said, he wished to put the following question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London—Whether the Government are informed that diplomatic relations have ceased between the Ottoman Porte and the Government of Greece, in consequence of the refusal of the Government of Greece to accede to demands which they considered derogatory to an independent State?

said, that he had stated on a former occasion that there was no proof that the Greek Government were endeavouring to excite insurrection among the Christian subjects of the Sultan. Since that time the Turkish Government had directed their Minister at Athens to make demands to the effect which his hon. Friend had stated; the Greek Government had not given a satisfactory answer to those demands; and the Turkish Minister at Athens had demanded his passport and broken off diplomatic relations with Greece. Without vouching for the particular demands which were made by the representative of Turkey at Athens, and which, he believed, were not made with any sanction from the Ministers of England and France, he must say that he thought Turkey had good reasons to complain of the conduct of Greece. The diplomatic papers which had been received furnished ample proof that the insurrection in the Turkish provinces bordering on Greece was not a spontaneous outburst—that the part taken in it by Greek subjects was not taken by them spontaneously; that there was not in Greece any very strong sympathy upon the subject; but that the whole of the insurrection had been a contrivance of the Court of Greece—that it had been got up for the purpose of weakening the authority of the Sultan, then in alliance with the King of Greece; and that there was numerous proofs that the King and Queen of Greece had undisguisedly given the greatest encouragement to this insurrection in the Turkish provinces. Such being the case, he could not wonder, without vouching for the propriety of any of those demands, that the Turkish Minister should have acted as he had done. However, Her Majesty's Government had been in communication both with the French Government and the Government of Austria upon this subject; they had given such directions as they thought proper on the occasion to Her Majesty's Minister at Athens; and he (Lord J. Russell) could only say again that he thought the Court of Greece was answerable for the outbreaks that had unfortunately occurred in this part of the Sultan's dominions.

said, the noble Lord had unstated what he had stated on a former occasion with regard to the Greek Government, and had brought serious charges against them. He only wished to say he doubted whether that was quite proper. [Cries of "Order, order!"] He did not want to be obliged to move the adjournment of the House, by doing which he could soon put himself in order; but he objected to a speech being made at a time when it could not be answered, in which very unsound opinions, as he believed, were being propagated among the people of this country. But he wished to take this opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), but on a different subject, as to what the Government of Constantinople was doing touching the Christian population of Turkey. Lord Clarendon had stated in the House of Lords—he meant, "in another place," he was not allowed to mention anything so sacred—that a great deal was about to be done by the combined Governments of France and England with regard to the Greeks among the Turkish population. He had since understood the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department (Lord Palmerston) to repudiate any proposition of that nature, as being as bad as anything that Russia had done. They were further aware that the newspapers gave the most contradictory statements as to what was being done. He, therefore, wished to ask the noble Lord what was the fact about that matter, and whether he would lay before the House any particular convention with the Turkish Government, or cause any demand to be made upon it to improve the condition of its Christian subjects; if the Grand Mufti had been driven away, and another distinguished Minister deposed, it was right that the House should know what the Government were really doing on this important question. If the noble Lord was not now prepared to answer the question, perhaps he would do so next day, on moving the adjournment of the House.

said, he believed he could give now all the information which it would be in his power to give to-morrow. He had begun his answer to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Mimes), by stating that on a former occasion he had said they had not any proof against the Greek Government of having incited these insurrections; but, since that time, he thought that such proof had been supplied. With regard to the hon. Member's (Mr. Bright's) question, he begged to repeat that there was no convention of any kind between this country and Turkey, with respect to the manner of the government of the Turkish empire. Whether or not there ought to be such a convention, was a question into which he would not now enter. There had, however, been none proposed or signed on that subject. But Lord Stratford, pursuing the course he had pursued for ten or fifteen years past, had urged upon the Turkish Government the necessity of improving the condition of its Christian subjects, and altering those laws which belonged to another period and were incompatible with the fair and equal treatment of all the subjects of the Ottoman Porte. He had found that his representations had from time to time been listened to. Four or five years ago a great improvement was made by a certain edict then issued, and lately there had been a concession proposed with regard to the admission of the evidence of Christians in the courts of justice. In his last despatch our Minister stated that he expected that pleasure would be carried into effect, though it had not been finally adopted by the Ottoman Porte. He thought the hon. Gentleman would not deny that the English Government, in using its privilege of remonstrating with an ally, was right in exercising its influence on a subject so interesting to the inhabitants of this country.

said, he begged to ask whether the bonâ fide sale of a Russian vessel to a British subject, since the declaration of war, but within six weeks of that event, would be regarded by the British Government as a legitimate transaction?

said, he conceived it to be somewhat objectionable, as a rule, that questions involving difficult points of law, and which might probably come before legal tribunals, should be put, in this way, to the law officers of the Crown; but he would readily give the best opinion he could offer on the point. Any sort of traffic in or sale of goods, after declaration of war, between the subjects of belligerents, would, of course, be prohibited and unlawful; but having refer- ence to the fact that, by Her Majesty's declaration, Russian vessels in our ports were to be allowed six weeks wherein to dispose of their cargoes, and that Russian vessels which had cleared out before the declaration of war, from any foreign port to a British port, were allowed to complete their delivery within the same period, he (the Solicitor General) thought that the licence so granted would extend to the bonâ fide disposal of Russian vessels being in a British port, or on their way to a British port, antecedent to the declaration of war; and that, consequently, in the case put by the hon. Gentleman, the bonâ fide sale of a Russian vessel to a British purchaser, since the declaration of war, within the six weeks allowed, and under the circumstances, was a strictly lawful and authorised transaction.

said, he wished to inquire whether the statement in the Irish papers was correct, that the Under-Secretary for Ireland had been permanently appointed, and if so, whether the Government would have any objection to lay the correspondence on the table?

said, the office of Under-Secretary for Ireland had always been considered a permanent appointment until 1830 or 1834—he believed the latter year. The changing of that officer, who was conversant with all the details and routine of business, at the time when the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the Lord Chancellor were removed, might lead to great inconvenience, particularly as it was an office not necessarily connected with politics. He thought it desirable that the gentleman filling the office should be independent of political parties, and able to act impartially between them. The gentleman who had been selected, Major Larcom, had been for a long time employed on the survey in Ireland and by the Board of Works, and had not been appointed on any political grounds. He was well acquainted with the affairs of Ireland, and the change might be regarded as a removal from one branch of the civil service to another. The present arrangement was that the office should be permanent, but of course the present Government could not bind any other Government on the subject. He had no objection to the production of the correspondence.

said, he rose, according to notice, to move that a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the case of the appointment of Henry Stoner to the office of a judge in the colony of Victoria. There was one insinuation which had been industriously circulated and turned to account in connection with this Motion. It was stated, and was believed by many, that his course upon this question was one of vindictive hostility to Mr. Stonor personally. This was not the case; his object was not to hunt down and trample upon a fallen man. Had such been his object, the course taken by Her Majesty's Government would have abundantly gratified him. It was not at Mr. Stonor that he was striking. He was aiming at the high, and not at the low, and Mr. Stonor was not the criminal whom he wished to reach. The Ministers thought that by sacrificing Mr. Stonor they should escape pursuit, and they were perfectly ready, without remorse—almost without reluctance—to offer him up as a victim to his (Mr. Moore's) hostility; and it was not until he said that it was they whom he impeached that they took refuge in a whine of reproach against his vindictive persecution of a political opponent. In fact, he believed Mr. Stonor had been very hardly treated, though not in the sense of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer), who, in his uncouth and ungovernable friendship for Mr. Stonor, appeared to have lost all that reserve of thought and of speech which usually distinguished him, and who had so lost his wits, in friendship for this Gentleman, that he informed the House Mr. Stoner had so greatly damaged his reputation as a lawyer by the part which he took in this Sligo election, that he had been obliged to leave the country. ["No, no!"] The hon. and learned Gentleman had said so. [Mr. BOWYER had not said anything of the sort.] Our Australian colonies had already refused to receive our criminals, and would they look with indifference upon the fact that lawyers of damaged reputation, who had been the detected and degraded instruments of habitual corruption, and who were no longer able to practise their profession with credit in this country, should be sent to preside over the administration of justice in theirs? Now, if instead of sacrificing poor Mr. Stonor the Duke of Newcastle had resigned, or even the hon. Gentleman opposite, his Under Secretary (Mr. F. Peel), he (Mr. Moore) might have considered that the justice of the case was satisfied. He might then have considered it unnecessary to pursue any further this inquiry; and even now he would make the frank, and in his opinion liberal offer, that, if the hon. Gentleman would enter into such a compromise as this, he (Mr. Moore) was ready to say that the justice of the case had been met, and was perfectly willing to withdraw from further inquiry. As, however, the hon. Gentleman did not seem at all disposed to enter into that arrangement, he felt compelled to proceed, in vindication of his assertion the other night that Mr. Stonor had been appointed to this office not in ignorance of or in spite of his corrupt practices, but because of his corrupt practices—that he had been appointed because he had transferred to an hon. Gentleman, then, but not now, a junior Lord of the Treasury, that interest and influence in the borough of Sligo which he had acquired by corrupt practices there. The fact was, that the act which had drawn down upon Mr. Stoner the censure of the Committee was far from being one isolated act of indiscretion on the part of that individual. Mr. Stoner had for a long series of years been steeped up to the lips in all the bribery and corrupt practices for which Sligo, in Ireland at least, was notorious, and, he believed, unrivalled. Before three successive Committees of that House he had been proved guilty, on the evidence of his own handwriting, of systematic acts of bribery and corrupt practices such as no gentleman in his position ever before was guilty of, and the only wonder was Mr. Stonor had had the unparalleled good fortune so long to escape direct censure. In 1847 Mr. Somers was elected for Sligo. A petition was presented against his return, in which Mr. Stonor, though in no way connected with the town, was actively engaged. That petition was successful. Mr. Somers was unseated; and Mr. Stonor went down to Sligo as the active supporter and partisan of Mr. Townely, who then contested the borough. Mr. Townely was successful; he was petitioned against, and Mr. Stonor was summoned as a witness; but excuses were tendered for his absence, he having absconded to the Continent, and (as the event proved) with very great discretion; for Mr. Serjeant Kinglake succeeded in establishing that the acts of Mr. Stonor did not bind the sitting Member. With the permission of the House he would quote part of the evidence of Mr. Stonor upon this occasion:—

"Mr. Coppock stated that Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Somers, and he also, as a friend of Mr. Somers, had spent a good deal of money upon the previous petition and at the contest; whether it was 3,000l. or more than 2,000l. I am not certain; and that they would not exercise their influence to get their petition withdrawn unless they got the money paid.

"Did you authorise Mr. Coppock to pay the money?—I told Mr. Coppock that it was better, under the circumstances, to pay this money, if we could induce the parties to withdraw the petition. I knew that the petitioners were parties in humble life, and, unless they were encouraged by Mr. Somers, they could not go on; and, therefore, I thought that if Mr. Somers and Mr. Kelly withdrew their consent, the petition would be immediately withdrawn.

"You authorised Mr. Coppock to give the sum of money?—He did not mention any sum.

"You authorised him to give a reasonable sum?—Yes, I said I would supply the money.

"Were you authorised by Mr. Townely to do so?—Certainly not.

"You did so upon your own responsibility?—Yes.

"Did you give the money to Mr. Coppock afterwards?—I did, on the following Monday.

"Was that your own money?—Some was mine, and some was money I had received for a particular purpose, to settle accounts in Sligo.

"It was Mr. Townely's money?—It was money I had to account for to his solicitor. I received the money from the solicitor to settle accounts.

"Can you say how much of the 1,500l. was Mr. Townely's money?—About 900l., I believe.

"You said, in answer to a question put by the chairman, that you were counsel for Mr. Townely on the petition?—On the petition that was disposed of, I was first engaged as counsel, but I then gave up my brief and went abroad."

This was the evidence of another witness examined on the same subject:—

"Mr. Coppock said: If you enable me to have those petitions withdrawn I shall give you 1,000l.; and, as I know your object in interfering with politics is to get a Government appointment, I shall get Mr. Townely to write as strong a letter as possible to you, pledging himself to give his own influence, and that of his brother the hon. Member for Beverley, and Lord Camoys, to get you a Government appointment, and I will give you 1,000l. besides. 'How is that to be done?' said I. Said he, 'It is very simple; I will write you two draughts of letters, which you will copy, and return to me signed, and then I will perform my part of the bargain.'"

The witness then went on to state that he called at the Speaker's office, and, finding that he had no authority in law to withdraw the petition, he again met Mr. Coppock, saw the letter of Mr. Townely, which Mr. Coppock had promised, and finally agreed to write a letter to the Speaker, which he knew was valueless, in consideration of 1,500l. which Mr. Coppock paid:—

"I was determined, when we had written the letter that has been produced here, that I would go the entire length with Mr. Coppock.

"What do you mean by going the entire length?—Receiving the 1,500l. and writing the letter to the Speaker."

"You knew that, although you made the proposition to withdraw the petition, the petition could not be withdrawn upon your signature?—Yes; I would give him no distinct authority until I knew the authority would not be regarded by the Speaker."

"You wrote a letter to the Speaker, although you knew that it was a false statement?—Yes."

Of these four individuals, Mr. Coppock had been ever since the confidential agent of the Government opposite; Mr. Stonor had been clothed with the ermine and made a Judge in the Colonies; Mr. Kelly had been made a magistrate of Sligo; and Mr. Walker admitted before the Committee on Complaint the other day, that he had received, through Mr. Somers, four appointments from the Whig Government, and that since he had betrayed and abandoned Mr. Somers, he had received a fifth appointment from Mr. Sadleir. Could the Government expect to receive any credit for putting down bribery if they allowed such individuals as these to be clothed with the ermine, to be raised to the magistracy, and to receive honourable and confidential employment? Mr. Stonor, however, was not satisfied with his experience in Sligo at that time, and the result was the direct censure of the Election Committee of last year. It was said, is it possible that the simple verdict of one Election Committee shall debar a man from ever again holding office? He entertained no such doctrine, but, at the same time, he would ask if it were proper, or even justifiable, to send a man who had been declared guilty of bribery by an Election Committee to preside over the administration of justice in the Colonies? To do so was, in his opinion, a gross and flagrant violation of public decency and a great outrage on the Constitution upon the authority of a Committee of that House. He felt bound to believe, however, that the appointment of Mr. Stonor was not in spite of the acts of bribery which had been proved against him, but was actually in consequence of them and because he transferred his influence in Sligo to a late junior Lord of the Treasury, the present Member for Sligo (Mr. John Sadleir). When Mr. Townely was unseated upon petition, Sligo was in want of a candidate, and the Gentleman who now had the honour of sitting for that borough was greatly in want of a seat, and Mr. Stonor's peculiar faculties were again called into requisition. He would not say by a corrupt conspiracy, he would not even say by mutual management, but by a kind of co-ordinance and coincidence of circumstances which were very surprising, on a particular day Mr. Stonor transferred his own interest and that of the electors of Sligo to the hon. Member who now represented that borough, and on the same day the friends and partisans of that Gentleman engaged in a very active and very chivalrous defence of Mr. Stonor in that House. It was then that he (Mr. Moore) stated his determination to expose the real character of the transactions at Sligo. He had been requested on a previous occasion, when the subject of the appointment of Mr. Stonor was under discussion, by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, to be silent on the subject, and he had improperly complied with the request; and the consequence was that he had since been taunted for his silence, and he now felt it to be his duty to go fully into the subject. The coincidence which he had mentioned proved successful, and the friends of the hon. Member for Sligo did the best they could for Mr. Stonor in that House, and Mr. Stonor fulfilled his part of the transaction by transferring his interest among the electors of Sligo to the hon. Gentleman who was elected. That hon. Gentleman was elected, and of course petitioned against, and Mr. Gore Jones, who was employed in the petition of Townely against Somers, accepted a retainer on behalf of the present hon. Member for Sligo to act against his then client, whose petition he was conducting. He (Mr. Moore) was not a professional lawyer, and did not therefore know how far the acceptance of that retainer was proper or right in a professional point of view; but, when it was considered that that gentleman, from conducting the petition, would become acquainted with all the secrets of the election, to be used afterwards against his then client, he felt sure that few persons would like to trust him with secrets concerning their property; and yet this betrayal of his employer, the use, or rather abuse, of the secrets with which he became entrusted with, this fluent swearing, obtained for that gentleman the position of income-tax collector—a position of all others which would enable him to make himself acquainted with the secrets of private persons. This was one of the instruments employed in the Sligo election. The other more damaged and useless instrument was sent out to preside over the administration of justice in one of the Colonies. Could any one, under these circumstances, deny that he had primâ facie ground for the assertion which he had made, that the appointment of Mr. Stonor was not only a reward for his services on that election, but that it was also intended as a compensation for the damage his character had sustained? The Colonial Office ought to be able to assign a just reason for this appointment, but it was evident it was unable to assign any reason at all. He had himself asked the Government if they were aware, when they appointed Mr. Stonor, that he had been reported against for bribery, and also whether, if they were not aware of it at the time of making the appointment, they were now prepared to cancel it. He had put these questions to the Government after due notice, and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, in a speech which showed that he had got up the case very cleverly, or, indeed, that the case—and this was a more probable case than the other—had been got up for him—the hon. Gentleman stated that the Government, when they made the appointment, were not aware of the fact of an Election Committee having reported against Mr. Stonor, but that, considering all the circumstances of the case, they were not prepared to cancel the appointment. In other words, the axiom of the Colonial Office was simply this:—"That in making appointments ignorance is bliss, and when those appointments are once made it is folly to be wise." He was not about to criticise the very remarkable speech in which those remarkable dogmas were promulgated, but he believed the answer and the doctrine excited, with one single exception, unanimous disapprobation. He believed, if the Government had resolved on retaining the appointment, they would not have been able to command the votes of fifty independent Members. The hon. Gen- tlemen opposite (pointing to the bench usually occupied by Liberal Irish Members) alone defended the appointment, and the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies condescended to be their mouthpiece, as the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office had condescended to be their instrument. The reason why he said the Under Secretary could not have got up the case was, that the hon. Gentleman taunted him with having been present and not opposed the issuing of the Sligo writ, and he did not believe, if he had remembered the circumstances of his (Mr. Moore's) being present, the hon. Gentleman could possibly have forgotten that he also was present on that occasion. He (Mr. Moore) on a subsequent occasion moved for an Address to the Crown to cancel the appointment, and then the Government put the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies forward to make a statement which, in fact, amounted to a declaration that the Government were quite ready to commit what they believed to be an act of gross injustice to Mr. Stonor. Perhaps the Government took that course because they discovered that Mr. Stonor bad behaved better than was expected. When they were made aware that Mr. Stoner had been reported against for bribery, they stated that his appointment would not be cancelled; but when they found that Mr. Stonor had acted like an honest man, and sent with his testimonials the Report of the Election Committee, they were at once ready to abandon him. What the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies amounted to was, that one day a letter was received by the Government from Mr. Stonor, a gentleman of whom they previously knew nothing, stating that he should rather like to have a judgeship; that testimonials were enclosed in that letter, and among them there was the Report of a Committee of that House; but that, through the mistake of a clerk, those testimonials were never read.

said, he must beg to state that he had not said a single word about a clerk.

It must have been a mistake on the part of a clerk or of somebody else; but, be that as it might, it appeared from the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the fact was so. So, having received a letter from Mr. Stonor, saying he would like to be made a Judge, and knowing nothing about him, the Govern- ment for that reason appointed him. He (Mr. Moore) could only answer in the words of little Paul, in Mr. Dickens' novel, "I don't believe that story." No one believed it. It was perfectly incredible and impossible, because if the Government had not seen the Report they could not have seen the testimonials sent with it, and not having seen the testimonials, it could not be conceived that they would be guilty of such unpardonable levity in making the appointment. He squeezed out of the Under Secretary this further statement—that although they had not read the testimonials, the letter of Mr. Stonor, which they had read, recited the names of the persons signing the testimonials, and those names were very high and very respectable. He admitted that the statement became less monstrous; still it was utterly impossible that the Government could have appointed a gentleman merely upon his own letter and his own recital of those who had recommended him. It was quite clear that Mr. Stonor had much higher recommendation with the Duke of Newcastle than any contained in the unopened packet of unexplored testimonials. He had now stated what he believed were the circumstances of this case. The House had also heard the statement of the Government, and he confidently appealed to them for a decision upon the question he had raised. His statement might be unjust and unfounded. Their statement, however, was impossible; but even if true, it afforded much stronger ground than any of his suspicions for inquiring into this case, because the people in the Colonies had a right to know, and that House had a right to know, whether it was possible that Judges, to be sent out to administer the law, and to obtain credit for the law, could be chosen with a levity and disregard disgraceful in the case of a counting-house clerk, or even of a parish beadle. He believed the answer of the Government was very reserved and incomplete, but if complete, that there was still further ground why inquiry should be made; and in his view inquiry was necessary for the honour and credit of the Members of Her Majesty's Government, and for the honour and credit of the Government in our Colonies.

, in seconding the Motion, said, upon occasions analogous to this, Sir, it has been commonly felt to be desirable by those who have made Motions of such a character as the present, that inasmuch as they are looking forward to an investigation which ought to be substantially a judicial investigation, the preliminary statement submitted to the House should be kept as closely as possible to the point and circumstances, and as far as possible from recriminatory matter. I confess it appears to me that is a general rule of prudence and propriety, but it is a general rule, which I am bound to say the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Moore) has set at defiance in every sentence he has uttered. There is a great difficulty in the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, not only as regards the noble Duke, whom I, as every man who has the satisfaction of knowing him, am proud to claim as a friend, but as regards Mr. Stonor himself—for I am at a loss to reconcile and harmonise the hon. Gentlemen's sympathy and compassion for Mr. Stonor with the gratuitous and wanton assaults he has made on his character. The hon. Gentleman said, in the first place, he thought it was an outrageous thing that a person who had been the degraded instrument of habitual corruption should be chosen to fill the seat of justice in one of our Colonies. That is pretty strong against Mr. Stonor. But having said that, what did he go on to say? He went on to say that if my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, or even the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, had resigned office, in consequence of this attack, then he for one would have been perfectly content to have accepted that as a compromise. He entirely forgot the sanctity of the seat of justice and the interests of truth. [Mr. MOORE made gestures of dissent.] That, at all events, was the language of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman used the expression that on such terms he should not be dissatisfied with a compromise. However that may be, I only wish to say that I think the hon. Gentleman, with his compassion—I must call it his affected compassion—for Mr. Stonor—I think the hon. Gentleman has been grossly unjust to Mr. Stonor, in going into other matters and transactions not included in the terms and scope of his Motion. The hon. Gentleman says, Mr. Stonor is the degraded instrument of habitual corruption. Why did he not give notice to those interested in Mr. Stonor personally—I certainly am not—that his charge was about to take that range. He gave no such notice. His object was to prejudice his case. If the hon. Gentleman had known how to discharge the duty he bad undertaken, he ought to have confined himself to the point and the circumstances, and sedulously avoided the introduction of other matters, tending to throw discredit on the party with whose case he had to deal. So much for Mr. Stonor, and in that particular I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Stonor is not the party really before us. The party before us is my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies; and, Sir, I must confess, when first I saw notice of this Motion given, I thought the mode of dealing with the case not free from difficulty, because I think I shall have the general concurrence of this House when I say while, on the one hand, it is most important to vindicate the right of this House to sift to the bottom every case of abuse in the administration of patronage, on the other hand, it is likewise important to maintain the principle that the sole responsibility for patronage rests with the Executive Government, and to avoid any proceeding which shall allow any Member of the Government to shuffle off that responsibility to other parties who may have made the recommendation on which he acted. That is the real difficulty in this case. When you call on a Minister to say on whose recommendation he made an appointment, you call upon him to use his endeavour to shuffle off a portion of that responsibility and to put it On the shoulders of others. But if I felt the slightest difficulty, it would be removed by the anxiety of my noble Friend that there should not be any hesitation shown in granting this Committee. While the hon. Member for Mayo says Her Majesty's Government have concern in this Committee—Her Majesty's Government not separate from my noble Friend—I am bound to say the hon. Member also has some interest in this Committee. I may tell the hon. Member he has committed himself to no inconsiderable extent by what he has said to-night. The hon. Member has made a charge of such a description, that if he is able to prove that charge, no doubt it will bring a public offender to justice; but if he is not able to prove it, that charge will recoil upon himself. What says the hon. Gentleman? He says, in consequence of Mr. Stonor having transferred the influence he had obtained in Sligo to a junior Lord of the Treasury, this appointment was conferred on him by my noble Friend. That is the charge. It is a charge of no common amount. The guilt implied is guilt of a very deep dye. Has the hon. Gentleman proved that charge? Sir, he has not advanced anything even in the nature of proof. What he has said is, that these circumstances coincided in point of time. He said, if this was not the reason of the appointment, what was the reason? and then he appeared to think he had pretty well done his work. But I tell the hon. Gentleman, when he chooses to make such charges as that, he is bound to state something in the nature of argument—something in the nature of fact in its support. Well, he says, if that was not the reason, what was? On that I shall only say that is not adequate support of the charge which the hon. Gentleman has made; but there is not the least difficulty in telling the hon. Gentleman what was the reason of the appointment. I shall not undertake to travel through all the irrelevant matter he has introduced into his speech, about the appointment of Mr. Walker, the magistracy of Mr. Kelly, the collectorship of Mr. Jones—these are all matters of which I for one, and I believe I may say all my Colleagues, are entirely ignorant, and with respect to which their introduction can have no effect, except to perplex the case. If he says in any of those instances they were corrupt or improper appointments, I am quite sure he will have every assistance of the Government in bringing those improper and corrupt appointments under the notice of this House, But let them be brought and tried upon their own merits, not foisted and thrust into a matter with which they have nothing whatever to do. The hon. Gentleman says a certain story was told by the Under Secretary for the Colonies about a packet of papers, and he does not believe that story. I cannot pass by that passage without reflecting on the extraordinary licence of the hon. Gentleman. I for one, having been a partaker in the general responsibility of the Government with regard to patronage, did not feel at all disposed to call attention to that licence, but I do think he goes beyond the general rule of this House, and says what he is not entitled to say, when he tells an hon. Member, after having imputed to him a certain statement—whether correct or incorrect is quite immaterial—he does not believe that story. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies made no such statement as the hon. Member for Mayo has imputed to him. If he had, the hon. Gentleman would not be justified in this mode of dealing with it; but as my hon. Friend never made that statement, as the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood him, and put a statement into his mouth which he never made, the conduct of the hon. Gentleman is most unbecoming and most improper. My hon. Friend never stated at all that Mr. Stonor was appointed simply on the strength of certain written testimonials. I speak in his presence, and by his authority, and I say no such statement was made. I grant, if such a statement had been made, it would be open to the comment of the hon. Member; but no such statement was made. My noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies earnestly trusts this House will make no difficulty in granting this Committee. I know in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen there is great disinclination to promote inquiry of this nature; but on the part of my noble Friend, and on the part of the Government, I must solicit them to overcome such disinclination, and allow the whole of the facts to be thoroughly investigated and submitted to the public. I put it, on the one hand, that the character of my noble Friend and of the Government is in a great degree involved; I put it, on the other hand, that it is right, after a Member of this House has chosen to impute corruption that would justify impeachment—it is right that that matter should be searched to the bottom, to know with what kind of evidence and with what kind of proof the hon. Gentleman has had the levity to make such a charge. With regard to my noble Friend his statement is a very simple one. Of course he will himself lay that statement before the Committee. At present I have to meet the unsupported allegation of the hon. Gentleman, that Mr. Stonor was appointed with the guilty knowledge and with the corrupt intention of rewarding political services, and those services, too, of an immoral nature. I have to meet that unsupported statement with the unqualified denial of an English gentleman, whose word was never doubted. Sir, my noble Friend did not appoint Mr. Stoner with any knowledge whatever, on the contrary, he appointed him in total ignorance of his connection in any form with the borough of Sligo, or in any form with political corruption. He did not appoint Mr. Stoner upon the application of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sadleir), for the best of all reasons—I believe I speak in the presence of that hon. Member—that he made no such application. He did not appoint Mr. Stonor on the ground of any political recommendation or application whatever. But he did appoint Mr. Stonor in ignorance of the reasons which, if they had been known to him, would undoubtedly have prevented his appointment. But he did appoint Mr. Stoner upon testimonials, not exclusively written, but high professional testimonials, satisfying him of his professional competency, while with respect to that gentleman's personal character there was no reason to entertain a doubt. That is the substance of the case which my noble Friend has to submit. I do not wish to dwell upon it; I do not wish to introduce any other extraneous matter; but if the appointments of Messrs. Walker, Jones, Kelly, and the rest, are impugned, by all means have them up; only I will just observe that the hon. Member is entirely wrong in supposing an income-tax collector has anything to do with the investigation of private accounts. Be that as it may, whatever the office, let us search the matter to the bottom—let us see whether such appointments have been corruptly made, whether the hon. Gentleman is justified in having made these charges upon insufficient evidence or no evidence at all. I have two requests to make on the part of the Government. The first is, that the House will be pleased to appoint the Committee. The other is one to which I am certain there will not be the slightest difficulty in acceding—at least if I am correct in supposing the course of precedent justifies such a proceeding—that that Committee may be appointed, in a manner which recommends itself to the approbation of the House, by the General Committee of Elections. By that mode we shall have a Committee composed of Gentlemen who will carry a judicial character into the Committee room. However desirous to avoid that which, in the hon. Gentleman, I have commented on, I know that partisan feeling and a spirit of crimination and defence insinuate themselves into these discussions; but if the General Election Committee be the body entrusted with the choice of judge to constitute this tribunal—the Government can desire nothing better than to arrive at a speedy issue—either we shall be found guilty of the highest order of corruption, as is the opinion of the hon. Member for Mayo, or his conscience will not be alto- gether clear with regard to the nature and sufficiency on which he has thought fit to make so serious a charge. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the case of the appointment of Henry Stonor to the office of a Judge in the Colony of Victoria, the said Henry Stonor having been reported by a Committee of this House to have been guilty of bribery at the Election for the Borough of Sligo in 1853."

Sir, I rise with the not altogether hopeless endeavour to persuade this House to reject both the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) and the consent which has been given to that proposition by the Government. This is neither mere nor less than an attempt to bring down into the body of the House the scenes like those which occurred in the Committee on Corruption upstairs. It is more than that. It is an attempt to engage the whole power of this House against a helpless individual. If, as the hon. Gentleman said—at least as he began by saying—he made his Motion in the interest and out of regard to Mr. Stonor—all I can say is, I shall hope long to enjoy his enmity. Sir, it is impossible for any man, possessing the richness of language or eloquence which always comes from the opposite side of the Channel, and in no one is more efficacious than in himself, to have overlaid a character with more opprobrious terms than the hon. Member has that of Mr. Stonor. The course I propose on this occasion is one I proposed on a similar occasion, and I stated then, and I state again, that my master on such subjects was an Irishman. It was in the days when the noble Lord the Member for the City of London once said eloquence, patriotism, honesty, and common sense were associated with the name of Henry Grattan; and I remember, as I said then, Mr. Grattan urging the House not to interfere in a like case by the similitude of the little impudent dwarf that insulted the giant. When the giant boxed his ears, the dwarf kicked his shins, and the generous bystanders said, "Well done, little fellow." And I think every Gentleman who has heard the speech of the hon. Member will be inclined to take the part of Mr. Stonor, and not the part of the hon. Member for Mayo in this transaction. What is it these Gentlemen have done? They are continually abusing every Government that can be formed, because they do not em- poly Irishmen sufficiently, and when an Irishman is appointed they do nothing but vilify his character. Sir, I remember when an artist went to see the celebrated Mr. Turner begin a picture, he saw him take a patch of yellow, and putting it on the canvas, say, "There, stay there until I make you white." The obvious meaning was that he was going to fill the rest of the canvas with such brilliant colouring and deep shadows, that this bit of yellow paint, in its nature not white, would appear white. The hon. Gentleman says he has been giving us a sketch. It seems he also is an artist. The arts always go hand in hand. With the arts of poetry, imagination, and eloquence we are sure to find that of painting; and it appears there are great painters on the other side of the Channel, who give us a great picture, in which they appear pre-eminent; and they say, "No matter however black I am, stand you there till I have made everybody else blacker." Why, Sir, there is no end to idle stories which may be picked up—really I cannot walk along the street without hearing them; but what sensible man does not let them go into one ear and out at the other. Since I have sat for the last few years in this House, I have heard stories of one Member being bought by a baronetcy, of another being bought by the reversion to an Irish peerage, and of another being bought by a ticket to a Court ball. It is odd, the price at which purchases may be effected. I think an Irish peerage a positive nuisance, the baronetcy little better, and by far the best price was the ticket for the Court ball. But, Sir, it is very difficult to form an estimate of the real amount of dread which Irish Members have of corruption. For what did we hear last year, when the question of the income tax was before us? They told us they were perfectly willing to support Lord Derby's Government, or to vote against it, or to support Lord John Russell's Government, or to vote against it, according as they could save themselves the income tax, which income tax was 7d. in the pound. That is their price. By their own confession, any Chancellor of the Exchequer may have Irish support for 7d. in the pound. I think it very awkward, when large bodies like this take fits of caprice. I do not like Gentlemen to be exceedingly moral one year and very immoral the next. I said when I began, I did not rise as the friend of Mr. Stonor. I do not remember having ever heard his name. I know nothing about him. I rose to vote against both propositions. I recollect on one occasion the sitting Members for a certain place being petitioned against; their opposition to the petition was declared to be frivolous and vexatious, and they were reported to have been guilty of bribery and corruption. What was done? One was immediately made Solicitor General, and the other was made Lord Chancellor. And this poor man, who, I understand, was a briefless barrister, is obliged to give up his profession, goes out to one of the Colonies as a Judge, is guilty of unheard-of corruption, and this pure House never heard anything like it. It is excessively disgusting, and will be reckoned a piece of pure affectation. I so far agree with the hon. Gentleman, that the conduct of the Colonial Department was exceedingly mean and shabby. Having made the appointment they ought to have stood by the man; instead of which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) comes forward, like Sneaky Peaky, in the poem of The Little Hunchback—Sneaky Peaky chucks the Hunchback over on some one else. The Government did very wrong in giving up Mr. Stonor. I hope the House will reject this Motion, and not allow it to go any further, and I shall certainly divide the House against it.

said, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Moore) had introduced his Motion with a great show of patriotism to vindicate morality and public purity on public grounds, and he complained that people said he was actuated by ill feeling against Mr. Stonor. Yet he appealed to any Gentleman present whether in their experience they had ever heard a more bitter, a more virulent—he had almost said a more malignant—attack than that of the hon. Gentleman? The hon. Gentleman had allowed himself to be so carried away by that lively imagination from which he derived his eloquence and some of his facts, that he had bestowed a portion of it on him. On two occasions he said, "No, no," to the hon. Gentleman. He adhered to what he said, for on both those occasions the hon. Gentleman was saying what he might have believed to be the fact, but was certainly not the fact. The hon. Gentleman had said that when he (Mr. Bowyer) requested him not to attack Mr. Stonor, he spoke loudly and even noisily. He denied that that was the case, and would put it to the House whether it was not obvious that a communication of that sort must have been confidential; and whether it was not most unfair, both to himself and to Mr. Stonor, that the hon. Gentleman should have mentioned it. The sole reason that he (Mr. Bowyer) had for wishing the hon. Member not to attack Mr. Stonor was that he believed that Gentleman to be innocent, and did not wish him to have so virulent an assailant as the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore). He admitted, indeed, that he was mistaken in asking the hon. Gentleman not to assail Mr. Stonor, for he was sure that a speech like that which they had just heard from him—a speech so virulent, vituperative, and bitter—would enlist in favour of the persons attacked the sympathies of all generous minds. He would tell the hon. Gentleman that, although he had brought forward heavy charges in the course of his speech, he had, in making it, damaged himself rather than Mr. Stoner.

said, he had never before had an opportunity of speaking on this subject, although he was one of the Members of the Committee on the Sligo Election Petition of last year. Seeing the Motion on the paper, he had refreshed his memory by reading the evidence given before that Committee, and had come down prepared to take part in the debate; but he had been exceedingly astonished to find that the hon. Member for Mayo had changed his ground completely from that which he took when he commenced his attack; and had stated that if he had to rest his case on the decision of the Sligo Election Committee with reference to the appointment of Mr. Stonor he could not maintain his ground. [Mr. MOORE: No, no!] That was the declaration of the hon. Gentleman; and if that was not his meaning, why was it that he had gone back to the evidence taken before the Committee of 1848, and which was only in manuscript? If he thought that that evidence was of importance, why did he not move that it should be printed, in order that the House might know how far it implicated Mr. Stonor? He really thought that the evidence of 1848, or the Report on that evidence, or something connected with it, had been hanging about Mr. Stonor's neck without the Committee themselves being cognisant of it, and that it had had the effect of damaging Mr. Stonor to an extra- ordinary degree, for after the Committee of 1853 had sat for about half an hour, and when they had only examined one gentleman, Alderman O'Donovan, the Chairman rose and said, he thought the agency of Mr. Stonor had been proved. He (Mr. Hindley) considered such a proceeding so extraordinary that he desired the Committee room to be cleared, and he moved that the agency of Mr. Stoner had not been proved, and that further evidence was required. The Chairman, on that Motion, was left in a solitary minority of one, the four other Gentlemen of the Committee voting against him. He mentioned this in order to show that the very strong opinion which the Chairman of that Committee had expressed in the House, in reference to Mr. Stonor's appointment, should not be taken without some discount, because, from the very first moment, he did in some way connect the proceedings of 1848 with the proceedings of the election in 1852. There was no evidence to prove the agency of Mr. Stoner. Then came the question, had he really promised to pay Alderman O'Donovan 103l.? It appeared that that person had paid money on account of Mr. Townely at former elections, and that he wrote to Mr. Townely to be repaid. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Moore) had said that Mr. Stonor promised to pay Alderman O'Donovan the sum of 103l. after the election. Now, he (Mr. Hindley) defied the hon. Member to point to a single line in the evidence to show that that was the case. It was very easy to deal in assertion, but he required proof. Fearing that he, as a Member of the Committee, not being a lawyer, and therefore not accustomed to weigh evidence, might take as proof what was not proof, he watched vigilantly for evidence of facts, and he would defy any one to take the Report of the Sligo Committee and show that Alderman O'Donovan had ever received a promise of payment from Mr. Stonor. It was said that the promise was contained in a letter written by Mr. Stonor to Mr. Verdon, the Mayor of Sligo. That letter was in the Committee room, but it was never put in evidence, nor appeared upon the minutes. The letter was dated 11th November, 1852, and it referred to the outstanding claim of Mr. O'Donovan. In this letter Mr. Stonor said he would consider whether he would recommend Mr. Townely to pay the money. But that was not said to Mr. O'Donovan, but to Mr. Verdon. Mr. Alderman O'Donovan in his evidence said, that some very vague promises had been made by Mr. Verdon and others, but there was not a shadow of proof that they were made by Mr. Stonor. Mr. O'Donovan stated, that he frequently wrote to Mr. Townely for the balance due to him, and on the 22nd of May, 1852, Mr. Townely wrote to him in these words:—

"Dear Sir,—I regret that at the present moment it is impossible for me to enter upon the subject of your letter."

In the Catholic Standard of last week a letter was inserted, written by Mr. Verdon, in which he said:—

"That he happened to know all the facts of Mr. Stonor's case; that the letter upon which the Committee of the House convicted Mr. Stonor of bribery was written by that gentleman to him (Mr. Verdon); that a copy of it was surreptitiously obtained from him; that, nevertheless, the Committee found Mr. Stonor guilty of bribery, by promising to pay Alderman O'Donovan a certain sum of money if he abstained from voting against Mr. Townely; and that that letter was never given in evidence."

Mr. Verdon then asked who ever heard before of a court of justice condemning a man when the document on which the accusation was founded was not handed in and proved?

"But," continued Mr. Verdon, "putting aside this error of judgment, this gross miscarriage, he thought it due to Mr. Stonor to assert that he could have proved that the allegations made against that gentleman were utterly unfounded had he been examined."

And why was Mr. Verdon not called? Because the parties thought the charge was so trumpery that it was not necessary to do so. It was only because the charactor of an absent gentleman had been most wantonly attacked, and his prospects destroyed, that he (Mr. Hindley) felt it due, as an act of justice to an injured man, to enter into this explanation of what took place before the Committee. But the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Moore) had, since notice of his Motion, changed his purpose. His first attack was upon Mr. Stonor; but now it was upon the Government, whom he charged with not having read all the papers that were laid before them previously to appointing Mr. Stonor. It would be a hard task if every Member of Parliament were bound to read the great mass of papers that were daily coming before him. He could readily acquit the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Department, and the hon. Under Secretary also, of any inattention to the case when they first appointed Mr. Stonor, and he could particularly acquit them of any wish to ruin Mr. Stonor, by the course they had since taken. In conclusion, he must say that he rather agreed with the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) that the sooner the House threw the whole matter overboard and determined to have nothing more to do with it, but to leave it entirely with the Government, the better.

said, it was with very considerable regret that he obtruded himself for a few moments on the House, but it did seem to him that the present proceeding was one of so very strange a nature that he could not resist saying a few words, and stating how it presented itself to his mind. He thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had acted almost injudiciously in entering again upon the merits of the case as regarded Mr. Stonor. He did not think the House was called upon to pronounce any opinion upon that subject. He believed that the appointment of Mr. Stoner originally was a very great mistake. He regretted it when he heard the facts brought forward. But Mr. Stonor's appointment had been rescinded. Now, if after you had offered the greatest insult to a man, you retracted that insult, he believed that among gentlemen generally everything that had passed was healed as if it had never passed. Well, if you made an appointment, the propriety of which was attacked, and you rescinded that appointment, he presumed there could not be a stronger proof given of an impression that the appointment originally was improper. Therefore, he did not think the House was called upon to express an opinion upon the subject when the very act of the Government was an admission that the appointment originally had better not have been made. What, then, was it that the House was now called upon to inquire into? It appeared to him to be simply this, whether the Duke of Newcastle had spoken the truth or not. He had the honour of knowing the noble Duke, and he believed that, beyond even the high title and the high rank which that noble Duke enjoyed in this country, he would place above all other things the title of an English gentleman; and he (Mr. Herbert), as far as one Member of that House was concerned, when he saw an English gentleman come down to the House, and declare, as the friend of that noble Duke, and in his name, on the honour of an English gentleman, such and such a fact to be the case, he did believe that word; and he did think that it would be an unseemly sight to foreign countries to see that House appoint a Committee simply to inquire whether a nobleman, filling one of the highest positions in this land, and who had hitherto maintained the most unblemished character—whether the man, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that every one who had the honour of his acquaintance deemed it to be a privilege, whether he had spoken the truth or not. For what had he stated that night? The noble Duke had instructed his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, on the honour of an English gentleman, that he was not aware that any corrupt practices had been alleged against Mr. Stoner. The proposed Committee would have simply to inquire whether that allegation was true or not. He did not believe that any Gentleman on either side of the House could for a moment doubt the truth of that statement. He believed that the hon. Member for Mayo himself, on mature consideration, would be inclined to withdraw a Motion which could only give pain. He should like to know what it was they had to inquire into, the appointment of Mr. Stonor having been rescinded, and the statement on behalf of the noble Duke having been made. With these views he should certainly vote with the bon. Member for West Surrey against the Motion.

said, he would not have interfered in the debate except from feelings of commiseration towards this unfortunate gentleman, Mr. Stonor, who was, however, personally entirely unknown to him. Though it was his intention to support the Motion of the bon. Member opposite (Mr. Moore), with certain modifications, to which he would presently advert, he must express his most unqualified dissent from the manner in which it had been brought forward. He believed that he spoke in an assembly of gentlemen, in an assembly animated by that fair spirit which was characteristic of Englishmen. He would ask them whether the speech which the hon. Member opposite had thought fit to deliver was not one which it was most derogatory to himself to utter, and degrading to that House to hear. The hon. Member had got up with a pretence to which no one could give credit. He said that he did not wish to press further upon "poor Mr. Stonor." The hon. Member had ruined that unfortunate gentleman—he (Mr. Fitzgerald) did not ask whether from a sense of public duty or private malignity—but he had ruined him, and then he asked the House to believe that he did not wish to press further upon him. The eloquence with which the hon. Member was gifted was like the fabled creature which polluted everything it touched. From Mr. Stoner he travelled to "his uncouth Friend, Mr. Bowyer," who had, at least, the advantage of being a gentleman. Having told the House that Mr. Stonor was the "stolid instrument of profligacy," and that the Colonial Minister had appointed him to office as the reward of corrupt practices, he next informed the House with respect to this poor man—whom he did not, forsooth, wish to injure—that his "name, like a polluting stream, went through the whole of these proceedings." But, not content with this, he next attacked Mr. Gore Jones, bringing against him a charge which, if true, he was bound to prefer in a tangible shape. He did not state, but insinuated, that Mr. Gore Jones was base enough to take a retainer from the opposite side to betray his own client. [Mr. MOORE: No, no!] That possibly was not the statement, but it certainly was the insinuation; and the hon. Gentleman added, that for this Mr. Gore Jones was rewarded by the Government with the appointment of collector of income tax. Now, the foundation of this charge was simply the hearsay evidence before the complainant's Committee of a person named Dane. And the very day after this evidence was given Mr. Gore Jones attended the Committee, and offered himself for examination to prove that it was totally false. The Committee, of which the hon. Member for Mayo was one, did not consider it necessary to hear Mr. Jones. From the terms of the hon. Member's Motion, it might naturally be inferred that he intended to support it by something that took place before the Sligo Committee of 1853. Instead of that, however, he had got from the library a manuscript Report of the evidence taken before the Committee of 1848, and retaining it in his own possession, so that it was impossible for any other hon. Member to become acquainted with its contents, he had made that, and not the Report of 1853, the foundation of his charges. Now, he (Mr. FitzGerald) found that, in the debate of June 30, 1848, upon the issue of a new writ for Sligo, the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), who had moved it, said:—

"In Sligo no bribery had been proved before the Committee, no special report had been made, and all that was charged against the candidates was that they had been guilty of treating. But the greatest purist would, he thought, be disposed to admit that if anywhere treating was excusable, it was in the province of Connaught."—[3 Hansard, xcix. 1410.]

Mr. Wrightson, the Chairman of the Committee, and another of the Members, agreed with the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire in stating that the only case charged against the sitting Members was one of treating. If they turned to the Report of the Committee which sat upon the last election for the county of Mayo, they would find no fewer than sixty cases of treating, which he supposed was justified on the ground taken by the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford), that, if treating was ever excusable, it was in Connaught. He could very well understand how the Committee of 1853 might have come to the conclusion that Mr. O'Donovan was prevented from voting by the belief that he was promised payment of a debt. But it was quite another question whether any one would be justified in characterising the conduct of Mr. Stonor as the hon. Member for Mayo had done. In June last there was a debate, and subsequently (after the evidence taken before the Committee had been printed) an adjourned debate, upon the issue of the warrant for Sligo, and upon that occasion he well recollected that the House was greatly puzzled to make head or tail of the decision at which the Committee had arrived, in consequence of the absence of the document which was said to be the foundation of the Report. The Members of the Committee spoke in favour of the issue of the writ, and on that occasion the language of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) was rather singular. He said that he would support the Motion, notwithstanding the reasons given by the hon. Member for Dublin, who had opposed it on the ground that bribery and intimidation had taken place. To his great surprise, however, when this subject was discussed on the 14th of last month, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) was not ashamed to allege, as an excuse of his former conduct, that he had been personally requested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) not to state what he knew, and that he did not do so because he did not wish to throw water on a drowning rat. If, however, the hon. Gentleman conceived that at the call of private friendship he was justified in swerving from his public duty, while Mr. Stoner was in England, his lips should for ever have been sealed upon the subject, especially while that gentleman was absent from the country, and therefore unable to defend himself. When that gentleman has left the country, it is no time for the hon. Member to come forward and ask the House to believe that it is a sense of public duty that actuates him. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) did not seek to impugn the decision of the Committee; but he would beg to call the attention of the House to the facts as they appeared. Mr. O'Donovan had a claim against Mr. Townely for some unsettled account on which he (Mr. O'Donovan) was liable. In 1848, an action was brought against him (Mr. O'Donovan), and a verdict was given for 203l., which he was compelled to pay. Up to 1851 he made repeated applications to Mr. Townely, which he refused to entertain. After some time, a Mr. Verdon wrote to Mr. Stonor, requesting him to bring Mr. O'Donovan's claim under Mr. Townely's consideration. The reply was, that he could not do so at the time, but that after the next election he would. This letter was shown to Mr. O'Donovan by Mr. Verdon; it might be legal bribery on his part, but it was a different question whether Mr. Stonor had authorised him. The Committee, however, found that he had been guilty of bribery, and affixed a stigma on him. If the hon. Member for Mayo was actuated by so high a sense of public duty, he might then have moved that the Attorney General should prosecute Mr. Stonor for bribery, or that the Committee should proceed further with the inquiry; then, indeed, private friendship had restrained him, but he now came forward from public motives, from a pure spirit of patriotism, to prevent corruption in the disposal of Government patronage. Credat Judœus. He came forward, not to trample on a poor man, hut to inquire into the conduct of the Government. No one could for a moment doubt the accuracy of the statement made by the noble Duke the Colonial Secretary; but had not Mr. Stonor been most hardly dealt with? It was impossible for him (Mr. Stonor) to contravene the decision of the Committee; he could institute no proceeding to test it, though the hon. Member opposite might. Was Mr. Stonor to have been for ever debarred from employment? A good deal had been said of the importance of the office to which he had been appointed, but he (Mr. Fitzgerald) believed it was nothing more than an ordinary magistracy, but one that should be filled by a person of legal attainments and unsullied character. What did Mr. Stonor do? He sent testimonials as to his professional qualifications from Lord Denman, the present Lord Chief Justice, and other eminent lawyers, and sent a printed narrative of all those transactions as affecting his private character. Could any blame attach to him? What more could he have done? It would be a most harsh measure if the Government were to enforce his recall; but they would do so, and condemn this gentleman to utter and irretrievable ruin unless he was redeemed by some proceeding of that House. He (Mr. FitzGerald) had no inducement to come forward, but his regard for justice. This might draw on him the resentment of the hon. Gentleman, whom he remarked had always some person to attack, some victim to run down. He might, perhaps, be the next object of his virulence, but he hoped the attack would not be made in his absence. He would move, as an Amendment, that all the words after "in the Colony of Victoria" should be omitted. His object was, that the Committee should be empowered to inquire not only into the circumstances of the appointment, but also into the transactions, as appears before the Committee of 1853. They would thus have an opportunity of inquiring whether the charge of bribery was fell founded. The Motion as it now stood assumed that the charge had been fully proved. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to an expression of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, that at least in the time of Grattan, Irish Members were men of eloquence and honour, and actuated by a spirit of patriotism. He (Mr. FitzGerald) revered the memory of Grattan, and blushed that the people of Ireland had ever been ungrateful to his name; but he must say, that there were still Irish Gentlemen in that House, who, though they might not lay claim to the gift of eloquence, yet possessed good sense and a desire to serve the best interests of their country, Gentlemen who did not live by pandering to the taste for private scandal, and who had honourably endeavoured to perform their duty in a period of unexampled difficulty. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "Colony of Victoria," to the end of the Question. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the case very correctly. It was an accusation against the Duke of Newcastle, and had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Stonor or his case. If Mr. Stonor had been ill-used, it was by the Government, rather than by any Member of that House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the language used by the hon. Member for Mayo; a second hon. Gentleman thought the hon. Member (Mr. Moore) had done more harm to himself than to Mr. Stonor; and a third was of opinion that the language used was derogatory to the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Did hon. Members who cried "Hear," remember the cheers with which they hounded on the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General when he spoke for a conviction against the right hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Beresford). It might be very convenient to forget that now; it might be very convenient to hunt even to death a humble Member of that House, and to be very mealy-monthed when the conduct of a man in an exalted position was called in question. A great writer—Mr. Carlyle—had told us that we lived in an age of flunkeyism and shams; and if this assembly, after its loudly-expressed determination to put down bribery and corruption, should pass over such a case as that now brought before it, the country would see that in the House of Commons, at least, flunkeyism and shams were triumphant.

said, he must appeal to the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) not to give the House the trouble of dividing on this question. He entirely agreed with that hon. Gentleman in the view which he took of the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo. He fully concurred with him in condemning that Motion, and the spirit which had animated its introduction. But he believed that this question had now arrived at such a stage that it would be unjust to refuse the appointment of the proposed Committee. He felt that the case of Mr. Stoner was one of the greatest cruelty. He believed that that gentleman bad been dealt with in a manner that entitled him to every sympathy which that House could show to him. And he believed that the hon. Member fur Mayo, whatever might be his motives, had placed himself in a position that would not he envied by the humblest Member in the House. It was the bounden duty of the House to give Mr. Stonor the only redress which was left to him—that of an inquiry into the charges brought against him. He would not attempt to impugn the decision of the Sligo Election Committee, and he quite agreed with the distinction taken by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald), that the decision of an Election Committee was conclusive as to the merits of the election; but God forbid that the time should ever come when the decision of a Committee of that House should be held to be conclusive as to the guilt or innocence of any party in this country. Why, what was the meaning of giving instructions to the Attorney General to prosecute for bribery if an Election Committee was the tribunal for deciding whether the party was guilty or innocent of such a charge? He (Mr. S. Wortley), therefore, could not accept the decision of the Committee as decisive of Mr. Stonor's guilt. After looking at the evidence laid before the Committee, and considering the divisions in that Committee, he must say that it was extremely doubtful whether or not Mr. Stonor was guilty of bribery. At all events, it was unfortunate that the only evidence on which the Committee had found Mr. Stonor to be guilty of bribery did not appear upon the face of their proceedings. Under these circumstances, he sincerely hoped that an opportunity would be afforded for ascertaining whether or not Mr. Stonor was to be excluded from the practice of his profession. He had no acquaintance with Mr. Stonor, and had never seen him, to his knowledge, in his life; but he had heard from many friends whom he esteemed that Mr. Stonor was fully competent for the office to which he had been appointed. It would, then, be the greatest cruelty to condemn that gentleman without affording him an opportutunity for redress. The fact that Mr. Stoner had sent in the Report of the Committee to the Colonial Office, together with his testimonials, showed that he was ready to meet an inquiry. He (Mr. S. Wortley) believed it would be found that Mr. Stonor was appointed by a gentleman altogether removed from politics, and his recommendation made it perfectly ludicrous to inquire into Mr. Stonor's fitness for the office. He (Mr. S. Wortley) regretted the hasty manner in which the Government had determined to withhold their ratification of Mr. Stonor's appointment, and he trusted that the result of the inquiries of the proposed Committee would be a resolution by the Government not to take so harsh a step. He should rejoice if the Committee's inquiries would relieve the House from the danger of inflicting a deep injustice upon a gentleman who, amongst many persons, enjoyed a high reputation.

said, that on the part of the Bar, he must dissent from the opinions expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. He regretted that Mr. Stonor was placed in his present painful position. He had no enmity to Mr. Stoner; he knew nothing of the facts except from the evidence as read by the hon. Member for Mayo. By the law as it stood in Ireland, no English barrister could act professionally at an election; but Mr. Stonor appears to have involved himself, not once, but twice or thrice, in discreditable election squabbles in Sligo, and in the end had been pointed out by name in a discreditable manner by a Committee of that House. Surely the right hon. and learned Member for Bute, who was an ornament to his profession, and who so adorned the judicial bench, would not say that that was the road which ought to lead a man at the Bar to honour and distinction. He certainly regretted that Mr. Stonor had been made a Judge. If he had been appointed to some other situation, perhaps the appointment would not have been noticed. He had to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. S. Wortley) that the pride of England was in its pure administration of justice, in which respect no country in Europe could be compared with it. If once they made an appointment of this sort without inquiry, the exception might soon become the rule, and they might live to see the Bench filled by men, not of learning, honour, and integrity, but by men—he did not say Mr. Stoner was one—who were only distinguished for their zeal in the work of corruption. If the hon. Under Secretary of the Colonies could state that he had received the testimonials, and, having heard something of Mr. Stonor, that he had inquired into the accusations against him, and had satisfied himself that they were not sustained by facts, then he could conceive the justice of the Amendment. But he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he had not read the testimonials. If the documents in question make out a case for Mr. Stonor, then he must consider that gentleman as hardly used. He nevertheless, lamented that it was possible for a man to be appointed to a responsible situation in any part of the empire without the most careful scrutiny into his conduct and qualifications.

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), as he thought no case had been made out for inquiry, while he had already listened long enough in one Committee to scandal and vile pettifogging assertions not to wish to see a repetition of similar scenes in another. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) told them that he was no lawyer, but though he might not he in the profession, he had got into all the animus of the lowest kind of Old Bailey lawyers. He had been likened already to a four-footed animal of one description, but it appeared to him (M. Vernon) that he was more like the four-footed animal that returned to his vomit. [Cries of "Order, order!"] Animated by a feeling of friendship for the noble Duke, whom the hon. Member had so unjustly attacked, it was impossible for him to speak in the terms that he might wish to use; but he would content himself with saying that, although he felt deeply for the situation of Mr. Stonor, he was yet bound by a sense of public duty to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Surrey.

said, that although hon. Members opposite had said a great deal about the language which had been used by the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion, and by other hon. Members on that side of the House, he could not at present recognise anything in the tone with which such hon. Gentlemen had spoken in any way to mitigate such freedom of speech. He considered the language of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald) quite as intemperate, if not more so, as that of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore). The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them it was very wrong and very unparliamentary not to be satisfied with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies; but they did not impugn the veracity of that hon. Gentleman, as the statement made by him was not founded on facts within his own knowledge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had rebuked them in the loftiest terms of his austere indignation; but when the hon. and learned Member for Ennis pronounced a studied and intentional invective on his (Mr. Lucas') hon. Friend (Mr. Moore), there was no sign of indignation on the part of those who had cheered the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had not much experience in discussions of this kind; his first experience was the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General last year against the late Secretary at War. He considered that as a model of a peculiar kind of eloquence, which, while professing the utmost candour, inflicted the severest and most deadly blows. With respect to this inquiry, he felt bound to say that he knew nothing of Mr. Stoner, although he knew many of that gentleman's friends, and he had no desire in any way to inflict an injury upon him; but he had no notion of allowing hon. Members opposite to support a system of corruption under pretence of generously supporting a fallen man. He was not at all surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), which he considered merely carried out the memorable doctrines enunciated in the speech of that hon. Member last Session, in which he described that House as a great bazaar of places and corruption, of which he (Mr. Drummond) regretted there was not more. It was all very well for hon. Members opposite, now they were in power, to set themselves against these inquiries into corrupt practices; but when such hon. Members were on the Opposition side of the House, and sat upon those dark and dismal benches, they were the first to come forward to suggest what they were now so particularly anxious to avoid. Their press showed no spirit of fairness, no regard for private character; nothing was sacred from their attack, even when the subject-matter was pending for trial in the courts of law. Committees were called for in language as violent and as personal as any used to-night, when it was thought that the interests of their party could be served by hunting up any case of corruption in the distribution of the good things of the Treasury. With regard to what the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Vernon) had said of the Duke of Newcastle, he (did not understand that there was the slightest intention on the part of his hon. Friend to impute—["Oh, oh!"] Why, the hon. Gentleman's indignation was so strong that it evaporated before he finished his sentence—before the hon. Member could know what he was going to say. His hon. Friend (Mr. Moore) had not the slightest intention to impute personal unveracity to the Duke of Newcastle. There was no such word on his lip and no such intention in his mind. The case was, however, curious and extraordinary. A gentleman who had been engaged in the management of election affairs in the most corrupt borough in Ireland for a series of years, handed over the corrupt election interest in that borough from those in whose service he had passed the greater part of his public career in connection with the borough to a junior Lord of the Treasury, and almost immediately afterwards he was appointed to a judgeship in the Colonies. The answer of the Duke of Newcastle to this allegation was, that he was not acquainted with the circumstances; and if the noble Duke, or the hon. Gentleman on the opposite benches (Mr. F. Peel), gave an assurance, on the honour of an English gentleman, that the Duke of Newcastle knew nothing of the circumstances, he (Mr. Lucas) would be quite ready to accept that assurance. He was sure, also, that his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo would be satisfied with such an assurance. But it was not only into the conduct of the Duke of Newcastle in this business that an inquiry was demanded. Mr. Stonor sent in a bundle of papers of recommendation, which were not read or opened. Now, Mr. Stonor must have been appointed on some recommendation, and the question was, on what recommendation, and by what influence he obtained the appointment? He (Mr. Lucas) was aware that it would be very difficult to get at the real facts of this case, but they knew that there was a corrupt system connected with the present Government which was most unsatisfactory to the public of Ireland. The case of Mr. Gore Jones had been referred to more than once. What were the circumstances of that case? Mr. Gore Jones—as he had seen it stated in the newspapers, upon authority that appeared to come from the other (the Ministerial) side of the House—was a Conservative barrister; he was the editor of a Conservative journal in Sligo; he had been, during the greater part of his career, an active politician on the Conservative side, and all his connections, and all his means of life, as he (Mr. Lucas) understood, were bound up with the Conservative party. This gentleman, however, by some process or other, all of a sudden made himself over to a Lord of the Treasury; he passed from one camp to the other at an advanced period of his life, and so great, so flagrant, so open, and so notorious was the change in his politics and public position that he was completely ruined. It was, therefore, necessary to patch up his fortunes, and it was said that the present hon. Member for Sligo, a late junior Lord of the Treasury, recommended Mr. Gore Jones for an appointment as collector of income tax in Ireland, in order to compensate him for the loss he had sustained. Here, then, was a man rewarded for political services, and apparently for nothing else, by being placed in a position which enabled him to exercise a sort of inquisition as to the private fortunes and circumstances of every gentleman within his district. He (Mr. Lucas) had beard of other appointments which, in his opinion, were many degrees worse than that of Mr. Gore Jones. But here was a man who must entertain strong political feelings and animosities, and whose previous career had rendered him distasteful to one-half of the community, placed in a position which gave him full knowledge of the private circumstances of those to whom he had been acting in hostility. He (Mr. Lucas) had always understood that in England the appointments connected with the income tax had, as far as possible, been free from all political bias. In Ireland, however, a tax was imposed which was not only odious, but which Irish gentlemen thought was unjust; and, instead of endeavouring to soften the application of that tax, the Government endeavoured to render it yet more odious by selecting the instruments of its assessment and collection from the worst partisans of faction. He thought, then, when they saw a wholesale system of mal-appointments of this kind, that a Parliamentary investigation was necessary. He considered that his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo had been very unfairly attacked for the course he had taken, in which he had only followed the precedents set by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in Opposition. He conceived that his hon. Friend had laid before the House a primâ facie case very much stronger than that which led the House to grant a Committee of Inquiry of a somewhat similar kind fifteen months ago, on the Motion of the present Attorney General.

said, he did not wish to prolong this discussion, but he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the strong language which was used by his side of the House with regard to the course pursued by the hon. Member for Mayo was not fully justified by the language of the hon. Member himself. The speech of the hon. Gentleman, he considered, was altogether irrelevant to the question, and was replete with matters which had no bearing on the question before the House. The hon. Gentleman had given them a full detail with regard to the political and elec- tion transactions in which Mr. Stonor had at different times been engaged. He appeared to have collected them with laborious research, but they had no bearing on the position of the Government with regard to this appointment, unless he meant to maintain, which he had not done, that these were matters of public notoriety, and known to the Government when the appointment was made. He might add, that if the hon. Gentleman had been actuated by a desire to uphold the character of public men and the interests of public morality, knowing, as he did know, that the Government were willing to concede the appointment of this Committee, he would have abstained from assuming as facts, statements which were to be sifted by the Committee. The charge of the hon. Gentleman was, that the appointment of Mr. Stonor was not made by the Government in ignorance, but in consequence of a corrupt bargain—that Mr. Stonor received his appointment in consequence of his having transferred to an hon. Member of that House the influence he had obtained in Sligo. Now, that statement of the hon. Gentleman he met with the most peremptory and unqualified contradiction. He contradicted it on his own behalf from his own knowledge—he contradicted it, so far as the Duke of Newcastle was concerned, upon that nobleman's authority. With regard to Mr. Stonor himself, he admitted that the case was a hard one. He had made that statement before; but the hon. Gentleman opposite would not believe that he spoke his own sentiments; he said that he was the mouthpiece of certain Irish Members of that House; that he got his lesson from them. That was not the case. He spoke what he felt himself. It was impossible to deny that the Committee on the Sligo election was divided in opinion—it was undoubted that their opinion was formed on an ex parte statement of the case, when Mr. Stonor had no opportunity of being examined before the Committee, nor was aware that the Committee were about to come to a resolution against him; and further, that the letter on which the charge was founded was not on the minutes of the Committee. But when he made that statement before, how was he answered? The Chairman of the Committee came forward and said that the case against Mr. Stonor was complete, and that lie was never more confident of any decision in his life than in that case. If that were so, and the Committee had come to the conclusion that there was that amount of culpability on the part of Mr. Stonor, he had no hesitation in saying that it was the duty of the Government to support their decision, and not to press his appointment upon the people of Victoria, who were naturally jealous of the character of all appointments made to their colony. He would not now go into the ground of that appointment. He would leave the inquiry in the hands of the Committee, feeling sure that that inquiry would show that the statement he had made was correct, and that the counter-statement was unfounded and directly the reverse of the truth.

said, it was very seldom he felt justified in voting against inquiries instituted by that House, but, when he did vote for inquiry, he liked such inquiry to be full and complete. He wished to know, however, how the inquiry now proposed could possibly be complete without the presence of Mr. Stonor? Some hon. Gentlemen said they would vote for the inquiry in justice to Mr. Stonor, but Mr. Stoner would not be heard before the Committee. Who was to appear before the Committee on behalf of that gentleman? The Duke of Newcastle might, if he thought it necessary, go before the Committee, and, at all events, he would be represented there, but the noble Duke and the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. F. Peel) had met the imputation of corrupt motives with the most absolute denial as English gentlemen. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) said that if the Duke of Newcastle and the hon. Member for Bury would state in their places that they had not been actuated by corrupt motives, he and his friends would be satisfied. Why, that satisfaction had been given to the hon. Gentleman already. Confessedly, through negligence on the part of the Colonial Office, the testimonials which had been sent in by Mr. Stonor had been overlooked; if they had been seen, his appointment would not have taken place. The Colonial Office had, however, rescinded the appointment. He believed an order had been sent out that Mr. Stonor should not be appointed by the Governor of Victoria, and when Mr. Stonor returned to England his first act would doubtless be to demand an inquiry into the base imputations which had been directed against him by the hon. Member for Mayo. He (Mr. Duncombe) certainly never heard any absent individual attacked as Mr. Stonor had been by the hon. Gen- tleman. The hon. Member said, he only wanted an inquiry into the conduct of the Colonial Office; but Mr. Stonor might complain, with reason, that great injustice was done him by appointing this Committee when there was no one to appear on his behalf. He (Mr. Duncombe) conceived that if a Committee was to be appointed, they ought, at all events, to wait until Mr. Stonor arrived in England, in order that the investigation might be complete. He knew that there was a very strong, and, he believed, a very just feeling on the public mind, that Mr. Stonor had been most unfairly and most unjustly used; and if this Committee were appointed in Mr. Stonor's absence, the public would come to another conclusion, namely, that the House of Commons was adding injury to injustice, by instituting, behind his back, an inquiry which might result in a decision adverse to his interests and to his honour as a gentleman. He would, therefore, vote against the inquiry.

said, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had brought forward various questions which had no relevancy to the point at issue, while the real question before the House had been forgotten. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) had brought forward a distinct charge against the Colonial Office, and that charge it was the duty of the House to inquire into. The charge was this: that Mr. Stonor had been appointed to a judicial office in one of the Colonies, not in spite of, but in consequence of, his corrupt conduct; and when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies made a statement to explain how the appointment occurred, the hon. Member for Mayo said, "I don't believe that story." There was no circumlocution, no softening of the phrase; his words were, "I don't believe the story." The imputations, then, were, first, a charge of corruption against the Duke of Newcastle; and next, a charge of falsehood against the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies; and these two charges it was the paramount duty of that House to inquire into, He would admit it was a hardship, and, to a certain extent, an injustice to Mr. Stonor, that these charges should be inquired into in his absence; but it was a necessary evil. He thought that an immediate inquiry was necessary. Let them fairly understand the question before the House. He did not wish to press hard upon Mr. Stonor, upon the hon. Member for Mayo or any one; but he did wish that the House should understand the question before it. The hon. Member for Mayo thought he had discovered a case of corruption on the part of the Government, and he brought forward a particular instance. He went into a number of other cases, but those they had no opportunity of inquiring into; but this particular case which he had brought forward it was the duty of that House, without hesitation, to inquire into, for if a Minister of the Crown was guilty of appointing a man from corrupt motives to an important office in one of the Colonies, then there was no hope of justice being done either in the Colonies or in this country. He would not occupy the attention of the House further, except to say that he would vote for the appointment of the Committee as amended by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald), for he agreed with that hon. and learned Member, that there was a distinction to be drawn between the findings of an Election Committee—that their decisions were to be held as conclusive with regard to the objects for which they were appointed, but not with regard to personal character.

said, he would not have troubled the House with any observations after the eloquent and conclusive speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, had it not been for his concluding remarks. He was sure the House would feel that this debate had already been sufficiently protracted; and further, he would remind the House that when Gentlemen were led, in questions of this kind, to paint each other in such black colours as had been done to-night, the public, who did not make the same allowances that were made here, would be but too apt to believe both sides. He wished to refer, however, for a few moments, to the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald). The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) said he would not vote for the inquiry at all, because it was unfair to try Mr. Stonor in his absence. But the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) said he would vote for the inquiry as limited by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis, though he admitted there was a disadvantage in trying Mr. Stonor in his absence. Now, in his (Mr. Herbert's) opinion, there was this further disadvantage in the Amendment, that it would not be a fair trial of the allegations brought against his noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle. The lion. Member for Mayo said he did not attack Mr. Stonor—that was a mere episode in his speech—his boast was that he attacked the lofty and the exalted; and he brought this charge against the Duke of Newcastle, that he had appointed Mr. Stonor, not "in spite of," but "in consequence of," his corrupt conduct. That charge was fairly given in the words of the Motion, which were:—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the case of the appointment of Henry Stonor to the office of a Judge in the colony of Victoria, the said Henry Stonor having been reported by a Committee of this House to have been guilty of bribery at the election for the borough of Sligo in 1853."

Of course, if that had not been the Report of the Committee, there would have been no allegation against the Duke of Newcastle. But if they omitted that part of the Motion, and if they omitted it for the express purpose of entering into the question whether the Committee had done right in making such a Report, then they sunk the charge against the Duke of Newcastle, and merely made it a charge against Mr. Stonor. Against that, he, as the Friend of the Duke of Newcastle, distinctly entered his protest, because he wanted to have the charge against the Duke fairly tried. Besides, he thought there was great weight in the observations of the hon. Member for Finsbury, that if they adopted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis, they would be trying Mr. Stonor in his absence. There would be no one to appear for him; perhaps no one was so well acquainted with the facts of the case as Mr. Stonor himself, or even if there were, it was most probable the parties would not have an accurate recollection of the details of such a circumstance. For these reasons he would say, therefore, do not attempt to alter the Motion, and convert an inquiry into a charge made against the Duke of Newcastle into an inquiry into a charge made against Mr. Stonor. He admitted, as everybody did, that the case against Mr. Stonor was a very hard one. He had had the most frank communications with the Duke of Newcastle, such as might pass between men who have been long intimate, and the noble Duke being a roan of warm and generous temperament, he knew that that which had given him the most pain through the whole of these transactions was the unwitting and the unintentional injury he had inflicted on Mr. Stonor. At the same time, he was not sure that the House would not be doing that gentleman an additional injury in forcing forward this inquiry in his absence, when he might perhaps be in the possession of documents or other evidence, which, if produced, would completely exonerate him. Therefore, as interested for the Duke of Newcastle, he entreated the hon. and learned Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) not to press his Amendment, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, who were anxious for the vindication of the character of the Duke of Newcastle, would not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member, but would give his noble Friend the opportunity of stating fully, fairly, and explicitly the circumstances of the case before a Committee to be appointed by the Committee of Selection, who should give a verdict one way or the other upon the facts and merits of the charge.

, in reply, said, he must remark that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had begun his speech by a serious reprimand to him (Mr. Moore) for the vehemence of language which he had displayed. Instead of reading him a lecture, the right hon. Gentleman should have set him an example; for there was nothing in the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman usually addressed the House which entitled him to lecture others for vehemence. The right hon. Gentleman had noticed very slightly the arguments upon which he (Mr. Moore) founded this Motion, and whenever he had done so had invariably misrepresented them. The right hon. Gentleman made him say, that he was willing to abandon the case if certain Members of the Government resigned. His observation upon that point was, that Mr. Stonor could not remain in his position; but that, in removing him, justice would not be satisfied. Those who appointed him must be equally visited. The right hon. Gentleman had also said, that he (Mr. Moore) had not given due notice of the charges he intended to make. It appeared that the very words quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, as forming the gravamen of the charges, were used by him verbatim et literatim on a former evening, when he gave hon. Gentlemen opposite notice of the charges he intended to make. Another misrepresentation of his statements had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald), who said he had accused Mr. Gore Jones of taking a retainer to betray his client. What he said was, that he believed upon the petition in which Mr. Gore Jones was employed by Mr. Somers, Mr. Townely was unseated chiefly by the exertions of Mr. Gore Jones. He had also said that he had heard that during those negotiations Mr. Gore Jones took a retainer from the present Member for Sligo (Mr. John Sadlier) to prosecute against his then client the election contest that must arise from the result of the petition. He also conceived that he had been misrepresented in another matter. Nothing, he could assure the House, was further from his intention, when he said he did not believe the story, than to imply that the noble Duke the Secretary of State for the Colonies would be guilty of saying that which he knew to be untrue. What he had said was, that he did not believe the story put forward by the Colonial Office to be the whole truth. The right hon. and learned Member for Buteshire (Mr. S. Wortley) had borne out that statement. The explanation of the Colonial Office was, that Mr. Stoner had been appointed from his own letter and the recitals in his letters. The right hon. and learned Member for Buteshire said he was appointed on quite different grounds—that a gentleman of the highest distinction had vivâ voce recommended him, and in consequence of that it was he was appointed. When he (Mr. Moore) said that Mr. Stonor was appointed in consequence of his corrupt practices, he did not say that the Duke of Newcastle had appointed him on that account. He believed the noble Duke was not aware of those corrupt practices when he appointed Mr. Stonor, but he believed that those who had the ear of the Duke—those who were known to have the ear of the Duke, or, if not, his Grace was much belied—they were aware of the corrupt practices. He said hon. Gentlemen on those (the Ministerial) benches were those who made the appointment, as stated in the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Peel's) speech. He believed they were aware of this report against Mr. Stoner. These were the charges he had made, and still made. As to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that he (Mr. Moore) was deeply responsible, and must justify the charges he had made, he could only say he thought he had justified them. He had shown reasons which would induce any one to believe that the statement of the Colonial Office did not contain the whole truth. The right hon. and learned Member for Buteshire said it did not; and on that fact he (Mr. Moore) stood. He still asserted that those who obtained the appointment were aware of the corrupt practices of Mr. Stonor, and they would never have got him the appointment if he had not been guilty of them. If Mr. Stonor had stuck to his profession, like an honest man, he might have wasted his sweetness on the desert air of Boswell Court for a century, if he lived as long, and no Irish corruptionist would have exerted himself to advance his prospects, or ever have whispered his name to the Duke of Newcastle. Through such influence he was appointed, and against those who obtained the appointment he (Mr. Moore) made the charge.

said, that it had been observed that in the Post Office nobody spoke English, but that all spoke Galwegian. Now, it must be from some such circumstance as that in the case of the House of Commons that he was utterly unable to understand how it was that the speeches of hon. Members who supported the Motion were entirely contradictory of one another. There was, perhaps, a meaning in those speeches, but it was his misfortune that he could not comprehend it. Be that, however, as it might, he must say that the Committee, if appointed, must fail to meet the view of any of those Gentlemen who were so anxious for its nomination. Under those circumstances, therefore, he should ask the House to negative the Motion.

said, he would not press his Amendment.

rose and said, he would detain the House but a very few minutes upon a matter entirely of a per- sonal nature. In the late division he had had the misfortune to vote contrary to the way in which he intended. Being a new Member in that House, he was unacquainted with the arrangement of the lobbies, and he went the wrong way, and voted contrary to his intention. [Laughter.] This might be a light matter in England; it would, however, have some importance in Ireland, for it would be talked about there, and he wished to put himself right. So long as certain Gentlemen opposite pursued the course they did, and, for certain purposes of their own, led away a portion of the popular sentiment in that country, they might represent or misrepresent anything concerning himself just as they chose; he should pursue his own course, both in that House and in Ireland, independently of their censures. He had intended to have voted for the Committee, not from any idea at all of the justice of its being granted at the present moment, but merely to give the parties he referred to the fullest opportunity of proving, if they could, any of the statements which they were continually making in order to run down public and private character in every possible manner. If reports were true, a certain Committee now sitting would furnish some test of the value of the attacks which Gentlemen opposite were making upon public men. Assertions had been made in that Committee quite as boldly and as confidently as any made tonight; but, if reports were true, it had been found, when those assertions came to he investigated in a calm and searching inquiry, there had been an amount of evasion, an amount of miserable shiftings to and fro of responsibility from one to another, which was certainly not creditable to the characters of the Gentlemen who so broadly broached them in the face of the House. He thought it necessary and right to make this statement. It was true he might have to meet these Gentlemen in Ireland, and he would not shrink from saying that then which he now asserted in the House of Commons. He was ready to make just the same declaration in Ireland that he was making now, and be would add this much, that it was not creditable for hon. Members to come forward in this way, especially when they had gained their point of running down an unhappy gentleman, who, though he might have done wrong, had been severely punished in his absence, when he had not an opportunity of being heard in his own defence. It was not creditable, he repeated, in them to endeavour to mystify the subject with a cloud of accusations, which upon inquiry would be found as baseless as the accusations of which he had just spoken.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested that the inquiry should be rather more extensive than the terms of the Motion; and therefore he wished to know whether it would be advisable that the other cases to which allusion had been made should not be included.

said, he must explain that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that if there were allegations brought forward, implicating the names of other gentlemen, it would be open to any hon. Member to make a Motion to include them, and that the Government would offer every facility to such a Motion.

said, he would suggest that very great facilities might be obtained by referring the subject to the Committee of Complaint now sitting.

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the better Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland. It would be unnecessary for him to dwell on the importance of the subject, or to point out how essential it was that a country, claiming to rank amongst the civilised nations of the globe, should be in possession of an accurate register of the births, deaths, and marriages of its people. He would merely, therefore, explain to the House as briefly and clearly as he could what was the present system of registration in Scotland, what attempts had been made to remedy its deficiencies, and what were the general provisions of the measure he sought to introduce. The present system of registration in Scotland would be admitted by all who were acquainted with it to be extremely defective, and as existing in name rather than in reality; for it was not a system of registration of births, marriages, and deaths, as understood in this country, but an ecclesiastical custom of recording births, burials, and the proclamations of banns. He held in his hand a return which had been moved for by Viscount Melgund, and prepared by Mr. Brodie, the Crown agent, of the number of births, of deaths, and of marriages registered in each parish of each county in Scotland, in each year since the 31st day of December, 1841, and the scale of fees established in each parish for such registrations. To this return Mr. Brodie had appended these remarks:—

"It may be proper to mention that they almost universally explain—1. That, there being no register of births, the column headed 'Births' embraces baptisms merely, and of these only the limited number which are registered. 2. That, there being no register of deaths, the column headed 'Deaths' embraces burials merely, and of these only a very limited number. 3. That, there being no register of marriages, the column headed 'Marriages' embraces only proclamations with a view to marriage. Of course, the number of proclamations affords hardly any criterion of the number of marriages, since on the occasion of each marriage there must generally be proclamation in two parishes, and proclamations must often occur where either no marriage follows or the marriage takes place in a parish different from the parish or parishes in which proclamation is made. 4. As to the scale of fees—(1) the column headed 'Deaths' is not filled up, there being no proper register either of deaths or burials, and consequently no fees charged; and (2) the column headed 'Marriages' is rarely filled up, any fees charged being usually paid with reference to the proclamations."

He had, likewise, with him some statistics which he had been favoured with by Dr. Stark, a gentleman to whom Scotland was much indebted for his researches on this question, showing the number of births, deaths, and marriages registered in each of the counties of Scotland in 1850, with the calculated proportion of these on the Scottish standard—viz. 1 birth in every 31 of the population, 1 death out of every 44 living, and 1 marriage for every 131 souls. On looking to the general result of this return, he found that the population of Scotland, having been, in 1851, 2,870,784, while the number of births registered was only 27,031, the number calculated was 92,605; that, while the number of deaths registered was only 19,587, the number calculated was 65,242; and that, while the number of marriages registered was 23,848, the number calculated was only 21,914, the difference in the latter case arising from the discrepancy between the number of proclamations of banns and the number of marriages actually celebrated. He thought these statistics manifested the imperfect state of the existing registration. At various times attempts had been made to remedy this defect. In 1834, 1835, and 1837, a gentleman now no more, Mr. Robert Stuart, had brought in Bills on the subject. These Bills were not successful, and did not pass into law; and their failure might be chiefly attributed to the circumstance that the payment of registration fees being thrown upon the parties registering, it was thought to be a great hardship on the poor, and calculated to deter the people from registering. In 1847, 1848, and 1849, Lord Rutherfurd brought in Marriage Registration Bills for Scotland, which likewise failed to become law—a failure that might be attributed mainly, if not entirely, to their unfortunate connection with a proposed alteration of the law of marriage in Scotland which was peculiarly distasteful to the people of that country. Although all these measures had thus failed, there was, so far from any feeling of hostility to the principle now sought to be carried out, an earnest desire on the part of the people of Scotland to have a remedy applied to the existing most defective system of registration—a desire which had been strongly manifested by articles in the public press, and by communications from all parts of Scotland. The Committee of the General Assembly, which had been appointed to inquire into registration, had, on the 30th of May, 1853, thus reported:—

"Your Committee have taken into consideration the remit of the General Assembly, and have become convinced that no efforts of the Church, through its courts, of the clergy individually, or of the session clerks, could so improve the present registers as to render them equal to the requirements of the public or of science, and they recommend that a petition to both Houses of Parliament should be drawn up and forwarded, praying Government to extend the benefits of registration of births, deaths, and marriages to Scotland, by bringing forward a Bill."

There was, likewise, on the same subject, a memorial, of which he held a copy in his hand, which had been presented to the Lord Advocate from the Lord Provost, magistrates, and town council of Edinburgh, and from which he would read this extract:—

"No provision has ever yet been made by the Legislature, or otherwise, for a complete register of births, deaths, and marriages in Scotland; and the attention of the town council of Edinburgh having been directed to the subject, they, of this date (Dec. 7, 1853), unanimously resolved that a memorial should be addressed to the Lord Advocate."

It was in deference, therefore, to the wishes of the people of Scotland, thus strongly expressed, that Government had thought it their duty to bring in the Bill of which he would now shortly state the provisions. In the Bill which Lord Rutherfurd had introduced, there was a most complete system of registration devised, but an objection had been taken to it on the ground that the machinery, in its completeness, would entail great expense on the country, and it was conceived that by a different system that expense might be avoided. Warned by the objection so made to Lord Rutherfurd's Bill, an attempt had been made in the measure he proposed to introduce, to combine the utmost degree of efficiency with the utmost degree of economy, and to avail themselves as far as possible, for this purpose, of the machinery which already existed in Scotland, so far as it could be advantageously employed. Central control was deemed essential for the efficiency of a system of registration, and therefore it was proposed, for the purposes of a general registry office, to make use of the existing Register Office in Edinburgh, the deputy clerk registrar being appointed registrar general for the purposes of the Act, with an addition to his present salary of 500l. of 300l. per annum, and a secretary being likewise appointed with a salary of 300l. per annum; and it was hoped that, with the assistance of this secretary, the registrar general would be able to discharge all the additional duties so imposed on him. It was hardly necessary that he should explain to Gentlemen connected with Scotland that the Register Office in Edinburgh was the depository of all the national deeds connected with the property of the country; and, if it were admitted to be necessary that there should be a complete register of births, marriages, and deaths, no more appropriate depository could be found for such a purpose than the office in which the property deeds of the country were placed. The same principle which had led to the selection of the Registry Office in Edinburgh had likewise led them to avail themselves as much as possible of the machinery already existing in county divisions. It was intended that the sheriff of each county should have the general superintendence in that county of the working of the Act—that they should be the superintendent registrars under the Act. The duties thus imposed on them would not be onerous, and would be, in some degree, analogous with the ministerial duties they now performed; it was, therefore, not intended that any increased salary should be given to them on account of these additional duties. It would be recollected that last year a measure had been passed enabling the Treasury to augment the salaries of the sheriffs of Scotland. Acting upon the powers confided to them, the Treasury had, with that happy combination of justice and liberality which characterised all the acts of that department of the State, fixed the salaries of the sheriffs upon so liberal a footing, that he did not think they would be justified in objecting, and he did not believe they would object to undertake the duty imposed upon them by this Bill, without an increase of salary. With regard to the parish registrars, it was proposed that in the first instance the preference should be given to vested interests, there being a clause in the Bill which was not in Lord Rutherfurd's Bill—by which the present system of registration in Scotland was to cease and determine on the 1st of January, 1855, and it was therefore intended to make the present session clerks registrars under the Act. Much might be said on both sides with reference to the appointment of existing session clerks as registrars; but it would be only an act of justice during their lives, where they were fully competent to discharge their duties, and where it should appear to the sheriffs and the registrar general that no valid objection on the ground of competency could be brought against them, that they should be appointed, deriving, however, no vested right from such reappointment, but being liable to removal for misconduct. On the death or removal of the existing holders, it was proposed that the appointment of the parish registrars should rest, in towns with the town council, and in country parishes with the parochial boards, subject to the approval of the sheriff and of the registrar general. With regard to the manner in which the expense was to be met, it was proposed that the expenses of the central office, the salaries of the registrar general, of the secretary, and the charges for providing stationery, books, and everything necessary for registration, should be paid by the Treasury, in defraying which expenses the Treasury would be only doing that which it did in England, and it could not reasonably be expected to do more. With respect to the payment of the parish registrars, following the precedent of Lord Rutherfurd's Bill, it was proposed that those registrars should be paid by fees at the rate of 2s. for each entry upon the first twenty names, and ls. after- wards, and that the amount should be raised by assessment. According to the calculations of Lord Rutherfurd on this subject, which he had every reason to believe were correct, the amount of assessment necessary for the payment of the parish registrars would not exceed 10,000l. per annum—a very small sum considering the benefit of the measure to the public. Having thus stated the general provisions of the Bill, as to its machinery, he now came to the mode in which he proposed it should work—how notices should be given and entries made. In the case of births, the parents would be bound to give notice, or, in the event of their being unable to do so from death, illness, or other inability, the person having charge of the child, the nurse, or the person occupying the house in which the birth had taken place, would be bound to give the notice; a notice given by any of these parties would exempt the rest from the penalties that would accrue were no notice given. In the case of an illegitimate child the notice would be given by the mother, or, in the event of her death or illness, by the father, the nurse, or the occupier of the house or tenement. The father's name, in such cases, would not have to be inserted on the register without his consent, or unless his paternity had been proved in a court of justice, in which case the clerk of such court would send notice to the registrar, and then the party's name would be inserted. There was also a clause for the legitimisation of such children on the register, when so enabled by the fact of subsequens matrimonium. There was likewise a clause by which the certificate of registration was to be produced at the baptism of children, and another requiring children to be brought to the registrar, when he entertained any doubt as to the sex of the child, or of the existence of any attempt otherwise at fraud in the matter. He now came to the registration of deaths. It was proposed that the nearest relative should be bound to give notice, or, in his absence, by reason of illness, or other cause, then the occupier of the house in which the death had occurred—the notice was to be given within eight days. The certificate of the registrar was to be produced at the funeral, and in the absence of such certificate the person officiating would be bound to give notice thereof to the registrar. There would be a marine register kept at Edinburgh, in which all births and deaths at sea would be regis- tered, a copy of the entry being sent from the office to the registrar of the parish to which the person belonged. With respect to marriages, taking warning here also by the failure of Lord Rutherfurd's Bill, it was proposed not to touch or affect the present Marriage Law of Scotland. He did not pretend to say whether the present state of the Marriage Law in Scotland was the best or the worst that could be devised, as it was variously viewed; it was sufficient to know that the people of Scotland regarded with jealousy and suspicion any attempt to interfere with a law to which they were so wedded; and, therefore, no attempt would be made in this Bill to interfere, in any way, with that law. All he hoped to do was, to attain, as far as possible, a register of all marriages which took place in Scotland—regular or irregular, whether by civil contract or by religious ceremony. The proposal, therefore, was, that all persons contracting marriage should register their marriage, either at its solemnisation, or within a month afterwards; that the clergyman and all persons officially connected with the marriage should send notice to the registrar; that the justices of the peace, magistrates, and witnesses before whom regular marriages were contracted should send notice to the registrar; and where persons were fined for irregular marriages, that notice should be sent to the registrar, and entered accordingly, and that the same should take place where the marriage should be declared good by decree of Court. With regard to the mode of making entries, it was proposed that all entries should be made in duplicate, that each entry should be signed by two witnesses, and that at the end of each year the duplicate books should be taken to the county town to he examined by the sheriff, who should certify their accuracy by affixing his signature to them. One of these duplicate copies would then be sent to the registrar general, to be deposited in the Register Office in Edinburgh, and the other copy would be retained in the parish. Indexes would also be kept in the parish and at Edinburgh, to be inspected on the payment of a small fee. In this way an attempt would be made to combine an efficient system of local and general registration, because he looked upon it as essential that there should always be a copy of the parish register for inspection in the parish. These being the general provisions of the Bill, he now came to the question of how these provisions should be enforced. He had already expressed his belief that no system of registration could be complete which was not under some central control, and in the same manner he felt confident that no system of registration could be effective which was not compulsory. He therefore proposed that the provisions of the Act should be enforced by penalties which, it was hoped, would be effective without being onerous; and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen connected with Scotland would not object to making the Act compulsory. He expressed this hope, because although at first sight it might appear a hardship upon the poor, who might be supposed to be ignorant of the value of registration, to compel them to conform to the provisions of this Act, yet it was in reality in the interest of the poor that it should be made compulsory. Those persons who might have had their attention particularly directed to this subject could form but little idea of the enormous sums which were annually dependent, and the succession to which entirely depended upon the accuracy of the parish registers. He had lately been in communication with a gentleman who was for some years rector of Sandon, in the county of Stafford, and who stated that during his period of incumbency, extending only over fifteen years, sums exceeding 40,000l. (the parish containing only about 600 inhabitants) were dependent upon the accuracy of the parish registers, and many persons who had succeeded to these large sums of money were persons in the humblest sphere of life. He would, therefore, again express the hope that there would be no objection to making the Bill compulsory. Many provisions of the Act had been adopted from the system which prevailed in France, Belgium, and the Rhenish provinces, where, under the Code Napoleon, a most efficient system of registration was in operation. In those countries registration was compulsory, and, so far from being regarded by the poor as a hardship and an evil, it was looked upon as the greatest boon which an enlightened Government could confer upon the people; for while the rich had their title deeds, their parchments, and their sculptured monuments, there was literally no record of the poor man's birth or death, except the parish register, which might not inaptly be called the charter of the poor man. He trusted, therefore, that the Bill would be made compulsory. He had now stated the provisions of the Bill, or at least its principal provisions. There were many other clauses to which it was unnecessary to allude, but he hoped that every Scotch Member who had the interest of Scotland at heart would, without regard to party, endeavour to perfect in Committee a measure which he believed to be essential for the well-being of Scotland. Should the House kindly permit him to bring in this Bill, he trusted that he might again rely upon their cordial assistance in perfecting the Bill when in Committee. He would, therefore, move for leave to bring in a Bill for amending the registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Scotland.

said, he must beg to express his great satisfaction at the statement of the noble Lord; he thought the measure was one which, in its general features, would meet with the approbation of Scotchmen. With regard to marriages, he was certainly not so great an admirer of the Scotch system of marriage as to believe that it was not susceptible of some improvement, particularly that persons might know whether they were really married or not. At present, in Scotland, a man might be married and yet be quite ignorant of it, and it was certainly desirable that that state of things should be remedied. He thought, however, that it was quite right not to mix up that subject with this question. The measure, he felt convinced, would, as a whole, give satisfaction in Scotland, and prove a very good and useful one.

said, he thought the Bill a great improvement upon the former measure upon the subject, which had been before the House, and would promise to give it his best attention when it went into Committee.

said, that as one of those who had opposed the former Bill upon this subject, he wished to tender his best thanks to the noble Lord for the attention he had bestowed upon the matter. The measure should have his cordial support.

said, he had to thank the Members for Scotland for the kind reception they had given to the measure, and he had not the least doubt that with their co-operation the Bill would be made an efficient one. The course he proposed to take was to fix the second reading for the 12th of May, and afterwards to submit it to a Select Committee of Scotch Members, according to the usual practice with regard to Scotch Bills. Leave given; Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Elcho, Viscount Palmerston, and the Lord Advocate.

said, he would now beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to amend certain rules of law and equity relating to the administration of deceased persons." The object of the Bill was to prevent the heir or devisee of a real estate from claiming the payment of any call or debt out of the personal estate of the deceased testator. In this, he was only seeking to carry out the principle which was laid down by Sir Samuel Romilly with regard to the payment of debts out of real estate. That great man, in a comparatively unenlightened age, got this House repeatedly to assent to the proposal—which, however, was rejected as repeatedly in the House of Lords—that real estate should be made liable to the payment of simple contract debts. Now, he asked that the same principle should be extended to debts which the deceased had incurred by way of mortgage. Cases of great hardship frequently occurred on the death of the head of the family through claims being made upon the personal estate, which repeatedly left the children quite destitute. He had been induced to bring this question before the House by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who, when on a former occasion he (Mr. Locke King) had introduced a much larger measure, expressed his opinion that this subject ought to be treated in a separate Bill, which accordingly he had now asked permission to introduce. Another point he wished to include in this Bill was, where the testator had by his will desired that his real estate should be converted into personal estate for the purpose of paying off his debts, that the residue, if there was a residue, should be considered as personalty, and not, as at present, be looked upon as part of the realty.

said, he hoped that the introduction of this Bill would lead to a discussion which would result in an amendment of the law. The first point to which the hon. Member referred was undoubtedly one of great anomaly, but he could have wished that it had been considered in connection with a much larger subject—namely, the general state of the law with regard to the administration of assets. It was unquestionably connected with what he would term the barbarous and absurd distinction between legal and equitable assets. With regard to the other point to which the hon. Member referred, namely, the effect of a charge in converting real property into personalty, as long as the general law remained what it was that point must be more doubtful; but the subject was one deserving of discussion. He looked for improvement, however, chiefly from the abolition of the distinction between legal justice and equitable justice.

said, he would point out the absurd distinction which at present existed between a special debt and a simple contract debt, the preference being given to one piece of paper because it had a seal upon it, and the other had not. If his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General would endeavour to do away with this most absurd distinction, he would have his most cordial support.

, in reply, said, he had introduced this small measure because he knew, if he had brought in a more extensive one, he would be told that he was dealing with too great a subject. Leave given; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Locke King, Mr. Headlam, and Mr. Massey. Bill read 1°.

said, he rose to bring forward the Resolution relative to the establishment of an Emigration Depôt at one of the Irish ports, of which he had given notice. The subject to which he wished to call the attention of the House was one which he thought involved a very considerable grievance to Irish emigrants. He would state shortly the circumstances which had given rise to his Motion. If he were not able to state particularly, he could assure the House it was not his fault; for on the 2nd of March he had moved for returns to assist him in his Motion, but, in consequence of his asking subsequently for something further, those returns had been unfortunately delayed. He did not, however, blame the Government for that delay. It appeared some time past that a fund had been placed at the disposal of the Colonial Office, by certain parties in the Australian Colonies, for the purpose of promoting free emigration. That sum was very considerable, and was administered under the direction of the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners. It was stated that, as far as it was possible, it should be apportioned in this way—one-third of the emigrants were to be sent from England, one-third from Ireland, and one-third from Scotland. He believed that it was found for several past years that these propositions could not be practically carried out, and it was necessary to take from Ireland more than the one-third. Those emigrants received their passages free. They were collected at depôts, which were formed at the expense of this fund, and were there supported until their passages were procured. Now, the grievance of which the Irish complained was this. The Commissioners established three depôts, namely, one at Plymouth, one in London, and one in Liverpool, but there was not one depôt established at an Irish port. The House would see how this system operated, both upon the fund itself and also upon the Irish emigrants. The Commissioners paid the expenses of those emigrants from an Irish port to an English depôt. This was a great expense to the fund, besides an infliction of a great hardship upon the emigrants. Hon. Gentlemen would be surprised to hear—he confessed he was, and could scarcely credit the fact—that in consequence of the bad accommodation provided for those emigrants upon the cross-passage, it often happened that the emigrants endured more hardship in the short passage across the Channel than in their voyage out to Australia. Well, again, there was some encouragement to be given to the Irish trade by establishing a depôt in the country; but he would not rest his case upon that foundation. He submitted that the Commissioners had no right to exclude the Irish from a fair share of those funds. There was a great expense incurred in bringing those emigrants from Ireland, and the system pursued was one calculated to discourage the Irish emigrants. If the same thing were done in another country, it would be said that it was a very Irish way of doing business. They brought an emigrant from Cork to Plymouth, and brought him back again in view of Cork lighthouse at a great and unnecessary expense. He had heard it said that they could not get their ships into Irish ports; but he would say that it was easier to charter a ship from Cork than from an English port. He did not wish to press the Motion to a division, if the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies would give him an assurance that the subject should be considered by the Government. If it had already been considered by them, and they would accede to the principle, he would be just as much pleased that it came from the Colonial Office as an act of grace, as if it were carried in the shape of a Resolution by that House. Should the hon. Gentleman, however, be unable to give him that assurance, he should feel himself compelled to take the sense of the House with regard to that which was a simple act of justice—first, to the Colonies; and secondly, to the Irish emigrants themselves.

seconded the Motion. He said, from his own experience he could bear testimony to the fact mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend who had introduced the Motion, that the passage round the western coast of Ireland to the English port of embarkation, inflicted greater hardship and inconvenience upon the emigrants than the entire voyage to Australia. He saw no reason why an emigrant vessel should not call at the port of Cork as well as at Plymouth. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that an Emigration Depôt of the Colonial Land Emigration Commissioners for free Emigration to the Australian Colonies should be established at one of the Irish ports."

said, that without reference to the circumstances or grounds that might be urged in support of the reasonableness of the view propounded in the Resolution, it appeared to him that there was an objection to it which had not been adverted to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that was, that the subject was one upon which this House could hardly be expected or fairly called on to express an opinion; because it must be remembered that the fund which was administered by the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners was the land fund of the Australian Colonies. It was, in fact, the produce of their land sales, which took place under an Act of Parliament, and the proceeds of which were remitted to this country to be appropriated in different ways, but principally to emigration purposes, superintended by the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners. The House would observe, therefore, that the Commissioners were in some respects the agents of the Australian Colonies. It was to the Colonies that they were responsible, and were bound to render an account of their acts; and it was the duty of the Commissioners to discharge their functions in this respect in a manner the most economical, and most likely to give satisfaction to the colonists. Standing in this capacity, it was clear that the Commissioners ought to be allowed full discretion; but see the inconvenient and embarrassing situation in which the Commissioners would be placed if that House interfered with that discretion, and said that an emigration depôt should be established at Cork or any other Irish port, and a certain proportion of money belonging to the Australian Colonies expended thereon, without reference to the opinion of the Commissioners whether it would be of advantage or not. With regard to the proposition contained in the Motion, it turned entirely upon the point of expense. If it were cheaper to send Irish emigrants direct from Cork rather than from the depôts at Liverpool or London, they ought certainly to be so sent. There was no indisposition to expend a fair proportion of the land fund upon the removal of Irish emigrants to the Australian Colonies, and he believed that even more than the usual proportion had of late years been expended for the purpose, and that the Irish emigrants had given satisfaction to the colonists. The proposition of the hon. Member was one which turned entirely on the point of expense. Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had stated, it must be remembered that the ships which were taken up by the Emigration Commissioners as emigrant vessels were to be found only in those ports whence the Australian trade was carried on; that they must go to London or Liverpool in order to find the ships best fitted, in their opinion, for the conveyance of emigrants. If, therefore, the emigrants were removed from Cork, it would become necessary that a vessel, on leaving either of these ports, should call at Cork for the purpose of there taking the emigrants on board. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. F. W. Russell) had stated that there was no good reason why these vessels should not call at Cork as well as at Plymouth. But the hon. Member seemed to forget that Plymouth was in the direct route of vessels leaving London for Australia, whilst Cork was not. The question was, then, should vessels proceed to Cork, or should they receive the emigrants on board at Liverpool? It might seem strange to bring the emigrants to Liverpool instead of taking the ship to them at Cork; but an analogy was furnished in the case of the unassisted emi- gration from Liverpool, nine-tenths of which consisted exclusively of Irish. The charterers of emigrant vessels gave tickets to the Irish, which paid their expenses across St. George's Channel; and he hardly knew an instance in which those vessels, on leaving Liverpool, called at an Irish port to take passengers on board. Invariably, the Irish emigrants proceeded to Liverpool, and there got on board the vessel. He was willing to allow that the expectation he entertained that the expense of sending the Irish direct from ports in Ireland would be greater than that of sending them from English ports, might prove to be incorrect. There was, therefore, no indisposition to try the experiment of establishing a depôt in some port in Ireland; and the Emigration Commissioners had informed him that they had made application to the Poor Law Commissioners for a building at Cork, formerly used as a lunatic asylum, to be set apart for the purpose. That application had not, however, succeeded, but he believed the Emigration Commissioners were still ready to make the experiment as soon as they could obtain a suitable building. He understood, moreover, that vessels had recently been taken up on such terms as to enable them to call at Cork, or any other place where a depôt might be formed, for the purpose of receiving the emigrants on board.

said, he was glad to hear that the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies admitted the correctness of the proposition conveyed in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal. It would be necessary to ascertain, however, in the first place, from what port in Ireland the largest number of emigrants proceeded to Liverpool or elsewhere, and make that the port at which to establish the depôt. He begged leave, then, to put forward the claim of Dublin as the place from which he believed on investigation it would appear the largest number of emigrants embarked for the Colonies.

said, he begged to tender his thanks on the part of his constituents to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies for the very proper manner in which he had met the Motion. All they had to look at was, what was the best and most economical manner of sending out emigrants, and he believed that Cork was the best port for the emigrants, not only of Ireland, but of the whole United Kingdom to embark at.

said, he wished to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. I. Butt) who had brought this subject before the House that there was a Committee sitting to inquire into the subject of emigration, and the question now mooted had been brought partially before them; if, however, any additional evidence could be brought before them, it would meet with the fullest consideration. He did not agree with the opinion that had been expressed that Cork was the best port for emigration from all parts of the United Kingdom, because the ships that sailed to Australia did not carry emigrants alone, but also a considerable quantity of cargo. He did not think either that the fact of the funds coming from Australia entitled the people of that colony to have the whole management of the matter.

said, he could assure the House that in Cork a very strong feeling existed upon the subject. He did not himself think that the question ought to be considered as a mere financial question, for it involved also a question of humanity. He thought, however, in a financial point of view, that Cork would be a more economical depôt for emigrants than any other port in the kingdom; and he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to the fact of the Poor Law authorities having refused to place the lunatic asylum, which was unoccupied, at the disposal of the Emigration Commissioners, in order that the experiment should be tried.

said, that the hon. Member was in error in supposing that the Poor Law Commissioners had any power over the lunatic asylum, as the property of that establishment was vested in the county for the benefit of the Commissioners, and the Commissioners had no power in the matter.

said that, after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies he would withdraw his Motion, but must reserve to himself the right to renew it at a later period of the Session, in case this experiment should not be tried, or that it should, after being commenced, be abandoned without its appearing to him that there were substantial reasons for its abandonment. He was surprised that there should have been any refusal to lend the building formerly used as the lunatic asylum at Cork, for the trial of this experiment, but hoped that this obstacle would speedily be removed, and that the experiment would have a fair trail. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of traffic on railways and canals, said, it will be in the recollection of the House that at the close of the year 1852, very extensive proposals were made for the amalgamation of the greater railway companies; and at the opening of the present Parliament that subject was brought under the notice of the Administration. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) who at that time filled the office responsible for that department of the Government, moved that the whole subject of amalgamation generally, and the principles upon which railway legislation should be conducted, should be referred to a Select Committee of this House. That question was an extremely important, and, at the same time, an extremely difficult question. When you reflect upon the mode in which railway companies have grown up to their present magnitude—that they grew up under a state of law which contemplated open roads, and the possession by every individual of his own mode of travelling along these roads—that they have grown up within a period of a quarter of a century, and may be said to have grown up at haphazard rather than upon any general system of well-devised legislation—I think no one will be surprised that the subject of railways was one of very great difficulty. Familiar as the House is with the subject of railways, I think it will, nevertheless, require from me some of the statistical information which will serve to show what is the magnitude of the subject. There have been 232 railway companies incorporated, the number of miles of railway projected by these companies is no less than 12,688 miles, and the length of railways open at the date of the last return was 7,686 miles. The total number of passengers carried in the year amounted to 95,000,000; the total number of persons employed in the transit of these passengers was not less than about 80,000. What amount of capital does this represent? The total amount of capital which has been authorised by Parliament amounts to no less than 356,000,000l., of which amount there has been actually raised 264,000,000l. In the last year for which I have a return the total amount received for traffic, which was divided in nearly equal proportions between passenger and goods traffic, amounted to 16,700,000l. Such, Sir, was the magnitude, such was the intricacy and difficulty of the subject with which we had to deal. It would not be justifiable in me to occupy the time of the House by dwelling upon the benefits which have been conferred upon British commerce and upon society in this kingdom through all its ramifications by this great invention of modern genius. Those who remember, as many now living do, the time when a journey from Aberdeen to London usually occupied the whole week, and now see the same journey performed in a single day, need no expressions of opinion from me to convince them of the great benefits which have been derived from these undertakings. And as they are the offspring of great genius, so have they been conducted by men of great ability. I think it would be most unjust to prefer a Bill of indictment against the conductors of railways, or to ask this House to legislate on the ground that the lines were not in the hands of men of great ability and most competent to the duties they have to discharge. But, Sir, it must be equally manifest that these great interests under separate management do require the attention of this House, and I always thought that the step which was taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) in appointing that Committee was a just and proper step. Before the Committee met to enter upon the principal part of its duties, I became responsible to this House for the conduct of the department which had been under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, and his very natural wish was, that I should take the Chair of the Committee which had been appointed. Sir, that Committee included in its Members no less than five persons who had filled the office of President of the Board of Trade, or Chief Commissioner of Railways, and had thus had an opportunity of acquiring experience upon this subject. It also included many eminent Members of this House, and if it did not include any Members who particularly represented the railway interest, that circumstance arose from a feeling on their part that it would be better for them to appear as witnesses before the Committee, and that the final decision of the Committee should not be prejudiced in the opinion of Parliament or of the country by any possibility of its being alleged that their interest had operated upon the decision. By the desire of the Committee I communicated with those chairmen of railway companies who are Members of this House. When the Committee met we found that we had questions of amalgamation to deal with of great magnitude and importance. The Report of the Committee stated:—

"That the Bills promoted in the present Session by one company (the London and North Western) have been stated to your Committee to involve the union, tinder one control, of a raised capital of 60,000,000l.—between one-fourth and one-fifth of the railway property of the kingdom—an annual revenue exceeding 4,000,000l., and an extent of railway communication of upwards of 1,200 miles, or more than one-sixth of the railways in the United Kingdom, forming, from the importance of the towns with which it is connected, a key to the principal communications of the country."

In Scotland it was proposed to associate the railways between Edinburgh and Glasgow. In Ireland it was proposed—

"To unite the Grand Canal of Ireland with the Midland Great Western Railway, the proprietors of which, being already in possession of the Royal Canal, would have thus obtained the entire control of the communications, both by canal and railway, from the east coast of Ireland across to the navigable waters of the Shannon on the west."

Such was the magnitude and the difficulty of the investigations upon which we entered. I think I may fairly say, on the part of the Committee, that they addressed themselves to that inquiry with the determination to do all in their power to bring it to a just and satisfactory conclusion. When we came to the Report there was great unanimity of opinion in the Committee. With regard to one point, namely, to what extent there should be direct executive administrative interference, there was some difference of opinion in the Committee, as those who turn to the Report will find; but when that had been disposed of, we agreed to an unanimous Report, setting out the objects which we thought ought to be borne in mind by Parliament in its future legislation upon the subject of railways. The principal objects were set forth in Resolutions appended to the Report. These Resolutions recommended that there should be a greater uniformity in the system of Parliamentary proceedings in respect of railways; and that, if possible, we should even now devise, foresee, and act upon some steady and consistent course, involving, as this subject does, not only the convenience and advantage of the public, but also all the capital the parti- culars of which I have stated to you. Upon the subject of amalgamation we came to the conclusion, seeing to how great an extent amalgamation had already been carried, that while that degree of combination of interest between companies which might enable them by mutual arrangements and other workings to subserve the public convenience ought to be permitted and encouraged, yet that the more complete fusion of different capitals in one hand ought for the present not to be sanctioned by Parliament. I need not, perhaps, at the present moment go into detail as to the reasons which influenced us in coming to that conclusion, because I dare say the Report and evidence have long been in the hands of hon. Members of this House. But our unanimous conclusion was, that amalgamations or fusions of capital ought not at present to be sanctioned; but that that combination of interest which is known under the name of a working arrangement ought to be sanctioned and encouraged, under such limitations and restrictions as might prevent its being used for any purpose hostile to the public. Another object which we had in view was, to provide a ready means for the arbitration of disputes arising between railway companies, who might not have a power of legally binding their companies by arbitration—a voluntary power resting with themselves. I am now speaking for the purpose of doing away with those cases of difference which, when they exist, are not only injurious to the shareholders of the railway, but are in their consequences also vexatious and injurious to the public. Another matter which we had in view was this:—It is well known to the House that when railways were originally made, the theory of the law was, and I think any one who reads the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act will say that the theory of the law now is, that a railway is open to any person who chooses to travel upon it with his engine and carriages, paying the toll which Parliament has sanctioned to be taken. But, Sir, in practice that power cannot usually be made use of; and Parliament has repeatedly sanctioned the opinion that, looking to the hazard and to the risk to public safety, of having on the same railway different classes of persons responsible for the locomotive power, it is undesirable that that power should continue to exist. Therefore it was that we came to the conclusion to discontinue in future those clauses, commonly called "running clauses," which gave to one railway company the use of the water-tanks and stations, and the other means which were necessary in order that they might avail themselves of their common-law right of using the railroad as a common highway, upon payment of tolls. There was, Sir, another important step which, upon the recommendation of this Committee, Parliament was pleased to take in the course of last Session—that was to enact certain Standing Orders for the purpose of preventing lines being brought forward by persons who had no bonâ fide intention of either completing the lines or rendering them serviceable as new railway communications, but whose object was either, having obtained the Bill, to sell it to some company to whom it might be dangerous or formidable, or to serve some other selfish purpose and advantage, and not to promote the general good of the community. By these arrangements we thought that we had taken considerable steps for the security of property invested in railways. Other securities were, indeed, suggested; but when we came to examine what would be the difficulties of maintaining any pledge, if we advised Parliament to give it, and what objections there were to pledges, we were not enabled to arrive at any conclusions more decidedly beneficial to the safety of railway property than those I have already alluded to. But having done so much in the interest of the railway companies the House will naturally ask, "What did it occur to us to do for the general protection and for the benefit of the public?" The House will naturally say, "If you think that the common-law right of running over a highway on payment of toll ought not to be conceded, because practically, from the construction of railways, it is not possible to use it except with danger, did it not occur to you also that you ought to provide other remedies?" It certainly did. The Committee unanimously agreed to the following Resolution:—

"That every railway company should be compelled to afford to the public, in respect both of goods and of passengers, the full advantage of convenient interchange from one system to another; to afford to every class of traffic, including postal communication, just facilities; and to observe all statutory provisions, especially those requiring equal charges under the same circumstances; and that where complaint arises that any company has violated any of these obligations, provision should be made for the hearing and decision of such complaint in open court, with power to make use of the interference of the Railway Department, for the purpose of ascer- taining by what specific and detailed arrangements such complaints may be effectually redressed."

At the close of last Session the subject was brought under the notice of the House by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, who suggested the appointment of a Committee of such a nature that the several sub-Committees to whom groups of railways were referred might have constant intercourse with it, and with each other, so as to secure greater uniformity in the decisions of Parliament. That Committee met at the beginning of this Session, and proceeded to agree to certain general resolutions, which were, however, not considered by them as inflexibly binding on the sub-Committees. These resolutions referred to the working arrangements, the running clauses, and the forwarding clauses. Let the House consider the nature of the difficulty with which they had to deal. If you look at the map of this country, you see it covered with railways, and your first impression is that there is a most easy and most uninterrupted transit from one extremity to the other. Examine more closely, and you will find that this is not a uniform system of railways, all under one management, and that in consequence it is divided into kingdoms, has its diplomacies and its alliances offensive and defensive, and is altogether a far more complicated affair than at first sight it appears. We had to find some mode by which the public interest could be guarded, and the interests of the shareholders not unduly interfered with; and we had to take a great deal of evidence on this subject of interchange of traffic. The Chairman of the North British Railway Company, formerly a Member of this House, came before us, and his statement was, that if you took your place at Aberdeen for London, having apparently the choice of two roads, you were, in fact, confined to one. You have not got out of Scotland before you have got to the junction of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway; of course you suppose that the company would be happy to have you for a customer. But the passenger would be surprised to be told what the Committee were told by the Chairman of the North British Railway:—

"Though we are a continuous line with the Glasgow line, we have no interchange of booking, and no interchange of carriages; and, though the companies to the north would be willing to book through, and send their carriages through, from Perth and those districts, by the east coast line to York, Newcastle, and London, they have no means of doing so, as they must run for about twenty miles on the Glasgow line, and the Glasgow Company will not consent to their booking through.

"The oppression, then, is this—that the possession of twenty miles of a continuous line of railway, extending in the whole from Aberdeen to London, enables the company to divert it to the western line to the prejudice of the eastern line?—It does.'

Then take the case of Newcastle-on-Tyne. Upon testimony than which there is none higher—on the testimony of Mr. Stephenson, I shall tell you the effect on the commerce of Newcastle of this same state of affairs. The alkali manufacturers at Newcastle require salt from Cheshire, but they are not permitted to receive it direct by railway. The salt raised from the mine in Cheshire is carried round to Hull, and thence by shipment to Newcastle, because it serves the interest of an intermediate company to divert the traffic. Mr. Stephenson said that if it went to Newcastle by railway throughout it would go over only twenty-four miles of the line of an intermediate company, but by diverting it to Hull this company got a mileage of sixty miles. And so the trade of Newcastle has to pay for the cost of the shipment of the salt from Hull, in order to serve the interest of this railway company. So of the cotton from Manchester, wanted in Newcastle. It also, for the benefit of this railway, has to take this long route. That, Sir, is a state of things that, be the difficulty of remedying it ever so great, I confidently submit to you Parliament will not allow to continue. Let us travel as far as Leeds. My hon. Friend who sits opposite, the Chairman of the Great Northern Railway, said the town of Leeds had two communications by rail to the south, and one to the north; but let him time his trains as he liked, he could not fix them for such an hour that they would enable him to carry passengers to the south who had just arrived from the north. The hon. Gentleman further said:—

"Parties having railways north of the town of Leeds bring their trains into the town of Leeds, so as not to suit other trains going out. The public complain; Members of Parliament and others have complained to me over and over again, saying, 'I see a train going out of Leeds just two minutes before I get in.' There is no power to control the parties to whom either railway belongs, or to compel them to make such arrangements as will accommodate the public. Now, one of the effects of a board would be, to compel directors so to regulate their trains that the public can travel from one end of the kingdom to the other without inconvenience, and that they should not be compelled by the caprice of directors to stay two hours and wait for another train."

Then look at Ambergate and Nottingham. Notice was given the other day for the purpose of striking out from the Ambergate Bill the clauses the general Committee had proposed. The promoters of that Bill, however, did me the honour of calling upon me to say they did not want the Committee's clauses struck out; that they sanctioned the policy of those clauses, and were willing to give a proof of their sincerity by accepting them in their Bill. They said, "Nothing can be more important than the transit of corn to the east from the Midland districts, and the transit of coal from the Midland counties to the rural districts in the east. We are desirous of facilitating that communication, but there are insuperable difficulties in our way, and we wish to see a remedy analogous to that which you have recommended." Mr. Seymour Clarke, the manager of the Great Northern Railway, in his evidence before the Committee, said that, in consequence of a dispute with another company,

"The Ambergate Company is at this moment working horses and carts between Colwick and Nottingham, because they have difficulties in running over the Midland line."

The Mayor of Ipswich told the Committee that that was the complaint of the inhabitants of that town. There was a continuous railway, but such was the want of agreement between the companies that their articles were obliged to be brought by other modes of conveyance. The Mayor of Salisbury also appeared before the Committee. He said, "We have a railway to Salisbury, and there is a railway to Warminster. Parliament has sanctioned a line between, but it does not suit the interest of either company that it should be constructed. It might be remunerative; but what would be its fate, closed hermetically by one hostile company at Warminster, by another at Salisbury?" That happens; and what becomes of this little company then? I ask the House, do you mean to leave the law in this state? There are other interests affected in this question—the great commercial interests. We examined a man of great eminence from Durham, Mr. Nicholas Wood; his complaint was that he could not get his coals to London; and he did make it clear to the Committee that unless he would sell them for less than their price he could not get them brought. The statement he made was—that his coal at the market price was worth 9s. 6d.; the coal the company carried was worth 8s. 6d. They would not take it unless they had it for 8s. 6d. In short, we examined a great number of witnesses, all whose evidence tended to show that what was really wanted was, that Parliament should devise a means by which you might have the same facilities in travelling from one end of the kingdom to another, that you have in travelling over a system of lines that belong to a single administration. I do not mean to say that the solution of this question is an easy one; the principle on which, according to the Committee, it is to be solved, is that by distinct statutory enactments you should break down these barriers and enable the Superior Courts to deal with the railways in such matters. Hitherto, the tribunals have tried to carry into effect the law; but the agency by which they are to do it breaks in their hands, because it is scarcely possible to frame a decree which human ingenuity cannot avoid, or to which it cannot give merely a colourable compliance; and I do not think it fair to find fault with individuals in these cases fur employing the means they have to increase the dividends of the shareholders; for so long as you leave the law in this state, the railway director must take advantage of it, or the persons who look to him for a dividend will be dissatisfied. To overcome these difficulties, you must have a general law, in which you must reconcile the interests of the shareholders and the public. The same applies equally with regard to canals. A water communication was purchased by a particular railway company, and it no longer became their interest to have their little portion of canal worked efficiently, but they adopted such measures as compelled the traffic to run over their longer mileage of railroad. The Bill which I have the honour to submit to you, will consist of three parts. In the first place, it will give powers to railway companies, which they do not now possess at all, for entering into combinations and working agreements with one another for the purpose of bringing the whole system into harmony. Secondly, it will contain terms for arbitration, to be conducted under the responsibility of the department in which I have the honour to serve. And I name that, because it is necessary the public interests should be consulted as well as the interests of the companies, lest in those agreements and arbitrations the public interests should unfortunately be forgotten. Thirdly, the Bill will provide a machinery for securing to the public that practical enjoyment of that free transit along the lines of railway and from one line to another, to which by the theory of the law they are entitled. By enactment you will establish the right. By decree of a court of justice, the violation of that right will be adjudicated. By arbitration the mode will be determined, in which complete effect can be given to the decision of that tribunal. Thus, when your enactment is not carried into effect, appeal will be given to one of the Superior Courts, and in order to enable the Superior Court to give effect to its decree, we propose, in strict analogy with the Act introduced in 1852 for reforming the Court of Chancery, by which Act Parliament gave to the Court of Chancery the power of consulting an engineer, an actuary, or a merchant, in those technical matters which appear to the Court to fall particularly within their province, to give power to the Court to call for the report of an engineer or other competent persons, so that eventually the judgment of the Court may proceed in some degree on the report of that engineer or other competent persons. The Bill will give, either to the department in which I have the honour to serve, or to the persons appointed by the Courts, power to report to the Court the precise sort of order and arrangement to carry into effect the statutory enactment which Parliament will have agreed to. This arrangement purposes to give to an arbitrator, or to a department, that which is necessarily executive and administrative; that which is enacting we ask you to sanction and enact. That interpretation of the Act of Parliament leaves to the recognised tribunals and courts of law to see justice administered; and in strict analogy with the Act of Chancery Reform passed in 1852, proposes to enable the courts of law to avail themselves of administrative or executive assistance. Is that an unreasonable demand to make on a great interest at a time like this? Is competition prevented? My opinion is, we have tried competition far enough. The railway companies told us that competition was an ineffectual remedy, and in our Report we have ratified the opinion of Captain Huish to that effect. I cannot forbear quoting, for its terseness and probable truth, the dictum of Mr. Stephenson—"where combination is possible, competition is impossible." Captain Huish, in his evidence before the Committee, illustrated that point by saying:—

"In Lancashire and Yorkshire, a district not the least sensitive to the advantages of free competition, no such freedom is practically enjoyed as regards communication by railways; but that, on the contrary, between Liverpool and Manchester, where five different modes of transit, more or less competing with each other in their inception, have been established—namely, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway—the railways by Bolton, Bury, and Wigan, in the hands of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company—and the East Lancashire Railways—the Bridgewater Canal—the Old River Trust—all five have, more or less, a common understanding with each other, and no rivalry exists bearing any analogy to the keen competition of private individuals contending in the same trade."

Then, Sir, if the evil does exist, if we think a just remedy should be found, if competition is not that remedy, is there any remedy? I think I have a right to say that the Committee agreed in thinking, and agreed with the testimony of the most eminent railway witnesses, that arbitration is the remedy. I hold in my hand extracts from the evidence of the most eminent persons interested in the management of railways—Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift, Mr. Stephenson, Captain Huish, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke), my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. B. Denison), Sir William Cubitt, Mr. Bagshaw, Mr. Hanshaw, the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. James Macgregor). In all cases I think we find a concurrence of opinion, that the most available means of accomplishing the object is by a system of arbitration. The question is, whether that arbitration shall be a simple arbitration, or whether under the management of a particular branch of Government. It had occurred to me that there was a mode by which we might accomplish that arbitration with great convenience and advantage, at the same time showing confidence in the railway body, without whose cordial co-operation, after all, it will be difficult for Parliament to work out any scheme on which in your wisdom you may decide. In the clearing-house is a system of entire combination and arrangement, which I believe works admirably well. The analogy of that was brought under our attention in the evidence of Captain Huish. It occurred to me in preparing this Bill whether it might not be possible to create out of the machinery existing at the clearing-house some system—taking care of course to protect the public interest by some arrangement for that purpose—whether by that means a system of general arbitration might be accomplished. But on inquiry I found the clearing-house contained only a portion of the railway companies, that it was an entirely voluntary association; and I had reason to doubt whether interference with their arrangements would be generally acceptable to the railway body. Therefore, as it appeared to me the object was to enlist their confidence and co-operation, seeing it was doubtful whether that would be agreeable to themselves, I took the arbitration, pure and simple, and put it so in the Bill, and so it stands. The object is, while we protect the public interest and secure to the public, in respect to goods and passengers, uninterrupted transit throughout the kingdom, and from one railway system to another, to preserve general harmony among the railway body. While there are considerable public interests involved, we must not forget those who embarked their capital in promoting these vast undertakings for the benefit of the public. Perhaps, before I pass away entirely from the provisions of the Bill, I may state, I believe an impression has been excited that it is intended to take power in this Bill for varying or altering the tariffs or charges of the companies. I hope that those who labour under that apprehension will carefully read the clauses of the Bill, because if the clauses are not found to carry into effect the intentions I am about to mention, I shall be most happy to revise them, to make them carry out that intention. This case was pointed out as requiring especial care in the matter of arbitration between different companies, and obtained great consideration in the case of the Altringham Railway last year. It was said, "Take care when you are compelling a railway company to take up and carry forward the traffic of another company running into it, that you do not perpetrate this injustice:—The company is required to carry the traffic forward over a short portion of very expensive railway, having its terminus in the heart of the town, and you give power to a cheap company, in a cheap part of the country, to run its traffic into the terminal station of that company, rendering to it very small return, and virtually carrying on its traffic at the terminal charges of other people." That undoubtedly, though not a general case, is one which it is impossible to overlook, and therefore you will find in the Bill a clause, not for the purpose of varying the charges against the public—no such power is intended to be taken—but giving a power to say this, "If you require one company to carry forward at the request of another company the traffic of that other company, and it be referred to arbitration how that shall be accomplished, the arbitrator shall have it in his power to consider whether any such special circumstances as those to which I have referred really render it an unfairness on the receiving company to be compelled at ordinary charges to forward the traffic of the other company." That case arises continually at the clearing-house, and is solved by the gentlemen at the clearing-house without difficulty; but when you are dealing by Statute with parties who have not expressed their readiness to come into agreement with others, there are difficulties to contend with, which, however, does not affect the question in the Bill. I believe it is thought that the Committee were generally for inserting clauses of a nature never heard of before. That I think is a complete mistake. I do not suppose these identical clauses have been inserted before, but the practice has been to insert clauses compelling companies to carry forward traffic on such terms as the Committee thought proper to impose, and that led to clauses being imposed on the South-Eastern Railway by the East Kent Railway Act, declaring that the rates of charges, the nature, extent, and mode of discharging such services, and all matters, should be settled at the cost of the company by the Board of Trade, or an arbitration. That arrangement was carried into effect by Parliament last year, and is now upon the Statute-book. The objects, then, of the Bill are, first, a distinct statutory enactment of the duty of railway companies; second, provision for determining that Statute by the superior courts of law; third, the mode of aiding the courts by giving them the assistance of competent administrative arbitration, with appeal to the superior, in case that arbitration should not be properly or legitimately carried into effect. Parliament will enact, and the courts will execute, if you please to give your sanction to this system. In conclusion, let me ask, will the system be beneficial or injurious to the shareholders? I regret much that it is in the year 1854 we are asked for the first time to carry into effect a reformed system of railway arrangement. We had better have done it in 1844, and I, though a young Member of Parliament, supported my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the measure he introduced about that period. But even in 1854, if we adopt a uniform and prudent system, and if we make all the traffic of the country flow in the channels the public desire it should flow in, passengers travelling by the route which they prefer to travel by, and the goods by the route by which they can most conveniently and economically be carried, I do not believe the day is gone by when the prosperity of the railway interests may be restored. The energy and elasticity of the resources of the country are beyond the belief even of those most familiar with statistics. What would you imagine would be the effect on the Grand Junction Canal, of opening the London and North-Western on one side, and on the other the Great Western Railway. Would you have expected to find an increase or diminution of traffic? Probably you will tell me you expect a decrease of traffic. It was proved in evidence before us that in the year the London and North-Western received the sanction of Parliament, the Grand Junction Canal carried 708,000 tons of traffic, and in 1852, after being exposed to the full competition of the North-Western and Great Western Companies, it had risen, not indeed to double the amount, but from 708,000 to 1,144,000 tons of goods. Let, then, the railway interest see the wisdom of impressing Parliament and the country with the idea that no partial interests will be suffered to interfere with the general good of the country. Let the disposition to create new and unnecessary rival and competing lines be by that conviction checked, and what results may not flow from that continual growth of the ever-expanding resources and wealth of this country? We ought to pursue, in some respects, the policy which has been pursued in other countries with regard to railways. On the Continent there is a greater control with respect to railway matters than with our institutions could ever be expected to be carried into effect. A most interesting Report was quoted by us in our Report of last year, which had been brought across the Atlantic—a Report dealing with the same difficulties and coming to the same conclusion. After speaking of the great benefits the railway companies had conferred on the country, the American Report said:—

"It would appear, therefore, that the principle of competition cannot, as a general rule, apply to railroad corporations, and that the interests of the community should not be left to its operation, as in ordinary business enterprises; that they must, from their peculiar elements, be, in a greater or less degree, monopolies, and necessarily liable to the evils of monopoly. These evils are not, probably, as great at this time as they may be hereafter, when the system becomes more perfectly developed, and placed under the management of persons less disposed to show deference to public sentiment; nor are they as yet very perceptible to the public, from the fact that they are not apparent in any direct loss to the community, for railroads under any system must be a great benefit, but consist rather in depriving it of the additional advantages it would otherwise obtain. It is, nevertheless, due to the community that the tendency to these evils should be checked, and, if the above views are correct, it is incumbent upon the State to place the whole system under such control and supervision as may be deemed necessary to secure the greatest amount of public benefit, compatible with a due regard to the pecuniary interests involved in the operations of railroads."

Such were the objects of the general Committee which met, in pursuance of the arrangement, this year, to give uniformity of arrangement and to carry out the law, in order that railways may come to be what the common roads were called, the Queen's highway—that there may be no alliance, defensive or offensive, no policy, no diplomacy—but that we may see all the companies ranged under the ægis of the law, giving their full benefits to the public, with regard to the traffic of passengers and goods, from one end of the kingdom to the other. Such was the desire of the Committee last year. Such, I hope, will be the ratification by this House of that decision. It is as Chairman of that Committee that I have the honour of proposing your ratification of these decisions in the Bill I ask leave to introduce. I have occupied you longer than I expected. I felt it my duty to lay before you some portion of the evidence upon which we proceeded in coming to our conclusions, and I trust we shall be able to carry along with us, not merely the general feeling of the travelling public, but also the feeling of those without whose co-operation this system can never be rendered harmonious and effective—I mean those able men in whose hands have been carried on the great railway undertakings of the kingdom. I believe it is for their interest, as well as for the general permanent good of the country, that you should carry into effect the intentions of the Committee of last year; and it is with these feelings I ask leave to introduce a Bill such as I have stated. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of the traffic on Railways and Canals."

said, he did not rise to offer any objection to the introduction of the Bill, as he concurred in many of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had not sufficiently shown to the House that he had paid that regard to the capital employed in the construction of railways which he had stated it was his intention to do. What he desired to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman was, the necessity, in the further progress of the Bill, to make a provision with regard to future railway legislation. It was impossible that such great interests could go on from year to year without making occasional applications to Parliament for an extension of their powers; and what he would request was, that some provision should be made to obviate those enormous expenses to which railway companies were now liable in going before the Committees of that House. More facilities should be afforded to the companies in their dealings with Parliament. The public, in regard to the construction of new works, were quite as much, if not more, interested than the railway companies themselves. He was sure the unanimous feeling of the House would be to treat the measure of the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest consideration. It was almost too pitiable a fact to state to the House, but still the truth should be told:—Taking the capital invested in forty of the principal railways of the country, which stood without any guarantee, it appeared that it amounted to the sum of 112,000,000l., the value of which property in the market at the present moment was less than 75,000,000l. Looking across the Channel, it appeared that the increase of value on the capital invested was not less than 50 per cent, and the travelling on their lines was cheaper. This vast difference was entirely owing to the legislation of that House. The number of miles of railway constructed on the forty railways, up to 1844, was 2,240, which number had been increased, during the last ten years, to 7,512 miles, and the number of passengers conveyed from 30,363 to 95,000. The amount of capital invested in the same forty railways, up to 1844, was 20,363,000l., which, in 1853, had been increased to 95,000,000l. He therefore appealed to the House to consider carefully the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had laid before them, and endeavour to rectify that of which the great railway interests of the country had reason to complain.

said he must dispute the dogma that where combination was possible, competition was impossible, for he believed the great evil of our railway system had been that each company had expended large sums of money in Parliamentary contests under the delusion that they were in possession of a monopoly which it was their duty to maintain.

said, he was sure the railway company with which he was connected would give to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman a fair and candid consideration, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would on his part be disposed to reciprocate that feeling, and give a fair and candid consideration to the unfortunate position in which the railway interests of this country were now placed, and actually so placed by the system of legislation pursued in that House. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that in his opinion the system and principle of competition had been carried quite far enough, and that he was now disposed to proceed on a different principle. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman and the House would remember that the principle of competition had been carried out to a very great extent, and that its evils, such as they were, had, in point of fact, already been inflicted. Those who were connected with railways were most desirous that the principle of a well-regulated monopoly should be adopted, if practicable, because they believed it to be a proper principle; but it was one thing to introduce such a principle before competition was tried, and quite another thing to superadd that system upon all the evils of competition to which railways were now subjected. He did not wish to make any observations in a captious spirit, but it appeared to him that railways were now subjected to all the evils of competition, and what he contended for was that they should have the right and power to defend themselves as they best could against competition. But the principle which the right hon. Gentleman wished to introduce was this—after having subjected railways to competition he now proposed to tie up the hands of all railways, and objected to give to one class of competitors the same advantages which another class possessed; in short, the right hon. Gentleman would superadd regulation to competition. He did not think that railway capital at the present moment was paying more than between 2½ and 3 per cent. Such a great interest, being in that position, ought not to be dealt with in an unfriendly or harsh spirit. It was admitted that the railway interest conferred great advantages upon the country, and he hoped the House and the Government would bear that in mind when legislating in reference to that interest.

said, the very clear and explicit statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that it was not his intention to interfere with the existing tolls of railways, had removed the objections which he had anticipated he should feel it his duty to urge; looking at the clauses which had been laid upon the table of the House, and which had been inserted in several Railway Bills. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his statement. He thought the manner he proposed to effect an interchange of traffic from one line to another was one which the railway companies could themselves very well carry out. But the Bill did not meet all the objects which it was desirable a measure of this kind should provide for. There were other questions, besides the question of interchange of traffic, that were well worthy the consideration of the House. The great expenditure caused to railways by legislation had been spoken of; but one chief item of that large expenditure would not be lessened by this Bill. The most important question was the question of gauge. They had had a contest going on before that House last year, and the year before, and for six or eight years preceding that, between the broad gauge and the narrow, and founded upon that they had had a mixed gauge. Two companies, contesting this question of gauge, in reference to a line between London and Exeter, had spent no less a sum of money than would have paid for the construction of the railway. Considering that a Commission which had been appointed in the year 1846, to inquire into the question of gauge, had reported in favour of its final settlement, and of putting an end to the disputes which have arisen out of it, and that a Bill had been brought in founded on the Report of that Commission, he did think it was scarcely creditable to our legislation to be considering at this moment that very question, involving that very expense which every one of them was desirous to see an end to. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have done himself more credit, although he by no means wished to detract from the credit to which he was entitled, if he had taken up this question of gauge, and settled it upon a basis which the world could understand. He considered it a disgrace to this country that it was the only one which had not adopted uniformity of gauge. The want of such uniformity would complicate the system far more than the evils which it was the object of this measure to redress. They would never get rid of the heavy expenses which they deprecated, put an end to contests, or extinguish competition, unless they defined some distinct—unless they laid down an iron rule not only as to charges and as to the mode in which the traffic should be carried—but as to the limits within which each company should be confined, and beyond which it should not be allowed to pass.

said, the statement of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade had been made to the general satisfaction of the House, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman for adopting the suggestion from that side of the House to bring in a general measure, and not to attempt to do that by particular clauses, which could only be accomplished in the way proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the general question, he would say that he had been professionally engaged with the hon. and learned Solicitor General in fighting the battle of the gauges, and his impression was, that by these contests railway companies were destroying each other, and that a great benefit would be conferred on the public and the railway interest by putting an end to these unseemly contests. It must have very much surprised the House to hear that the 112,000,600l. spent on forty of the leading lines were not worth more in the market than 75,000,000l. The fault was not in the paucity of the traffic, for the traffic was abundant beyond expectation, but in the defect of the system. And he feared Government was answerable for much of the mischief that existed. He could point to the conduct of the London and North-Western Railway with the Shrewsbury lines, where that company ran trains at losing fares, in order to impede the traffic of the other company. These things ought to be put an end to, and Government ought to take effectual steps to protect railway companies from themselves and the mode of carrying on competition with each other.

said, in reference to the Committee of 1844, had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was Chairman, been able to give the railways security against competition, they would have been able to enter into a compact with him. But as the right hon. Gentleman could not give railways security against competition, satisfactory arrangements could not be entered into at the time. With regard to the spread of the railway system, he would just ask that, at a time when there was a premium of 30,000,000l. on the subscribed capital, who could say that particular districts would not have a railway? This led to competing lines, and to unprofitable branches, which had sapped the profits of the trunk lines. It was impossible for Parliament to say, then, that a particular district should not have railways; and as capitalists were ready to come forward, the lines were freely, and in some cases unwisely, granted. With respect to foreign railways, they had been constructed mainly with English capital, and they also had the advantage of Government guarantee without the disadvantage of unlimited competition, which might be considered the basis of the English system. With reference to the gauge, no one who had travelled upon an Irish railway, which was constructed on the intermediate gauge, could doubt but that gauge was the best gauge to adopt; but it was too late now to apply the intermediate gauge to the English railway system, for the expense would be too enormous, and the difficulties to overcome too serious for the present depressed period of the railway interest. Railway undertakings were in their nature of a speculative character, and it was impossible in many cases to guard shareholders against loss. But the enormous Parliamentary expenses was one great grievance of the system, and till they were moderated no effectual good could be attained. He believed that few Railway Bills had passed without having produced benefit to the public.

said, he believed that the public would gain very materially by a measure such as that which had been traced out by the right hon. Gentleman, if it passed into law, and, he was glad to add, the shareholders also. It would give a solidity to railway property, which would induce many timid persons to invest in it who had formerly been unwilling to do so; and it would also remove much of the irritability at present prevailing among the directors of rival lines. He should, therefore, have the greatest pleasure in affording every assistance in his power to the passing of a measure such as that shadowed out to-night by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he wished to know whether, in the event of a railway company being permitted by its Act to charge a toll of 2d., it would be obliged to reduce that toll to 1d. if another company wished to pass its transit business on at the latter rate? If that should be the case, he feared the right hon. Gentleman's Bill would prove to be an abortion.

said, he believed the Bill would not be an abortion. The object of the measure was to secure equality of toll, and to prevent railway companies from charging one sum to one person and another sum to another.