and was anxious that the letter he had addressed to him (Mr. Labouchere) should be communicated to the House, he should have no objection to its production if it should be moved for after the Report of Sir Henry Ward should have been laid on the table.

VACCINATION—QUESTION.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Health when the Committee on Vaccination, agreed to by the Government during the last Session, was to be appointed?
MR. COWPERsaid, he proposed to introduce during the present Session, a Bill somewhat similar to that which he had brought forward last year, and that Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, with the understanding that the Committee should inquire fully into the working and the results of the present law.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he should be glad to know when it was likely that the Bill would be introduced?
MR. COWPERreplied, that he could not answer the question at that moment, in consequence of the absence from town of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) the President of the Board of Health.
MR. BRADYsaid, he had a question upon the same subject on the notice paper, but he would not put that question after the statement that had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford; but he wished to state that in his opinion it was absolutely necessary that some measure should be introduced in reference to that matter.

THE NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICES—

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether the judges of the approaching competition, with reference to the new Government offices, would be appointed before the day on which the plans were sent in? Also, whether he intended, in appointing the judges, to confine his selection to those who were unentangled by any personal connection with the profession, or whether he intended to include among them practising architects?
  SIR BENJAMIN HALL,in answer to the first question of the noble Lord said, it was not his intention to nominate any of the judges until after the plans were sent in. With regard to the selection of the judges, it was his intention to nominate some gentlemen who were not connected with engineering or architecture, and to associate with them others having a thorough knowledge of those professions. It would, however, perhaps, be difficult to select competent persons who were not at all connected with the
  702
  competitors, but he would certainly endeavour, in the selection he should make, not to nominate any persons who were competitors, or were connected with competitors.

JAMES SADLEIR, A MEMBER OF THIS HOUSE.

  MOTION THAT HE BE EXPELLED THIS HOUSE.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that the rather disagreeable duty had devolved upon him of bringing before the House a Resolution for the expulsion of one of its Members—namely, Mr. Sadleir, the Member for the county of Tipperary. He did not apprehend it would be necessary for him to occupy the attention of the House at any considerable length, since an unanimous feeling had been expressed among men of all parties, that sooner or later the order for the expulsion of Mr. Sadleir must be made, and it only rested with him to satify the House that at the present period, without danger and without forming an unconstitutional precedent, he might ask the House to agree to an order for his expulsion. That the House possessed the right to expel a Member did not admit either of doubt or controversy. The right had been repeatedly exercised from an early period, either when Members had been guilty of a positive crime, or had offended against the laws or institutions of the House or had been guilty of acts tending to bring religion into discredit, or that were discreditable, or had been guilty of fraudulent practices or other acts, which showed that the particular Members were unfit to exercise the trust which their constituents had reposed in them, and that they ought not to continue to associate with the other Members of the House. There could be no doubt that this power existed, and the records of Parliament would show that it had been repeatedly exercised. The House did not in such cases proceed upon mere technical legal proof. It sometimes acted upon the conviction of the parties, but it had also acted without any such conviction and even against an acquittal. Sometimes it proceeded by its own peculiar methods to inquire into the state of facts. Sometimes it heard the Member in his place, and in other cases, where charges of fraud, or discreditable conduct, had been made openly against a Member, when he had failed when summoned to attend in his place, and when the House had been induced to believe that he had fled from justice, it

  703
  proceeded without hearing him to make the order for his expulsion. He would shortly advert to the precedents which bore upon the case now under consideration, which would show that it came within the class of cases already provided for, and would not form a new precedent of its own. He would now call the attention of the House to two or three instances in which this course had been adopted. It appeared from the report of the Committee of Precedents that the earliest period at which the power of expulsion had been exercised by the House was in 1580, when Mr. Hall, one of the Members for London, was fined, imprisoned, and expelled that House for having published a book reflecting upon certain Members. In 1606, Sir C. Pigott, the then Member for Buckinghamshire, was expelled for using words of scandal and obloquy,
  "Ill beseeming such an audience. Not pertinent to the matter in hand, and very unseasonable for the time and occasion."
  The House might think that a dangerous precedent, but they would not be surprised at it when he told them that it occurred in the reign of James I., and that the slanderous words were spoken of Scotland and Scotchmen. In 1620 Mr. Shephard was expelled for using profane language in debate. In 1628 Sir Edmund Sawyer was expelled without hesitation for a discreditable attempt to tamper with a witness who was about to be examined before a Committee, by telling him that he would not be examined upon oath, and he need not speak of anything that had passed between them. He would pass over the period of the Long Parliament and the contest between the Parliament and the Crown, and come to the somewhat less unconstitutional reign of Charles II., during which there were many instances of expulsion. In 1667 Mr. Ashburnham was expelled for having committed the dishonourable offence of receiving £500 for promoting the business of the French merchants. An instance occurred in 1668 which in one of its elements made a near approach to the present case. An inquiry took place before the House in reference to the naval battle which had been fought off Lowestoft in 1665, in which the Dutch were defeated by the Duke of York, the result of which was that Mr. Burchell, the Member for New Romney, was ordered to attend in his place on the following Tuesday to answer matters objected against him in relation to the miscarriage in not
  704
  pursuing the Dutch fleet. He did not appear, and for his contempt of the order and not waiting the justice of the House he was expelled. Passing over several intermediate instances, he now came to the reign of William III. In 1715 Mr. Pryse was expelled, his offence being that he had refused to attend the service of the House, and having been committed into the custody of an officer had absconded. In 1720 Mr. Aislabie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was expelled for having been concerned in the South Sea frauds. In 1722 Lord Barrington was expelled for having been concerned in a fraudulent undertaking called the Harburgh Lottery. The next precedent he should mention appeared to him to bear very much on the present case. In 1732 Mr. George Robinson, the Member for Great Marlow, was expelled. It appeared that a petition was presented from Blenheim complaining of a fraud committed on a charitable corporation for the relief of the industrious poor. The petition was referred to a Committee, which reported in the course of its proceedings that Mr. George Robinson, one of the Members, had been charged with fraudulent practices, not that the charges had been proved as to time, but that he had been charged with participation in the fraudulent practices complained of. Notice having been taken of the report in the House, George Robinson was ordered to attend on the following Tuesday. He did not attend, and the messenger having proved the service of the order at the town and country residences of the Member, and stated his belief that he had gone beyond the seas, an inquiry took place, after which, on the 3rd of April, 1732, the House came to the following resolution—
  "That George Robinson, M. P. for Great Marlow, having been charged in Parliament with having been concerned in many indirect and fraudulent practices, and never having attended the service of the House, although required to do so, is guilty of a high contempt. That, for his said contempt, he be expelled."
  He called the attention of the House to the fact that in this case there was no proof of guilt, although there was every reason to believe that the person charged had fled the country in consequence of the charge. In 1810 Mr. Hunt was expelled in his absence, there being evidence that he was in France, in a letter written to the Speaker. In 1812 Mr. Benjamin Walsh was convicted of felony, but subsequently pardoned, as the facts did not bear out the

  705
  charge of felony. Notwithstanding that his conviction was quashed, the House came to the conclusion that the charge of felony involved a case of fraud, and he was accordingly expelled. He had mentioned these precedents (all of which occurred previous to the year 1814, since when there had been no instance of positive expulsion) merely to show the power possessed by the House, and he would now proceed to call attention to the circumstances of this case, especially to those which distinguished its present position from the position in which it stood when it was brought under the notice of the House on the 24th of July last. About twelve months ago they were all startled by the intelligence of the miserable suicide of the Member for Sligo, and in consequence of that catastrophe inquiries were instituted which led to the discovery of the extensive frauds and crimes in which that unfortunate man had involved himself, the pressure of which, doubtless, drove him to the further crime of self-slaughter. Among the institutions injured by his acts the greatest sufferer was the Tipperary Bank, which was entirely ruined. A suit was soon instituted, and, proceedings connected with the suit having come before the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, that learned Judge, on the 4th of June, plainly indicated, not in a judgment, but in some observations from the bench, that he was of opinion that there was a sufficient case on which to found a criminal charge against James Sadleir, and that on that criminal charge he ought to be prosecuted. The charge made against James Sadleir, therefore, was not private, but open and notorious, proceeding from the bench of justice, and must have been known to him. On the same occasion the Master of the Rolls gave the persons known in the litigation as the English shareholders an opportunity of making further affidavits, for the purpose of bringing forward additional evidence of the fraud of James Sadleir, and he believed that on the 7th of June the affidavit of a person named Ginger was filed in the Court of Chancery. On Monday, the 9th of June, James Sadleir made an affidavit, in answer to that of Ginger, describing himself as of Clonacody, in the county of Tipperary, M. P., which was not sworn at the proper office in Dublin, but at Kingstown; and there was every reason to believe that when it was sworn James Sadleir was on his way out of the country, to which he had never since returned. On
  706
  the 20th of June the judgment of the Master of the Rolls was delivered, in which that learned Judge, after a careful examination of the documents and evidence, came to the conclusion that those documents and that evidence established the case of fraud he had before shadowed out; he also went through several cases of fraud which had been established, and among them he mentioned the abstraction of the sum of £250,000 from the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank for his (James Sadleir's) brother's purposes, the result of which had been the ruin of that institution. Proceedings were taken immediately afterwards against James Sadleir, which resulted in a warrant being issued for his apprehension, founded upon a declaration or information upon oath. That warrant, together with the information, had been before the House since July last. On the 6th July a duplicate of that warrant was transmitted to England to be placed in the hands of the police authorities. Subsequent to the 4th of July no less than seven different warrants were issued for his apprehension. On the 18th of July bills of indictment were preferred against him at the summer assizes at Tipperary, that being the county he represented in Parliament; and these bills, charging him with several conspiracies to defraud, were found by the grand jury. Though such finding was not proof of guilt, yet the House could not forget that the duty of a grand jury was to proceed on the ground that the case, if unanswered, would warrant conviction. Looking, then, to the notoriety of the proceedings, to the fact of witnesses being examined and of bills being found by the grand jury in the county which Mr. James Sadleir represented, it did appear that the circumstances were such as left no doubt that the facts must have come to his ear. At this stage of the proceedings the Member for Sheffield, on the 21st of July, obtained an order of the House that Mr. James Sadleir should attend in his place on the third day therefrom. That order was regularly served at the residences of Mr. Sadleir, and also upon the solicitors acting for him in the litigation of the Tipperary Bank; and on the 24th of July the hon. Member brought forward his Motion for the expulsion of Mr. James Sadleir, urging the circumstances he had just adverted to as the foundation of his Motion. The Motion was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.

  707
  who brought several precedents under the attention of the House, and both these Members expressed their strong opinion that upon the notoriety of the case there was sufficient ground before the House to justify it in proceeding to order the expulsion of Mr. James Sadleir. On that occasion other Members of this House took a more cautious view, though he believed there was no difference of opinion that Mr. James Sadleir must sooner or later be expelled. It was thought by many hon. Members that to proceed to expel Mr. J. Sadleir, after the lapse of only six days from the time of the bills of indictment being found, and of three days from the passing of the order for his attendance, was to run the danger of setting a precedent which was unconstitutional in its character; and which might in other times be used for a bad purpose. Accordingly the previous question having been moved, was carried. He would now proceed to state what had occurred in the mean time, which he thought would justify him in asking the House now to make the order which in July last was thought dangerous. He had told the House that proceedings had been taken against Mr. Sadleir which would result in outlawry, and he had hoped that in the course of this Session those proceedings to outlawry would have been completed. A miscalculation of the time which those proceedings would require had been made, and he found that they would not be complete until November next. He had already stated that several warrants were out for Mr. James Sadleir's apprehension, and the exertions of the authorities to execute them were unremitting; but in bringing forward this Motion, he considered it his duty to place before the House documentary evidence of this fact. The Deputy Inspector-General of constabulary stated:—
  "I am enabled to state that in their endeavours to execute these warrants the most strenuous and reiterated, and at the same time discreet, though unsuccessful, exertions were put forth by the police; the suspected localities, not only in the county of Tipperary, but elsewhere, being watched, patrolled, or searched by night as well as day, while a special watch was kept (by a man acquainted with Mr. Sadleir's appearance, sent up from Clonmel for that purpose) both at Bray (where Mr. Sadleir lodged) and at Kingston pier, early in the month of July last, previously to which time, however, as the police ascertained, Mr. Sadleir had left that place. From all the information we have received it is considered that Mr. Sadleir has, without doubt, left the country."
  708
  The county inspector of the Tipperary constabulary reported:—
  "Searches were made on eleven different occasions on these warrants, at his own residence (Clonacody), at his father's residence, and also at the houses of those friends and relations where there was a reasonable probability of his being secreted, but without success. Since his flight from this country the cattle on the lands and the furniture of the house of Clonacody have all been disposed of, the house and demesne being now occupied by Captain R. O. Kellett. I never could trace to any authentic source Mr. Sadleir having been seen in any part of this riding since the month of June, 1856."
  The indictment against Mr. James Sadleir was removed to the Court of Queen's Bench in October. If, therefore, in Michaelmas term in the month of November Mr. Sadleir had surrendered, he would have had an opportunity, on application to the court, of having the charge against him tried either in the sittings in term or those after term. Again, in Hilary Term, on the 9th of January, if he had surrendered, he would have had a full opportunity of meeting the charges against him, and his case would have been tried in Hilary Term or in the sittings after that term. In addition, he must call the attention of the House to certain documents delivered that morning, containing the orders made by the Courts at Dublin, in October, December, and January last, to substitute service. The meaning of that was, that when a court of law was satisfied that the person who was to be served with process had left the country, but having some agent or person in it on whom a service of process for him would be good, it made an order substituting service. Accordingly, he found that the three superior Courts of law in Dublin had, in proceedings against Mr. James Sadleir, in which Mr. Sadleir was personally interested, made orders to substitute service, being satisfied by evidence that that person had left the country. Feeling it to be his duty to lay before the House all the information he possessed on the subject, he would read a letter he received last Friday. It was not marked ''private," and he replied to the writer that unless he heard to the contrary, it would be his duty to read the letter in his place in the House of Commons. To that reply he had received no answer. The hon. and learned Gentleman here read the letter referred to. It is as follows:—
  "Hotel du Louvre, Rue de Rivoli, Paris, Feb. 12, 1857.
  "Sir,—I consider it my duty to inform you that the notorious culprit James Sadleir is now in Paris, having seen him last night enter a restaurant in

  709
  the Palace Royal, where I dined, and having caught my eye, he immediately withdrew.
  "The proprietor, M. Dupuis, afterwards informed me that he dines there every day.
  "If the Government is anxious to arrest him, by sending over persons acquainted with his personal appearance, the object can be attained. His countenance is much altered; having lost his flesh and colour, and also wearing a moustache, a considerable change has taken place.
  "This information shall be kept secret by me until I receive your reply.
  "I remain your obedient servant,
  "JAMES SCULLY.
  " J. D. FitzGerald, Esq., M. P., London."
  He was not acquainted with the writer of that letter, but he had been informed that he was a gentleman who recently resided in Tipperary, of great respectability, and ample fortune, and who, he believed, had been ruined and driven from the country by the disruption of the Tipperary Bank. The House might ask why the Government did not proceed at once upon that information to arrest Mr. Sadleir in Paris; but his case did not come within the extradition treaty between Great Britain and France, dated the 13th of February, 1843, and which was made law in this country by the 6 & 7 Vic. c. 75, for the crimes included therein were restricted to murder, an attempt to commit murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. These were the only offences for which the treaty provided, so that the Government had no power to arrest Mr. Sadleir in France, or if he was arrested to demand his extradition. He (Mr. FitzGerald) had now stated all the additional circumstances which had occurred since last July. There could be no controversy that gigantic frauds had been committed by Mr. Sadlier, both with reference to the Tipperary Bank and other matters. Mr. Sadleir had been openly charged with those frauds. Mr. Sadleir was in the country when the Master of the Rolls in Ireland charged him from the bench in a suit in which he was a party with being implicated in them. He knew, or ought to know, that a Motion for his expulsion was made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. He was aware that warrants had been issued for his apprehension, and, knowing all these things, he had fled from the country. All efforts to arrest him were vain. He (Mr. FitzGerald) had examined the division lists of that House in order to ascertain whether upon any occasion since the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was made Mr. Sadleir had taken part in the proceedings of the House, but his name was not to be found in those lists. Fourteen
  710
  days' notice had been given of the present Motion. If he had any intention of taking any step in consequence of the Motion, he had no doubt agents and acquaintances in this country whom he could employ for the purpose of defending him and informing the House why he continued to absent himself. Under these circumstances, which were not similar to those of July last, but after writs bad been issued and bonâ fide efforts made to arrest Mr. Sadleir, and after the lapse of seven months he (Mr. FitzGerald) felt it to be his duty to ask the House to accede to the Motion for Mr. Sadleir's expulsion. He did not anticipate that the House would be unwilling to exercise the process of self-purgation. The precedents to which he had referred amply justified the House in taking that step. He believed that the unfortunate man was an outcast and a fugitive, and that he had already imposed upon himself a heavier punishment than any that could be inflicted upon him by the House, for he had doomed himself to exile for life. The House, nevertheless, had a duty to perform, and he (Mr. FitzGerald) trusted that it would unhesitatingly agree to the Motion for the expulsion of Mr. Sadleir. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, concluded by moving the Resolution.
  MR. G. BUTTseconded the Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That James Sadleir, Esq., a Member of this House, having been charged with divers frauds and fraudulent practices, and bills of indictment for certain misdemeanours having been found against him, and warrants issued for his apprehension, and the said James Sadleir having failed to obey an Order of this House that he should attend in his place on Thursday the 24th day of July last, and having fled from justice, be expelled this House."
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, he believed that there was no difference of opinion at all on this occasion, and that they would all be ready and even eager to agree to the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. But as they were about to add another to the list of disagreeable precedents, it should be well understood on what grounds they were proceeding, and that they should be marked out distinctly so as to be understood by those who came after them. The right hon. Gentleman had adverted to a Motion made on the 24th July last by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Sheffield. At that time certain facts were brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend which were notorious—which, as the right hon. and

  711
  learned Gentleman says, must have been perfectly well known to James Sadleir himself; and his hon. and learned Friend, quoting various precedents, many of which had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman that day, showed that it was not necessary at all that James Sadleir should have been convicted of any offence in order to justify the House in his expulsion. The right hon. Gentleman at that time resisted the Motion, and the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) stated that the Motion was premature, that there had been no conviction, no confession, no report of a Committee of the House; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman added, that there might be proceedings to outlawry instituted, and that after such proceedings were taken there might be something for the House to proceed upon. What was known now was known at that time. It was perfectly well known that what the Master of the Rolls in Ireland characterised as a gigantic fraud had been committed, and that James Sadleir was a party to it, there had been warrants issued for his apprehension, the inspectors of constabulary had endeavoured to apprehend him, and it appeared that he had eluded the pursuit, and had absconded. He was indicted at the assizes, true bills had been found against him. All these circumstances were well known at the time when his hon. and learned Friend brought on his Motion in which he asked the House to expel Mr. Sadleir. Besides notice was given to Mr. Sadleir to attend in his place in the House, messengers and a summons were sent after him; and his house was found to be deserted, and all the attempts that had been made to discover him had failed. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) said that the circumstances of the case were such that it would be perfectly safe for the House to decide to expel Mr. Sadleir; and this view was supported by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Napier), who brought forward a number of precedents, many of which were pressed into his service by the Attorney-General that day, although upon the former occasion he did not seem to feel the force of them. Give him (Sir Frederic Thesiger) leave to ask in what the difference of the position of things then and now consisted?—and what was it which now enabled them the better to proceed with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, when the Motion was made in June, said that if the proceedings went on to outlawry, there would be something to go on; and the
  712
  noble Lord then said there had been no conviction, no confession, no report of a Committee of the House. Had there been any conviction now? None. Had there been any confession? None, except perhaps by the flight of Sadleir. Had there been any report of a Committee of the House? None. Indeed, none was required. What, then, was the difference between the position of things then and now? The right hon. Gentleman had stated what he thought would improve the position of things, and had adverted to the attempts which had been made to arrest James Sadleir. Surely there had before been sufficient proofs that he had absconded, and that there was no chance of his being taken. What more was there? Why proceedings to outlawry, which were so dilatory that it was impossible to complete them before Michaelmas Term, in November next. Might they not now retort on the right hon. Gentleman, and say—Why not wait until the outlawry was completed? But now it was discovered that they did not need any such thing to justify the expulsion of an unworthy Member of that House. What else was there, as regarded the facts? The right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to communicate to the House all the facts in his possession, and he extracted from his pocket a letter from a private individual, having told him that he would use the letter, unless he heard from him forbidding it, and the right hon. Gentleman thought it discreet and prudent on the part of the Government to announce to James Sadleir that they perfectly well knew where he was, and that he was perfectly safe while here, because no extradition treaty applied to him—and the right hon. Gentleman thought this a decent exercise of duty towards the House and the Government. This was the only additional information which had been brought before the House, on which they could act, but he must say the House would have been happy to relieve the hon. and learned Gentleman from the painful necessity of imparting that information. The House was considering the proper means by which they could expel an unworthy Member, They found from the admission of the Government that there was no necessity for a conviction nor for a report of a Committee of the House, nor for a confession, nor for an outlawry, but that the facts which now appeared and which had been so powerfully brought forward by

  713
  the hon. Member for Sheffield on a former occasion were quite sufficient to justify the expulsion of Sadleir. He could not, therefore, conceive on what grounds that Motion had been formerly rejected. He desired properly to understand the position of the question, as they were adding another precedent to an unfortunate list, and f that was his only reason for troubling the House, for as to the Resolution itself he did not think there could be the slightest difference of opinion on the subject.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that perhaps the House would pardon him for interfering; between it and the Solicitor General, when it considered the peculiar position in which it stood. He made this same Motion last July. It had through life so often been his fate to be told, "You are too soon," that he was not surprised at the proceedings of to-night, but he was surprised to hear the powerful and convincing speech of his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Thesiger). He wished that speech had been delivered on the 24th of July last. [Sir F. THESIGER said he was not present.] He was sorry that he was not. He (Mr. Roebuck) was then told by his right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Mr. S. Wortley) that he was attempting to establish a dangerous precedent. There were some persons "who were content to dwell in decencies for ever," and he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend knew the position in which he stood, and that he was not in a position to create a dangerous precedent. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland what difference there was between existing circumstances and those in July last, except as regarded time. [Hear!] He understood that cheer. He knew whence it came. If last July the House had said to this man, "You have done that which compromises the honour of a gentleman. You have been accused by a Judge in his place. A grand jury has found a Bill against you, and you have not appeared. You have fled from justice." Saying, that would have had a great moral influence upon society; but what was the difference now? The only additions made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were the reports from the sheriffs of various counties in Ireland who had sought for this man, and a private letter from Paris; but was there no difference in the moral effect of calling upon a man as a Member of that House to answer a charge upon its first
  714
  blush, and waiting for six months and making no such demand until their myrmidons had sought and had failed to find him? After having done that, they could not say that the House of Commons was very tenacious of its honour: instead of calling upon Members upon the first blush of a charge for their appearance and answer, they gave them time to run away, and they did run away, and then Members produced a private letter to prove that they had run away. Every grave fact which had been adduced that night was known on the 24th of July last. A Judge had charged James Sadleir from the judgment seat; a grand jury had found a true Bill against him; that House had issued an order that he should appear in his place, and he did not come. Had not all these things been stated that night, and with what addition? Why, with that miserable addition to which he had alluded—the reports from the sheriffs of different counties of Ireland and a private letter. Were not these the very grounds upon which he (Mr. Roebuck) asked the House to expel this man—he would not call him gentleman—he would not call him an hon. Member? If it had been the case of a duel, he could have understood the argument of his right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who said perhaps—and it was curious how acute and astute lawyers were in finding out a "perhaps"—perhaps he would answer it. He (Mr. Roebuck) knew that in what were called affairs of honour—when a man was charged with an offence against the laws of his country in accordance with the laws of honour—he said, "Oh, I do not like to go to prison, but I will come and answer the charge." But there was a grave difference between such a case and that now in question. There was a charge against a man's morality:—"You have picked the pockets of thousands of poor people; you are a thief, you are a swindler; in the eyes of all honest men you are a degraded creature." Would not an honest man rush to meet such a charge? Would he go away upon the plea that he disliked a prison? Would not he seek the dungeon rather than bear the stigma of such an imputation? But, said his (Mr. Roebuck's) right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, "Perhaps he does not like to go to prison." He (Mr. Roebuck) supposed he did not. He supposed the man to have been a thorough rogue. He charged him with being so. The charge against him

  715
  was, that his honour was gone, that he was a thief and a swindler; and he would ask, what was there in this man which created in his favour such very tender sympathy on the part of the Government? The time was come when the Members of that House ought to look round and see who among them were open to such charges, and to expel all upon whom such a stigma could be fixed, A man who at the very outburst of such a charge did not rush to meet it was unworthy to be a representative, and too tender sympathy for him did not redound to the credit either of that House or of those who put it forward.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would not long prevent the House from passing from this subject to one which, although not of greater importance than was the honour and dignity of that House, excited a great deal of interest at the present time; but, as he had been pointedly alluded to, and as he was the first person who suggested that delay and that caution which had been complained of by his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir F. Thesiger), and again by his hon. and learned Friend below him (Mr. Roebuck), he thought that it was due to the House that he should recall to its recollection that which had been kept a good deal out of sight—namely, what were really the grounds upon which this Motion was resisted in July. His hon. and learned Friend below him (Mr.Roebuck) asked what had happened since but the lapse of time. Why, the whole question which was made in July was one of time. The objection to the Motion was, that it was too soon, that it was premature, that up to that moment Mr. Sadleir had had no opportunity of vindicating himself, that on the previous Monday the House had ordered him to appear in his place on Thursday, and on that very Thursday, because he did not attend, it was proposed at once to expel him. The want of time was the very essence of the objection which was taken. He (the Solicitor General) stated at the time that he fully acceded to the doctrine that that House was not to be tied down by the necessity of a conviction, that it might, apart from mere legal technicalities, acting upon its moral conviction, but acting cautiously, proceed to the expulsion of a Member. He and those who spoke in that sense grounded their opposition upon the want of time and the premature character of the proceeding. The papers referring to the Motion
  716
  had been circulated only that morning, and he urged that Members ought to have time to look over them. It was at the very end of the Session, on the 24th of July, and he certainly imagined what be had now heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger), that he could not have been present, or he would not have taken the line which he had tonight. [Sir F. THESIGER said that he had read the debates.] In point of fact, it was a period of the Session at which there were but few Members of the legal profession in their places, and that was an additional reason why the decision should have been postponed. It was now said, that there was no difference between the present time and that at which the House refused to accede to a Motion similar to that now before it. It was not his duty to vindicate the position of the House. There was no division. Even his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) did not take a division, but acquiesced in the Motion for the previous question. The ground on which he had resisted the Motion of last Session was, that the indictment was found only on the 18th of July, that the order to attend that House was made on the 21st of July, and that the House was called upon on the 24th of that very same month to take the last step of expulsion. He (the Solicitor General), under those circumstances, said that James Sadleir had not had an opportunity of receiving the order of the House; that they did not know that he did not mean to meet the charge; and that, at all events, they should not act with precipitate haste. Since that time Mr. Sadleir had been offered two opportunities of meeting the charge. His right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had made a Motion in November in the Court of Queen's Bench, when Mr. Sadleir might have appeared on his trial; and again, in the month of January, a similar opportunity was afforded to him; but he had availed himself of neither. A new Session having therefore opened, and this Member of the House not having presented himself to vindicate his character, the matter now stood in an essentially different position. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger) seemed to consider that his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. FitzGerald) had been guilty of some indiscretion in allowing Mr. Sadleir to know that he was safe from arrest. But the

  717
  treaty to which reference had been made was no secret treaty, and no one could suppose that Mr. Sadleir's advisers were not aware of its existence, and that they had not told him that he could not go to a better, pleasanter, or safer capital than Paris. It was of the utmost importance not merely that they should be cautious in these grave proceedings, but that they should assert distinctly that it was not necessary there should be a legal conviction to justify the course about to be taken, and he trusted that the House would adopt with perfect unanimity the Resolution now proposed for the defence of its honour.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, it was quite true that, when this question was before the House on the 24th of July, the present Solicitor General based his opposition on the ground of time. But the right hon. Gentleman, and also the noble Lord at the head of the Government, then laid down the wholly untenable doctrine, that in a case like the present there must be either a conviction, a confession, or a formal Parliamentary inquiry. But beyond that, the then Attorney General (Sir Alexander Cockburn) maintained, that there must be an outlawry, and insisted that it would be dangerous and unconstitutional to expel James Sadleir on the facts then before the House. It was of the utmost importance that they should understand the principle on which the House proceeded. It did not act upon a conviction, or an acquittal, or even a pardon. If Her Majesty were graciously pleased to pardon a man, that House, if he had behaved unworthily, would still persist in expelling him. That principle was affirmed in the case of Mr. Walsh, in 1812, and was then better laid down by a lay Member of the House than by Sir S. Romilly and the other lawyers who took part in the discussion. It was alleged that it was a rare thing to expel a man for the breach of a pecuniary trust. On this point Mr. Bankes was reported to have observed:—
  "Among all the precedents there were none of more frequent occurrence, or which had been visited more uniformly by the just punishment of the House, than cases of fraud and notorious breach of trust in pecuniary transactions for private and undue emolument. … … And Mr. Bankes went on to maintain, therefore, that the governing principle upon which the House was called to act was the notoriety of the fact, demonstrable from papers on the table, which showed that it was a gross breach of trust, beyond the power of cavil or dispute; a case of great moral guilt would be enough."
  718
  No doubt several lawyers resisted this argument, but their opinions were overruled by the majority of the. House. What was the case against James Sadleir on the 24th of July? The documents which the right hon. Gentleman had laid on the table contained a statement made by Mr. Kelly, the manager of the Tipperary Bank, to this effect:—
  "In the early part of January, 1856, I received from James Sadleir, at the bank at Clonmel, a letter, dated London, December 30, 1855, written to him by John Sadleir, with an enclosure purporting to be a balance-sheet of the affairs of the bank to the 31st of December, 1855. James Sadleir requested me to take the letter and enclosure home and read them. I read the letter and considered the subject, and in a subsequent conversation told James Sadleir that it would be wrong to carry out the views contained in that communication. He acquiesced, and in reference to the balance-sheet observed, that it was very foolish of John Sadleir to put forward such a, document. The balance-sheet prepared in John Sadleir's handwriting was manifestly fraudulent, both as regards the paid-up capital and the assets and liabilities of the bank, and also in the profit and loss account, all of which are overstated to a vast amount. In May, 1856, I saw in print, for the first time, a copy of the balance-sheet above referred to, to which my name is attached as manager. I never put my name to the document, or sanctioned it, directly or indirectly, nor did I know of its being in existence, in print, until then."
  These disgraceful facts were before the House in July last, and the acknowledgment of guilt implied by flight was as strong then as now. One of the documents laid on the table was thoroughly Irish in its character. A letter to the Crown Solicitor from the Deputy Inspector General of the Constabulary, describing the commendable exertions made by the police to execute the warrants on James Sadleir, showed that "a special watch was kept (by a man acquainted with Mr. Sadleir's appearance, sent up from Clonmel for that purpose) both at Bray, where Mr. Sadleir lodged, and at Kingstown-pier, early in the month of July last." Then followed these remarkable words—"Previously to which time, however, as the police ascertained, Mr. Sadleir had left that place." This was quite correct. Mr. Sadleir had long left the place; but the police, nevertheless, kept watch on the pier, to gaze out on the sea, and enjoy the fresh air for as many days as the Attorney General directed the sham to be gone through of looking for a man whom everybody knew to have left Ireland in

  719
  June. "I may add my own belief (the Crown Solicitor himself stated), and what I fancy is that of most, if not all here, that Mr. James Sadleir, M. P., is not in Ireland, and has not been in Ireland since the middle of June." These facts existed and made a strong case, when the Government resisted the Motion of the 24th of July last, on the ground that there had been no conviction, no confession, and no judgment of outlawry. As soon as the Master of the Rolls had pronounced his judgment of the 20th of June, Mr. Sadleir had the good sense to obtain legal advice as to whether or not he could be prosecuted. The answer he received to this question from one who was not a law officer of the Crown being, of course, in the affirmative, he immediately made his preliminary arrangements, and went off to Copenhagen. A letter from the Crown Solicitor to the right hon. Gentleman, dated Dublin, the 7th of February last, stated that on the 9th of July, 1856—
  "A telegraph message was sent to you, informing you that an anonymous letter had been received by the metropolitan police here, in which the writer offered to show where Mr. James Sadleir then was if a reward would be given. You immediately, by telegraph, desired that the Under Secretary should be consulted, while you advised a liberal reward. £100 was accordingly offered, and on the 14th a stranger had an-interview with Colonel Browne. He stated, 'that Mr. James Sadleir was then under the assumed name of John Smith at Mulmoe, near Copenhagen, where he would remain for five or six days, and thence he proposed to go through France to America.'"
  After all this it was a farce to pretend that on the 24th of July, Sadleir had not had any opportunity of appearing. Why, an order had been made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the 23rd of July, in which he said that he should appoint a receiver over Sadleir's estate, as Sadleir was a fugitive from justice, and there was no reason to suppose that he would ever be made amenable to justice. That was on the 23rd, and on the 24th of July the Irish Attorney General actually stated that Sadlier had then had no opportunity of appearing! The Lord Chancellor of Ireland had at that time declared him a "fugitive from justice." The case was as clear then as it was now. There had since then been nothing to change the case, neither outlawry, nor confession, nor conviction, nor trial, nor even opportunity for trial; for though the Solicitor
  720
  General, lately the Recorder of London, had stated that Sadleir might have been tried in Michaelmas Term or in Hilary Term, because the case had been removed by certiorari into the Court of Queen's Bench, that hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know that this could not be, but that the case must be sent down to the assizes at Tipperary, and no assizes had yet arrived. So that there had not yet been any opportunity of trial.
  The SOLICITOR GENERAL: He could be tried in Dublin with the consent of the Crown.
  ME. WHITESIDE: Not without his own consent also. So that there had not yet been any opportunity of trial, and if the step now proposed to be taken was premature last Session it was so still. But it was as clear now—though not more clear than it was then—that the House ought at once to expel a Member who was a discredit to the House and a disgrace to the country.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that as the House appeared to be unanimous in the course it should adopt with regard to the Resolution, it was with some regret that he found that so much time had been lost in its discussion, and that an attempt was made to fix a charge of inconsistency upon the Attorney General and the Government. The objection made to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, on the 24th of July, was that there was no evidence to show that Mr. Sadleir had had an opportunity of relieving himself from the charges which had been brought against him. The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who was then Attorney General, said the Motion ought not to be agreed to unless there was a conviction on the part of the House that Mr. Sadleir had an opportunity of defending himself, and that speech had been very much misrepresented. It was urged at the time that the Government had been asked to commit themselves to a dangerous principle, which, upon a future opportunity, they might have occasion to repent. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) was not in the House at that time, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) was in his place and spoke, remarking that the worse the case appeared to be, the more careful ought they to be in giving the person

  721
  accused an opportunity of being heard. The Government agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, who was one of the leading Members of his party, that ample time should be afforded, and they were under the impression that Mr. Sadleir had not had sufficient time to vindicate himself. That view of the case was concurred in by a majority of the House, the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield having been negatived without a division, and now, with perfect consistency, the Government asked the House to affirm the Resolution which had been proposed.
  MR. NAPIERsaid, he had a distinct recollection that the ground of opposition to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield taken both by the Attorney General for England and the Attorney General for Ireland was, that the House ought to have actual proof of the guilt of Mr. James Sadleir, either by his conviction or confession. No one could be more convinced of that now than he was in the month of July last, when the first Motion for expulsion was made. The House would have been perfectly justified then in expelling Mr. James Sadleir, but it would probably not have been so politically convenient.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved accordingly.

  COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Before I move, Sir, that you do leave the chair, it may be convenient that I should state, for the information of those Members who are not accurately acquainted with the somewhat intricate rules of the House on the subject of money votes, what course I intend to pursue with reference to this matter. The Act of Parliament under which the Exchequer bonds which are referred to in the Resolution moved by me in Committee of Supply on Friday night were issued, contains this provision—"The principal moneys secured by such bonds shall be repaid out of such moneys as shall be provided by Parliament in that behalf." The consequence is, that the Government would not be provided with any funds to meet these £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds without going, according to the forms of the House, through three operations—first, obtaining a Vote in
  722
  Committee of Supply; next a Vote in Ways and Means to cover the Vote of Supply; and, thirdly, a Ways and Means Act which would cover the Vote of Supply, and the Vote of Ways and Means. Until these three forms are gone through, it would not be competent for the Government to pay off the £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds which fall due this year. Now, the national faith was pledged to the repayment of these bonds, and as I do not anticipate that the House will resort to the plan of meeting this obligation by means of re-borrowing, it will be necessary to provide the funds in the way I have mentioned. My statement on Friday night was made in Committee of Supply, which is contrary to the usual practice in making such statements, and I concluded by a Motion for a Vote of Supply to provide for the payment of this £2,000,000. And that, Sir, is the only Vote which I intend to propose in the present Committee of Supply. For the convenience of the House I circulated on Friday my Resolutions on the income tax, together with the scale of duties which I intended to propose on tea and sugar; but by some accident, for which I am not responsible, those Resolutions were not printed as a separate paper, but were confused with the other Votes of the day. I believe, however, that the Votes are now accurately printed. I merely mention this for the purpose of guarding the House against the supposition that it would be competent for me to move those Resolutions in Committee of Supply; they can only be moved in Committee of Ways and Means; and a Committee of Ways and Means cannot be appointed until a Vote has been taken in Committee of Supply. Whenever the House shall think fit to concur in the Resolution which I moved on Friday, it will then be competent to appoint a Committee of Ways and Means, and when that Committee is appointed, I shall be prepared to proceed with those Resolutions.
  Moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. DISRAELI: It was the common understanding, I believe, Sir, on Friday that we were to have an opportunity tonight of discussing, and, if necessary, of asking the opinion of the House on the whole tenor and scope of the financial scheme of the Government. On looking at the paper of business for to-night I observed the Resolutions to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just alluded,

  723
  which, if they had been brought forward to-night—as it appeared they were to be—would have given us that opportunity; but when I came down to the House I found that the paper was changed, and though I accept, of course without the slightest hesitation, the account given by the right hon. Gentleman of the inadvertence—yet the right hon. Gentleman must feel that it has occasioned great inconvenience to the House. It appears to me extremely desirable that an early opportunity should be afforded of entering upon this discussion. I did not quite collect from the right hon. Gentleman when he proposed that that opportunity should be offered, but. Sir, tomorrow the Resolution which is about to be put in Committee of Supply will have to be reported, and I propose then, if that course should be agreeable to the House, to move a Resolution, on which I would ask the opinion of the House, which would raise the whole question of the financial scheme of the Government. With the permission of the House I will read the Resolution which I propose to move. It is as follows:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it would be expedient, before sanctioning the financial arrangements for the ensuing year, to adjust the estimated Income and Expenditure in the manner which shall appear best calculated to secure the country against the risk of a deficiency in the years 1858–9 and 1859–60, and to provide for such a balance of Revenue and Charge respectively in the year 1860 as may place it in the power of Parliament at that period, without embarrassment to the finances, altogether to remit the Income Tax."
  If it be agreeable to the House I shall propose this as an Amendment on the Report being brought up, and the discussion on the whole financial scheme of the Government, which might otherwise have taken place to-night, may then take place.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I only rise to say that if the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to make his Motion to-night, or any statement in Committee of Supply, I shall be perfectly ready to meet it by such explanations as the case may require.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I apprehend, Sir, that in the event of my right hon. Friend bringing on the discussion tonight, as proposed, he would not, in point of form, have power to move the Amendment of which he has given notice.
  MR. SPEAKER: It would not be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move
  724
  such an Amendment in Committee of Supply.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I entirely accede to the convenience of the arrangement which has been made. I understand my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to say, that he does not propose to move any Resolution in Committee of Supply, except a Resolution with respect to the Exchequer bonds. It therefore follows that the Navy Estimates stand over to a future evening. [Sir G. GREY: No; the Navy Estimates will be moved by the First Lord of the Admiralty.] It appears to me that lies at the root of the whole matter. I shall not be prepared to assent to the Motion that you, Sir, leave the chair to go into Committee on the Navy Estimates until an opportunity has been afforded of considering fully the financial proposals of the Government. I am aware that if I sit down I have no power of rising again to address the House. I am unwilling, therefore, to lose or surrender a vantage ground until I understand from the Government what they intend to do. It appears to me that the subjects of Supply and Ways and Means are essentially connected. Her Majesty's Government with perfect propriety, yielding to the general wish of the House, have so connected them, and in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the two subjects, contrary to practice, and on special grounds, have been placed before us together. The ordinary practice according to which the principal charges are voted before going into Committee of Ways and Means has been departed from, and, that being so, it appears to me it is a fair demand for Members to make, if they think their public duty requires them to urge such a demand, that they should have the power of discussing the question as a whole. That demand, for my own part and as an individual Member, I make with due respect and humility, but with as much urgency and conviction of duty as I ever made any demand in this House. It is, in my opinion, essential to the right discharge of our duties with regard to the finances of the country that we should have an opportunity of discussing the proposals of the Government as a whole. It is perfectly plain—beyond the possibility of dispute—that if we proceed to take a Vote on the Navy Estimates we shall lose the opportunity of an unprejudiced discussion of the whole scheme. I do not wish to detain the House with arguments on a

  725
  matter so plain that it does not require them; but I, for one, not knowing what may be the opinion of other hon. Members, cannot consent to your leaving the chair for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply, unless it is understood that the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only Resolution which is to be moved to-night.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I only rise to say that I hope, before the House resolves into Committee of Supply, the Government will declare whether they decidedly mean to go into the Navy Estimates to-night. I own, it appears to me, that what my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford has said is very reasonable, and I cannot well conceive that going into a question of the Navy Estimates and voting several large sums, and then coming afterwards on another day to a discussion of the general expenditure of the country, can be a convenient course. It is perfectly fair for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the Resolution he has prepared, and hon. Gentlemen can either assent to it or not before an opportunity is given them of expressing an opinion on the plan stated the other night; but to go into Committee on the Navy Estimates is very unreasonable, and if the Government propose such a course, I shall certainly resist it, and immediately the Committee come to that point, I shall move that the House do resume or take some other means to prevent the House coming to a vote on that subject.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid: Sir, I wish to save the House trouble, and we are ready to adopt the course which the House seems to prefer. We will not go into the Navy Estimates to-night.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee of Supply: Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid: Sir, before I proceed to offer to the Committee explanations which will have reference to the terms of the Motion which has lately been read by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I will advert to a point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford on Friday night, which I left unanswered. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I had included in the estimate which I made of taxes remitted
  726
  since 1853 the sum of £165,000, the loss consequent on the change of the law with reference to foreign bills of exchange. The amount I stated did include that item. There was, however, one sum, the produce of the reduction of the assessed taxes of 1854, which I have included in the taxes remitted since 1853, but inasmuch as it is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that he announced that change in 1853, which fact I had overlooked, I ought not to have included it, and the sum I stated must be rectified by the omission of £270,000. I now come to what I understand as the material point raised by the intended Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, as to the supposed deficiency in the revenue for two years after the ensuing year to be created by the financial arrangements submitted to the House on Friday last. I do not understand that it is alleged that the revenue estimated for the coming year, beginning the first of April next, will be deficient. If it is I will re-explain that statement; but unless it is alleged that the revenue will be insufficient to meet the estimated expenditure I will assume that there is no doubt as to the ensuing year. What I collect to be affirmed is, that the financial arrangements which I propose will leave a deficiency of revenue as compared with expenditure in the years 1858–9 and 1859–60. I believe I am correctly rendering the effect of the resolution read by the right hon. Gentleman. I hold in my hand the best estimate which I have been able to make of the revenue for those years, according to the plan which I submitted to the House on Friday. If the Committee would wish to hear the estimate of each item for those two years I will read it to them—

  ESTIMATED REVENUE IN 1858–9 AND 1859–60.

  1858–9.

  1859–60.

  £

  £

  Customs

  22,350,000

  22,000,000

  Excise

  17,450,000

  17,700,000

  Stamps

  7,550,000

  7,700,000

  Land and assessed taxes

  3,150,000

  3,150,000

  Income tax

  7,150,000

  7,150,000

  Post Office

  3,000,000

  3,000,000

  Crown lands

  265,000

  265,000

  Miscellaneous

  1,385,000

  1,300,000

  62,300,000

  62,265,000

  Extraordinary liabilities

  3,500,000

  3,500,000

  Net revenue after paying off liabilities

  58,800,000

  58,765,000

  727
  Well, now the gross expenditure for 1853–4—the year immediately preceding the war—was £55,840,000, and, therefore, according to my estimate of revenue for these two years, after discharging all liabilities, inclusive of the Exchequer bonds and Sinking Fund, there will be an excess beyond the expenditure of the last year before the war of about £3,000,000. The whole of this £3,000,000 will be applicable to the increased charge of the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service, with the single deduction of the increased interest upon the debt which has been created during the war. These liabilities are in the nature of the repayment of principal: but there is also an augmentation of the interest upon the debt incurred during the war. The increased charge of the funded and unfunded debt beyond the charge for the year 1853–4 will be in 1858–9 £650,000, which will be reduced in 1859–60 to £510,000. There will, therefore, be a margin of £3,000,000, from which nothing is to be taken, except that payment of interest, to cover the increased expenditure of the Army, Navy, and Civil Service beyond that of the last year of the peace. The House will see that this estimate of revenue is not a sanguine estimate. I have not calculated upon any considerable increase in the indirect taxes, although when Parliament remits so large a sum as £9,000,000 of direct taxation we may, under ordinary circumstances, reasonably expect a great increase in the produce of the indirect taxation. Unless, therefore, it can be shown that there is some error in this estimate, which I believe cannot be pointed out, I have proved that I have provided a sufficient revenue for the years 1858–9 and 1859–60. That, as I understand it, is the point to which the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) is directed, and it would be, I think, more convenient to discuss that question at present, now that we are in Committee of Supply, without waiting for the Resolution or Report to be brought up.
  Question again proposed—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bonds, issued under the provisions of the Act 17 Vict. c. 23, and dated the 8th day of May, 1854, which will be due and payable on the 8th day of May, 1857."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: I entirely accede to the propriety of the Resolution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  728
  has moved. I thought it better that we should have a day to think about it, but, as far as I am concerned, I have not a word of objection to the Resolution itself, which I hope will be unanimously agreed to. The other portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech properly belonged, I think, to the speech he delivered on Friday night, and would have been introduced into it, no doubt, but for the great circuit the right hon. Gentleman was compelled to make, and the numerous subjects which prevented him from making his Estimates for future years. While I am sorry to say I cannot accept the cheering prospect which he has held out to us for future years, yet the same consideration which led us to postpone the Vote of Friday night ought also to induce us to postpone to-night the discussion of that most important and vital portion of the question—the prospect of the balance of revenue and expenditure in the years following 1857–8. I will therefore, with the permission of the Committee, reserve altogether for another opportunity the remarks I shall have to make, when we shall be better able to do justice to a question of such vital moment.
  SIR FRANCIS BARING: I see an increase in the revenue charges upon which I should like to have some explanation. They were put down at £4,215,000, for the same purposes in other years he found the amount had been £4,123,000. There appears, therefore, to be an increase of £92,000 in the collection of the revenue, besides the coast-guard service, which is transferred from that Estimate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Estimate of expenditure for the year 1857–8 is £4,215,000, but there is also to be transferred to this item for the first time the superannuation of the revenue department, which amounts to £475,000.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: There are two wars that we are now carrying on, and I wish to know whether the Government intend to lay upon the table the Estimate of the expenses to be incurred during the next year in the Persian war? We have the expenses of the Persian war up to the 1st April, but there is no Estimate for the future. I wish to ask whether we are to have any further estimate, and also whether there is to be any Estimate of he expenses now going on in the war with China?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not our intention to lay upon the table any estimate for the expenses of the Persian war for the year commencing on the 1st of April, for we have no data by which we can with probability conjecture what those expenses may be. The House has been already informed that negotiations are going on at Paris with the Persian Minister, and we have every reason to hope that those negotiations will prove satisfactory. If so, no expenses will be incurred beyond those connected with the expedition. The Chinese war has been called a war by the right hon. Gentleman, but no extraordinary expenditure has been incurred beyond that of the ships on the station.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: These wars are going on without the authority of Parliament, and without our knowing anything about them. If the right hon. Gentleman would ask for a vote of credit the question could then be raised.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As soon as there is any prospect of any extraordinary expenditure being required, we shall submit an Estimate to the House.
  MR. DISRAELI: I have no wish to oppose the Resolution; but it would be greatly for the convenience of the House that we should come to an understanding on what day we shall discuss the whole of the financial arrangements of the Government. If on Friday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, in Committee of Ways and Means, move his Income tax Resolutions, that will be a convenient day to those who sit on this side of the House; and I will on that day move my Resolution as an Amendment. I only wish that there should be a clear understanding on the subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It will not be competent to go into Committee of Ways and Means tomorrow, and I suppose the House would not wish to take this Committee on Wednesday. Friday is therefore the earliest day on which it is possible that these Resolutions can be taken. The Resolutions have been printed, and I shall be prepared on Friday, in Committee of Ways and Means, to move Resolutions on the income tax and on the tea and sugar duties.
  MR. DISRAELI: Then I will take that opportunity of moving the Resolution
  730
  that I have read as an Amendment to those Resolutions.
  In reply to a question from Sir H. WILLOUGHBY,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that he believed about £2,000,000 of the Exchequer-bonds were held by the Savings Banks Commissioners.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee to sit again on Wednesday.
  House resumed.

CHIEF CONSTABLES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  COLONEL BUCKsaid, he believed that very few boroughs had joined with counties in forming an amalgamated police force, and the reason probably was that the municipal authorities of boroughs had no voice in those assemblies by which the chief constables were appointed. He would, therefore, suggest that the mayors of all boroughs which formed a joint police with counties should have the right of deliberating with the county magistrates upon matters affecting the police force and voting at the election of chief constables.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the subject alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member did not come within the scope of the present Bill, which was merely a measure to facilitate the object of the original Act.
  Bill read 2o.

BANK ACTS COMMITTEE.

  NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now move that the names of Mr. Weguelin and Mr. Blackburn be added to the Committee.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, he thought it was somewhat objectionable that the Governor of the Bank of England, who would be one of the principal witnesses as to the operation of the Bank Charter Act, should be placed on the Committee. He (Mr. Cayley) wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would object to the Motion of which he had given notice, that the Committee should consist of twenty-six Members?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he had on a previous

  731
  occasion expressed his readiness to increase the number of the Committee to twenty-two, and with that object he had submitted the names of Mr. Weguelin and Mr. Blackburn to the House. He did not see the force of the objection urged by the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire against the nomination of the Governor of the Bank of England, and for his own part he thought the fitness of that Gentleman to serve on the Committee would be generally recognised. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must also remind the hon. Member that it was by no means unusual to examine Members of Committees as witnesses, and he would therefore feel it his duty to press his Motion. With regard to the suggested increase in the number of the Committee, if it was the wish of the House that such an increase should take place, he would make no objection.
  Motion agreed to.
  MR. GROGANsaid, he should now move that the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members, and that Mr. Vance be added to the Committee.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that before the House agreed to the Motion of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, they ought to come to some Resolution as to whether the Committee ought to be increased.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, that he believed it would have been far better, considering its intricate nature, to have referred the subject to a smaller Committee, but as there was so little difference now whether the Committee should consist of twenty-three or twenty-six Members, he would state the grounds why he proposed the latter number. As the Committee then stood, there were fifteen Members taken from the Ministerial side of the House, and only six from the Opposition, and as the present was no party question, he was at a loss to know on what grounds such a selection had been made, or whether it had arisen accidentally or intentionally. On the former occasion, the Committee was selected as seven from the Government side of the House to four from the Opposition. As on a former occasion, he again warned the Government against this unfair selection, and he begged to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the opinion the right hon. Gentleman
  732
  had expressed on the Act of 1844, was not the opinion of the country, nor did he (Mr. Cayley) think it was of the Members of that House. He considered it unfair that a question of this kind should be prejudged by naming a Committee that was two to one.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he felt he should be doing an injury to the feelings of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Vance) if he again resisted the Motion that he be added to the Committee. He would therefore ask the House to agree to the following arrangement—that the Committee consist of Twenty-four instead of Twenty-two Members, and that Mr. Vance and Mr. Laing be added to the Committee.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion and Question proposed, "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-four Members."
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, he should oppose the Motion, on the ground that the Committee was, as he had previously stated, unfairly constituted. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not sufficient confidence in his own proposition to press it to a division he could not have a very good opinion of its merits.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was of opinion that there were too many Members upon the Committee.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he also thought a small Committee would be better than a large one, and that all Committees ought to be appointed by a Committee of Selection, or some authority which should be responsible for their nomination.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he doubted whether the Committee would arrive at a conclusion on the question during the present Session from its being composed of so large a number. He thought that the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Cayley) had not put the question fairly when he compared the relative numbers of the Committee from the different sides of the House. He believed that although so large a number was taken from the Ministerial side of the House, it would be found that although generally of one opinion they differed from each other in many particulars with reference to the question under consideration. If the Committee were increased he did not see the slightest prospect of their deliberations being brought to a termination in time to allow of the House legislating on it during the present Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twenty-four Members:—Mr. Vance and Mr. Laing added to the Committee.
  The House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Judicial Statistics.
JUDICIAL STATISTICS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was about to present a Bill similar to one which he had laid before their Lordships last year, combined with a large number of schedules, a Bill for facilitating the collection of Judicial Statistics. He had upon a former occasion entered fully into a consideration of the incalculable benefits that would be derived from a good system of judicial statistics, and had shown that not only was this country in that respect behind France, Belgium, and Germany, but was even behind Naples. Until some system was adopted we should be legislating in the dark in all matters relating to legal enactments and legal procedure; and until such a system was adopted legislation in matters of law could not be called an inductive science, for they were labouring in the dark, without any knowledge of the effects of existing laws or the consequences of any changes in those laws. We had no means whatever of ascertaining the
  686
  practical working of a law that was passed. The Bill he now presented was exceedingly short, and he hoped before the second reading the schedules, which had undergone revision, correction, and improvement by the Law Amendment Society, would be perfected, and that he should be enabled to lay before the House a complete set of schedules, which would leave nothing to be desired by the department entrusted with the collection and arrangement of those important details. The noble and learned Lord concluded by presenting a Bill to provide for collection of judicial statistics.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that the subject had been under the consideration of the Government during the recess. No doubt, returns showing the amount of business done, the salaries paid, and other facts relating to the various courts, would be of great use.
  Bill read 1a

THE WAR WITH PERSIA—

  MOTION POSTPONED.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Albemarle) having a notice on the paper which has reference to Persia, I venture to appeal to him to have the goodness to put off his Motion for a short time, as at the present moment negotiations are pending in Paris upon the dispute with Persia, and any discussion at the present moment might have a tendency to prejudice those negotiations. Only this very morning I received a communication which leads me to hope that those negotiations will be brought to a successful issue. I hope, therefore, my noble Friend will not consider me asking too much in begging of him to defer his Motion.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, after the appeal which had been made to him by the noble Friend he should have no hesitation in withdrawing for the present the Motion which it had been his intention to bring forward. It would certainly have been his wish, in moving for the Returns in question, to have avoided as much as possible any observations on the present hostilities with Persia. His noble Friend said that in a few clays the time would, perhaps, have arrived when such a Motion might be brought forward without the probability of harm, and that being so he (the Earl of Albemarle) hoped then to have an opportunity of recurring to the subject. He would only now say that, in

  687
  his opinion, the only way of preserving friendship with Persia would be to do away with all diplomatic relations with that country.

RESOLUTION ON PRIVATE BILLS— CASE OF MR. SHEDDEN.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he wished to put a question to his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale). He understood that by the Resolution which his noble Friend was about to propose, the 23rd March was fixed as the last day on which that House would receive petitions for private Bills that Session. Now, he had an appeal to make to his noble Friend to relax the strict rule in that respect with reference to one or two cases of some urgency which it was highly expedient should be brought under their Lordships' consideration this Session, especially that of Mr. Shedden. That was a question of title to an estate, tried in Scotland nearly fifty years ago, and subsequently reviewed by the House of Lords during the Chancellorship of Lord Eldon, on both which occasions he (Lord Brougham) acted as counsel for Mr. William Shedden, the claimant. Without going now into the merits of the case, he would only say that there were circumstances connected with it of such a peculiar character as, in his opinion, imperatively to require that it should be reopened in some shape before their Lordships' House with the view of justice being done to the unhappy gentleman, Mr. W. Shedden, whom he represented, and who had suffered a grievous wrong for nearly sixty years. Mr. Shedden would probably bring his case under the consideration of the House in the form of a private Bill; but as, unless a relaxation were made in the rule of the House, he should not be able to do so until his (Lord Brougham's) return from a necessary absence of some weeks in the country, he should be obliged if his noble and learned Friend (Lord Redesdale) would make the case an exception and suspend the forms of the House in its favour, as it was one in which he (Lord Brougham) took an especial interest.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the 23rd of March was the day fixed as that beyond which no private Bill could be introduced to the House; and, although he wished to adhere to that rule as far as possible, yet, as the case to which his noble and learned Friend had referred was one of a peculiar
  688
  character, he should offer no objection to it on the score of time, after the appeal made by his noble and learned Friend.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, nothing could be more considerate than the prompt manner in which his noble and learned Friend had yielded to his request, and he was convinced that when their Lordships came to hear the case of Mr. Shedden, whatever appearance of difficulty there might be about it, they would devise a remedy, however long that might have been delayed, for the injustice which he believed to have been perpetrated.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, without meaning to interpose any obstacle in the way of the forms of the House being relaxed for the accommodation of this particular case, he would only remark that the parties whom it was now sought to oust from the estate in this case had been in possession of it for, he believed, sixty years, and if their Lordships at this distance of time reopened a question of this kind, the title of not one of the Members of their Lordships' House to his estate would afterwards be free from some similar attempt to question its legality.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the remark of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack would be quite true in reference to an ordinary case; but there were peculiar circumstances about this which appeared to make it an exception.
  EARL GREYsaid, he was about to present a petition to the House on behalf of Mr. William Shedden, and should have done so this week had it not been for the intended absence of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), who had explained to their Lordships the great personal interest he took in the case. He (Earl Grey) would ask their Lordships in the meantime to suspend their judgment until the facts were before them, which he thought were such as to prove to them that injustice had been done, and that it demanded a remedy.

THE SHEEPSHANKS COLLECTION OF PICTURES.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD MONTEAGLE,in moving for certain correspondence between the Government and Mr. Sheepshanks in reference to his gift of pictures to the nation, said he would remind their Lordships that it had been his duty in 1848 to call their attention to the magnificent gift of pictures which the late Mr. Vernon made to the

  689
  country. Since that time we had received several other donations of that kind, and those had been very recently supplemented by the generous offer of the noble collection which was the subject of his present Motion. He did not think those liberal gifts from private parties had been received either by the public or by Parliament quite in the grateful spirit which might have been expected, or which such acts of munificence deserved. The generosity of individual parties had greatly outrun the liberality of Parliament. The question of a national collection of pictures had never received any attention until the year 1824, when it was, he believed, first raised by his late Friend, Lord Dover. It was next brought forward on the part of Lord Liverpool's Government by Lord Farnborough. He should add, that the most strenuous supporter of these attempts was the late Mr. Hume. Austere as were Mr. Hume's principles on questions of economy, no one was less disposed to parsimony when questions of improving the intellect, and he would add, the taste and the innocent pleasures of the people were concerned. Mr. Hume on the 2nd April, 1823, observed, "It was at last determined to form a National Gallery and by so doing to rescue the country from a disgrace which the want of such an establishment had long entailed upon it." Since then we had gone on languidly at intervals, sometimes allowing good pictures to escape us, and sometimes, though he believed very rarely, purchasing indifferent ones; he believed that the mistakes of that description were by no means numerous. Now, however, we had a very fine collection; but he belived the public were not quite in possession of the facts as to how it had been got together, for both in that and the other House of Parliament he had heard the collection discussed as if it were mainly or altogether the creation of the State, and principally purchased out of the national resources; whereas, in point of fact, we were indebted for it much more to the generosity and public spirit of private individuals than to any liberality which Parliament had shown in the matter. He had in his hand an account of the national collection from 1824 down to the present time. From 1824 to 1833 the number of pictures purchased by the State for the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square was 42, and the number presented to it by private individuals was 68; from 1834 to 1843 the number added by the State was 15, and by private individuals
  690
  63; from 1844 to 1853, 17 were bought by the State and 188 presented by private individuals; and from 1854 to 1856, 36 were given by the State and 114 by private individuals. In other words, from 1824 to 1856, 112 pictures were purchased for the National Gallery by the State and 433 were the gifts of private individuals. The special gifts of pictures to the nation included 16 by Sir George Beaumont, 6 by William the Fourth, 35 by the Rev. W. H. Carr, 15 by Lord Farnborough, 8 by his late valued Friend Lord Colborne, 3 by Mr. Samuel Rogers, and 156 by Mr. Vernon. The pictures included in the Vernon Gallery were peculiarly valuable, because the trustees of the National Gallery considered themselves precluded from purchasing modern pictures, and therefore no specimens of the artists of our own country had been added to the collection by the State. This example had been followed. Since Mr. Vernon's gift, the nation had received a most splendid bequest from the late Mr. Turner. Of the pictures left by that artist 100 were entirely finished, and 182, not less important and in some respects more instructive, were unfinished and in progress; but, perhaps, the most valuable of all were 18,749 exquisite drawings and sketches. From this mere recital of the numbers of these works of art, their value might be estimated. Within a very short time the nation had been offered another splendid gift, perhaps deriving additional value from the fact of its being made in the lifetime of the collector. Mr. Sheepshanks, who was known to many of their Lordships as a collector and a man of taste, and distinguished also, he might add as the brother of one of the most eminent men of Science in our time, had offered to give to his country his magnificent collection of 233 pictures and 103 drawings and sketches. So that from these three last named individuals the nation had received 19,823 works of art, far exceeding in number all which had been purchased by the Government with the large means at their disposal. He hoped there would be no hesitation in undertaking to comply with the conditions attached by the donor to his noble gift. He remembered that in the case of tire Dulwich collection, Mr. Vansittart, on the part of the Government of the day, refused to accept that gift from Sir Francis Bourgeois, on the ground that the Government were not prepared to vote the money for the construction of a suitable

  691
  room. Those days were, he trusted, gone by, and he hoped he should hear from his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) that Mr. Sheepshanks' splendid gift had been respectfully and gratefully accepted, subject to the conditions attached to it by the donor. He begged to move that there be laid before this House a Copy of any Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Sheepshanks respecting the Gift of his Collection of Pictures to the Nation.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he held in his hand Mr. Sheepshanks' deed of gift and the acknowledgment on the part of the Government of that noble gift. The donor, of whom it was impossible to speak in too high terms, was well known to most of their Lordships as having been engaged, during a life of no short duration, in collecting some of the choicest specimens of British art; and now, wishing himself to see them placed in a situation where they might prove more extensively useful, and not waiting until death had removed him from the scene, he had offered them to the nation. Mr. Sheepshanks had naturally attached some conditions to his donation. In the first place, it was his opinion that, for the purpose of establishing a National Gallery of British art, it was desirable that his collection should be placed in a situation where it would be generally accessible to the public, without being interfered with by the noise or injured by the dirt of the metropolis, and that it should also be in immediate connection with those schools of art, where he thought it was calculated to prove of great advantage. Mr. Sheepshanks also desired that the superintendence and management of this collection should be vested in a Minister of the Crown, who should be solely responsible, and not placed in the hands of any body of managers or trustees, who he thought might not be so directly amenable to public opinion for its proper administration as a Minister of the Crown. The person selected as the First Trustee, and who for the time being was to have the custody and management of the collection, was the head of the Department of Art Education in this country. Up to the present moment the task had fallen upon him (Lord Stanley of Alderley) as being the head of the office to which the Department of Science and Art belonged; but it would shortly be transferred into the much more worthy hands of his noble Friend the
  692
  Lord President of the Council, in his capacity of President of the Board of National Education. Another condition annexed to the gift was that a suitable building, well-lighted, airy, and commodious, should be erected to receive it, situated in the ground at Kensington purchased by the Commission of 1851, and upon which had been erected the Schools of Art formerly located at Marlborough House. Mr. Sheepshanks wished that, in the first instance, his pictures should be more especially used for the promotion of art in these schools. Next, he wished, if the responsible Minister thought fit, that portions of the collection should be sent into the provinces for exhibition there as examples of art. Then the collection was to be thrown open to the public at convenient times, subject to the conditions stated. Mr. Sheepshanks also expressed an earnest desire (though this was not made a condition of the gift) that the gallery should be open on Sunday evenings, for the inspection of the working classes, who during the week had not the opportunity of visiting such places. These, then, were simply the conditions attached by Mr. Sheepshanks to his munificent present. If the Government should think proper to accept it on such conditions, he made it over to the nation with no reservations—nay, even with the express desire on his part that it might not form an exclusive gallery, separate from other pictures of which the State might become possessed, but that it should form the nucleus of a great collection of British art, and he did not wish that his name should be at all connected with it. In making this donation, Mr. Sheepshanks desires to offer his testimony to the advantage which had resulted from that Department of Art which originated in the Exhibition of 1851. In his opinion, this department had conferred great benefits upon this country, and would, if properly encouraged and promoted, be productive of still greater advantages. In this opinion he (Lord Stanley) entirely concurred and even in a purely material point of view, and looking only to the commercial advantages derived by this country, he already saw great advantage from the existence of such a department. With regard to material fabrics and cheapness of production, England had for a long time borne off the palm, but it could not be concealed that in correctness of taste and design we had fallen short of many other countries. He believed this might in a great measure be traced to the

  693
  absence of opportunities enjoyed by the people and the working classes for instruction in the true principles of art, and from ready access to collections of the best works of great artists of the past and present time. He was happy to say that there was a growing disposition on the part of the public to avail themselves of the schools of art lately established throughout the country, that they derived great advantage thereby, and that there was hardly an artisan or mechanic who did not at once recognise the benefits resulting from the instruction imparted. He thought it right incidentally to allude to these points, as they formed part of the motives which had induced Mr. Sheepshanks to make this gift to the nation. Before concluding he felt bound to express the admiration of the Government at the patriotism and munificence of gifts of such a character; and he trusted that such a course might find many imitators, when it was seen that pictures so presented to the nation were placed in buildings proper and suitable for their exhibition, thereby declaring the value and appreciation which the Government and country attached to such gifts. The noble Lord concluded by presenting—
  "Copy of Deed of Gift by John Sheepshanks, Esq., of his Collection of Pictures and Drawings, in Trust, to form the Nucleus of a National Gallery of Art in connection with Her Majesty's Department of Science and Art: And also,
  "Copy of a Minute of the President of the Board of Trade."
  Ordered to lie on the Table.

THE YEOMANRY.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Return, showing the Years since 1815, in which the Yeomanry have not been assembled either for permanent Duty or training and Exercise; and also, Copy of any Circular from the Secretary of State to the Lords' Lieutenant of Counties as to the assembling of the Yeomanry during the present year."
  He had brought the matter forward by this Motion, because he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for War (Lord Panmure) to the fact, that it was impossible for the yeomanry to be in an efficient state of discipline, if they were not sufficiently often assembled for exercise and training. The nominal time of exercise was at present eight days; of this, one day was occupying in coming, another
  694
  in going; then there was the review-day, and in the rest there was the Sunday—thus, in fact, there remained but four days of actual use. He thought that no one could dissent from him when he said that four days in two years was not a period of exercise and training sufficient to preserve the discipline and efficiency of a regiment of yeomanry, and they were consequently obliged to keep horses to enable them to perform their duties; those horses were not liable to duty if the corps was called out; now, he should like to know if any exemption would be made from that duty if a corps should not be called out for training? He could not conceive why this corps should not be called out during the present year, and he trusted that some explanation would be forthcoming on the subject. He observed also, that the Vote to be taken for the yeomanry in the other House was reduced from £88,000 to £77,000. What provision was there made for the exemption of this corps from the horse duty? Their Lordships well knew that every Member of the yeomanry was bound to assemble upon the requirement of the civil authorities and at any moment, and that attendance at such assemblage was enforceable by fine.
  LORD PANMUREsaid, that there would be no objection to the first Return moved for by the noble Earl, but it would not be possible to produce the circular referred to in the latter part of the Motion, as, in point of fact, no circular had been despatched. When he had a seat in the other House of Parliament, he had always resisted the annual attacks made upon that corps, and he had not changed the opinion which he had then so frequently expressed, that they were a most valuable corps, not only from the uses which might be made of it, but from its affording to the gentlemen of England the opportunity, of which they were always desirous of availing themselves, of being serviceable, both in peace and war, to their country. At the same time, he thought that the Government might, without infringing upon what was due to that corps, when they were informed by the reports which they received that the yeomanry were in a highly efficient state, dispense with calling them out for one year. As regarded the probability expressed by the noble Earl, of the yeomanry being called out in aid of the civil power and proving inefficient, he could only say, that he saw not the slightest prospect, judging from the present aspect

  695
  of things in the first place, and from the Police Act of last Session in the next, of their services or those of any military force being called for in aid of the civil power. With regard to the subject of a contingent allowance, in the case of their not being called out, for the horse duty, it was a subject to which he would give the most careful consideration.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONregretted the course which the Government intended to adopt with regard to the yeomanry, as tending to impair their efficiency and discipline by depriving them of the advantage of drill and training. He also entirely disagreed with the noble Lord in thinking that the services of the yeomanry, in aid of the civil power, might not be required. In his own county, during the last year, the yeomanry were employed in preserving the peace of the county for six weeks, and they had most ably performed that duty; and he should be much grieved to see the efficiency of that corps deteriorate.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, that under the circumstances it was really wonderful to see the discipline of the yeomanry corps. Great improvement had been made in the corps; but if a year were allowed to expire, it would be sure to go back. He did not see that it followed that because there was a county police force, the yeomanry would never be wanted. There were disturbances from year to year. This had always been the case, and must be so again. If there was to be a force for the security of the country, it ought to be kept in a state of efficiency. It would be bad policy if, for the sake of a paltry economy, the yeomanry should be left without the small amount of training they now received. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would reconsider the question, because it was most important to retain in every county a body of men who could be relied upon to maintain the laws. He quite concurred with the noble Earl who moved for the Returns, that it would be impossible to keep the corps in a state of efficiency if it were kept for a whole year out of practice. Very little time was allowed for practice, even as matters then stood.
  THE MARQUESS OF AYLESBURYhoped that the Government would reconsider this question. At present the yeomanry of his county were in a most efficient state; but bow could it continue so if there were no proper means either of clothing or paying the yeomanry?
  LORD WARDsaid, that he, also, was one of those who thought that the yeomanry corps was a most useful body, and essential to the due maintenance of order throughout the country. It seemed to be an impression among some noble Lords that the short period of training was of no use to the yeomanry; but if they could see the regiment with which he was connected on the first day of their exercise, and on the fifth they would speedily lose that idea. He took that opportunity of expressing a, hope that now the matter had been touched upon, the whole subject would be taken into the consideration of the Government.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that he had heard with great surprise the opinion of the noble Lord the Minister for War, that the yeomanry were never likely to be called out in support of the civil power. If they were not wanted for that purpose, he could not see of what use they were. But he had been lord-lieutenant of a county for many years, and during that time he had often known the yeomanry called out. He could not tell for what other purpose it was wanted. He had not distinctly understood from the noble Lord whether the yeomanry were to be called out or not; and he should be glad of a more definite; answer. And if they were not to be called out, whether the Government had made any definite rule upon the subject? whether there were to be any periodical callings out of the yeomanry, or whether it was to be left in doubt from year to year?
  LORD PANMUREsaid, that with respect to the calling out of the militia, all he had said was that he hoped the time would never come when it would be called out in aid of the civil power; and he said that not only with regard to the militia, but also to other services of Her Majesty; and that he hoped the county police establishments would be a sufficient safeguard for the country. As to the years in which the militia would be called out, he had laid down no regular rule; but he hoped that next year there would be no more necessity for it than there was at present.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that less than the present amount of training would be a mere waste of money. So small an economy in the face of the large sums spent on the war was inconsistent. He did not see that the noble Lord had given any reason why the yeomanry should not be called out in the present year, for he thought that to deprive a yeomanry regiment of its drill for one year was, for

  697
  all practical purposes, to disorganise it for two or three years. He was glad, however, to hear that the contingent allowances were to be continued. They could not apply the same rule to the yeomanry as to the army. In the army they had strict discipline and plenty of money; in the yeomanry it was different, and those who entered the force did so from reasons either personal or local.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he felt some embarrassment in taking the subject from his noble Friend, but his position obliged him to state his views on the subject; besides which he held a commission in a distinguished regiment, commanded by a noble Lord not now in his place. As to the esprit de corps which had been alluded to, he had no doubt of it, from the sample which noble Lords had given tonight. Noble Lords, colonels of yeomanry, had risen to speak, whom he hoped that they should sometimes hear giving their opinions on other questions. He was anxious that no misapprehension should exist with respect to the decision of the Government to suspend the calling out of the yeomanry for the present year. That resolution had not been adopted as a permanent rule. The calling out of last year had showed that the force was in a high state of efficiency, while the country was in such a state of tranquillity that their services were not likely to be wanted, and there was every reason to hope that the purely civil force would be ample to meet any demands upon it. On the other hand, the country had made great sacrifices during the late war, and those sacrifices were not yet terminated; and that was a reason why no unnecessary expense should be incurred by calling out the yeomanry. It had been a precedent hitherto to allow a year to elapse between the callings-out of the militia, and if any year was to be chosen for that purpose, no year could be more convenient both with regard to economy and the public tranquillity than the present.
  After a few words from Lord DE TABLEY,
  EARL POWISobserved, as to the police in the counties, that no general police Bill had yet been passed, and in his own county no large police was kept up.
  Motion agreed to.

THE LAW OF LIBEL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in presenting Petitions praying their Lordships to take into
  698
  consideration the present state of the law with reference to the publication in newspapers of reports of the proceedings at public meetings, and to consent to an alteration in that law, enacting that the publication of a fair and accurate report, without malice, of such proceedings should not subject the publisher to an action for libel, said—My Lords, this is a very important subject, and very well deserves the consideration of your Lordships sitting as a branch of the Legislature. There came before the Court of Queen's Bench last term, in the case of Davison v. Duncan, the question whether all the proceedings of all public meetings, when published bonâ fide, may be published without any danger of any legal proceedings, however much they may calumniate an individual and be injurious to private character. I and my brethren in that Court arrived, without the slightest hesitation, at the conclusion that, as the law of England now stands there is no such immunity. We were not at liberty to consider whether the privilege sought for ought to be given to the Press. It would have been a most monstrous usurpation if we had decided that the publication before us was not liable to an action; for it had been determined over and over again by our predecessors, by whose decisions we are bound, that if there be anything slanderous in a writing it is subject for an action, and that it is no justification to plead that the slanderous matter has been written or spoken by another person other than he who published it. Such is the law of England at present; and to call upon us to alter the law, if we think it wrong, would be as preposterous as to say that we are at liberty to set aside the law of primogeniture and divide the landed estate of a deceased person equally among all his children. We sit "jus dicere, non jus dare." Our duty is to administer the law, not to abolish or even amend it. When I had the honour to propose in this House a Bill which afterwards became law, and which effected a most material improvement in the law of libel, I submitted a clause very limited in its nature—for I was afraid to go very far—providing that any bonâ fide account of the proceedings of either House of Parliament should be privileged, and not subject to an action. I was unable to carry it; there was a majority against me, because it was said not only that the law gave no such privilege, but that it ought not to be given. After having failed as a Member

  699
  of this House to alter the law, it would have been a breach of my duty if, sitting as a Judge in a court of justice, I had declared the law to be contrary to what your Lordships had decided it to be. Your Lordships may reconsider that decision; and, in that case, if my proposal with respect to the proceedings of the two Houses should be again submitted, I shall be glad to give it my most ardent support. For it seems to me monstrous to say that if there be a bonâ fide report of a speech in Parliament published the publisher should be liable to an action. That is different from a case which occurred about fifty years ago, when a noble Earl in this House made a speech calumniating his steward, and published it himself. The publication in question led to an action, because it was not a bonâ fide account of the proceedings in this House, but was intended to calumniate a private individual; and such an action would continue to he available if the clause which I proposed were passed into a law to-morrow. But while, as far as the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament are concerned, I would zealously support the extension of the privileges of the Press, I am not prepared to grant the same immunity to reports of the proceedings of all public meetings; because to say that the publication in newspapers of whatever is said at any public meeting, or at anything which may be called a public meeting, should be privileged would lead to very alarming consequences. It has been said that the person calumniated may bring an action against the man who makes the speech; but it must be remembered that a speech spoken is a smaller injury than one that is published and sent all over the world. Still I am not prepared to say that the liberty of publication should not be extended to all public meetings under certain limitations and restrictions; but I bold that it would be preposterous for the Judges sitting on the bench to legislate as well as to declare what the law of England is, and I hope that such a precedent will never be established in this country.
  House adjourned till To-morrow.