said, he did not consider the clause necessary, as the parties whom it would affect would still remain liable to an indictment at common law for any nuisance they might commit. He also objected to it, because it made it compulsory on the local authorities to proceed against any party who should be certified to have caused any effluvia injurious to health. The effect would be to drive many of our most necessary manufactures out of the country. He wished to secure some place in which these certainly offensive, but still necessary trades might be carried on. He would, therefore, beg to propose an Amendment to that effect.

said, he fully concurred in the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, and in doing so could bear testimony to the extreme fairness and candour with which the right hon. President of the Board of Health had met every proposal for amending the measures he had introduced. Trade nuisances might be divided into three classes. The first included cases in which the nuisance was brought for the first time into a neighbourhood; and under those circumstances it could at once be put down. The second class referred to places which they might almost say were consecrated to bad smells. Now, it was not lawful to bring even there a fresh smell, but if the new manufacture were of the same description as those already carried on in the neighbourhood it could not be put down. The third class related to cases where an offensive trade had originally been established at a distance from any house or road, but where the district had afterwards become inhabited. With respect to cases like those it had been held over and over again that if persons who complained had come to the nuisance and not the nuisance to them, they had no remedy. Now, he understood that what his hon. Friend meant was to save the rights of persons who conducted trades that fell within the last category. He believed that the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Works was afraid that the word "town" would not include such places as Chelsea or Hammersmith, but the right hon. Gentleman was in error, for there had been several decisions in which the word had been interpreted in its popular sense. He should, however, recommend his hon. Friend to add to his proviso the words "or populous districts."

said, he objected to the addition on the ground that "populous districts" was a very uncertain phrase.

said, he did not know what was the meaning of the words "populous districts." They had no legal signification, and he was afraid that their adoption would lead to endless litigation and disputes.

said, he had no wish to drive the trades referred to by the clause out of the country, but he was desirous that where nuisances existed the local authorities should have the power to interfere, and if the party complained against preferred having the question decided by a superior tribunal, instead of by two justices, the next clause would give him the power to put an end to the jurisdiction of the justices on entering into his recognisance to bring the matter before a superior tribunal. He approved the words "populous districts" as affording a definition of the word "town," and he thought he should be doing right in assenting to the proviso, with those words added to it.

said, he should support the proviso. The Bill having since its introduction taken the form of a measure for the suppression of those nuisances only which were injurious to health, it would be but wise and fair to make a distinction between places where large numbers of persons were congregated together, and districts inhabited by a scanty and a scattered population.

said, he strongly objected to the retention of the words "populous districts." The copper works in the neighbourhood of Swansea, for instance, were neither a city nor a town; but they were certainly a populous district, for hundreds of persons had come to live in their neighbourhood; and upon the continuance of those works depended the welfare of the whole population of Glamorganshire. Those works, however, would fall within the operation of the clause.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman if the copper works he had referred to were a nuisance injurious to the health of the neighbourhood, and if so, whether the owners had neglected to use every practicable means to abate it? Because, unless that were so, the provisions of the Bill would not apply.

said, he could not tell. Those were questions that could only be determined after much litigation.

said, that the health of Swansea was above the average. Considering the immense amount of capital invested, and the hundreds of thousands who gained their bread by those and similar works (for all the metal trades were equally concerned), the House were bound to protect the owners from annoyance on the part of persons in the neighbourhood who complained of injury to their gardens.

said, that some years ago an action was brought against the proprietors of the copper works by a farmer in the neighbourhood. The trial took place in Carmarthen, but the point chiefly insisted on was a very irrelevant one, namely, the amount of capital the works had brought into the district. The verdict was for the defendants; but there could be no doubt as to the deleterious effects of the works both upon vegetable and animal life, for cattle were brought into Court suffering from distortion of limbs produced by the contiguity of the works. The proprietors, not with standing that they had obtained a verdict, afterwards spared neither ingenuity nor expense to abate the evil; and in every case where the same pains were taken they would be exempt from annoyance from the Bill. Even if a decision from the local authorities should happen to be obtained against them, they would have nothing to do but to appeal to a higher Court, and it would be quashed.

said, that nothing was wanted to neutralise the effects of copper smoke but plenty of water. The remedy might, no doubt, be easily applied to one establishment; but the river at Swansea would be wholly inadequate if it were attempted to be extended to the entire district. The cattle referred to had not been injured by the direct effect of the works upon the atmosphere, but by the dew becoming impregnated with sulphuric acid falling upon the herbage, and if they pleased, poisoning it. He only knew that he could keep his horses in much better condition at Swansea than in London.

said, he thought the arguments of the hon. Member (Mr. Davies) were conclusive against the retention of the words "populous districts," for they might, on the hon. Gentleman's own showing, lead to much litigation and annoyance.

said, he must remark that in discussing the earlier part of the Bill a great deal was said about the attention which ought to be given to the condition of the poor; but the clauses affecting their condition were nevertheless very speedily passed. They happened now, however, to be discussing clauses which had nothing to do with the poor, and now there seemed to be great difficulty in proceeding with the measure. If the Committee were really merely there to represent the gas companies, the water companies, and the great manufacturing interests only, let it be so understood; but if they were there to represent the public at large, let them not delay the measure by making such exceptions as were now proposed.

said, he was of opinion that a particular mode of legislation could never answer any good purpose. At the same time, while they were seeking to preserve the health of the public, they ought not to forget that there were vast multitudes of the population who were dependent for their means of livelihood on those establishments which it was now sought to control by Act of Parliament.

said, he did not think that any hon. Members were open to the taunt of the right hon. Baronet, that they were seeking to Legislate for the rich at the expense of the poor.

said, he should move its omission. He was of opinion that the clause, if adopted, would either compel the total sacrifice of large manufacturing property, or would seriously depreciate its value. Those manufacturers engaged in the smelting trade would be placed at the mercy of a couple of medical men—perhaps troublesome medical men, for there were such at home as well as abroad. The expenses thus imposed upon the manufacturers would be enough to swallow up all their profits; and the result would be to lower the wages of every miner in Cornwall.

said, that it had been coolly assumed that the clause would put down manufactures. Now, it certainly would have no such effect. It merely gave a power to two justices to compel manufacturers to use the best practical means for putting down nuisances. Every hon. Member ought to take a general view of the subject, and not to narrow his view of it according to the interests of his own constituents.

said, he objected to the clause, on the ground that it would in effect carry every question arising under it to the superior Courts, and involve the parties in expensive litigation.

said, he would refer hon. Members to the removal of Muspratt's chemical works from Liverpool, and afterwards from Newton, by proceedings at law, and he considered those cases were sufficient to meet any case of nuisance.

said, he should support the clause, as it gave the parties indicted the opportunity of showing that they had used all practical means to put down the nuisance, and were unable to do so—a right which they did not enjoy under the present law. In so far, the clause was a remedial measure; it directly protected trade against the common law.

said, he entertained considerable doubts whether the clause was necessary. The 8th clause defined what should be considered a nuisance; by that (the 28th) clause a remedy before two magistrates was provided, but by the 29th clause it was intended to give the parties the right to have the question tried before a jury at quarter sessions. Why, he should like to know, were certain trades and businesses singled out in the 28th clause? He would suggest that the clause should be withdrawn. When dealing with the manufactures of the country, it behoved the House to take care what they were doing. Nothing was more delicate and susceptible than capital, and nothing was more easily removed. He had known the case of a great English capitalist, influenced by legislative interference, removing vast works to Belgium, and taking with him some of the best skilled English workmen.

said, that the effect of withdrawing the clause would be, that all persons engaged in the trades and manufactures specified in the clause would be obliged to be proceeded against by indictment. The clause was a mitigating clause, because it allowed the parties to be proceeded against before two justices. He had seen many of the persons who were most nearly interested in that part of the Bill, and they all urged him to press the clause, considering it to be one greatly in their favour, because it would give them an opportunity of mitigating the nuisance by using the best means in their power, and if they should fail to do so, they would then, only in the last event, be prosecuted by the common law.

said, he thought the clause unnecessary. The police were bound to give all the aid they could within the limits of their own proper functions—such as that of quelling mobs, and of preventing persons from breaking windows. He thought that if the police were to be considered specially liable to be called upon to enforce the provisions of the Act, it would, in the first place, have a tendency to divert their attention from their more immediate and proper duties, and would, at the same time, create a feeling against them, and would lead to their being employed in a species of espionage in matters in which they ought not ordinarily to be engaged.

said, he had been induced to adopt the clause from having received a return from Dublin showing the beneficial services rendered by the police of the city of Dublin in suppressing nuisances that were injurious to health. He thought if the services of the police were so conspicuous in the case of the city of Dublin, a similar plan could not fail to work beneficially here.

said, he was decidedly opposed to the clause, on the ground of civil and religious liberty. His house was his castle, and policemen ought not to be allowed to intrude themselves into a man's private dwelling on all occasions as they did under the stringent provisions of the Smoke Prevention Act. The work ought to be done by officially appointed agents who really understood their business.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had received a copy of the circular despatch from Governor General Sir William Denison to governors of other Australian colonies, submitting heads of plan for the establishment of a monthly line of steam-packets to England, estimating the amount to be paid to a company or companies for that accommodation at 100,000l. per annum, and proposing that three-fifths of the required amount should be borne by the Home Government and two-fifths by the colonies? Whether he had received a copy of an Address presented by the Legislative Council of Victoria to the Governor of that colony, expressing surprise and regret that the Home Government had suffered frequent and quick communication with England by steam to cease, and expressing their readiness to bear their fair share of the cost of renewing it, to an amount not exceeding 50,000l. per annum? Whether Her Majesty's Government had given their attention to this subject, and how far they could hold out a prospect of the early re-establishment of steam communication with Australia?

said, he had received a despatch on the 2nd of the present month with respect to steam communication with Australia to the effect mentioned by the right hon. Baronet; but the Governor, Sir William Denison, said that the project brought forward had not received the assent of the other colonies, and no company was willing to engage in so large an undertaking without being assured by something more than a simple Resolution, and that it would be necessary to have a law on the subject. With respect to the colonies of New South Wales, Van Diemen's Land, and New Zealand, no answer had been received; but with respect to Victoria there was a despatch expressing deep regret that, owing to the great pressure for steam transports for conveying troops and stores to the Crimea, the steam communication with the Australian colonies had been interrupted. The colonists of Victoria stated that they were ready to propose an expenditure of 50,000l. on the subject. During the short period since the despatch had been received he had been much occupied with other business, but he had been in communication with other departments of the Government, in the hope of establishing a steam communication with the Australian colonies. The subject was one of great importance, and the Government would pay due attention to it.

I wish, Sir, to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. J. L. Ricardo) asked the noble Lord the other day whether he was prepared to lay upon the table the terms of the convention for guaranteeing a loan to the Turkish Government. I understood the noble Lord to say the convention was not concluded. Last week a message was sent by the French Government to the Chamber of Deputies of that country, giving full details of the convention entered into between England, France, and Turkey for the guarantee of a loan of 5,000,000l. sterling to the Turkish Government. I wish to ask whether the noble Lord is prepared to furnish similar information to this House, and whether we shall have time for the full consideration and discussion of that question.

The hon. Member misunderstood my answer. I did not say the treaty was not concluded. I said it had been concluded, but the ratifications were not exchanged. Until the ratifications are exchanged it is not a binding treaty on all parties. I stated, also, it was a joint guarantee for a loan of 5,000,000l.

Will the noble Lord say when the ratifications will be exchanged, and when we shall be placed in the same position as the Assembly of France?

We have taken measures to exchange ratifications at the earliest possible moment. The ratifications have been sent out to Constantinople, to be exchanged there with the ratifications of the Turkish Government, and by that means time will be saved of sending here and to Paris the ratifications of the Turkish Government. I am not able, of course, to state the day, but it will be done as soon as possible. The convention will require the sanction of Parliament before it has force.

I observe it stated in the French account that the convention was concluded on the 27th of last month. Is that so? The words of the French Government are—"convention conclue."

It was signed by the Plenipotentiaries on that day.

I want to know whether the noble Lord means, by a joint guarantee, that the whole 5,000,000l. are guaranteed by the French and English Governments, or that each Government guarantees one-half—that is to say 2,500,000l. each on their own account?

It is a joint guarantee for the whole.

having brought up the papers respecting the Austrian proposals, said: These are papers, Sir, connected with the late negotiations at Vienna, and I maybe allowed, perhaps, to take this opportunity, though not very strictly in order, of adverting to the notice which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) for this evening, that he will move that the orders tomorrow be postponed for the purpose of enabling the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Lytton) to bring on his Motion. I wish to state, for the convenience of the House, that to that Motion Her Majesty's Government feel it their duty to object, and for this reason—these papers will not be in the hands of Members until to-morrow, and we think it not fair or right that the House should come to discuss the question so early as to-morrow, when Members will not have had opportunity or time to read the papers or inform themselves of their contents. Beyond to-morrow we shall offer no impediment to any arrangement which the hon. Baronet may have made with regard to his Motion.

said, I will take this opportunity to refer to a statement which was made in my absence by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), or rather it was a question addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman—whether or not I had obtained Her Majesty's consent to the statement I had made with respect to the proceedings of the Cabinet of which I am a Member? Now, Sir, what I had stated with regard to the Cabinet was either perfectly known, or might have been inferred, from the course of events which followed. Count Buol had thought proper to issue a circular, which appeared in the public papers, in which he refers to confidential communications with M. Drouyn de Lhuys and myself. I stated that those communications had been considered by Her Majesty's advisers. I believe that no one could suppose, seeing in the public papers that the Austrian Government had made propositions with the view either to put an end to hostilities or to take part in the war, that the English Government would have refused to look at or consider those propositions. I stated further, that upon a full consideration these propositions had not been assented to. I conceived that every one might have been aware of that, because, if they had been assented to, there must have been further communications with Russia, and further conferences. The fact would have been notorious that negotiations were going on, instead of its being stated, as it was in this House, that the negotiations were closed. So that, in fact, there was nothing in what I stated which seemed to me to make it necessary for me to ask the leave of Her Majesty to communicate. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman has raised the question, I have submitted the subject to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to sanction the statement which I made. Having made this explanation to the right hon. Gentleman, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that, with respect to what I stated on a former night, a very erroneous inference has been drawn. As so much had been published, I thought it necessary to state what the Austrian propositions were, and what was my opinion with respect to them. It has been inferred and supposed, because I said that at the end of April and in the first days of May I thought those propositions might have been assented to, that I think now, at the present moment, those propositions may form a foundation for peace. Such a supposition would be totally erroneous. It is entirely contrary to the fact that I consider now those propositions would form the foundation of peace. It was my opinion—and, as I stated the other day, I retain the opinion as to what might have been done; but, after the events and proceedings which have since occurred, I believe nothing but a vigorous prosecution of the war will obtain terms upon which a satisfactory peace can be concluded.

Sir, it occurs to me that as the First Minister of the Crown has not thought fit to fix a day for the discussion of the Motion of my hon. Friend (Sir B. Lytton), it would have been more consistent if his noble colleague had not taken this opportunity to make a statement explanatory of the lengthened and matured narrative with which he favoured the House of Commons on Friday night, and which has so greatly disquieted the public mind. Now, Sir, I do not see that the statement which the noble Lord has made at all changes his situation with regard to the House, and, as respects the narrative which he made on Friday night, I did not hear that anybody then hinted as a consequence of the speech of the noble Lord, that he was at this moment of opinion that peace ought to be negotiated with Russia upon the basis of the propositions which he approved at the time he has now mentioned. That was a point which was not at all brought under consideration. What did startle the House, and I think I may say, greatly disquieted the public mind of this country, was that it came out, not by hazard, but with notice formally given, and evidently in a manner well matured, it came out on the part of the noble Lord that he had returned to England with a project of pacification which he approved, but which I believe the great majority of the House and of the country, neither at that time nor at the present time, would sanction; that he had recommended that project to his colleagues; that, in consequence of their ultimate refusal to adopt it, he had felt he was bound to consider whether it was not his duty to retire from the Government; and though, influenced by other considerations, he remained a member of the Administration, he shortly afterwards came down to this House and made a speech which conveyed to the country the impression that he was an uncompromising advocate of the war; that he had returned from Vienna with the conviction that an uncompromising prosecution of the war was absolutely necessary, and conveying also to the House the idea that he was convinced, from his experience in the Conferences at Vienna, that any attempt at negotiation with any reasonable hopes of success was utterly impossible—thereby conveying to Parliament and the country an impression which seems to me, and I think I may say to the majority of the House, to be utterly inconsistent with the facts of the case. Now, Sir, I do not think the statement which the noble Lord has just made—the announcement to the country that he is really in favour of a vigorous prosecution of the war—will greatly reassure the daunted spirit of the nation. Sir, I make no remark upon the observations of the noble Lord with respect to the question I was obliged to put in his absence on Tuesday night—a most constitutional question. The noble Lord has admitted that he had not the Royal sanction to make the communication with respect to what had taken place in the Cabinet with which he favoured the House the other night. He seems to think it was a matter of course that he should detail such facts to the House—that we had other means of getting the information with which he favoured us. But what really took place? The noble Lord informed the House that there had been discussions and differences of opinion in the Cabinet; that, in consequence of those discussions and differences of opinion on the most important subject of the age, the noble Lord even contemplated the necessity of tendering his resignation; that he was influenced by other considerations not to take that step, and then the noble Lord says we might have learnt all this from the usual organs of information, or from the circular of a foreign Minister. I differ entirely from the noble Lord. I say it was totally impossible for the House of Commons to have become aware of such a state of affairs had it not been for the communication of the noble Lord; and in making that communication, the noble Lord favoured the House with details of the confidential councils of Her Majesty. I have yet to learn that the noble Lord was authorized to take that step without having previously obtained the gracious sanction of Her Majesty. I have now to address myself to the remarks of the First Minister of the Crown, who seems to think that I was irregular in making those observations. Now, Sir, the noble Lord has found fault with the notice of Motion which I have placed upon the table for to-night, which was necessary to insure to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire an opportunity of being brought forward to-morrow night. Let me ask the House to remember for a moment the circumstances under which that notice was given. It was on Friday night last that the noble Lord made that speech which has created so painful an impression upon the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire only anticipated, I am sure, the general feeling of the House and of the country in his conviction, that no time should be lost in bringing the opinion of the House to bear upon the statement of the Minister. What was the position in which the House and the country found themselves placed after the debate of Friday night? Here we are involved in a war of magnitude—a war which certainly demands the exertion of our utmost energies, and, on the part of the nation, that firmness of spirit which can only result from having a clear idea of what is at stake, and a conviction that those who are intrusted with the management of affairs are determined to use their utmost efforts in pursuance of that policy which the country has sanctioned. They suddenly find, at the very moment that one of the most eminent members of the Cabinet—an individual who has himself occupied the exalted position of First Minister for several years—they suddenly find that at the very moment when, some weeks ago, that noble Lord was addressing the country through this House, in a tone which conveyed to them the conviction, on his part, that this country was embarked in one of those great struggles which affect the destinies of nations, and that we should summon all our energies for the contest—that a very few days before that address was made, the noble Lord had recommended to his colleagues to end the quarrel in a manner which, if it he sanctioned by Parliament, proves that there is no issue at stake to justify the immense exertions we have made, and are called upon to make. I say the speech of the noble Lord on Friday night has greatly disquieted the public mind, and it has become inevitable that not a moment should be lost in taking the opinion of Parliament on the position of the Government, as at present constituted, and of taking a direct vote whether we have confidence in councils so swayed at a moment of such national exigency. It happens that we know from a declaration made by a member of the Administration, who was most competent to give proper information on the subject, that the House is to go into Committee of Supply to-morrow. Well, that was the earliest opportunity my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire could command, and it was also the most constitutional one. It is on such occasions that the grievances of the people should be brought under the consideration of this House for redress and remedy, and I want to know what national grievance is so great as that the country should be involved in a war of magnitude conducted by Ministers who are not unanimous in opinion as to the necessity for that war? Well, my hon. Friend (Sir B. Lytton) gave his notice, and what then happened? The noble Lord the Leader of the House instantly changes the order of business for Friday, and with the recollection of last Friday's debate still in his memory, and knowing, as every gentleman in this House knows, whatever his opinions may be, that no other subject than that has occupied the public mind since the notice of my hon. Friend was given, the noble Lord, when asked, in due form, what business he would proceed with on Friday, says, with great composure, "The New Partnership Bill and the Limited Liability Bill." These are the measures of deep and absorbing interest which are to be introduced to the consideration of the House of Commons at a moment when there is not a man walking the streets of London who is not asking, "What is to be the fate of my country if it is involved in a great war, and that war is to be prosecuted by a Cabinet which is not unanimous as to the necessity of the war? The new Partnership Bill? What the people of England want to know is the condition of the partnership in Downing Street. They want to know whether the principle of limited liability is prevalent in that locality, or whether the people are still to enjoy that general and collected responsibility of Ministers of the Crown, which hitherto has been the salutary and constitutional practice. Sir, the noble Lord seemed to demur to an observation of mine just now—he seemed to express his incredulity at my statement, that it had been his intention to go into Committee of Supply on Friday night. Well, suppose it was not his intention, I say it was the duty of the noble Lord to go into Committee of Supply. All I can say is I received authentic information—it was known to many Gentlemen on both sides—that the Government would go into Committee of Supply on Friday. But if that was not the intention of the noble Lord, I say—after the notice of my hon. Friend—he should have said, "We will give the earliest opportunity for testing the opinion of the House of Commons upon a question of this kind." Why, Sir, heretofore it has been the invariable custom of Ministers, when the confidence of the House in their policy has been questioned, to bring the matter as speedily as possible to an issue. But let the House consider the peculiar circumstances under which the question of confidence in the Government, as at present constituted, was to be brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire. It is not merely England, but it is Europe, that is watching anxiously for the discussion now impending. I should have thought that the noble Lord would seize the earliest opportunity to settle a question so important, and would not have remained with the energies of the Government paralysed, and the character of the Government impaired, by a Motion of this gravity impending over him. It is the general feeling of the country, and, I may say, without prejudging the issue of the discussion, of the House also, that upon this subject an early, an immediate, and, I will add, a complete discussion ought to take place. Now, Sir, what does the noble Lord say to-night? He says:—"Here are some papers which ought to be placed on the table, and which ought to be read by hon. Members before they venture to express any opinions upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire. "Well, I must say, with my view of the question at issue, that it is one which can be but little affected by any papers which can be laid upon the table. We have something more authentic than any diplomatic documents to guide our judgments on the present occasion. We have the most authentic evidence in the world. We have, Sir, the speech of a Cabinet Minister, the principal actor on the scene; and it is on his own confession, on his own revelations, on his own evidence, that I am perfectly prepared to form my opinion and to give my vote. No doubt, if the Minister rose and said that he thought it would be more consonant with justice—and which I hope will ever pervade and influence the discussions of this House—not to proceed with the debate to-morrow, the House would have assented to his proposal. I should not have raised any objection to the course he proposed if he had acted with frankness, and said he would allow the discussion to come on upon Monday; or if he had said, "When you have digested these papers I shall be prepared to give you a day." Did the noble Lord say that? No; the noble Lord stated that in the course of next week, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman might find an opportunity to bring his Motion forward. [Cries of "No, no!"] I appeal to the House if it was not so. Did the noble Lord say that he would go into Committee of Supply on Monday? Not a word of it; and I dare say he intended to take the Scotch Education Bill on that day, or if not then, to conclude the debate on the Limited Liability Bill, and, perhaps, take a vote upon that all-interesting subject. If the noble Lord says that on Monday he will go into Committee of Supply, so that my hon. Friend may then bring forward his Motion, and so that we may have a full discussion on this important subject, of course I shall not trouble the House with the Motion which I have placed upon the paper. Whatever I may think of the influence of these documents upon our opinion, it will be quite enough for such an intimation to come from a person in the position of the noble Lord to induce me to accede to it. But at the same time I say that it ought to be coupled with a clear intimation from the noble Lord of the time when the discussion will take place. If the noble Lord had risen to state that on Monday the discussion would take place, all that I should have done would be to ask the permission of the House not to press the Motion of which I have given notice for this evening. Of course, I shall persevere with that Motion, and shall ask the opinion of the House upon it unless I obtain from the noble Lord that which I am sure hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House expect—namely, an intimation that hon. Members will receive these papers to-morrow, and that he will on Monday next either give my hon. Friend a day on which to bring forward his Motion, or go into Committee of Supply and allow him to fulfil his original intention.

Really, Sir, I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman has made "much ado about nothing." In the first place, with regard to what passed upon a former occasion, I am not aware that my hon. Friend fixed the Committee of Supply to take place on Friday otherwise than in the way in which the Committee of Supply is always postponed, as a matter of course, from one Supply day to another. But this I will say, that if I had fixed the Committee of Supply for Friday, seeing the condition in which the House is placed with regard to the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Lytton) seeing that the papers, with all the efforts that have been made to expedite them, could not be laid upon the table till to-night, and that they would not be in the hands of hon. Members till to-morrow, I should have pursued in regard to the Committee of Supply the same course which I announced my intention of pursuing with regard to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, I should have postponed the Committee of Supply, as I intended to oppose the Motion, for the special and avowed purpose of deferring the discussion of the question until the papers had been in the possession of hon. Members time enough to enable them to read them. I do not shrink from the avowal that I should have taken that course if it had been necessary for me to do so. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, as I have already said before, makes "much ado about nothing," because what I stated was this:—I stated my objection to take a discussion to-morrow on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire, and also the reason why I entertained the objection; but I said that after to-morrow I should throw no difficulty in the way of any arrangement which the hon. Baronet might desire to make. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman objects to the totum as not including the pars. Why if I gave the hon. Baronet a whole week, surely I gave him Monday, if Monday would suit him. It was not for me to settle matters between the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Lytton) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), who has a notice upon the paper for the next day. I think it would have been very unbecoming for me to fix a positive day for the discussion of a Motion which might last probably more than one day. I thought that it would be best not to interfere with the Motions of hon. Members, and I left them to make their own arrangements. At the same time I am perfectly prepared to say that if the hon. Baronet wishes to make his Motion on Monday, on Monday I will move the Committee of Supply. I have no wish to shrink from the discussion, and I have nothing whatever to gain from postponing it. I quite understand, and I am sure the House will understand, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), having found that several Motions of censure and want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government had failed, in consequence of the House understanding the subject that was to be discussed, was desirous of hurrying on the Motion of the hon. Baronet before hon. Members had made themselves properly acquainted with the question. It was a perfectly legitimate tactic on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and the House will quite comprehend it. It shows exactly the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the case which he has to urge, inasmuch as he feels the great importance of enabling the House to come to a decision upon the subject before they know anything of the real matter under discussion. I have now only one word more to add with regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to what has fallen from my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell). The right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the remarks of my noble Friend as to the statement which he made on a former occasion, respecting a decision of the Cabinet, but he seems to think that, in stating generally that a certain proposition was considered and not adopted, my noble Friend forgot his duty as a Privy Councillor. Why, seldom n, week passes in this House that some Member does not get up in his place and ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will agree to certain things, or whether they have adopted a certain measure. It is absolutely necessary that we should state what the decisions of the Government are; but I never before heard any Member pretend to say that the announcement in public, either in this House or elsewhere, of the decision of the Government upon any given proposition was a departure from the duty of a Privy Councillor or a betrayal of the secrets of the Cabinet. It would be perfectly impossible to carry on the business of this House in a manner satisfactory to the House and to the public, if the Members of the Government were never to be allowed to state what was the general decision of the Government upon any question which might be brought before them. At present I shall not enter into any further details, but I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman that he and his hon. Friend (Sir B. Lytton) may have Monday to do what they please with it, and that the hon. Baronet will meet with no obstruction in bringing forward his Motion.

Sir, the noble Lord has said that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) has made "much ado about nothing." I am not surprised to hear such an observation from the noble Lord, for, if I am not much mistaken, in point of chronological order "Much Ado about Nothing" comes just after "the Comedy of Errors." As to the production of the papers, I do not think anything they contain can in any way enlighten the House upon the question it is my intention to submit to it. I am glad, however, that hon. Members will have an opportunity of looking into them before we go into that discussion. It is not my wish—nor do I believe it to be the wish, of any Member of the House—that anything unfair should be done towards the Government. And if there be a single point upon which an error can be removed by the information which the papers contain, I shall be glad that the House should make itself thoroughly acquainted with all the matters contained in these documents. So far as they are concerned, I willingly accept the excuse offered for this delay by the noble Lord. And upon the understanding that the papers will be in the hands of Members to-morrow, I accept the day the noble Lord proposes to give me. Will the noble Lord, however, allow me to observe—as it was suggested to me—it would be more convenient and more suited to the gravity of the question, if he would allow me to bring it forward as a substantive Motion, rather than as an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply? I am to understand that I am to bring forward my Motion on Monday next.

I have no objection.

Then I have nothing further to say, except that I accept the day which the noble Lord has proposed.

said, he was anxious that the subject should not drop before the attention of the House was called to the striking discrepancy that existed between the statement of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that evening, and that which he had made on a former occasion. In describing the substance of Count Buol's circular, he (Sir J. Walsh) had at that time referred to the fact that Count Buol stated that he was prepared to submit an ultimatum to Russia, founded on the proposals which he had laid before the noble Lord; that he was prepared, if these proposals were adopted by England and France, to lay them before Russia in the shape of an ultimatum, and to make it a casus belli if Russia should refuse to accept it; and that the noble Lord gave his full adhesion and approval to those proposals, and agreed to press their adoption upon his Government with all the influence he possessed. The noble Lord, however, in the statement with which he had just favoured the House, had entirely omitted to notice those material circumstances which identified him personally, in the eyes of Europe, with the acceptance of these propositions, and merely observed, in a sort of cursory manner, that of course, as a matter of courtesy to Austria, it followed that he should not reject and refuse them; that they were submitted on his return to the Cabinet, and that the Cabinet rejected them. He (Sir J. Walsh) thought the important point as regarded the noble Lord was that, according to the statement of Count Buol, he had identified himself personally with the proposals which had been made; that he had agreed to support, and had given his whole adhesion to them; and that, when he had been requested either to affirm or to deny the correctness of Count Buol's statement, he had acknowledged its accuracy in the most comprehensive terms. That was a most material difference, and he should be unwilling that the House, many of the Members of which might have been absent when the noble Lord replied to his question, should take their impression from the extremely slight and soft statement with which the noble Lord had favoured the House that evening. Before he sat down he might address a few observations with reference to the two Motions of which notice had been given. It was perfectly true, as had been suggested, that the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Lytton) were so similar in character that they involved the same considerations, and, no doubt, there would be some inconvenience if they were both pressed simultaneously on the attention of the House. It was very probable, considering the magnitude of the question and the importance and comprehensiveness of the subject, which would be opened by the Motion of the hon. Baronet, that the debate upon that Motion would be adjourned. Now, what was the present position of the House with respect to the question of foreign policy at the present moment? His right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) brought forward his Motion before Whitsuntide. That Motion bore upon the state of things existing at that time—there was an adjourned debate. Whitsuntide intervened, the negotiations were brought to a close, and all the important changes took place which resulted from the close of the conferences. The papers were quite ready at that time to be submitted to the consideration of the House, and they ought to have been enabled to form a conclusion on the complete state of things. The Motion of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) was, therefore, nugatory, and conveyed no expression whatever of the real sentiments of the House upon that important question. Two questions would now be raised by the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire—first, a question involving the individual character of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London as a statesman, and the claim which he would hereafter have on the confidence of the House and the country. Considering the importance of the position filled by the noble Lord in that House as well as in the country, that question was by no means a light one. But there was another question not less important. It appeared clearly from the statements which had been made, that there had been two parties in the Cabinet, of which the noble Lord was a Member, one inclining to the acceptance of the last Austrian proposition, and another against that acceptance. He presumed that, as those propositions had been rejected, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had supported that side of the question. Still it was a most important question to decide, whether he was right or wrong in rejecting those Austrian propositions and prosecuting the war. That was the real question of peace or war, as it now stood before the House, and it was a subject of so large a nature, embracing so many considerations, that he did not think it could be determined in the course of one evening. He put it, therefore, to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, whether it would not be desirable to make some arrangement by which his Motion should not interfere with the progress of the debate on the Motion to be brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire?

Sir, the House will probably consider that I ought to make some statement after the appeal which has been made to me. I believe that the question about to be proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire is really one of the most important that can be submitted to the House. I think that the two questions ought not to be before the House at the same time; and, therefore, if the debate should be adjourned on Monday I shall accede to the wish of the House, and postpone the Motion of which I have given notice. I have only one object in view, and I believe that I shall best attain my object by adopting that course.

Sir, after what the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh) has stated, I must say that nothing which I have said this evening is at all inconsistent with the answer which I gave upon a former occasion.

said, he would beg to inquire of the Government whether the circular of Count Buol was among the papers to be laid on the table of the House?

I do not think that that circular is in the possession of Her Majesty's Government.

said, he must ask the indulgence of the House while he made one effort more to defeat a measure, the passing of which he should much deplore. The preamble of the Bill, in the first place, cast a slur upon the Church of Scotland, into whose charge the schools had been committed, which drew from its members a strenuous opposition to the Bill. It was to the efforts of the Church in Scotland that the successful education of the people was owing, and its members disapproved the mode of government by a central Board in Edinburgh, the religious qualifications of the members of which were not tested. If they could secure a certainty that the schools would be conducted upon Presbyterian principles, he might feel justified in withdrawing his opposition; but the most important powers were given to the Board—the power of examining schoolmasters, of deprivation and censure, of forcing the ratepayers to erect schools, and of taxing them for their support. Such powers ought not to be given to a Board when there was no security that it would be composed of members belonging to the Church. He should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

said, he would now propose the addition of a clause, providing that—

"In parishes in which schools have been established under the third recited Act it shall be lawful to the Committee of Privy Council to contribute such sum to the salary of the schoolmaster of every such school as will, in addition to the sum provided under the said Act, raise the same to a sum not less than 20l., nor more than 34l.; and the Board, on the report of the inspector, may direct that any such school shall be placed on the footing of a public school; and in that case the sum provided by the said Act shall continue to be paid as heretofore, and the remainder of the salary shall be contributed in equal proportions by the ratepayers and the Committee of Council; and the school-house, school buildings, and other accommodations shall thereafter belong to and be maintained by the same parties who would have had the property and control of the same if a public school-house had been provided under this Act, and such school shall in all other respects be thereafter conducted and maintained as a public school under this Act."

said, the clause would give a large taxing power to the Board over the people of Scotland.

said, he must again protest against proceeding with a Bill, the third reading of which had been carried by so narrow a majority as three, and to which he was justified in saying the popular feeling of Scotland was opposed. He would appeal to the good sense of the Government, whether it was wise under the circumstances and at a time when a vital question involving the fate of the Ministry was impending, to cast the firebrand of religious bigotry amongst the people of Scotland, which the Bill now before them would have the effect of doing? It was a Bill for benefiting one or two denominations at the expense of all others. Generally speaking, the people of Scotland were opposed to all State interference and State assistance in matters of religion and education, and would not accept it. The United Presbyterians would not touch the State money for such purposes, and the result would be, that one or two denominations, and those alone, would receive assistance under the Bill.

said, that the representatives of many of the largest towns in Scotland who were originally in favour of the Bill, in consequence of the change in the public mind of that country on the subject, had in the division which had just taken place reversed their previous votes, and had done so in a manner most honourable to themselves. He trusted that the Government would in like manner pay respect to that change of opinion, and not press the measure.

said, he had supported the Bill at each of its previous stages, but had felt it his duty to vote against the third reading. The Bill, as it now stood, was most objectionable in many respects. Under it the boroughs would be but little better than taxing machines in the hands of the inspector, the magistrates, who were the best judges of what was required, being practically powerless. He had been most desirous of carrying an Education Bill that should be practically useful, but with the restrictions which now incumbered it, he had no hesitation in saying that the measure now under consideration would be received with great dissatisfaction. There certainly were Amendments on the paper, which, if carried, would tend to remove some of the objections to the Bill, particularly that of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop), which he should support.

said, he concurred very much in the views of his hon. Friend who had last addressed them, although he had differed from him in the course he had taken, and had voted with the majority in favour of the third reading. If, however, the Motion had been "that the Bill do pass," he should certainly have felt inclined to vote in the negative. The reason for that was, that the various Amendments on the paper, and particularly that of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock, afforded him the hope that possibly the House might reverse the decision to which the Committee had come. There was a great deal of good in the Bill, but, in his opinion, it had been very much impaired in its progress through Committee. He regretted exceedingly the change which the Government had introduced some time ago, by which, as regarded the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, the Bill had been made a denominational Bill. The effect of such an alteration would be to confuse the system of education in Scotland, and to make it no longer thoroughly national. Now, according to his judgment, a system of education ought to be either national or denominational—not mixed; and he could not, therefore, conceive anything more prejudicial than such a continuance of denominational grants as had been promised by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He regretted, on account of the Lord Advocate himself, that his right hon. and learned Friend had no longer a prospect of passing the Bill, for he was sure no one could have devoted himself to a thankless task with more singleness of purpose and a more earnest desire to promote the welfare of those for whom he was legislating. But, if defeated now, he hoped that in another Session, hon. Members on both sides, putting aside extreme views, would concur with his right hon. and learned Friend in a measure which would so tend to advance the best interests of the people of Scotland.

said, he had very cordially supported the Bill hitherto, in the hope that some of the clauses which he thought objectionable would be expunged. He was connected with the United Presbyterian Church, a great majority of whom had supported the measure as he had done, approving of its principle, though they objected strongly to the religious element infused into it, and held that the State, while it might beneficially legislate for the education of the people, had no right to interfere with the teaching of religion. He admired the benevolent feelings by which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had been actuated in bringing forward the Bill; but, at the same time, he was very sorry to have come to the conclusion that night, that he had entirely failed in carrying out his object, and that if the measure passed it would be a bone of contention to the people of Scotland, and would not promote the cause of education there. He had, therefore, been obliged, though with great reluctance, to record his vote against the third reading.

said, he had felt very strongly disposed to join the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Duncan) in his opposition to the Bill, but he thought it more expedient and more just to give it the last chance, and to see what became of the Amendments upon the notice paper. He gave the Lord Advocate full credit for the motives which had induced him to bring forward the measure, but he thought some further time ought to be afforded to the people of Scotland, who were much divided in opinion on the subject, for considering its provisions. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock, the object of which was to replace the measure on its original basis, should not be adopted, he should feel it his duty to vote against the passing of the Bill.

said, he could not avoid expressing his surprise that some of his hon. Friends who had joined him in endeavouring to improve the measure had, now that it had reached its last stage, turned their backs upon it altogether. He would ask those hon. Gentlemen whether they were prepared to oppose all progress on such an important subject because they could not obtain everything they desired? He thought the Bill contained some very beneficial provisions, and, regarding it as an instalment, he considered that it should be supported by all who were anxious to promote education. He had entertained some objection to those compulsory powers which would be conferred by the Bill; but, on consideration, he thought that, as great necessity existed for extending the means of education in Scotland, perhaps the wisest course would be, in the first instance, to give those compulsory powers. Last year there was a unanimous expression of regret in Scotland that the Bill had not passed, and there was a hope that a similar measure would be passed during the present Session; and he did not hear that any change of opinion had taken place on the subject.

said, he had very carefully considered the provisions of the Bill, and had arrived at the conclusion that it was not likely to benefit his country or to promote concord among his countrymen. He did not mean to say that the parish clergymen of Scotland had not acted well in the position in which they had been placed, but he thought one objectionable feature of the Bill was, that it would leave them the same monopoly of parochial education which they now possessed. The Bill would establish a system of education which could only be accepted by the Free Church and the Established Church, and which would be rejected by the religious body with which he was connected. He had voted against the third reading of the Bill, and if an opportunity were presented he would record his vote against its passing. He hoped that, seeing the very small majority in favour of the Bill on the third reading—105 to 102—and that there was not the least chance of its passing in another place, the right hon. and learned Lord would let the Bill share the fate of some others, and withdraw it from the House. There was, no doubt, some want of education in Scotland, but that want, he believed, was being rapidly supplied by the voluntary contributions of the people.

said, he would now move the following additional clause:—

"If any person or persons shall wilfully refuse to perform any duty incumbent on him or them under this Act, it shall be in the power of the General Board to apply by summary petition to the Court of Session, setting forth such refusal; and it shall be in the power of the Court, on considering the same, after such intimation and service as they may think necessary, to authorise the Board to perform or to provide for the performance of such duty in such way and manner as the Court may direct; provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit any remedy at law which any party might have in respect of such refusal."

said, the clause was very objectionable in itself, and so was the principle of bringing up so many additional clauses to a Bill at that late stage. The Bill was so vaguely worded, that it was found requisite to put the powers of Parliament into the hands of the Court of Session in Scotland. That was the object of the clause, and he should vote against it, therefore, if the clause went to a division.

said, the clause was necessary for the due enforcement of the law. It was absolutely necessary that such a power should be vested in the Court of Session in cases where a party who was bound to perform certain functions or do certain acts wilfully neglected to do so, and it was only in such cases that it was to be exercised.

said, the clause was a most objectionable and arbitrary mode of legislating on a subject on which there should be nothing but harmony. He did not see how the noble Lord at the head of the Government, after what had passed, could persist in forcing such a Bill down the throats of the Scotch public. He hoped, however—though the Bill was, in his opinion, a dead Bill—that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would state to the House that he should not proceed further with it.

said, any person enjoined by statute to do a particular duty could, by the law of England and Ireland, be compelled to discharge the duty if he neglected it; but by the proposed clause, the Court of Session was to provide some one else to discharge the duty. He wished to know whether the law of Scotland differed in that respect from that of other countries?

said, it was the law of Scotland, as of every other country, that, if any one neglected a statutory duty, he could be punished; but in the present case it was most material that the action of the Bill should not suffer in the event of persons refusing to obey the statute. A person, for example, might illegally decline to call a meeting, and it was right, therefore, that the Court of Session, being satisfied upon the point, should have power to authorise the Board to call such a meeting.

said, that as the Bill would probably not pass through another place, he would appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to say whether he meant to go on with the Bill.

said, he certainly intended to take the sense of the House upon the question of passing the Bill, as it had been very deliberately considered, and, in his opinion, it was a very good measure. The opinion he had expressed upon its merits had not been shaken by the sudden conversion of some of the hon. Gentlemen near him at the last stage of its progress. He knew that a pressure was sometimes put upon hon. Members, but, although that might be a sufficient reason for those hon. Members to defer to the opinions of the persons who had sent them to that House, it was no reason for others who did not happen to be exposed to the same pressure to alter the opinions they had formed.

said, he would now move to leave out the word "Perth" in Clauses 13 and 15, and to substitute the word "Aberdeen." He must deprecate the language of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) in opposing his proposition on a former occasion, as uncourteous and inconsiderate, and thought that hon. Member would have acted more wisely if he had not made statements on the subject without foundation. Aberdeen had always held the place next in education after Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland; and he (Mr. Thompson) thought the advice of the right hon. and learned Member for Bute (Mr. S. Wortley) to reverse the terms of the Bill, and give the Member to the county of Perth and to the city of Aberdeen, correct, and in accordance with that he had framed his Amendment. While giving credit to the Lord Advocate for good intentions, however, he was bound to say that the Bill pleased nobody; and he (Mr. Thompson) would vote against the Motion for its passing.

said, he regretted exceedingly if he had said anything disrespectful to the hon. Member, for such was not his intention. The hon. Member had told him that he was pressed by his constituents, and he (Mr. Kinnaird) had said he would oppose him. What he said he had said jocularly, and he was quite surprised the hon. Gentleman should have taken it so seriously.

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, though, if he went to a division, he (Mr. Craufurd) should feel bound to vote in favour of it. He would suggest to the right hon. and learned Lord that, as Dundee had now repudiated his measure, he might get out of the present difficulty, by inserting "Aberdeen" instead of "Dundee" in the clause.

said that, as Dundee had been mentioned, he would take that opportunity to reply to the remark made by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), as to a "pressure" having been used to cause hon. Members to alter their opinions. He had not received one letter from his constituents on the subject, and had that morning presented a petition from the town-council of Dundee, against the Bill. Yet he had, with the exception of an Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Lord, supported the Bill in all its stages. It would be seen, therefore, that the "pressure" which had been brought to bear on himself had been very slight, and he hoped that the "pressure" which would shortly be brought to bear on the noble Lord would be equally as light.

said, he would now move to leave out in page 7, lines 23 and 24, the words "in regard to his sufficiency for the office in respect of literature." It was his hope that the Government would not give up the Bill on account of the modifications it had received in its passage through the House. He believed that, notwithstanding he and others might have preferred it in its original form, it would work well as it now stood. By the Bill at present, however, no schoolmaster could be admitted to his office without the attestation of the presbytery of the Established Church with respect to his moral and religious character. Now, that was inconsistent with those portions of the Bill which abolished all religious tests upon the appointment of schoolmasters; and the object of his Amendment was to harmonise the two discordant parts of the Bill.

said, he cordially seconded the Amendment, for he was satisfied that the Bill would be hailed by the people of Scotland as an instalment of good, and as a step in the right direction. He certainly objected to some of the details, but he was not one of those who, because they could not get all they wished, were determined to reject all the advantages that were offered.

said, he could not conceive, after the division of that night, that the Bill would be pressed further. It would be his duty still to give the measure all the opposition in his power.

said, that whatever might be the future prospects of the Bill, he was convinced that a great advance had been made in the solution of the difficult question of education in Scotland, for they had done what had never been done before—read an education Bill a third time—and he was not without hope, notwithstanding the narrow division upon the Bill that evening, that it would become the law of the land. He would take that opportunity of warning hon. Members opposite of the danger which arose from the circumstance that in different parts of the kingdom generations were growing up without knowledge; that we were allowing the nurseries of crime to increase; and that, while hon. Members in that House were discussing these miserable abstract questions, the mischief was being done, day by day, and year by year. By giving such prominence to these abstract questions, hon. Members opposite were raising insurmountable barriers, not in the way of the Bill now before them, but of every educational system that could be devised. Objections had been made to continuing the Privy Council grants to Catholics. But he believed that it was impossible to have a system which would embrace Catholics and Episcopalians. What he wanted was, to see a system by which the people of Scotland might be educated. His object in framing the Bill was, in the first place, to secure that the measure should provide a school in every place where it was required. He denied that the Bill would dry up the ordinary sources of private benevolence. Already, he believed, the people of Scotland subscribed more than the people of England to the cause of education. The people of Scotland had a national system of education and a school in every parish, yet that system had only excited the General Assembly of the Established Church to do their best to overcome the deficiencies of the national system of education. The argument that they were to perpetuate ignorance in order to promote benevolence would induce them to perpetuate pauperism from the same motive, and would lead generally to the promotion of that which was evil in order that the great and good affections of our nature might be stimulated. It was said that there was no necessity for the Bill, and that voluntary efforts would do all that was wanted. But the General Assembly of the Established Church, in a Report recently presented, stated that in the Highlands there were from 20,000 to 30,000 children without the means of education. Whether the Bill should succeed or not, he should continue of opinion that no voluntary efforts could supply the necessity. Voluntary efforts could only avail in districts having wealth and riches. Where education was really wanted voluntaryism must fail, because it was in the poor districts that education was wanted. In twelve counties of Scotland there was no Roman Catholic place of worship. There were only thirty-two Roman Catholic schools in the country, and thirty-six Episcopalian schools, all the rest were Presbyterian; and yet, he must say to their disgrace, they were talking about religious differences. He warned hon. Gentlemen that if they rejected the Bill the people of Scotland would not submit to have the Established Church jurisdiction perpetuated over the whole of the schools of the country. He should be greatly mistaken if it were possible to introduce any measure with a chance of success which gave the Established Church and the heritors as much influence as they obtained under the present Bill. His doubt had, indeed, been from the communications made to him, whether he had not left rather too much power in their hands. The members of the Established Church of Scotland were only one- third in number of those who agreed in creed, and it was not likely that they could succeed in retaining the exclusive privileges which they claimed. He opposed the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock, because it would put both the schoolmasters and the Presbytery in a false position. There was one topic on which he felt it incumbent to say a word. The hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. F. Scott) said that the cost of the present measure would be about 250,000l. a year, and the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) went further, and said the expense would amount to 450,000l. The latter hon. Member stated that there were 5,000 schools in Scotland, all which were to be paid under the Bill. But the hon. Member did not tell the House how that number was made up. It was made up of public day schools and private day schools. The Bill, however, had nothing to do with the private day schools, which amounted in number to 1,893, and deducting from the remainder, being public schools, the endowed schools, the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian schools, the ragged and other schools of that kind, there would be left an amount of 2,316 public schools to which the Bill would apply. That was really very near the number with which they would start, for he did not think that, at first at all events, they would have more than one additional school in each parish, with 500 in the different burghs. Would the cost of the system be 450,000l.? Far from it. He would show the House that it would not be even 100,000l. There were 937 parochial schools. Under the Bill they were to have 16l. each, or 14,992l. in all. The number of other schools, according to his calculation, would be 1,379, costing 25l. each—total 34,475l. Retiring allowances he estimated at 4,000l., the interest of the 150,000l. advanced as a building fund at between 7,000l. and 8,000l., and the expenses of the Board and inspectors at 12,000l. bringing the total up to about 72,000l. But of the 2,316 schools, about a half were receiving Government aid to the extent of 40,000l. Under the new system those payments would cease; but instead of deducting the whole he would take off only a half, or 20,000l., reducing the expense of the Bill, for the first year, to 52,000l. He was sure that sum could not be expended in a more beneficial or praiseworthy manner than in the education of the young. The return would be tenfold, and would be found in diminished poor-rates and expenses of crime, in the improvement of morals, and in the general amelioration of the country. He rejoiced at the progress which had been already made, and he hoped that the House, whatever might become of the Bill, would, by its vote to-night, evince its continued adherence to the great principle that it was the duty of the nation to educate the young, and that in the education of the mind—in the spread of moral and religious knowledge—dwelt the real safety and hope of the country.

said, he thought that the right hon. and learned Lord had taken a strange opportunity, upon an Amendment, to make a speech upon the whole principle of the Bill, assuming, at the same time, that those who voted against the Bill were not in favour of public education. Every one, he trusted, was in favour of education, but every one did not think that the present Bill would effect the object well. The right hon. and learned Lord said, on a former occasion, that he meant to absorb the whole of the private schools.

Not by paying them out of the public purse, but by setting up free schools under the present Bill.

As the proportion of children now educated in Scotland was one in seven, and as it was intended to bring that down to one in five, with a population of 600,000 children, and assuming that one schoolmaster could not attend to more than 100 pupils, there would necessarily be 6,000 schools. That was one way of putting it, but, taking the number of schools at present at 5,240, it was not unreasonable to suppose the number would be increased to 6,000; and thus, by another process, they arrived at the same result. It was agreed that the cost would be 35l. each, and that would give 175,000l., not reckoning the 1,000 old schools. He did not say that would be the sum which the schools would cost next year, but he had not the slightest doubt that would be the ultimate cost. At present the schools were inspected but seldom, and in a cursory way. To inspect them properly twice a year would require an inspector for every 150 schools, and upon the calculation of 6,000 schools, that would require forty inspectors, costing 600l. each, which was 24,000l. There would be 16,000l. for the original parochial schools, 175,000l. for the 5,000 new schools, and 27,000l. for the board and inspectors, making, as he had said on a former night, 242,000l., which would have to be paid out of the national exchequer by the proposed system.

said, he wished to refer to the vote he had given on a former occasion, for he thought a great mistake had been made in the Bill by so largely increasing the salary of schoolmasters, without taking measures to increase their qualifications. The system of Government certificates might have been advantageously introduced. He should have moved an Amendment to that effect, but for an intimation from the Lord Advocate that he should consider it a hostile step. He hoped the House would agree to the Amendment, and he should be then able to vote for its final stage.

said, the object of the Amendment was to reverse two former decisions of the House.

said, he trusted that, after what had passed, there was no serious intention to proceed with the Bill, and that the admirable speech of the right hon. and learned Lord, which would have been more appropriate if delivered on a previous occasion, were the last notes of the dying swan. After the strong manifestation of the feeling of the House, he did not see how they could proceed with the measure, inasmuch as two hon. Gentlemen, the Members for Stafford and Worcester, had by accident gone into the lobby with the Government on the question of the third reading. The Bill was therefore virtually lost by a majority of one. It was a measure opposed to the wishes of the great majority of the people in Scotland, as proved by the immense majority of petitions against it, whereas, before the nature of the Bill was understood, the majority of petitions were in its favour. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had assumed, that those who were opposed to the Bill were opposed to education, but the contrary Was the fact, for it was because they were in favour of the extension of education that they voted against the measure, which would have the effect of not only increasing the expense, but of limiting education. Education, supported by the voluntary principle, had increased in Scotland at far greater rate than in England; but the proposed measure would dry up the sources of voluntary subscription, and charge upon the State that which was now willingly undertaken by the people. It had been said, that there were a large number of persons residing in the lanes and alleys of the large towns not educated under the present system, hut would they be under the one which it was proposed to substitute for it? There was nothing in the Bill to induce people to be educated who were unwilling. The Lord Advocate had referred to the Highlands, where, he said, there were from 20,000 to 30,000 persons existing in ignorance. That was to be accounted for by the circumstance that the population was so scattered, and the physical character of the country was such, that it was only by means of perambulating teachers that education could be diffused among them; but the right hon. and learned Lord's argument proved nothing in favour of his Bill. He accused the right hon. and learned Lord of inconsistency in his arguments, for, when he was arguing in favour of education, he said it was necessary that there should be an immense increase of schools; but when he took the economical side of the question, the right hon. and learned Lord said, he was going to contract the schools. Such arguments were most contradictory. He (Mr. Scott) had estimated the burden to be cast on the country at 200,000l., whereas the right hon. and learned Lord asserted it would be 75.000l. But, taking the right hon. and learned Lord's own figures, if 2,300 schools would cost 75,000l., 6,000 schools would cost 195.000l., so that he (Mr. Scott) was not so far out in his calculation. He trusted that the eyes of the people of England would now be open to the true character of the Bill. Since it was now an absolute certainty that the Bill had been virtually lost by a majority of one, he trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would deal with it in the same manner as the English Education Bills had been treated.

said, he must enter his final protest against the Bill, and he also must deny that any good could ever result from legislative interference in a subject which ought to be left to the voluntary benevolence of the people.

said, the Bill was most carelessly drawn. As an instance, he would mention that the Board were to be appointed in October, and that they were to hold their first sitting in August, several months before their appointment. It would be impossible to work the Bill in its present shape.

Mr. Fitzroy, before you leave the chair, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. A rumour is afloat in this House—and it has reached me from various quarters—that, during the present political pressure upon the Government, the noble Lord has been waited upon by a number of Irish Members, who have made representations to him with regard to the 14th clause of this Bill, a clause which has been rejected by a majority of thirty-six. The rumour goes that the noble Lord, under pressure, has made an arrangement to put up some supposed or quasi independent Member, to move the re-insertion of that clause, and has promised to support it. What service those hon. Gentlemen were to perform in return does not appear, but it appears to me incredible that any such arrangement should have been made by the noble Lord. Many Members of this House, however, do believe in this rumour, although I myself cannot, and I shall continue to disbelieve that any arrangement so discreditable to all parties concerned has been made, unless I hear it asserted upon the authority of the noble Lord. I beg now to ask the noble Lord whether he has made any such arrangement, and whether there is any foundation for this malignant report?

Mr. Fitzroy, what has passed is a transaction most simple in its character and most easily explained. A certain number of Irish Members expressed a Wish to see me yesterday, and, when they waited upon me, they said that they were desirous that the 14th clause should be re-inserted, and they wished to know whether, if a Motion to that effect were made, I was willing to support it? My answer was that, as I had supported the clause when it stood in the Bill, if any Member brought forward a Motion for its re-insertion, I should feel myself bound as a matter of consistency to support the Motion. At that interview no other topic was referred to, no pressure was exercised, and no bargain made. What I then stated was in perfect unison with the course I have pursued with regard to this Bill, and, having supported the clause as it originally stood in the Bill, I stated that if a Motion were brought forward for its re-insertion, and not as the hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think, by a quasi independent Member, but a perfectly independent Member, it would meet with my support.

Sir, one point relating to this transaction has escaped the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins), and, in order to throw some light upon it, I beg to ask the noble Lord if in the conversation which he held with those Irish Members it was not pointed out to him that several Members of the Government were not present at the division upon the 14th clause, and if he did not then promise that if a Motion for its re-insertion were made it should be supported by the whole force of the Government?

Before the noble Lord answers the last question, I wish to ask him whether the clause, the re-insertion of which he promised to support, was the clause as brought in by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee), or that clause as amended by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland.

Of course, what I intended was, that I should support what I had supported before. [Colonel DUNNE: But which clause is that?] Why, the clause as amended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland. With regard to the question of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) there can be no doubt that the deputation did take occasion to observe that certain Members of the Government were absent from the division which led to the rejection of the clause. I made answer that I had had occasion to remark the absence of some of the Members of the Government upon other divisions, and I took the opportunity of expressing a hope that I should not have occasion to regret such absence again.

Sir, as I was not one of the hon. Members who waited upon the noble Lord, and, as I have only heard accidentally in this House of the circumstance of any one waiting upon him at all, perhaps I may be allowed to ask him a question. I wish to ask him if the hon. Gentlemen who waited upon him requested him to support the clause as I introduced it, or as amended by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland? [An hon. MEMBER: He has answered that.] No, excuse me, he has not. As I understand the noble Lord, he stated to those hon. Gentlemen who waited upon him that he would support the clause as amended by the right hon. Gentleman; but what I wish to know is whether those hon. Gentlemen requested him to support the clause as amended, or the clause as I introduced it? If the hon. Members who waited upon him requested him to support the clause as amended by the Secretary for Ireland, I should like to know who those hon. Members were, because, in my simplicity, I believed that all the Irish Members supported the clause as proposed by me. If I am right in that opinion, I think it is of importance that the House should know who were the hon. Gentlemen who requested the noble Lord to support the re-insertion of that clause, mutilated as it was by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know who were the hon. Members that came to me, he can no doubt find out by inquiring among his friends. With regard to the question as to whether I was asked to support the re-insertion of the clause as it originally stood, or as amended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, I apprehend that no man could have reasonably asked me to support that which I had originally opposed. I have supported the Amendments of my right hon. Friend, and no man could expect me to support the re-insertion of a clause without those alterations in it to the introduction of which I was a consenting party.

I wish, Sir, to call attention to what seems to me the very lamentable fact, that the business of the House of Commons appears every now and then to be transacted elsewhere than in the House of Commons. I have noticed this once or twice, even during the present Session, and I think it is much to be regretted and deprecated by every gentleman in this House, whether he be a quasi independent or a really independent Member (for the noble Lord has made this distinction), that these private communications with a Minister, which are to affect the progress of affairs and the decisions of this House, should be carried on in so sinister and mysterious a manner. I do not think it is much to the credit or to the satisfaction of Members who represent Irish constituencies, that by an unhappy fatality, whenever these occurrences have happened, we always find it is upon an Irish question, and a question, in fact, in which there is a deputation of Irish Members, whose doings, when the matter is brought before the House, are repudiated even by their own brethren. I really think this is not the course which the noble Lord ought to have taken. It seems to me that the noble Lord, in the high position which he holds, ought to have formed his opinion upon public matters and to have communicated it to the House, and that when such a deputation—such a menacing deputation, as we are led to infer—waited upon him, he ought to have said, "In the House of Commons I will give my opinion, and there you will hear what are the sentiments of the Government on the subject." However, I quite agree that the position of a Minister just now is a very difficult one, and that the noble Lord is, therefore, to some extent entitled to our indulgence. From what I can gather, the noble Lord does not appear to have pledged himself to anything; he only said he was prepared to do again, if called upon, what he did before; and, as far as can be judged from what has passed this evening, the noble Lord has not made any unconstitutional pledge in order to influence the votes of Members in this House, but gave the deputation to understand that they could not count upon any support from him which they had not received before. At the same time, I should be very glad if the noble Lord would take this opportunity of defining, for the information of the House, the difference between a quasi independent and a really independent Member. If that could be done, it would, in my opinion, facilitate the course of public business, and probably might prevent the repetition of such a scene as has so unexpectedly, and unhappily occurred this evening.

Sir, the term quasi independent Member is not mine—it was first used by the hon. and learned Member who introduced this subject. Nor did I say that I had received a menacing deputation, as asserted by the right hon. Gentleman who has addressed us, for nothing could be less menacing than either the tone or the demands of the gentlemen who waited on me. As for what the right hon. Gentleman says about receiving deputations in general, the doctrine which he lays down is perfectly novel to me, for I consider that it is quite consistent with the proper working of the functions of the House that Members should wait upon the Minister to suggest amendments or additions to the Bills in progress. But, according to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, it is improper for any number of Members of this House to come to the Minister, and express to him their opinions upon public measures, and their intentions or wishes in regard to the manner in which those measures should be dealt with. Such a doctrine is totally novel to me, and, so far from thinking there is any impropriety in such a proceeding, I should say it is not only strictly proper, but highly calculated to promote the despatch of business in the House. The gentlemen who came to me came to suggest what they thought an improvement in the Bill; so far from there being anything in such a communication which deserves censure, I think it is eminently calculated to facilitate the progress of public business in this House. With regard to transacting the business of this House elsewhere, I am afraid if I were permitted to ask questions of the right hon. Gentleman's followers, it would be found that the business of this House, so far as they are concerned, is but too often prepared and regulated at interviews which take place out of the House; and I am afraid, to use a French expression, the support of the balance of truth would be greatly in favour of myself. I should be happy to have an opportunity of settling the question with the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir, it was a saying of Rochefoucault, that in serious affairs he did not like a joke. Now, as this is a matter of some small consequence, I think the remarks with which the noble Lord has just concluded are rather out of place. Let me ask, what is the point we are discussing; for, does the noble Lord think he imposes upon any man of common sense by the speech he has just delivered? A very important question connected with Ireland was before this House. In the Committee upon which I had the honour of sitting with the noble Lord, on almost every question raised by the hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Shee), he was opposed by the noble Lord. However, a man's judgment is altered by time and reflection, and by due consideration of all the facts of the case. The noble Lord became Prime Minister; this question was discussed in the House of Commons, and the 14th Clause was rejected after full debate. Well, has the noble Lord's reason been convinced by any arguments put forward since that debate? Has anything occurred in the interval to affect his judgment? Does anybody for a moment suppose such a thing? No. I want, then, to be informed what was "the consideration" in return for this promise on the part of the noble Lord, because there is, I am well aware, always a consideration for a promise of this kind? On the eve of a debate which affects the existence of the noble Lord as a Minister—["Oh, oh!"]—I ought, then, to have said which may affect his existence as a Minister—a body of Irish gentlemen wait upon him and say to him significantly "An important clause has been rejected by the House of Commons, and we ask you now, if it shall be proposed to rescind that vote, to give us your promise to support the restoration of that clause." Are we to believe that, under those circumstances, it was the force of truth—for the noble Lord was so unfortunate as to make reference to truth—or the Palace of Truth, which induced him to say on that occasion, "I will support that clause and bring to bear the entire force of the Ministry?" Sir, if it was the object of the noble Lord to strike a blow at constitutional government ["Oh, oh!"]—I may be wrong, and should be very glad to be corrected by the eminent authorities on the Ministerial bench—but I still venture to hold the opinion that, as, after full debate and discussion, the House of Commons came to the conclusion that a particular portion of a certain measure ought to be rejected, it is a proceeding fraught with injurious consequences for a Minister, when placed in circumstances of difficulty, to be waited upon in private by a number of gentlemen, and then accede to their request that he would assist in reversing the decision of this House. Sir, I will supply what was omitted by the noble Lord. It may not have been so stated at the interview, but any man of plain understanding must be aware, that what the deputation meant to say was this, "If you do agree in what we propose, we shall, on the occasion that will be presented to us on Monday night, be forced to vote against you." I say that is the meaning of the contract. The noble Lord laughed it off very agreeably and pleasantly; but will he allow me to remind him that, upon the question of whether the Income-tax should be imposed on Ireland or not, a number of gentlemen also waited upon a Minister and got a promise from him, which was systematically and consistently broken? Those Irish Members who waited upon the noble Lord stand in precisely the same circumstances now, and they may fail, as on a former occasion, in obtaining any consideration in return for the promise of support they apparently have given to the noble Lord. With the utmost deference to the gentlemen who waited upon the noble Lord, I think that was not a very creditable way of enforcing their demands and their opinions upon the Government, and I think it injurious to the country as well as to the character and authority of this House.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), remarked that it was unfortunate that a dispute of this kind should generally have reference to Ireland. Sir, I think it is also deeply to be regretted that when Irish Members take a course with regard to a measure, which is constantly taken by English and Scotch members—namely, that of waiting by deputation upon any Minister of the Crown, who may be charged with that measure—I say, it is deeply to be regretted that in such a case some other Irish Member always gets up in this House and charges his fellow-countrymen with base and dishonourable conduct. That is the opinion which seems to be entertained by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), of those of his countrymen who waited upon the noble Lord. He insinuates that they stipulated for a consideration in return for the promise they obtained. Now, I must leave this to be settled between the hon. and learned Gentleman and his countrymen, who, at least, had the right and the title to be considered as honourable, as independent, and as free from all suspicion of base and dishonourable motives as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think there is something extraordinary, after a Bill has passed in which a clause has been expunged, in an attempt to restore that clause. Sir, I believe nothing is more common than such a proceeding; and I can conceive nothing more natural than that Irish Members having an interest in this particular clause should wait upon a Minister of the Crown to know whether he would support a proposal for the restoration of that clause. I can conceive nothing discreditable, nothing dishonourable, and nothing unusual in such conduct. The hon. and learned Gentleman insinuates that, because a majority of some thirty or forty rejected the clause, the deputation waited upon my noble Friend and proposed to him that he should act contrary to his opinion, and vote now in a manner directly opposite to that in which he voted the other night. The hon. and learned Gentleman has singularly enough directly reversed the case. The inconsistency would be, if my noble Friend were guilty of inconsistency, in voting against a clause which he had supported in Committee. And here let mo ask the Committee if there is no precedent for a deputation of this kind? Not long ago the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside), was Solicitor-General, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his right (Mr. Napier) was Attorney-General for Ireland, in the Administration of Lord Derby. During the time they held office a Bill upon the subject of tenants' compensation was brought forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. The hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Shee), had also a Bill before the House, including clauses that went far beyond the 14th clause respecting compensation. Now, what was the course adopted in that case? The right hon. and learned Gentleman consented to both these Bills being read a second time in this House, and what was the consequence? Those hon. Members who were opposed to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman—and whom I will not charge with base and discreditable motives—objected especially to the clause which gave retrospective compensation, and, if the report be not incorrect, they went in a body to Lord Derby and complained of the conduct of his Attorney and, if I mistake not, of his Solicitor-General for Ireland. I am not in a condition to state whether they extracted a promise from the noble Lord, but, at all events, the result was that the noble Lord took the earliest opportunity in another place of saying that the Bills had been read merely pro formâ, and that the Government were not pledged to support them in the slightest degree. The Government, by thus consenting to what was called pro formâ second reading, though I believe there is no such thing as a pro formâ second reading, acknowledged that they gave their consent to what was purely an illusory proceeding, and left themselves perfectly free to object to the principle of the Bill,

said, he had not formed one of the deputation who had waited upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government, but as he had been instrumental in forming the deputation, he thought he could throw some light upon the reason why it had been formed. It had been communicated to him by an influential Irish Member who sat upon the Opposition benches, that many Members upon that side of the House would support the retrospective clause as amended in Committee, if the Government would bring it forward again. [Cries of "Name!"] He was not at liberty to mention the name until he had first communicated with the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member was at that moment in the House. In consequence of what the hon. Gentleman stated, he communicated with a friend of the Government, and stated that such sentiments were entertained, and he believed that that fact alone had led to the formation of the deputation. He had certainty been surprised to hear the indignant feeling expressed by hon. Members against a deputation under such circumstances waiting upon the noble Lord.

said, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had stated, that he (Mr. Napier) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen had given their consent to an illusory proceeding in having a pro formâ second reading of a Bill of the hon. and learned Serjeant the Member for Kilkenny. For his part, in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen and the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he could only give that statement the most direct contradiction. He had been no consenting party whatever to any such arrangement, and the simple fact of the matter was this, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) had consented to the Bill of the Government and the Bill of the hon. and learned Serjeant being referred to a Select Committee. He (Mr. Napier) had had no communication whatever with the hon. and learned Serjeant, but, on the contrary, he had altogether refused to have any communication with him upon the subject. With regard to the conduct of Lord Derby, so far from giving any encouragement to the Irish Members, although, perhaps, the fate of the Ministry might have depended upon the course then adopted. Lord Derby, with the independence of character which had always distinguished him through life, stated, that come what would, he would never support the Bill of the hon. and learned Serjeant, and the result was, that he lost the support of many of the Irish Members. [Viscount PALMERSTON: But there was a deputation.] A deputation certainly waited on him. But was it to make any secret or express bargain? It was to remonstrate against the Bill going to a Select Committee. Again, he gave an express and peremptory contradiction to the statement that there had been any negotiations to which he had been a party; and he thought the right hon. Baronet ought in future to be better informed before he ventured to make such statements.

said, that though he could not see any impropriety in a deputation waiting upon the Government upon any subject whatever, he had not formed part of the deputation which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Malins) because the object which that deputation had in view was one with which he did not concur.

said, he felt called upon to defend the propriety of the course adopted by the Irish Members in waiting upon the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, in order to induce him to consent to the reintroduction of the 14th clause. He had always endeavoured to avoid getting into any sort of row, whether English, Irish, or Scotch, and he had certainly not expected to see the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire take part in one. He thought that the language used by the right hon. Gentleman had been unbecoming his position, and that it was derogatory to the character of Gentlemen who were fully his equals in position and in every other respect. He could not help remarking, that that sort of language was only directed to Irish Members, and that Irish gentlemen always avoided using it with respect to English Members. It appeared, however, that Irish Members could never meet for any purpose whatever without some prying, inquisitorial system being set on foot, in order to ascertain who they were, and what they had been doing. He should be ashamed to adopt such a course in regard to any meeting of Conservative Members. He had never complained that the hon. and learned Gentlemen who occupied the posts of Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland, under Lord Derby's Administration, had introduced a Bill containing a retrospective clause of a, much more comprehensive nature than that in the present Bill. It was the 20th clause of a Bill he held in his hand, and was to the following effect:—"If any tenant, or those under whom he derives, at any time before the passing of this Act shall have executed improvements on his land of the nature contemplating the foregoing provisions," and so on, he shall be entitled to compensation. Those improvements included several not included in the Bill now before the House. He hoped, therefore, that he should not again hear the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr.Whiteside) attempting to lead the House to believe that he never was a party to a retrospective clause much more extensive than that against which his Colleagues voted the other day, and which he (Mr. Scully) had, to his infinite disgust, repeatedly heard him denounce. He must confess, that he was not satisfied with the Bill as it now stood, but it contained some provisions which he believed would be beneficial, and the question was, whether they would reject the measure, or accept it, rather than get nothing at all. He found, however, to his astonishment, that on Thursday evening only 102 Members voted for the 14th clause, which was by no means so stringent as a similar clause proposed by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland under Lord Derby's Government; and he found, also, that the minority comprised only forty-seven Irish Members, some of whom were Members of the Conservative party, and rather more than fifty English Members, some thirty-five or thirty-six of whom were Government Members. Seeing this state of things on Saturday morning, he thought of inditing a letter on the subject to the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but he abandoned that intention, as he was asked to consult with some of his hon. Friends, They talked the matter over, and decided upon going to head-quarters and asking for an interview with the Premier. The noble Lord received them with great courtesy, and they explained to him that they were dissatisfied with the manner in which the Bill had been mutilated, after the statements which had been publicly made in the House. They called upon the noble Lord to assist them in obtaining the re-insertion of the clause which had been expunged, and which—although they were as much dissatisfied with it in its mutilated state as the hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Shee) and the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Greville), both of whom had voted for it in that mutilated form—they conceived would be better than nothing. They represented to the noble Lord their opinion that the decision which had been arrived at upon the clause was by no means satisfactory, as it had been adopted in a very thin House, and they informed him that they wished the question to be determined when there was a full attendance of Members. They strongly expressed to the noble Lord their desire that the clause which had been expunged should be reinserted. He (Mr. Scully) wished he could say that any compact had been entered into on the subject; but, unfortunately, all he could say was, that the noble Lord gave them an assurance that their representations should receive full consideration. Would the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) say, that he had never been in conversation with Members from all sides of that House in the lobby, or in the smoking or dining rooms; and that the conversation which took place on some of those occasions did not relate to matters similar to those which were sometimes discussed by deputations in the presence of the Ministers?

said, he could hardly answer the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, unless it were made somewhat more specific. He could not say what might, or might not, have passed in the smoking room or dining-room of the House. He generally dined alone. He might have been spoken to in the dining-room by Members who sat on both sides of the House, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman did not suppose for a moment that he was likely to restrict the polite and gentleman-like intercourse that took place between the Members of that House in such circumstances, whatever their opinions might be. Such intercourse was not to be mixed up with the instance now under the consideration of the House. It was not to be mixed up with the instance of a deputation waiting upon a Minister—a deputation waiting upon a Minister just before an expected division upon a matter of great national importance. I will not enter into the question which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the interviews between Lord Derby and Members of that House on the subject of Bills similar to the one now before them. The right hon. Gentleman said, two or three deputations waited on Lord Derby. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Only one.] Only one; but reference might be made to more than one. First of all, the friends of Lord Derby waited on him, and said, "Your representatives in the House of Commons have agreed to send these Bills before a Select Committee—take the consequences of it," and Lord Derby did take the consequences of it. Then the opponents of Lord Derby went to him and said," unless you take particular care, you cannot count on our support." They got their answer, and in both cases Lord Derby acted according to the dictates of his conscience. But was there anything in those instances analogous to the one now before the House? The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Scully) had accused him of using insulting language to the Irish Members. He was not in the habit of using insulting language, either to Irish Members or to any other class of men; and the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he made the charge, was bound to state in what respect his language had been insulting. The words which fell from him, even with the worst interpretation the hon. and learned Gentleman was able to put upon them, could not be made to wear that colour.

said, he was quite satisfied to accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was so habituated to impute motives to the Irish Members, that he was, perhaps, unconscious of it; but he was, nevertheless, satisfied with his explanation.

said, he should like to know who deputed those eighteen gentlemen to go to the Minister as the representatives of all Ireland? He had a right to ask the question, especially as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) spoke of the deputation as one conducted in the usual manner. There were 105 representatives for Ireland, and the great majority of those gentlemen voted equally with "the eighteen" in favour of the 14th clause. Then, why were they not all equally invited to join the deputation? They were all in town, and yet not one syllable was communicated to them of the intention to wait on the Minister. He had often gone on deputations, and had always been courteously informed of them beforehand; but in this case there was a departure from that usage. Could these eighteen gentlemen show their credentials to act as a deputation in the name of all Ireland? He was informed that the resolution to form the deputation had been taken after the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Lytton) had given notice of his Motion; and it appeared to him as if the only question with them was, not how they should act with regard to the 14th clause, but how they should vote on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire. That was the reason why they did not intimate their intention to those sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who voted with them on the 14th clause. He denied, therefore, the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that this was a deputation after the usual manner. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Scully) referred to a Bill on the subject of tenant right in 1853, which, he said, had the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin on the back; but though that Bill had the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the back in 1853, it was, in reality, the Bill printed as it came from the Committee to which it was sent in 1852. It was usual in such cases to retain the name on the back, and it was so in that case, though his right hon. and learned Friend had twice thrown up the Bill, and only resumed it at the earnest request of the Committee.

said, the Bill he had quoted from was the Bill introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin in 1852.

said, he wished to state that no formal communication was made to him of the intention to have an interview with the Premier. He and the hon. Gentleman near him did disapprove of the deputation to the noble Lord, not because they thought such a proceeding was not perfectly regular and correct, but because they did not believe the Government to be sincere and in earnest upon the question. If the Government were sincere, why did not the noble Viscount make it a Cabinet measure, and oblige his subordinates to follow him into the lobby in support of it? He did not believe that a Cabinet could he coerced by friendly interviews such as the one which had taken place; those who wished to carry a particular Bill would gain their object, not by always following the Government into the lobby, but by adopting an independent and resolute course, so that they could turn the scale when a Ministry was in danger. He, and those with whom he acted, were determined to persevere in their efforts to settle the question, not by coming to the rescue of a Cabinet when it happened to be in a fix, hut by holding themselves in independent opposition, by keeping themselves dangerous to either side of the House. He had no sympathy with the opinions of many Gentlemen upon the Opposition side of the House; but why did he sit upon that side? Because he could not sit upon the other side ["Hear, hear!"] because he could not in honour and in conscience sit upon the other side, having given a solemn pledge that he would sit in opposition, to the Government until the Government had made a Cabinet question of a measure embodying the principles of Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill. Even if the 14th clause were re-inserted, he thought the Bill had been so treated by the Government that it could not pass through the House of Lords during the present Session, but it could be carried next year if thirty Irish Members would act together and support it.

said, that before the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire's notice of Motion had been given, he was told by a Member of that House that a communication had been addressed to him by two supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite who had taken an active part in the Bill, to the effect that they regretted the rejection of the 14th clause; that they would be glad if the Government would propose its re-insertion; and that many Gentlemen upon the Opposition side would support such a proposition. He was asked what course the Government would take. He replied that he was not authorised to give a decided answer, but his conviction was that the Government would not feel justified in opposing the re-insertion of the clause. He was then asked what course the Government would take if any independent Member were to make the proposition? He replied that he was not authorised to speak positively, but he thought that if any independent Member proposed the reinsertion, the Government would vote as it had before voted. The next morning he stated the conversation to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who approved of what he had said. That was as he had just stated previous to the notice of the hon. Baronet opposite. Communications went on for two or three days with different Members of the House, and while they were going on the hon. Baronet's notice was given. He believed that the deputation which waited on the noble Lord received the same answers as those which he had given, and which had been approved by the noble Lord before the hon. Baronet's notice. He admitted that that coincidence which had been referred to might have excited suspicion in those who had conducted themselves throughout the proceedings in a consistent manner, and who, as regarded consistency, had shown a very honourable contrast to some of their opponents.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had thrown a new light upon the discussion. It appeared that previous to the notice of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) announced the course he intended to take. Perhaps, then, the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to explain why, after the hon. Member for Hertfordshire's Motion, it was found necessary that the deputation should take place?

said, he had not said that an announcement had been made to the Irish Members. One Gentleman had come to him, and he had communicated with two Gentlemen opposite whom he now saw in their places, but who seemed ashamed of the part they had taken in the transaction.

said, that, after a subject had been fully discussed and decided by a large majority of the House, he did not think it was a usual or a proper course for a few hon. Gentlemen to wait upon the head of the Government in order to endeavour to get that decision rescinded. He had put this question as one affecting, not the honour of individuals, but the honour of the Government; and he felt satisfied that, after the lengthened discussion which had ensued, the country would consider the present transaction was one which did not redound to the credit of the Government.

said, he wished to state, on the behalf of himself and the Friends he usually acted with, that when they had first heard the deputation mentioned they had, on the first blush of the matter, declared that they could have nothing to do with such a transaction. [Cries of "Question!"]

said, he would submit to the Committee that they ought not to be hurried in their deliberations on a question of the present importance, but that they ought to be afforded an opportunity to discuss it fully and fairly. He rose to call attention to the attempt which had been made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the early part of the evening to divert the attention of the House from the subject which engrossed it, by alluding to deputations which he said had been received by Lord Derby's Government at improper crises. He (Mr. Guinness) pronounced it unconstitutional in the highest degree, after a clause had been fully discussed and negatived by a large majority, for a deputation to wait upon the Prime Minister, at a crisis like the present, to endeavour to get him to rescind the decision of the House; such a proceeding was not only disgraceful but disgusting, and he could not help thinking that the Minister should have answered that deputation by refusing to give consideration to their proposition.

said, that he had formed one of the body of Irish Members that had waited upon the Minister. Nothing could be more contrary to the fact than to say that that was a deputation from any body whatever which had waited upon the Prime Minister. They represented no party but themselves, and were influenced only by a wish to have restored to the Bill a clause which they considered of the utmost importance to the interests of Ireland. The hon. Member who had last spoken had, in his amiable impetuosity, used language which he (Mr. Sadleir) was certain could not be endorsed by the Gentlemen by whom the hon. Member was surrounded.

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Guinness) was out of order when he used the words "disgraceful and disgusting;" if the words were intended to apply to him, as one of the deputation, he must tell the hon. Member he had given utterance to that which was a calumny and a libel.