Sitting of 22 July 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Newspapers, &c.; Public Offices Site; Revenue Departments Accounts; Lunatics (Scotland); Treasury Chest Fund.
2° Gunpowder, &c., Act Amendment; Passengers (Australian Colonies).
3° Lord Clerk Register Salary Abolition; Enlistment in India; Ordnance Survey Continuance; Portpatrick Harbour (Scotland); Crown Suits Limitation; Criminal Proceedings Oath Relief; Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment.

AUSTRALIAN SOVEREIGNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If, in the Trial of the Pyx which had just been made, Australian sovereigns coined at the Branch of the Royal Mint at Sydney were submitted for assay, and if the quality of such sovereigns was equal to those coined at Tower Hill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEOUERstated, in reply, that the Australian sovereign was not a legal tender or part of the coin in this Realm, and was not, therefore, by law or usage subject to the trial of the Pyx conducted under the auspices of the Goldsmiths' Company, and did not receive the benefit, whatever the benefit was of that ordeal. There was a period when the trial of the Pyx was considered one on which the country could depend for the goodness and adequacy of the coin, which there now existed sufficient means of ascertaining independent of that trial. It must not. however, on this account be supposed that Australian sovereigns were submitted to no trial, for they were as sayed regularly by the Royal Mint, and he believed that the result was most satisfactory, and that those sovereigns were found on every occasion fully equal to the standard coin.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSgave notice that he would, early in next Session, bring this subject under the notice of the House.

CUSTOMS' DEPARTMENT—QUESTION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What arrangements have been made for the discharge in the Outports of those duties which were formerly performed by the Controllers, whose offices are now abolished; and whether provision has been made for employing the Controllers whose services have been dispensed

1285
with upon duties as nearly as possible analogous to those which they have previously had to perform, and for securing to them their fair chance of promotion to superior situations as they may fall vacant?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his hon. Friend was aware that the particular duties which were formerly discharged by those officers—namely, to keep duplicate cash books, in which entries were made of the payments and receipts which came into the hands of the collectors, had been abolished; and a simpler form substituted by means of the clerks at the outports, and the principal check was through the Controller General and the chief clerks in the London district. Since their dismissal arrangements had been made for the employment of some as collectors, some as clerks, some in other capacities, while some had retired on compensation. Where any had been transferred to offices lower in rank, it had been at the same salary, and always with their own consent. There were, however, a certain number on the redundant list, and he thought it would be impossible to employ all; but he could safely say that every effort was being made to reduce the number on that list.

FAIRS AND MARKETS (IRELAND) BILL, AND BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. LONGFIELD.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, with regard to the Fairs and Markets Bill, as there were a great many clauses in it, he did not think it would be just to go on with it in the absence of so many Irish Members. With regard to the other Bill, the Committee were almost unanimous in recommending that the expense should be provided out of the Consolidated Fund instead of out of local funds. It would be impossible for him to recommend that course to the House, and under those circumstances he thought the best way would be to let the measure wait until the beginning of next Session.
The Orders were subsequently discharged. Bills withdrawn

ROYAL ATLANTIC MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY—PETITION
MR. CONINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I have placed a Notice on the Paper of a Motion to refer the Petition of Mr. Irwin,
1286
which I presented to the House on Friday last, to a Select Committee. That Petition had been printed by the express direction of the House for the use of the Members of this House only. As that Petition contains allegations against an hon. Member who is now in his place, I beg to know whether I should not be doing right in bringing the matter forward before the other business on the Paper is proceeded with.
SPEAKER: I am rather doubtful whether the hon. Member can plead Privilege in this case. Prima facie any question affecting an hon. Member would be a case of Privilege. In this case the allegations of the Petition appear to reflect upon the conduct of Mr. Lever as Manager and Director of a certain public Company, before he was a Member of this House; but the Petition makes no charges. as I read it, against his conduct since he became a Member of this House, or in his character of Member. Under these circumstances I am not aware that there is any absolute precedent upon the point, and it will be for the House to say whether they will permit the Motion of the hon. Member to be now Proceeded with, or whether it shall come on in its due course.
SIR GEORGE GREY: The Notice on the Paper does not state that the matter will be brought on at this hour of the evening. I am quite ready to state the course which it is my intention to make with regard to the Motion. If the hon. Member to whom that Petition refers, and who I observe is in his place, wishes the Motion to be proceeded with at once, probably the House will not object to that course.
MR. LEVER: Mr. Speaker, being engaged in most extensive mercantile operations, I am most anxious that the charge which has been made against me should be met at once—I am most anxious, now that the charge had been brought, that it should be gone into immediately, with a view of proving the utter groundlessness of the accusations that have been made against me in the Petition which had been presented by the hon. Member for Brighton.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, it appears to me that at whatever period the transactions alluded to in the Petition are alleged to have taken place, it must be painful for any hon. Member to have these charges hanging over him indefinitely. I, therefore, assume it to be the general feeling of the House that the Motion of the

1287
hon. Member for Brighton should come on at once.
MR. CONINGHAM: Then, Sir understanding it to be the feeling of the House that I should bring my Motion on at once, I beg leave to move—
"That Mr. Irwin's Petition relating to the Royal Atlantic steam Navigation Company be referred to a Select Committee, to inquire into the allegations of the said Petition."
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. George O'Malley Irwin's Petition [presented 19 the July] be referred to a Select Committee, to inquire into the allegations contained in the said Petition."
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, having looked into the precedents bearing upon the case now under the consideration of the House, I find that charges made against a Member of this House, whether in his capacity of Member or in his individual capacity, have, as a general rule, been received by the House; but not until after the Member accused has been afforded an opportunity of reading the Petition, and of knowing distinctly what the charges contained in it against him are, and until he had had a full opportunity of being in his place and of replying to them. In those instances in which the conduct imputed has directly affected the honour and character of one of its Members, in that capacity I find that the House had deemed it right to investigate the matter; they have thought it right to investigate the charges so made against one of its Members in respect to his conduct as a Member of this House. I will refer to two cases, one of which occurred a long time ago In the Year 1826 a petition was presented on the part of the Shareholders of a Coal and Iron Mine Company, containing charges of misconduct against certain persons, one of whom at that time occupied the position, one of whom at that time occupied the position of Chairman of Committees of this House. The House did then appoint a Committee to enquire into the management of that Company, with an especial direction that they should report on the conduct of certain Members of the House in reference to that company. The other case is one of very recent occurrence. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Youghal is present, but a petition was presented within the last few years by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield against the hon. Member for Youghal, directly affecting his conduct and character as a Mem-
1288
ber of this House, upon the ground that he had received pecuniary payment in consideration of his having advocated the claims of certain persons in this House. An immediate and searching investigation into the allegations contained in the petition was invited by the hon. Gentleman accused. The hon. Gentleman insisted upon and begged the House to institute a searching inquiry into the charges so brought against him. A Committee was appointed by the House to investigate the charges so brought against him, and the Committee came to a decision favourable to the hon. Gentleman against whom the charges were made.
Now, there are two other cases which seem to me to be strictly analogous to the one now before the House. In the year 1849 a petition was presented by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire, which I think bears precisely on the present case. It was a petition by the shareholders of the Eastern Counties Railway Company charging misconduct against Mr. Hudson, who was then Member for Sunderland, and a Gentleman, the Chairman of the Company, who was at that time Member for one of the boroughs in Suffolk, the petition charged them with misconduct and fraudulent practices as between them and the shareholders of the Company. The Petition was received, and was ordered to lie on the table—the accused Members having been heard in their places—but then the questions involved being of a nature which it was competent for the parties to have caused to be investigated before the ordinary tribunals of the country—namely, the Courts of Law, and bearing upon the Members only in their individual capacity, the House did not institute any proceedings in the matter; and I believe that in taking that course they acted upon a very wise and a very sound principle.
Now, a precisely similar course of Proceeding was adopted shortly after that, in 1850, in the case of a petition presented against Mr. Feargus O'Connor a Member of this House, as connected with the management of certain landed estates. The parties petitioned this House to institute an inquiry into charges of fraud and mismanagement on the part of Mr. Feargus O'Connor. The petition was received, and Mr. Feargus O'Connor was heard in answer to those charges, and there the matter ended.
Now, I am not aware that there are any other recent precedents to be found;

1289
but I think that the House will act wisely in this case by adhering to the principle established in the two last mentioned cases. The hon. Member having been heard in his place, and the House having heard him make a distinct and emphatic denial of the charges brought against him, I think that the House would act wisely if they proceeded no further in the matter, which may hereafter form the subject of inquiry in a court of law.
MR. LEVER: Mr. Speaker, the subject to which I am about to refer has been so widely spread throughout the country, and affects me so deeply, that as a mercantile man it would, I think, be highly impolitic that I should remain altogether silent with respect to it, even though the House should be of opinion that the case was one into which it was not called upon to institute any further inquiry. I did not make any statement the other evening except so far as denying the charges brought against me in general terms, but I said that I should be prepared to go into the whole subject this evening, and I am now fully prepared to do so. I have hitherto been satisfied with denying the allegations contained in this petition in general terms, but I am now prepared to enter into the matter with the proofs of the truth of what I have already stated in my hands, and I should feel exceedingly obliged to the House if they would allow me to read the petition paragraph by paragraph, in order that I may the more clearly be able to show that there is not the slightest foundation for a single charge which it contains. Having done that, I shall then leave myself in the hands of the House, and it will be for the House to say whether they will appoint a Committee of Inquiry or not.
Sir, the first Clause, which is stated in the petition of Mr. Irwin, is
"That your petitioner was the original and real projector of the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, now called the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company (Limited)."
MR. MALINS: I rise for the purpose of suggesting to the House whether, after the emphatic denial of the charges made by the hon. Member himself, and the statement which we have just heard from the right hon. Baronet opposite, and after the general expression of the opinion of this House, it would not be consonant with our feelings to refer this petition to a Select Committee, whether it is worth the while of the hon. Member to take the trouble
1290
and occupy the time of the House by going through the petition seriatim. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The propriety of taking that course is a matter for the consideration of the hon. Member for Galway himself.
MR. LEVER: Mr. Speaker, I shall, with the permission of the House, pursue, as upon the whole the most satisfactory to all parties, the course which I had determined to adopt. This is Mr. George O'Malley Irwin's petition. The first paragraph of the petition says—
"That your petitioner was the original and real projector of the 'Atlantic Steam Navigation Company,' now called the 'Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company (Limited).'"
Now, my answer to that statement is, that I first conceived the idea of the Galway line towards the latter end of 1856, and that the first time I ever saw or heard of Mr. Irwin was on board one of my ships, the Antelope, at Gravesend, in March, 1858. The Antelope was carrying out troops for the East India Company. That was the very first time I ever had the opportunity of seeing Mr. Irwin. I may further observe that on referring to a Report laid before the shareholders of the Company, I find in it that the Directors of the Company make these observations—
"Prior to the incorporation of your Company Mr. John Orrell Lever, M.P., one of your first Directors, having satisfied himself of the geographical advantages of the ports which constitute the ocean termini of your line, placed some steam-ships between Galway and New York, and commenced negotiations with several Railway and other Companies and with the Government authorities for the purpose of permanently establishing a line of steam-ships between Galway and America. To his foresight and energy is, therefore, due the origin of this the shortest line of communication between the Old and the New World, which it will be your privilege permanently to establish."
I received no money whatever from the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company for my ships and for the expenses which I had incurred in establishing that service, from the month of June, 1858, to the 1st of January, 1859. I, therefore, entirely deny that Mr. Irwin had anything to do in projecting this Company.
Now, in the second paragraph of the petition he states—
"That petitioner having obtained the consent of Mr. John Orrell Lever, now one of the Members of your honourable House, then of 'Hanging Ditch, Corn Exchange, Manchester,' to act as Managing Director to the projected Atlantic Steam

1291
Navigation Company, he addressed a letter to your petitioner in the following terms:—'Liverpool, June 1st, 1858. Sir, I shall be happy to act as Managing director of the projected Atlantic Steam Navigation Company. Yours most truly, J, Orrell Lever. To G. O'Malley Irwin, Esq., Burlington Hotel.' (As set forth in petitioner's answer to question 4,571, p. 8, of 2nd Report form the Select Committee on Packet Contracts.)"
Now, my answer to that is, that in the month of March, 1858, Mr. Irwin called upon me at the office of my brokers, and stated that he had just Baron Rothschild and Mr. Peabody, who had consented to become Directors of a Company to work the Galway line under my management. He brought upon that occasion with him the draft of a prospectus in which their names appeared, and he told me that I must go with him to call on Baron Rothschild the following day, as the Baron was anxious to have personal explanations from me and an opportunity of conversation touching the undertaking. He also said that, prior to confirming the arrangement, I must write a letter consenting to become the Managing Director of the Company, which I accordingly wrote and gave to Mr. Irwin, supposing it to be intended for the information and assurance of Baron Rothschild and Mr. Peabody, which I have since found not to be the case.
Therefore, upon that head, the House will be good enough to understand that he obtained that letter from me under fraudulent pretences.
Then, Sir, the third paragraph of the petition is as follows: —
"That Mr. John Orrell Lever having, accordingly assumed the management of the said Atlantic Company, by such means was enabled to get from the funds of the said Company £209,954, out of which there was to be deducted £127,000 for his ships to the Company, balance left being £82,954 according to the now published accounts of the said Company."
Now, I do not think it necessary to take the slightest trouble to refute such an imputation as that; he had mentioned the matter to several parties; I do not think it worth while to give an answer to any observations coming from such a source as that.
On the 1st of September last I made a public speech to my constituents, in which I took occasion to answer some of the observations which had been made with respect to me by some of the shareholders of the Company. I will beg leave to read to the House what I then said, as I conceive it to be a perfect answer to any observations that might be made with respect
1292
to myself. I stated at Galway, as reported in the Galway Express —
"That real fact is that by all these transactions I have been personally a very heavy loser, while it is a matter of notoriety that had I taken advantage of other opportunities which were within my reach, I might have made a considerable profit. At the time when the Company was fully formed, I had a fleet of steamers which I proposed to transfer to the Company at a valuation price. In the course of the negotiations that followed the bills of sale were produced to show what was actually paid for the several steamers, and it was finally arranged by the Directors (I may mention that the articles of association expressly excluded me from voting on the subject) to offer me for a portion of the fleet a sum less by £11,000 than the actual cost. Having promised the Company to accept their own price, I felt bound to abide by the result, and I accepted the proposal made without any hesitation."
This fact is, I think, conclusive upon this point. The money received for all the preliminary expenses and losses incurred — the published Reports of the Company shew that £s;27,000 was the sum to the paid for these expenses, and for obtaining a regular service of steamers for six months, including my losses on the first vessels, which losses amounted in the gross to £17,000 out of the £27,000. This sum of £27,000 was included in the gross sum. Some of the ships were purchased in the usual course of trade, and were sold in the same manner. Deducting theses charges there is a total sum of £81,000 due to me, which, in the ordinary course, ought to have been paid to me in cash. I accepted, instead of that £81,000, £10,000 of bills of the Company to enable me to pay the current expenses of the ships, and I took the £71,000 in full paid-up shares of the Company's stock.
Therefore I think with respect to that paragraph the statement I have made to the House answers that effectually.
Now the next paragraph is —
"That petitioner as originator of said Company is most desirous to have the subsidy sustained by Parliament, provided proper means are taken to prevent the committal of false and fraudulent pretences, such as have been practised by said Mr. John Orrell Lever and other officials and managers who were introduced by him into the Company."
This paragraph, I believe, I have already answered in my observations upon paragraph No.1.
The fifth paragraph of the petition is —
"That your petitioner's anxiety to see the subsidy sustained by Parliament is perfectly reconcilable with the determination to expose and punish false and fraudulent proceedings, alike injurious to the Government of the country and to the public."

1293
The Directors and Shareholders of the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company understand their own interests and possess full power to order any investigation they deem necessary. As far as I am concerned, I shall only be too happy to meet any inquiry from whatever source it may come.
The sixth statement is—
"That false and fraudulent pretences have been practised by Mr. John Orrell Lever, and the officials and managers who were introduced into the Company by him, in circulating under the name of the 'Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company's New Line of Steam Ships to America,' imaginary ships which never had existence, with fictitious tonnage and fictitious horse-power. That year petitioner sustains his charge by extracts from the publications and advertisements of the Company, which were extensively circulated in 'October' and 'November, 1858,' after the Company had been duly constituted, and after the articles of copartnery had been executed on the 24th of the previous month of September, 1858,' and which were as follows;—'Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company's New Line of Steam Ships, to America,' &c., carrying Her 'Majesty's Mails, and taking passengers and cargo,'" &c.—

Steam Ship,

Captain.

Tons Burden.

Horse Power.

'American Empire.

Johnson.

3,000

1,000

'British Empire.

Williamson.

3,000

1,000

'For freight or further particulars apply to John Orrell Lever, Corn Exchange, Manchester, &c., as by reference to said advertisements and publications themselves, and to your petitioner's letter, published in 'The Times,' of July 19th, 1860, stating that the above ships never had existence, may more fully appear. That no attempt had been made to answer or refute even a single charge so publicly made and widely circulated."
To that I answer that I publicly repudiated the statement, not that I should answer anything that appeared in a paper from such a source as that, but I felt it due not only to myself but to the Company which I had originated to give an explanation, and it was on that account that I made the speech to which I have called the attention of the House. I wrote a letter to the brokers of the Company who had the charge of all the advertisement, and in answer to that letter this is their reply with respect to the allegations of the petition charging "fictitious names of captains," "fictitious tonnage," and "fictitious horse-power."
"London, July 22nd, 1861.
Sir,—In answer to your note of this day with reference to the advertisements which we inserted in the London daily papers in October, 1858, of the steamships British Empire and American Empire, of 3, 000 tons burden and 1,000 horse-power respectively, we beg to state that said advertisements were drawn up by us; that we were
1294
then arranging for the purchase of Transatlantic steamers of that burden and effective horse-power; that it was intended to transfer those vessels from foreign to the British flag, and change their names when transferred. The names of the commanders, you will remember, were officers in your own employ. We may add that we distinctly remember answering to the above effect Mr. Irwin's inquiry as to the steamers in questions at the time the advertisements appeared, and we can only express our surprise that Mr. Irwin should now have the audacity to make such groundless chargess.—We are, Sir, your obedient servants, Bake, Adam, and Co. John Orrell Lever, Esq., M.P., 40, Cannon Street."
Therefore I think that a letter from such eminent shipowners and shipbrokers must be a perfectly satisfactory answer to these charges of Mr. Irwin.
Now the 7th paragraph is—
"That your petitioner has observed with regret and alarm, although some changes are alleged to have taken place in the direction of the Company and said Mr. John Orrell Lever has ceased to be a Manager of Director, that the other officials and Managers referred to who were introduced by him and cognizant of and participators in the false and fraudulent pretences are in many instances retained."
Now this is a charge against the present Board of Directors, and not against myself. I ceased to be a Director of the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company some twelve months ago, being very much engaged in a great number of mercantile pursuits of an important character, and I at that time believed that I was transferring the management of that Company to better and more able hands. I am sure that I need not make any observation upon the character or position of the present Board. Suffice it to say that they have not only discharged their duties and carried out the service in a manner creditable to themselves (although I am not a Director), but also beneficial not only to the mercantile community but to the people of Ireland generally, and that they deserve not only the thanks of the mercantile community but the thanks of the people of Ireland.
Sir, the eighth paragraph of the petition is—
"That both the Government and the public, as well as your petitioner, his friends, relatives, and numerous Irish farmers, have been deceived and defrauded, and will still further be deceived and defrauded unless there shall be a searching inquiry into the false and fraudulent pretences practised by the said Mr. John Orrell Lever and the other officials and Managers who were fully cognizant of and participators therein."
Mr. Irwin and his friends, under the Limited Liability Act, possess the power

1295
of calling the Directors to account and of bringing forward their charges. Mr. Irwin does not produce the name of a single shareholder who has demanded investigation, nor has he a single share in the Company. Here is a certificate to that effect which I have obtained from the Secretary to the Company: — "Mr. George O'Malley Irwin is not a shareholder in the Atlantic Company, nor has he ever held a single share in the company since its formation." So that he never was affected in any way whatever. I think, therefore, that that is a perfect answer to anything that can be said upon that head.
Sir, the ninth and last paragraph is —
"That said false and fraudulent practices have thwarted and brought disgrace on this great national enterprise, and eventually caused and have been the grounds of the termination of the company's contract by the Postmaster General, the Right Hon. Lord Stanley of Alderley."
Now, all that I have to say in answer to that is that this is not the reason which given in the Postmaster General's Report laid before Parliament for the abrogation of the contract.
Now, I think that the House ought to know something of the antecedents of Mr. Irwin, and it might be very useful that I should furnish them. My information has been derived from official documents which have been obtained at very considerable expense from the Courts in Dublin, and which will exhibit to you the character of this individual who brings these charges against me. In November, 1834, Mr. O'Malley Irwin was indicted for forgery. The trial came on on the 28th and 29th of November, 1835. The charge was for having forged a letter purporting to come from Mr. Johnston, Assistant-Barrister, of the country of Mayo, containing the resignation of that gentleman, and contriving by such means to obtain the appointment of Assistant-Barrister for himself. Mr. Irwin was sentenced to nine months imprisonment and fined £50. Mr. Irwin brought an action against me, which came on for trial on the 4th day of December, 1860, when the plaintiff seeing that the verdict would be in my favour agreed to a nonsuit. In the same month the costs in this action were taxed. On the 25th day of May, 1861, Mr. Irwin was taken in execution. On the 12th day of June, 1861, he came up for hearing before the Insolvent Court upon a petition, and obtained his discharge from custody. Mr. Irwin is now under process of passing through the
1296
Insolvent Court to liquidate the costs of the trial which he has put me to, amounting to many hundred pounds. The case is to be heard on the 30th of the present month, and I believe this petition has been brought forward for the purpose of influencing the conduct of the Judge on that occasion. I shall now read a curious passage from the Appendix to the second Report of the Select Committee on packet and telegraphic contracts. During the course of the trial to which I have referred, Mr. Serjeant Shee put the following questions to Mr. Irwin: —
"Were you not in kilmainham goal for nine months for forgery?" — "Mr. Irwin: No."
"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Were you not in Kilmainham Gaol for nine months, on the sentence of a Judge of a superior Court in Ireland, for forging the name of Mr. Johnston, the Assistant-Barrister in Mayo?"—" Mr. Irwin: Certainly not."
But Mr. Irwin, finding that Mr. Serjeant Shee had the necessary proofs in his possession, made, a few minutes after his explicit denial, the following extraordinary admissions: —
"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Just listen to me; I will not ask you any question which it is not my duty under the circumstances to ask you, and I will ask the question in as little an offensive manner as I can. Were you indicted for the forgery of that letter which I read?"—" Mr. G. O'Malley Irwin: Certainly."
"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Were you convicted?" — "Mr. G. O'Malley Irwin: Certainly."
"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Were you sentenced to nine months imprisonment in Kilmainham Goal?" —"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Did you remain the nine months in goal?" —" Mr. G.O'Malley Irwin: Certainly."
Now, Sir, I leave this case in the hands of the House. I only regret that the Committee could not be appointed — if it is not to be appointed — because it would have afforded me ample opportunity to give an answer to these most impudent, audacious, and untrue allegations. My own wish is that there should be an inquiry, because I want to show by undeniable proofs that there is no ground whatever for the charges which have been brought against myself; and that the Government of Lord Derby, in granting the subsidy, conferred a boon on the mercantile classes of both Europe and America.
MR. SPEAKER: —The hon. Member having made his statement will now be pleased to withdraw.
Mr. JOHN PAKINGTON:Mr. Speaker, I think it was quite natural, but altogether

1297
superfluous, for the hon. Member for Galway to go into the statements he has made with reference to this petition, because I cannot for a moment think that the House will seriously entertain this Motion. I was very glad, indeed, to hear what was stated by so high an authority as the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I entirely agree with what fell from the right hon. Baronet; and, undoubtedly, looking to the nature of these transactions, and the precedents bearing on the case which have been alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, I do hope and trust that the unanimouse feeling of the House will be that there is no occasion to refer this petition to a Select Committee.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS:—Mr. Speaker, I beg to explain that I merely seconded the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, as no one else seemed disposed to do so, in order to enable the hon. Member for Galway to make the explanations which he has now done to the House.
MR. CONINGHAM:—In placing this notice on the paper, I certainly acted in deference to what I conceived to be the express desire of the House; but having presented the petition, having seen the documents which are referred to in it, and having heard the explanation or statement of the hon. Member for Galway, I must now say, while it is entirely in the discretion of the House to decided whether it is desirable that the petition be referred to a Select Committee for investigation; and while I am perfectly ready, as I was before, to be guided by the judgment of the House, that unless I hear a very distinct expression of opinion against the reference to a Committee it will be my duty to persevere in my Motion. I certainly do not desire to place myself in a hostile attitude, but I confess for my own part that this is a matter which can be best dealt with and brought out by investigation. Unless I hear a very distinct expression against my Motion, I am afraid I must press for the appointment of a Select Committee.
COLONEL DUNNE: Mr. Speaker, the petition which has been presented to the House by the hon. Member for Brighton, if I understand it rightly, brings charges of fraud against the hon. Member for Galway. I apprehend that it is perfectly clear that the allegations contained in that petition are totally untrue—and under those circumstances it would be worse than a mere waste of time to refer the petition to
1298
a Select Committee. It appears from the documentary evidence which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Galway, that Mr. Irwin the petitioner never had a single share in the Comapany—and I apprehend that his name if connected with any company would be sufficient to ruin the undertaking. The Galway Contract, which has so often formed the subject of discussion here and out of doors, was not given to Mr. Lever, but it was given to the Irish people. That contract was a real bona fide undertaking; and any allegation to the contrary might be carried by Mr. Irwin to a competent legal tribunal. I contend that this House ought not to interfere in such an investigation. The allegations contained in this petition are now brought forward by the same party that caused the shipwreck of the steamer in Galway Bay, and the death of the unfortunate pilot. It is patent to everybody—it is perfectly clear that the intention is to disparage the company, in the same manner as the object at first was to disparage the Government that granted the contract.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, I think it must be quite obvious to the House that we have to choose between two alternatives—namely, either to appoint a Select Committee to investigate this question, or not to discuss this question in the House. It is quite clear that we have no materials for discussion before us. A petition was presented. The hon. Member for Galway denied in the most distinct manner the truth of the allegations in that petition, so far as they bore upon him. He did what appeared to me a superfluous thing in going into details of these statements, because it is impossible for us to know the grounds upon which these statements rested. It is sufficient for this House that the hon. Member for Galway should give a general denial to the allegations of the petition. If this petition bore upon the conduct of the hon. Gentleman as a Member of this House—if its allegations imputed to him, for example, that he abused his powers as a Member of a Select Committee upstairs—if they impeached his character in any way in his legislative capacity, I think it would have been incumbent upon the House to take notice of the petition, and to appoint a Committee to investigate it. But, Sir, that is not the case. The act, imputed do not concern the hon. Gentleman in his character of Member of this House; and they, moreover, took place before he was elected. Therefore,

1299
it is doubly clear as it seems to me that there are reasons why we should not interfere. Therefore, I shall give my vote unhesitatingly against the Motion of my hon. Friend, if he should think it necessary to go to a division. I cannot, however, but hope that, seeing the general sense of the House is against taking any further notice of this subject, he will hardly think it necessary to press his Motion to a division.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM and MR. GREGORYrose together, the latter giving way to the former.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention only to interpose for one minute between the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) and his wish to address the House.
Now, Sir, having voted for the reception of this petition, and agreeing with what has just fallen from my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I trust that the hon. Member for Brighton will not press this matter to a division. I have had long experience in this House, and my recollections and impressions entirely concur with those of the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I do not think that in modern times inquiries have been instituted into the allegations of a petition affecting a Member of this House, unless they touch his conduct on some conviction of conduct unworthy of his character and position. I have read this petition very carefully, and I do not see any allegation in it affecting the hon. Member for Galway, except antecedently to his taking his seat in this House; and these allegations are capable of being substantiated before a legal tribunal of competent jurisdiction and thoroughly capable of dealing with them. If prosecution before such a tribunal should be instituted and conviction ensues, of course it would be open to call upon this House to proceed against one of its Members who had been convicted of being engaged in fraudulent transactions, but in the absence of such conviction, and in the absence of allegations affecting the conduct of a Member of the House as such—although I am as jealous of the honor of the Members of this House as any one can be—I would certainly advise my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton not to persevere in his Motion, which on the whole, I think, would not be in accordance with the ends of justice or conduce to the honour of this House.
MR. SPEAKERput the Motion which was negatived without a division.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order for resuming further consideration of the Lords' Amendments read.
  Clause 2 (Appointment of Chief Judge),
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he presumed, after the decision arrived at the other night for restoring the clauses relating to the appointment of the Chief Judge, that the House would not think it necessary to discuss at any length the other subsidiary Amendments consequent upon that change. He would, therefore, merely move that the Lords' Amendments to Clause 2 should be disagreed to.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that as the House had already decided to disagree with the Amendments relating to the Chief Judge, it would not be necessary to raise any discussion upon the other clauses which related to that point.
  The Lords' Amendments disagreed to.
  Clause 21 (Official Assignees),
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was not aware of the reasons which had induced the Lords to make an increase in the number of the official assignees from five to eight. Each official assignee was to receive £1,000 a year, in addition to an allowance of some £700 for clerks, offices, and other expenses. As the provisional assignee of the Court for the Relief of Insolvents would, by the 26th Clause, be constituted an official assignee of the Court of Bankruptcy, if the present Amendment of the Lords were agreed to, and eight were substituted for five, the number of official assignees in London would, in fact, be increased to nine. That would, he thought, be entailing useless expense on the country, the principle on which the Bill had originally proceeded being that there should be one official assignee to each Commissioner. He, therefore, begged to move that the Lords' Amendment be disagreed to.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, the Bill originally established creditors' assignees, and the Lords thought it was better that a bankrupt's estate should remain in the official assignee, and they accordingly made the Amendment in question. He would suggest that it would be better to defer the discussion of the Amendment until the subject of creditors' assignees came before the House.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, the Government had given notice of two cardinal points on which they proposed to disagree with the Lord's Amendments. The one referred to the Chief Judge, which had already been settled, and the other, which had still to be determined, referred to the official assignees. The House of Lords had regarded the Bill, in the shape in which it went up to them, as defective, because it took away from the official assignees a considerable amount of the business which they had hitherto transacted. The present Amendment had been introduced by the Lords in consequence of the general view they took with respect to the official assignees. It would, therefore, be more convenient now to discuss and dispose of the whole question relating to official assignees, as that question was raised by the present Motion. He thought the House of Lords had hit a blot in the Bill that was not sufficiently considered when the measure was passing through that House; and he was quite willing to take any share of responsibility which might attach to him on that account, for he freely confessed that when the Bill went up to the other House, he had not considered the inconvenience of the course which was suggested by the measure in regard to the duties of the creditors' assignees. Hitherto all bankrupt estates had been vested in the official assignees and the creditors together, who acted through one and the same solicitor in realizing the whole of the estate and dividing it among all the creditors. No doubt there had been a great deal of complaint in the commercial world on the subject of the official assignees. But the House must endeavour to see what was the origin of that complaint. It did not originate because the official assignees did not do the business properly, or collect the debts and divide the assets with rapidity among the creditors, but rather because the official assignees were entitled to take a very large percentage from the sums recovered, and thereby the amount divisable among the creditors was very much diminished. Those objections were got rid of by the Bill, because it placed the official assignees upon salaries instead of percentage, the five official assignees in London receiving £1,200 a year, reducible to £1,000, and those in the country £1,000 a year, reducible to £800. The Bill also provided that a bankrupt's estate should at first be vested in the official assignee, but that when the creditors' assignee was appointed all con-
  1302
  trol of the estate should be taken from the official assignee, except that he was to collect the debts due to the bankrupt under £10, while the debts of a larger amount would be collected by the creditors' assignee. In the House of Lords exception had been taken to that arrangement, and it was urged that the consequence would be that the official assignee and the creditors' assignee would have to employ separate solicitors, of course entailing upon the estate two bills of costs. Another difficulty would arise from the proposed arrangement. The official assignee would require the bankrupt's books to enable him to collect the debts under £10, while the creditors' assignee would want them for the purpose of collecting the larger debts. That state of things would lead to inconvenience and antagonism, as well as to confusion and expense. There was an idea which was prevalent in the commercial world that if the Lords' Amendments were agreed to there would be no mode by which the creditors could get rid of the official assignee if they desired to place the management of an estate in the hands of trustees selected by themselves. That, however, was a mistake, because under the arrangement clauses any body of creditors desiring to wind-up an estate without the assistance of an official assignee could do so. But he would ask whether it was judicious to have five official assignees at £1,200 a year, and seven or eight at £1,000 a year, solely to collect debts under £10? It might be said, on the other side, that official assignees might be chosen as trustees by the creditors; but if that were so, he thought those officers should stipulate for their remuneration with those who employed them. The suggestion that they might be sometimes chosen as trustees by creditors rather militated against the assertion that official assignees were extremely distasteful to the mercantile community. He submitted, therefore, that there was much force in the opinions expressed by the House of Lords; but, looking at the period of the Session, and considering that the point was not absolutely essential to the success of the measure, he should not invite the House to divide in opposition to the hon. and learned Attorney General's Motion.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that from the first he had doubted the prudence of getting rid of the official assignee, as he was of opinion that it would be a great advantage to have an official person to collect the debts and manage the estate of a bankrupt. He be-

  1303
  lieved, however, that the official assignee would be bound to employ the solicitor of the creditors' assignee, and, therefore, the inconvenience to which his learned Friend referred would not arise. As the Amendment of the Lords referred to a matter of detail which had been fully considered by the Lord Chancellor, he thought that upon the whole the wisest thing would be to restore the Bill to the state in which it left the House of Commons.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, it would be very easy at a subsequent period to increase the number of official assignees if it should be necessary, but he believed that under the Bill there would be less for them to do than at present.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he regretted that his hon. and learned Friend did not intend to take the sense of the House upon the question. At present the largest creditor was usually chosen assignee, but that could not be the case under the Bill, and the management would probably be left to persons who had not much interest in the good management of the estate. The Chamber of Commerce of Leeds had observed that the clause vesting the estate in the creditors' assignee deserved serious consideration.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the manufacturing districts of Yorkshire were opposed to the Amendments of the Lords, and desired to restore the measure to the shape it was in when it originally passed. They trusted, however, that the House would not restore the clauses in such a shape as to too strongly fetter the creditors; assignee.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, he wished to state the reasons why he disagreed with the Lords' Amendment in reference to the official assignees. He remembered when there were eighteen in London, three being attached to each Commissioner, of whom there were six. By deaths and resignations the number of the official assignees became reduced to ten, and subsequently to eight; and he thought that it would be sufficient if one official assignee was attached to each Commissioner. In fact, during the whole of last year and the greater part of this, in consequence of the decease of two of the official assignees, the whole business before two of the Commissioners in Basinghall Street had been transacted by one official assignee attached to each Court. He had concurred in thinking that it would be imprudent to give the official assignee a fixed salary of £1,200 per annum, but
  1304
  that in accordance with the Bill proposed in last Session, and the evidence given before the Royal Commissioners, it would be sufficient if the official assignee had £800 a year secured to him, and that whatever he had in addition should be due to his personal exertions; the House, had, however, determined that he should have a fixed salary of £1,200 a year. As a matter of practice, in all estates which were under inspectorship there was no difficulty in obtaining the assistance of gentlemen and merchants to act as inspectors or trustees, but they would not act as creditors' assignees with the official assignees. He thought the time was come when the creditors should take the management of the estates of bankrupts into their own hands and wind them up themselves, the expenses incurred under the present system were far greater than any bankrupts' estate ought to bear. There was no proper audit of the accounts by the Commissioners. He could state to the House that in one case an official assignee was allowed and paid £4,802 for his services rendered between Sept. 15 in one year and July 19 in the next. His accounts were audited and allowed by the Commissioner; some months afterwards the accounts were looked into, and then it was found that the ingenuity of the official assignee had been most extraordinary. In the course of his duty he had to receive from the Admiralty a debt of £8,668 due to the bankrupt. The Admiralty paid him at once in three bills of £3,668, £3,000 and £2,000. Regarding the transaction as a single debt, the official assignee would have been entitled to have received according to the scale prescribed for his remuneration £58 6s. 10 d.; treating it as three debts, he would have been entitled to £73 6s. 10 d. The transaction had reference to an order given by the Admiralty to the bankrupt for five mortar boats, four dispatch boats, and four gun boats, in all thirteen; so the official assignee ingeniously apportioned the sum of £8,668 among these thirteen vessels, making thirteen debts instead of one, and by this mode he increased his remuneration to £215 3s. 8d. On the matter being subsequently explained to the Commissioner, and the accounts examined, it appeared other overcharges had been allowed, and the result was the official assignee had to refund to the estate £2,546, he being allowed for his services £2,256 instead of £4,802, the amount previously paid. He could state

  1305
  another case, in which an official assignee charged for services during four months a sum of £2,681 1s. 8d. On investigation it was found he had overcharged the estate £1,699, and he was only paid a sum of £981. He thought these were strong reasons why the creditors should have an opportunity of looking into those matters themselves. It had been said that the examination of accounts in 1831 showed that the creditors' assignees were everything but honest men, but he thought much about the same state of things prevailed now as in 1831. He believed it had been said that when the official assignees took office in 1831, they secured about £2,000,000, which the creditors' assignees allowed to remain in private banks instead of distributing it to creditors. He thought if a change took place now about the same result would be found—the only difference being that instead of the money lying at private bankers it would be found in the Bank of England. There was, he believed, now nearly £2,000,000 in the Bank of England which should have been distributed. He did not see how, if the official assignees had done their duty to the creditors, there could have been so large a sum as that, and he did not think creditors' assignees could have done worse. Under the management of official assignees creditors were apt to fancy that everything was being done that ought to be done, whereas estates were very much neglected, and the interests of creditors left to suffer. On these grounds he was opposed to the Lord's Amendment. He entirely approved the appointment of a Chief Judge, and had voted for restoring the clause struck out by the other House. The Chief Judge, if he were appointed, would exercise a supervision over the conduct of the officers of his court like that exercised by the Vice-Chancellors over the chief clerks of their office. At present there was no control or supervision. He hoped the House would place the Bill in such a form that it might be rendered satisfactory to the mercantile community, for without that the Bill would be of little avail.
  MR. GLYNsaid, the feeling of the mercantile community in the City of London was strongly against allowing the management of the assets in bankruptcy to pass into the hands of official assignes. They would no longer tolerate such a system. Although there had been the greatest legal difficulty in carrying out arrangements by means of trustees, creditors had exposed
  1306
  themselves to those difficulties rather than allow assets to fall into the hands of the Bankruptcy Court. He thought the objections which might be raised to the power given to the creditors' assignees entirely obviated by the clauses which gave to the official assignees a new character. They were now to assume that of auditors, whose duty would be to look after the proper distribution of the assets, and to watch the operations of the creditors' assignees. In that capacity they might be of considerable utility; he, therefore, assented to the proposition of their being put upon a fixed salary. But if they were to be the collectors of all the debts and dispensers of all the assets, nothing could be more preposterous than to put them on a fixed salary, as their only stimulus to collect debts with efficiency would be the percentage they received. Statements had been made in that, soon after the official assignees were appointed, under the Act of 1831, the sum of £2,000,000 was recovered from private bankers. When the word "recovery" was used, it might be supposed that but for the official assignees that money would never have been distributed. But the fact was that the greater part of that money was at the time in process of being distributed, and that, so far from assisting that process, the Act of 1831 caused a postponement in the distribution of some of those assets. The amount of assets not distributed and now held by the Court of Bankruptcy, was by the Return before the House, nearly as large—indeed, it was perhaps unavoidable under any system. He did not deny that certain creditors' assignees had misconducted themselves formerly, but by the clauses of this Bill securities would be taken for the proper discharge of their duties and for an efficient check upon them.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that there was nothing upon which bankruptcy reformers were so fully agreed as the necessity of restoring to the creditors the right of managing the estates in which they were interested, leaving to the official assignee the duty of auditing the accounts of the creditors' assignee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the question immediately before the House had reference to the 21st Clause; but if it was wished to discuss the question as to creditors' assignees, he desired to make one or two observations. The official assignees, as was well known, were brought into existence by the Act of 1831, the in-

  1307
  tention being that they should co-operate with the creditors' assignees, but it turned out that, virtually, the latter was almost entirely supplanted by the former. The evils connected with the carriage of insolvent estates by creditors' assignees were no doubt considerable, but in endeavouring to avoid those evils they fell into others. The creditors' assignees were not subject to a proper audit, and, no doubt, they neglected their duty; but the appointment of official assignees, while it had superseded the old system, had not removed the evil. It had been found that although the official assignee collected the whole of the debts and had the management of the funds of a bankrupt's estate, yet that, in point of fact, there was no proper audit. The accounts of the official assignee were audited in point of form by the Commissioner, but the Commissioner had not such a knowledge of matters of business as would enable him to discharge that duty satisfactorily. What had been the consequence? The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Murray) had informed the House of some cases which had occurred and been discovered. It might very well be supposed that similar conduct had been pursued in numerous other instances which had escaped detection. But from a return in 1858, as to official assignees, it was shown that four in London and one out of London had been defaulters, and the House would probably be surprised to hear that the amount of their defalcations was a sum of not less then £110,000. The creditors' assignee it was to be observed would bring to the fulfilment of his duty a commercial knowledge and personal interest in the matter, which would greatly tend to ensure the efficient administration of an estate. The official assignee would be retained with certain duties, one of which was that of a constant and vigilant supervision and audit of the accounts of the creditors' assignee; and he thought it might be fairly anticipated that, the creditors' assignee being appointed by the creditors themselves, and acting under the supervision of the official assignee, the abuses formerly complained of would cease to exist. That a very general desire was felt, on the part of the mercantile community, that this portion of the Bill should be passed would be evident from the fact that petitions had been presented from Belfast, Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry, Gloucester, Hull, Sheffield, Southampton, Wolverhampton, Sunderland, and other
  1308
  places, all of which were unanimous in favour of the appointment of creditors' assignees.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, that official assignees had been appointed because it was found that creditors' assignees did not perform their duties. This matter was fully considered on the second reading, and as various mercantile bodies had expressed a strong feeling for the clauses which passed that House he should not oppose their restoration to the Bill. The memorials which had been referred to, however, represented no doubt the opinions of those who would be interested in the management of large bankrupt estates; but, as the Bill would now bring under the operation of the bankruptcy law estates ranging from £5 to £30, it would be a strange mixture of things if there were to be two different sets of assignees to collect the debts. It must necessarily much increase the expense. He would suggest, instead of saying that all debts under £10 should be collected by official assignees, and all above by creditors' assignees"; that the creditors in every case should determine the amount up to which the official assignees should collect debts. Such an alteration would obviate many of the objections with regard to the employment of creditors' assignees.
  MR. HENLEYobserved that, as it was the wish of the House that the general question should be decided on that clause, he was disposed to agree with the Government and to disagree with the Amendment of the Lords. He thought it was impossible for anyone who paid attention to what passed not to know that the commercial body wished to get rid of the official assignee to a great extent, to have a greater facility for making their arrangements, and if they thought that they could manage their affairs better than they lawyers he did not see why they should not be allowed to do so.
  Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
  On the Clause substituted by the Lords for the 97th Clause.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House for a few moments to the effect of that clause, which, though with some reluctance, he felt constrained to move that the House should disagree with, and which, entirely ignorant as he was of the reasons which had induced their Lordships to insert the clause, he professed his utter inability to comprehend. The Bill as it stood enabled every debtor, whether trader or nor-trader, to pe-

  1309
  tition the Court for an adjudication of bankruptcy against himself; but the Amendment introduced by the Lords went to this effect—that no debtor who was not able to show assets to the amount of £150 should be allowed to petition for an adjudication in bankruptcy. It was impossible to imagine any reason for the distinction. As the law at present stood any debtor who was unable to pay his debts, whatever the amount of his assets might be, was entitled to apply to the Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors, and by giving up his property he was able to obtain relief. But if the Bill were to pass, a debtor—whether a trader or non-trader, who was unable to pay his debts—it might be from the most unforeseen misfortunes, from a fire, or from the failure of other parties, if he could not show assets to the amount of £150, would not be allowed to petition for an adjudication of bankruptcy; but if he were sued by a creditor would be thrown into prison, and might remain there a prisoner for life. It was true that by the 112th section of the Bill a power was given to the registrar to visit the prisons, to examine the prisoners that he might find confined for debt, and if he thought fit, to release them; but the House would observe that the exercise of that power was entirely optional on his part, and that the provisions were at variance with the general tenor of the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the House and the Government would concur with him in the opinion that that was not a provision that ought to remain in the Bill, and he moved that the House disagree with the Amendment.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he would second the Motion. If the Bill were allowed to pass with the clause as it stood it would entirely deprive small debtors of the benefit of the Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he entirely agreed with the objections of his hon. and learned Friend. Indeed the objections to the clause as it stood were so obvious that he could only attribute its insertion to some oversight, or, at any rate, to the want of due consideration. Its effect would be that, even on the most favourable consideration, a debtor who was unable to show assets to the amount of £150 would have to be in prison at least five or six weeks before he could obtain his discharge. He did not believe that could be the intention of their Lordships, and he would very cordially support the Amendment.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he believed the in-
  1310
  sertion of the provision had arisen in this way. By the law of bankruptcy, as that law once stood, no man was entitled to be declared a bankrupt whose estate would not yield 5s. in the pound. That was felt to be a hardship, and an alteration was made requiring the debtor to show assets to the amount of £150. It was probably the recollection of this provision that induced their Lordships to insert the present clause, which he cordially concurred with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking that the House should disagree with.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he was afraid that if the clause were removed the machinery of the Bill would often be set in motion, and great expense incurred, which there would be no assets to defray. He was not favourable to imprisonment for debt, but he did not think the mode proposed by hon. and learned Gentlemen would remove the difficulty.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would admit there was some weight in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield; but if any inconveniences arose from the course proposed they must trust to experience to amend them.
  Lords' Amendments disagreed to.
  Clause 10 (Debts contracted before the Act not to support an adjudication in case of a non-trader),
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALstated that paragraph C had been inserted by the Lords with respect to debts contracted or liabilities incurred after the passing of the Act, on which considerable difference of opinion prevailed; but with a view to the passing of the Bill he was not disposed to ask the House to disturb the principle of that Amendment. The Lords, however, appeared to have overlooked the fact that, by the law as it now stood, if a debtor not a trader lay in prison, any execution creditor was at liberty to apply by petition to the Insolvent Debtors' Court and obtain a vesting order, the effect of which was to vest all the present and future estate of the debtor up to the time of his discharge, real and personal, in the assignee of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, to be administered for the benefit of creditors. He proposed after the word "trader" to insert these words: "And not being at the time a prisoner against whom the creditors would be entitled to obtain a vesting order in insolvency if this Act had not passed." With a view to carry into effect the object of the Lords in this clause, he would also add a proviso to the 164th Clause, to the

  1311
  effect that no person shall be liable, by virtue of this Act, to any criminal charge or penalty in respect of any matter which may have occurred before the passing of the Act to which he would not have been liable if this Act had not passed. He had had the advantage of communicating these Amendments to his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Belfast, and he was authorized to say that he had no objection to them.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had taken great interest in that part of the Bill, and he must say that he thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman quite a fair one. He had not heard of the proposition before, but he thought it a just and equal one, as it left all parties—if he might call them so—exactly as they were before the Bill passed, and that was all he contended for. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) was not about to renew the discussion they had before on this subject. They were all perfectly satisfied with the conclusion to which the Government had come, when the hon. and learned Member took advantage of the House being at dinner, moved his clause, and carried it in a thin House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MALINSsaid, the opinion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had always great weight with him, and he never differed from him without distrusting his own judgment. But he had given great deliberation to the matter, and he felt he should not discharge his duty if he did not move that the clause be disagreed with. As what had taken place in that House on the 101st Clause of the Bill had been misrepresented by a noble and learned Lord in "another place," he wished to state what had actually occurred. That clause provided that no nontrader should be made bankrupt in respect to debts incurred previous to the passing of the Bill. In Committee he opposed that clause, but the attendance in the House was then thin, and he did not divide against it. He, however, gave notice that on the Report he would move that the clause be expunged. The question was then fairly discussed in an average House, which was not in a state of syncope, as had been represented; and instead of the hour being the dinner hour, it was at 9 o'clock. On the question being put by the Speaker there was not a single voice for the clause. So far from it being the fact that the then Attorney General "threw away his scabbard," that eminent
  1312
  authority said that the clause would have the effect of preventing the present generation from enjoying the benefit of the proposed change in the law, and with his full consent it was struck out. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast afterwards attempted to undo what had thus been done by proposing, in the interpretation clause, that a nontrader's debt should mean a debt contracted after the passing of that Bill. On a division taken at eleven o'clock, the hon. and learned Member for Belfast's proposal was rejected, the numbers for it being 125, and those against it 150. When the Bill was before the Select Committee of the House of Lords an unsuccessful effort was made to restore the 101st Clause; although, subsequently, in a Committee of the whole House, upon an erroneous representation of what had taken place on the subject in the Lower House, the clause was reinserted. That clause would enable a rich debtor to set his creditors at defiance and to keep his property while his debts remained unpaid. It was said that it would be unjust to allow the new remedy which that Bill would afford to creditors to be available against non-traders for past debts; but a distinction of that kind had not been admitted in the analogous cases of Lord Eldon's and Lord Hardwicke's Act for bringing new classes of persons under the bankrupt law, nor in the case of the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104, making real estate assets for the payment of simple contract debts. The principle was plain, that no man had a vested right in dishonesty, and, therefore, he said that a nontrader, with ample property to meet his debts, ought to be made to pay them, and the law should hold out no inducement to him to remain abroad in order to evade payment. He was inclined to move the rejection of the clause, if he thought he could obtain the general support of the House. The question was placed in rather a singular position. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that he proposed to disagree from two of the chief alterations made by the Lords in the Bill, but with respect to that particular clause he had no proposal to make. He (Mr. Malins), however, did not understand that the Government had at all changed their views upon this point, and the present Lord Chancellor certainly held a strong opinion upon it. He should take the opinion of the House, and, therefore, moved that the Lords' Amendment be expunged.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend had omitted one important circumstance from his consideration. In former Sessions of Parliament there was great difference of opinion about introducing any non-trading clause at all. When the present Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill he distinctly stated on the part of the Government that they had come to the conclusion that it was right to have what was called the "retrospective clause" in the Bill. When the Bill was brought in it did contain this 101st clause. It was a highly technical matter, and could any one believe that when that statement had been formally made on the part of the Government, and the clause actually inserted in the Bill, that the Attorney General, upon the suggestion and after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford alone, would have thrown the whole matter up. Every one knew that nine o'clock was about dinner time, and the House was generally thin at that time. His hon. and learned Friend referred to what had been attempted to be done upon the interpretation clause by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, but it could not be expected that the House would, on the same evening, undo what it had just done with all the strength of the Government on one side. The instances referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman hardly applied in the case, because until lately the law of bankruptey had been regarded as one in favour of the trading classes, in mitigation of the common law of debtor and creditor, and, therefore, it was not the same thing to bring new classes within the operation of a new and stringent law. He hoped the Government would support the clause as recommended by themselves, and that they would not, by agreeing to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, endanger the passing of the Bill.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that a considerable alteration had been made in the mode of service of non-traders who might be abroad, constituting a very considerable relaxation in their favour. It was in consequence of the alteration that had been made in the mode of service, making it personal instead of substituted, and also in consequence of the advantages they obtained during the progress of the Bill, that the hon. and learned Attorney General agreed to the proposition by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins). He thought the adoption of the proposition would tend to
  1314
  the purification of that House. The Session before last, the House refused to place its own Members on a level with the rest of the community in regard to the law of arrest; but, if that were done, they would get rid of some Members to whom objection was very properly taken, because they did not pay their debts. It would force persons in high positions, who defied their creditors, to liquidate the claims upon them.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would take the sense of the House on his proposal. It was outrageous to make a distinction between traders and non-traders in regard to the moral obligations to pay their debts.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would remind the House that when his noble Friend at the head of the Government stated the course which the Government intended to take with regard to the Lords' Amendments, he observed that, with respect to the particular Amendment now under discussion, they had no proposal to make. In consequence of that statement, and the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Malins) having given no notice of his intention to bring the subject forward, he believed many hon. Members were now absent under the impression that the decision arrived at by the House of Lords was not to be disturbed. In these circumstances, and looking at the thinness of the House, he could not with propriety accede to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend. He would say nothing as to the soundness or justness of his views; but would simply state his belief that if this Amendment were disagreed with the Bill would be lost, and legislation on that important subject would be put off for an indefinite period.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) assumed that every person who incurred debts and went abroad, went there to spend, whereas a great many persons so encumbered were nursing their estates for the benefit of their creditors by living abroad. Many owners of large estates who had fallen into the hands of designing speculators, and who had gone abroad, would be liable if the clause were made retrospective to be made bankrupts—a liability which, when they formed these arrangements, they could never have contemplated. The measure was in its nature penal, and to make it retrospective was a violation of the first principles of the law of England. He should vote with the Attorney General.
  Mr. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, that the House had twice disaffirmed the clause, and he regretted that the hon. and learned Attorney General now asked the House to stultify its former votes.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would recommend the House not to admit that hon. Member who voted against making the law retrospective wished the debts of non-traders not to be paid. He looked upon the Bill as a great benefit to the non-traders. The Bankruptey Law was passed for the benefit of the trader, and the non-trader remained liable to be detained in prison until his debts were paid. While the bankrupt obtained a clear discharge, and might begin the world again unencumbered, the future property of the insolvent was liable for the payment of his debts. He objected to making the clause restrospective—among other reasons, because Parliament would be taken by surprise if the change were forced upon it. Moreover, the second reading of the Bill had been greatly facilitated by the pledge which had been given by the Government that that portion of the measure should not be retrospective, and he did not think that they ought to violate that pledge.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that under all the circumstances of the case, and as he had not given notice of his proposal, he would not press it to a division.
  Motion withdrawn.
  Lords' Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 119 (Meeting of Creditors),
  MR. PAGETmoved the insertion of the words in "number and value," instead of value alone.
  MR. VANCEmoved the addition of the words "representing three-fourths in value."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 134 (The Official Assignee to collect debts under £10),
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he would propose to introduce words into the clause, giving permission to the official assignees to collect other larger sums with the assent of the creditors.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. If it were it would provoke further dissent from the Bill.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he thought that the Amendment would be a great improvement. It left the dealing with the collection of debts more in the hands of the creditors.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, he hoped that the
  1316
  House would not agree to the Amendment. It would only lead to jobbing. Every creditor would be canvassed by the official assignee to obtain permission to collect the debts of an estate.
  Amendment negatived.
  Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
  Clause 164 (Criminal Prosecutions by order of the Court),
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he proposed the addition of the words "That no person shall be subject to prosecution under this Act for any offence for which they were not previously liable to prosecution."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 200 (Trust Deeds),
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he would move that—
  "The House disagree with the Lords' Amendment in Clause 200, making the assent of three-fourths in number of the creditors necessary to the validity of any deed executed by a debtor, and that the clause be restored to its original shape by the insertion of the words 'a majority in number of the creditors representing three-fourths of the value.'"
  Motion agreed to.
  Schedule,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he should move that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendments in the third column, under Schedule G, which recited the Acts repealed by the Bill. The extent and nature of the repeal would depend on the shape the Bill would ultimately take, and, therefore, he hoped the House would leave to the Solicitor General and himself the task of seeing that the proper figures in reference to the schedules were duly inserted, and of making any other corrections.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that a consolidation of the Bankruptcy Law should be undertaken as soon as possible, for the benefit of the County Court Judges who were to administer it, as many of them had no previous acquaintance with it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee appointed,
  "To draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagree:—Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLLICITOR GENERAL, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. MALINS:—To withdraw immediately; three to be the quorum."

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—BRITISH MUSEUM.
Order for Committee (Supply) read.
House in Committee.
Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
£75,414, British Museum.
MR. WALPOLE: This Vote is the difference between the sum granted on account and the sum constituting the whole amount of the Estimate asked for on the part of the trustees of the British Museum this year. The gross Estimate for this year—£100,414—will be found about £400 less than the total sum voted last year. There are several small increases and decreases upon the different heads included in this Estimate which I do not believe it necessary for me more particularly t notice; but there are two large items, the one of increase and the other of decrease, upon which I think I ought to make a few observations. The increase of amount to £3,300, under the head of salaries; the decrease to £2,700, on the Vote for special purchases. The increase of £3,300 arises in consequences of alterations made in the Museum, partly, I may say, by recommendations of this House, and partly in consequence of the retirement of the keeper of antiquities which, has led to the department being placed under three keepers instead of under one. The House may recollect that a strong pressure was put from different quarters upon the trustees of the Museum, about two years ago, to induce them to take into consideration the propriety of giving longer vacations to the clerks in the institution, and also propriety of giving them some increase of salary. The vacations were extended in the course of last year, and an increase in the salaries of the assistants will be made this year. In both of those respects—namely, vacations and salary, the asssistants of the Museum are now put more nearly on a footing with certain other departments of the State than they were before; and if the House wishes the same able gentlemen to fill the offices in this establishment who have hitherto filled them it cannot expect them to remain in the service of the trustees unless they receive salaries somewhat proportionate, not only to the labours they have to undergo, but proportionate also to the knowledge and the acquirements they are required to possess. Now, the great improvement effected is that the assistants are divided into two classes, an arrangements which affords quicker facilities for promotion than have heretofore existed. The only other observations I have to make on this increase is, that the Department of Anti-
1318
quities is now placed under three different gentlemen of great ability and high attainments. I may mention that Mr. Birch, whose reputation for a knowledge of Egyptian antiquities is not only European, but is unrivalled in Europe, will for the future be entirely employed in the charge of those antiquities. The keeper of the classical antiquities is a gentleman known probably to every hon. Member of this House for his energy and enterprise in excavating at Budruom the ruins of what was once one of the seven wonders of the world—the ancient Halicarnassus. Unfortunately, the specimens which he obtained remain under a glass shed, which is a discredit to the nation; but I hope that before I sit down I shall say enough to induce the Government to promise that some better accommodation shall be provided for these works of art. The other large item which I mentioned is a decrease of £2,700 for special purchases. Last year I had to ask for no less than £3,700 on that account. One of the purposes for which that sum was asked was the purchase of part of the collection of the late Lord Northwick, another was the purchase of one of the most valuable sets of manuscript which we have obtained of late years, belonging to the Duke of Laudersdale, and illustrating the history of the reign of Charles II., and the third, and most important, was the obtaining, at a cost of £2,000, of a most beautiful collection of minerals, which will, I believe, make the collection of mineralogy in the Museum always unequalled. This year we only ask for £1,000 for the purchase of some Oriental manuscripts, the property of Colonel Taylor, which I am told are valuable not merely on account of the quarter from which they come but because they contain materials for history with which we were previously unacquainted. [Mr. LAYARD: Hear, hear!] As the hon. Member cheers that statement, I presume that I am rightly informed. In accordance with the practice which has usually been adopted by those who have moved these Estimates, of informing the House of any events which have occurred in the previous twelvemonths, I ought to mention that we have during the past year lost two trustees—the Earl of Aberdeen and the Duke of Sutherland—but eminent as those Trustees were, their places have been filled by the election of a nobleman and a gentleman who will worthily occupy them—I allude to the Duke of Northumberland and Sir Thomas Phillips. The only other ob-

1319
servations which I will make have reference to the Reports of two Committees which were appointed last year to inquire—the one into the South Kensington Museum, and the other into the British Museum. The Report of the first-named Committee recommended that certain institutions in the Metropolis, including the British Museum, should be opened in the evening for the benefit of persons who are employed all day. The Trustees were most anxious that that should be done if possible, and seriously considered the practicability of carrying out the recommendation. I hope that the members of the Committee have read the valuable report prepared by that unfortunate gentleman, the late Mr. Braidwood, of the Fire Brigade— a man whose loss the country must seriously and sincerely deplore. The Trustees referred to Mr. Braidwood and the architect to consider whether it was possible to open the Museum in the evening consistently with the safety of the collections. Mr. Braidwood in his report, which contains most valuable information, pointed out that if the Museum was to be lighted with gas, with which alone it could be lighted so as properly to display its contents, these inconveniences would follow:— That it was a property of gas to dry everything within a room in which it was burning, especially the roof, the ceiling, and any timber which there might be in it, and that if a fire took place in a building so desiccated nothing could stop the progress of the flames; that the gas would materially injure the animal and vegetable collections; that it would greatly discolour the stones and marbles, and that that discolouration when once it had taken place could not easily be got rid of; and that if an explosion ever took place, against which absolute security could not be provided, it would be attended with most destructive consequences, to the risk of which such valuable collections as those contained in the British Museum ought not to be exposed. Upon this report the Trustees came to the conclusion that, however anxious they might be to give the benefit of these collections to the humbler classes, it was impossible to open the Museum at night. So much for the Report of the Committee on the South Kensington Museum. Another Committee was appointed to inquire into the British Museum itself. I think that the objects of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) in moving the appointment of that Committee
1320
were twofold—First, to ascertain whether it was necessary that the collections should be separated; and secondly, to discover whether accommodation could not be provided for the collections which are now in the Museum without such separation. After the Report of that Committee was made, it was the duty of the Trustees to consider what could be done to provide additional accommodation for the collections which are still undivided. They referred to the Government—as the sum to be voted for such a purpose must depend upon the Executive Government—to ascertain what is their opinion as to the propriety of separating the collections or keeping them together. The Government have not been able, and, considering the pressure which has been, put upon them this year, I am not surprised that they, have not been able, to give a specific answer to that question, but having regard to the collections which are now in the Museum, and to the valuable collection which has within the last three days arrived from the ancient Cyrene, I am sure that it will be impossible that such important and interesting works of art should be left under the glass shed and should not be exhibited, as the public have a right to demand that they should be. It is not for me to express my opinion upon this subject. It will be for the Government to say what they recommend should be done, in order that the Trustees may consider the question of providing additional space, with reference not merely to what they have to accommodate now, but also to what they may have to accommodate in the future. If any of the collections should be separated from the rest, of course, less accommodation will be required; if they should all be kept together the accommodation which will be required will be of very considerable extent. Of one thing, however, I am sure, and that is, that for collections so valuable as those in the British Museum the country will not grudge any reasonable sum that may be required. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by formally moving the Vote.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he had hoped that at the commencement of the Session some announcement would have been made by the Government upon the subject of enlarging and rearranging the British Museum. The state of congestion in which that establishment found itself was apparent to every one. He was aware of the

1321
pressure upon the financial resources of the Government, and he had such an objection to shreds and patchwork, that he would prefer allowing matters to remain as at present rather than to adopt any temporary expedient that would not be creditable hereafter. Rather than see another sculpture den he would prefer to see the present conservatory round the portico of the Museum, ugly and unsightly as it was, continued and extended, and he sincerely hoped that no plan for removing the grand staircase, and constructing two rooms of sculpture, which must be badly lighted and unfit for the purpose, would be adopted by the Trustees. Next year he hoped the Chancellor for the Exchequer might be able to adopt the suggestion made by the Committee which sat last year, and of which he (Mr. Gregory) was the Chairman—namely, to buy up the block of houses around the Museum. That would not only be a good investment, but it would enable the Government to lay down a plan admitting of gradual enlargement, and at the same time carrying out the system of rearrangement which was urged upon the Committee by all the witnesses—a systematic chronological arrangement of the statues. An hon. Friend near him, whom all received as a high authority in all matters pertaining to art—the hon. Member for Lambeth—he begged pardon, for Southwark (Mr. Layard)—that hon. Gentleman recommended a sculpture hall, but if this were found too difficult or too expensive to obtain, then lateral galleries. He (Mr. Gregory) believed a hall would be difficult and expensive to construct, but lateral galleries would not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) had alluded to the removal of some portion of the collections. Upon that point great difference of opinion prevailed, but throughout London there was great anxiety in different parts of the Metropolis to have local museums, and he thought that portions of the collections in the British Museum, if it were resolved to remove them, might be handed over to one or other of the local museums, the Trustees still retaining a proprietary right, and exercising a supervision over them. The Committee thought the ethnographical collection should be removed, and it was also suggested that the drawings of ancient master should be removed to the National Gallery whenever the nation possessed a gallery capable of receiving them. With respect to prints the case was different, as
1322
they afforded instruction to the archaeologist and the student in history. Upon the question of removing what was called the mediaeval portion of the collection, there was great difference of opinion. He, as Chairman of the Committee, prepared a Report in the sense that the mediaeval portion of the collection should be removed to whatever place of Parliament should decide, but the Committee did not agree with him, and a recommendation to enlarge the British Museum was adopted. He still adhered to his own opinion upon that point, both upon the ground of economy and for the interest of the collections themselves. It was not fair to call upon the country to pay for two similar establishments in close contiguity with each other. It was said that the objects of the South Kensington Museum and the British Museum were different—that the latter was archaeological and historical, while those of the Kensington Museum were educational and for the improvement of art. Practically, that appeared to him to be a distinction without a difference, the means of educational improvement were to be found in the British Museum and the materials for archaeological and historical research could be found at Kensington. He adhered to his former opinion that the mediaeval collection should be removed from the British Museum. He was aware that there was great difficulty in separating what ought to be place in the British Museum from works of mediaeval art. But Mr. Newton had thrown out a hint, showing that a canon might be laid down—perhaps rather a vague one—but still effectual for the purpose. He proposed to draw a distinction between Christian art and Pagan art. The line of demarcation might be difficult, but still it was only in a few instances that any doubt could be entertained. But in any case he thought the British antiquities representing the history of the nation ought to be retained in the British Museum, whether they were ante-Christian or post-Christian. But he had heard rumours that it was the intention of the Government next year to remove the whole or part of the natural history collections from the British Museum. He was satisfied that any attempt to transfer the natural history collections from their central position at Bloomsbury to a remote and less accessible situation at Kensington would give rise to great dissatisfaction. The weight of the official and scientific evidence taken before the Committee was against such a course, and

1323
if attempted it would be met as the proposed removal of the national collection of paintings to Kensington was met on a former occasion—by an adverse vote. The proposal was disapproved by Messrs. Gray, Marshall, Waterhouse, Professor Huxtable, and others. Professor Owen himself, the only name which those in favour of separation could quote, declared that he should infinitely prefer Bloomsbury, if he could only obtain sufficient space for his collection. The great arguments in favor of retaining the natural history collection where it was were three. First, the popularity of the collection with the middle and lower classes, a fact capable of being proved by a reference to statistics. In the next place, the importance of a central situation for such a collection had been strongly insisted upon. Lastly, there was the question of economy. If they built a natural history gallery at a distance from the great national library they would have to from a new library, the first cost of which, Professor Owen admitted, would be £30,000; and it would require a large annual sum to keep it up, and to purchase books of the same kind as they were also purchasing for the library in Bloomsbury. Then, the risk to many fragile articles which it contained, and which it was admitted could not be removed without great peril, ought not be forgotten. He wished to open the eyes of the public to the outrageous proposition which the Government had apparently entertained in 1859. On the 10th of July in that year Professor Owen submitted a plan to the Trustees, in which he said that with the utmost economy of space he should require for the present wants of his collection, and for its probable extension within the next thirty years, a building of one story covering ten acres, or a building of two stories covering five acres. On the 21st of the following January the Trustees actually voted, by a majority of 9 to 8, that it would be cheaper to provide for the natural history gallery upon a site not contiguous to the Museum. That crazy, rash, and extravagant scheme was actually in contemplation last year. It was calculated that the expense of five and a half acres at Kensington would be £27,500, and at Bloomsbury, £240,000, the building on either site costing £567,000, making thus a total of £594,500, against £807,000. But that estimate was erroneous. It was proved before the Committee that the price of land at Kensington was misrepresented in that calculation, and
1324
that it should have been £53,000, and not £27,500. There was a space of 61,155 superficial feet in the British Museum which was devoted to natural history, and which could not be used for antiquities, as it was on the second floor. The space of 61.155 superficial feet represented £122,310—that was to say, it would cost that sum to provide buildings which they had already. Mr. Smirke, the architect of the Museum, declared that, beside that, the fittings alone would cost £80,000, as the old fittings in the Museum would not be available. Taking into account these figures, the 5 1/2-acre plan at Bloomsbury would cost £656,000, and the plan at Kensington was estimated to cost £730,000, but he really believed it would cost £1,000,000, to say nothing of the large staff requisite for such an enormous building. But he would ask was all the space necessary which Mr. Owen required? The student of natural history who wished to go through the whole of the galleries would have to traverse a distance of nearly five miles. Professor Owen contemplated a great hall for the exhibition of whales. It was shown that the skins of whales could not be procured, and that, if they were procured, the stench would render it would render it totally impossible for any one but a professor to enter the place where they were kept. He could fancy a notice being posted," Shut at present on account of the stench." Even if the natural history collection were removed, not an iota of space would be gained for the antiquities, and, in his opinion, the plan was the most extravagant, the most useless, and the most unpopular which could be devised. It was proved before the Committee last year that scientific men did not require the exhibition of all the specimens, and that it would weary and disgust the public. There were nine species of crows, some of them so closely allied that only the most scientific men could distinguish them. Mr. Gould, and a host of scientific witnesses said, the public did not require to have in the galleries nine specimens of crows and thirty -nine specimens of warblers, all resembling one another. What was required was a liberal collection of type specimens. He regretted that a man whose name stood so high as Professor Owen's should connect himself with so foolish, crazy, and extravagant a scheme, and should persevere in it after the folly had been pointed out by most unexceptionable witness. A plan was proposed which struck every one in the Committee by its simplicity, its artistic

1325
and scientific character, and, above all, by its economy. Mr. Oldfield proposed a plan which was approved by the architect of the Museum, to make a chronological arrangement of the sculptures, and to provide at the same time for the perfect exhibition of the natural history specimens, by giving up the whole of the second story of the British Museum for the purpose. It would separate the natural history collection from the exhibition, and save the enormous expense which was clearly intended by the removal to Kensington. He congratulated the trustees on the changes which had been made, and on the liberality which had been evinced by Her Majesty's Government in improving the position of gentlemen who well deserved the increased salary and liberty accorded to them after long delay. But, while giving that praise, he must be allowed to qualify it with reference to one gentleman, who he regretted, to say, was no longer connected with the Museum. He could not speak too highly of Mr. Oldfield. He believed that every member of the Committee appreciated the knowledge and taste displayed by Mr. Oldfield in the evidence which he gave last year, and the labour which he must have under gone in preparing a plan which was, in his opinion, the most perfect ever submitted for the rearrangement of the British Museum. Mr. Oldfield was a gentleman who was examined before every Committee and every Commission which bad inquired into the subject. He was the person who arranged the Assyrian Gallery, the Egyptian Gallery, and the Greco-Roman and Roman Galleries, and the Temple Collection, and every one who had seen the admirable manner in which he had succeeded in those arrangements must be satisfied that the loss of his services would be a serious loss to the institution. Mr. Oldfield was most anxious to remain in the Museum, and offered to take any office, provided he was directly responsible to the Trustees and had an opportunity of submitting his views to them instead of submitting them to his superior officers, who might refuse to allow them to go before the Trustees. He even offered to serve gratuitously, if he were placed in this position with regard to the Trustees. In choosing Mr. Newton, the Trustees had chosen a very learned and a very worthy man, but the Trustees ought to have made such arrangements as would have continued the services of a man who had done
1326
such good service as Mr. Oldfield. He joined in the congratulations of the right hon. Gentleman at the additions which had been made to the Museum. He rejoiced particularly at the accessions which, it had received from Africa, and, as M. de Chaillu had been very much abused, it was only fair to him to say that he had behaved in the fairest and most liberal manner. He had acceded at once, without any cavilling, to the valuation which had been put on his collection by the Trustees. Mr. Panizzi also deserved great credit for the zeal which he had shown in forwarding all plans for obtaining accessions to the Museum, and the Admiralty also ought to have their meed of praise for the assistance which they had given. Another matter he wished to allude to was the Campagna collection. At the close of last year the Russians were in negotiation for this collection, and the Trustees, when they heard of this, sent Mr. Newton to Rome to purchase it. Some understanding was entered into between him and the French agent with regard to the particular things which each wanted. The next thing they heard was that the French Government had purchased the whole of the collection for £192,000. Through Mr. Robinson the Directors of the Kensington Collection had secured all that portion of the mediaeval collection which they required, but the British Museum had not obtained one single solitary thing. It was notorious that Mr. Robinson had had many difficulties in his way; but he was not a man to be easily overcome by difficulties. He went from Cardinal to Cardinal and from Monsignore to Monsignore until he obtained what he required, and if the British Museum had not a man at their command whom they could employ in negotiations it would he well if they would put their commissions in the hands of a gentleman like Mr. Robinson. He hoped next year when the Government came forward with a plan it would not be a thing as of shreds and patches, but that it would be one which would make the Museum a real pride to the country. Above all, he warned them against any attempt to separate the natural collection from the other collections, for that proposition, he was convinced, would meet with strong opposition both in London and the country at large.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was not at all surprised at the opinions expressed by his hon. Friend who had just sat down. In

1327
the Committee of last year, over which the lion, Gentleman presided, there were no less than seven Gentlemen who as Trustees were, in fact, on their trial in reference to the management of the Museum, but who, nevertheless, on the most important divisions came down when several independent Members were absent and outvoted them on almost every material point. The consequence was that his lion. Friend as regards the Report of his Committee was made to stand in the position of parent to a child which was not his own. In 1850 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire Into the management of the British Museum, but not one of the most important recommendations of that Commission had been carried out. It recommended, for instance, the abolition of the trustee system, and the creation of a Board—a recommendation in which he fully concurred, for it was impossible to carry on a large Museum under the trustee system. What was wanted was one man, one idea, and one controlling intellect. The Commission also pointed out how inadequate the present building was for the purposes of the Museum, and it appeared to him that the trustees were responsible for this state of things. At present the front rooms of the building was nearly useless on account of the portico which excluded the light. An enormous hall had been built merely to show the backs of books. Two galleries had been constructed to contain the Assyrian marbles, and when they were done it was found that the marbles could not be seen. Then the portico, which was probably intended for the Trustees to walk under and dispute, had been enclosed in a hoarding, within which were placed the marbles from Halicarnassus, from Budruom, and from Cyrene. There they were virtually excluded from public view, and were suffering injury from the soot and rain which beat in upon them. Day by day, as one thing was built it needed to be patched up in order to adapt it for the purpose for which it was really intended. These things were discreditable, and no saving was effected by such a policy. On the contrary, money was thrown away for nothing. With regard to the proposed separation, he thought it far better that art should remain at the British Museum, and that science should be transferred somewhere else. In no country in the world were the two brought together. Even, if the collections were retained under the same roof there should be a separate and dis-
1328
tinct administration for art and science; the two collections should he kept distinct, with a separate staff, a separate establishment, and separate entrances. He quite agreed that the worst thing they could do was to patch. To do so was to throw away money, and in the end have to do the thing over again. As to the removal of the ethnological collection, that might be advisable, and some witnesses went so far as to recommend its transfer to the east of London, where it could be seen by seafaring people to whom it was people to whom it was asserted, it would prove of especial interest. Original drawings should not be kept in the Museum. They should be in the National Gallery, near the pictures for which they were frequently the first sketches; probably few hon. Members knew that over the cases containing the birds and other objects of natural history was one of the most interesting collections of portraits in England. £2,000 a year was actually being pent in the purchase of portraits many of which might be had for the asking in the Museum. Why not transfer them to the National Portrait Gallery? As to the removal of the mediaeval collection, he did not agree with his hon. Friend, for it was almost impossible to draw the line between ancient and mediaeval art. The reasons for giving mediaeval art to Kensington were rather extraordinary. It was said that that was an educational establishment; but, if art education were desired, he would rather take a student to an Etruscan vase than to a bit of Palissy. At the same time it was marvellous to see what had been done at Kensington by Mr. Cole within a period of seven years. A very eminent French artist M. de Triqueti, in an article in the Revue Nationale, had expressed his surprise at what had been done there, and said that if the British Museum had only such a head as Kensington, France and every other country might despair, for England would have the finest art collection in the world. As far as the history of art was concerned, no collection could compare with that in the British Museum, but it was almost useless on account of its bad arrangement. Under the present system, the recommendations of those best calculated to judge of the requirements of certain collections were set aside, and it was in vain that they protested. It was, indeed, a bad system, and he trusted something would be done to reform it. At the beginning of the next Session he would bring the whole question before the House,

1329
and move distinct Resolutions with a view of reforming the administration of the Museum and of getting all the collections put under one responsible head. He must say he thought Mr. Oldfield's plan for the enlargement of the Museum perfectly feasible, and he believed that by adopting it in a few years a great deal might be done at no great expense. Mr. Oldfield was a most valuable servant, and be deeply regretted the cause of his having left the establishment. He (Mr. Layard) only wished that gentleman could again be employed, and he believed if it depended on his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) Mr. Oldfield would soon be there again. As to I constructing a building adapted to the purpose required, they need only look to the new reading room to see what could be done when they were not trammelled with an architect. Mr. Panizzi had given them a magnificent hall in every manner admirably calculated for its purpose. He had not shown it to a single person, whether Englishman or foreigner, who did not so consider it. With regard to the enlargement of the Museum, be trusted that some definite scheme would be laid down, which, if it could not be carried out at once, might at least be carried out as adequate means were found, and which in time might produce a complete building worthy of the nation.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he had taken part in the Commission referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark, and he was of the opinion that the Resolutions, of that Commission were of a most useful character. The noble Lord the Member for London, who was not in the House that night, and whom, perhaps, they might never see again in the House, but whose absence they would all regret, appointed that Commission, which sat for about two years, and recommended a distinct division between the departments of science and art, and pointed out the necessity of each being governed by a separate head. He had never been able to understand why the Resolutions of that Commission were not carried out. He was aware, however, that several of the Commissioners, and perhaps in that capacity they did not see the same necessity for carrying out their recommendations as before. Still, year after year passed away without bringing the desired conclusion nearer. The same confusion and the same congestion of articles existed, and the same want of accommodation to the public for the purposes of' information. No one change had taken
1330
place of any considerable benefit, except the construction of that great room, for which they had to thank Mr. Panizzi. He believed that the reason no advance was made was because they did not boldly and at once confront the question of separation, the collections in the Museum being, from the confusion of subjects, repulsive to people of taste. He trusted that the Government in examining the matter would look the question of separation boldly in the face, and decide upon it one way or the other. With regard to the lighting of the library of the British Museum in the evening he could not admit that the evidence of that much-lamented gentleman, Mr. Braidwood, was to be taken as conclusive. As long as gas was unscientifically made the injury to books was very great, but when gas was used, such as that consumed in the House of Commons itself or in the library of the Athenaeum, in a chamber separated from the building by thick glass, no injury whatever need be sustained by the books. If the great dome of the British Museum were lit with gas in this manner the library might be made accessible to tho population of this Metropolis on winter evenings without danger. He hoped that this subject would again come under the consideration of the trustees. He adhered to the opinion that a more efficient government of the Museum was required. The Trustees were most diligent in their attendance; but, after all, it was a government of amateurs. A government of amateurs was a very good thing in its way, but this was an institution too great to be; governed by amateurs. Then look at the patronage of the Museum. Who were the personages who appointed every clerk, and, he believed he might even say, every housemaid about the building? The Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. He had felt quite ashamed to write to these personages when he wished to recommend some young man for appointment or promotion in the British Museum. Of course, in such cases it always ended in a delegation of some kind or other, in which the names of these high functionaries were, no doubt, sometimes improperly used. He agreed in all that had been said in regard to the character and conduct of Mr. Oldfield. The officers of the Museum were gentlemen of great attainments, and the small addition made to their remuneration had been in every respect well merited.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the discussion of the evening had traversed rather a large field, but in the few words which he wished to address to the Committee he would not attempt to touch upon the great variety and diversity of the topics which had been introduced into the debate. He was bound to say, however, that the view presented to the British public and to the Government was most disheartening if the pessimist sentiments of hon. Members who had spoken that night were to be generally adopted. The Museum contained the richest and most magnificent collection in the world. But they had been assured the Government was bad, the building was bad, the arrangement of the collection was bad, the Museum never could do well as long as an architect had to do with it; and lastly, the principal librarian, in the opinion of one hon. Gentleman, although he believed he stood alone, was bad also. Well, the Government were of opinion that the case of the British Museum was one that called, and had long called for consideration; and the reason it had not had practical consideration was, not that the Government were unwilling to entertain it, but on account of those abundant differences of opinion of which the discussion they had bad afforded ample evidence. They were all agreed that something ought to be done, but not what that something was. The hon. Member for Southwark did not agree with the hon. Member for Galway, except in one proposition, that there ought to be no patching, and nothing could be easier than to subscribe in general terms to such a doctrine. But when they came to consider what was meant by "patching," they would find one Gentleman meant exactly the reverse by that opprobrious term of what another meant. If, for example, a body of gentlemen called before them the greatest living naturalist, whose splendid genius and high character ought to have exempted him from being the object of the terms indulged in by the hon. Member for Galway in speaking of Professor Owen's plans — if they had heard from that Gentleman that a space of five and a half acres for the exhibition of his specimens of natural history were required, and then cut down that five and a half acres to two acres—he should consider that not altogether unlike patching. No doubt the pressure for space acted injuriously and caused great inconvenience. He would admit that it had reached a point that was scarcely compatible with the cha-
1332
racter and credit of the country. The Government were sensible of the evil, and they were of opinion that the difficulty ought to be faced without "patching," but by the adoption of some plan giving large and complete provision for a great length of time. But in order to fulfil that condition it was essential that there should be a separation of the collections, and that this separation should be drawn between the natural and scientific objects and the objects of art. The Government had thought it right to do something to elicit the opinion of the House of Commons. The Committee had made a Report, but he doubted whether it expressed the general sentiment of the House, and the Government were not prepared to act on that Report. The tendency of the Report was to keep the collections together, yet the Committee were not absolutely and uniformly of that opinion, because they thought that the ethnological collection had better be kept elsewhere. Those who were for keeping the collection together might be divided into two classes—those who advocated it on grounds of prudence and expediency, and those who favoured it on grounds of principle. Those who held the latter view maintained that, as the Museum had its origin in a private bequest, it would be to profane the intentions of its founder to separate or remove it. Of that opinion there seemed to be a few advocates. The Committee had abandoned it, and the hon. Member for Galway abandoned it because he proposed to give up the mediaeval and ethnographical collections, and would also give up the drawings. That being the state of the case, he thought it was the duty of the Government to consider what course was dictated by prudence, public convenience, and a due regard to public feeling. He agreed with those who entertained the opinion that whatever was done ought to be done in such a manner as that it might not require hereafter to be undone. If, therefore, the Government were not prepared now to adopt the largest plan which had been laid before them, their endeavour must be so to adjust their present measures that they might do nothing which they would have to retract hereafter, or which would cross and traverse public feeling. The hon. Member for Galway had adverted to some plan which he seemed to think was in contemplation, and which he had aimed at prevented from being carried into effect; but he could assure him the Government, neither alone nor in conjunction with the

1333
trustees, sought to do anything without the approval if the House. He must as the same time distinctly tell his hon. Friend that the Government would not found their proceedings on the Report of the Committee, because, although in principle it gave up the idea of union, yet it contemplated that which the Government thought was unreasonable and inconvenient —an indefinite extension for an indefinite period on one and the same spot of vast and heterogeneous collections. The buildings connected with the British Museum admitted, he believed, in many parts, of considerable architectural improvement, while there were portions of the ground within the precincts of the present site not occupied which might be occupied for the purposes of the Museum. There were two sources of increased accommodation, while he believed it was admitted that certain branches in the Museum could he and ought to be removed. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway threatened to raise popular emotion, which, he hoped, might not end in popular commotion, with respect to the removal of the natural history collection. Now, he was disposed to admit with him, that, whether owing to tradition, or custom, or positive convenience, there was a certain amount of public feeling which would welcome the preservation of the zoological collection on the present site, and he might observe that no absolute necessity for entertaining the question of the removal of that collection existed at the present moment. But without raising any question which may hazard the future solution of the points in dispute, he thought it was open to Government very greatly to enlarge the accommodation afforded by the Museum. The present hour was not the time to enter into details on the subject, but he might state it to be the opinion of the Government that no necessity now existed for raising the question connected with the removal of the zoological collection. Improvements in building and the occupation of unoccupied space would, he believed, be useful so far as they went, and would afford increased accommodation for a considerable period. He might add that he did not think his hon. Friend's allusion to Professor Owen involved any want of respect for that distinguished man, any more than what had fallen from him might be construed into a want of respect for the hon. Gentleman himself. He would, therefore, say veniam petimusque damusque vicissim, and would assure his hon. Friend
1334
that the Government would take the proper opportunity dining the recess of bringing the subject under the consideration of the Trustees, and endeavouring, in concert with them, to hit upon some plan which would so relieve and improve the British Museum as to lender its condition satisfactory to the House and the country.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), if he could state, with any degree of certainty, whether it was intended to render generally accessible the drawings of the ancient masters in the British Museum, and whether they were to be displayed there or at Kensington? To the working artist they were of the utmost importance.
MR. TITEsaid, he could not conceive how any alteration of the natural history collection was to take place. The solution of the question appeared to him to consist in the adoption of Mr. Oldfield's plan, which, by the arrangement he suggested, gave the whole of the chronology, the archaeology, and the architecture in a very complete system. He was afraid that, however the so-called system of patching was decried, he did not see how they could progress satisfactorily without it. But with all its faults they might well be proud of the Museum collection, which was one of the finest in Europe; and as for the library, probably it was the finest in the world. With regard to the Campana collection he admitted they were outbidden upon it; but at the same time he believed if a Minister of the Crown were to rise and ask for a Vote of —100,000 for such a collection, hon. Gentlemen would be somewhat unwilling to grant it.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he gathered from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was going to do what many of them so much disapproved— namely, to carry out the plan of Professor Owen and those who supported him. He would, no doubt, first remove the mineralogy and the palaeontology, and then the zoology must follow. That would bean underhand mode of working. They ought to be told plainly what was intended. Kensington Museum was an admirable thing; but they were not to be treated as children, and to have a good object revealed to them only bit by bit. There should be some distinct determination of the House upon the subject before the divisions of the collection were attempted to be carried out. The government of the British Museum was admitted

1335
on all hands to be defective, but many persons had left their collections to the nation upon the understanding that they were to be in the charge of trustees, and the trustees could not be at present got rid of. He should like to see these- national collections under the control of a responsible Minister of education sitting in that House; but as the Committee of Council were at present without a responsible head in the House, he objected to this duty being entrusted to them.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wanted to know whether it was intended that the archaeological collections of the British Museum, the finest in the world, were to be broken up? The reason why the British Museum was overcrowded was that they were omniverous, and were not satisfied with having a perfect national collection, but filled up the rooms with useless articles.
MR. KINNAIRDasked whether there was any probability of the Museum being opened of an evening, an advantage which a great number of working people desired?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would remind the Committee that nothing was more easy than to find fault, and nothing more difficult than to find a remedy. If the Trustees of the Museum needed any justification in respect of the censures aimed at them, it was to be found in the conflicting opinions delivered that night, which showed that whatever the Trustees had done, they would have been blamed for something. Upon the retirement of Mr. Hawkins it was arranged that three keepers of departments should be appointed, and the question was who should they be. Mr. Birch, the senior of his department, had been appointed keeper of the Egyptian department; Mr. Newton, who had been in the Museum many years, and who was one of the most intelligent gentlemen alive, was appointed as keeper of the classical antiquities, and he (Mr. Walpole) would stake his existence that a better appointment could not have been made. The keeper of the coins also was a gentleman thoroughly conversant with that matter; and if Mr. Oldfield had been appointed instead of any one of these gentlemen an injury and an injustice would have been done. Nobody took greater pains than he (Mr. Walpole) personally took to preserve Mr. Oldfield's services for the public, and he believed that unless Mr. Oldfield had thought that he would not be in so independent a position as that to which he naturally aspired
1336
he would have remained. The hon. Member for Southwark had made a serious attack, as he had often done before, upon the constitution of the government of the Museum. And if he were to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question of what sort of government was best, he might, as an abstract principle, prefer the government of a single authority; but the Trustees had been working for many years, and working in a way which had been attended with great advantage to the establishment, and he thought it would be a serious thing to disturb that government. His opinion was that it would not be desirable to change the Trustee management. Each head of a department was responsible for his department; so that the public had undivided responsibility in each department, subject only to that control which must be always exercised in establishments which were composed of several divisions. As to the Campagna collection, the non-purchase of that collection was not owing to any delay on the part of the Trustees. With respect to the additional space required, an expression of his personal opinion on any particular plan would now be premature; but he might say that all the plans which might be submitted to them would receive the attentive consideration of the Trustees, and he hoped that such an arrangment would be made as would contribute to the better exhibition of the very valuable collection, for the due arrangement of which the existing accommodation was decidedly insufficient.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that, even without opening the Museum by gaslight, a great deal might be done to afford the people greater facilities for visiting it. It was at present closed at six o'clock in the evening, though there was daylight till nine. He should like to hear some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter had been most carefully considered. The Trustees had gone into the minutest details. He himself had recommended that the Museum should be kept open till half-past eight in the evening during the summer months, when he found that it could not be opened by gaslight; but, on referring to former experience, it appeared that when it was kept open till eight o'clock the people would not come between six and eight, and that the number who might be expected to visit it between those hours

1337
would not be at all commensurate with the additional expense which would be in curred by keeping it open till eight.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

DURHAM UNIVERSITY BILL. COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee).
Clause 2 (Appointment of Commissioners),
MR. FENWICKsaid, he objected to the name of the Bishop of Durham, and should move that it be omitted. The right rev. Prelate was not only Visitor of the University, but he had the appointment of the whole of the governing body, and being deeply interested in the existing state of things, he was not a proper person to be named one of the Commissioners.
Amendment proposed, in lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "the Right Reverend Father in God, Henry Montagu, Lord Bishop of Durham."
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the situation of Durham University was peculiar, as having been constituted by an act of the Bishop and chapter. As the Bill proposed to give a legislative and remodelling power to the Commissioners it seemed desirable that there should be some person upon the Commission connected with the Church. He had applied in the first instance to the Archbishop of York, who had been a member of the Oxford Commission, but the numerous avocations of his Grace unfortunately prevented him from serving on the Commission. Under these circumstances he hoped the name of the Bishop of the diocese would be allowed to stand.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 30: Majority 45.
Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 3, 4, and 5.
Clause 6 (Powers of Commissioners),
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to the word "furthering," and to insert "in order to promote useful learning and religious education." That would place the words in the sequence in which they stood in the Act from which the Bill professed to be taken. The fault of the University of
1338
Durham was, that it was only a seminary for curates.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the principal effect of the Amendment would be to leave out the words "practical knowledge," though the hon. Member wished to make the education generally useful.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that was not the object, but that religious education should not stand first.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 (Restrictions on Exercise of powers by Commissioners),
MR. FENWICKsaid, that at present the Durham University was under the sole control of the Bishop of Durham. He had been informed by a letter he had lately received that the Bishop of Durham was a near relative of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Dean of Durham was a brother of one of the Under Secretaries of State for the Home Department, and that the drawer of the Bill was a nephew of the Professor of Divinity in the University, who received £4.000 or £5,000 a year for lecturing four or five times a week to eight or ten young men. Of course he (Mr. Fenwick) did not believe a word of this statement, and he only brought it forward on the present occasion for the purpose of giving the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving it a direct contradiction or a fit explanation. The Bill, however, as it stood, did nothing to alter the state of things to which he had alluded— namely, the absolute control exercised by the Bishop of Durham over the University; and as long as that continued it was quite impossible that the University could answer the purpose for which it was originally founded. The present Bill gave no real power to the Commissioners, and they would, in fact, prove utterly useless. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment the omission of the words in the clause which, if left out, would obviate the objection he had referred to.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the very coarse imputations and personal motives which had been scattered upon the promoters of this Bill did not offer much encouragement to bring forward measures of the sort, which he believed was a measure dictated by a liberal and comprehensive spirit. The hon. Member said he (Sir George Lewis) had been influenced by motives of personal relationship—[Mr. FENWICK: No, no!]—to the Bishop of Durham, in order

1339
to give him some sort of advantage. Then that an Under Secretary of State was brother to the Dean of Durham, and that there was some relationship between the draftsman and officers of the University. Now, he would take upon himself the entire responsibility of the measure. He had no objection to omit the paragraph which was opposed; but he did not think its omission would have the slightest effect.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the debate was very instructive. The University of Durham founded the University out of their own funds, and the hon. Gentleman said they did it because they found they were an object of envy. That was charitable at least. It was objected to ecclesiastical persons founding a University out of ecclesiastical funds that they made religion their principal object. He thought the discussion was a warning to individuals as to corporate bodies, however wealthy they might be, never to do anything for anybody.
Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he would then move the insertion of a clause similar to one contained in the Oxford and Cambridge University Acts, declaring that it shall not be binding upon the person taking a degree to make any declaration whatever, but that until he shall have subscribed a declaration stating that he is a bonâ fide member of the Church of England he shall not be eligible as a member of the Senate, or to hold any office for which such a degree heretofore constituted one of the qualifications.
Clause (Oath, Declaration, or Subscription not to be required)—brought up, and read 1°.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought it would be better to leave this matter to the discretion of the Commissioners.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time,"
The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 64: Majority 38.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

WINDSOR SUSPENDED CANONRIES BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he objected to that very objectionable measure being proceeded with at that late hour (quarter past one.)
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he hoped the
1340
right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would show sufficient determination to persevere with the Bill.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Appropriating the profits of the Seventh Canonry to the Military Knights of Windsor),
MR. DEEDESsaid, he strongly objected to the clause as inconsistent with the existing law relating to capitular estates.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Chapter of Windsor was dissimilar from the cathedral chapters generally, and that the Military Knights once formed an in tegral part of the Chapter of Windsor. The Bill proposed to take two of the canonries, and give the profits of one of them to the Military Knights, assigning the other to increase the endowments attached to local livings.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he also objected to the application of the funds of one of the suspended canonries to the increase of the two livings in Windsor.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, there were no livings in England which had a greater claim to have their endowments increased than had those of Windsor.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 2.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a East India Council, &c.; Piers and Harbours; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements.
Royal Assents.—Boundaries of Burghs Extension (Scotland) Act Amendment; Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland); Inclosure (No. 2); Local Government Supplemental; Transfer of Stocks and Annuities; Poor Assessments (Scotland); London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance; Queensland Government.

DUCHY OF MODENA—MOTION FOR DESPATCHES.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY,in moving, pursuant to notice, that an Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies or Extracts of any Despatches relating to the Affairs of the Duchy of Modena, from Her Majesty's Ministers accredited to the Courts of Central Italy, during the years 1855, 1856, 1857, and 1858, said, he purposed to extend the terms of his Motion so as to include copies or extracts of any Letter written by Mr. Walton, Her Ma-
1248
jesty's Consul in the district of Massa Carrara, with regard to the state of that Duchy. When he first gave notice of this Motion he certainly was very little prepared for the consequences of his attempting to explain the motives and intentions with which he brought the subject forward, or that allusion should have been made, most unusually and irregulary, to the statement which he had felt it his duty to make in giving notice of this Motion. A grave accusation having been put forward on the authority of a Minister of the Crown (Mr. Gladstone), to the effect that orders had been given for the execution of a person contrary to law, in the Duchy of Modena, and that statement having been circulated throughout Europe, he had thought it but fair to give to the colleague of the right hon. Gentleman notice that he was prepared completely to contradict those charges. He also thought the right hon. Gentleman himself ought to have the opportunity of assenting or dissenting from his statement. But when he rose for the purpose of making an explanation with this object he had been much surprised at hearing sounds which were by no means usual in their Lordships' House from a certain number of noble Lords opposite connected with the Government. Thinking it by no means fair that a Prince who had been driven from his country and his throne by the simultaneous attacks of the large armies of Frances and Sardinia, and who had chosen to retire from his own dominions rather than expose his small body of faithful native troops to certain destruction, should be exposed entirely without defence to attacks such as he had reffered to, and believing also, that, as the representative of Her Majesty during the period at which those atrocities were alleged to have taken place it was but right that the House should receive an explanatory statement at his hands, he felt compelled by a sense of duty to state what the facts really were. But when he endeavoured to make that explanation, no sympathy was felt it was imperative upon him to discharge, nor for the Prince who had been so cruelly wronged. Subsequently he put himself into communication with the right hon. Gentleman, and in the course of the correspondence, with which he should have to trouble their Lordships, he thought he had succeeded in convincing him that the question raised was not merely the answer which might be given in one House to debates in

1249
the other, but whether a Minister of the Crown, in that responsible position, ought to be allowed to circulate throughout Europe a charge with regard to the Duke of Modena which official documents would show to be entirely unfounded. If the right hon. Gentleman had answered that communication in the spirit in which he felt certain one of their Lordships would have replied to it, he should have had very little to say; but so far was that from being the case that the right hon. Gentleman actually returned to the charge and renewed the insinuations. Though the right hon. Gentleman possessed singular facility of expression, and always conveyed an impression favourable to his views to the assembly which he was addressing, all the reference which he had been able to find in the papers of the notice taken by the right hon. Gentleman of this correspondence was in the following terms:—"The right hon. Gentleman vindicated his former statement with regard to the Duke of Modena." The right hon. Gentleman called the publication from which he had quoted a "book," and said that it was as accessible to any other Member of the House of Commons as to himself. He must have made that statement in entire oblivion of proofs which he (the Marquess of Norman by) had supplied to him that such was not the case. Since that statement was made a gentleman connected with the Duke of Modena had received from one of the Ministers of that Prince a letter, in which he said—
"The book which has served as the text of all accusations is not yet my possession, because it appears that the authors, while they sent it round to their friends, took very good care to prevent its falling into the hands of those who, having full knowledge of the facts, could have had no difficulty in refuting them. My bookseller has not yet been able to procure a copy; and a bookseller at Leipsic, who advertises the book in his catalogue, and to whom I wrote sixteen days ago, has not yet sent a reply."
It is evident that this must have been the case, because, judging from the extracts quoted by Mr. Gladstone, which was all that he knew of the book, the inhabitants of Modena would never have listened to such an accusation as that with reference to Granaj, well knowing that during the reign of the Duke but few persons, and those all of mature age and convicted of atrocious crimes, had been executed; and as to the charge of dealing improperly with prisoners, they would have known that it was founded upon the establishment of a new reformatory
1250
prison, to which persons confined by the correctional police were transferred, where they were taught trades and paid wages, and the effect of which had been to reduce theft and petty offences in the proportion of one-third, or from 2,700 some years ago, to 1,800 now. He must trouble the House by reading the correspondence which had passed between himself and Mr. Gladstone on this subject. The day after he was compelled to postpone his Motion he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman to this effect—
"Hamilton Lodge, July 9, 1861.
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,—When I found myself obliged last night to postpone my Motion, and could only fix it for a distant day, I stated that I much regretted the delay, as I could positively disprove the calumnies injuriously affecting the character of the Duke of Modena, the person attacked in the publication to which I should refer. I added that if 'any one anywhere' had given additional publicity to groundless charges I was sure that when he heard the truth he would be the first to express his regret that he had been deceived by those whom he now found unworthy of credit. In obedience to the somewhat capricious observance in this particular instance of the strict rules of order required by some of your colleagues, I stated the case hypothetically; but I am sure you would not the less feel the responsibility of the charges you have distinctly made, and, if convinced that some further step on your part is required, all must agree that the sooner it is taken the better. Your are probably aware that the object of the Commission from whom the publication emanated was to collect and give to the world garbled extracts from the confidential correspondence between the Duke and his private secretary, to obtain which the desks of both had been rifled. I am told by a trust worthy person acquainted with all the circumstances of the case that, in order to produce an unfavourable impression abroad (for the book was little circulated where the facts were known), this Commission falsified the chronological order of the documents, perverted their sense, adulterated their substance, and the whole product of their labours became a work of false suggestions, of fraud, and of forgery. I do not expect you to adopt that view from any statement of mine. I have in my hands ample materials for contradicting every one of the seven charges, which you made your own by adoption; but I think, if I can give you the means of satisfying yourself that the most odious charge is a malignant falsehood on the part of those who imposed it upon you, will feel that not much credit can be given to the minor allegations, which are mostly mere matter of inference. You are reported to have stated distinctly, 'A young man of seventeen, of the name of Granaj, of Carrara, was found guilty of murder, or manslaughter. The law of Modena does not permit capital punishment under the age of twenty-one. After the trial the Duke of Modena sent forth an edict declaring that, notwithstanding the law, the young man should be executed.' Now, no such edict ever existed; no man of the name of Granaj was ever tried for murder, therefore, none such was ever executed. On examining the notes of the presiding Judge General Gentile, it is found that a cer-

1251
tain Antonio Granaj, aged 17, was imprisoned for two days for refusing to give evidence; but I understand that there in no trace of a criminal process of any kind at that time against any person of that name. There is a striking fact bearing upon the impossibility of the truth of that charge—that during the whole of the Duke's reign of thirteen years there have been but five cases of capital punishment, all of persons of mature age, and for atrocious murders. Great care was taken not to circulate these infamous calumnies where there was any fear of contradiction. The Duke of Modena never heard of these charges till he read your speech, and, I am informed, exclaimed with honest indignation as to this particular charge, 'If this were true I should feel myself morally guilty of murder.' His Royal Highnesss may well think he has a right to complain that a Minister of the British Crown should make such a charge without taking any previous pains to ascertain the truth. You will, therefore, excuse me for reminding you that there is a very easy method to put yourself in a position to do tardy justice to the Duke of Modena. You can get the Foreign Office to telegraph to Mr. Walton, Her Majesty's Consul at Carrara, and ask these simple questions—'Was any man of the name of Granaj ever convicted of murder within your recollection? Were more than five persons ever executed during the whole of the Duke of Modena's reign?' You will see that I am very confident as to the authenticity of my information, and all I ask of you is thus to test it. If you do so I am convinced that in a few hours you will be in a position to do justice to the upright and unfortunate Prince you have wronged in the place where the injury was inflicted. And I am sure that you will feel that he does not the less deserve strict justice at your hands because he is utterly defenceless since he was driven from his dominions by the overwhelming power of the arms of France and Sardinia.

"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
To this Mr. Gladstone replied—
"11, Carlton Terrace, July 9, 1861. "Dear Lord Normanby,—I have just received your note, and in reply I cannot admit that, as at present advised, I have done wrong to the Duke of Modena. I have not made a single charge except on the authority of published documents, construing them to the best of my ability. These documents had been before the world for nearly two years, I think, at the time I cited them, and their authenticity had never, to my knowledge, been disputed. Such being the case, it was, I think, my duty to assume them to be authentic. Nor, indeed, do I gather from your note that it will now be alleged they are forgeries. If I have misunderstood them, and misstated their natural meaning, then I have done wrong, and upon being convinced of it will express my regret with a strength of language proportionate to the gravity of the charge which may have been made in error. According to my confident recollection I did not state that Granaj was executed. What I believe I stated, and what I think the document strictly justifies, was that the law was altered ex post facto so as to include his crime, and I contrasted this proceeding with another, in which certain criminals appeared to be denied the benefit of an ex post facto mitigation, which had been decreed, I think, between their conviction and their appre-
1252
hension. If this and other documents are forged, no words can be strong enough to denounce the baseness of such an act. If they are not, I believe you will not shake an atom of my statements of facts, nor do I think much can be said against the colour that I gave them. Will you permit me to express my regret that the task of vindicating the Duke of Modena does not devolve upon one or other of the very zealous men who uphold in the House of Commons opinions on Italian affairs resembling those of your Lordship? I venture to think the practice of answering in one House speeches made in another so exceptionable, that I have never on any occasion adopted it, and do not foresee that I ever shall. I will read your Lordship's letter to Lord Wodehouse, who had possession of my papers; but I doubt whether he ought to make inquiry upon an isolated question until we know the whole of the statements which are about to be made, and into which we have no opportunity afforded us of inquiring.
"I remain, dear Lord Normanby,
"Very faithfully yours,
"W. E. GLADSTONE."
On the 10th of July he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman—
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,—There is only one point in your letter to which I feel it necessary at once to call your attention. You state 'According to my confident recollection I did not state that Granaj was executed.' I read this sentence with a surprise which I am sure will be shared by everyone who has seen the reports of your speech, either in the most authentic records we have here, or in the best translations in the foreign papers. In all these identical words appear, 'After the trial of Granaj, the Duke of Modena sends forth an edict that, notwithstanding the law, the young man should be executed.' And here you are supposed to have stopped. Now, you must feel that, if any one else had used these words, the inevitable impression on your mind would have been that the sentence had been carried into effect; unless these words were added, 'I must admit that no execution took place.' I feel certain that all those who heard you looked upon this execution as the gravamen of your charges. When you know from me that the Duke of Modena shared, in this respect, the universal impression as to the obvious meaning of your words; when you heard that he indignantly used this expression, 'If this were true, I should feel that I was morally guilty of murder;' I appeal to your sense of justice whether you should lose twenty-four hours before publicly declaring that you are now aware that no such execution ever took place? This is not a question as to answering in one House any debating speech which was made in the other. It is simply this, whether a Minister of the Crown should allow an accusation to be circulated throughout Europe, in his name, of 'moral murder' against an exiled Prince with whom his Sovereign was always on terms of friendly alliance, and this, too, after that Minister disclaims the interpretation of his words on which the charge is founded. All other questions raised by the selections from this book which are coupled with your name throughout Europe may well be reserved till I bring on my Motion. Having been the Queen's representative at Modena during most of the years to which those charges refer I feel it my special duty to re-establish the truth, and I

1253
shall call for my periodically-renewed reports of the state of Modena, that they may be judged side by side with the selections you have made from a publication founded, as it appears, on garbled extracts or the alleged substance of stolen private documents never seen by any but the compilers.
"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
Mr. Gladstone sent the following answer:—
"Downing Street, July 10, 1861.
"Dear Lord Normanby,—I cannot undertake to state, as you require, within twenty-four hours, that I 'am aware that Granaj was not executed.' First, because what you stated in your letter yesterday is wholly at variance with the printed document; and you do not inform me, in reply to my letter, that that document is falsified or forged. Secondly, because I have recently been told that Granaj was executed, and, though I do not absolutely assume this to be correct, yet I cannot certainly assert the contrary. I have no doubt the Duke of Modena speaks what he believes to be true, but one of the curses adhering to certain systems of Government is, that the denial of publicity to the subject places the Sovereign in the hands of Ministers, and each class of governing agents in the power of those who are below them. I do not believe the King of Naples knew a fifth part of the horrors that were perpetrated in his kingdom. I am not a little astonished to be challenged, after five months of anxious and varied business have intervened—I mean, not to have been challenged before if I was challenged at all—upon the accuracy of a particular expression, for which I am not responsible and which I have never read. I will, however, investigate that matter as well as I can by comparison of reports and let you know the result. Meantime I re-state the charge which I meant to make, and which I believe I did make. It was this, that while the benefit of ex post facto mitigatory legislation was denied to certain criminals capital punishment was by ex post facto legislation made applicable to the crime of a certain youth named Granaj. I state this thus plainly that you may be able to affirm or to deny it, and to apprise me whether the published document from which I spoke is or is not falsified or forged. It is surely grave enough to demand attention.
"I remain, dear Lord Normanby, faithfully yours,
"W. E. GLADSTONE."
To that he merely replied that after the right hon. Gentleman's last letter it was quite useless to continue the correspondence, and that he reserved the whole case of the Duke of Modena for his Motion in the House of Lords. After that he received the following letters from Mr. Gladstone:—
"July 11, 1861.
"Dear Lord Normanby,—I have now consulted all the accessible reports of the passage in my speech to which you have referred, and, though I cannot remember my words, I think the fair presumption is that I said the Duke issued an edict for the execution of the youth Granaj. What I ought to have said was that the Duke issued an edict ex post facto, bringing the crime of that youth within the category to which capital punish-
1254
ment was applicable. I am most ready to explain without delay this difference, and to express my regret for having stated, as the meaning of the edict, without any qualification, what, though I might have argued it was the intention of the paper, was not its necessary import. But I am desirous in doing this to do all that may be right. Is there more which, from the contents of the paper itself, I ought to say? That there may be no doubt on the subject I send you a copy of it. If it is within your knowledge that in any other respect I have mistaken the meaning of it, I am most ready to be corrected.
"Yours faithfully, W. E. GLADSTONE."
On the 12th of July he wrote to Mr. Gladstone this letter in answer to his of the 11th containing the copy of what he still erroneously called an edict—
"Hamilton Lodge, July 12th, 1861.
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,— I received last night, just before I was obliged to go out, your announcement that you had convinced yourself that you must have said that 'the Duke of Modena had issued an edict for the execution of Granaj, and that you were ready to express your regret on that point;' and I have also to thank you for inviting me to say whether there is any other statement connected with this charge in which I consider you to have been in error, as you are anxious to do all 'that is right.' For this I give you implicit credit. I shall, therefore, in as few words as possible (since I quite feel with you the importance of the explanation being made without delay), give you my opinion with the candour your desire. After your avowal of the general opinion which you feel must have been derived from your reported words as to the execution of Granaj, I have no doubt your feelings will induce you to express yourself satisfactorily as to having been unfortunately the means of propagating throughout Europe so cruel a charge. And here I would willingly leave this point but for a phrase in your letter of the 10th:— 'I have recently been told that Granaj was executed.' It was this apparent willingness to revert to a charge which I believed to have been disclaimed which induced me in my note of yesterday morning to declare as useless any further correspondence on the subject. All I wish now to say is that I trust you will not hereafter place any reliance on the statements of the person, whoever he may be, who attempted to palm upon you this wanton falsehood. Now, without stopping to quote the words of your letter, for which I have not time, I regret to have to tell you that what you think you ought to have said is still far removed from a correct statement of the facts of the case as gathered accurately from the papers you quote. In the first place, the paper you send me is not an edict that was ever published; both its form and its substance show that it could not be. It is merely a minute of the Duke's, written and countersigned by his private secretary, which, after the Revolution, was stolen from the cabinet of that secretary, and used for their own purposes by the Piedmontese Provisional Government. This was the form in which his Royal Highness conveyed his confidential instructions to his departmental Ministers. That minute, addressed to the Minister of Justice, points out some alterations in the new criminal code. If it had been a published edict it must have been countersigned by that Minister. In the

1255
proposed amendment of the code then under consideration the monstrous crime committed by this Granaj in the year 1855 makes his Royal Highness think desirable some further alterations with regard to the crimes to be excepted in the future code. Now, so far from justifying the assertion that the Duke intended to make an ex post facto law, it proves directly the contrary, as by the first paragraph the Duke distinctly adopts the inadequate sentence against Granaj as prescribed by law. Before I went out last night I made a literal translation of the documents you sent me, which you will see cannot be otherwise construed. Therefore, in answer to your appeal as to what you ought to do, I should say, first, as to the charge of the execution of Granaj, act according to your own feelings; secondly, admit that there is no proof that the Duke ever published an edict as to the case of Granaj; thirdly, explain that the minute you have seen has no one character of an ex post facto law. I send you my translation; I am sure it is correct.
"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
This was the translation of the document to which he referred—
"To the Minister of Grace and Justice.
"Seeing the atrocious case of the assassination committed by a certain Granaj of Carrara; seeing that the sentence relative to it is based on the local statute, that the assassin cannot be condemned to death because he has not attained the age of 21 years; seeing that it is not in the project of the new Criminal Code to make any other exceptions upon this point except the crimes of sacrilege and high treason, we ordain that such exception applicable to the two crimes here above cited shall be extended to all kinds of premeditated homicide, or committed without that adequate provocation which might be pleaded as such.
"FRANCESCO.
"Dottore CARLO SARESI, Segretario di Gabinetto.
"August, 1855."
"11, Carlton Terrace, July 12, 1861.
"Dear Lord Normanby,—I will endeavour to get at the bottom of this Granaj case as far as the whole of the printed documents will enable me, and I will explain to the full extent which the evidence will warrant it, either to-day or Monday, as I may be able. Those who told me that Granaj was executed did not state it as final or authoritative information; and what appears probable, as far as I have yet gone, is that he was sentenced to be confined to the galleys for life. I should have thought these published documents must have passed into the hands of the Duke and his friends. They are, however, ill-arranged as well as voluminous, and hence it is that I am reluctantly obliged to hesitate about saying at once what I may have to say.
"Faithfully yours,
"W. E. GLADSTONE."
"July 12, 1861.
"Dear Lord Normanby,—I am now in a condition to tell you what, from the documentary information in my hands, I can consistently and properly state in reference to the youth Granaj, and to the charge against the Duke of Modena
1256
of having brought homicide by youths under age within the reach of capital punishment by means of an ex post facto law. I fear it may not give you much satisfaction. First, I think that I put a construction on the document I cited beyond what it properly bears. It is certainly not an order for execution; and I am ready to express my deep concern for having used words that might fairly be held so to describe it; and, thought I think that the order apparently indicates an intention of operating ex post facto, it may, as a single document, be otherwise construed. Secondly, I do not assert that Granaj was brought within the operation of the law; and such evidence as I possess appears to show that he was not put to death, but sent to the galleys for life. Thirdly, I am sorry to say that the general charge remains in full force and with circumstances of aggravation. In September, 1857, the Duke by decree appointed a military commission—apparently a commission of Austrian officers— to try persons charged with homicide; and authorized this commission to try all pending causes of that class in which the act was charged to have been committed anterior to the appointment of the commission, and since the (previous) 'state of siege' had been abolished. Persons capitally condemned were to be executed within twenty-four hours. Fourthly, on the 7th of October, in the same year, the Duke authorized the military commandant to apply this capital punishment to youths under eighteen years of age, and, combining this with the last paragraph giving the law ex post facto operation, you will see that the ex post facto operation is made applicable to youths under eighteen. The Duke of Modena at the same time alters the law of the country by admitting the evidence of accomplices and that of soldiers—that is to say, persons under the military control of the judges themselves. I quote from the same repository of published documents, and not from any comment upon them. Might I venture to recommend your personal inspection of the collection? I am quite ready to make, or not, as you think fit, an explanation to the effect above described, and
"I remain, faithfully yours,
"W. E. GLADSTONE."
On the 13th he wrote to Mr. Gladstone—
"Hamilton Lodge, July 13th, 1861.
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,—If you adhere to the intention you announced to me of taking the earliest opportunity of expressing your regret as to the errors into which you had fallen yourself and led others upon the only grave charge you had made against the Duke of Modena, referring exclusively to the case of Granaj in 1855, I can have no objection to the manner in which you propose to do so. But if you mean to avail yourself of that opportunity to bring forward new charges against the Duke, I must protest against the unfairness of that proceeding, although I happen to have in my hands authentic materials for contradicting the fresh allegation relating to quite a different period, put forward in the letter I have just received. Should you persevere in this strange method of making amends for admitted mistakes I shall give these additional contradictions when I dispose, I trust satisfactorily, of the other five minor charges, which throughout Europe are only known as coupled with your name. On

1257
that occasion, I, of course, reserve the option of using our correspondence as the best mode of doing full justice to both parties.
"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman, sitting on the bench with other Ministers, and speaking in the name of the British Crown, ought to have made charges with the levity with which these charges had been made. The last letter which he received from Mr. Gladstone was as follows:—
"11, Carlton Terrace, July 15, 1861.
"My dear Lord Normanby—If you think fit to supply me with the evidence on which you are prepared to contradict the documents referred to under Nos. 3 and 4 of my last letter, I shall be most happy to consider it. If you do not I shall then state, with your approval, that you have apprised me you mean to contradict, but have not been disposed to put your proofs in my hands. I have no intention of bringing any new charge against the Duke of Modena. I think it would be ungenerous to do so in connection with an explanation such as is intended. But my charge was that he had by an ex post facto edict brought youths under age, charged with homicide, within reach of capital punishment. This charge I unfortunately find to be true, and I, therefore, cannot recede from it. You treat what I said about Granaj as the principal charge, and the others as minor. Of course it is open to you to classify them as you please; but the classification is yours, not mine. I did not treat it as the principal charge; I look upon all these charges alike, as mainly important from their tendency to illustrate that character of real lawlessness which, unhappily, distinguished the Government of Modena. What I understand you to ask is this, that when I state my charge not to be proved by page 6, I should refrain from stating that it is more than proved by pages 11 and 14. To this I think your Lordship will see I could not accede.
"I remain, faithfully yours,
W. E. GLADSTONE."
The right hon. Gentleman alluded in this letter to a publication which no one that he knew of had seen but himself, and which certainly was not such a document as he had any right to quote. To that letter he replied as follows:—
"Hamilton Lodge, July 16, 1861.
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,—I never saw the publication to which you refer, nor do I know anything of its contents, except from the selections you yourself made; but I know the infamous means by which it was concocted, and the disrepute in which the characters of the compilers are held. It was never communicated to the Duke of Modena, and neither he nor his friends ever saw it, nor had their attention been called to the charges, except by the translation of your speech; but for that they would not have condescended to notice anything coming from so impure a source. Therefore, I positively decline to discuss by letter any new charges which you have taken from that book. If you choose to enter into a new campaign, un-
1258
der the auspices of these persons, I have no doubt I shall on Monday next have so many more opportunities of proving how you have been deceived. I think it fair, however, to caution you against proceeding with the levity shown in your letter of the 12th, where you talk of the commission, apparently composed of Austrian officers.' Can it be possible you have spoken and written all this about Modena in ignorance of the notorious fact that every Austrian officer had been removed from the duchy with the army of occupation eighteen months before the period to which you refer? If you choose to introduce these topics, and to say that I was not disposed to put my proofs into your hands, you will, of course, give my reasons for such refusal; but I trust you will see that it better on every account to confine your explanation to those points on which you feel yourself indisputably wrong, by which means you will do the best in your power to remedy the personal injury you have inflicted.
"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation was so unsatisfactory that in some of the papers it was summarized thus—
"Mr. Gladstone vindicated his former statements with regard to the Duke of Modena."
If that were the case, Mr. Gladstone certainly did not express himself with the extreme facility and ability which he displayed when he knew exactly what was the impression which he wished to convey. He had a perfect answer to all the charges which had been made. So far from substituting the military for the civil code, the Duke had directed that, where there was any distinction between them in regard to any particular crime, the milder punishment of the two should be applied. With respect to the Commission, only five persons had been executed under it, and not one of them within twenty-four hours after sentence, as Mr. Gladstone had asserted. No intention of the sort had ever been entertained. No doubt there were many of the victims of General Cialdini and General Pinelli who would have been very glad of this twenty-four hours' respite. He had another witness on this point to which he begged their Lordships' particular attention. Since Mr. Gladstone made his statement he had received a letter from the Duke of Modena, which showed the frankness and honesty of his conduct, and which also disposed of Mr. Gladstone's insinuation that the Duke knew nothing of what his Government were doing. He would read to their Lordships three extracts from that letter. The first related to the manner in which the Duke left his territory, and was as follows:—
"If I have not the means to supply you with the further documents that you desire, I beg you

1259
to take into your consideration that in quitting my States, I did not touch the archives or even the confidential papers of my own private secretary. I did not wish to displace anything which might be necessary to guarantee the personal interests of any one. This would suffice to prove that I did not feel myself guilty of any injustice whatever, and that I did not fear the judgment of honest men. You will recollect that I had ample time to carry off everything, but I then believed a powerful foreign invader, united with an Italian King, would be less disloyal than they proved to be after their victories. The latter stooping, by means of his political agents, to personal libels, procured at the price of the violation of the secrecy of strictly private letters."
With regard to Granaj's case, the Duke wrote—
"I now know the alleged test. I say alleged because it is impossible to remember all one may have written or proposed in so many years of government. The alleged text of the principal ground of the accusation of Mr. Gladstone is this; the order which I gave to a Commission which was to compile the project of a new code, referring to a condemnation against a certain Granaj, guilty of premeditated homicide. The text quoted will suffice to refute the calumnious assertion of Mr. Gladstone that I had caused a man to be put to death whom the law did not condemn to that penalty. I took occasion from such a premeditated case of homicide to prescribe that in the new code relating to atrocious crimes, when evident malicious intent was shown, the extreme penalty might be applied, even when the accused should be under twenty-one years of age. Such an exception had already been made for criminals guilty of high treason. In the code established in 1856 the age of eighteen was established as the minimum for the application of the penalty of death in cases comprising these crimes. My order was to apply to future cases, and not to Granaj; for that would have been giving a retrospective force to a law injuriously affecting a criminal, and, therefore, an act highly reprehensible. Thus, therefore, falls to the ground the principal accusation that Mr. Gladstone brings against me."
The third extract related to Mr. Gladstone's accusation of the general arbitrary nature and lawlessness of the Duke's Government, and on this point the Duke wrote—
"If my Government had been as arbitrary as Mr. Gladstone likes to believe it, I know not why so many families emigrated with me. Why, up to this time, not one has returned home, although suffering much thereby in their material interests. Why my troops abandoned their country and their families for an indefinite period, resisting seductions of every kind, and menaces of revolutionary vengeance. Why, in short, troops cut off from their own country should continue to recruit their ranks far better even than when I held authority in my hands."
The publication on which Mr. Gladstone had relied was not a solitary instance. It was tried with similar success by the same person against the Duchess of Parma,
1260
and also by other Piedmontese agents against the Grand Duke of Florence. A couple of years ago everybody was full of the story that the Grand Duke had left orders to bombard Florence; but who now believed it? With regard to the present state of Italy, there was a perfect system of deception practised by every one acting on behalf of the Piedmontese Government. Their Lordships knew that it existed in the Ministers of the King, because they had suffered from one of the greatest diplomatic deceptions ever attempted, when, on the occasion of the first discussion last year respecting the annexation of Savoy and Nice, a telegram with these words of Count Cavour was produced by the noble Lord opposite, "I have no intention either to sell, barter, or exchange an inch of territory." Just to show how our unsuspecting agents were imposed upon in different parts, their Lordships would find that Mr. Bonham wrote home from Naples to the effect that Count San Martino had told him that there had been great exaggeration about the reactionary bands; that there were only five of them consisting of about 100 men in each. Such a story made one ashamed of diplomacy. So far from there being only 500 men in arms in all the dominions of Naples, five times as many thousands were known to be scattered over the kingdom. Now, he thought their Lordships had a right to some accurate information on this subject, and if Sir James Hudson did not choose to write his own account of these transactions he would suggest to Her Majesty's Government an easy method of being better informed of what went on in Naples. They might refer to the official documents respecting the proceedings of the Turin Chamber of Deputies, and there they would find how far the opinions of the Neapolitan deputies corresponded with that of Count San Martino. Such was the condition to which the country was reduced by the Sardinian Government that if the people were now called upon for their votes the result would be very different. If the official accounts to which he alluded were forthcoming, Mr. Gladstone would find a charge made against the Sardinian Government of treating most harshly an individual whom they imprisoned, and distinct charges were also made against them of falsifying telegrams. He would also ask the noble Lord how he would explain the return of General Pinelli? Early in the Session, when he read General Pinelli's proclamation, the noble Lord said that the best

1261
proof that it had been disapproved by the Sardinian Government was that Pinelli had been recalled; but how was that consistent with the fact of his re-employment? It was proper that the Government should be in possession of accurate information before they arrived at such hasty judgments as those of Mr. Gladstone. The whole of Southern Italy was in a state of hopeless anarchy, and throughout the whole of the rest of Italy there was a growing distaste for the Piedmontese domination, and the people at any moment were ready to break out into open revolt. The noble Marquess concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies or Extracts of any Despatches relating to the Affairs of the Duchy of Modena from Her Majesty's Minister accredited to the Courts of Central Italy, during the years 1855, 1856, 1857, and 1858."
LORD WODEHOUSEthought he was entitled to ask the House whether it was a convenient plan that a Member of one House should be attacked as to a particular statement which he had made, and that allegations should be made against him affecting his personal accuracy, in the House of which he was not a Member, and in which he was not himself present to answer this attack? No doubt it would be very disagreeable to the accusers of Mr. Gladstone to meet him face to face. No doubt they found it a great deal more convenient to bring these charges where he himself was not present to answer them; but it would be only fair and just towards him, and would only accord with the usual practice of Parliament, that the accusations should be brought forward in the House where the statements complained of were made. Now, the whole of the speech made by the noble Marquess referred to statements made some months ago by a Member of the other House, and in point of strict order it was not open to a Member of one House to comment upon a speech made in the other. He disclaimed the slightest wish, however, to avoid entering into the case. What he wanted to hear from the noble Marquess was whether the documents which had been printed and published at Modena were forgeries or not. [The Marquess of NORMANBY: How am I to know?] Well, then, how was he (Lord Wodehouse) to know? [The Marquess of NORMANBY: I have not seen them.] When grave accusations of this kind were brought forward, it was surely desirable to study the
1262
documents out of which they arose. These documents, for the authenticity of which he was not called upon to vouch, were published at Modena by the authority of the Provisional Government, and were declared to have been found in the archives of the Modenese Government. Some of them were published in 1859 and others in 1860. Of course, if it could be shown that they were not authentic, all that was based upon them at once fell to the ground; but they were uncontradicted in any form by those who were supposed to have written them. Indeed, the noble Marquess himself had given some confirmation to them when he said that those by whom they had been published had stolen private letters. The noble Marquess did not allege that they were forgeries, and seemed to admit that they were private letters containing orders given by the Duke of Modena to his Ministers. Then the noble Marquess said they were not edicts. Now, that was the very thing he complained of. The main charge against the Duke was that he was constantly interfering with the ordinary administration of the law, and interfered not by edicts, but by rescripts addressed to his principal Ministers, which rescripts, affecting the personal liberty of his subjects, were by him considered to be private letters. If it were necessary to justify the declaration of the right hon. Friend that there was a state of utter lawlessness in the dominions of the Duke of Modena, he thought such a justification could be found in the remark of the noble Marquess, without going any further. But he wished to point out something which the noble Marquess had omitted to remark—namely, that the particular statement respecting the alleged execution of Granaj, about which Mr. Gladstone admitted that there might be some inaccuracy, was only one of many statements made by his right hon. Friend. The noble Marquess said nothing whatever about the other statements. Mr. Gladstone in his speech alluded to a variety of orders issued by the Duke of Modena. As to the case of Granaj Mr. Gladstone admitted he was in error in saying he was law which was made applicable to him as ex post facto law; and a further examination of the papers confirmed the view he had taken. It appeared that a state of siege was established at Carrara; that came to an end on the 13th of December, 1854. A military commission was appointed in 1857, that was empowered to

1263
judge a variety of crimes. One of them was "insults by words against the military authorities." Another order made the law of capital punishment applicable to persons under eighteen years of age. Another order gave the Military Commission power to judge all crimes committed since the state of siege was put an end to. Their Lorships would observe the dates. The state of siege was terminated on the 13th of December, 1854. The Military Commission was appointed in 1857, and it was empowered to take cognizance of all crimes committed since the close of the state of siege. Now, the order referring to the man Granaj was dated the 27th of August, 1855. It was perfectly possible for crimes committed between 1854 and 1855 to have been judged by an ex post facto law; it was impossible to put any other construction on the documents; that being the case, he thought Mr. Gladstone was not without justification in making the statement. It appeared also from these documents that the Duke of Modena wrote a letter to one of his Ministers in which he complained of the tribunal of appeal, which he said made itself the advocate instead of the Judge of criminals. Another point the noble Marquess had alluded to in a rather cursory manner. He spoke of a certain house of detention as if it were a reformatory where prisoners were taught useful trades. But one of these orders issued by the Duke of Modena did not seem to bear out the description. By this order the Duke, alluding to the prisoners who were under condemnation for criminal offences—about 254 in number—said that with regard to one third of these, in consequence of the mildness of their sentences, they were to be confined in the reformatory after the expiration of their sentence, until they had given proof of amendment. That the sentences of the Judges would be thus revised by the Executive, and persons kept in prison for indefinite period, was, he thought, rather arbitrary. The noble Marquess said that only five persons were executed in Modena during a considerable period. [The Marquess of NORMANBY: The Duke's whole reign.] During the whole reign of the Duke. But Mr. Gladstone's charge was not of cruelty, but of arbitrary Government; that the Duke revised the sentences of the Judges as he thought proper, and that this was an intolerable system. Another case was curious. Three prosecutions were dismissed by the Judge "for want of proof." The Duke calls this "a
1264
pretended want of proof, when there was the unanimous deposition of the forza publica." In another order the Duke complains of want of vigour in repressing a disturbance in a theatre in Carrara; he says, "The soldiers are to make use of their arms," and that "a wounded soldier ought to cost dear to a population that is guilty of such a misdeed." It appeared that the Duke interfered in every way with the administration of the law. But, not satisfied with defending the Duke of Modena, the noble Marquess had taken Her Majesty's Government to task in reference to the reappointment of General Pinelli, who had been sent back to Naples. They were not responsible for that or any other appointment of the Italian Government. The noble Marquess complained of all the official reports received from Italy that were not in accordance with his own views, and thought no confidence ought to be placed in them. For instance, he was surprised that Mr. Consul Bonham should exhibit such a want of information as to the brigandage in the Neapolitan territory. But a few weeks afterwards, when the number of the bands had increased, Mr. Bonham reported, on the 8th of June, that brigandage" prevails to a great and alarming extent." He could not see why the noble Marquess should complain because Mr. Bonham did not, in his first Report, make the number so large as in the second. As to the papers asked for by the noble Marquess, he did not suppose that they could be of any use to him personally, and, without further inquiry, he was not prepared to say that they could be produced without inconvenience to the public service.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think it is a matter of regret that at this late period of the Session my noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) should have thought it necessary to call attention to the case of the Duke of Modena; but I by no means desire to cast the slightest imputation or blame on my noble Friend for having come forward in the manner he has to satisfy what appeared to him to be the claims of public justice, as well as of private friendship for a Prince in misfortune, inasmuch as the Duke of Modena has been in an extraordinary and unusual manner attacked by one of the Cabinet Ministers of this country. It may be but of little importance to us what course the Duke of Modena pursued when he filled the position of a reigning Prince; but it is of the

1265
greatest importance to the character of this country and to the character of Parliament that a member of the Government should not avail himself of the facilities afforded to him by his official position and his seat in Parliament to throw out against a deposed Sovereign, on no sufficient evidence, a charge which it was impossible that the person accused should have an opportunity of meeting. And when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Wodehouse) says he thinks it a most extraordinary thing that my noble Friend should not have brought forward his defence of the Duke of Modena in the place where the accusation was made, he must know that my noble Friend has no opportunity of making that defence in the House of Commons, and no opportunity of bringing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer face to face with him in this House. What the noble Marquess had done has not been to bring him face to face; but in the correspondence he has driven the right hon. Gentleman from point to point, and obtained from him a reluctant, though in some respects certainly not a gracious, retractation of errors into which he has fallen. I think a generous mind would naturally shrink with repugnance from taking advantage of the opportunity—even if forced upon him—of expressing in the House of Commons exultation and triumph over the fallen and putting forth slanders against the unfortunate; yet, without the slightest necessity, or any provocation to such a course, the right hon. Gentleman has in his place in the House of Commons brought against an absent Sovereign charges of the most heinous character—accusations which he had subsequently admitted that on investigation he is not able to substantiate. I have seen the letter from the Duke of Modena to my noble Friend to which the noble Marquess had made reference. I think my noble Friend exercised a wise discretion in not reading that letter, which is very long; but if it could be laid before your Lordships you would see that there is not a sentence in it that does not denote that it has emanated from a man conscious of the rectitude of his own conduct, and feeling that he has been unjustly accused by the Minister of a friendly Sovereign who, availing himself of the opportunity which his position as a Minister and a Member of Parliament afforded him, has given utterance to those charges, and stated them in such a manner as would convey the impression that they were founded on official do-
1266
cuments to which he, as a Member of the Government, had access. And now, as to official documents, the noble Lord opposite held in his hand a book which appeared to be very voluminous, and which, perhaps, the Duke of Modena, my noble Friend, or none of us in this House had ever seen; but having heard one or two quotations from that book, we are called on to state whether in our opinion those documents are forged or not. Not having seen them, it is impossible for us to say. This my noble Friend said, that if some were authentic they had been obtained by the basest means and in the most unworthy manner. He further stated that papers had been left by the Duke of Modena in the confidence that they contained nothing against his character or which a generous enemy could publish to his disadvantage. They were left in the archives of Modena. Whether that we have heard of them have been correctly published we do not know, but if they have been they do not bear out the charges which Mr. Gladstone thought fit to bring against the Duke of Modena in the House of Commons. The noble Lord opposite enters on the discussion as to whether the Government of the Duke of Modena was an arbitrary one; and he appeals to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to know what he should think if the Executive of this country were to call on the Judges to revise their sentences, with a view to making them more severe. It is not necessary to tell us that the Duke of Modena's was not a constitutional Government; it is not necessary to tell us that he had an arbitrary power. It may be very objectionable that any Sovereign should have it in his discretion to exercise such a power; but that is not the question—the question is whether the Duke of Modena is open to the specific charge of which Mr. Gladstone said he was guilty. He did not volunteer in the House of Commons to show the arbitrary, cruel, and disgraceful manner in which, according to him, the Duke of Modena had exercised the power placed in his hands; in proof of which he stated that by an ex post facto edict he ordered the execution of a young man who did not come within those laws of the country which provided capital punishment. The charge of Mr. Gladstone was that an edict for the execution of Granaj was issued, and it was left to be inferred that the young man was executed. That is now retracted, I admit, but in what manner? Mr. Glad-

1267
stone says, "I think my words conveyed something more than I was justified in saying; but there was an ex post facto edict which rendered the young man liable to be executed." My Lords, that is a very different statement from the first; but even that has been clearly disproved by the evidence read by my noble Friend. No young man under the age of twenty-one has ever been executed in Modena during the Duke's reign. That is an indisputable fact which defies all contradiction or question. It is true that after atrocious crimes had been committed a letter was sent from the Duke of Modena to his Minister, directing an alteration to be made in regard to the laws. In that document the Duke does point out the inadequate sentence that had been passed on Granaj under the existing law, and directs that the law shall be modified so as to include within the offences liable to capital punishment the case of deliberate murder, even though the criminal is under twenty-one years of age. Is the alteration therein suggested a very unjust one? I should like to know whether in this country a man under the age of twenty-one years is not liable to execution for deliberate murder? The law of this country recognizes no such distinction as that which would exempt a person from capital punishment because he is under age. The Duke of Modena thinks there ought not to be such an exemption in his country, and he sends a direction to his Minister, who is drawing up a new code of law, and says, "Make under the new law premeditated murder, even when committed by persons under the age of twenty-one, punishable by capital punishment." Why, that is the law here, and that is the ground upon which Mr. Gladstone's charge rests, of an ex post facto edict having been issued by which Granaj was made subject to the penalty of death. Even under this direction—for it was not an edict, but a direction to a Minister to prepare an edict making an alteration in the law—there was no such intention as that alleged in the charge. No one pretends to say that the edict was ever carried into effect. In point of fact, it never was an edict at all; but in the letter quoted by my noble Friend, the Duke of Modena, distinctly and emphatically declares that even this direction was not intended to apply to the case of Granaj or to any other that had occurred, and, moreover, he declares, in the language of an honest man, that if he had intended to give a retrospective operation to the
1268
proposed law such an intention would have been most reprehensible. As an indication of the animus which dictated this charge, I may observe that Mr. Gladstone stated that the Duke of Modena had directed this edict to be acted on by Commission composed of Austrian officers, and that this Commission was directed not to refuse the evidence of soldiers. The not refusing the evidence of soldiers where the population was in insurrection, and the place was in a state of siege, was made one of the gravamina of the charges against the administration of the law under the Duke of Modena. But my noble Friend has shown conclusively that whereas the Duke of Modena was charged with causing Granaj to be executed, the fact was that he never was executed. He was charged with having passed an ex post facto enactment authorizing him to be executed—it was shown that no such ex post facto legislation was passed; he was charged with having caused him to be tried by a Commission of Austrian officers—it was proved that for eighteen months there had not been an Austrain officer in his dominions; he was charged with having enforced an ex post facto law, by which persons under twenty-one years of age were executed—it was proved that there were only five persons executed under the Duke's whole reign, each of whom had committed of-fences punishable with death under the civil law of the country, and that not a single person under twenty-one years of age was punished with death then or at any other time. These are the charges that were made against an absent and unfortunate Sovereign; and when these questions come to be discussed in the House of Lords, their Lordships, feeling the injury which had been done to the character of the country by one of the Ministers of the Crown availing himself of his position to put forth groundless and unfounded charges, and then refusing to offer a frank and fair refutation and retractation of charges, such as I should have thought an honourable man would have been only too eager to make—then, forsooth, we are met with the plea that he is not here to defend himself, and that we are bringing an accusation against him in his absence. Why, the accusation against the Duke of Modena was not only made in his absence, but was circulated all over Europe in the columns of The Times, and went forth as having been made in the freest assembly in the world by a Minister of the Crown,

1269
with all the authority of the Government to back it up; and that allegation must have been received as true unless some person, prompted by the honourable motives which have actuated the noble Marquess, and possessing his means of information, had come forward to contradict the charge, and scatter to the winds the accusations made by Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer. My noble Friend says, if you wish for information relative to the years in which those transactions are said to have occurred, you have the means of furnishing the House with them; and those very documents, though they are not brought forward, have been quoted from this evening. [Earl GRANVILLE made a gesture of dissent.] Why, I see them now in the noble Lord's hand. We have never seen them, and we cannot act upon them. I always thought the rule was that the Minister, if he did not feel himself at liberty to lay papers upon the table of the House, should abstain from quoting from them. My noble Friend says if you wish to have authentic information as to the proceedings in Modena, as to the conduct of the Government, and the relations between the Government and the people, the estimation in which the Duke was held, and as to the general condition of the country, you will lay on the table those Reports which you received from your agents during the last three years; and we shall then be able to see whether there is in them anything which justifies the charges of misconduct and criminality brought by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the Duke of Modena. I think it is a matter of perfect indifference to my noble Friend whether these documents are produced or not. Of this I am quite sure, that if they could substantiate the charges made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer there would be no repugnance or difficulty on the part of his colleagues about laying them on the table. If they are refused, I presume the fair inference will be, to say the least, that they do not support those charges. I certainly have a very strong suspicion on my own mind that they contain abundant matter for repudiating them. I should by no means recommend him to press for their production against the wish of Her Majesty's Government, I think he may feel perfectly satisfied with what has taken place. And I trust what has passed in this House will afford some reparation to that unfortunate and injured Sovereign—into the merits of whose Government I
1270
will not enter — for the grievous wrong and injustice which have been perpetrated upon him in the other House of Parliament.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I entirely agree with all that has fallen from the noble Earl as to its being disagreeable, even if necessary, to make an attack, not merely upon a deposed Sovereign, but upon any individual, whatever his position, who may be in adversity, and who is not present to defend himself. But that principle has been pushed to an extreme which seems to me utterly indefensible. What is there in the character of a deposed Sovereign that renders it impossible, in the course of a discussion in Parliament bearing upon political questions, to bring any act of the Duke of Modena, fairly stated, before the public? Or in what way are the charges brought against that Sovereign more reprehensible than the political and personal attacks which we have heard in this House almost daily from the noble Marquess upon the King of Sardinia, his Ministers and Generals, who, equally with the Duke of Modena, are absent from this House, and have no available means that I know to repel the attacks made upon them? I confess I cannot see the difference between them. The charges brought against Mr. Gladstone with so much energy by the noble Earl who has just sat down appear to me to amount to this—that he had no business whatever to bring any accusations whatever against the Duke of Modena, and that those which he did make were unfounded. I can conceive nothing more reasonable than, in a discussion on the great Italian question, very much turning on the right of resistance on the part of the people against the constituted Government, inquiry should be made as to the character of that Government, the treatment which the people have received, and the reason which they have to complain. I think if it could be shown that the Government of the Sovereign of that country had a revolutionary tendency—and there is no course more pregnant with revolution than a rule systematically opposed to the established law of the country—it would have a very material bearing upon the discussion. And such was the line of argument adopted by my right hon. Friend. But one single point of his argument and his charges has been impugned. After a correspondence with the noble Marquess, and after a careful examination of the facts, my right hon.

1271
Friend came to the conclusion that he had been mistaken in one respect, and had drawn a wrong inference. He, thereupon, went down to the House of Commons and made a statement exactly to that effect. The noble Earl has referred to that speech, of which he derives his impression from a short abstract in a weekly paper. I sometimes read a weekly paper, in which I see short abstracts of the noble Earl's remarks, and I can assure him he would by no means acknowledge that they contained a correct representation of what had fallen from him. The noble Earl, who must have been in desperate want of an argument, says it is not the rule to read from private letters or from despatches which have not been laid on the Table of the House. It is not the habit of any Government that I know of to lay on the Table documents belonging to other Governments. This book was published by the order of the de facto Government established at Modena at the time—a revolutionary Government I admit, but which was afterwards regularly constituted. The book consists of documents found in the archives; it has been published now for more than a year, and its contents have never been impugned. The noble Earl says the Duke of Modena never read it;—that fact appears to me perfectly incomprehensible. I have got a copy of the book myself, several friends of mine possess copies of it, and it was circulated all over Italy. If the Duke of Modena doubted its authenticity, and had been unable himself to procure a copy, he could easily have procured an agent who would have got access to it and investigated its contents; and if these could have been shown to be fictitious they would have inflicted indelible disgrace upon the men who forged such documents. But nobody has ventured to say that they are not literal copies of the instructions given by the Duke of Modena or his Minister to his private Secretary. The noble Earl says he presumes we shall refuse the papers asked for by the noble Marquess, and he, thereupon, grounded a charge against Her Majesty's Government. I can only express may own belief that it would be useless to produce them. It may be satisfactory to the noble Marquess to see what he wrote; but I cannot say I should think it perfectly conclusive if no such charges appeared in them. But, if the House thinks that it is worth the expense to print them, I conceive there will be no disadvantage to the public service in al-
1272
lowing them to be laid on the Table. I certainly object to these personal discussions. And I think, with my noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, it would be infinitely more satisfactory if they occurred in the House in which the debate originally took place. The noble Marquess, in the course of his speech, did little more than read letters; and, as there are several persons in the other House who take the same strong interest in foreign politics as the noble Marquess, I do not see in what way the Duke of Modena's case could have suffered had he place the papers in the hands of some Member of the House of Commons to enable him to reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am bound to say that anything more incorrect than the statement that all the charges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been scattered to the winds I never yet heard.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that when a person was reading a correspondence in which he had himself taken part, it was very common for him to read his own letters with much greater distinctness, with much more emphasis, and much more audibly, than his adversary's. That was what had occurred with the noble Marquess. When he sat, as he did at the commencement of his noble Friend's speech, in his usual place on the other side of the House, he heard every word, every syllable, and every letter of his noble Friend's letters; but whether it was that in the transition from his own to Mr. Gladstone's letter his noble Friend dropped his voice—not knowingly and wilfully—God forbid he should charge him with that! — or from other causes, he certainly did not hear the letters of the right hon. Gentleman. When he came to the side of the House from which he was then speaking he heard better; but still Mr. Gladstone's letters were not read with the same emphasis and in the same clear tone as were those of his noble Friend. The charge against Mr. Gladstone was this—he accused the Duke of Modena of issuing a retrospective edict which went to the punishment of offenders who were not then of legal age, and he assumed that that edict had had its operation, and had caused the execution of a person named Antonio Granaj. It was natural that Mr. Gladstone should think that if the Duke of Modena issued this edict he did it with the intention that it should be carried into effect, because it was known that the Duke was "nauseated" with certain sen-

1273
tences because he thought them too mild; and it was also natural that he should suppose that execution had actually taken place, because in Modena procedure was very summary, and execution followed very rapidly upon sentence. Again, as this edict was issued for the express purpose of punishing persons for offences committed previous to its being issued, it was a very probable presumption that this offender had been executed. More than that, however, Mr. Gladstone had information that the execution had in fact taken place, so that the probability was in his mind, connected with something like certainty. The charge against him was that when he discovered that he had been misinformed, and that, in point of fact, the execution had not taken place, he did not sufficiently retract, and explain, and express his regret for having made the statement. Now, in the House of Commons—in the very place where he had made the charge—Mr. Gladstone expressly stated that he had been misinformed, that his information was incorrect, and the inference which he had founded upon it erroneous. The noble Marquess asked why he did not express any regret? He (Lord Brougham) had not the good fortune—and he should always esteem it great good fortune to be present when so great a speaker, so eloquent and brilliant an orator as Mr. Gladstone was to be heard—to be in the House of Commons on the evening when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, having crossed the threshold of that House only twice since the 19th of November, 1830, namely: once about a year ago to listen to Mr. Gladstone, and again the other night to hear his noble Friend at the head of the Government explain his intentions with respect to the Amendments introduced by their Lordships into the Bankruptcy Bill; but he understood from his noble Friends who heard the explanation, that Mr. Gladstone did express his regret that he had fallen into this error. One word with respect to the book of which so much had been said. Mr. Gladstone's statement proceeded upon documents which had been published officially by the provisional or temporary or de facto Government of Modena. They had been for twelve months exposed to sale and accessible to every one. But the Duke of Modena could not by any means obtain a sight of this book, nor, it appeared, could the noble Marquess. The only persons who laboured under the misfortune of not been able to procure them were the client
1274
and the advocate, the Duke of Modena and the noble Marquess. But, then, the noble Marquess said, "How can you tell that these documents are not forgeries?" and Mr. Gladstone might reply, "How can you tell that they are?" Nobody pretended to say that they were forgeries—for anything that appeared they were authentic; and, if they were, Mr. Gladstone's defence was complete. If the letters which were now sought for were in the Foreign Office, no doubt they would be forthcoming, and their Lordships would then see whether Mr. Gladstone was borne out in his statements by those documents. It had been urged in favour of the Duke of Modena—of whom he desired to speak with all the respect due to misfortune—that he had removed or destroyed none of his papers; and these papers would show that he was perfectly clear of the charge. It was a very unusual thing for persons, either upon Grand Ducal or other thrones, or upon no thrones at all, who were engaged in proceedings which would not bear the light, to put in writing what they were doing, to manufacture evidence against themselves, and leave it to be found by their enemies. Such a proceeding was, in the life of a criminal, whether throned or not, most unusual. What was the Duke of Modena's defence? He said, "Search my depositories and you will find no papers to show that I am guilty." He did not believe there was any prisoner now waiting for trial at the Old Bailey or elsewhere who, if he could not with truth plead "Not guilty," could not at least say truly that he had not knowingly left behind him any evidence against himself. The other evening, when the noble Marquess gave notice of his intention to bring forward this subject, he said he wished the Grand Duke a good deliverance, meaning not only from his accuser, Mr. Gladstone, but from his advocate, for they had here another illustration of the proverb—"Save me from my friends, and I will protect myself against my enemies." As the noble Marquess had extended his observations beyond the case in point to the general state of Italy, he (Lord Brougham) might be allowed to say that he still held, as he had always done, that there was no act more utterly without justification, and even with out extenuation than for a nation, whether France, Piedmont, or any other, to possess itself of the territory of another State under the pretence that its government was bad. That was the pretext under which one of

1275
the greatest crimes of ancient or modern times—the first partition of Poland in 1772—was committed. At that time Poland was subject to an elective monarchy, under which perpetual anarchy prevailed; but that was no excuse for the conduct of Prussia, Austria, and Russia. With regard to a solution of the Roman question he wished he could say as he had said of the proceedings of France and Sardinia elsewhere—
"Quod non fieri debet factum valeat."
However much he might disapprove the act itself before it was done, yet after it was accomplished he could not but hail with heartfelt joy the termination of the atrocious tyranny of the Bourbons. The Present Government of Rome was elective, like that of Poland, and was one of the worst in Europe; but still that would not justify the seizure of the Papal States by any foreign Power. He hoped the day would arrive when they would free themselves from the bad Government under which they were suffering, that that would be effected by themselves, and that they would be left to themselves without the intervention of other parties. He was altogether opposed to the new-fangled notions about nationalities—as if the origin of any nation or the form of any Government gave a foreign Power a right to interfere and appropriate the territory. But, while he could not approve that schemes of aggression to which that eminent statesman Count Cavour had lent himself, with the Co-operation of the Emperor of the French, he heartily rejoiced at the establishment of a great and constitutional Italian kingdom.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, after the unanswerable speech of his noble Friend near him (Lord Derby), he certainly should not think of detaining their Lordships with any reply, nor could his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down expect that he should take any serious notice of his attempt to amuse the House. He could only remark that he (Lord Brougham) appeared there as the advocate of Mr. Gladstone, in a spirit worthy of his client as it was ungenerous and even unfair to the Duke of Modena. As he understood there was some difficulty about consenting to the immediate production of the additional papers to which he had referred in his former statement, he begged to give notice of a Motion for their production on Friday.
Motion aggreed to.

CASE OF QUARTERMASTER DODD.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LUCANrose, pursuant to notice—
  "To call the Attention of the House to the Correspondence between the Lord Lieutenant of County of Mayo an the Government of Ireland on the Subject of the Resignation of his Commission by Quartermaster Dodd of the south Mayo Rifles, and the Appointment of his Successor."
  The facts were simply these:—An officer commanding one of the regiments of militia, only lately appointed himself, and therefore, little conversant with the proper channel for communications on the subject of discipline, erroneously applied to the Inspector General of Militia with respect to the conduct of a Quartermaster. The Inspector of Militia erroneously entered into a correspondence with the commanding officer, and recommended that a certain course should be pursued, Ultimately the Lord Lieutenant accepted the resignation of Quartermaster Dodd, and appointed a successor, without consulting him (the Earl of Lucan) as Lord Lieutenant of the county. At this time he (the Earl of Lucan) was necessarily absent from the country; but as soon as he became aware of these proceedings he saw Sir Thomas Larcom, and remonstrated with him upon the irregularity of the course which had been adopted. Sir Thomas Larcom admitted the justice of his complaint, and expressed his sorrow that an unusual course should have been taken. He was perfectly satisfied, and should have thought no more of the matter, but for what subsequently occurred. In April he had received a letter from Sir Thomas Larcom, informing him of all which had been going on during two months previous, and which ended in the acceptance by the Government of the resignation of the Quartermaster. In May he wrote a reply protesting against his authority, as Lieutenant of the county, being superseded; and he was in hopes, after the expression of regret by Sir Thomas Larcom, to which he had referred, that the Government of Ireland would have at once admitted that what had been done had been done inadvertently. But great was his astonishment when he received a letter, dated the 11th of June, in which it was distinctly laid down that the position of Lieutenants of counties in Ireland differed entirely from the position of Lieutenants of counties in England; that communication with Lieutenants of counties in Ireland on subjects

  1277
  of discipline was totally unnecessary; and that the most convenient and regular course was for the commanding officer to communicate directly with the Government in Dublin. He believed there were several Lieutenants of English counties present, and he thought they would agree with him that nothing could be more illegal or improper than such direct communications, or that the resignation of an officer should be accepted without the intervention of the Lieutenant of the county. On the receipt of that letter he again remonstrated, and the Government thought is sufficiently important to refer the question to the law officers of the Crown. In their opinion they stated that the Irish Government had acted legally in reference to the case of Quartermaster Dodd, and that the Executive were justified under the circumstances in accepting his resignation. He (the Earl of Lucan) ventured to impugn that decision as being contrary to the intentions of the Legislature when passing the Acts which defined and regulated the duties of Lords-Lieutenant of counties. Looking at those Acts, he contended that there was no such distinction as was alleged between the powers and the duties of the Lords-Lieutenant of the two countries. The appointment of the quartermasters of militia regiments was vested exclusively in the Lords-Lieutenant of counties, and he believed that the Government had acted contrary to law, right, and usage, in appointing an officer as successor to Quartermaster Dodd. The Government said that the appointment of such officers was vested in the colonels of regiments. He concluded that it was vested in the hands of the Lords-Lieutenant of counties. It certainly never was the intention of the Legislature that any act should be done under the authority of law to degrade the office of Lord Lieutenant of counties, and he, therefore, hoped that Her Majesty's Government in that House would be able to give a satisfactory explanation on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that he concurred with his noble Friend in his view of the high office of Lord Lieutenant of a county, and that it never was the intention of the Legislature to do anything that was calculated to degrade it. Her Majesty's Government, however, must be bound by the decision of their law officers in such cases as that to which the noble Earl had just called their attention. He thought there could be no doubt that there was a distinction between the office
  1278
  of a Lord Lieutenant in England and in Ireland. The whole subject would, however, be considered by the Government.

BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

  PETITIONS.
  LORD EBURYrose, pursuant to notice, to present a Petition of Members of the Church of England and Ireland, Praying for an Address to Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the Subject of the Book of Common Prayer, with a view of making alterations therein. The noble Lord said that he had not given notice of his intention to present this petition, which was not numerously but most respectably signed, on account of any special importance he attached to it, but because he wished, with their Lordships' permission, to avail himself of the opportunity to state to the House and the country the reasons which induced him not to proceed with the Motion of which he had given notice at the termination of the last Session of Parliament, to lay this year upon the Table of the House a Bill to alter and amend the Act of Uniformity. In the first place, throughout his connection with this question he had been desirous that the initiative should come from the ecclesiastical element in the legislative body. He had, therefore, waited to see whether the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury would make any move in that direction. It had done so before; it might do so again. That body met this spring under new circumstances, inasmuch as they had asked and obtained a licence from the Crown to enter on the path of Reform. Undoubtedly it was not of a very radical description; still it was a step in the right direction, and he had hoped that they might have considered the propriety of requesting those of their body who had seats in Parliament to propose legislation to ameliorate some of those evils which had been the subject of such frequent complaint. Circumstances, however, occurred which prevented the further consideration of these matters. Their Lordships would recollect that the meeting of that body was twice postponed; once owing to a domestic affliction in the family of the most rev. Prelate, and once on account of his much regretted indisposition. Mean while the opportunity for acting in this House was passing away; and in addition, the storm raised by the discussion of the Essays and Reviews made it im-

  1279
  possible to obtain a fair hearing for anything else. It was, therefore, considered by those who had conduct of this question of liturgical revision to be an inopportune moment for stirring it in this House. Now, before he proceeded to state his intentions as to the future, he wished to draw their Lordships' attention to the altered position in which this question stood, since he made his statement in that House in May last year. Subsequent to his Motion in the House last May a similar one was made in the Lower House of Convocation with great ability by the Dean of Norwich and Mr. Oxenden, one of the elected representatives of the diocese of Canterbury; and, although not successful, yet if any of their Lordships would look into the Ecclesiastical Hansard they would see that their arguments remained unanswered, and that many who would not vote for the Motion at that time begged they might not be considered as pledged against it. Then, although in some episcopal charges a revision of the Liturgy had been somewhat apologetically deprecated, yet the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Glocester and Bristol had recommended it unhesitatingly, and in words to which he begged their Lordships' attention—
  "The further revision of the Liturgy has been strongly recommended by persons of learning and piety at various times since the last revision of 1802. Indeed, all true friends of the Church must, in the abstract, be in favour of revision. However wedded to those forms which they rightly cherish as one of the greatest blessings which they have inherited from their forefathers, they can hardly deny that there some alterations which would render the Prayer Book more perfect, and they must esteem it a service done to the Church of no little moment if any defect in her ritual were remedied, any acknowledged deficiency supplied, any change made by which, without the sacrifice of what is essential, the prejudices of Separatists might be removed and the peace and unity of the Church secured. He also adds that he sees no reason why that should not be done at once."
  But the most remarkable circumstance yet remained to be considered, and it emanated from the most rev. the Primate of Ireland, with the approbation of the Archbishop of Dublin. The House was aware that in consequence of the Provincial Synods of York and Canterbury having obtained a licence from the Crown to do so, they proceeded to alter the 29th Canon, which relates to parents becoming sponsors for their own children. When this was done, one of the Irish Bishops and his Clergy called
  1280
  upon the most rev. the Primate to convene a Synod for the purpose of following their example. This, however, the most rev. Primate declined to do, on account of an opinion which he entertained, after consulting with the ablest ecclesiastical lawyers of this country, that the 29th Canon never had any validity whatever, and, therefore, that, whether it were altered or no, the law remained the same; but he had added these remarks, which, coming from so highly respected a source, he was sure would be most interesting to the House—
  "If at any time a well-considered plan for a general revision of the canons and rubrics, or for shortening the accustomed services, or for amending the laws which regulate the discipline of the Church, should be previously framed by the heads of the Church and State, it would seem to me that a National Synod of the united Church is the appropriate body for considering the principles and arranging the details of such a measure before the introduction into Parliament of a Bill to give it legal effect; should an occasion of this kind present itself during the remaining period of my protracted Primacy my best efforts shall be used for the convening of a National Synod."
  Their Lordships would, therefore, see that there was abundant evidence to show not only that this question was not disposed of by the rejection of the Motion which he had the honor to make last year, but that it was as unsettled and as rife as ever, and as urgently requiring authoritative interposition. He should like to have added some further observations in reference to this part of the subject, but he had already trespassed at some length upon the Patience of the House and would refrain from so doing. He would merely add, that unless some move was made early next year by the ecclesiastical authorities (and this he must again repeat he earnestly desired, because he wished the initiative to proceed from them), it would be his duty to ask their Lordships' assent to a Bill for relaxing the terms of subscription, which had been so severely reprobated by some of the brightest ornaments of our Church, which had done and were doing an amount of mischief which could not be over-stated. Those of their Lordships who did him the honour to listen to him last year would remember that he described the alteration of the terms of subscription to be that without which all other alterations would be wholly incomplete. Their Lordships would, he thought, consider that the Motion would come with peculiar appropriateness next year. The fatal and revengeful Act which compelled these terms was passed in the year 1662; next year would be the 200th

  1281
  anniversary, and he trusted their Lordships would feel sincere pleasure in substituting for it something more in harmony with the conciliatory spirit and Christianity of our age. The noble Lord then presented the Petition; also one from Ashbourne to the same effect.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he was not authorized to state that Convocation would be likely to take up this subject. He was glad, however, to see that the question had become a little more clear than it was originally. It always appeared to him that this subject was greatly complicated by the mixing up of three questions which had very little to do with each other. One was whether the services of the Church could not be made more elastic and shorter; another was whether any alteration should be made in the doctrinal statements of the formularies of the Church; and the third, whether the terms of subscription should or should not be relaxed. He was glad to hear that the noble Lord intended to confine his attention to the third of these questions. He thought the noble Lord would be more likely to attain his object if he had adopted the course pursued on a late occasion by a noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) when an alteration was made in regard to certain services. On that occasion the noble Earl distinctly pointed out what the services were to which his Motion referred, and their Lordships knew the exact question with which they had to deal. The noble Lord, however, had always Pressed the necessity of a general revision of the Liturgy. Now, in former times, such a course as the noble Lord advocated had only been taken after a period of revolution. When the Church recovered form the convulsion into which it was thrown at the time of the Reformation there was, of course, a general revision, When the Royal Family and the Established Church were restored after the Commonwealth, and again when James II. was compelled to leave the Throne, there was a general revision of the Liturgy; but it seemed out of the question to propose a general revision of the whole Liturgy of the Church of England at a time like the present. If the noble Lord would set forth the changes which he wished to effect the country and the church would then be able distinctly to judge whether or not those changes were desirable, or whether they would not cause that general unsettlement of feeling throughout the country which was much to be
  1282
  deprecated, As to the terms of subscription, it was of great importance that the public should not suppose them to be more rigid than they really were. His impression was, that a man who conscientiously believed the Church of England to be the Church in which he wished to live and die, and who was not more attached to any other form of Christianity than that which the Church of England presented, might fairly and safely make the subscriptions which were required of him by the present law. These subscriptions were not so strict as the noble Lord seemed to imagine. They stated that the person who subscribed accepted the Articles of the Church of England; that, if he took orders. he would act according to the formularies of the Church; and that he upheld the Royal supremacy. The subscriptions were required of all clergymen and some laymen; they were required of every one becoming a governing member of the University of Oxford. They had been made by the noble Lord himself as a member of the University of Oxford, and he did not believe they would be found to go beyond what he had just stated. If, however, it should be found that they pressed in any way upon the consciences of scrupulous persons, and if any safe relaxation could be proposed, he was quite sure such a proposal would receive great attention from the right rev. Bench and from Convocation. What he had always deprecated was the general unsettlement in the Church of England which would certainly result from throwing the Prayerbook into the hands of a Commission with general authority to alter a course. As to the services of the Church, he had several times stated that they might, if it were desirable, be shortened. The Litany, for example, might, under the sanction of the diocesan, be used as a separate service; and there were other modes by which the services, if too long, might be abridged. But in the feeling of the laity, and if a clergyman ventured upon such a change it was extremely likely that he would find his position in the parish not particularly pleasant.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHthought the extreme length of the services was objectionable. In the Morning service the Lord's Prayer was repeated five times. He had been told that the right rev. Prelate himself, on one occasion, in reading the service at a consecration, said, "You have had the Lord's prayer four times, I

  1283
  will not give it you again." [The Bishop of LONDON, by gesture, expressed his denial.] The Litany, it was suggested, might be omitted, and put in the Evening Service; but if there was any part of the service a "miserable sinner" might wish to retain, it was the Litany. Many of the clergy endeavoured to strain the existing law, but any effective movement must come from the Bishops.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONcould not understand the complaints relative to the repetition of the Lord's Prayer, and he regretted the manner in which it had been alluded to by the noble Marquess. Nothing of human origin could be entirely free from error; but if any composition was or could be perfect, it was the Liturgy of the Church of England. The laity generally disliked any innovation that would affect it, and he deprecated the repeated discussions on the subject of changes that could have no result but to unsettle and disturb men's minds. He did not cast any reflection on the course pursued by the noble Lord, but he regarded with alarm and anxiety any suggestion for altering the incomparable Liturgy of the new Reformed Catholic and Apostolic Church.
  Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table,

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT AMEND MENT BILL

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments.
  Moved, That the said, Report be now received; objected to; after short debate, Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Amendments reported accordingly.
  LORD REDESDALEmoved to omit
  Clause 7.
  On Question, Whether the said clause be omitted?
  Their Lordships divided—Contents 10;
  Not Contents 10.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdecided that by the rule semper presumitur pronegarte the Motion was negatived.
  The clause was accordingly retained, and the Bill was then agreed to, with some verbal Amendments.
  Amendment negaticed.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next
  House adjourned at half-past Nine o'clock, 'till to-morrow, Twelve o' clock.