said, he was very desirous to call the attention of the House to the necessity of adopting some settled and uniform principle with reference to the issuing of writs in cases where Committees had reported bribery to have existed. He thought that the present was a convenient time, because the Berwick-upon-Tweed case afforded a strong exemplification of some of the abuses which had crept into the practice of Committees, and showed how before that tribunal justice might be prostituted to private purposes. It was obvious, from the course of proceeding prescribed by various recent Acts of Parliament, that the House had not in any way abdicated its common-law jurisdiction, and that it was still within the power of the House, as the grand inquest of the nation to institute any further inquiry, which, com the facts brought under its cogni- sance, might appear to be necessary. The certainty that in each borough and in every case the friends of the probably successful candidate would be clamorous for the issue of a new writ, to which those on the other side, also foreseeing the result, would object, was a sufficient argument against leaving unsettled a rule which should be decided and uniform; and as regarded inquiries subsequent to those of the petitioners, it was in the power, and it was the duty, of that House to institute further investigations, when those of the private individuals commencing the proceedings left "undiscovered the corruption of the borough concerned. It would indeed be very hard if public justice were to be evaded because the end of a private petitioner had been obtained—a difficulty provided against in criminal cases very simply, by leaving it to the complainant in them, as here, to commence proceedings, but, having allowed his personal motives to take him so far, placing him then under heavy recognisances to carry them on. But in cases where a borough was accused of corruption, there was no such safeguard for the public. They trusted all to the disappointed candidate, relying on him to bring his grievances before the House of Commons: they had petitions presented, not to promote, but to stifle inquiry; and they found the sham or interested petitioner, having induced others by his feint not to proceed, withdrawing his petition as it suited him, and making use of the forms of the House merely to extract money for himself, and without any worthy object whatsoever. This state of things was very well illustrated before the Berwick Committee, Berwick being, as they must frankly admit—for they could not shut their eyes to it—a place notoriously corrupt, and one to which they would all in ordinary conversation admit it would be madness for any man to go to get elected, unless he had a very large supply of money in his pocket. Since the last election, the two Members returned by this borough, which was as notorious as Sudbury or St. Albans, had been petitioned against. In the Berwick case the Members returned sat on the Ministerial side of the House. There was a petition presented containing the ordinary charge of bribery and treating, and the more general and sweeping one—that extensive bribery and corruption had prevailed at the last election. The ordinary lists of bribers and bribed were also handed in, and it appeared that one Member was charged with sixteen, and the other with ten, cases of deliberate bribery. Upon the first day of the inquiry, evidence against both the sitting Members was proceeded with. At the close of that day, the evidence appeared to be strong against one Member, Mr. Stapleton; and upon the following day he withdrew upon the ground that the charge of treating had been brought home to his agents. Immediately afterwards counsel stated that the petition had been throughout a fishing petition, and that it was not proposed to carry it further, or adduce any other evidence before the Committee. The Committee, however, cleared the room, deliberated upon the matter, and, after remaining in deliberation some time, they then declined to let the case drop, and required the counsel to proceed. Somewhat reluctantly he did so, but no evidence of any importance was adduced with reference to bribery. Still the Committee found that bribery had been committed by the agent of the Member, and fixed upon certain persons whom they named in their Report. That Committee was presided over by a most able and im-impartial chairman, and, in pursuance of their duty, they called in the agents upon both sides, and inquired of them whether any compromise had taken place. The answers to that inquiry—answers, by the by, which appeared to be given rather" by the card"—satisfied them that no compromise had taken place. But there was no investigation before that Committee, either by calling the sitting Members or their agents, into the practices of the borough. One or two things, however, the House must consider. Of course, in the present state of the law, private individuals had a right to prosecute these inquiries in the way that best suited them; and that way was by the calling of the fewest possible witnesses, and the incurring of the smallest possible expense. There was also another object frequently in view. If the petitioner had been a candidate himself, for example, his desire was not only to unseat the Member, but to preserve the good will of the borough; and if he probed the sores too deeply, it was probable that he would not succeed in this. In the present case, however, the abrupt termination of the petition caused a great deal of surprise out of doors, and rumours became rife. In fact, a journal, which he must say was most fearless in detecting abuses of all kinds, called the attention of hon. Members pointedly to the way in which the forms of the House had been abused, for the purpose of extorting money. The Times newspaper adverted to that inquiry in the following terms:—

"Surely the Members of an Election Committee would be not a little astonished if they discovered that the original purpose and ultimate end of the inquiry they were conducting was to put a large sum of money into the hands of a sharper—of a man who, in point of fact, is little better than one of those scoundrels who attempt to extort money by threatening prosecutions and exposure where no legitimate subject of exposure exists. The practice to which we would call attention is as follows:—There is to be an election for a borough; one, two, or more bonâ fide candidates present themselves for the suffrages of the electors. Another one then steps in, not with the idea of being returned, but simply with the view of placing himself in such a position that he can present a petition against the successful candidates. Of course, for the purposes of our argument, we must assume that these successful candidates do, in point of fact, come before the Committee with clean hands. Nothing, however, is more simple, under the present practice, than to make out a specious case against anybody. This is done. The next act of our adventurer is to cause an intimation to be made to the sitting Member that for a given sum—say 2,000l.—he will withdraw the petition. What is that Member to do? In the present state of the law the odds would lie heavily against any man who should attempt to maintain a disputed seat. The furnace is exceedingly hot. Shall he buy the rogue off? Shall he listen to the voice of natural indignation, and, conscious of the rectitude of his conduct, dare his adversary to do his worst? That is, no doubt, the heroic course, but yet a somewhat dangerous one, if the person attacked wishes to maintain his seat. Still, on the whole, there is no help for it. It will not do to compromise matters with rogues—for who could predict what the next step would be if a man should once, by his own act, put himself in their power? Go on, then, and lose your seat! This is no imaginary case. Within the last few days the trick we have described has actually been played, and, if we are rightly informed, the Members of a Parliamentary Committee have been made the participators of as arrant an attempt at swindling as was ever called in question within the walls of the Old Bailey. For obvious reasons, we cannot produce the names. We will only say, that a Member has just been displaced who might have retained his seat had he paid 2,000l. to the petitioner. The offer was made in several ways. The petitioner called upon the sitting Member's son, and offered to withdraw the petition upon certain conditions. He offered to make such a bet with the young man as must terminate in his own favour, so that, if the transaction should ever be called in question, there might be a colourable answer. This offer was rejected. Next he went to the house of a mutual friend, and sent word through him that he would withdraw the petition for exactly the sum of 2,000l. At that gentleman's house he waited for the answer, which was a decided and indignant negative. The case went on, and the Member was unseated. He had given positive instructions to his agent to call him be fore the Committee; but, in the opinion of the agent, and, we believe, of the counsel employed, an unfavourable result was deemed a matter of such wild improbability, that the sitting Member was—most unfortunately, as it turned out—not called. Thus the opportunity for relating to the Committee, with full particularity of name and circumstance, the incident, which we cannot describe more fully than we have done, was irretrievably lost."

Now, he asked the House whether it was fit and decent that these proceedings should go unquestioned. It might be said that that statement did not necessarily apply to Berwick-upon-Tweed; but he thought he could show the House most clearly that it did. Some days after the article appeared in the Times, the Daily News went into the particulars of the case, and fixed the transaction upon the brother of a recent petitioner before a Parliamentary Committee; and, more recently still, an address to the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed appeared in the Berwick paper, signed by Mr. John Hodgson Hinde, who was a brother of one of the petitioners, which traced beyond a doubt these charges home to that borough. The House might say that this seemed to be a mere private negotiation; but he asked them to connect it with the subsequent withdrawal of the petition, alleging ten cases of bribery against one Member, and sixteen against the other. He was not speaking without hook when he said, that instead of there being only ten and sixteen cases of bribery respectively, it might, with much more truth, be said there were between 300 and 400. He made this statement, not upon indefinite authority, but upon the opinion of persons who knew what elections at Berwick were, and who said, "It is of no use going down to Berwick unless you are prepared to pay the freemen all round." What, then, was the course which the House ought to pursue under such circumstances? He asked them whether the notoriety of corruption was not a strong reason to induce the House to take some step in the matter? He had heard the speech of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) on a similar case the other night; but he (Mr. Phinn) was not one who believed that corruption had so deeply tainted either that House or the country as that hon. Member seemed to suppose. If the hon. Member's theory were pushed to the utmost, it would justify corruption even on the Bench. He (Mr. Phinn) believed that a large majority of the Members of that House had been returned without corruption; and, though he was opposed in politics to hon. Members opposite, he would say that he believed that most of the county Members had been returned without any corrupt pecuniary influences. But he asked the House whether the country would be satisfied with a partial crusade against corruption, and whether it was not their duty, whenever such circumstances as he had referred to were brought under the notice of the House, at once to institute a vigorous inquiry? He believed that the evil had reached such a height that the House would be justified in sending Commissions to every borough in the country. It would, perhaps, be said, that it was all very well for a member of the profession to which he belonged to make that proposal, because it would give employment to the barristers; but he would say, let the Commissioners be Members of Parliament instead of barristers, if they pleased, or let them be persons who were connected neither with the profession of the law nor with Parliament—let them investigate the corruption — let them look the evil in the face, and see what was its extent— and then deal promptly and vigorously with it. It might be said, also, that if they instituted roving commissions of this kind, it would procrastinate any attempt to reform the 'representation. But he would tell the House—and he spoke with some little experience—that the Commissioners would get at the bottom of the evil in four or five days—because, although St. Albans had occupied twelve or thirteen days, there was no necessity, in order to prove the sys-tem which prevailed, to go into each individual case of reported bribery, as was done on that occasion. All that would be necessary for them to do would be to summon the political agents of the borough, the bankers, and a few other persons, and the inquiry would be completed in almost every borough in about five or six days. But the House might depend upon it that so long as they allowed a mass of corruption to exist, any extension of the suffrage would only be prejudicial to the character of the House; and he believed that they ought to look the alleged evil firmly in the face before they attempted to deal with the reform of the representation. All other institutions were subjected periodically to inquiry and revision, and why should there not also be a fair inquiry into our system of Parliamentary representation? He would now conclude by moving that no writ be issued for the borough of Berwick-on-Tweed till Thursday, the 2nd of June.

said, he had been anxious to hear on what grounds the hon. and learned Member for Bath, in the absence of any special report from the Committee, and not having himself moved that the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee should be laid before the House, justified the suspension of the writ. The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech had removed his anxiety. He could perfectly understand, now, why the hon. and learned Gentleman had not moved for the production of the minutes of evidence, because he depended, not upon that evidence, but on articles in the Times, Daily flews, and Berwick Advertiser. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also spoken of the notoriety of the corruption in the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed. He (Mr. Seymer) could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was not aware of the great notoriety of the borough of Berwick in that respect, for since he had the honour of a seat in that House, he did not think that the case of Berwick had ever before been brought before them; and he had not made it his business to inquire about the corruption of former days. He would say, however, as a matter of principle, that whatever might have been the character of the borough of Berwick in former days, any corruption that might have existed was condoned by that House when they issued new writs. He could not refer to the evidence which was taken before the Berwick Committee, because it was not in the hands of Members, but that was not his fault. He had abstained from moving for its production, because the Committee wore unanimously of opinion that the writ ought to issue, and that there was no occasion to print the evidence. He had himself always followed the principle of not moving for the production of evidence in cases of Election Committees, unless he was himself prepared to found some Motion on the evidence, and he thought that a sound and good rule. The hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn) knowing the Amendment he intended to move, would have done well, he thought, to move for the evidence before submitting his Amendment. But though he was unable to refer to the evidence, he (Mr. Seymer) might state briefly what took place before the Committee. The Committee met last Friday week, and proceeded to take evidence affecting the sitting Members, both as regarded bribery and treating. The case of treating by-agency against Mr. Stapleton came out so strong, that he (Mr. Seymer) was not at all surprised when next day that Gentleman's counsel said that he would not attempt to defend his seat. The Committee then cleared the room, and declared Mr. Stapleton unseated; but, on looking over the evidence afterwards, it occurred to them that there was a charge of bribery affecting Mr. Stapleton, and they accordingly called upon his counsel to answer that charge. That having been done, the Committee again ordered the doors to be closed, and after deliberating anxiously on the matter, they arrived at the conclusion that agency in the case of Mr. Stapleton had not been proved; so that they came to no resolution in regard to the bribery alleged against Mr. Stapleton. The counsel for the petitioner then stated that he would not bring forward any further evidence against the other sitting Member (Mr. Forster). It then certainly did strike the Committee that there was some appearance of a corrupt compromise in this, and they accordingly did what they were empowered to do—they called in the agents of the parties concerned, and examined them on the subject, and the conclusion the Committee arrived at was, that no corrupt compromise had been attempted. In these circumstances, they felt that their duty was merely to declare that Mr. Forster was unseated for bribery, and Mr. Stapleton for treating, and to report that Resolution to the House. The hon. and learned Member had alluded to an article in the Times, which he supposed to refer to the present case; and he (Mr. Seymer) thought it very possible it did, and he would tell them why. When the doors of the Committee room were closed, and the Committee were considering their Report, Mr. Forster rushed into the room in a state of considerable exeitement, and asked the Committee whether his counsel had made application to call him as a witness? He was informed that he had not; upon which Mr. Forster seemed much surprised and annoyed. He (Mr. Seymer) might state, that the impression of the Committee was, that Mr. Forster's counsel had exercised a wise discretion in not calling him as a witness, because it was probable that the first question that would have been put to him, on cross-examination, would have rendered very clear it was a Case of agency-about which the Committee entertained doubts. But, supposing all that had been said about a compromise to be true, he wanted to know how the right of the electors was affected by it? It was very possible that, supposing a corrupt compromise had been intended, a person might go to the sitting Member and say, "I have a clear case against you. I can prove that an agent of yours gave a man 5l. for his vote, and unless you give me so much money I will petition against you." But there might not be a single other case of bribery in the whole borough. This would not, therefore, prove a state of general corruption, or affect the right of the town to return Members to Parliament. He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit there were some pure electors in Berwick; but yet there had been no petition presented from them for inquiry. There were two modes in which an inquiry might be carried on after the decision of a Committee: one, the course pursued in the Rye case, where the Committee had reported that a further investigation ought to take place; the other where the parties presented a petition. But, short of such proceeding, he maintained there was no satisfactory way of investigating the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of a Commission; but he (Mr. Seymer) did not believe that the other branch of the Legislature would concur in an Address to the Crown, unless some legal evidence was adduced to show them the necessity of so doing. The hon. and learned Gentleman wished to send hon. Members to fish in the Tweed for corruption. He (Mr. Seymer) did not mean to say that if they went they would not find some sport. But what he did mean to say was, that they could arrive at no conclusion that would affect the right of the electors of Berwick. He understood that four Gentleman, believing from the Report of the Committee that a writ was about to be issued, were now busily engaged in contesting the borough. If Berwick was not immaculate, why expose it to a long canvass? If the hon. and learned Gentleman believed that the electors of that borough were thirsty souls, why put off the election till after the dog-days? He could not help thinking that there was some political motive beyond this and similar Motions. Perhaps hon. Members wanted to make out a case for an extensive Reform Bill. If so, he would not quarrel with them on that point. If they thought a reduced franchise a beneficial measure, they were quite entitled to their opinions. He only objected to their doing so by interfering with the just rights of the electors of Berwick.

said, he would not have presumed to have interposed between the House and the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymers) with any remarks of his as to what had passed before the Committee; but the House would observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn) had made statements which involved serious imputations upon a gentle, man who had been for many years a Member of that House. And he thought the House would feel that, in fairness and justice, this gentleman should have an opportunity of stating to the House what were the circumstances connected with this petition against the late sitting Members, in order to remove, as far as he could, the impression which must necessarily be produced by an article which had appeared in the Times, and which there could be no doubt referred to the Berwick-upon-Tweed election, for the article had also appeared in the Berwick newspapers, and was in fact pointed at Mr. Hodgson, who had called his (Sir F. Thesiger's) attention to it some few days since; and, anticipating that the hon. and learned Member for Bath would bring the subject before the House, had requested him, on his behalf, to make a statement of the circumstances. He was now prepared to do so, and therefore asked for the indulgence of the House. Whatever might be the intention of the House as to the issuing or the withholding of the writ, he was requested by Mr. Hodgson to state, fully and fairly, all the circumstances so far as he was concerned, and he would do so, keeping back nothing. He begged to call the attention of the House for a short time to the charges contained in the article in the Times, for anything more serious than those charges were could scarcely be imagined. The article to which he alluded contained the following statement:—

"The practice to which we would call attention is as follows:—There is to be an election for a borough; one, two, or more bonâ fide candidates present themselves for the suffrages of the electors. Another one then steps in, not with the idea of being returned, but simply with the view of placing himself in such a position that he can present a petition against the successful candidates. Of course, for the purposes of our argument, we must assume that these successful candidates do, in point of fact, come before the Committee with clean hands. Nothing, however, is more simple under the present practice than to make out a specious case against anybody. This is done. The next act of our adventurer is to cause an intimation to be made to the sitting Member that for a given sum—say 2,000l.—he will withdraw the petition. What is that Member to do? In the present state of the law the odds would lie heavily against any man who should attempt to maintain a disputed seat. The furnace is exceeding hot. Shall he buy the rogue off? Shall he listen to the voice of natural indignation, and, conscious of the rectitude of his conduct, dare his adversary to do his worst? That is, no doubt, the heroic course, but yet a some what dangerous one, if the person attacked wishes to maintain his seat. Still, on the whole there is no help for it. It will not do to compromise matters with rogues—for who could predict what the next step would be if a man should once, by his own act, put himself in their power? Go on then, and lose your seat! This is no imaginary case. Within the last few days the trick we have described has actually been played, and if. We are rightly informed, the Members of a Parliamentary Committee have been made the participators of as arrant an attempt at swindling as was ever called in question within the walls of the Old Bailey. For obvious reasons we cannot produce the names. We will only say that a Member has just been displaced who might have retained his seat had he paid 2,000l. to the petitioner. The offer was made in several ways. The petitioner called upon the sitting Member's son, and offered to withdraw the petition upon certain conditions. He offered to make such a bet with the young man as must terminate in his own favour, so that, if the transaction should ever be called in question, there might be a colourable answer. This offer was rejected. Next he went to the house of a mutual friend, and sent word through him that he would withdraw the petition for exactly the sum of 2,000l. At that gentleman's house he waited for the answer, which was a decided and indignant negative. The case went on, and the Member was unseated. He had given positive instructions to his agent to call him before the Committee; but, in the opinion of the agent, and, we believe, of the counsel employed, an unfavourable result was deemed a matter of such wild improbability that the sitting Member was—most unfortunately, as it turned out—not called. Thus the opportunity for relating to the Committee, with full particularity of name and circumstance, the incident, which we cannot describe more fully than we have done was irretrievably lost. It remains to be seen if the House will pass over in silence so discreditable a transaction, now that attention has been thus publicly called to the fact."

Now it would be seen that in this article his hon. Friend was treated as an "adventurer." How, was it proper to designate as an adventurer Mr. Hodgson, who had for ten years represented the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed in that House, and his brother had for seventeen years, and down to 1847, represented Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In 1847, his friend Mr. Hodgson was solicited to stand for the borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, his brother having resigned, and he consented to do so, although no opposition to his re-election at Berwick was contemplated. Last year at the general election he had been solicited to return to Berwick, and stand for it. Mr. Hodgson believed parties in that borough were almost equally balanced, and that the Conservative party had a fair right to one seat, and, therefore, he resolved that if the Liberal party should insist upon returning two Members he would allow himself to be put in nomination. Accordingly, when Mr. Stapleton was brought forward in conjunction with Mr. Forster, Mr. Hodgson issued his address and commenced his canvass. The result was well known. Treating and bribery had prevailed to a considerable extent at the election, he must conclude from the issue of the inquiry. Mr. Hodgson, at the time the poll was declared, intimated his intention to present a petition against the return of the sitting Members —he prepared his materials accordingly, and laid them before a barrister—a man of Liberal politics, and of the highest character. Upon looking through the evidence which Mr. Hodgson had prepared, the counsel expressed his opinion that the case was complete against the sitting Members, and, with the concurrence of Mr. Hodgson, he communicated with their agents, telling them that defence to the petition about to be presented was hopeless. Mr. Hodgson's desire was to secure one of the seats for a Conservative, and he was desirous of doing this without presenting a petition—partly because a petition was a very expensive proceeding, and partly because it would render him unpopular in the borough. Nothing, however, resulted from this communication, and Mr. Hodgson went down prepared to prosecute the petition. Mr. Hodgson had told him (Sir F. Thesiger) that there were no less than ninety witnesses whom he had intended to produce, and there were forty-four of the adverse party who had Speaker's warrants served on them—in short, no less than sixty witnesses were to be sent up to London upon telegraphic communication if their services were required. Mr. Hodgson, under these circumstances, called upon a Gentleman of great weight and authority, who sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and laid the whole of his case before him. Upon his advice, Mr. Hodgson sought an interview with Mr. Forster. He proposed to Mr. Forster first of all that both the sitting Members should vacate their seats;—and his next proposal was that one of them should retire, and that there should be no opposition offered to one Conservative candidate. It unfortunately happened that there was no union of feeling between the two sitting Members, so that arrangement was, according to the terms proposed, impracticable; but it was agreed upon that Mr. Hodgson should have an interview with Mr. Forster's son—Mr. Forster, sen., assuring him that his son was man of strict honour. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Phinn) alluded to the interview which had taken place between Mr. Forster, jun., and Mr. Hodgson. According to the statements that had been made to him, Mr. Hodgson said, "Now, we are within the four walls of this room, and let it be understood that neither you nor I shall repeat anything which passes between us. Your father distinctly stated that he does not wish to know what takes place at this interview, and, therefore, if you please, it shall be strictly confidential." And yet, notwithstanding this agreement, there appeared an article in the Times newspaper of the circumstances which took place at that interview, and which could only have been communicated by Mr. Forster, jun. The passage from the article in the Times was as follows:—

"The petitioner called upon the sitting Member's son and offered to withdraw the petition upon certain conditions. He offered to make such a bet with the young man as must terminate in his own favour, so that, if the transaction should ever be called in question, there might be a colourable answer."

He would now give a statement of what really took place relative "to the compromise for 2,000l..," concealing nothing, and leaving the House to form its own judgment on the facts. It was proposed, as he had stated, that both Members should vacate their seats; but this was neglected because the sitting Members were not on amicable terms. The next proposal on the part of Mr. Hodgson was, "If I undertake to proceed with the petition against Mr. Stapleton alone, will your father give me a guarantee that there will be no opposition to my election at Berwick?" To which Mr. Forster, jun., replied, "What security would you have?" "Why," said Mr. Hodgson, "you may enter into a penalty in case I am not returned."["Oh, oh!"and "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members would, he trusted, hear him patiently—he was only discharging what he considered to be his duty. When the case was mentioned to him he expressly stated that he would not have anything to do with it unless he were allowed, in the most unreserved manner, to place before the House the whole of the facts. He thought he might venture to say, that, however the House might disapprove of what he had stated, it was very different from the version which had been given in the Times— very different from Mr. Hodgson's having "offered to: make such a bet with a young man as must terminate in his own favour, so that if the transaction should ever be called in question, there might be a colour able answer." But to proceed:—In reply to Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Forster, jun., stated, "That a bond of the kind proposed would be illegal;" upon which Mr. Hodgson said,. "I will lay you a bet, or in any other way you like." This was what Mr. Hodgson stated. And here he thought it right to-introduce a correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Staple-ton. He would not read the letter of Mr. Stapleton, but there were passages in the letter of Mr. Hodgson which he thought it was fair to Mr. Hodgson should be read to the House:—

"It was only, however, after consultation with my political friends in the borough, and under the conviction that the fullest inquiry cannot jeopardise the privilege enjoyed by Berwick of sending future representatives to Parliament, that I deter mined to nullify the last election. In this resolution I only vindicate the right of that large section of the electors, who concur with my political opinions, to their due share of representation. At the same time, I shall test the soundness of that opinion held by myself in common (I believe) with nine-tenths of the inhabitants, and not excluding either of the sitting Members, that on equal terms, namely, in a contest, either on the part of the candidates, entirely pure or universally corrupt, my election was a matter of certainty up to the eve of the poll. I disclaim altogether any right to justify the presentation of my petition by the imputation of motives or acts on your part, subsequent to the election, affecting myself personally. In fact, the question is not personal; and, as far as I am concerned, shall be tried with patience and perseverance, but without loss of temper…… I say with the utmost sincerity that it would have been more gratifying to me that the object in view had been attained without the presentation or prosecution of a petition; but it was incompetent in me to make any overture, except that a new election should take place by consent of all parties; and I had no reason to believe that this would have been accepted. In conclusion, I must, in candour, inform you that, in looking to the utter impossibility of a successful defence against the petition, my counsel will, at the opening of the case, lodge his claim for expenses incurred in its establishment, on the ground that opposition, under the circumstances, cannot be otherwise than frivolous and unfounded. Having stated this, I have only further to say, that I am perfectly willing that the evidence already prepared shall be submitted to yourself or to any friend of your own, professional or otherwise, with the proviso that, in the event of no opinion being entertained at variance With my own as to the nature of the case, I shall be spared the necessity of proceeding with my petition as against your return by your abandonment of its defence; and, so far as you and your friends are concerned, no impediment shall be interposed to my election; On the other hand, if my opinion be controverted, the documents submitted to be privileged, insomuch that, while you shall be at liberty to procure counter-evidence, the actual facts, and testimony, and names of witnesses shall be undivulged. I do not think a fairer offer, nor one more indicative of dependence on an adversary's honour can be made; but, being well aware of the personal consequences to yourself and others which must follow the proof of my allegations, I am unwilling to throw away the opportunity afforded mo by your communication to avert these, if possible."

He thought that showed pretty clearly that Mr. Hodgson was not prosecuting the petition with any such disgraceful object as was attributed to him by this article. Mr. Hodgson went to Berwick a few days before the petition was heard, for the purpose of arranging for sending up the witnesses, and in his absence that communication took place which was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Bath—a communication on the part of Mr. Forster, to see whether there could not be an arrangement about the petition, so far as it respected himself. Mr. Hodgson had nothing whatever to do with that negotiation; he knew nothing whatever about it until his return to London, when a communication was made to him by his brother that there had been overtures on the part of Mr. Forster; but as Mr. Hodgson Hinde stated, no details were imparted to Mr. Hodgson, and he knew nothing about it. The Committee met, and on the very first day of the inquiry they heard from the Chairman there was no doubt whatever that the case was completely established against Mr. Stapleton on the ground of treating. There had been evidence given against Mr. Forster which certainly placed his seat in very great jeopardy. Under that state of things a communication was made on the part of Mr. Forster proposing that no further evidence should be produced against him, and that he would undertake that no opposition should be offered to the election of a Conservative candidate for Berwick. Mr. Hodgson being put to very considerable expense, stated that he would not accept of any offer at all but the seat with the costs he had been put to; and accordingly that offer was rejected, and in the course of the day an hon. Friend of his (Sir F. Thesiger) communicated with Mr. Hodgson, and expressed his regret that some arrangement was not come to, when Mr. Hodgson said distinctly, "The seat and the costs are my terms, and to no others will I agree." It was intimated that Mr. Stapleton would abandon the defence of his seat, on which Mr. Hodgson desired that notice should be given to him that an application would be made to the Committee for costs against him, according to the previous notice Mr. Hodgson had given him in the letter to which he (Sir F. Thesiger) had directed the attention of the House, on the ground that the defence of his seat would be frivolous and vexatious. The Committee met on the second day. Mr. Hodgson was communicating with his counsel as to the grounds upon which they were to press for the costs against Mr. Stapleton, when, to his surprise, he was informed that an arrangement had been made that Mr. Forster should pay the costs of the petition, and that neither he nor his friends should oppose the return of a Conservative candidate for Berwick, and that no further evidence should be produced before the Committee. He was stating the facts; the arrangement was to hold good, whatever the decision of the Committee might be with regard to Mr. Forster, on the evidence. It gave him considerable pain (he was bound to say) to hear from his hon. and learned. Friend (Mr. Phinn) that it had been proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that no compromise had taken place between the parties. The result was known. The Committee decided that Mr. Stapleton's election was void on the ground of treating, and Mr. Forster's on the ground of bribery. Whether the circumstance of there having been a compromise was a ground for the House saying that a writ should not issue, it was not for him to decide. But he confessed it appeared to him there would be very great difficulty, even after the knowledge of all these facts, in their saying the writ ought not to issue, because it appeared to him there were no circumstances which the House could avail itself of for the purpose of suspending the writ and instituting any effectual inquiry. Under the 5 & 6 Vict., it was quite clear the time was gone by for any petition. There had been no Report of the Committee that any further inquiry should take place. Then, how was it possible, under those circumstances, that they could fairly and properly suspend the writ and say that the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed should be deprived of their representatives for any time? The hon. and learned Member for Bath said, and truly said, that that House had what he called common law— not common law, but Parliamentary law— by which, if it thought right, without any Act of Parliament, it might suspend any writ, and direct any inquiry it pleased; but he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought it would be a very strong measure, when the House had consented to an Act of Parliament which provided for particular occasions on which—not that the writ should be suspended, but that an inquiry should be instituted where there had been a Report that bribery was conclusively proved, or that an improper compromise had taken place, or a petition was presented to the House within three months after the act of bribery was committed. For what did the Act of Parliament say? It said that, although the House directed an inquiry, and the Committee assembled for that purpose, it should have no effect on the issuing of the writ. Then, they were really going to assume a power beyond that which they had agreed should be given to them by Act of Parliament limiting and fettering their powers, if they had larger powers; and therefore, it appeared to him that it would be unjust to the constituency to suspend the issuing of this writ, although it might be desirable there should be a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with this charge against a Gentleman who was a Member of that House, and which reflected also on the late hon. Member for Berwick. He thought it would be desirable that a Committee should be appointed to institute such an inquiry, but that that ought not to have the slightest effect whatever on the issuing of the writ, because whatever might be the result of that inquiry on the Report of the Committee, it ought not to have the slightest influence in preventing the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed from having the advantage of representatives.

said, that the evidence of all the attorneys who had been examined before the Committee went to show that there had been no compromise.

rose and said: Sir, in pursuance of the notice which appears on the journals of the House, I have now to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in consequence of two informations of a political character having been laid against William Hale, inventor and manufacturer of the patent war-rocket, and the first of such informations having terminated in the said patentee (William Hale) being adjudged to pay certain penalties to the Crown, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise the Crown to proceed with the second information, laid under the provisions of a law passed during the reign of William III., 1697, intituled "Air Act to prevent the throwing or firing of squibs, serpents, and other fireworks." Now, Sir, in asking this question I will state, as shortly as possible, not only my reasons for asking it, but exactly how the case stands at the present moment as regards the defendant Hale; and I think I shall be able to prove to the House that so absurd and ridiculous a prosecution as the present was never instituted by any British Government on political grounds. That this prosecution has been instituted for political reasons and on political grounds, I think the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department has already admitted in his place in this House; but if there be any doubt about it, you have only to look at the leading articles which have appeared in the organ of the Government, certain extracts from which I will take the liberty of reading to the' House. The first seizure of Mr. William Hale's property was made on the 14th of last month, and on the following day, the 15th, an article on the subject appeared in; the Times. It commenced as follows:—

"The British Government has not waited long for an opportunity of proving to all the world the sincerity of its resolution to put the law rigorously in force against such foreign refugees re- siding in this country as have abused the tolerant hospitality of England by carrying on conspiracies against other States. We believe that we are correctly informed when he state that, upon intelligence received by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis, active measures have been taken to substantiate the charges which have long been vaguely preferred against M. Kossuth and his adherents. Upon this legal information a house in the occupation of M. Kossuth was searched yesterday morning at an early hour by the competent authorities, acting, we presume, under the Secretary of State's warrant, and the result of this investigation was the discovery of a large store of arms, ammunition, and materials of war, which may be the stock in trade of a political incendiary, but certainly form no part of the household goods of a private gentleman living in pacific retirement. Indeed, there is reason to believe that these preparations have been going on upon a scale entirely inconsistent with the notion of any mere private speculation, and must have had in view hostilities or insurrectionary movements of a very destructive character. We know not how long the attention of the Home Office has been directed to the suspicious proceedings of the persons engaged in these lawless undertakings, but Lord Palmerston has shown his usual energy and skill in tracing the evil to its root; and it is extremely satisfactory, that the Minister who has been so often identified with these adventures by the ignorance or passion of foreign Governments should now have it in his power to show, by a conspicuous example, that the good order of society and the friendly relations of this country with foreign States are not to be violated with impunity under his administration."

Now, Sir, I believe M. Kossuth has complained of having been libelled by this article; but in my opinion the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department has more reason to complain, for I think he has been libelled by the Times. It is only two years ago since this House, after a long and interesting debate, passed a Resolution in approbation of the noble Lord's foreign policy. I voted in favour of that Resolution, because I thought the noble Lord had taken an independent part in relation to foreign countries; and I am much surprised, therefore, to find the Times eulogising him for conduct quite the reverse. Still I retain my favourable opinion of the noble Lord, and, whatever the Times may say, I think the noble Lord is not "the Minister of Austria." In another article the Times says the proceedings against the Hales are not for paltry penalties, but are for other State purposes. The exact words of the journalist are—

"Mr. Bodkin observed in his address to the Court, that 'there were other reasons besides the mere punishment of Halo that had induced the Government to take the present proceedings; but at this stage of the inquiry he should not enter into them, and he should leave them to develop themselves in the progress of the case.' The penalty imposed by the statute 12 Geo. III. is only the forfeiture of the goods, with a fine of 2s. a pound on the powder seized.

"It would be absurd to suppose that the active and energetic measures taken in this case, under the immediate direction of the Government, and by the Solicitor to the Treasury, are solely intended to recover this paltry penalty. We are confident that there is considerably more to be disclosed than is yet before the public. If we are not strangely misinformed, there are still important witnesses who have not been examined on this charge against Mr. Hale, for he only figures in the capacity of agent and manufacturer of rockets for other parties."

Well, that is the opinion of the Times; but it has been confirmed by the speeches that have been made at Bow-street on the part of the Government. Now, Sir, as I have said, Mr. Hale has had two informations laid against him. The first information was brought under what is called the Gunpowder Act of Geo. III. Under that Act he was adjudged to pay 2s. a pound for 57 lbs. of a composition which was found on his premises at Rotherhithe, but which he maintains was not gunpowder, and which, I believe, no man ever thought was gunpowder until it came to Bow-street. Mr. Hale had 257 lbs. of this substance in his possession; but he was acknowledged to be a trader in gunpowder, and as traders are entitled to have 2001bs. of gunpowder on their premises, he was sentenced to pay 2s. a pound only on the 57 lbs. But the truth is, Mr. Hale had carried on his works, had made his shells and rockets, close to Woolwich Arsenal, without let or hindrance, for a long period, and only a comparatively short time has elapsed since he removed to Rotherhithe, and so came within the provisions of the Gunpowder Act; for I understand the Act prohibits any person from keeping more than 200 lbs. of gunpowder within three miles of the City of London, in case, I presume, my right hon. Colleague the Lord Mayor and the corporation of the City should be blown up. Under these circumstances Mr. Hale was unfortunately condemned. The question certainly arose whether the composition was gunpowder or not. Witnesses were produced—one on the part of the Government, and one on the part of Mr. Hale. Mr. Hale's witness (Dr. Ure) said it was nonsense to suppose that this composition was gunpowder; the other man (Dr. Hoffman, said that it was. But the persons with whom Mr. Hale dealt, and who were also employed by the Government to supply gunpowder, said that there was no such thing known as gunpowder in the rocket trade. Mr. Henry (the magistrate) took time to consider his judgment, and as soon as he got home rushed to his Encyclopœdia Britannica, in order to see what gunpowder was. Three days afterwards he came into court, and, saying not a word about the evidence which had been given before him respecting the composition, Mr. Henry said that he found out from the Encyclopœdia Britannica that it was gunpowder after all, because our ancestors never saw gunpowder in the ungranulated state; and, therefore, the Government granulated poor Mr. Hale in the amount of 5l. 14s. Such was the end of State prosecution, No. 1. Let us now proceed to No. 2. Upon the last occasion referred to, counsel for the prosecution said—

"That there was another information to which the attention of the magistrates would be by-and-by directed, and as to which circumstances would be detailed which he would not now anticipate, but which would impart a character to these transactions."

It was perfectly well known that it was intended to identify Mr. Hale in some way or another with M. Kossuth. Mr. Clarkson, the counsel for the defence, suggested

"that it would be better to try the question before them first. He was satisfied the mind of the magistrate would not be affected by what was to follow."

Information No. 2 came to be tried—the great explosion was to take place—the whole world was to be convinced that this was a most terrific conspiracy, and that M. Kossuth and Mr. Hale intended by their rockets to subvert every Government in Europe which they did not approve of. Upon what was this second information laid? Upon an Act passed in the ninth year of the reign of William III., in the year 1697 — an Act which he (Mr. Duncombe) would venture to say, had never been enforced, but had remained a dead letter ever since a few years after its passing. What he now complained of, and what the people of England would complain of, was, that a State prosecution should be carried on under such an Act of Parliament as that. It was entitled "An Act to prevent the throwing or firing of squibs, serpents, and other fireworks;" and the preamble showed what its object was. The preamble stated—

"Whereas much mischief hath lately happened by throwing, casting, and firing of squibs, serpents, rackets, and other fireworks, some persons having thereby lost their lives, others their eyes, others have had their lives in great danger, and several other damages have been sustained by many persons, and much more may thereby happen if not speedily prevented; for remedy whereof for the future, be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the 25th day of March, 1698, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, of what age, sex, degree, or quality soever, to make or cause to be made, or to sell or utter or offer or expose to sale, any squibs, rockets, serpents, or other fireworks, or any cases, moulds, or other implements for the making any such squibs, serpents, rockets, or other fireworks, or for any person or persons to permit or suffer any squibs, serpents, rockets, or other fireworks to be cast, thrown, or fired from, out of, or in his, her, or their house or houses, lodgings, or habitations, or from, out of, or in any part or place thereof belonging or adjoining, into any public street, highway, road, or passage, or for any person or person, of what degree, quality, or age soever, to throw, cast, or fire, or to be aiding or assisting in the throwing, casting, or firing of any squibs, serpents, rockets, or other fireworks in or into any public street, house, shop, river, highway, road, or passage; and that every such offence shall be and is hereby adjudged to be a common nuisance."

There was a saving clause at the end allowing the Board of Ordnance to make rockets or fireworks, and it also permitted the Artillery Company and train bands of London and the militia to do the same. There was no doubt that under that Act Mr. Hale, in making his rockets, had been guilty of a violation of the law. He (Mr. Duncombe) would admit it; indeed, every body knew that Mr. Hale had made the rockets, and he was therefore guilty. But so were all the persons who made fireworks for Vauxhall and Cremorne Gardens. Indeed, all the manufacturers of fireworks in the kingdom were liable to punishment. I ask, who has ever thought of instituting a political prosecution under this Act? Why, Mr. Henry (the magistrate), appears to have been ashamed of the whole transaction, and glad to get rid of it. He heard the evidence of certain witnesses, among whom were three or four Hungarians—no, not Hungarians—political exiles, who had been objects of charity in the eyes of M. Kossuth, and who had received assistance at his hands. One of them was an honest thief, who had, from his own statement, received English hospitality at the treadmill in Maidstone gaol. That was one of the witnesses of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. Then there were two or three Germans, who were not much better, but who had been sent by M. Kossuth to Mr. Hale, as had been admitted, in order that the latter might employ them. One of them had formerly been an officer in the Hungarian army, and was supposed to understand the manufacture of rockets. He was employed at a salary of 18s. a week. A great deal has been made of the statement of these men, that they were desired not to talk in public-houses of what was going on in the factory at Rother-hithe. Now really, Sir, I see nothing in this which is not capable of satisfactory explanation. The men might be told not to talk in public-houses, because the work carried on might be misrepresented, as it unquestionably has been, for I maintain that the Government has been grossly deceived and misinformed. Well, Sir, having heard the evidence of these political refugees, Mr. Henry resolved not to decide the case summarily; in fact, he was again bewildered, and being unable to extricate himself from the difficulty this time by consulting the Encyclopœdia Britannica, he wisely determined to send the case over to the Surrey magistrates, who, sitting close to Vauxhall, he thought would be good judges of fireworks. So stands the case at the present moment. Now then, Sir, I would ask, is this a worthy or a dignified course for any Government of this country to pursue? If M. Kossuth and Mr. Hale have been guilty of any conspiracy to levy war against any of those countries with which we are now upon terms of amity, I say, indict them boldly and openly for that conspiracy; but if they have not been guilty of such an offence, do not rake up an old Act of Parliament that has slept for the last 120 years, even with regard to the making of fireworks. But what are all these proceedings for? Nothing, I am sure, can be more unpalatable to the great body of the people of this country, who look upon the whole transaction, as far as it has gone, with unmitigated disgust. I believe it is bringing the Government, to whom we all wish well, and to whom we are disposed to give a fair trial, into such disrepute with the mass of the people as few Governments have experienced. I ask, Sir, who is this transaction to please? The popular impression is that it is to please some foreign Government—to please the Austrian Government; and, indeed, I think we have sufficiently strong evidence of the fact in some of the foreign journals. This is a point to which I beg leave to direct the attention of the noble Secretary of State for the Home Department. Very recently a paragraph appeared in a Frankfort paper, headed "The English Police and Spies of Foreign Despots." It ran as follows:—

"It is now confirmed that the Prussian police were most efficiently assisted in the late political arrests at Berlin and elsewhere by repeated communications from the police at London, without which many of their disclosures might not have been made; and we see a proof of the good faith of the British Government when, through Lord Westmoreland, it assures the Cabinet of Vienna that it will watch over the conduct of the refugees; and we learn from other sources that the London police have for some time kept a list of all the fugitives residing there, and watch over their communications with the Continent."

What, Sir, must Europe think of England unless she gives forth some contradiction of such injurious statements? It is quite right that the police of London, or any other police, should communicate with foreign Governments, in the event of persons seeking refuge here being guilty of felony, or murder, or of something of that sort; but the Government has no right, or the police have no right, to communicate with foreign Governments upon political subjects—upon any political crime that is committed here, or may have been committed abroad; and, indeed, our police have no right to communicate with the police of foreign Governments at all. They were not instituted for that purpose. But now I am to show that Austria had really something to do with these seizures at Rotherhithe. In the Augsburg Gazette, of the 14th April—remember Mr. Hale's property was seized on the 13th—there appeared an article, dated Munich, April 12, and expressed in the following terms:—"At London revolution is allowed to take counsel and fill her arsenals with destructive weapons, rockets," & c. Now, I think it is natural to infer from this that some communication had passed between certain parties in authority here and the informants of the Augsburg Gazette. So, Sir, the Times was not, after all, far wrong when it said—I forget the precise terms—that the Government of this country had been urged by Austria to look after the refugees, and that it was determined to show its willingness to do so. Now, Sir, I think Her Majesty's Ministers, when they are applied to by Austria or any other Foreign Power on the subject of political fugitives, ought to tell the Government appealing to them to look at the free institutions of this country—ought to remind them of the confiscations of Lombardy, and the cruelties and tortures that recently disgraced Milan and Mantua—ought to let them know that such is not the way to gain the affections of their subjects—and ought to return for answer to their request, that interference with refugees in this country will never be submitted to by the people of England. No, we want none of their Radetskys here. Therefore, I wish to ask Her Majesty's Ministers whether they think it worth while to pursue this prosecution any further against Mr. Hale? Mr. Hale, no doubt—in fact I am sure he would admit it if he were present—has been guilty, under the Act of 1697, of making fireworks; I "want to ask the noble Lord whether it is worth while, having, it may be said, failed almost in the first prosecution at Bow-street — though penalties amounting to 5l. 14s. were recovered, half going to the-Crown, and half to the informer—to carry these proceedings any further; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to proceed against any foreign persons whatever, or against any other native-born subject of the Queen? These questions I hope the noble Lord will answer. I shall be glad to hear that he has abandoned this prosecution, and that he thought that the law has been sufficiently vindicated by the proceedings which have been already taken.

Sir, my hon. Friend has treated this matter with his usual mixture of jocularity and argument, and certainly, if there was any Statute which touched moral squibs and crackers, I think my hon. Friend would come under its operation. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend charges me with being the organ and instrument of foreign Powers for the purpose of exercising a watch over persons in this country, and in support of that accusation he quotes passages which he has found from foreign newspapers as well as newspapers in England. Now, I beg, in the first place, to disclaim any responsibility as to anything that may be said of me in any newspaper, either British or foreign. If my hon. Friend had had his attention directed as much as mine has happened to be from time to time to passages in foreign newspapers, in which my name is mentioned, I think he would have found that the weight of accusation and calumny was very much of a different kind from that which he has quoted. I was told the other day that in the seizures which have been made in Italy there were a set of daggers found of English manufacture, and that the authorities were indignant and incensed at the detestable and diabolical conduct of the man who had been Minister for Foreign Affairs in England, for that on those very daggers his name was inscribed—"For,"said they, "here on these very daggers is 'Palmer and Son!'" "What a detestable and diabolical Revolutionist this man is," said they, "who sends daggers here with his own name upon them!" But my hon. Friend has indulged in a great deal of humour in regard to the prosecutions which I felt it my duty to institute. I do not —I never have in the least disguised the grounds upon which I thought it my duty to institute a prosecution. It was not because Mr. Hale had 57 lbs. of gunpowder in his possession, or was making rockets for an ordinary purpose; but when I was informed that here was a great collection of warlike materials, accumulating in an out-of-the-way place, under circumstances of secrecy, and connected with other circumstances which tended to show that there was a purpose, the object of which was beyond the limits of this country, and not connected with the ordinary and legitimate interests of commerce, I felt it my duty to inquire whether these proceedings were or were not contrary to law. I was informed that they were contrary to law; and I think I should have been very much neglecting my duty in the office which I have the honour to hold, if I had not taken such steps as the law appeared to authorise for the purpose of putting a stop to those proceedings. I hold that in doing so I consulted the honour and dignity of the country. I have, and my Colleagues—not only the Members of this Government, but of the late and of all Governments— have declared repeatedly in Parliament that while, on the one hand, foreigners when they took refuge in this country were entitled to every possible protection which the laws of this land of freedom could afford them; on the other hand, it was the duty of any Government, and the policy of any Government, to prevent any foreigners from being concerned in any proceedings which might threaten the tranquillity of foreign States. Without, entering into particulars beyond what has already appeared, I thought it my duty to do what I have done in regard to the case now under discussion. My hon. Friend has made merry about the question, whether this substance which was found at Rotherhithe was gunpowder or not. That question having been decided by legal authority, I may be permitted to say that I never heard such a quibble as that the subject in question was not gunpowder; in my opinion that was a miserable quibble; and I think the magistrate was perfectly right, and showed his good sense in his decision. Then with regard to the rockets, my hon. Friend asked me whether there was any intention to continue that prosecution. Now, I have no hesitation in saying that we have no desire to press hardly in any way whatever upon Mr. Hale, and I have no hesitation in saying, in answer to the last interrogatory of my hon. Friend, that the evidence which we have, and which has been already stated in open court, does not bear out or justify any proceedings against any other person, British or foreign, except Mr. Hale. But with regard to Mr. Hale, let the House remember how the matter stands. The Act upon which Mr. Hale was proceeded against prohibits any person from making, or using, or selling rockets, unless they have the directions of the Ordnance, with the exception always of the Artillery Company, or the Militia, who are permitted to make and use rockets in the exercise and practice of arms. The Act gives two methods of proceeding—the one by summary conviction before a magistrate, the other by trial upon indictment before a court and jury. We adopted the first course as the simplest and the shortest, and the least troublesome to any of the parties concerned. The case was opened: the evidence against Mr. Hale was stated; but the magistrate then stopped the proceedings, and said he thought the case ought to be referred to another court, where it should be tried by a jury. Now, I hold, that upon general principles it is a very undesirable and a very bad precedent for any Government to commence proceedings against parties, and to stop them before they come to trial. It is a great instrument of oppression; it is liable to great abuse. You may begin proceedings, without any justifiable cause, for the purpose of annoyance and trouble to individuals; and then, in order to avoid discomfiture, stop the proceedings and give the party no opportunity of stating their defence. I am now speaking upon gene- ral principles. The party against whom you acted in that manner would have a-right to proceed against the Government for a malicious prosecution; he would have a case for a remedy for an evil sustained by him. But, if that be so, generally speaking, and upon abstract principles, I think the case is much stronger against the Government in the present instance; because hear what would be said? "The Government began proceedings before a magistrate with summary jurisdiction; they were stopped when their case had been stated against the defendant, and when he had no opportunity of saying anything in his defence, no opportunity of shaking the witnesses' evidence, or of proving that there were not grounds for the prosecution, and the case is sent to a jury; and what does the Government do when it is sent to a jury? Why, they are afraid of bringing the case before a jury, and they retire from the proceedings, and, satisfied that the case would not bear sifting before a jury, they drop the proceedings and deprive the individual of that redress which his character would gain by a trial before a jury." I am therefore advised that it would not be fitting, as a general precedent, or in regard to the particular case, that the proceedings should be stopped, feeling that the judgment of a competent court should be obtained upon the law of the case. At the same time I have no hesitation in saying that nothing is further from the wishes of the Government than to press hardly upon Mr. Hale. We shall be perfectly satisfied with having the decision of the law; and that decision having been taken, Mr. Hale will not, I trust, suffer in any degree from the case having been pressed unduly against him.

said, he thought the noble Lord seemed to suppose that he (Mr. Duncombe) charged him with being the tool and instrument of Austria. He wished to explain that he did no such thing; he merely quoted the words of the Times. He had always understood that to the noble Lord M. Kossuth was indebted for his life and his liberty, and his escape from the East altogether; and he believed that impression was not an erroneous one. [A cry of "Spoke!"] He wished to ask one other question—whether it was to be understood that this prosecution now was conducted for the benefit of Mr. Halo? It really came to that; and he thought he might say, on the part of Mr. Hale, that he would not consider it to be for his benefit.

said, he had heard with a great deal of pleasure what had fallen from the noble Lord the Secretary of State. He understood the noble Lord to have stated to the House, and through the House to the world at large, that there was no evidence whatsoever implicating any person except Mr. Hale, who was under prosecution; and therefore it followed that all the statements that had been made to implicate M. Kossuth in this proceeding, as if he had been abusing the hospitality of this country by entering into unlawful conspiracies, and attempting or preparing to levy war with some country with which we were in amity, turned out to be baseless fabrications and unfounded calumnies. The public had been told—the statement went forth all over the world—and we knew, when a statement went forth, how difficult it was to contradict it, and make the contradiction reach all those quarters where the calumny had proceeded—that large stores of ammunition, and of some kind of weapons of war, had been discovered in a house in the occupation of M. Kossuth, and the whole world was called upon to execrate a man who, after having received the hospitality of this country—after being delivered from the dangers to which he had been exposed mainly by the interposition of the Government of this country, could so disgrace himself. It turned out now that all this was altogether an imagination—a vile imagination of some persons animated with some rancour against M. Kossuth, and who had always shown themselves to be in the interest of Austria and of Russia, and to have persecuted this man by all the means in their power, in consequence of his opposition to those Governments, in bravely and nobly defending the constitution of his country. There was nothing omitted that could be said to held him up to the reprehension and to the execration of the public; and instead of waiting, under the supposition that his conduct, whatever it was, was to form the subject of some judicial proceeding, which was usual in such cases—instead of waiting to see what the verdict might be after these judicial proceedings—those persons hastened in their malignant spite to condemn him unheard, and, in order to hold him up to detestation, they assumed at once that he was guilty, and, referring to a place where, not long ago, that illustrious individual was welcomed on his release from captivity—referring to what might be called the heart and the centre of the city of London—namely, that room where the municipal body of the City of London assembled, they took care to point out that Guildhall was not far from the Old Bailey. He (Lord D. Stuart) did not know—he was not speaking from anything within his own knowledge—but he could not help saying that he should not much wonder if, after the statement the House had heard, completely exculpating M. Kossuth from those vile accusations, there should be some occurrences of such a nature as in the end to demonstrate that, if Guildhall was not far from the Old Bailey, there was another place, called Printing House Square, which was still nearer to it. He did not know how that might be; he should not be much surprised if such were to be the case. But he had only risen to point the attention of the House to the effect of the declaration of the noble Lord which they had just heard. He thought that declaration did him honour. He was very glad to find that the Government were not concerned in those proceedings which had been attributed to them; for he thought it would have been a most melancholy spectacle on the part of the noble Lord, of whom it had been said, and, as he thought truly, that he had been the main cause—if not of saving the life of the illustrious man to whom allusion had been made, and many of his companions, the patriots who strove with him—at any rate of his being delivered from' captivity, and now enjoying liberty. He (Lord D. Stuart) believed that it had been the Government of this country, represented by the noble Lord then at the head of the Foreign Office, that obtained the release of M. Kossuth and his companions from Kutayah. He knew there was another Government that claimed credit in this regard — the Government of the United States; and he rendered full justice to the noble feeling with which the American nation and Government were animated on that occasion. He did not forget that they sent a frigate to convey the patriots to a land of liberty; but, while he gave the Americans credit for good intentions, they might have carried on what negotiations they pleased, yet, had it not been for the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, those noble patriots would have been still detained in Kutayah; and it was a melancholy thing to see that the noble Lord, after the glorious course he had taken for procuring their release, should have treated them worse than the Turkish Government had ever treated them. They were detained by the Turkish Government in compliance with the wishes of the Emperors of Austria and Russia. But the Sultan watched the patriots openly; he did not do so of his own free will, but in compliance with the demands of very powerful neighbours. When they went out to take exercise they were followed by soldiers on horseback, or on foot. They were tracked by no spies, and were pursued by no men who, pretending to be hired servants, were police. That was a nobler course than to tell them they enjoyed all the rights and privileges of the subjects of this country, and all the protection which the British law could afford, but, at the same time, to have their footsteps tracked by persons in disguise. He thanked the noble Lord for his declaration, and if he regretted anything it was that the noble Lord had not taken an earlier opportunity of making that declaration.

Sir, it would appear from the noble Lord's statement that in the very undignified attempt in which he had been engaged to discover a mare's nest, he has signally failed. The agitation of foreign Governments on finding "Palmer and Son," inscribed on the daggers, must have been somewhat akin to the feeling of the noble Lord when he discovered this gunpowder plot. I agree with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) as to the extreme paltriness —I should say shabbiness—which has characterised the whole of this prosecution against Mr. Hale; but that the case as regards M. Kossuth is not of the same character, and cannot be so regarded by this House. In the one case it was a mischievous police business, which turns out to be nothing; and though it has occasioned all this temporary annoyance and expense to Mr. Hale, for which I am sorry, it is altogether of a different character to that which has induced me on one or two former occasions to advert to this subject. The noble Lord now says that he has no evidence on which to found any charge against any person except Mr. Hale; and as to that transaction, he intimates he would be glad to get out of the mess he has been led into, but that he thinks it would not be dignified for the Government, after commencing a prosecution, to abandon it. But with regard to the other case, the noble Lord knows perfectly well the mischievous effect which the explicit and unmistakeable language in the Times newspaper, and the statement he himself made in this House on a previous evening, was calculated to produce. I do not charge the noble Lord with having brought an accusation on the statement in the Times; but the noble Lord has on each occasion, when the subject was brought forward here, studiously avoided saying anything that could be quoted as clearing the character of M. Kossuth, and has loft the statements in the Times to have their effect on the world, even when he had the power in this House to have cleared the character of M. Kossuth, if, as I believe, he had then all the knowledge he has now. The Times has been referred to, as it necessarily must be, in speaking of this transaction, and I will venture to make an observation on the Times. The Times newspaper is a great power in a mask—we do not see the person who writes the articles—there is not a man in England calling himself a gentleman who would dare to have put his signature to the article which has been referred to. There is a Gentleman—an hon. Member of this House—he is not present, I dare say; but if he were, I would say what I am about to say now—that he durst not—I am speaking of a Gentleman intimately connected with the paper—that he durst not put his signature to the article in which these charges were conveyed against M. Kossuth. And I can tell the Times that it was precisely conduct like this by which scandalous and lying charges were brought against honourable men, that the press of France lost all character with the French people, and that induced the people of Paris during the republic to look with disregard—almost with pleasure—when, one after the other, the newspapers were brought under penalties of the law, and which induced them to look on without discontent when newspaper writers were compelled to attach their signatures to every article they wrote, and when at length three-fourths of the newspapers were suppressed. Now, in the Times of this morning—I am not particularly thin-skinned, and I refer to the matter only as an illustration of the kind of abuse in which it indulges—the Times newspaper, of this morning, says, that I had the honesty not to appear with the deputation before Lord Clarendon yesterday, in reference to the proposed introduction of the arbitration clause into the treaty with the United States, it being known that the United States' Government are anxious for such a clause. They say it is well I had the honesty not to go there, for I had recently been defending the manufacture of war rockets and warlike stores. Now it is not necessary for me to clear myself; but if Mr.—I won't name him, I don't know that I know him, but the person who wrote this article—I say, if he came before the public, if he be a man calling himself a gentleman, and walked about the streets, do you think he would ever have dared to write that article? ["No!"] Then, I say, it is cowardly that such statements should be made; and it is doubly infamous, when they are made for the purpose of undermining and destroying the character of a man sufficiently under misfortune, an exile from his country, trusted by millions of his countrymen, who are yet buoyed up with the hope that he will be one day able to do something for the deliverance of his country. I say, it is doubly infamous for any organ of the press to attack a man in this way, and thus to attempt to destroy his character, his reputation, and his influence. The noble Lord has admitted there is no charge against M. Kossuth—[Viscount PALMERSTON: Or any other person]—or any other person, except Mr. Hale. The noble Lord stated the other night, that as long as he had been connected with the Home Office, some four months, the practice of opening letters had not been resorted to; thus far was satisfactory. But another point had been adverted to, that was the system of espionage. On the 7th of February, 1850, the noble Lord, in speaking of the detention of the Hungarians in Turkey, said—

"The Turkish Government undertook to remove the Hungarians—not to put them in prison, as my noble Friend has stated—but to remove them to a distance from the Austrian territories, and there detain them under that description of observation of which, happily, no English word conveys the meaning—under surveillance for a certain limited time."—[3 Hansard, cviii. 499.]

What I want to know of the noble Lord now is this, and if he will give the same answer as he has given on the other matter, I hope never to have the occasion to trouble him on this subject again. What I want to know is, is it true that some policeman, or some person acting as a policeman, had charge to watch M. Kossuth, and report on whatsoever they might observe about M. Kossuth's house? I want to ask the noble Lord whether that be so, and if so, whether this has been done by the authority of the Home Office, and whether the expense of this police espionage is defrayed by the State, or out of any metropolitan rate, or by the Austrian Government, or by the Austrian embassy? What I desire is, that the noble Lord should clear the matter up. I believe these proceedings are entirely without justification, and what has been stated in the papers lately is creating an unpleasant feeling in the public mind in regard to the Government, which it would be well to remove. The feeling of the public caused by these proceedings is, that the Government is not open and above board, as it was supposed they were, and that with all our boasts of freedom, and the hospitality we profess to afford, we are doing here precisely what is done in many parts of the Continent of Europe.

said, he regretted that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had not, when the subject was brought under discussion before, taken the same course he had to-night, instead of attempting to justify the proceedings of the police in setting spies on the movements of M. Kossuth, and twitting the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) for not knowing that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to take the steps complained of in regard to foreign refugees. [Viscount PALMERSTON: No, no!] He had certainly understood the noble Lord to say that if not only any foreigner, but any Englishman, was suspected of being engaged in practices hostile to any foreign country with which we were on terms of amity, the police were justified in dogging his footsteps, and setting spies on all his actions. That was not always the opinion of the noble Lord, for it was not very long since the noble Lord received a deputation from Islington, and the answer he gave excited so much ill-feeling on the part of his Colleagues, that he was obliged to retire from the Cabinet; and for the noble Lord now to turn round, and speak of M. Kossuth and the other refugees in the tone he did the other day, was what could scarcely have been expected by those who had been led by the noble Lord's previous conduct to respect him and his policy. It might be satisfactory to the House if the hon. and learned Attorney General would enlighten them as to whether such proceed- ings as had taken place in M. Kossuth's case really were in accordance with the constitution of the country.

Sir, the hon. Member has really misunderstood what I said on a former evening. My observations the other evening applied to what I conceived to be the endeavour of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) to extort from me an opinion as to the possible or probable results of the proceedings at law then in progress. I considered him to ask what would be the effect on M. Kossuth of the proceedings then going on; and I stated that it would be very unconstitutional to give an opinion on that subject. With regard to whether our police is paid by the Austrian or the English Government, I am afraid that, whatever burden the police may cause, it is one which will have to be borne by the finances of this country alone. First of all, the hon. Member for Manchester states that I have on a former occasion said that surveillance is a thing from which we have altogether escaped, and that it is entirely unknown to this country. Now, a state of surveillance is this—an individual is not allowed to go beyond certain limits, and he is watched by competent authorities to pre-vent him from doing so. Undoubtedly, it is one of the duties of the police to ascertain whether the laws are infringed; and if they have reason to believe that any individual is engaged in a proceeding contrary to law, it is the duty of the police to take such measures as may be fitting and proper for the purpose of preventing a violation of the law. If the police have reason to believe that M. Kossuth or anybody else was engaged in a proceeding contrary to law, the police were bound to use such proper measeres as might be necessary to ascertain whether or not there was any ground for the suspicions which they entertained.

I want to repeat my question. The noble Lord has merely told us what everybody knows. Now, I want to ask the noble Lord this question: has he, in his office, or has he, by directions through his office, caused any police magistrate or commissioner to give any special directions that policemen shall watch the house and proceedings of M. Kossuth in this metropolis?

I have given no special directions with regard to M. Kossuth; but it is the general duty of the police, if they have any suspicion about any person, as they probably had in this case, to ascertain the facts upon which a charge may be substantiated, or may be otherwise disposed of.

then rose to address some further question to the Home Secretary, but

said, that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had already spoken twice, and was not entitled to speak again on this question.

I suppose, Sir, you are the authority without appeal on all points of order; but if it be the rule of this House that the Minister for the Home Department can only be allowed to answer one question on such an occasion and on such a subject as we have been discussing, I think it would he well to consider whether it might not be well to relax it in order to promote the despatch of business. If, however, the noble Lord the Home Secretary cannot answer the question I wish to put, probably the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) can. I wish to impress upon the House that we are not here dealing with the ordinary case of an ordinary person. We are dealing with the case of the ex-Governor of Hungary—a man who was long engaged in maintaining in his own country the legality of the constitution of that country, and he was supported by the whole body, not of the poorer classes merely, but of the whole of the aristrocracy of that country. I say that when such a man comes to this country, having held that distinguished post of honour, his case is not that of an ordinary refugee, but it is that of a man placed under the safeguard of this country, the incidents of whose life are minutely watched by the world, and will be as minutely recorded in the history of the times; and as he is treated by us, will honour or discredit attach to us in reference to him. I have little personal knowledge of M. Kossuth; but when I first read of this matter, and when I first read the statement in the Times, I thought it my duty to call on M. Kossuth, and ask him if there was any foundation for that statement; and he gave me his word, as a man of honour, that he had no more concern with the transactions referred to by the writer in that paper, than had the Speaker of the House of Commons. It was true, he said, he had recommended a foreign refugee (one who had not done him much credit) to Mr. Hale for employment, but he had no connexion with Mr. Hale, or with the manufacture carried on by him. He was invited to call on Mr. Hale to go over his factory, as I might have been, and as I hare been invited to go over Mr. Warner or Colt's factory; and I might as well be charged with being connected with Colonel Colt on that ground, as M. Kossuth was charged with being connected with Mr. Hale. And with regard to recommending a man for employment, M. Kossuth has numerous unfortunate refugees constantly calling upon him to aid them in obtaining employment; and I am speaking within the mark when I say I have had at least a dozen applications from M. Kossuth to assist his countrymen in that way; and I have no doubt my noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart) could speak much more on this subject. This is the whole basis of the charge. Some prying individual found that a Hungarian was working at Mr. Hale's, and because M. Kossuth recommended him, he connected that gentleman with the rocket manufacture carried on by Mr. Hale, for the purpose of making war in Hungary on the Austrian Government. Now, I think it would not have been below the dignity of the Home Secretary, if he had given the opportunity to M. Kossuth to clear himself. I do not think the ex-Governor of Hungary so far below the dignity of the Home Secretary of England as to make such a course impossible. And if the noble Lord had done so—if, instead of sending policemen to watch M. Kossuth's house and dog him about, he had taken means to allow that gentleman to explain, and if the noble Lord had thus obtained, as he would have done, M. Kossuth's word of honour that he had no connexion with anything of the kind charged against him, that would have been sufficient—for I apprehend M. Kossuth is as much entitled to credence as any member of the Orleans family visiting our Court. I make no distinctions, and as regards M. Kossuth I think he is as much entitled to respect and honour as any member of the Orleans 'family, who are habitually received at Windsor. I make no complaint of the hospitality that is shown to the Orleans family; but I say that it would be disgraceful to any man in this country, and more especially to any Member of this House, if he did not vindicate the right to hospitality of this country, on behalf of those who carry with them the goodwill of the mass of their own countrymen, which is the case with M. Kossuth; and if any one is allowed to dog the steps of illustrious refugees, and it is found out, we are bound to visit it with our reprobation, and public opinion will do the same. I have seen M. Kossuth, and have advised with him. I told him—"You live under the same law as I do, but if you ask me what the law of England is, I cannot tell you, for at any moment some old law may be exhumed for a particular occasion, as has been done now;" and I advised him to put himself under the guidance of some shrewd able lawyer. He said that if he knew what the law was, he would take care not to violate it. I believe he has far too much regard to his own name and fame, and far too much respect for those who have not hesitated to come forward and associate themselves with him in this matter, to be caught violating the law of the country, for which he has too much respect. The question I want to put to the noble Lord is, whether any communication has been made to the magistrates, or the police authorities, with reference to any proceedings for watching the house of M. Louis Kossuth?

Sir, before I answer the question which the hon. Gentleman has just put, I must advert to the former part of his speech, because it is certainly of importance that we should have some clear and distinct notion of what is the policy of this country in respect to M. Kossuth and to other refugees. I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said—namely, that we ought to observe the same rule with regard to all refugees, without reference to their station, their rank, or their political opinions. I care little for that: they may be princes of high lineage, holding the most extreme doctrines of absolute monarchy, or they may be persons of the most lowly condition, entertaining the most ultra-republican notions. I care not what their opinions may be—I think the rule should be the same for all. But what should be that rule? It is not so very clear, in regard, at least, to its general principle. It is founded, in the first place, upon the law of England; and, in the next place, it is incorporated with the great international code of the law of nations. The law of England, as we all know, allows any of these persons—any of these refugees, whatever may be the cause in which they have suffered—whatever may be the power by which they may have been proscribed—to come here and live undisturbed in this country. That is the general law of England. According to this law, persons of various ranks and of various opinions have, within the last few years, sought refuge in this country. I think that to be an honourable distinction to be borne by England—a distinction not owing to any particular Government, but owing solely to the ancient laws of this country. It is an honourable distinction that persons exiled from their own countries can find a refuge and an asylum here. Never shall I be a party to make any alteration in that law. But, Sir, if this refuge and asylum be due to unfortunate exiles on the one side, I think it can as little be questioned, on the other, that the refugees thus received—thus enjoying the hospitality of this country—thus sheltered under the aegis of our laws—so long as they shall live quietly and peaceably among us, ought not to abuse that hospitality by making preparations for declaring war against any State, be it a monarchy or be it a republic, which is at peace and in alliance with this country. Now, it is said with regard to this person—this illustrious person, I am willing to admit—M. Kossuth has been Governor of Hungary, and that he endeadeavoured to restore and maintain the ancient constitution of that country. I do not now wish to enter into an argument upon that subject; but it will be admitted that there are two opinions upon that question. There are some who think M. Kossuth fought on behalf and in support of the liberties of his country—-that he did everything that a patriot ought to do to maintain the ancient constitution of Hungary. But there are others who believe that he fought not for the cause of liberty, or for the welfare of his country, but for the furtherance of a selfish ambition; and that in the pursuit of that ambition, he, by acts of imprudence and indiscretion, so changed the laws and constitution of his country as to bring those laws and that constitution into collision with the monarchical power reigning over it, till, in the end, he brought ruin and destruction upon it. There thus prevail these two different opinions; but M. Kossuth comes to this country, and obtains a refuge. He does not merely come here like a person who is totally unknown to us, but he comes here in possession of his personal liberty, he having obtained that liberty, in a great degree, by the exertions of my noble Friend near me. When my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he (speaking in the name of the Go- vernment of the Queen of England), in the first place urged Turkey to persevere in affording to M. Kossuth that hospitality which she, greatly to her honour, had already given to him. In the next place, my noble Friend offered to support Turkey, even with the arms of this country, in the event of her being attacked by any other Power in consequence of affording M. Kossuth that protection; and, finally, he urged Turkey, not only to change the place of confinement in which M. Kossuth was kept, but to release him, and allow him to come, undisturbed, to this country. I say, therefore, that such a man was hound, not merely by the general law of nations, to respect the laws of this country whose hospitality he was receiving, and under whose protection he was living, but that, by the peculiar obligations of gratitude to the Government which had interposed with such generous feeling on his behalf, he was bound scrupulously to respect the laws of this country, and not seek to involve us in any cause of quarrel which he might have with any of those nations with whom we are on terms of amity and peace. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) has said that M. Kossuth has scrupulously obeyed the laws which he found in force in this country; and that he has lived here without giving any cause of offence to those who have to administer those laws. Sir, the hon. Gentleman, no doubt, is well persuaded in his belief; and the fact may be as he has stated it; at the same time I cannot wonder that there have been suspicions aroused of a contrary tendency; because we must recollect that it is but lately that we have seen in that very newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, a letter addressed, or rather a proclamation addressed, to the subjects of a foreign Sovereign, urging them to rise against their Emperor, and calling upon the army to desert their colours, and engage in hostilities of the most deadly kind against their Sovereign. When that proclamation was published, in connexion with the insurrection of Milan, it was stated on behalf of M. Kossuth that he certainly had not authorised the publication of that paper —not authorised that exhortation to the people—because many changes had been made in it; but that he had given into the hands of another while at Kutayah a paper of the like nature—proclaiming the duty of insurrection to the subjects of the Emperor of Austria. That was in any case, I maintain, a most imprudent thing to do; but it was a most unjustifiable act on the part of a man who was residing quietly in a foreign country to send forth a paper which might be used for such a purpose. But we have seen more recently a letter written by M. Kossuth, in which he repeats that his object is to carry on war against a Sovereign of Europe—a Sovereign whose tyranny he denounces, and against whose rule he protests—that Sovereign being in amity with this country. There we have the open avowal by M. Kossuth of the fact that several persons connected with him are employed in a manufactory, which manufactory is for the purposes of war. I must say that I do not think it unnatural that persons employed in the police of this country should, under such circumstances, conceive a suspicion that there was contemplated an attempt to levy war against the Sovereign who had been so strongly denounced. With regard to the question which has been asked by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden), all I have to state is, that the Commissioners of Police, from time to time, make reports to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to such proceedings, whether affecting M. Kossuth or other persons, as may induce them to believe that some crime is meant. I do not think I need say more than this, because my noble Friend (Visct. Palmerston) has already stated that there is no evidence by which we can bring any indictment against any other person than Mr. Hale. But I shall always maintain that, while, on the one hand, we are bound to give hospitality to these persons; on the other hand, we are bound by every obligation to foreign States not to allow, but if possible to prevent, persons who are residing in this country from promoting that which has been declared by my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) when Home Secretary, to be a crime according to the laws of the land. Such persons, while residing here, have no right to levy war against any Sovereign who is in alliance with this country. I have one word to say with regard to the allegation which has been made, that all these proceedings have taken place in consequence of some application on the part of the Government of Austria. I will state, in general terms, that the communications by Austria to the Government of this country have not been in the nature of anything like a demand, or an application, or a specific requirement. On the contrary, the Government of Austria have repeatedly declared that they have nothing to ask from the Government of this country, and they ask nothing; therefore they leave it to be understood that there is no demand of any sort to be made. At the same time they have stated that they did feel themselves aggrieved by proceedings which have been carried on in this country. But they observed that it was for the Government of England to act; that they had great reliance on the goodwill of that Government, and should therefore leave it to them to take measures or not, as they should think fit. It was not unnatural, an insurrection having occurred that the Austrian Government should say, "Our Government is disturbed; it is liable to be affected in various quarters; sometimes even in connexion with States where hostility is little to be suspected; that very often attempts of a certain hostile nature are found to be connected with persons who are known to be seeking to overthrow the Government of our country; and we know that many of those who are carrying on these proceedings are residents in England, and yet are allowed to carry them on undisturbed." Now, although I do not think these complaints on the part of the Government of Austria are justified, at the same time I deem it to be the bounden duty of the Government of this country, while saying to Austria—"We will not change our laws; we will permit all these persons to come to this country and live undisturbed;" also to say, that so long as these persons live in this country the laws of the country must be by them obeyed, and that the great national relations which exist between England and the States of Europe shall not by them be violated or disturbed.

said, he rejoiced that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had stated, and that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had confirmed that statement, that there was no accusation against the illustrious exile in question. But the noble Lord had made another statement, blaming M. Kossuth for a proclamation which he had issued in this country. So far from that being the case, that proclamation was written at Kutayah, and not in this country, and therefore so far M. Kossuth was free from the accusation of the noble Lord. But the most serious part of this matter—and the question which had been put with regard to it had not been answered yet—namely, the employment of spies as had been said to dog the footsteps, not only of this illustrious exile, but of all persons who called on him or inquired after him. The question did not even rest there, for if the statements which had been made were to be believed, persons were sent into the house of M. Kossuth to assist in removing his goods and to spy what they could find out. They must have been sent by some one—Who was that person? If they were not sent by the noble Lord, they must have been sent by the Police. This was a matter that ought to be inquired into; and if no one else would do so, he (Sir J. Walmsley) would move for a Committee of Inquiry, in order to ascertain whether it was the practice of the police to watch the houses of any person without any justification for doing so. The Government would have done much better to have abandoned the charge against Mr. Hale, and not have revived an obsolete law against a poor man who had been ruined by what had taken place. The best thing to be done was to drop all further proceedings; for he believed it was the duty of the Government to abandon the proceedings against Mr. Hale under a law which was passed a hundred years ago.

moved by way of Amendment, that the words "Great Britain" be substituted for "United Kingdom," with the view of exempting Ireland from the income tax. He regarded many parts of the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman as perfectly unobjectionable, and particularly the extension of the probate duty to succession to real property. If therefore he were asked why he did not vote in the minority the other night on the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Herts (Sir E. Lytton Bulwer), he would reply that he was not only Member for Clonmel, but had an interest in the Budget, as a question for the kingdom at large, and regarded the principle of it as a step in the right direction. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the first who had had the courage to leap over the park-wall of the privileged classes, and place on their shoulders, in the shape of a legacy duty, a fair share of the burdens which they had hitherto escaped. He regarded the Amendment of the hon. Baronet as nothing more than an attempt to keep up those fences and park-walls, and to bring back the late Government to power, and he had therefore voted against it; but that vote would not prevent his resisting the extension of the income tax to Ireland, and, whatever might be the result, he would most certainly press his Motion to a division. He desired to prevent the late Government being restored to power for many reasons. First, he remembered that they were the first Government that had actually proposed to extend the income tax to funded property and salaries in Ireland —although certainly the form of the impost had been greatly mitigated in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)—and he understood that they would not have opposed the Motion of which the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) gave notice when they were in power for the extension of the tax to all property whatsoever in that country. He therefore thought that if the Irish Members succeeded in ousting the present Government, they would not benefit Ireland so far as the income tax was concerned. This Motion would be a good test of their opinions on the subject. They all knew that at the last election every Liberal Irish Member felt himself bound to do his best to turn out the Government, which by their inflammatory placards, had raised the disturbances at Stockport, which were used as a war cry during the Irish elections. He trusted such scenes as occurred at Six-mile Bridge and elsewhere, in consequence, would never be seen again. But if they were to form alliance with the Members of that Government, after they had done all they could to put them out of power, and prevent their exciting agitation and religious discord in Ireland, the most simple peasant would be puzzled what to think of his representatives, or to explain the conduct of those who professed to be the leaders of public opinion in Ireland. Not very long ago an hon. Gentleman, who from his hereditary descent could not be otherwise than a patriotic man and a friend to Ireland— he meant Mr. H. Grattan—was turned out of his seat for Meath for having voted for the Arms Act, under the administration of the Earl of Clarendon; and yet the present Member for Meath, his successor, was moving heaven and earth at present to restore to power a Government whose constant pastime had been to give Ireland Coercion Bills, and who, when last in power, had threatened the priests, who were really the best guardians of the public peace. There were three acts by which the late Government were constantly irritating the Irish people, and which showed that they did not understand the spirit in which a Catholic people ought to be legislated for. These points were the inquiry into Maynooth, which they encouraged; the inspection of convents, which their followers insisted on; and the prosecution of the priests, as at Six-mile Bridge. [Cries of "Question!"] He was coming to the question. He wished to show why he could not join in voting for an Amendment, the object of which was to turn out the Government, and restore to power an Administration that would not do justice to the feelings of the country, or legislate for Ireland in a spirit that a Catholic country should be legislated for. He did not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, because he was opposed to the object its supporters had in view; but it did not follow that he accepted the propositions of the Budget. On the contrary, with regard to the extension of the income tax to Ireland, there was evidence enough to show that a great part of the country was in such a state of distress that it was not able to bear any further load of taxation. He did not wish to exempt any class able to meet taxation, nor would he say but that in Ulster and parts of the south they were able to pay taxes as well as in many parts of England; but he contended that the country was only in a state of convalescence, and not able to undergo such a heavy infliction so soon after the sufferings of the famine. It was said, he knew, that Ireland did not pay a fair share of the national burdens, because she did not pay the assessed taxes. But it was proved by a return which had been moved for by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, that while the poor-rates, county rates, and similar taxes in England amounted to 2s. 4¼d. in the pound, in Ireland the same taxes amounted to 3s. 7¼d. in the pound, being a difference of 1s. 3d. against Ireland as compared with England. Even in England an income tax when brought to bear upon small trades was a most unadvisable measure, and in resisting its application to Ireland he had no object but to avert the tax from those in that country who would be crushed by this addition to a burden which they at present could hardly bear. He admitted that Belfast and some other towns were as able to pay the tax as any part of England; but that was by no means true of the greater portion of the island, and he was sure that in the south and west it would not only retard the slowly advancing prosperity, but it would possibly throw them back, and would give an additional spur to the emigration which was now going on, and which ought to frighten any Government that looked to the welfare of the people. In the south and west of Ireland the emigration was of the most mischievous kind, for it consisted for the most part of artisans and traders; and if the tax was laid upon all who possessed an income of 100l. a year, it would give a considerable additional spur to their emigration. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would think it worth their while to listen to him, or to those Irish Members who might follow him, and who were abler than he was to explain the condition of the people. His only object was to do as much good to Ireland as he could. He approved of all the rest of the Budget except this portion. If the tax were to be imposed upon Ireland, he thought it ought to be done wisely, mildly, and by degrees. He had no doubt the time would come when Ireland would be able to bear the tax; all he said was that that time had not come yet, and he would therefore move his Amendment, that the words "Great Britain" be introduced into the Resolution instead of the words "United Kingdom."

said, he certainly was surprised at the course the hon. Gentleman had taken; for if his object was to prevent the infliction of the income tax on Ireland, he had unfortunately taken care to miss the only opportunity of carrying out his professed object by voting the other night in the majority, and had now taken a course in which he must be aware he could scarcely succeed. The result of the late division had been caused by those who, like the hon. Member, had voted against the conclusions to which their own reasoning led them. For his own part, he (Colonel Dunne) objected to the whole Budget, and should have voted against it, whether it had contained the income tax or not; but those who, like the hon. Member, only objected to the extension of the income tax to Ireland should surely have felt themselves especially bound to vote against the tax when the question was directly brought before them. Had all the Members connected with Ireland united together in opposition to the Government on that Motion, he was of opinion they would have beaten the Budget, and prevented its infliction upon their country. But now he thought the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was really futile, though of course if pressed to a division he should vote for it; but for his part he was inclined to walk out of the House without recording his vote at all, but that he knew his conduct would be exposed to misconstruction. People out of doors did not understand these manoeuvres, and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman divided the House, he would divide with him, though he anticipated nothing from his Motion. With regard to the tax itself, he would not go into any argument now, because he had already placed on the books notice of his intention to move for a Committee on the financial relations of the two countries, when he hoped to be able to prove that Ireland was already taxed to its fair amount. That was a fair and a reasonable proposition. If they gave him his Committee, and if he did not prove his point, then he would allow them to tax Ireland as much as they pleased. As the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had said, the same tax imposed upon countries in a different position—on a rich country and a poor country—could not be considered as equal. The defenders of the Government had certainly appeared in a peculiar position. The hon. Member who had just sat down had made an admirable argument to prove that he ought to have voted against the Budget. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball) had made a speech which he said he hoped would be "for the information and satisfaction of his constituents." It certainly might be for their "information," but scarcely could be for their "satisfaction." And the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) plainly said that in his opinion the retention of the present Government in office was well worth 250,000l. to Ireland. He did not believe that they were worth so much. The remission of the consolidated annuities bad been pressed upon them as a reason for gratitude to the Government; but that remission had been recommended by a Committee of which Lord Derby was a member. The late Government had only proposed to lay the income tax on the Irish fundholder; not to lay it on the land. He (Colonel Dunne) would ask the hon. Member (Mr. Lawless), who appeared anxious to know why Irish Liberal Members voted against the Government—he would ask the hon. Member why he voted with them? With what section of the party opposite did the hon. Gentleman sympathise? Was it with the old Whigs? or the new Conservatives led by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer? or their Radical allies with the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Works at their head? The Irish Members who opposed the Budget of the present Government did so because they believed the Budget of the late Government was far better for Ireland. Indeed, there had never been anything worse for Ireland than the Budget before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to admit that the remission of the consolidated annuities was required by justice. Yet the right hon. Gentleman proposed to remit them only on an equivalent, though he had promised to deal with them apart from financial considerations. There was no gratitude due to the right hon. Gentleman, then, on that account. What he professed to remit with one hand, he reimposed with another. It would have been impossible to enforce the Labour Rate Act. It had been condemned by the Committee of the Lords. The annuities never could have been levied. Yet in remitting them the right hon. Gentleman imposed an equivalent in the shape of an additional taxation. But the truth was that the "equivalent" was unfair; the annuities at the end of seven years could only amount to 275,000l., so that Ireland, after all, was only relieved from something above a quarter of a million a year. And then the fresh taxes imposed amounted to 900,000l. In truth, then, the Government were about to impose a million and a half of fresh taxation on Ireland. There was an important consideration as to the relative burden of taxation in the two countries. In England taxation ultimately returned to the pockets of the people in some shape or other; but in Ireland whatever was paid in that way was withdrawn from the country and never returned to it. Not less than 127,000,000l. had thus been taken out of Ireland since 1818, and thus it was that the country was constantly kept poor. Ireland was ready to bear a fair and equal burden of taxation, and he was willing to go before an English Committee to prove that the burden of taxation was not fair and equal. As to the Amendment before the House, he repeated it was ill-timed. If intended in a spirit of repentance, he hoped the people of Ireland would accept it; but he begged the hon. Member for the future to remember that it was best to bring forward a proposition when it was likely to succeed, rather than when it was certain to fail.

said: Sir, I shall endeavour to imitate the example of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, and to discuss this question upon the figures, with a view to determine which is the best course to adopt for the benefit of our common country. But, Sir, I will not, as he has done, narrow the question before us to a mere consideration of the principle of an income tax, and shall en- deavour to arrive at a true conclusion by balancing both sides of the account, not in order to ascertain what is best for our own individual selves, but what is most advantageous for the whole people of Ireland. It appears to me that I am fairly stating the position of the hon. and gallant Member, when I say that his main ground of objection to the proposed Budget is, that though something is given to Ireland, yet, that it is not an equivalent for the imposition of the income tax. If the hon. Member were of opinion the poorer classes in Ireland would be benefited by the proposed remissions, he would, no doubt, be now prepared to charge his wealthier fellow-countrymen with an income tax. Upon a former occasion, and before he had allied himself with his present associates, the hon. Member acted on that view; for, on reference to Hansard, I find that, in March, 1849, he and many of the party with whom he is now acting voted for an Amendment proposed by Major Blackall in these terms:—

"That an auxiliary fund, for the relief of the extraordinary distress in Ireland, be raised by a rate, not exceeding sixpence in the pound, to be levied upon all property and income in Ireland, above the annual value of 150l." —[3 Hansard, ciii. 198.]

I did not vote on that Motion.

Of course the hon. Member is the best judge as to his own vote. In the division list upon that Motion, I find also, in favour of it the names of Mr. Napier, Messrs. Spooner and Newdegate, Lord Bernard, Mr. Conolly, Sir F. Thesiger, and of several hon. Members of the Conservative party. Their votes upon that Motion prove that, in their opinions, the occasion might arise when it would be for the general benefit of Ireland to accept the imposition of an income tax. Again, I find that a similar Motion was brought forward by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Herbert), in April, 1849. Upon that occasion also, it will be found that in consideration of the miserable sum of 100,000l. many of the party opposite supported the Motion for imposing an income tax on Ireland. And here, Sir, I may observe that the recognised leader of that party came forward and made a very strong speech in support of that Motion. Among other observations then made by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) he stated—

"In the difficult position in which we are placed, I feel that the income tax will not press on the small farmers, and that a rate in aid will do so. This is a consideration which ought to weigh, perhaps, with all hon. Members; but I feel that it ought at all events to have a paramount influence with us, who deplore the adoption by this House of that fatal policy of which the small farmers are now the victims. There are other reasons why I prefer an income tax: I am also in favour of an income tax rather than a rate in aid, for this reason, that it will be imposed on all species of property."—[3 Hansard, civ. 516.]

Now, Sir, I cannot state that I am in favour of the imposition of an income tax upon Ireland, for the reason that it will be imposed on all species of property, but because the struggling farmers of that country will be benefited by the remission of the consolidated annuities. There is no man more averse than I am to the extension of an income tax to Ireland if it could possibly be avoided. But the question is one of pounds, shillings and pence, and in considering it together, my honourable Colleague and myself, who rank among our constituents many small farmers subject to heavy charges on account of the consolidated annuities, have endeavoured to form our conclusion without any reference whatever to our own personal interests. I know for myself, Sir, that at my first election in March, 1852, I stated distinctly in my address to the electors of Cork, that I would exert myself by every means in my power to get rid of the consolidated annuities, which pressed so heavily upon them. I have felt called upon now to fulfil that pledge. The whole question of the income tax for Ireland, as well as for England, turns upon the incidence of taxation— whether it should fall more heavily upon the rich than upon the poorer classes; and if I pronounce myself ready to accept an income tax for Ireland, I do so because I am thereby enabling the Government of the day to remove the incidence of taxation from the shoulders of the poorer man to those of his more wealthy neighbours. It was for a similar reason that the income tax was introduced into England in the year 1842, in order to enable the Government of Sir Robert Peel to pass measures which would have the effect of benefiting the masses of the people, and of increasing their means to purchase clothing and food. And here let me ask whether if the working classes of England are enabled to purchase more food and more clothing, and in particular to increase their woollen raiment, and become larger consumers of corn, of butter, and of butcher's meat, will not any measure that tends to effect that object, also be the means of bringing large sums into the pockets of the farmers and shopkeepers of Ireland? Why, I can remember, a few years ago, before the people of Ireland were so well able to pay for clothing, or food, as they now are, that I was selling wool at about 11s. a stone; whereas, I expect in a few weeks, after the shearing season, to realise at least 23s. 6d. per stone. And for the same reason, the farmers of Ireland are at present obtaining large prices for butter, pork, beef, and mutton, which are now consumed in larger quantities by the people of England, though, I am sorry to say that, as yet, but a small proportion of those articles is consumed by my own countrymen. I differ, therefore, from the position of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, that changes in the incidence of taxation which are beneficial to the people of England, may not also benefit the people of Ireland. But while I am by no means inclined to dispute the accuracy of the figures advanced by hon. Gentlemen who adopt an opposite view of the case, I still cannot help observing that in arguing the question they have commenced their chronology before the Act of Union, but have, one and all, invariably stopped short as soon as they came down to the consolidated annuities. True it is that England is making a prodigiously fine bargain—true it is that we are to be charged with 480,000l. a year for seven years, which by the end of that time will have realised more than 3,000,000l.—and true it is that the spirit duties, taken at twenty years' purchase, will make up an additional sum of about 4,000,000l. These sums, therefore, together with some other items, will realise for the English Exchequer a sum exceeding 8,000,000l. sterling. But then, Sir, although all this may be perfectly true, it does not follow that because the arrangement is for the benefit of England, that it may not also benefit the people of Ireland. For though the Imperial Exchequer may be thereby placed in the position of receiving fully double the amount of a disputed debt, still, if it is proposed as a dire alternative to the representatives of Ireland, either to submit to the income tax, or to reject it altogether, and pay the consolidated charges, there can be little doubt that the poorer classes would not be benefited by adopting the latter course. And let me remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this is a question upon which we cannot be said to have the option in our own hands. I confess that when the present Budget was first presented to this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on last Monday fortnight, I felt great difficulty in solving the problem placed before me; and to enable me to judge the question more clearly and dispassionately, I went on the following day to Ireland in order to meditate over the matter. I returned here on Tuesday last, and upon the following day, whilst attending the Committee-room on the Cork and Bandon Railway, I heard that in an adjoining apartment there were then assembled some Irish representatives, who, like their Scottish brethren, had met together in order to consult upon the proposed Budget, and decide on the best course to be taken for the benefit of this country. I considered it right to join that meeting, and upon doing so found, in anxious deliberation, some five-and-twenty Gentlemen, each of whom had a strong personal interest in the question at issue—men who belonged to and had property in Ireland, and not who had merely crossed over from England, to take upon themselves the representation of Ireland, and assume a position there like some of the hon. Members opposite, such as the Members for Dundalk, and one of the Members for each of the counties of Meath, Kilkenny, and Sligo, who though, no doubt, entertaining conscientious convictions upon the subject, had, nevertheless, not the same material interest at stake, or personal acquaintance with the details, to enable them to judge of it in all its practical bearings. Well, Sir, I participated in the discussions which took place at that meeting, and I am quite prepared to state now the reasons which I then put forward. For, Sir, it was an open meeting, and I wish nothing to remain secret in this or any other proceedings with which I may become connected. The people of Ireland are quick, but they are also shrewd and intelligent. I care not what they may think for the passing moment, but I look to what will be their opinion when they thoroughly understand the whole of the question. I came here to represent my constituents—my business is to study carefully this and all other questions affecting their material interests, and they rely upon me to perform my duty towards them. Though I quite admit that the great county of Cork, which produces the ablest men in Ireland, possesses within its borders many more competent persons than myself to act as their representative, still I conceive that, at a distance from the spot, they do not possess equal means of ascertaining what is the most advantageous course to be adopted on such an occasion as the present. In regard to the question before us, I have felt it my duty to examine carefully all the figures bearing upon it, and with the permission of the House I will state a few results; and I think it will be made evident that so far, at least, as the tenant farmers of Cork are concerned, their representatives have truly and faithfully represented their best interests by the course we have pursued. For my own part, I am quite prepared, at any moment, to render an account to any hundred of my constituents, from any part of the county which I have the honour to represent, and to demonstrate to them collectively or individually that their interests have been materially served by the course I have taken, in preferring to obtain for them a remission of the consolidated charges, instead of endeavouring to protect my own personal and real estate from the imposition of an income tax. Were I to have adopted a contrary course, I should, indeed, have a very selfish account to render if taken to task by the tenant farmers of Cork. No; the course which I had taken was, to propose at the meeting of Irish Members that, as the best means of doing practical good for Ireland, we should wait upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to protest firmly against at present extending the income tax to Ireland—and, at the same time, suggest that the consolidated annuities and all arrears should be remitted, and that if the income tax were to be imposed on Ireland, it should be confined to those main sources of income which belong to the more opulent classes, and do not involve inquisitorial inquiries or unproductive expense—namely: public funds, public salaries, shares in public companies, landlords' rents, according to Mr. Griffith's public valuation, with due deductions for incumbrancers, annuitants, and rentchargers, who should also bear their proportion of the tax. Well, a resolution to that effect was adopted by the meeting, and on the following day we had a long interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon whom we pressed our views, and supported them with the strongest arguments we were able to urge. It is scarcely necessary for me to observe that we were received with the utmost courtesy by the right hon. Gentleman, who entered into a discussion of the suggestions we had made; but I conceive it is not unlikely that had our numbers been more formidable than they were, we might be now in a position to anticipate even more satisfactory terms than those which we have good reason to expect. We believe that our remonstrances upon that occasion will lead to some material modifications in the mode of assessing the tax on Ireland. We trust we shall receive that concession to which my Colleague has alluded, namely, that the Irish farmer shall be rated at one-third instead of one-half of his annual rent, and that the rent and income of land, as regards both landlord and tenant, shall be assessed upon Mr. Griffith's public valuation, without entering into any inquisitorial inquiries on the subject. We expect also, that in regard to tradesmen and shopkeepers, they will be assessed without instituting such inquiries, and by giving them the option to adopt as a measure of their assessment some multiple of the poor-rate valuation of their premises. We entertain no doubt in regard to those clergymen whose income depends on mere voluntary contributions, that if they are legally liable to any income tax, their own returns, either personally or through their ecclesiastical superior, will be adopted as correct, and that they will be permitted to certify them to some central authority, and not to any local commissioners. Indeed, we are assured that whatever inquiries may be necessary shall be so conducted as to be as little inquisitorial as possible. We also strongly urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and urged afterwards on the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that if they could not induce their Government to adopt our suggestion of confining the income tax in Ireland to realised property, they should consent that the standard of taxation upon precarious incomes, and particularly in regard to clergymen of all denominations, should be raised to a higher figure than 100l. a year. Now, Sir, as a representative of the county of Cork, returned by its tenant farmers, I will take a practical view of their interests in this question, and of the course which my Colleague and I have considered it our duty to pursue. I will assume that one hundred of our constituents are assembled before us in any part of that county, and that I am accounting with them for my conduct on this occasion, I would say to them—"There is probably not one among you who does not derive a very substantial benefit during a period of forty years by the remission of the consolidated annuities. Those among you who hold farms worth 200l. a year and upwards are, probably, not ten in number."[Mr. E.B. ROCHE: Not five.] My hon. Colleague, who knows the county of Cork better than I do, says there would not be five of that class. But taking the number so high as ten, I would say to those ten constituents, "There are, perhaps, five among you whose farms are rated at less than 300l a year. By one of the concessions which I have been instrumental in obtaining from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you will be exempted altogether from income tax." To the remaining five constituents, who might, possibly, occupy farms worth 300l. a year or upwards, I would state, "You have also been materially benefited by some of the terms which we expect to obtain; for you will have the option of being rated according to a public valuation, and will be charged on only one-third instead of, as in England, one-half of a fair occupation rent." To the few wealthier constituents—not one per cent on the entire—I would say, "If you are subjected to an income tax you can afford to pay it, and must, like myself, submit to do so for the benefit of your poorer neighbours." To the tradesmen and shopkeepers in the smaller towns I might state, "You have, probably, a farm which is relieved from the consolidated charges; the increased prosperity of the adjoining district will bring you increased employment and custom far more than an equivalent for your small amount of income tax; and, at all events, I exerted myself to the utmost in order to exempt you altogether from the tax, and expect to succeed in protecting you from any vexatious inquiries, by allowing you the option of being assessed upon a multiple of your poor-law valuation." To English Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies, and having no personal interest in Irish matters, the modifications which I have referred to, and others of a similar nature which we hope to obtain, may appear of little practical moment; but let me assure them, as one who has an interest in the Irish soil, that the whole question will be viewed in a very different aspect by the sensible farmers of my country. Well, we trust also that all arrears of the consolidated annuities, as well as the future annuities, will also be remitted; and we believe that the very strongest reasons exist why the small tradesman and shopkeeper ought not to be rated to the income tax—at least that the mode of assessment shall be as free from inquisitorial inquiries as possible; above all, we confidently hope that the standard of taxation will be raised, particu- larly as to clergymen of all denominations —Catholic, Presbyterian, and Protestant. [Mr. LUCAS: Oh, oh!] I trust, Sir, that the hon. Member for Meath will agree in considering that, in late years, the Protestant clergy of Ireland have been taxed most heavily, through the deduction for poor-rates; and that the incomes of the Catholic and Presbyterian clergymen have been also most grievously reduced, and that, in particular, the Catholic priest of Ireland should not be required to contribute towards the support of a State from which he has never derived any sort of assistance or suport. I own, however, that notwithstanding these concessions, I would still desire that any income tax in Ireland should be confined to realised property, and not extended to precarious incomes—in other words, that it should not include what is familiarly known as Schedule D in England. Except as an inevitable alternative, I feel the greatest possible objection to any sort of income tax, and especially to its imposition upon professions and trades. But when I come to discuss the matter with English Members, they meet me with the case of Belfast. They say to me—"Here is a gentleman with 10,000l. a-year derived from his trade. In Manchester you impose an income tax upon him. Trade between Manchester and Belfast is running a very close race, and but a very small difference will turn the scale either way: by exempting the Belfast merchant from the income tax, you would drive us out of the market —we shall never consent to that." To such a statement I have but one answer to make—that Belfast is the exceptional case, and that the precarious incomes of the small traders in other parts of Ireland should not be taxed merely in order to catch the rich merchants of Belfast in the common net. The alternative, however, which has been presented to me is either to reject the Budget altogether, and remain subject to the consolidated charges, or to obtain the remission of these charges by accepting the income tax with such reasonable modifications as can be obtained. To solve this problem satisfactorily, it is necessary to consider a few figures. And to begin with the union of Kanturk, in the county of Cork: in that union the annuity charged upon the valuation is 6d. in the pound; in Bantry it is 1s. 4½d.; in Dunmanway 10d.; in Skibbereen 1s. 1d.; in Skull 1s. 6d.; in Youg-hall 7d. In the county of Mayo, in the union of Ballina, the annuity is 1s. 2d. in the pound; in Castlebar 1s. 7d.; in Swing-ford it is 1s. 6d.; and in Newport and Westport 2s. in the pound. And yet, with such facts and figures before him, one of the representatives of Mayo, who deals more in figures of speech than in figures of arithmetic, has the hardihood to state to those representatives of agricultural constituencies who may desire to relieve such poverty-stricken localities, that when next we go before our constituents, we shall be all "shaking in our shoes." Now, Sir, if I can judge aright the interests and feelings of the great constituency which I have the honour to represent, I would strongly admonish the hon. Gentleman, should he think proper to present himself in the county of Cork, to keep very clear of those towns which are contiguous to the sea coast or deep rivers. And, Sir, whilst tendering him the best protection in my power, I would, in proof of those feelings, remind him of the Kanturk meeting, the report of which he will find in the columns of the Cork Examiner, a newspaper known to be most hostile to my views. But some hon. Gentleman opposite appear to prefer to bring back into office the Stockport and Six-mile Bridge Administration, rather than accept for the farmers of Ireland a remission of the consolidated annuities, coupled with an income tax upon the more affluent classes. Here is one of the Members for Mayo, whose own constituents will, perhaps, be more benefited by the remission of the consolidated annuities than those of any other portion of Ireland, coming forward and taunting hon. Gentlemen who coincide in the views which I have expressed with betraying the interests of the people of Ireland. Whatever Belfast may lose, there can be no doubt that Mayo will be an immense gainer by the change; and, therefore, it was not a matter of surprise that the hon. Member for that county came forward the other night to make a most eloquent appeal in favour of the remission of the annuities. [Mr. MOORE was understood to dissent.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman will not allow that his appeal was "most eloquent," it must be his characteristic modesty which induces him to regard so unfavourably his own patriotic efforts. Passing now from Mayo to the county of Clare, I find that Ennis Union is assessed at 1s. 7d. in the pound; Ennistymon, 2s. 6½d.; Kildysart, 2s. 6d.; Kilrush, 2s. 0½d.; Scariff, 2s. 2½d.; and Tulla, 1s. 10d. It appears that the present valuations of all the unions in the county of Clare amount to a sum of 218,877l., charged upon which is a sum of 783,537l. spread over a period of forty years, being nearly 20,000l. a year, or little leas than 2s. in the pound. That is the average poundage of the entire county; but some of its electoral divisions and town-lands, as well as many other localities in Ireland, are subject to a much higher rate of poundage. Now, I put it to this House, how was it possible for me to resist the force of these figures? Again, take the county of Galway, one of whose representatives goes into one lobby, and the other into another. But let us see which is in the right. Here are two hon. Members, each deeply interested in the soil of Ireland, and neither of whom, I am perfectly convinced, would willingly give a vote calculated to retard the prosperity of their country; here they are imitating the example of the two Members for the city of Galway, and running asunder on this question. Now I must remind one of those Gentlemen that in a portion of that county, a district in which, as I am personally aware, he received at the last election very great support—I mean the district of Con-nemara—-the Union of Otighterard is subject to annuities which average 2s. 8d. in the pound for 40 years, and that of Clifden 2s. 6d. in the pound. But why weary the House with further details? If I go into Kerry, Sligo, Limerick, Tipperary, and other counties, I find numerous instances to the same effect. There can be no doubt that a loud though fruitless agitation has been got up in some parts of Ireland; but, nevertheless, I have great faith in the good sense of my countrymen; and being, as I know them, not only a quick but also an intelligent people, I feel assured that all that is required in order to bring them to a proper state of feeling on the subject is, that the facts and figures bearing upon it shall be properly understood. Sir, I do not pretend to set myself up as "a leader" of the people of Ireland, but neither shall I ever mislead them. In such places as Dublin, for instance, they have been running a little wild on this question of an income tax. I have myself a house there upon which I will have to pay income tax, and I shall be no gainer anywhere by its imposition. It is, in my opinion, materially for the benefit of all the great towns in Ireland that the rural districts shall be in a prosperous state. Indirectly, therefore, those towns will feel the good effects from a remission of the consolidated charges; directly, indeed, such cities as Dublin, Belfast, and Cork, will gain but little by the remission, whilst their inhabitants will bear a large proportion of income tax, and are consequently averse to having it imposed upon them. In the union of Dublin (South) the consolidated annuity is only one halfpenny, and in that of Dublin (North) less than one halfpenny in the pound, and in each case for only ten years. In Cork Union the annuity is 2¼d. in the pound for twenty years, whilst in Belfast Union it is 1½d. in the pound, and only for five years. I have already stated that one of the concessions which we have reason to anticipate is the total remission of all arrears of the annuities, amounting in the whole to about 272,812l. Of that large arrear there is due by the Union of Belfast only the sum of one halfpenny. In most other Unions of Ireland there is about one year's annuity due. Such is the case throughout the county of Cork; also in the most impoverished Unions of Clare, Galway, and Kerry. But when we look at Mayo, we find that in most of its Unions, there is considerably more than one year's arrear due. Of all the counties in Ireland Mayo will probably be the most benefited by the remission of these annuities, most benefited by the additional concession remitting the arrears, and least affected by any income tax. Yet we find one of its Members, who was recently the most forward in arguing the remission of these annuities, now taking the very contrary course. I feel no doubt whatever that the recent Motion of that hon. Member in regard to those annuities—a Motion to which I felt bound to give my best support—was the step which, above all others, has led to the imposition of the income tax on Ireland by way of exchange for those annuities. For though that Motion was defeated by an English majority, it was impossible for any Government to disregard the division which took place upon it—a division upon which all the Irish Members who voted on it were found in the minority, except one, and that one a Member of the Government, and whose opinions had been long since pledged to the proposed remission. Well, Sir, that vote having been given by the Irish Members of this House, it became, I conceive, necessary for the Government to deal with those annuities, and having deeided on remitting them in part, they found it expedient to get rid of them altogether. In my speech upon that occa- sion I mentioned one strong reason for adopting that course. A great difficulty in conducting the poor-law system in Ireland arises from the multiplicity of accounts, there being a separate account requisite for each of 2,178 electoral divisions. It appears from the Lords' Report respecting the consolidated annuities, that, being assessed upon townlands, their collection would involve the keeping of no less than 41,275 distinct accounts during a period of forty years. The numerous inconveniences and frauds to which these accounts would necessarily give rise, formed always in my mind a conclusive argument for a total, instead of a mere partial, remission. Let all these matters be properly understood throughout Ireland, and I feel satisfied that the hon. Member will soon discover that even his own constituents of Mayo will not be carried away after his figures of rhetoric to desert those of arithmetic. In regard to the county of Cork, the meeting at Kanturk, and other proofs which I could produce, demonstrate that my countrymen are not so easily duped and befooled as some Englishmen may suppose. As for myself, I may perhaps be permitted to observe, that, whilst I become subject to an income tax, I shall personally be but little benefited by the remission of the consolidated annuities, because it so happens that they press very lightly upon any property of mine. The great grievance of an income tax arises from its inquisitorial nature; and were it divested of that character by being confined to realised property, I should not have hesitated to assent at once to its extension to Ireland. In conjunction with some of the Irish Members, I have done everything in my power to confine its operation, and to obtain as many useful modifications as it was possible to procure. Had all the Irish Members adopted the same prudential course, it is not improbable that we might have succeeded in getting concessions even more valuable than those we expect to obtain. But for the inquisitorial character of the tax, I, for one, should not object to the wealthier classes of Ireland being taxed upon an equal footing with those of Ireland and Scotland— [Mr. FAGAN: Hear!]—and I am glad to find from that cheer of the hon. Member for Cork, that he concurs with me in this view. It is, I admit, difficult to maintain that the manufacturer of Manchester is to be subject to the tax, whilst the wealthy merchant of Belfast is exempt from it. But I will not pledge myself against tak- ing an active part in that agitation which the people of England are so well inclined to institute, in order to get rid of all the inquisitorial portions of the income tax; and if I mistake not the motives of many English Members, their anxiety to extend this tax to Ireland, arises in a great measure from a feeling that we are a very active and troublesome people, and that as soon as we are all in the same boat with the people of England, we shall agitate along with them to remove all obnoxious portions of the tax. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), who has always opposed an income tax in any form, has not hesitated to inform me that he will vote to extend the income tax to Ireland, in order that he may induce us hereafter to aid in abolishing it altogether. And, Sir, when we are subject to equal taxation with England and Scotland, we shall be in a better condition to claim the benefit of equal laws, and that Irishmen shall be placed on the same footing as Englishmen all over the empire. We can then, also, urge with better effect that the grievous inequality of an Established Church shall no longer be forced upon the Catholics or Presbyterians of Ireland. In giving my vote the other evening, I gave it in perfect good faith as it was understood in this House, and also by the people of Ireland— namely, as accepting an income tax for that country in lieu of the consolidated annuities, there being no other alternative proposed for our consideration. I must state that I made my election after much hesitation and with great reluctance, and not until after I had stood out for every modification which it was possible to obtain. But having made that election bonâ fide, I shall now abide by it; and whilst giving every credit to the hon. Member for Clonmel for his Amendment, which proposes to exempt Ireland altogether from any income tax, I think the straightforward and manly course for me to pursue, is to record my vote against that Amendment, and not run away from it by leaving the House before it divides. It is obvious to every one that there will be a large majority against that Amendment; and I shall not vote for it, merely in order to catch, for a time, a little of the popularis aura in Ireland. At the same time I quite approve of taking a division on that Amendment, in order to exhibit the insincerity of the Conservative Gentlemen opposite, in whose professions I repose no trust. Whilst in office they attempted to introduce the income tax into Ireland. They made no offer whatever to remit any portion of the consolidated charges, but occupied themselves with proclaiming and dragooning the Catholics of these countries at Stockport and Six-mile Bridge. The consolidated annuities are 245,000l. a year, and amount altogether to over 7,000,000l. I know we are justly entitled to a remission of 2,000,000l. sterling, and I urged that view upon the notice of the hon. Member for Mayo. I feel the less difficulty in voting against the present Amendment, because I observe that the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Fitzgerald) has given notice of another Amendment which meets precisely my views, by proposing to limit the operation of the income tax in Ireland to realised property, and to exclude from its effect all precarious incomes. I shall vote for that Amendment when brought before the House, and can do so with perfect consistency with the views I have hitherto urged. I repeat again, that I feel the greatest possible aversion to the imposition of an income tax, but I found it was absolutely inevitable. For the last ten days the certainty of the Budget being carried by a large majority was well known in a quarter much better informed than we usually are in this House—I mean on the Stock Exchange of the City of London. Having made every inquiry, both in the House and out of it, I came to the clear conviction that it was no longer possible for Irish Members to oppose effectually the extension of the income tax to their country—-that the time was come when its introduction there was quite inevitable, or, in classical phrase—

"Venit summa dies et ineluctabile tempus."

Therefore, Sir, it was that, in conjunction with some thirty other Members for Irish constituencies, we took up the course of endeavouring to make the best terms we could for our country. And for acting in this manner I think, that, so far from having our acts disparaged, or our motives impugned, we are justly entitled to the best thanks of our constituents, and of the whole Irish people. Indeed, if pieces of plate were going in these bad times, we should have every right to expect to receive compliments of that nature from the gratitude of those whom we shall have served by our exertions, in obtaining a remission of the arrears of annuities and modifications of the income tax. I shall trespass no longer on the indulgence of the House; but I think I have stated enough to demonstrate that it would have been utterly impossible for my hon. Colleague or myself to have honestly rejected a proposition which transfers the incidence of taxation to the shoulders of the rich man from those of his poorer neighbours—-a scheme which, so far as the Irish tenant farmers are concerned, may be aptly termed the Farmer's Budget.

said, he had the same objection to take part in the present debate as that stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne), and for precisely the same reason —that he detested sham battles. If the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Lawless) had come down to the House on Monday night in opposition to the Government, when this identical question was raised, he (Mr. Duffy) would have been most happy to have joined him in giving effect to the opinions he now expressed. He confessed that his only motive for supporting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman on the present occasion was the apprehension of his conduct being misunderstood outside of the House. The hon. Member, in stating the grounds of his vote on Monday night, said, first, that he could not think of going into the same lobby with men who had slandered the convents and nunneries of Ireland. Did the hon. Gentleman think that they, on his (Mr. Duffy's) side of the House were blind, and could not see that he who made this objection sat within one of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), and voted in the same lobby with that hon. Gentleman—the only man in the House who spoke offensively of nunneries. The next reason given for the hon. Member's vote was his unwillingness to divide with a party who were in favour of Coercion Bills for Ireland. The hon. Member had, however, forgotten that he was supporting that political party who were, on a memorable occasion, styled "base, bloody, and brutal," because they were the authors of a ruthless Coercion Bill for his country. Another reason relied on by the hon. Member was, his unwillingness to vote on the same side as those who had encouraged the Stockport rioters; but it appears he was quite content to give his support to the authors of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. But the hon. Member assured the House he was afraid of taking a course that might have the effect of restoring the late Ministers to office. What did this amount to? Why, to this—that his present Motion was a farce: for if not, if he hoped to carry it, he was running at this moment the very risk he refused to take on Monday. When the hon. Member remarked that it was very hard for the Irish peasantry to understand the conduct of their representatives, he (Mr. Duffy) would tell him that he might safely give them credit for greater sagacity; there was no fear but they would perfectly understand the reason of the hon. Member's Motion on the present occasion. The Member for Clonmel appealed to his family connexions. He (Mr. Duffy) confessed that that allusion stopped his mouth, for he knew the hon. Gentleman to be the son of one of the best men in Ireland, and for that reason he would proceed further on this subject. The hon. and learned Member for Cork, who followed the hon. Member for Clonmel, declared that he had great objections to the income tax, as it was proposed to extend it to Ireland, and that having pressed those objections upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer without receiving the slightest satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman, he had—done what? —come down to the House and voted with the Chancellor in favour of the measure. The hon. and learned Member told them that Cork had produced some of the ablest men in Ireland. The Colleague of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Edmund B. Roche) gave them the other night a sample of Cork logic. That hon. Gentleman said, that, having many transactions in this country, and wanting to employ shippers in Cork, he found them unable to compete with the shipowners of Liverpool; and in order to enable the former to compete with the latter, he would vote for putting a new tax upon them—

rose to state that he had said quite the reverse. He stated that he found certain merchants of Cork taking advantage of their being free from taxation, and asking too high a price from him for the transport of goods from Cork to London. How was he to bring that down except by competition, and where was he to get that competition except amongst the shipowners of London and Liverpool? And if he asked them not to tax the shipowner of Cork, and to tax the shipowner of London and Liverpool, he was cutting a stick to lay over his own shoulders.

did not think that he had much misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, for in fact he would put an income tax on the shipowners of Cork, in order to enable them to compete, with the shipowners of London and Liverpool. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. V. Scully) taunted the Irish Members on his (Mr. Duffy's) side of the House, by saying that they had no interest in Ireland. There was one thing certain, that there was a large number of them who had no interest; in Downing-street, and were uninfluenced by any connexions in that quarter. The party with which he acted was composed of men who were distinguished by uprightness of conduct and consistency of purpose —of men who scorned to avow one set of opinions in that House, and another to Ireland. Now, in respect to the application of the income tax in Ireland, he would ask what new reasons had been advanced for the introduction of this new tax to his country? The two reasons given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer amounted to this—that England had never so little need of help from Ireland, and Ireland never had so little to spare her. The late Sir Robert Peel, when he first proposed the income tax for this country, found the finances of England in a most disordered condition, and under circumstances which he then stated, he declined to apply the tax to Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the contrary, had a large surplus in hand, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman felt the necessity of extending this tax to Ireland. The other leg of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was—that in 1842, when the tax was first proposed by Sir Robert Peel, Ireland was more prosperous than she was at present, and England poorer; whereas at this moment England was richer than she had ever been within the memory of man, while Ireland presented the spectacle of a whole population flying away because they were unable to earn their daily bread. The argument, in fact, condensed itself into a sentence; tax Ireland because she was never worse able to bear it; spare England because she grows daily more and more prosperous. But they had a right to ask what was going to be done with this money? The entire half million would be swallowed up in a militia, not one man of whom had been given to Ireland. He trusted the House had not forgotten the fiery eloquence of the noble Viscount (Visct. Palmerston) the Secretary for the Home Department on the subject of a militia for Ireland, when he was doing penance on the Opposition benches. At least, his noble Friend, the leader of this House (Lord John Russell), who was flung out of office by the hurricane, could scarcely have forgotten it. The noble Viscount would not listen patiently to the injustice of depriving Ireland of a militia for her protection. Why should she not be protected as well as England? He could not sufficiently reprove the mean and cowardly spirit in which such an exception was conceived. But he must quote to the House the very words of the noble Viscount:—

"The whole of the objections of the Government to the formation of a regular militia are founded upon a radical distrust of the people of the United Kingdom. I, Sir, on the contrary, am disposed to confide in the people. But if things have come to this pass—if we have so mean an opinion of our population that we cannot trust our fellow-subjects to defend themselves—it is much better to give up the Bill altogether. But as there is no foundation for this distrust, there is no reason to believe that the people of England would not rally round the national standard. It will not be for the first time that the people of Scotland will have risen up in arms, and have fought the enemies of the United Kingdom. And if it be that we cannot trust the people of Ireland, why, Sir, let us send at once for a Russian force to defend us, or let us have an Austrian force and garrison in London."

On the Motion which concluded this speech, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer voted with the noble Viscount, and it did seem to him (Mr. Duffy) a rather intrepid proceeding of the Ministers who made these professions, and forgot to act upon them, to come down to this House and propose an income tax upon Ireland to pay the costs of the militia denied to her. On the mere ground of no value received, she was entitled to refuse this contribution. Another heavy branch of the public expenditure was the Packet service. The Government were going to spend four-fifths of a million sterling upon it; and by way of encouraging Ireland to contribute an income tax, they had refused her an American Packet Station. Government after Government had ventured to declare that Liverpool or Holyhead was more westerly than Galway. But some hon. Gentlemen are astonished that Irish Members should forget the remissions of duty contemplated in the Budget, to increase the comforts of the people. It was cheerful news, certainly, for the struggling traders and professional classes in Ireland, whom the famine had reduced to half their income, that turtle, and anchovies, brocade, jewels, ostrich feathers, and eau de Cologne, might be had at reduced prices. Or, perhaps, they were to find increased comfort in the fact that every Irish trade with any vitality in it was exposed to new competi- tion at the very moment his "colossal engine of finance" was levelled at it. Linens, whisky, hams, eggs, butter—almost everything that Ireland exported— must at the same time meet the double exigency of producing less money and paying more. The most vital objection he had to this proposal was, in fact, that so far from increasing the comforts of the industrious classes, it would press on them with an intolerable weight. He knew to a certainty that it would be cruelly oppressive on a larger class of the best men in Ireland—men who had struggled to exist through the famine in decency, who had endured privations, and made sacrifices to help the starving people, and to preserve their own credit. If this tax were invented to drive them to emigration, it would be admirably fitted for its object. He considered that the whole Budget was conceived in a spirit unduly favourable to England. He believed that the declaration of a great Minister in the House of Commons, eighty years ago, was as true now as it was then. William Pitt said, in reference to finance operations, "The uniform policy of England has been to deprive Ireland of the use of her own resources, and to make her subservient to the interest and opulence of the English people." Now, that was precisely what they were doing at present. His opinion was, that the people of Ireland did not regard this as a question of Ministries. That was an inferior question, as compared with the proposition to extend the income tax to Ireland. There were some men in office at present—he would name one, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir J. Young)—whom, to eject for any person likely to succeed him, would be anything but a change for the better. That right hon. Gentleman, he believed, meant well to Ireland; and he (Mr. Duffy) should be sorry to see him out of office; but that right hon. Gentleman's holding office, or any one's holding office, should not weigh a moment with him in voting against such a measure as this. The hon. Member then used the following language:—Never did so many Irish Members Vote against any measure as against this: seventy-two Irish Members voted against it—men representing large constituencies, and all kinds of political opinions. I do not know how so many Irish Members have been persuaded to vote in favour of it. Some few of them, I am sure, voted from conscientious motives; but, short as my experience of Parliament has been, I don't think in the worst days of Walpole and the Pelhams more scandalous corruption existed than I have seen with ray own eyes practised upon Irish Members. [Loud cries of "Name, name!"during which the hon. Member made several attempts to proceed with his observations.] If the Chairman tells me, on the part of the House, that it is their wish I should name the persons to whom I have alluded, I shall do so.

Sir, I rise to order, and- ask you, as Chairman, whether such language as that which has been used by the hon. Member for New Ross is to be tolerated in this House?

Sir, I move that the words, used by the hon. Member for New Ross be taken down. ["Hear, hear!" "Oh, oh!" "Name, name!"and general confusion.]

again essayed to speak, but was met with loud cries of "Name, name!" The hon. Gentleman then repeated what he had before said. If. the Chairman calls upon me to do so, I will name, [Cries of "Order, order!" "Chair, chair!"and great confusion.]

Does the hon. Member for Carlow mean to press his Motion that the words of the hon. Member for New Ross be taken down?

Certainly, I do.

What, then, are the words?

I believe, Sir, I am strictly within the rules of the House when I move that the words of the hon. Member for New Ross be taken down. Those words must be fresh in the recollection of hon. Members; and I apprehend that, according to precedent, the clerk at the table should take down those words, on a Motion, being made that he should do so. Several Irish Members here rose together, and attempted to address the Committee, amid loud cries of "Order, order!" and "Chair, chair!"

said, he apprehended the House only, and not the Committee, could take notice of the language which had been used by the hon. Member for New Ross; and if the words in question were taken down, it would be his (the Chairman's) duty to report them to the House.

I merely wish to state, that in the debates on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill a similar Motion was made:—that certain words used by an hon. Member should be taken down—and the Speaker decided that no such Motion could be made.

Sir, I wish to correct the statement made by the hon. Member for Mayo. It must be in the recollection of the House that it was not until after the speech of the hon. Member who used the language was concluded, that the Motion was made that the words should be taken down; and I remember that the Speaker declared, that had the hon. Member who made the Motion made it at the time the words were spoken, it would have been competent for the House to entertain it, but not otherwise.

If the hon. Member for New Ross repeats the words they can be taken down. I understood the hon. Member to say that grosser corruption than was over known since the days of Walpole and the Pelhams had been practised upon Irish Members under his own eyes.

Will the hon. Member for Carlow furnish me with the words said to have been used by the hon. Member for New Ross?

, having handed a written paper to the Chairman, the words attributed to the hon. Member for New Rosa were these: "That the grossest corruption ever practised in the days of Walpole and the Pelhams has been practised, under my own eyes, upon Irish Members in this House."

I shall put the question, that the words used by the hon. Member for New Ross be taken down. Is it the opinion of this Committee that these words be taken down by the Clerk? [Loud cries of "Aye, aye!"and "No, no!"]

said, amidst considerable confusion, that he was an Irish Member, and felt that the aspersions mad "by the hon. Member for New Ross seriously affected the honour of the body to whom both of them belonged: he would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the words which had given offence, and which, to 3ay the least, were neither Parliamentary nor in good taste,

Do I understand from the hon. Member for New Ross that these were the words he used:—

"That the grossest corruption ever practised in the days of Walpole and the Pelhams has been practised under my own eyes upon Irish Members in this House?"

They are not identically the words, but they are so nearly correct them that I don't quarrel with them.

I beg to call to the recollection of the House the circumstances under which the hon. Member used these words, and the manner in which he followed them up. The words, as they have been taken down, appear to me, and I believe to the hon. Gentleman himself, as nearly as possible the words that he used. There was immediately, on this side of the House, a loud cry of "Name, name!" Now, it appears to me that if the hon. Gentleman had meant to make a vague assertion, which he had not the least means of proving, he might have been justified in passing on to other matter; but if, on the contrary, he meant to make an assertion affecting the honour and the integrity of Irish Members of this House, when he said the corruption which had been practised under his view upon those Members, was unequalled since the days of Walpole and the Pelhams, I think he ought to be ready to establish that assertion. But, instead of that, the hon. Gentleman took the first opportunity of saying, "Now, I will immediately pass to another part of the subject." ["No, no!" "Yes, yes!"] If I am wrong in this, the hon. Member will correct mo. I understood him to say, immediately afterwards, when there was a cry of "Name, name!" that if the Chairman, by the desire of the Committee, called upon him to name, he would do so; but of course that is not in the power of the Chairman; and then the hon. Gentleman immediately said he was going to pass to another part of the subject. Such being the case, I own it appears to me that the Committee in general, and the Irish Members in particular, may consider these words as general words used in debate, which the hon. Member is totally unable to prove, for the purpose of fixing a stigma on Irish Members which they do not deserve, and that he is utterly unable to prove one single word of what he has uttered. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is ready to give the Speaker in the Chair an assurance that he is ready to proceed to charge Irish Members individually with that corruption with which he has charged them generally, I then certainly should not refuse my vote for the Motion that the words in question should be taken down; but as the matter now stands, unless the hon. Gentleman goes into that statement, I consider it will be better for the Committee to treat these words with contempt, and not to notice them.

I apprehend, that, when words of this kind are used—if they ever were used—it is quite possible, that, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to go into the proof of them, he might prove to the moral satisfaction of every Gentleman who heard him a great deal that might be unpleasant to state or repeat. But I must say, I understood the words of my hon. Friend differently from what they have been described. I understood him to say—what his ulterior meaning may have been lies in his own breast—I understood him to say that the grossest corruption, or whatever the words were in that part of the sentence, had been practised towards the Irish Members. ["No, no!"] I appeal to the recollection of the House whether that is not the precise form of the sentence used by the hon. Member? and I conceive that when the House is asked to adopt a strict proceeding of this kind, they must take the exact words used, and not put a gloss upon them. The words, as I understood them, constituted an accusation against the Government; and might or might not imply an imputation on Irish Members. The words were, that "the grossest corruption had been practised"— upon whom?—"towards Irish Members."["No, no!" and a copy of the words placed in the hands of the Chairman was given to the hon. Member.]—"That the grossest corruption ever practised since the days of the Walpoles and the Pelhams, has been practised under my own eyes upon Irish Members of this House." By whom, then, has this corruption been practised? Not by the Irish Members on the Government; no one pretends that Irish Members have corrupted the Government—or that any bribery had proceeded from any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to the occupiers of the Treasury bench; but a comparison has been drawn between the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the Walpoles and the Pelhams of an earlier generation, and it was asserted that the grossest corruption of the days of the Walpoles and Pelhams has been practised by them. That is the accusation. If, therefore, those right hon. Gentlemen, out of a regard for their own dignity and character, think it necessary to have those words taken down, and require some ulterior proceeding to be taken that is all very well; but, at all events, let it he understood that the accusation was made against them. It is only in this sense, and coming from them, that any complaint of the kind can be entertained. If the words are taken down, let them be taken down accurately, and I am sure the House will not strain the imputation a hair's breadth beyond what was conveyed.

I have paid, Sir, the greatest attention to what has taken place on this subject; and I think that the words used by the hon. Member have been correctly taken down. The explanation of the hon. Member for Meath, so far from mitigating, has, I think, increased the offence. The explanation is, that the hon. Member has seen, with his own eyes, the grossest corruption practised towards Irish Members by the Government. I say this, as an independent Member, that it concerns the honour of this House to know what Member of Her Majesty's Government has practised this "gross corruption towards any Irish Member" under the eyes of the hon. Member, in order to influence his vote in the debates in this House. It is a matter which concerns the honour of the House, and a charge which demands immediate explanation.

The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) has given a wrong explanation of the words now complained of. The House should recollect what preceded the words in question. The hon. Member for New Ross had stated that a few of the Irish Members had acted conscientiously; and then proceeded, in the course of his remarks, to make an accusation of gross corruption, such as had not existed since the days of Walpole and the Pelhams, which had been practised upon Irish Members under his own eyes. The Committee has itself heard the words; and I put it to every hon. Member whether the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) has not given a very incorrect statement respecting the words actually used? [Great confusion.]

I must state my conviction that the hon. Member for Meath has given a correct interpretation of the words used by the hon. Member for New Ross. If the words did not bear that meaning, they could have none whatever. It was a parallel between the Walpoles and Pelhams, of a former period, and the present Government, and unless the charge is understood as brought against the Government there would be no application in the words. As a charge against Irish Members it would not be applicable; but it would be so if brought against the Government. Sitting here, upon this side of the House, and hearing perfectly well, as I did, I am convinced that the words as given by the hon. Member for Meath, as well as the interpretation, are the correct ones.

I must ask the indulgence of the Committee in this matter, having no precedent to guide me. As I understand the state of the case, I am now to put the question, that the words, as suggested by the hon. Member for Carlow, to have been used by the hon. Member for New Ross, be taken down by the clerk; and that then the proper course, if that Motion be agreed to, and the words are taken down, will be to report progress in order to report the words to the House. I say it is my decided opinion that the language itself was disorderly. The general rule being that words imputing improper motives to a Member of this House are disorderly, the language of the hon. Member for New Ross appears to come clearly under that definition. I will now, therefore, put the question, "That these words, 'that the grossest corruption ever practised in the days of Walpole and the Pelhams has been practised, under my own eyes, upon Irish Members in this House,' be taken down."

I understand the Chairman to say, that he considered the words complained of were disorderly, because they impute corrupt motives. There appears to be some doubt as to the exact words. [Cries of" They are admitted;"and "No, no!"] The question is, what admitted? But taking the admission in its fullest sense, I do not find in them any imputation of corrupt motives. Now, it is necessary that we should act in this matter so that those who follow us half a century hence may not be led into error by our conduct. I say again, I find no imputation of corrupt motive. I find, however, a much more important thing, namely, a distinct allegation of corrupt conduct. Nothing is more clear than this, that the allegation of corrupt conduct, especially if such conduct is alleged against a Minister, is not disorderly on the part of any hon. Member of the House of Commons. It might be that a Minister is guilty of "corrupt conduct," and an allegation to that effect is surely not disorderly; for if such corruption exists, it is the first and paramount duty of a Member of this House to bring forward such a charge; and we must not declare that any hon. Member has been guilty of acting disorderly, because he has accused a Minister of improper conduct. By so doing, we should be depriving our- selves of one of our highest functions and offices. I think it is evident, from this consideration, how important it is that we should have a clear admission of what the precise words used were. If they impute corrupt motives to any individual, whether one of Her Majesty's Ministers or not, it may he, and I believe is, disorderly; but if there is a distinct allegation from a Member in his place of a Minister having acted corruptly, that hon. Member is not guilty of any disorder; hut, on the contrary, he has by so doing been acting only upon his right, and, if he can substantiate his charge, been exercising the highest duty of which he is capable as a Member of this House. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will act with the utmost caution in the steps which they may think fit to adopt.

I am perfectly ready to admit the accuracy of the statement of the right hon. Member for Bucks opposite, that it is competent for any hon. Member in the House to impugn the conduct of any Member of the Government of the day in any way in which it may appear to him that he has grounds for stating the accusation; and so far as the charge of the hon. Member for New Ross against Her Majesty's present Government goes, I challenge him to the proof. I want no taking down of the words used, or reporting them to the Speaker. The charge has been made, and I defy him to prove it. So far, however, as the charge goes against Irish Members of this House, the matter stands upon a different footing. The hon. Member for New Ross has made a charge which, whatever may be the particular words used, implies necessarily an imputation upon the honour and conduct of his Irish colleagues in the House. Now, we all know that men are led away by the course of an argument, frequently to make assertions which, in clearer and calmer moments, we should feel we had no good ground for making; and I would put it to the hon. Member—he is a young Member of this House, and will excuse me, who has been a Member longer than he has, if I suggest a course to follow which I think would redound to his credit—whether it would not be wise to cut short the difficulty in which he is likely to involve us, by saying—what I am sure must be passing in his inmost mind—that he regrets that, in the warmth of debate, he has cast reflections upon the conduct of hon. Members, which he had no good ground for maintaining, and which, speaking deliberately, he would not have used. Nothing would be more creditable to the hon. Member than the admission that he did not intend to use words imputing dishonourable conduct to honourable men. The course which I have suggested is the one which I should take myself if I had let drop any words imputing dishonourable conduct to any hon. Member; and I would humbly venture to suggest that the hon. Member would best consult what was due to himself as well as to the representatives of his country, if he were at once, fairly, handsomely, and candidly to say that he did not mean deliberately and seriously to impute any dishonourable conduct to any Irish Members.

[who rose amid great confusion]: I rise merely to protest against its being taken for granted, in the manner in which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department has taken it, that those words which were taken down, and which have a most distinct meaning, have the meaning which the noble Lord appears to attach to them. I maintain there is no meaning of that kind in those words. The words which have been taken down contain an imputation against Her Majesty's Ministers, and do not necessarily convey any imputation upon other hon. Members, and do not necessarily convey any imputation whatever upon the honour and character of Irish Members. If I may venture to offer any advice to my hon. Friend, it would be that he should stand upon his right and on the words he has used, and leave the House to determine—which I believe it never will do -that the words bear the sense which I am persuaded no rational man can deduce from them, namely, that they contain any imputation upon any person except Her Majesty's Ministers.

[who spoke amidst continued confusion], said: If these words which have been made the subject of complaints do not contain the meaning which has been affixed to them, it would be satisfactory to the Committee to hear that such was the case from the hon. Member for New Ross himself. It seems to me that we have been engaged in a very fruitless discussion as to the accuracy of the words taken down. The Chairman has, with great consideration, appealed to the hon. Member for New Ross to know whether the words had been handed to him correctly; he appealed to the hon. Member to admit their substantial accuracy; and after the hon. Member had done so, and when the Committee was proceeding to discuss whether —their accuracy having been admitted —they should be taken down by the Clerk, the hon. Member for Meath got up and attempted to deny the accuracy of the words that have been read.

I beg pardon, I did not deny [great confusion] —I did not deny— I did not deny it [renewed confusion]. I really think I have some right to appeal to the courtesy of hon. Members. I am telling them what I have repeated before. I read the words used by my hon. Friend from this paper, and my whole argument was founded upon those words, namely, "the grossest corruption since the days of Walpole and the Pelhams has been practised upon Irish Members in this House before my own eyes." I assumed the accuracy of those words, and my argument was founded upon their accuracy.

I certainly understood the hon. Member for Meath to deny the accuracy of the words taken down, and to deny that the hon. Member for New Ross had said that under his own eyes the grossest corruption had been practised upon Irish Members since the days of Walpole and Pelham. It is true that afterwards, admitting the substantial accuracy of the words, the hon. Member denied the correctness of the construction that had been attached to them. He did that with the hon. Member for New Ross sitting beside him, and that hon. Member confirmed his statement. I had hoped that in answer to the appeal of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and hearing the construction which had been placed upon these words, the hon. Member would have hastened to relieve the House from the painful position in which it is now placed, by at once denying that he intended to cast either upon the Government or upon Irish Members, without intending to prove it, an accusation which is equally disgraceful either to the one or the other. Not being able to prove what he stated with respect to this disgraceful conduct, I trust he will, even now, upon reflection, be induced—I will not say to retract the words, but, at least, to explain the meaning in which he used them, or proceed at once to give substantial proof of the accuracy of the charges brought by him as well against the Irish Members as against Her Majesty's Government.

Sir, as an Irish Member who has listened to this most painful discussion, I venture to remind the Committee of the advice which fell from the noble Lord who leads this House, which was to treat the imputation which had been made by the hon. Member opposite, who has not dared to come forward either to prove his charge, or to name the parties against whom it had been made, with the contempt it deserves. As an Irish Member, and therefore, of course, as one of those who must of necessity be included in that charge, I, for one, am perfectly ready to take the advice of the noble Lord, more especially as in addition to that excellent advice, the noble Lord the Home Secretary has made an appeal which—I am at a loss to express myself, but I think the House will understand me— which would have been responded to by any person deserving the name of—I hesitate to use the word—

I should have hoped, Mr. Bouverie, that, under the circumstances in which I now stand—assailed as I have been—[Cries of "Oh!"and "Hear!"]—and called upon to answer, under circumstances presumed, I suppose, to be serious—I did hope that I would have been protected against such language as that which has just been applied to me. And I must say that I do not think it at all creditable to an assembly of English Gentlemen to applaud the gross language of the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. ft. Herbert). There are two circumstances respecting which I think it necessary: to explain,. The one is in reference to my observation, that though short had been my experience in this House, I had seen certain things pass under my own eyes. [Laughter.] I do not mean to alter a single word of what I said, and hon. Members at the back of the Treasury cackle out of time. I wish the Committee to understand that the phrase "under my own eyes" meant during the time I had been a Member of the House. The other circumstance is this: the interpretation put upon my words by my hon. Friend the Member for Meath has led to some discussion. There is much in it inseparable from the truth. I was instancing the corrupt conduct of Ministers. Walpole was a Minister, and so were the Pelhams, and both corrupted Parliament, as history tells us. I brought the practice down to our own times, and declared my conviction that the present Government did operate on certain Irish Members in the game fashion. The statement I wish to convey to the House is, that the same kind of influence employed by Walpole and by Pelham, seemed to me to hare been employed to obtain the votes of a certain small number of Irish Members. [Cries of "Name!" "No!"] A further explanation I wish to offer is this. The noble Lord who is called the leader of this House said I wanted to hurry away from the subject. That is not the fact. I said if the Chairman, as the organ of the Committee, called me to name the parties, I could name them. In the clamour that pervaded the House, I could not gather what course it was desired I should pursue. I collected from my friends that it was not wished I should name any names, and then only I said I should pass to another topic. I am, as several hon. Members have stated, not an old Member of this House. I am, therefore, unacquainted with its forms, and I may consequently have got into a position of some difficulty through my ignorance of those forms. But there is one position which I shall never get into —I will never unsay anything I have said, believing it to be true. When the Chairman said I was disorderly, a distinguished Member of this House said in his opinion I was not so. How was I to decide which was right or wrong? But the matter stands thus. If it be the opinion of the Committee that I should inform it of the facts which led my mind to the conclusion that I have expressed, I shall give that information. If, on the contrary, it be the wish of the Committee that I should declare what I said was untrue, or explain away its force, then, whatever may be the consequences, I decline to do so, and await them without fear. [Renewed cries of "Name!" and "No!"and confusion.] The hon. Member rose again, and said—I am called upon to name. If it be the wish of the majority of the Committee, then I will— [Confusion.]

I think the Committee will have discovered a considerable difference between the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, and the impressions made upon the Committee by his original statement. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, that is my opinion. I think the statement now stands thus: The hon. Gentleman is of opinion, and declares it openly, that the Government has taken measures somewhat analogous to those taken by former Governments for the purpose of influencing the votes of Irish Members in this House. I should be very sorry to have to defend any Government from charges of that nature. We know very well there is an investigation going on at this moment into charges affecting Gentlemen upon the other side of the House. I do not believe, myself—and I speak as having made some observations during the ten years I have sat in this House—I do not believe, I say, that any hon. Gentlemen, making a general statement of that kind,' can easily be shown to have said that which was incorrect. The hon. Gentleman comes from the other side of the Channel. We know—every one of us knows—particularly in this House we know it—that many Irish Members do take what may be called, though they are from the West, an Oriental latitude in the language they use. Their language is often of a very figurative description. Now I am inclined to think that the expressions complained of to-night may be fairly classed under that category. I may myself have at times used expressions which the House has not altogether approved of. Mr. Bouverie has decided that the language used is disorderly. Now I think the hon. Gentleman would not wish to say anything that the Committee considered disorderly. I hope he may, and he will probably, state to the House that he would be very sorry to transgress the rules of the House by stating anything that was disorderly, or contrary to the rules of the House; for his accusation, as he says, refers to practices which he believes are in operation by Gentlemen upon that bench (the Government), towards Gentlemen who generally sit somewhere below the gangway. Now, that is only a general imputation, which I honestly confess, if I were an Irish Member, I should never have thought of calling to be taken down. I have said such things in this House myself, and I have heard many other Members say the same things. When men are very earnest, and when they see Gentlemen with whom they have been in the habit of acting taking a part which they cannot comprehend—although it may be a wise, conscientious, a most patriotic course—I think under these circumstances, a Gentleman may make use of mere expressions, such as the hon. Gentleman has used, without the House being required to take steps of this nature for the purpose of going into a further examination upon them. I think the hon. Gentleman has made a partial explanation; and although I should have very much have preferred that the words should not have been uttered, I apprehend they do not bear the sense with which they first impressed the Committee—I cannot for a moment conceive them to be uttered in that sense; and if I might be permitted to advise the Committee, it would be, after the statement of the hon. Gentlemen, that we should let the matter drop. After all, the hon. Gentleman does not say that any of the Irish Members to whom he refers have succumbed to the temptation. The hon. Gentleman only speaks of their being operated upon. Everybody knows that all operations do not succeed. I understood the charge to be that this Government, like former Governments, have offered temptations and inducements, and used means to swell their majorities. I have heard such charges over and over again in the last ten years; it is a general accusation that has often been made; and no one has thought of taking notice of such general imputation, and I confess I think that there is a difference between the original impression of the words and the hon. Gentleman's explanation.

It is not for me to judge how far this House may tolerate on the part of any of its Members direct imputations of corruption between the Government of the day and other Members of the House. At all events I, for one, as an individual Member, am desirous to vindicate not only my own personal honour, but the honour, also, of those Members with whom I am in daily communication; and if there is corruption going on in the House, I desire it may be manifested, that I may disconnect myself from it, and from those who have been; guilty of it. I shall not, therefore, withdraw my Motion unless I hear some more satisfactory explanation than I have yet heard. Corruption, Sir, is a very plain thing. The meaning of the hon. Member for New Ross I take to be this—that some hon. Members from Ireland have been induced, by pecuniary considerations— [Cries of "No, no!"]—to give their votes in this House. ["No, no!"] That was the plain meaning of the accusation. Are such -words as these to be used in this House, and the House then to be told that no meaning is to be attached to them? Well, Sir, so long as that allegation stands, I, for one, shall not consent to withdraw the Motion.

The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Buckinghamshire, is perfectly right when he says the Government is at all times, open to charges of this nature—to charges of corruption, or any other charges which hon. Members may think proper to make; and no doubt Government, as well as individual. Members, should be indisposed lightly to take offence at words escaping in the heat of debate. But it appears to me it is not only the Government, and Members of the Government, who ought to take offence at the words used in this debate; for it must be observed that the hon. Member who used the words was an Irish Member, and that the charge particularly referred to Irish Members—that they had been actuated by corrupt influences. Now, it appears to me that there are three ways in which any hon. Gentleman who uses such words as the hon. Member has used may act. The first is that supposed by my noble Friend—that where, in the heat of debate, words which were not well-founded, and unjustifiable in themselves, have fallen from an hon. Member in the course of his speech, they may be recalled, as words which, on consideration a few moments afterwards, he felt he could not substantiate, and should regret. That, it appears, is not the case of the hon. Gentleman, for he does not retract the words. The next is a perfectly justifiable course—namely, where a Member states that which he believes to be true, and afterwards says he is ready to make it the subject of inquiry and of a specific charge. If I understand that to be the case of the hon. Gentleman; I beg that those charges may be distinctly made. Hitherto he has refused to name. If he will name, together with the specific charge, the corrupt conduct practised by Government towards any hon. Member of this House, that hon. Member being guilty equally with the Government which made the attempt, let that charge be brought, and let it be inquired into. There is a third way; that is to say, where an hon. Member has used words affecting the honour and integrity of other hon. Members of this House, and has neither the proof to bring forward in order to substantiate his charges, nor the manliness to retract them, and acknowledge he has been in error. Now, Sir, unless I hear from the hon. Gentleman that he is ready not only to name the Gentlemen to whom he refers, but to bring the specific charge or charges against those Members and against the Government, which can be made the subject of substantial inquiry, I must rest upon the last conclusion with regard to his conduct.

having taken the chair,

said: Sir, I have to report to the House, by direction of the Committee, that Mr. Duffy, Member for New Ross, has used the following expressions:—

"That the grossest corruption ever practised in the days of Walpole and the Pelhams has been practised under my own eyes upon Irish Members in this House."

It has been reported to the House that the hon. Member for New Ross has used the following words:—"That the grossest corruption ever practised in the days of Walpole or the Pelhams has been practised, under my own eyes, upon Irish Members in this House." Has the hon. Member anything to say in explanation or retractation of these words?

I desire to say I am not acquainted with the forms of the House, and do not know what is aimed at in this proceeding. Will Mr. Speaker tell me what is the course I am expected to take?

The hon. Member asks to be informed of the course which the House expects him to pursue. It having been reported to the House that the hon. Member has used expressions in the Committee which have been considered offensive to other hon. Members, it becomes my duty to call upon the hon. Member to explain or retract the words which I have read to him, and which had been taken down by order of the Committee. When the hon. Member has made either his explanation or retractation, he will withdraw, and it will be for the House then to say what further course they will pursue.

It will be in the recollection of the House that the statement I made was this—that though I had been only a short time in this House, I believed I had observed corruption practised towards Irish Members by the present Government of a character with that corruption which had, for similar purposes, been practised by Ministers whose names are familiar to the House. I am called upon for an explanation or retractation of that statement. If this House thinks pro- per to give me a Committee, I will lay before the Committee the facts that have influenced my mind in coming to that conclusion. I do not know whether it is quite reasonable to expect that in this hurried manner I should go into any statement of facts. But this I will certainly say, that the statement I made I have substantial grounds for believing; and I can only offer such proof to the Committee you may appoint as influences my own mind. But as I am about to withdraw, I do not think it is quite reasonable to expect me to proceed further without notice.

I rise, Sir, only to say that the words used by the hon. Member contain a general charge against the Government, and certain Irish Members not named. Being in the situation of a Member of the Government, I do not think it would become me to advise the House as to the course that they should pursue; but I hope some experienced Member, well acquainted with the forms and precedents of the House, will offer that advice, and make a Motion on the subject.

I do not pretend, Sir, to be a very experienced Member, but I hope I may be allowed to express the general feeling of those who wish to take a fair and unimpasssioned view of what has taken place. I do not think the House ought to appoint a Committee to inquire into a charge of so grave a character on so vague a statement. At the same time that statement is of so substantial a nature that I do not think we ought to treat it with contempt. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for New Ross ought to be summoned to his seat; and that you, Sir, should address him and require him to state the names of the individuals on whom he thinks the Government have practised these corrupt influences. I think it would be unreasonable to expect hon. Members, certainly at an unexpected moment, to enter into minute details; but I think he ought to be called upon, in his place, to name the Members against whom the imputation is made; and there will then be sufficient foundation for the next step, which will be to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject.

Sir, I am one of those who have been anxiously waiting in hopes that the hon. Member for New Ross would take some course which would have relieved the House from its present position. I will not trust myself to tee any other expression—but I cannot, for the life of me, understand how that hon. Gentleman, after the language held, and after the explanation he has attempted to give, can reconcile himself to the course he has thought fit to pursue. But, Sir, on the other hand, I think, perhaps, it would he unwise and imprudent if we were hastily, and at a moment's notice, in the present state of feeling in this House— above all in the present state of feeling which may be presumed to exist in the breast of the hon. Member himself—if we were to call hastily and without reflection upon him to substantiate or to retract charges of this grave character. On the other hand, I think the House is bound to require of that hon. Member, at a fitting time and in a fitting state of mind, either to retract the expressions which he has used, and apologise to this House for the Offence he has given, or in a manly, bold, and constitutional manner, himself to move that Committee which he professes to desire. I do not know what course will reconcile all the difficulties of these circumstances; but I should venture very humbly to propose that this debate be adjourned till to-morrow. By that time the House will be able to consider what is the best course to pursue. It will give you, Sir, and all of us, time to consult precedents, if there are any; and it will give, also, opportunity to the hon. Member to reflect on what has passed, and to take the advice of his friends on the subject. I am quite sure there is no desire on the part of the House to hurry the hon. Member into a ceurse which may be utterly destructive of his character, and I advise the House to pause before doing so. I, Sir, move, "That the words used by the hon. Member for New Ross, in Committee, and reported to the House, be taken into consideration to-morrow."

said, if the House were disposed to deal justly and generously with the hon. Gentleman who had made such grave charges against the House, he thought a reasonable time ought to be given. Whether they ought to be substantiated, or ought to be retracted, it was only fair and just to give a reasonable time to the hon. Member to consider the course he would pursue.

said, that as one of the Irish Members resting under this ban, he felt that under the peculiar circumstances, and at the peculiar hoar at which this debate was going on, it was very unpleasant and very uncomfortable to every one that it should be adjourned. But the House would bear in mind that all this would be printed in all the papers to-morrow morning, and circulated in the course of Saturday and Sunday to the most remote corners of Ireland; and Irish Members would most likely have to remain under the imputation for an entire week. Therefore, he thought they ought to adopt the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire.

said, whether the words used by the hon. Member for New Ross were or were not disorderly, or whether they escaped in the heat of debate, or with deliberate intention to give the impression, they certainly were offensive to a great number, perhaps to the whole House; and he could only say for himself and his hon. Friend who sat near him, that they considered them as insulting. He, therefore, begged to oppose the adjournment of the debate, and cordially agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), who had suggested that they should call the hon. Member for New Ross to his place, and if he then refused to retract the expressions, or to name the persons against whom he made them, the House should proceed accordingly.

thought the hon. Gentle-man who had just spoken had used the very strongest argument for the House to take the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London; and considering the position he held, his advice upon a question of this nature was particularly valuable. The hon. Gentleman said the words were offensive to the House; and to the Irish Members, he might say, insulting. He (Mr. Bright) did not blame the hon. Member for being actuated by those feelings; but being actuated by them, he asked the House to come to a conclusion on this question at once—["No, no!"]—so far to come to a conclusion, as to require the hon. Member for New Ross 'to come in and give the names of those against whom he was prepared to bring charges— ["Retract, retract!"] The hon. Gentleman had already told the House he was not going to retract. That being the case, it appeared to him, however much the hon. Member had transgressed the Orders of the House, however much he bad offended any Members of the House, they would be only guilty of conduct equally hasty, and, perhaps, equally unjustifiable, if, acting under those feelings, they took any sudden or hasty course upon it. It was after Twelve o'clock. The question had been bandied about for the last hour, and it would not be doing justice to the character of that House if they did not adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buteshire. He spoke without any kind of bias on the matter. He believed the hon. Member for New Ross was under a delusion with regard to what he had said as to Irish Members; but he thought it would be taking a course below the dignity of the House if they did not postpone until to-morrow their decision upon the question. He thought, after they had discussed and talked it over, they would be likely to take a clearer course; and he indulged the hope that the hon. Member for New Ross, after having slept on this matter, would come down and make an explanation so full and satisfactory, that no further proceedings need be taken.

I would object to any Motion which could take any hon. Member by surprise. I regret very much that any Irish Member should have placed himself in this position, and have refused to accept either the advice which was tendered by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, or the construction given by his own Friend the hon. Member for Meath. As an Irish Member myself—as one who voted not for the Government nor for an income tax, but for a remission of the consolidated annuities, I think the sooner this charge is brought to an issue the better. No hon. Member has a right to assert anything like a libel upon his brother Members without being able to substantiate it; and, notwithstanding the advice of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), who has not in his keeping the personal honour of the Members for Ireland, and who, I trust, has not been "operated on" by his relative the Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), I do hope that an immediate conclusion will be arrived at. I beg to call to the minds of hon. Members what occurred. I had spoken on the question of the consolidated annuities, and I had stated that there were English Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies who took a different view of that question from me, and who were not interested in the land of Ireland. The hon. Member for New Ross, in noticing this point of my speech, turned to me and, addressing me personally, stated that, if there were Members on his side of the House who had no interest in the consolidated annuities, neither had they any interest in Downing-street. Following that up, the hon. Member stated that there were some few Irish Members of this (the Ministerial) side of the House who had given conscientious votes the other evening; whereupon some of us called out, "Some few, indeed!" but no explanation was given. Following up the same point still, and looking at us here pointedly, he used the offensive expressions which have been referred to, and which every one of us understood as an extremely gross insult. We called out "Name, name!" and the hon. Member said over and over again, "I am perfectly ready to name." I confess I wish the hon. Member, for his own sake, would now come in and either retract or satisfactorily explain his expressions, or that he would adopt the alternative suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire—that is to say, that if he will not either retract nor explain, he should do what he repeatedly said he was quite prepared to do—name the Gentlemen to whom he alluded; and then, if any hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary, let him move the adjournment.

said, he was most happy to say he was not in the House when— as he collected from what had fallen from hon. Members—some disgraceful scene must have occurred; but he must submit that the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London seemed to him at least the most desirable to adopt. He would suggest that, if offensive expressions had been used, time should be given to the hon. Gentleman to reflect maturely upon them, and he doubted not not that he would then come down calmly, like a man of honour and a gentleman, either to apologise and retract, or to adhere to and to substantiate, the charges he had made.

I stated to the House before that I did not think it would be becoming in me to point out what course it ought to pursue. Since then two courses have been suggested, one by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, the other by the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London. The right hon. Member for Bucks suggests that if the hon. Member for New Ross will state certain names of Gentlemen he alluded to, a Committee shall thereupon be appointed for the purpose of investigating his charges. Now, I must be allowed to state that I do not think that course is the proper one for us to pursue. It seems to me that, whatever may be the consequence, it would be a very unbecoming course in us to expose those hon. Members, without any apparent reason or cause, to the imputation implied in such an inquiry. In cases of this kind, there ought, I think, to be some sort of charges affixed to persons who are supposed to be guilty, and that merely appointing a Committee to inquire into the conduct of Members would be a very unjust and unbecoming course for us to adopt. The proposition of the other right hon. Gentleman will, I think, be the better, as it will give time to the hon. Member for New Ross to reflect, and to the other Members of the House to consider what course should be taken. I certainly have often found that by a little delay in such matters, cases which were exceedingly difficult have been easily brought to a conclusion; and, therefore, I am prepared to support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London.

As I have been personally alluded to by some hon. Members, I beg to say that I should be the last to wish to put the hon. Member for New Ross in a position where he might be tempted to utter things which it would be difficult to retract. At the same time, with reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork, that the hon. Member should either at present or to-morrow adopt the construction which had been put upon his words by the hon. Member for Meath, I have to say that that would neither be creditable to himself nor to the House; and, therefore, in expressing my concurrence in the views of hon. Members who have suggested an adjournment of the debate, I do so in the hope that the House at its reassembling will see that the charge which has been made is met in a proper way—in a way, I mean, in which such a serious charge should be met. I beg to say, at the same time, that I did not understand that the hon. Member looked at me when he made the charge. It never entered my head that he did; and, if it had, I do not say that I should have been so forward to move in the matter. But the hon. Member having cast—I will not say a slur—but one of the heaviest imputations possible on a large body of hon. Members who sat behind me, I cannot think but that it was due to them, as well as to myself, to take the course I did.

I am not in the position of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) for I have heard the whole of this unpleasant discussion; and I must acknowledge that I am not at all surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite, my colleagues in the Irish representation, should have taken offence at the words of the hon. Member for New Ross. At the same time I confess I did not understand them, nor do I think that they, upon deliberation, can understand them in the offensive sense which has been put upon them in this House. [Dissent.] Do allow a man who speaks for an absent man to state in a few words what occurs to him as the true explanation of these expressions. The words used by the hon. Member, as well as I recollect them, were these—"That corruption as gross as had been practised in the days of Walpole and the Pelhams had been brought to bear, under his own eyes, on the Irish Members of this House." Now, is there a single man in this House who believes that the hon. Member meant by the use of those words to say that in his presence, under his own eyes, anything like pecuniary corruption has taken place. [Confusion.] Hear me; I cannot say everything at once. Does any one, I say, believe it was the intention of the hon. Member to state that under his own eyes anything like pecuniary corruption had taken place? ["Yes, yes!"and "No, no!"] The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore) may think so; but I am perfectly sure that every man at all acquainted with the Irish representation, or with the hon. Gentlemen opposite (the Irish supporters of the Government), must know—and they know themselves, every one of them—that nothing of the kind was intended. That does not conclude the question I admit, because there may be other kinds of corruption than by pecuniary bribes; for instance, if any one—as at elections—had been proved to have given offices away, or to have used influence obtained in that way for party purposes, it would have been corruption in the ordinary sense of the word, though not pecuniary corruption; and I cannot help thinking that if hon. Gentlemen opposite will get rid of that feeling of irritation which has naturally been excited by the use of words such as the hon. Member used, they may, and must, find in them a meaning different from what they had sup- posed: they would come to the conclusion that those words did not impute personal dishonour to any Member of the House, did not impute anything of which the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench ought, can, or will, when the thing is properly understood—[Laughter]—ought, I repeat, to be in the least ashamed. [Confusion.] I must claim to be heard for an absent man. I must ask the House to permit me for a moment to call their attention to the position in which the hon. Member for New Ross stands, and to the feelings which may well account for the language he has used. The hon. Member has only been a short time a Member of this House. He came into it a Member of a party sixty or seventy strong, pledged, as he believed, by every assurance that could bind men together in political life to oppose every Government — [Great laughter.] Do let me speak—do let me submit to the justice and generosity of English Gentlemen, whether it is right to interrupt a man in the middle of a sentence, and to put a meaning on his words which those who hear them know that they are not intended to convey. I repeat it— a party sixty or seventy strong—["Fifty, fifty"]—well, let it be fifty—pledged to oppose every Government which did not support certain measures which the hon Member, and, let me add, a great majority of his countrymen, deemed essential to the interests of their country. Now, I ask the House to consider what I suggested, that corruption may be by office, as well as by money. Now, let us see, then, if we cannot find a meaning for these words, which impute no personal dishonour to my friends opposite, in any sense in which they would understand it as dishonour, but which may, in the sense in which the hon. Member used them, imply a sort of corruption practised in the days of Walpole and Pelham. During the early part of this Session, when the right hon. Member for Bucks was in office, that party, fifty or sixty strong, went as one man—we went together—into the lobby and overthrew the Government. The next day the Government was changed and office given to some of the Members of that Irish party. Now, I do not share many of the opinions of the hon. Member for New Ross, and I do not take so determined a view of Irish politics as he may legitimately and naturally do. I am one of those who think that the two hon. Gentlemen who were promoted, being men of unexceptionable character in public and private life, men of distinguished ability, and men who had opposed the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) when he was in office—it may at least be a matter of doubt whether the Government in offering office to these Gentlemen did not mean to offer an earnest and token of conciliation to the Irish Catholic representatives in this House. But that is not the view taken in Ireland—that is not the view taken by the hon. Member for New Ross. I have not a doubt that when he talked of corruption being practised under his own eyes since he had a seat in Parliament, he meant to say that hon. Gentleman, Members of this House, had been induced to abandon the course they had previously taken, and had declared their determination to pursue; and that the Government had broken up the party, and had purposely determined to break its strength in this House, by giving these Gentlemen office—by arts of influencing Members that were used in the days of Walpole and Pelham to influence Members of the House. I have heard the office of Solicitor General spoken of as an inferior office. Now, we don't consider it so. Neither do I think a Lordship of the Treasury a very inferior office. I beg to be understood as not speaking disrespectfully of a Lord of the Treasury, whom I know to be a most respectable Gentleman, and a member of a most respectable profession. But this I will say, that it was a high promotion to him—a Lordship of the Treasury. Now, let me ask hon. Members to consider if there be not some ground for thinking that the words used by the hon. Member for New Ross were not used in the offensive sense to hon. Gentlemen opposite which they seem to imagine. We all know that when an hon. Gentleman receives a place, no one believes that it was intended he should receive a bribe; and, therefore, I cannot help saying that I do think it would be somewhat hasty to judge the hon. Member for New Ross too severely, and that it is possible, after all, that when an explanation is given it will be found that what I have said was his meaning, because, having had an angry discussion with the hon. Member for Athlone, and the late Member for Carlow, he was reluctant to mention their names in his place, and impute as dishonest conduct to them what all their friends probably knew to have been nothing of the kind. I have only one other word to say. You cannot exactly put yourselves in the position and feel in the same manner as those feel, who, having the deepest interest in the happiness of their country, thought the best way to promote that happiness was to maintain a strong compact party in this House. Those who so felt had been greatly disappointed at the course adopted by some Members of that party, as far as we knew, without any pledge whatever—as far as we knew, without any assurance—of those measures being carried, or even considered, which we deemed essential to the happiness and interest of the country we were sent here to represent, and the general well-being and prosperity of the country at large.

I am anxious to call the attention of the House to the question before it. The only question proposed from the Chair is that submitted by the Recorder of London, that the consideration of the subject be adjourned to this day. No other course has been recommended in the shape of a Motion by any other hon. Member. Now, I think the House will act wisely in agreeing to that proposition. I think a few hours' deliberation will induce the hon. Member for New Ross to take that course, which, after having uttered the words which I think were uttered in the heat of debate, and not with deliberation— I think the hon. Member will be induced to take that course which any other hon. Member would take under such circumstances. I think it most desirable that we should allow the interval asked for by the hon. Member, and that it should not be alleged that he is taken by surprise, and called upon to come to an immediate decision. In recommending that course, I beg it to be understood that I should not feel justified in recommending it if I thought the slightest imputation rested on any hon. Member to whom that language was justly offensive. I think in granting the request for delay, we are best consulting the dignity of the House, while we do not leave a stain of imputation on any hon. Member. I trust, therefore, that as no other proposition has been submitted, the House will agree to the Motion now before it. If the House does agree to that proposition, I trust the House will deprecate the discussion of topics like those introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last.

approved of the course recommended by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, and trusted, after a few hours' reflection, the hon. Member for New Ross, who, no doubt, had been acting under feelings of considerable excitement, would adopt the course which had been suggested.

moved, as an addition to the Motion already before the House, that the hon. Member for New Ross be required to attend in his place at four o'clock this day.

presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Rye, which stated, that, as it was proved before the Committee, which sat lately to inquire into the election proceedings at Rye, some sixty of the electors were under the immediate control of one Jeremiah Smith, by means of lending them various sums of money, they begged the House would not issue the writ for a new election for Rye without further inquiry, and praying the House to provide some remedy for this corrupt state of things. He also begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he bad been entrusted with another petition on the same subject, with a different prayer. For himself, he cared not which way the House decided the matter, but he thought they must adopt a decision for inquiry.

said, it was true the Committee had made a Report on the subject, but as the evidence was in the hands of the House, they had no means of knowing on what grounds the Report was made, nor the circumstances of the borough, except from what took place during the last discussion in that House. Now in that discussion it appeared that no less than 15,000l. had been lent out in loans at the election of 1847 for that small borough; and at the last election there had been something like 6,000l. lent—or at least a very considerable sum. A question had been raised whether loans of money in that way did not come within the meaning of the last Act as well as bribery. Now, without giving an opinion as to whether the writ should be suspended, or a Commission issued, he thought, upon the statements made in the late debate, it was important that the House should have the whole of the evidence before them.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He found that, in the case of the borough of Lyme Regis, similar corrupt practices prevailed. He understood from the Chairman of the Committee in this case that the reason for not issuing a Commission was, that all the corruption which could be proved before it had been already ascertained by the Committee. If that was a good reason for not issuing a Commission, it was also a strong reason for postponing the issue of the writ. He (Lord J. Russell) had his doubts whether, in fact, any writ should again issue for the borough of Rye.

asked whether it was possible for a Commission to issue where no Report had been made of excessive bribery having taken place. What had been gained by the postponement of this writ? He understood, that, with regard to Berwick, the House had decided to issue a writ without waiting for the evidence taken before the Committee. The House agreed to the issue of the writ on the mere statement by the Chairman of the Committee that they were in favour of the issue. He (Sir J. Shelley) understood that the Rye Committee had taken a similar view of that case. [Cries of "No, no!"] He was under the impression that the Chairman of the Rye Committee had said that he was in favour of the issue of a writ. ["Yes!"]

The Committee had given no opinion upon the question of the issue of the writ.

But the House had.

Whatever decision the House might come to, it was desirable, in so peculiar a case as this, that the evidence should be printed. One of the peculiarities of the case was this, that the corrupt loans, upon which the investigation proceeded, and upon which the Report turned, were absolutely made as far back as 1832.

thought it was too late to proceed with this discussion.

said, he would now propose to nominate the Select Committee on this Bill.

said, he must suggest that it was too late to proceed with the nomination to-night; and he would also suggest that one of the Members for Edinburgh, which was the seat of the Law Courts in Scotland, should be added to the Committee.

said, he objected to the constitution of the Committee, and expressed his hope that the nomination would be postponed.

said, that he had applied, unsuccessfully, to several Scotch Members to serve.

then moved that the Committee should have power to send for persons, papers, and records. It might be said that further evidence was not requisite; but he believed that the great preponderating feeling in Scotland was decidedly opposed to the system of double sheriffs, and was in favour of the change in the constitution of appeal which he had suggested. He would press his Motion at present, and he would divide the House upon it.

said, he had announced, on a former occasion, that it was not his intention to take evidence before a Committee. Further evidence was unnecessary. There had been the strongest feeling expressed in favour of the Bill from all classes in Scotland, and he would not consent to hang up the Bill until August upon a merely abstract question. He would, therefore, oppose the Motion.

said, he should support the Motion. He would take the sense of the House, on a future occasion, as to single or double sheriffs.

said, he should also support the Motion; he felt convinced, that, if the measure were carried without deliberate inquiry, it would only unsettle and disturb, and prove in no manner satisfactory.

thought it was not desirable this discussion should take place in the present state of the House. He should move the adjournment of the debate.

hoped that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would accede to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Craufurd).

said, that the feeling in Scotland was unanimous in favour of some change in the present system. The only effect of enabling the Committee to take evidence would be to prolong the inquiry to the end of the Session. He would recommend his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Craufurd), who had a Bill on the same subject as this Bill, which stood for a second reading on Wednesday next, to withdraw his present Motion, and allow the question as to whether there should be one or two sheriffs to be discussed on that day.