said, that when the House went into Committee on the Bill now before them, he took objection, although not intending to oppose the mea- sure to what he thought a hasty proceeding, one which had not been duly considered and examined, and by which a charge of £170,000 a year would be imposed upon the public purse. He stated that such a charge ought not to be created without the House having previously examined into the state of the existing judicial establishments, in order to ascertain whether the country need be subjected to an additional burden on that account. The answer given to him on that occasion was, that the subject of the County Courts ought to be considered by itself, and that, although there might be ground for inquiry as to the judicial position of Westminster Hall, yet that constituted no reason why the boon which justice demanded in the extension of the benefit of the County Courts to the country should be withheld. As the House appeared favourable to the measure he did not divide upon it, although he retained a strong opinion as to the precipitancy of the measure. But what he chiefly wished to advert to now was the judicial establishment at Westminster Hall. It was a subject which never could be satisfactorily examined into, except by the direct action of the Government. All that a private Member of the House could do was to make an appeal to the Government to undertake the examination of that highly important question. That was the object which he had in view in rising on the present occasion. He felt he should not be justified on this occasion in pressing for any positive or definite answer on such a subject, but the question he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government was this—Whether, during the recess, Her Majesty's Government were disposed to make an inquiry into the state of the judicial establishment in Westminster Hall, and whether the present number of Judges sitting in Westminster Hall was essential, taking into review the immense relief which the Courts in Westminster Hall had experienced by the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts, and that at a very heavy charge on the country? An opportunity would be afforded during the recess for Government to make up their minds whether the establishment in Westminster Hall was more than adequate to the purposes required of it. Of course any reduction would be irrespective of the vested interests of the present holders of the official appointments connected with the judicial office. He should be very glad if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department could give him any assurance on the subject.

said, he could not give any opinion as to whether it was practicable that a reduction might or might not be made in the number of the Common Law Judges in Westminster Hall. He believed, however, that his right hon. Friend was mistaken in supposing that there had been any diminution in the business of the Courts at Westminster Hall since the formation of the County Courts. It was true that a certain description of business had diminished on some of the circuits. If, indeed, the County Courts had jurisdiction over criminal matters the business of the assizes might be materially diminished, but that was not the case; although, therefore, the civil business might be less, still the duty at the assizes remained much the same. Besides, the increased demand of Judges on the circuits would make it impossible, he felt assured, to reduce the number of those functionaries. The county of Glamorgan loudly complained at having only one Judge at the assizes; but it had been represented to him that no more than one Judge could be spared for that circuit without extending the employment of Judges and counsel far into the vacation. It was true there might be a new distribution of the circuits, by which a greater quantity of business might be got through with a less number of Judges; but that was a subject which demanded mature consideration.

said, he would propose to leave out Clause 30, and to insert the following clause:—

"Where an action of contract is brought in one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Record to recover a sum not exceeding £20, and the defendant in the action suffers judgment by default, the plaintiff shall recover no costs (except in cases where he dwells more than twenty miles from the defendant, or an officer of the County Court shall be a party), unless, upon an application to a Judge of such Superior Court, he shall otherwise direct."

said, he must oppose the admission of the clause.

said, he wished to propose the following clause:—

" All the provisions of this Act applicable to Superior Courts and Judges thereof shall apply to the Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster and Court of Common Pleas at Durham, and the Judges thereof respectively being Judges of one of the Common Law Courts at Westminster; and all the said provisions applicable to masters of Superior Courts shall apply to the respective Prothonetaries of the Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster and Court of Common Pleas at Durham, and their respective deputies acting in the execution of the duties of such officers; provided that any writs of certiorari to be issued by the order of such Courts, or of a Judge thereof, shall be issued out of the Chanceries of the Counties Palatine of Lancaster and Durham respectively, and shall be made returnable into the said Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster and Court of Pleas at Durham respectively, in the same manner as other writs of certiorari of such Counties Palatine respectively."

said, he would not oppose the insertion of the clause.

said, he would now beg to propose the following clause:—

"Clerks articled to attorneys or solicitors may, after serving two years under articles, and with consent of their masters, appear as advocates; the clerk to any attorney or solicitor who has already been or who hereafter shall become articled to such attorney or solicitor, and who may have served two years under his articles with such attorney or solicitor, may appear as advocate on behalf of any party to any proceedings in the County Court, on producing to the registrar of the Court his articles, and also a certificate from his master that he consents thereto: and the attorney to whom such clerk is or may be articled shall be entitled to the same fees as if he had personally attended the same Court, provided that the clerk shall be subject to the same rules and regulations as attorneys now are or hereafter may be subject to."

said, he objected to the clause, because those Courts were not intended as schools in which a professional education was to be acquired. There were no other Courts in which students were allowed to exercise the functions of an advocate, such a thing would not be allowed in Westminster Hall. Besides, attorneys were officers of those Courts as well as of the Superior Courts, and those Courts possessed a species of control over them; but clerks would not be under the control of those Courts.

said, he should support the clause, because he thought it desirable that the young men referred to should have an opportunity of learning their business.

said, the proposal reminded him of what an hon. Member of that House once stated, that he was determined to learn the art of public speaking, as it was the only art he could learn at the people's expense.

said, he thought a question might be raised in favour of allowing the agents of the parties to appear, but he was certainly not in favour of extending that indulgence to attorneys clerks. A suitor had the right, either to appear to state his own case, or to employ another to do so, but that other person must he either an attorney or barrister. For the reason stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he thought it highly desirable that a person who represented a party in a suit should be under the control of the Court. If that rule were relaxed it should not be in favour of attorneys' clerks, but rather in favour of the private agents of the parties concerned. On the whole, however, he thought it better that none but professional men should be employed.

said, he should be glad if that were the law, but unfortunately it was the case that not only might a party appear in the County Court by himself, but he had a right to appear by "counsel, attorney, or agent." Under the term "agent" a set of persons calling themselves "County Court advocates" had crept in, who were wholly unacquainted with the law, and whose conduct was highly detrimental to the efficiency of those Courts.

said, he thought there was some misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "agent." He understood it had been construed as meaning the agents or stewards of the parties, and not strangers tendering their services.

said, it was most desirable that the law should be clearly understood on this point. He had received many complaints that agents had not been allowed to appear. Many persons, for instance, wished that their own agents should be allowed to appear in cases of small demands. It might however be difficult in some cases to distinguish between a permanent agent and an, agent pro hâc vice. He admitted that to sanction the latter description of agent might open the door to gross abuses. But, in the case of small claims, a refusal to hear an agent might be an actual denial of justice.

said, he believed the law to be that a party could only appear by a professional agent, or by an attorney, or by a gratuitous agent. He hoped no rule would be laid down which should prevent the employment of a gratuitous agent. It was quite clear that the Judges of the County Courts had ample power to prevent any abuse in that respect.

said, by referring to the Act he found that the Judges of the County Courts could not allow any person to appear as a paid advocate for any party unless he were an attorney or a barrister or authorised by the Judge of the Court.

said, he understood the practice to be to admit an agent to appear to the character of a witness rather than as an advocate. He was allowed to state his party's case, but he was not permitted to plead or argue upon it.

said, he would not divide the House.

said, he would now beg to move the insertion of a clause enacting that one attorney might act for another attorney in special cases.

said, he was opposed to the clause, and hoped the Attorney General would not consent to it as he considered that it would open the door to a class of proceedings very undesirable. The effect of the clause would be that no respectable attorneys would act personally in those Courts, but would delegate their business to a class of persons who would not be worthy of the public confidence.

said, the question had been very fully considered already, and the House had come to the opinion that the change proposed ought not to be allowed.

said, it appeared to him that the effect of the clause would be to break down the distinction now existing between attorney and barrister. If it was determined to destroy that distinction let it be done distinctly and avowedly, and not in that indirect manner.

said, there was growing up a species of attorney-advocate, and it was doubtful whether it ought to be encouraged. Some men possessed a facility of talk, or what was vulgarly called "the gift of the gab," and those persons would be intrusted by other attorneys to manage their business in the County Courts. He did not think it was desirable that that nondescript animal should be allowed to grow up.

said, he would now propose to insert, after Clause 5, the following clause—

"Notwithstanding section 3 of the Act of the l3th and 14th years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 61, a Registrar or Assistant Clerk appointed since the passing of that Act may reside out of the district of the Court or Courts for which he shall have been appointed, if the Lord Chancellor, or, where the whole of the district is within the duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy, shall, in the exercise of his discretion, on special grounds, and on such terms as he shall think fit to impose, grant permission for that purpose."

said, that the original Bill contained no restriction as to the residence of the Registrar, but a clause of prohibition was afterwards inserted in the 16 & 17 Vict., and he was surprised when he found a clause of relaxation in the present Bill. If the hon. and learned Attorney General would consent to amend the clause so as to provide that the residence of the Registrar should be within three or four miles of his ordinary place of business his objection would be very much diminished, if not removed.

said, he was willing to limit the distance of the residence of the Registrar to within six miles of the district.

said, he thought the Registrar should have his residence near the Court, that the suitors might have access to him in cases of emergency,

said, no case of necessity had yet been made out for the proposed change, nor had it been shown by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General why the Registrar should live out of his district. He believed that the alteration was simply to meet one solitary instance, and that, he apprehended, was hardly sufficient ground to justify the House in reversing a decision come to many years ago.

said, he had discovered that in Clause 10 an Amendment had been introduced, of which no notice was previously given. It related to the compensation to be made to the clerks whose business was going to be taken away. That compensation had been raised from one-fourth to one-third without any notice whatever. The House had gone through some of the forms, but not the whole. He believed that no alteration could be made in a Bill on a third reading without notice having been given.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken. The rule of the House was, that no clause should be inserted on the third reading without notice; but an Amendment might be made without notice.

Then, has the Amendment passed

Yes.

Is it not open for the House to discuss it?

No.

Then I cannot sufficiently express my surprise and sorrow.

said, that before he put the question that the Bill do pass, he wished to know whether the alteration which had been made from one-fourth to one-third in the compensation to certain clerks went beyond the charges imposed by the existing County Courts Acts, because if it did the House could not agree to it?

said, that by this Bill Parliament was repealing an Act by which the clerks were entitled to a large salary. He submitted that, whether the Bill proposed to retain one-third or one-fourth of the existing salary, it would not be an increase of charge on the public. It was a charge to be paid out of fees already imposed. The reason of the alteration from one-fourth to one-third was, that originally a discretionary power was given to the Government as to the amount to be paid to those clerks; but when it was thought more advisable to fix an absolute sum, without any discretion being left to the Government, then it was thought that one-third would be a fair arrangement. Those men had been induced to abandon their private practice in order to devote their services to the public. Supposing a clerk to be now receiving £600 a year, by the Bill it was proposed that he should only receive, £200 a year; and the mere possibility of returning to his private practice was a thing more easily spoken of than accomplished.

said, he was perfectly sure, from his knowledge of his hon. Friend, that the insertion of the Amendment changing the rate of compensation from one-fourth to one-third, without notice, was by inadvertence. By the original Bill, however, it never was contemplated that a plurality of offices should be established. He (Sir J. Graham) took shame to himself in not having foreseen the possibility of that plurality of offices. It was contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the Act. It was now thought desirable to buy out this abuse by compensation, and he thought a compensation of one-fourth, sanctioned as it had been by the Committee, was most ample, He had that morning received an anonymous letter from Dewsbury, stating that, if any argument were wanting to show the serious inconvenience arising from non-resident chief clerks, it was to be found in the fact that the clerk for the towns of Dewsbury, Pontefract, and another large neighbouring town, was residing in Leeds, and that the duties were delegated to a young man, the chief clerk attending only on Court days. For those duties he received fees amounting to £2,200, out of which he paid about £500 for salaries to clerks, retaining a net income of £1,700 a year, a sum exceeding the salary of any County Court Judge in the kingdom. He should wait with some anxiety to hear the decision of Mr. Speaker, as to whether the advance of the amount of compensation from one-fourth to one-third was obligatory on the House or not.

My decision will have no reference whatever to the merits of the ease now before the House. It will be strictly of a technical character. In ordinary cases it is not competent for any person to propose a greater charge on the revenue of the country than the amount which has passed the Committee. The only exception to that rule is, where a Bill is introduced to amend an Act which has passed in a previous Session, and which imposed a higher charge than is intended to be proposed by the Bill before the House. When the Amendment, therefore, was proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson), it was impossible for me to know whether the increased amount of compensation came within the ordinary rules of the House, or whether there was such a charge created by the Act passed in a previous Session as would cover the amount proposed by the hon. Member. But, I now understand, there was no charge whatever under the old law. If I am right in that supposition, then no proposition can be entertained on the Report or third reading to exceed the limits fixed by the Committee. Therefore, I consider the Amendment which has been introduced into the clause is informal, and one which ought not to have been made. It is therefore cancelled.

said, it was quite clear that it was not intended there should be more than one clerk to each Court. But no check having been enacted, those men had got a monopoly of clerkships in every district.

said, that, with reference to the anonymous letter read by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), there was no doubt it was entirely untrue. It was impossible that any man could have received such a salary. It would have been entirely illegal.

said, he thought the clerks who would be displaced by the Bill would be very hardly used.

said, he must enter his protest against the Bill, for no reason had been adduced by the Secretary of State to satisfy him that it was necessary to bring another paid officer into that House. It would require strong reasons to make that course necessary. He, therefore, wished, at all events, to record his own opinion against passing the Bill, and thereby saddling an additional charge upon the public. Notice of an Amendment had been given that this new officer should overlook Irish education as well as English. That opened up a large question. He understood also, that this new officer was to undertake the charge of the various scientific societies that were now in vogue. But the House having negatived by a large majority the scheme for a general system of education proposed by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), he could not but think that the object of having an officer of this description had reference to a desire to set up some large scheme of national education, to be conducted by the Government. That being the case, he could well understand why the Government should press the measure. But being of opinion that there was no necessity for it, he should move that it should be read a second time that day three months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words" upon this day three months."

said, he concurred in the general views of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Bill now under consideration. He saw, with some regret, a relaxation of that jealousy which that House formerly evinced with reference to the multiplication of paid officers of the Crown in that House. The House was not now so rigid in requiring a case to be made out for such a measure as he could wish it was. Nay, individual Members of the House sometimes rather officiously pressed upon the Government the multiplication of paid Members; and, moreover, a practice appeared to be growing up of creating offices before they had created duties which the persons filling those offices were to perform, instead of first ascertaining what duties were to be done, and then providing officers for the discharge of those duties. Such a course of proceeding was both irregular and objectionable. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had said, with great justice, that there was a connection between this Bill, when it was first introduced, and of certain schemes which were entertained, and which at one time were thought probable might be adopted in regard to national education. There was strong evidence, in his opinion, in favour of that view. The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords at an early period of the Session, and notice was at the same time given by the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) of his Resolutions on the subject of education. The further proceedings with the Bill were delayed by the Government, in order to ascertain what were the views of Parliament with reference to those Resolutions. The views of Parliament were declared in a most emphatic manner, and those Resolutions were now numbered with the things that were. But the Bill now before them, notwithstanding, was still proceeded with. He could wish that the proceedings taken upon the matter of education were such as might not involve a chance at a future period of their retrograding from what they had already done. He was hound to admit that generally their proceedings had been of that kind; and that they had not taken a backward course, but that the measures which had been adopted had been taken after full discussion, and that they had received in general the mature approbation of the country. But with respect to the present measure, he could not regard it as at all settling the question which it raised. Fortunately, in one sense, as it affords opportunity for future discussion, the Bill did not sanction any payment out of the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, in order to provide a salary for the new officer, it would be necessary that the name of the Minister should appear on the Votes from time to time. Thus, the matter would be truly tested. But, as regarded the judgment to be formed upon it at present, he should say that, proposed, as it was, with reference to two objects—namely, one, upon the supposition of establishing the office as a great and extended agency in the matter of education, which, for the present, had entirely disappeared; and the other, that there might always be a person in that House to answer for the Government in regard to all proceedings affecting education, he thought that the latter object alone, was hardly a sufficient cause for introducing a newly-paid official personage into that House. The convenience of having a Minister of Education in the House ought not to be alone considered; but they ought, in some degree, to know what duties the hon. Gentleman who might be appointed to that office would have to discharge when he was not attending in his place in Parliament. He said, with considerable confidence, that they were going to give a bad constitution to this educational department. The Minister of Education would be an officer very little worked, and would only be partially occupied. Privy Councillors in offices of that kind were merely superintending persons. They could not carry on a business department, their functions were of a Ministerial character. Questions requiring the intervention of such persons would occur but rarely. There was no standing business which would justify the appointment of such an official. He did not mean to say that the business of the office itself was either slight or unimportant. On the contrary, it was very extensive and of great importance but the great mass ran in grooves and consisted of questions which were disposed of by officers as the department was now constituted, and whose duties did not admit of being transacted by a Privy Councillor with a salary of £2,000 a year. They had some analogous institutions to which they might refer. The Board of Trade was one of them. He did not, however, hesitate to say, that the constitution of that department was a bad constitution. Instead of being a department with a regular organisation and with one responsible head, and the other Members bearing a defined relation in subordination to him, they had two parties, cheek by jowl—a President and a Vice President, of equal official rank, the Vice President being, in fact, the more important man of the two. especially if he happened to sit in that House, while the President sat in the House of Lords. It very rarely happened that both were thoroughly hardworking Members of the Government; but the country ought to have none but thoroughly hard-working men. That constitution, therefore, as he had just said, was a bad constitution. On the other hand, they had got an example in another department which it would be more desirable to follow. If the time had arisen when it was necessary that a Parliamentary officer should be appointed to answer questions in that House upon educational subjects—though he, for himself, thought that no better plan could be devised than to require that duty to be discharged by the Home Secretary of State, who in the present case was a man of the greatest ability, and holding the highest and most responsible post—yet, if the time had arrived when it was necessary to have in the House some gentleman to answer for the department of education, then let him be placed upon a footing of equality with the head of those who were now the working officers of that department. Why not have a joint-secretary of the Committee of Education, as there was a joint-secretary in the Board of Trade? both secretaries ought to be working officers. Certainly, at the time he (Mr. Gladstone) was in that, department, the joint-secretaries were charged with highly responsible and important official duties. The constitution of the Board of Control also was somewhat of an analogous case. Then there was the Poor-Law Board. That was a most recent authority. There were joint-secretaries in that department; neither of them were Privy Councillors. In his opinion, the Government would have done much better, and would have much more securely preserved the influence and dignity which appertained to the important office of Lord President, if, instead of appointing a Vice President, they had followed the example of the Board of Trade, and had appointed a joint-secretary to be an assistant with Mr. Lingen. He would have conducted the business quite as well, and have answered questions quite as readily as any Vice President or Privy Councillor could do. He did not think the measure had been sufficiently considered by Government or by Parliament, and he therefore believed that the wiser course would be that, instead of giving the sanction of Parliament to an immature scheme, it should be postponed until a definite idea was formed of the nature of the duties to be discharged by this new officer. In the meantime, all the duties appertaining to the function of a Minister of Education, could continue to be discharged, as they hitherto had been, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, he must deny that this proposal was in any way connected with the educational scheme proposed by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London at an early period of the Session. On the contrary, in the Session of 1855, and long before any scheme was proposed by his noble Friend, it was strongly pressed upon the Government that the constitution of the Committee of the Privy Council of Education was defective, and that while Parliament was yearly increasing the amount of grants for the purpose of promoting education it was inexpedient that those grants should be placed in the hands of a Board where no member of it was responsible for its appropriation, and where, there being a divided responsibility, there was in effect no responsibility at all. The Government were urged by several Members, especially by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) to remedy the defective constitution of the Committee of Privy Council of Education, and to establish an individualised responsibility, and to place the administration of those funds under the superintendence of one Minister. It was also urged that the educational department ought to be represented in that House by a Minister who, in conjunction with the President of the Council, should take upon himself the administration of those funds granted by Parliament for educational purposes. It was also suggested that the same Board should take upon themselves the charge now intrusted to the Board of Trade connected with art and science. The First Lord of the Treasury said, in reply to those appeals, that the Government would not shrink from proposing to Parliament such a measure. Those were the reasons to be given for establishing this new officer of the Government which was really designed to meet what was understood to be the general wish of the House. The Bill did not involve the question of salary; that would come annually before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had drawn a distinction between a Privy Councillor and not a Privy Councillor, but that was quite beside the question raised by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). That right hon. Gentleman objected to any alteration of the present system, or to any paid officer sitting in that House who should be able to give that information which it would be his duty to give. If at any future period it should be thought better that public education should be represented by an executive officer instead of by a Vice President, and that his salary should be £1,500 a year instead of £2,000, it would be quite open for the House to adopt that course. It was quite true that all the proposed schemes of public education were rejected; but he understood that the grounds of their rejection were that the time had not arrived when it was practically expedient to attempt to establish one general system of education throughout the country. But it was, nevertheless, the general feeling of the House that means should be taken to extend education throughout the kingdom; and it was thought that the existing means used now were the best that could be devised. When the Committee of Privy Council of Education was first established, the grants of public money were small, and the duties were of a light character, so that the Committee possessed sufficient machinery to administer those funds. But now that the grants had largely increased, and the business connected with the department of education had likewise increased, it was felt desirable that the educational department should be enlarged, and that it should be represented by an influential Minister in the House of Commons.

said, he thought that it would be a great advantage to have in that House a Minister of Education for the whole of the United Kingdom. Two different systems existed—one in Ireland, and the other in this country—and it would certainly be desirable to have some one in that House responsible for the whole education of the United Kingdom. He did not think the salary proposed was too high. If, however, they passed the Bill in its present shape they would be widening the line of demarcation which at present existed between England and Ireland, with respect to education.

said, he could not allow one observation of the Secretary for the Home Department to pass without remark. The right hon. Gentleman said it was quite beside the question to make any objections to the Bill on the ground of the position which the proposed officer was to occupy, or to object to his being a Privy Councillor. Now, the Bill consisted of one clause; and he conceived that the whole force and pith of the Bill was that the proposed Minister should be a highly salaried officer and one of great position. It appeared to him that by the Bill the President of the Committee of the Privy Council of Education would practically be made a nullity. He must confess that he looked with great jealousy at the appointment of such an officer as this. He could not possibly understand what those matters connected with art and science, and which were now associated with the Board of Trade, had to do with education in a practical sense. He was aware that persons talked about the education of the people being promoted by art and science in an indirect manner. That, no doubt, was true; but what he maintained was required in the present case was a hard-working officer. He willingly admitted that it would be of great advantage to have one Minister on the subject of education responsible to that House. Large sums of money were voted annually, and the House had not sufficient means to inquire into the details of the management and expenditure of that money. But the suggestion which had been made in the course of the discussion would, in his opinion, fully meet the case. A joint secretary might be employed in the day in the duties of his department, and at night he might attend in that House to answer the few questions that might be put. It might be desirable that some Minister should always be ready to answer such questions. No doubt that duty would ultimately become one of great importance. If responsibility were required he was sure that no one would be more unwilling to shrink from responsibility than the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. And if upon his responsibility the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to say that he was not able satisfactorily to his own conscience, and, as he believed, to the public and to that House, to answer those questions and make himself master of the points that might arise, then he (Mr. G. Vernon) would admit that a strong case had been made out for having some officer, but he should say an inferior officer, of the Government appointed to discharge that duty. It could not, however, be said, that it was of no importance whether that officer was a Privy Councillor or not. It was of great importance for this reason, that he must be strictly a Ministerial officer. His sole and entire business would be to carry out the views of Parliament, and the views of the President of the Committee of Privy Council of education. It assuredly would not do to have two equal authorities in the same department. He must be distinctly subordinate to the President of the Privy Council, and he must not go beyond the intentions of the Privy Council. If his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire should go to a division, he should certainly feel it his duty to vote with him.

said, he was sorry that a question of this kind should assume the character of a Government Bill, because hon. Members who were supporters of Government felt themselves in some manner constrained to support the measure, whether they approved it or not. But the measure now before the House did not originate with the Government; it was forced upon them; he, therefore, hoped that they would listen to the advice given to them against the principle of the Bill. The amount of grants for education, science, and art was £876,937. There were fifteen items on account of which grants were made, but this Educational Board would only have to deal with one of those items. He should certainly vote against the Bill.

said, he supposed that, notwithstanding the schemes proposed for a general system of public education had been rejected, they were not to give up education altogether, or to such a degree as would not involve the necessity of such a superintendence as was proposed by the Bill? Considering the many onerous duties imposed upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department, it was impossible that he could discharge those duties which would appertain to the office of a Minister of Education compatibly with those which attached to his own department. If Parliament appointed a Minister who was to be responsible for the educational department, he undoubtedly ought to be a person of importance and a Privy Councillor. The House would not be content with an answer from an Under Secretary, but would still require to be replied to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, he considered that it was the business of the House to get rid of the Bill. As the duties of the office were not as yet defined, they would find, if they agreed to the Bill, that every new duty imposed on this officer would be made an excuse for increasing his salary.

said, that the House having decided in favour of the present system of education he considered that the present measure was uncalled for, as it evidently had reference to a much more extended system. He deprecated the introduction of a political officer into the department of education, because he feared discussion and dissension would be the grievous results. The proposal was not only not asked for now by Parliament, but was evidently disliked both by Parliament and the country. It was the commencement of some system which they did not understand, and would introduce an official into that House whose presence would be a stimulus to discussions which would create inconvenience to the Government, and heart burnings in the country.

said, he considered the Bill to be a very excellent measure. Great benefit would have been derived to the community if during the discussion of the Oxford University Bill there had been a Minister of Education in the House. The country had a constitutional right to have a Minister of Education appointed. Large sums of money were granted for educational purposes every year, and the only person they could now refer to for information as to the appropriation of that money was the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whose various other duties were quite sufficient to occupy his time.

said, he wished to refresh the memory of his hon. Friend by stating that, when the Oxford University Bill was before the House, they had the advantage of the presence of the President of the Council himself, (Lord John Russell) and not only so, but he was the leader at that time in that House. A great deal had been said about the necessity for such an officer to answer questions, but if his memory did not mislead him, seldom more than three or four questions were asked on the subject in the course of the Session, and these the Home Secretary was always competent to answer. He observed a marked difference in the House between its present laxity and former jealousy with respect to the number of its Members sitting there holding paid offices during pleasure. He knew some of these offices had been abolished, but still on the balance of the last ten years a considerable addition to them had been made. He did not at the present moment see the necessity for this new Ministerial officer being appointed, and he should, therefore, vote against the third reading of the Bill.

said, he rose to put the following question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—Whether, under the recent Act of Amnesty granted by Her Majesty to all political exiles, orders had been given for the liberation of the ten following prisoners, convicted of high treason at the York assizes of September, 1820, and transported to Van Diemen's Land by the ship Lady Ridley in 1821:—William Comstive, William Rice, Richard Addy, Joseph Frith, Charles Stanfield, John Birkenshaw, Benjamin Rogers, Joseph Chapel, Benjamin Hanson, and Michael Downing? No record of the conviction of those individuals was to be found at the Home Office. They together with thirteen other persons—making in all twenty-three—had been tried at York in 1820, when Lord Sid-mouth was at the head of the Home Department, and had been induced to plead guilty to a charge of high treason, upon the condition that their lives should be spared. Out of the twenty-three who had been placed upon trial thirteen had been sentenced to only short periods of imprisonment or transportation, and when the recent amnesty to political exiles had been proclaimed, he had made a communication to the Home Office as to whether indulgence would not be extended to the other ten whose names were comprised in his question. The answer to that communication had been, that there was no record of their conviction at the Home Office, or of their present whereabouts, and his object in calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the subject now was, that the knowledge that they had received Her Majesty's pardon might, by means of the press, be conveyed to those individuals, wherever they might happen to be. The charge made against them had arisen out of a seditious meeting which had been held at Grange Moor, near Barnsley.

said, that it was not remarkable that no record of the conviction of these men was to be found in the Home Office, because it occurred some thirty-six years ago, and these ten persons were in the following year transported either to Van Diemen's Land or New South Wales—he believed to the latter colony. From other sources of information he had ascertained that the offence of which they were convicted was similar in character to those for which pardons had recently been granted. It was right that if any of these persons were living they should be included in the amnesty, and instructions had been sent to the colonies that they should be set at liberty.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether Her Majesty's Government were disposed to relieve private families as much as possible from the inconvenience of the present system of billeting in Scotland, by making other arrangements for the accommodation of recruiting parties and of the permanent staffs of the militia?

said, that the permanent staff of each militia regiment in Scotland did not exceed some twenty-five or thirty persons, and that the Government would take into their consideration whether some arrangements for billeting them could not be resorted to different from those which at present prevailed. With reference to the recruiting parties, he could give no decided answer.

said, he would beg to inquire whether any tenders for the conveyance of mails between England and the Cape of Good Hope, and also for extending the same to the Mauritius, India, and homewards, had been received; whether any decision had been arrived at; and, in the event of a decision being arrived at, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have any objection to lay on the table copies of those tenders?

in reply, said, that several tenders for the conveyance of the mails in question had been received, and were under the consideration of the Government, who would probably decide upon them in the course of to-morrow. When the question was determined, there would be no objection to lay upon the table copies of the tenders.

said, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge whether it was the intention of the Church Estates Commissioners to act on the recommendations of the Committee on Ecclesiastical Commissions as to the consideration to be shown to the lessees of Church lands for their beneficial interest in settling terms of enfranchisement?

said, that it was intended to act bonâ fide upon those recommendations, and, indeed, the Church Estates Commissioners had already begun to do so.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury why the annual finance accounts had not as yet been delivered, and whether they had been printed?

said, that the reasons why the finance accounts which had been prepared on the 1st day of June had not as yet been laid before the House was, that the land revenue accounts of Scotland, which were discharged to a great extent in kind, had not been ready with the other accounts, in consequence of the delay which necessarily occurred in converting those payments in kind into cash. Arrangements had, however, been made by which that account would be prepared at an earlier date in future.

Sir, I gave notice of a question yesterday to the noble Lord at the head of the Government with respect to the state of our diplomatic relations with America. The noble Lord, some five or six weeks ago, informed the House that the post of British Minister in the United States of America had become vacant, and he also furnished the House with papers explanatory of the circumstances that had caused Mr. Crampton to take his departure from the United States. He informed us, further, that amicable relations between England and the United States were not disturbed, and that the diplomatic intercourse between those two Governments would be continued. I therefore take leave to ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's advisers contemplate the early appointment of a Minister from England to the United States?

Sir, it is by no means an unusual circumstance that a mission should for a time, and from a variety of causes, remain vacant—that sometimes happens. With regard to the particular mission to which the question of the right hon. Gentleman relates, I beg to state that Her Majesty's Government have as yet taken no decision on the subject.

seconded the Motion.

said, he believed from the observations of his hon. Friend that he did not mean to take the sense of the House upon the Motion. It was one which certainly related to a most important question; and he quite concurred in the opinion of his hon. Friend that the House ought not to take any step in the matter unless it was fully supported in that step by public opinion. But the feeling of the country was not, he felt persuaded, at present in accordance with the spirit of that Motion. He believed, on the contrary, that an impression prevailed very extensively that the adoption of the Motion would tend to unsettle the faith of the great body of the people, and to lessen the respect which they at present entertained for the inspired writings. The authorised version of the Bible contained no doubt some errors; there were probably to be found in it some slight inaccuracies in rendering the purport of the original, as well as some words which had changed their meaning since the translation had been made; but he believed that on the whole the people of this country were agreed in admiring the accuracy and fidelity of the translation, the beauty, the purity, and the simplicity of its language, and its general freedom from every error of an important character; and these qualities justly entitled it to the respect and reverence with which it had ever been regarded. His hon. Friend said it was a hard thing to compel clergymen to read in the Church services passages of the Scriptures which they believed not to be literal translations of the original and not properly to convey its meaning. But he (Sir G. Grey) felt convinced that there were very few, or rather no passages in the translation which were so inaccurately given that a clergyman could feel any scruple of conscience in being obliged to read them; and, indeed, clergymen were the last people who could make any such complaint, because it was their duty not only to read the Scriptures but also to explain them, and they had thus an ample opportunity of pointing out any errors they might have discovered in the translation. If the hon. Gentleman had intended to have pressed his Motion, he should have felt it his duty to have dealt with the subject more in detail, but as his hon. Friend did not intend to take the sense of the House, he would only say that he thought it inexpedient to do more than to allow learned men to make critical notes on the authorised version of the Bible; to which notes all scholars, who were capable of forming a judgment upon the subject, might easily have access.

said, he would not press his Motion.

said, he rose pursuant to notice, to move—

"That, except upon the introduction of a measure to the House, no Member do speak for more than half an hour at one time upon the same question; nor upon any occasion for more than one hour."

It might, perhaps, be objected, that the adoption of his Motion would limit the privileges of Members; but although he was but a young Member of that House he had had considerable experience of the proceedings of public bodies, and he had never seen so much time wasted by them as was wasted in the proceedings of that House. The universal complaint of private Members was, that the Government usurped all the available time of the House and that they had no opportunity of bringing forward independent measures. There were frequently from twenty to thirty Orders of the Day upon the paper; the discussion of only one of them often occupied the whole evening until midnight; the other Orders were consequently hurried over or put off; and then, at the end of the Session, came the usual massacre of the innocents. He thought it was a reproach to the House that year after year a large number of measures should be submitted to their consideration which it was eventually found impossible to carry into law. He knew that the length at which some hon. Gentlemen were in the habit of addressing the House was not the only cause of this delay in legislation. The Motions which were frequently made on the question of the adjournment of the House on Friday evenings, particularly, were productive of considerable delay. Those who caused such delays were well known, but of course it would be invidious to mention them. He had prepared a statement, showing the time occupied by different Members in speaking, which he would beg to read to the House. It was true that some hon. Gentlemen might be listened to for an hour at a time with great pleasure, but he was so much of a patriot that he was quite willing to sacrifice that gratification. Now, one remedy for the evil was condensation. Some twenty years ago he was the chairman of a metropolitan railway company, and in that capacity it was frequently his duty to explain to the shareholders the views and the policy of the Directors, He unfortunately got into the habit of making long speeches, and hints were given to him by the shareholders and the reporters that his speeches should be very much shortened. He accustomed himself in consequence to the habit of condensation, and he was not quite sure that in endeavouring to avoid Scylla he had not fallen into Charybdis, for at the end of the Session he received an anonymous note in these terms—

"Will Mr. Wilkinson take the advice of an old friend and make longer speeches (if any) and upon subjects he understands, so that they may be worth reporting, and not fritter away his reputation on a few words which go for nothing."

He was afraid many hon. Members of that House were not likely to fall into the same error. There were in the House a large number of Gentlemen of the long robe, and, although he was quite willing to acknowledge the great advantages which the House derived from their legal education and acumen, it must be confessed that the practice of forensic art did not lead to habits of condensation. Clients were not apt to be very well satisfied with a short statement of their cases. He had had occasion to employ counsel in connection with railway business, and he must admit that he was not at all satisfied if they made short speeches. He paid very heavy fees, and he thought he was entitled to have the benefit of all that the learned Gentleman could say on his behalf—but he objected strongly to the practice being carried out in that House. He found from the statement he had prepared, that there were 273 Members of that House who had not spoken at all during the Session. There were 209 who had not spoken for more than half-an-hour. There remained 170 Members, of whom fifty-five had only spoken once this Session, so that the monopoly of speaking was confined to a comparatively small number of Members. He hoped, under those circumstances, that his Motion would be supported by a majority of the House. He was aware that he laboured under this disadvantage—that, unfortunately, many of the non-talkers had, he apprehended, left for the country, and therefore he could not have their votes. The plan he suggested had been successfully adopted in America, and he believed that if it received the sanction of the House the progress of public business would be considerably facilitated.

seconded the Motion.

Sir, the object which my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth has in view—that of shortening the debates in this House, and increasing the amount of real business transacted in the course of the Session, must in the abstract have the assent and concurrence of every hon. Member. I confess, however, that I do not think that the particular method by which he proposes to accomplish his object is one which I should recommend this House to adopt. In the first place, I think anything that tends to restrain the freedom of speech, either in this House or out of it, is not altogether in harmony with the spirit of our constitution. The foundation of that freedom, in my opinion, is, that you should leave it to the man who speaks to judge whether what he says is worthy of being uttered and listened to, the matter of his speech being subject to the criticism of those who hear or of those who may afterwards read it. It would be quite inconsistent and at variance with the manner in which the debates of this House are conducted that any such Motion as the present should be adopted; what is more, it might indeed be attended with great practical inconvenience. Many of us recollect that, not long ago, on a Wednesday evening a majority of the House were exceedingly anxious that a certain measure should come to a division, and I am afraid that, had my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) been on that occasion subject to the proposed restriction, he would not have been able to make the speech by which he contrived to keep up the attention of the House till the arrival of the critical hour, and thus accomplished the object which he had in view. [Mr. SPOONER: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for North Warwickshire did not, of course, approve that speech, but I do not think it was at all an abuse of the privilege which my hon. Friend (Mr. H. Herbert) possessed. No doubt in an assembly consisting of so large a number of persons as the House of Commons, every one being free to speak when he pleases, there must necessarily be a great deal of time lost in discussion. That is an inevitable consequence of our composition, and any attempt to alter it would be an attempt to alter human nature, and could not possibly be successful. But I must say, with regard to the abuse of the privilege by long speeches, I do not think, comparing the present Session with times gone by, that the Members are particularly chargeable with any abuse of that privilege. I remember the time when the speeches in this House were confined to far fewer Members than now, and extended to much greater length, when hardly any one spoke who did not prolong his observations for an hour and a half or two hours. I remember the case of a worthy Baronet—whose name I need not give, a Surrey Member—who began a speech at five o'clock. A friend of his, at the end of two hours, went to Clapham, drank tea, played a game of whist, and returned to the House, when ho found his Friend still on his legs. These things do not happen now-a-days, for there is a sort of control exercised by the House over Members who speak. It is very seldom now that any Member intrudes on the House longer than he finds to be really necessary, but unquestionably there are subjects on which it is essential that Members who have information to give, or objections to urge, or defences to make, should be allowed a good deal of time to state their views to the House, and where any restriction of the kind proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Wilkinson) would not have the effect of really shortening the debate, but would materially impede the enlightenment of the House on the matter which they had to decide. I think my hon. Friend has not exactly hit the right nail on the head. There is a great deal of time wasted, but, though he has stated that there is a comparatively small number of Members who take part in the debates, still I think the prolongation of the debates is caused, not by the length of the speeches, but by the multitude of speakers, and that is a circumstance arising out of the change which has taken place in the constitution of the House of Commons. When a great body of the Members of the House sat for small places and close boroughs their constituents did not much care whether they spoke or not, and they were consequently little urged by external pressure to make long speeches. But now every Member has constituents who expect that his voice should from time to time be heard in the House; and, consequently, there is a greater number of Members who take part in the debates than was formerly the case. Now, although it may be inconvenient to-us to sit here longer than we should otherwise do at night and in the season, yet, looking to the interests of the country, and to the consideration which the House of Commons ought to have in the country, I would rather see the House err on the side of lengthened debates than err in not discussing measures brought in by the Government, or Motions that may be made in consequence of the conduct which the Government may pursue. There is, however, one misapplication of the privilege of debate on which my hon. Friend's Motion does not touch, but which has prevailed very much in the course of the present Session—I mean the licence that is taken with regard to the Motion on Fridays for the adjournment of the House over till Monday. Strictly speaking, I believe you would be acting quite right, Sir, in enforcing the strict orders of the House, that a person speaking on the question of adjournment should speak on that question alone, and give reasons for or against it; but the Motion that the House shall adjourn from Friday till Monday is now considered to be a signal for every sort of question being brought forward, and in this way we lose many hours every week that might be devoted to public business. How far the House ought to restrict that licence, and how far opportunity should be given to Members to bring forward questions in which they take an interest on these occasions I will not say, hut unquestionably more time is lost by these Friday evening discussions than by the long speeches to which the Motion of my hon. Friend refers. I am of opinion, with all deference to my hon. Friend—and I must admit, he is himself an example of the principle he contends for, as he always speaks to the purpose and not longer than is necessary—that the Motion he has submitted is not one that the House ought to adopt. The principle he pleads for is one that should be recommended to the private reflection of those who take part in our debates. Those who bring any particular case or question before the House ought to feel that it is their duty to ponder well beforehand what they have to say, and to clothe their ideas in as few words as are compatible with making their purpose clear to the House; and to a great extent I think that is done. There are move Members capable of speaking with credit to themselves and with advantage to the House than used to be the case in former times. Formerly, when a debate took place, it was merely a combat between two or three of the leaders on one side and two or three on the other, and the rest of the House were not expected to take any part in it; but now the House has an abundance of Members possessing great talent and knowledge and learning, who can give useful in formation on all matters that come under the consideration of Parliament, and though we may suffer from the length to which our debates are in consequence carried, yet that by no means ought to be considered an evil. On the contrary, the debates contain more mutter and convey more information to the country than was the case in former times, and therefore I do not regret the time that is spent in listening to those speeches. My hon. Friend having given his advice on this subject, which, if taken with due allowance, will be useful to us, I do not doubt, in another Session, I hope he will content himself with the principle he has enunciated, and not press his Motion to a division, as, in my opinion, it is one that would not he conducive to the object he has in view or of advantage to the public service.

said, it appeared to him that the real remedy lay in the hands of the leading Members of the House; for it was they who indulged in the practice of making those long speeches, and over them the House generally had no control. He could not agree with his noble Friend at the head of the Government that it would be advisable to deprive Members of the right of introducing discussions on the Motion for the adjournment of the House on the Fridays; on the contrary, he believed that by means of that right, subjects were disposed of in the course of a few hours which would otherwise occupy whole evenings. He was convinced that the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth would be inconsistent with the freedom of debate in that House.

said, he had received a letter from a gentleman in the United States, who had been Chairman of the House of Representatives during two years, arid who deposed to the entire success of the rule adopted in that country since the year 1842, for limiting the period during which Members of the House of Representatives could speak at any one time. He believed that the course recommended by the hon. Member for Lambeth in that case must sooner or later be adopted.

said, he must admit that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had advanced some very sound objections to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Lambeth; yet he (Mr. W. J. Fox) was one of those who thought that much time was wasted in that House, and he confessed he was in hopes that the noble Lord would have applied his own mind to remedy the evil. For that evil the noble Lord himself, the right hon. Gentlemen who had acted with him, and the leaders of parties generally were, in his opinion, in the main responsible. He thought that a great improvement would be effected if those right hon. Gentlemen would change their habit of speaking at the end or a debate, and would speak at the beginning instead. It was the practice now for one leader to lie in wait to trip up another—for an orator on one side to keep his mouth shut until he should have the pleasure of cutting up an orator on the other side at a late period of the evening, when the House was in an excited state, and enjoyed such gladiatorial exhibitions. But what became of the discussion meanwhile? It began, say between five and six o'clock; at seven the House was deserted. Gentlemen went and dined, or wrote their letters, and those who remained were left at the mercy of anybody who thought it worth his while to speak to a bare quorum—not always even to that. Then, at about ten o'clock, those who took the lead came, and astonished the House with a succession of able and brilliant speeches. Now, if they would be so good as to open the debate, the House would, in the first three or four speeches. have the whole matter before it, and none would follow except such independent Members as might have some information to communicate, or could throw some additional light on the subject. Gentlemen would not then, for very shame, go on reiterating what had been already well said; in a comparatively short period the subject would be ripe for decision, and the result would be a great saving of time.

said, he should support the Resolution, but he thought that the object in view might be attained by an alteration in the mode of conducting public business, as well as by the shortening of speeches.

in reply, said, he thought it better to take the sense of the House on the subject, because it was desirable to see whether the Motion would meet with any support. The principle might be adopted as an experiment, and there would be no difficulty in going back to the old practice if it should be considered necessary, or the proposed rule might be suspended on extraordinary occasions. He (Mr. Wilkinson) believed no one would gain so much, by the adoption of the Motion, as the noble Lord himself, whose attendance in that House was unwearied, most assiduous; so much so, that he (Mr. Wilkinson) felt quite ashamed to go away and leave the noble Lord, hour after hour, and night after night, attending watchfully to the public business. Indeed, he knew not how the noble Lord was able to give such an attendance—taking into consideration the amount of business he must have to transact in the course of the day. He did not know how long the noble Lord meant to last, but the labour he underwent was almost beyond human endurance.

said, that in submitting to the House the claims of certain numbers of persons. Her Majesty's subjects, on the Spanish Government, for an honourable settlement of the Spanish Committee Certificate of Coupon not funded, he considered that it was a question which most materially affected the rights and property of Her Majesty's subjects, and of those who, depending on the faith of nations, had on such grounds advanced their money on loan to the Spanish Government. When an attempt was made to defraud Her Majesty's subjects by the Government of Spain, by a decree of settling the debts thus contracted by confiscating part of the interest due upon that debt, the British creditors of Spain had a right to appeal to their own Government to protect them from the effects of such an arbitrary and unjust decree, and to call upon Her Majesty's Ministers to remonstrate with the Spanish Government. He would not take up the time of the House by entering into a full detail of the origin of the debt contracted by Spain with Her Majesty's subjects; it would be sufficient for him to state, that from the effects of the civil war which occurred in Spain in the year 1832 the resources of the country became exhausted, and it was found necessary by the Government to obtain a loan of £8,000,000 at 5 per cent interest, the security offered being the sale of the national property. That money was chiefly subscribed by British capitalists. The civil war had been put an end to, but he regretted to say that, although the constitutional party triumphed, good government did not follow. Favouritism prevailed, and with it its usual consequences of profligacy and lavish expenditure of the public revenues. Public credit sank and the creditors of Spain were totally disregarded, so that interest for ten years was now due to the English creditors. At length the public voice was heard, and in the year 1851 Queen Isabella convoked the Cortes, and announced that instructions had been given to her Minister of Finance to arrange the foreign debt on honourable terms. The following announcement was then made by the Minister of Finance (Signor Bravo Murillo):—

"The Five per Cent Foreign Debt of Spain to be converted into a One per cent Stock, the interest of which was to be gradually increased till it arrived, in the course of nineteen years, to a Three per Cent Stock."

Fifty per cent only of the amount of interest due to the British creditors in the Five per cent Stock was acknowledged, and to be capitalised into the new created One per Cent Stock, and thus 50 per cent of the interest due to the English creditor was actually confiscated. Never was such an act of spoliation so unblushingly made public. Not satisfied with depriving the British creditors of four-fifths of their capital, the Spanish Government confiscated 50 per cent of the overdue interest, which was always considered the most sacred part of a debt. That was only a plain statement of the facts, and he would ask, had not the subjects of the British Crown a full right to appeal to Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to seek redress against such an act of spoliation; for the British creditors of Spain had been informed, that if the hard terms offered were not accepted, no acknowledgment whatever of the debt due to them would be made. A noble Lord, now no more, but whose memory was still revered in that House—Lord George Bentinck—when a Member of the House of Commons, brought forward this question, seeking redress from the Spanish Government towards the British creditors, when the noble Lord now at the head of Her Majesty's Government stated, "That though at that period he could not press the subject on the Government of Spain, nevertheless a time might come when Her Majesty's Government would and must interfere." He (Sir J. FitzGerald) did think that there could not be a moment more propitious than the present, when Spain herself, on similar grounds, had actually equipped an armament against Mexico, for the purpose of obtaining redress and compensation for Spanish subjects who had claims on the Mexican Government. Hon. Members, perhaps, were not aware of the orders issued to the officers commanding the armament proceeding to Vera Cruz to enforce the rights of Spanish subjects? They were as follows:—

"M. Alvarez has been instructed by General Zabula to notify to the Mexican Government, on his arrival in the Bay of Vera Cruz, that he was ready to present his credentials provided the bonds taken from the Spanish creditors were restored, the interest due on them paid, and the legitimacy of the debt already sanctioned by a treaty again acknowledged. Should the Mexican Government agree to pay and restore the bonds, M. Alvarez will land, and immediately deliver his credentials; if not, he will return to the Havannah, on board one of the steamers, and leave the three other ships in observation before Vera Cruz."

It was true that a treaty existed between Spain and Mexico regarding this question, whereas the Government of this country was no party to the transaction between the British creditors and Spain; but was it not incumbent on all European Governments to act strictly up to their engagements with their creditors? And if they should, by deviating from them, forfeit their faith and national honour, and thereby defraud the subjects of any other power, had not the subjects of those powers sought the protection of their representative Governments against such wrongs? Had not the United States always acted upon that rule? Had not France followed the same rule? Was it to be supposed that a power like Great Britain should be an exception, when the rights of her subjects were assailed? Portugal, a much smaller country than Spain, had also repudiated her debts; but that repudiation had been found so detrimental to her financial position, that she had thought proper subsequently to admit the justice of the claims against her. It was not his intention to divide the House on the question, but he hoped that he should elicit a satisfactory statement from the noble Lord at the head of the Government with respect to the adoption of some course which should secure the recognition at least of the claims of the Spanish bondholders.

Sir, I entirely concur with my hon. and gallant Friend in the opinion that the course pursued by the Spanish Cortes in regard to these claims is quite at variance with every principle of justice and equity. This money was advanced by the people of this country at a moment when the Spanish nation were struggling for their liberties, and when pecuniary assistance was absolutely necessary in order to carry on the contest in which they were then engaged. That assistance was supplied, and it was mainly by the means which were furnished to them by individuals here that they were enabled to accomplish the constitutional objects which they had in view. The Spanish Government contend that they did not receive the whole amount of the capital for which they became liable; but that is necessarily the case with Governments which are in great difficulties, and whose credit, therefore, is very small; because their duration is uncertain, and they may be superseded at any time by the opposite party, who may disavow their engagements. Naturally, a Government like that, pro tempore in its character, and raising money under those circumstances, must expect to pay very dearly for the accommodation which it obtains. It is not, then, a just or sufficient answer to the British creditor to say that for every £100 that the Spanish nation is indebted only a certain proportion was received; and, therefore, in point of principle, there can be no question, I think, in the mind of any honourable man as to the obligation of the Spanish nation towards the bondholders. The only question is one of expediency; what course on the part of the British Government is best calculated to obtain justice for these persons? It has always been held that, in the circumstances under which these loans with Spain and other Governments were contracted, it was not advisable for the British Government to interfere officially and directly for the enforcement of these claims. The loans were made on the responsibility of private parties; the Government was no party to the transaction, and therefore could claim no such international right as that asserted by the Spanish Government in regard to their demands upon Mexico, which were founded upon an engagement entered into between the Government of Mexico and that of Spain. We hare always held that it is upon principle not advisable to make this an international question; the British Government has therefore limited its interference to those friendly representations which one Government is entitled to make to another from whose acts its subjects complain that a grievance has arisen. These applications and representations have frequently been made, but I regret to say that as yet they have not been attended with the success which they deserved. Under these circumstances, I think that my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. FitzGerald) will exercise a sound discretion by not pressing I his Motion to a division. Probably the opinion which this House, by its acquiescence in what he has said, may be understood to have expressed on this question may have some effect upon the minds of the Spanish Government and the Spanish courtiers; but of that I should not like to express too great a certainty. I think, however, that Spain would best consult her national dignity and her national honour by not only acknowledging but acting upon the engagements by which she is bound to those who assisted her in an hour of great need.

said, in reply, he would not press his Motion, but he would beg to remind the noble Lord, that the Government were active enough in Don Pacifico's case, and he thought the same interest ought to be manifested by the Government in vindicating the rights of Englishmen.

I rise, Sir, to appeal to a body of British gentlemen to protect the British army from wrong. It will no doubt be in the recollection of many hon. Members that last Tuesday evening a statement was made by the hon and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) with respect to treatment which had been received by General Beatson, and that an anwer to that question was given by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War. I think it right to mention these matters at the outset so as to set myself right, and to make the House understand that the Motion which I have put upon the paper fairly represents the state of the case, and does not state it one whit more strongly than is warranted by what occurred upon that occasion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) said—

"That the hon. and gallant Member had correctly stated the nature of the employment which had been given by the Government to General Beatson. That officer was instructed to raise a body of irregular cavalry in Asia Minor, Syria, Bulgaria, and Albania, and to take the command of the men when raised. That force first came under the command of General Beatson in the month of June; but in the September following it was deemed expedient that it should form part of the Turkish Contingent under General Vivian, and that another body of irregular cavalry should be placed under General Beatson. The charges brought against General Beatson were connected with this transfer of his command to the officer who succeeded him. They were to this effect—that he had instigated some of the commanding officers of the regiments under him to decline to serve under any other officer than himself, and had sought to induce the natives of the force to prefer remaining under his command rather than that of any other person. These accusations were sent anonymously to General Vivian, who forwarded them to Her Majesty's Government, who felt it their duty to direct an inquiry into the matter, with a view, if possible, of verifying the statements made. General Smith, at Schumla, who was with General Beatson on the occasion, was instructed to set that inquiry afloat. That inquiry did take place, and the statements of the commanding officers were forwarded to the War Department. That inquiry, however, might still be considered pending, inasmuch as the correspondence connected with it had not as yet closed. The result, however, of this inquiry, as far as it had gone, did not justify the Government in taking any proceedings against General Beatson. The course taken by the War Department was the obvious and usual course, in instituting an inquiry with a view merely of ascertaining whether there were prima facie any grounds for taking proceedings against General Beatson. From what had taken place he apprehended there would be no further proceedings in the matter. As, however, the correspondence had not as yet closed, he could not assent to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Thus, if I had not in my hand the letters from the War Office to General Beatson, I am justified in appealing to hon. Members who heard what was said last Tuesday evening to say if the statement made in my Resolution is not perfectly accurate. That statement is, that a British officer of thirty-five years' standing has been subjected to an anonymous charge, and upon that charge to a secret inquiry. Sir, I again appeal to a body of British gentlemen, and ask them whether under such a system, any man of honour is safe? Is the War Office to be made a "lion's mouth" to receive anonymous information of this sort? To whom do we intrust our honour and our safety? To the British army. We send them to every clime to face every danger, and they go forth with that gallantry of spirit which has ever distinguished them, fully persuaded that they will be protected, at least in their honour, by the British House of Commons. Now, Sir, what is the state of the case? I will introduce to the House the parties involved in this transaction. The first person is the gallant general whom the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to term "the accused." [Mr. F. PEEL: I never used that word.] The hon. Gentleman must give us leave, I trust, to believe our ears: I think they are very faithful witnesses. I wish the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) was in the House, because when I heard the statement I turned round to him and said, "This cannot be borne; it shall not be borne." I rushed across the House, because I was indignant at the statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel), and put upon the hooks the Motion which is now before the House. I am now introducing the parties. The first as I have said is General Beatson. I have here a letter which I received as soon as my notice had been made public. It is from a noble Lord who has been Governor General of India, and whose name will, I am sure, conciliate the respect of the House—I mean Lord Ellenborough. That noble Lord writes thus:—

"108, Eaton-square, July 17.

"My dear Sir,—As you are to make a Motion to-night which relates to the treatment General Beatson has lately experienced, you may like to know something about him as an officer, and I will tell you what I know, He was first brought to my notice in 1842 by marching forty miles in a night during the hottest weather in India, just before the rains, and cutting up a body of insurgents as they were raising their camp. I saw his corps of irregulars, cavalry, infantry, and artillery—about 1,000 men—on the river Scinde, as I returned from Gwalior, in January 1844, and found it in beautiful working order, and very well handled. Not long after that there arose a mutinous spirit in some regiments of the Bengal army, and several were unwilling to go to Scinde. Soldiers of the Bombay army who had served in Scinde were passing through General Beatson's cantonments on their way home on furlough. General Beatson sent them among his men in order to make them thoroughly aware of all the particulars of service in Scinde, and, having ascertained that they were fully informed, he paraded the whole corps and, placing the colours thirty paces in front, he addressed the men, and told all who would offer their services to the Governor General for employment in Scinde to move up to the colours. The whole corps—cavalry, infantry, and artillery—rushed forward with a shout. This, at least, was not mutiny in General Beatson, but it tended very much to arrest mutiny in others, and the Government was greatly indebted to him. The corps was local, and could not have been ordered out of Bundlecund. I more than doubled its strength, the consequent promotion giving in the corps, and General Beatson led it in the autumn by the route of the Deccan to Buhawulpore, and thence to Scinde, where it did good service in the hill campaign, and gave entire satisfaction to Sir Charles Napier. Believe me, my dear Sir, yours faithfully,

ELLENBOROUGH.

"J. A. Roebuck, Esq."

I will now road a very short account of General Beatson's services, for it is important that the House should understand what manner of man he was who, after serving his country for upwards of thirty years, was accused of mutiny and of instigating his corps to the same offence:—

"Lieutenant General Beatson entered the Indian army in 1820, is now a Lieutenant Colonel in that army and Lieutenant, General in the Turkish army; at the time referred to in General Vivian's charges General Beatson also held the British army local rank of Major General. Was six times mentioned in orders and despatches in India for actions in which he commanded. Served with Sir De Lacy Evans in Spain, and was wounded. Cross of San Fernando, gold medal for the Danube campaign, and Crimean medal with clasps for Balaklava, Inkerman, and Sebastopol. Was mentioned by General Sir James Scarlett, on whose staff he was serving at Balaklava and Inkerman. Favourably mentioned in orders or letters by the following Governors General and Commanders in Chief in India:—Lord Ellen-borough, Lord Dalhousie, Lord Hardinge, Lord Auckland, Lord Cough, Sir Charles Napier, and Sir William Gomm. In Spain, by Sir De Lacy Evans and Sir Duncan M'Dougall; in Turkey and the Crimea, by Lord Raglan and Sir James Scarlett.

Such a man, sir, is General Beatson. And now it behoves us to inquire into the nature of the charge that has been brought against him. It appears that at the commencement of the war with Russia, the British army was found to be greatly in want of irregular cavalry. They had to contend with the Cossack troops, which were particularly efficient in that arm of the military service, and it consequently occurred to the Government at home that if we had a well-trained force of irregular cavalry we should be able to meet the Cossacks on equal terms. In this state of things General Beatson was instructed to raise such a body in Asia Minor, Syria, Bulgaria, Albania, and about Constantinople. He was appointed by the Duke of Newcastle—a fact which it is as well to bear in mind, inasmuch as there is a general impression that the persons appointed by that noble Duke did not generally meet with much favour at the hands of his successor—a great number of obstacles were thrown in the way of General Beatson; and it was not until the month of June, 1855, that he could be said to be in command of an organised body of troops. He established his camp in the vicinity of the Dardanelles, and on the 28th of July certain circumstances occurred which induced him to tender his resignation. In the month of August, Lord Panmure wrote him a letter, which was anything rather than a kind or a courteous one, intimating that he would not accept his resignation. However, he was placed shortly afterwards under the command of General Vivian. on the 8th of September he again tendered his resignation, which was accepted on the 29th of that month. And then commenced the transactions to which my Motion has reference. When the order accepting his resignation, and virtually superseding him in his command, had arrived it was thought to be a dangerous proceeding, seeing that he was so beloved by his troops, to displace him forthwith, and to appoint another immediately, as his successor. To show that this was no idle conception, and that I do not misrepresent the case, I entreat the attention of the House to the following letter, bearing the signature of Major General Smith, the officer who in fact was sent out to supersede him. The House will observe that the letter is addressed to General Beatson himself:—

"Dardanelles, Sept. 30, 1855.

"Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date, stating that you have made arrangements to proceed to headquarters, at Bujukdere, in conformity with General Vivian's instructions.

"In answer to the remaining portion of the letter, I beg to state that, in the event of Brigadier General Brett receiving written instructions to act under my orders as senior officer of the contingent force stationed here (to which force the irregular cavalry has been recently attached), I shall leave the command for the present, with regard to all duties of detail, in the Brigadier General's hands, and also withhold the publication of the order placing me in the immediate command of the irregular horse, so as to admit of further instructions being communicated from head-quarters, unless some unforeseen contingency should force me to act otherwise.

"Although for the present I withhold the publication of the order placing me in command of the irregular horse, I must beg that in case I think it expedient to assemble the officers for the purpose of stating to them, in the capacity of senior officer of the contingent force stationed here, any matter which I may think important, as tending to prevent desertion, or for other purposes, Brigadier Brett may be directed to facilitate my doing so.

"In conclusion, I beg to thank you for your compliance with my wishes to be furnished with official documents in order to carry out the instructions with which I have been furnished.

"I have, &c., "G. W. SMITH,

"Major General Turkish Contingent.

"Major General Beatson, &c., commanding Irregular Horse, Dardanelles."

Having received that letter General Beatson withdrew, and now I beg the House to mark what then occurred. On the 26th of April he received from the War Office a letter purporting to have been written by "R. G. H. Vivian," and forwarded by Major General Smith to the Minister of War. It does not appear on the face of it to whom the letter was addressed. [Mr. F. PEEL: It was addressed to Brigadier Watt.] The context seems to say so. You will observe that it bears date the 5th of March, and is marked "confidential":—

"(Confidential.)

"Head Quarters, Kertch, March 5, 1856.

"Sir—In consequence of the recent inspection of the irregular cavalry, circumstances have been reported to me as having taken place at the Dardanelles, involving a very serious charge against Major General Beatson. I consider it quite necessary, both for that officer's character and the public interests, that the report which has reached me should be thoroughly investigated. It is as follows:—

"When General Smith arrived at the Dardanelles General Beatson assembled the commanding officers of regiments, and actually endeavoured to persuade them to make a mutiny in their regiments against General Smith and against the authority of General Vivian. Two of these commanding officers then left the room, saying they were soldiers, and could not listen to language which they thought most improper and mutinous.' These two were Lieutenant Colonels, O'Reilly and Shelley. 'General Beatson subsequently had a sort of round robin prepared by the chief interpreter, and sent round to the native officers and men, in the hope that they would sign it, refusing to serve under any other general but himself.' This attempt, however, appears to have signally failed. 'Both of these mutinous attempts are said to have emanated from Mr. Burton, who, it also appears, kept the order from Lord Panmure, placing the irregular horse under Lieutenant General Vivian, for three whole weeks locked up and unknown to any one but General Beatson; and the order was not promulgated till after General Smith arrived at the Dardanelles. This is authentic, and can be fully proved and substantiated.'

"I have, &c.,

"R. G. H. VIVIAN, Lieutenant General."

"(True Copy.)G. D. RAMSAY.

"War Office, April 26, 1856."

That letter, as I have previously stated, reached General Beatson on the 26th of April, and, as it purported to be an official document, he thought that he was entitled to obtain an official copy of it. He accordingly applied to the War Office for such a copy, and he got it, but with a very remarkable addition. The second copy bears the signature of "James J. Graham, Colonel, Military Secretary," and, though professing to be a true copy, it contains two paragraphs not to be found in the first copy, which, be it remembered, is also attested as a "true copy." The second copy is the same as the first down to the words, "This is authentic, and can be fully proved and substantiated;" but then came the additional paragraphs, which are as follows:—

"The irregular horse having been, at my request, removed from my command for the present, I shall confine myself to requesting you to take steps immediately to examine into these grave accusations against General Beatson, leaving to yourself to adopt such measures for carrying out the investigation as you may judge most advisable. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to Lord Panmure, and you will transmit to his Lordship the result of the inquiry as soon as possible. I request you will, at the same time, furnish me with a copy of your report to the War Minister, the subject being one relating to the period during which the irregulars were under my command, and therefore one in which I am personally concerned."

If the document containing these paragraphs be a faithful transcript of the original, how can it be contended that the first letter also is a "true copy?" Those who maintain that both documents are what they profess to be must attach to the phrase "a true copy," a very different signification from that which I apply to it. But it is impossible that both copies should be "true;" and, if the second document is so, I charge Mr. Ramsay with having falsified the first. Were the additional paragraphs foisted into the second, or were they with equal falseness excluded from the first? Sir, I cannot doubt that the first copy was not a true one, and I charge against Mr. Ramsay that he put his hand to a false copy, and that he knew it to be such. The inquiry was made by Major General Smith, and he reported the result to the War Office in the following terms:—

"Head Quarters, Schumla, April 5.

"My Lord—I have received a confidential letter from Lieutenant General Vivian, dated 5th of March, 1856, requesting me to examine into certain circumstances which occurred upon my first taking over the command of this force from General Beatson, at the Dardanelles. I am informed that a copy of this letter has been forwarded to your Lordship, and I am directed to transmit to you the result of the inquiry as soon as possible. The first point upon which inquiry is called for is as follows:—That upon my arrival at the Dardanelles General Beatson assembled the commanding officers of regiments, and actually endeavoured to persuade them to make a mutiny in their regiments. Two of these commanding officers, Lieutenant Colonel O'Reilly and Major Shelley, left the room, saying they were soldiers, and could not listen to language which they thought most improper and mutinous."

Now, Sir, let it be remembered that this is the first charge against General Beatson, an officer of thirty-five years' standing— that he promoted a munity in the corps he was appointed to raise—that he risked his own honour and life, and the lives of the officers with whom he was connected. This, Sir, is a charge of no venial kind. I ask a company of English Gentlemen, could a graver charge be made against a man of honour, and was it proper that such a charge should have been made the subject of a secret inquiry instead of at once charging him with it? Why, supposing even a drummer-boy were charged with an offence, his commanding officer would at once inform him of it. But, in this case, the Government issued a Commission to inquire into General Beatson's conduct, without telling him with what he was charged. I say no English gentleman is safe if such a course is to be followed. Major General Smith proceeds,—but before I read further I must say, in the performance of my duty, that there are limits to obedience; and that if a Minister of War commanded me to do such a dishonourable act as the Minister of War commanded Major General Smith, I should say, "I am a soldier, and will obey, but I obey deeply groaning in spirit that an English Minister should employ an English general in such a service." Major General Smith proceeds:—

"With regard to this point, I have to state that the above-mentioned officers came to me at the Dardanelles, and said that, although they believed other officers of the force were about to resign upon my taking the command, they were quite willing to serve under me. I enclose letters on this subject from Lieutenant Colonel O'Reilly and Major Shelley…… The next subject of inquiry is as follows:—That General Beatson subsequently had a sort of round-robin prepared by the chief interpreter, and sent round to the native officers and men, in the hope that they would sign it, refusing to serve under any other general but himself. With regard to this point, Mr. Giraud, chief interpreter, states that no paper was prepared by him of the kind mentioned, but he has some recollection that a paper was sent round by an officer to the native officers and men at the time alluded to. He does not know who was the officer who conveyed the paper. Mr. Mallouf, interpreter, has shown me a paper, which he states was signed by the native officers of the force, and of which a copy is enclosed, marked 'C.' Mr. Mallouf states, he does not think that the above paper was the spontaneous act of the men, but he believes they were induced to sign it."

Charges are made affecting not only the honour but the life of General Beatson; and then you permit men to say, "I believe," and "I think," and "I do not know." It is, I maintain, a disgrace to the English army that such things are permitted.

"Having translated the above paper, he heard Captain Burton tell Colonel Morgan to get the men of his regiment to sign a copy of it, which he (Mr. Mallouf) had made by desire of Captain Burton. The paper was written by interpreter Abidullah Tabid, who is no longer in the force. This is all the information I have at present been able to obtain on the subject referred to in General Vivian's letter.

"I have, &c.,

"M. W. SMITH, Major General,"

"Commanding Osmanli Irregular Cavalry."

"The Right Hon. Lord Panmure, &c."

Then comes this postscript:—

"I have since seen the interpreter, Abidullah Tabid, who has just returned from leave. He states that he is aware a paper of the description mentioned was signed by some of the native officers, but states that the paper was not prepared by him, and that he does not know by whom it was originally written.'

I will not trouble the House with any further remarks, but I consider that I have made out a case against the Government. The case is this: that a general officer, upon anonymous information, was subjected to have his conduct inquired into by a secret tribunal. General Vivian says he received information. He does not state from whom. General Beatson inquired, time out of mind, who sent that information? The War Office did not tell him, and the Under Secretary for War admitted he could not tell him because it was anonymous. Yet, upon anonymous information, the War Office issued a Commission to inquire. General Beatson is told inquiry is going on—inquiry into conduct which subjected him to death if it were proved against him. I appeal again to a body of English gentlemen to protect our gallant soldiers against conduct of this kind. Are they to feel, while braving all the dangers of the field, that their honour is not in safe keeping, that they are treading on cinders, and that some "Jack in office" may deprive them of honour and of life? No! I say this House should step in and defend them against such treatment. I charge the Government in this case with having broken through all the rules which ought to distinguish a Liberal Government. I say they have done much to disgrace the Government in the eyes of the country—I was going to say they have done much to endanger the safety of the country; but this I will say, they have done much to shake the faith of the army, and in so doing they have done their best to endanger the safety of the country. I therefore move, that the Under Secretary for War, having admitted that, upon anonymous information, a secret inquiry had been ordered into the conduct of a general officer, this House feels itself bound to express its reprobation of such a proceeding.

seconded the Motion.

In one respect I feel gratified, Sir, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has brought forward this subject, because it affords me an opportunity of doing an act of justice to a general officer, upon whose character and; conduct prejudicial and unfair reflections have been made, in consequence of what I said, or was reported to have said, the other evening, when I answered a speech of the hon. and learned Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) on this same question. It is stated that, in answering that speech, I said General Vivian had acted upon an anonymous accusation. In the Resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman it is stated that the information was anonymous, and the hon. and learned Gentleman read the report of what I stated in this House from the newspapers, by which it appears I said General Vivian received and acted upon anonymous information. The hon. and learned Gentleman read the whole report of what I said on that occasion; and I observe it stated in that report that one of the reasons why the command of the Osmanli Irregular Cavalry was transferred from General Beatson to General Vivian was, in order that General Beatson might hold some other command. Now, Sir, I am certain that I never said anything to that effect, and it is quite possible I may have been misreported also in what I am stated to have said as to General Vivian having received and acted on anonymous information. But if I did say General Vivian received anonymous information, I said that which I was not warranted in saying. I have no recollection, however, of having said that; but I did say undoubtedly that the information was anonymous, and my reason for using that expression was because, at the time I answered the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, I did not know, either privately or as a Member of the War Department, the ! name of General Vivian's informant; nor do I believe any one in the War Department knew from what source General Vivian derived the information on which he acted. If I said that I was unacquainted with the name of General Vivian's informant, I said that which was perfectly true. If I said the information was anonymous, as far as regards General Vivian, I said that which I was not warranted in saying, and I have no hesitation in saying the information on which General Vivian acted was information obtained from sources on which he was justified in placing reliance. The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that General Beatson was appointed to the command of the irregular cavalry by the Duke of Newcastle, at that time Minister of War, and he has also stated that the appointments of that noble Duke were not very acceptable to his successor, hinting that for that reason General Beatson was superseded in his command. Sir, I am certain he can have had no ground whatever for making that assertion. Assuredly nothing of that sort entered into the motives of the head of the War Department in the course he pursued in appointing another general officer to succeed General Beatson. I stated the other evening that the irregular cavalry began to assemble at the Dardanelles in the month of June, 1855, and very shortly afterwards differences and disputes arose between General Beatson and the local authorities. I am not desirous of now entering into the circumstances which led to those differences, but suffice it to say they were of a character which appeared to the War Department to render it indispensable that the independent command of the irregular cavalry, at that time in the hands of General Beatson, should be put an end to, and that the irregular cavalry should be made a part of the Turkish Contingent. I believe that when the despatch from the War Department was received by General Beatson, announcing that his independent command had ceased, and his irregular cavalry would henceforth form part of the Turkish Contingent, he immediately tendered his resignation to Lord Panmure, on the ground that he did not think it fair to himself that he should be called upon to serve in a subordinate position. That was the reason, I believe, which influenced General Beatson in tendering his resignation. That resignation was accepted by Lord Panmure; but, before the acceptance of that resignation was received at Constantinople, circumstances had occurred at the Dardanelles, in connection with the relation between the irregular cavalry and the inhabitants, which led General Vivian, who had vested in him the supreme command of the irregular cavalry, to believe that it was desirable that General Beatson should be superseded in his command. I need not enter into those circumstances further than to say that the local authorities at the Dardanelles considered that General Beatson did not give them the assistance they were entitled to expect from him, in order to prevent his soldiers from coming into the town with their arms, which they constantly used to the great danger of the inhabitants; and those authorities determined that, if the soldiers of the irregular cavalry continued to go about armed, they should be prevented by force from entering the town. The dispute appeared to the Ambassador at Constantinople, and likewise to General Vivian, to be of such a character as to render necessary the appointment of an officer who would assist the Turkish authorities in taking steps to prevent collisions between the soldiers and the inhabitants, and therefore it was General Vivian exercised the authority vested in him, and appointed Major General Smith to take the command of the irregular cavalry. Soon after that appointment was made, a despatch was received from the War Department accepting the resignation of General Beatson, and, subsequently, the contingent proceeded to Kertch, while the irregular cavalry, under Major General Smith, were sent to Schumla, The latter officer was shortly afterwards taken ill, and the command devolved upon an officer who had been sent from this country—Brigadier General Watt. Upon that change taking place, General Vivian, who was at Kertch, considered it was necessary that an inspection of the irregular cavalry at Schumla should be made, and accordingly Major General Shirley was despatched upon that duty. It was while that officer was engaged in the inspection that the circumstances which have been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield were communicated to him, and by him reported to General Vivian. That Report was received by General Vivian on the 4th of March, the day preceding the date of his despatch to the War Department. There is not a shadow of foundation for saying that what General Vivian did was done upon anonymous information. It was information he was bound to treat as official, coming as it did from an officer whom he had deputed upon a special duty. Immediately upon receiving this Report, General Vivian addressed a despatch to the War Department, enclosing a copy of the letter he had sent to Major General Smith or Brigadier General Watt, directing him to make inquiries into the charges. He says:—

"In consequence of a very grave charge against Major General Beatson having been brought to my notice, I have deemed it advisable to transmit to the officer commanding the irregular cavalry the particulars of the information I have received, and I have requested him to institute an inquiry into the matter, and report to your Lordship the result. I have the honour to enclose a copy of my letter to Brigadier Watt."

That is a despatch dated the day after he received the report of the officer whom he had sent to Schumla, and his letter to Brigadier Watt is dated the same day. In that letter he says:—

"In consequence of the recent inspection of the irregular cavalry, circumstances have been reported to me as having taken place at the Dardanelles, involving a very serious charge against Major General Beatson. I consider it quite necessary, both for that officer's character and the public interests, that the report which has reached me should be thoroughly investigated."…

"The irregular horse having been at my request removed from under my command for the present, I shall confine myself to requesting you to take steps immediately to examine into these grave accusations against General Beatson, leaving to yourself to adopt such measures for carrying out the investigation as you may judge most advisable."

[Mr. ROEBUCK: There is another paragraph]. It went on to say, he had communicated with Lord Panmure, and the results of the inquiry were to be sent direct to the War Department. I think I have now entirely disposed of the charge against General Vivian of acting upon anonymous information. But it has also been said, there was secrecy in the course that was pursued by General Vivian. Hon. Gentlemen should place them selves in the position of that officer before pronouncing upon his conduct. He had received from an officer whose report he was bound to rely upon, a statement conveying very grave charges against another officer who had been under his command; and I must say I consider it to have been his duty not to have suppressed or put aside such a communication. I think he was bound, both for the interests of the public service and in justice to the officer who was inculpated, to bring these charges to the knowledge of the proper authorities at home. The course he pursued was to communicate to the War Department the letter which he had written to the general officer commanding at Schumla directing him to make inquiry, and, having made inquiry, to forward the result to the War Department. I cannot conceive any better course that could have been adopted, either in the interests of public justice or of the individual who was charged, than that which was adopted. There were the names of two officers given—Colonel O'Reilly and Major Shelley—who were said to have left the room in which a particular conversation was supposed to have taken place, and to have immediately gone and offered to serve under the officer who had relieved General Beatson. Now, when two officers were so named as being able to give evidence upon the subject, it was surely the duty of General Vivian to desire that they should be referred to for the corroboration or otherwise of the statements respecting them. It was not to be expected that the War Department would be able to decide upon charges of this description made at Schumla or Kertch, where the persons were to be found who alone could give evidence upon the subject. It appears to me that if General Vivian had sent these charges to this country direct, without affording any opportunity for the truth of them to be tested, he would have neglected an obvious duty. It may be said, indeed, that it was his business to let General Beatson know of those charges. It must be recollected, however, that, although Major General Beatson had served under the command of General Vivian, yet he had ceased to do so at that time, and was known to be in this country; and, therefore, I say it was not the duty of General Vivian, having no official relations with Major General Beatson at that time,—it was not his duty to communicate with him; but, if he desired to do so, the proper mode was through the medium of the War Department; and, by the course he took, he enabled that department, if it should think proper to communicate the charges to Major General Beatson. The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in saying that the inquiry at Schumla was instituted by direction of the Minister of War, and that, had he been the officer directed to inquire into such a matter, he would have refused to obey the order. Major General Smith, in receiving the statements of Colonel O'Reilly and Major Shelley upon the subject of these charges, and in forwarding them to us, only acted in pursuance of orders he received from general Vivian. At the time he received these statements no communication had passed upon the subject between the War Department and Generals Vivian and Smith concerning it. As far, then, as regards General Vivian, I say he did not act upon anonymous information, but that having received information which he was hound to accept and communicate to the War Department, he did all that he was required to do; and as to giving notice to General Beatson of the charges which had been made, he pursued the proper course in notifying the charges to the War Department and leaving that Department to communicate them to that officer or not as it should he judged most desirable for the public service. Now, Sir, with regard to the conduct of the War Department. The first communication which we received upon this subject was dated March 5, and was a communication from General Vivian, enclosing a letter to Brigadier General Watt at Schumla. We received General Vivian's despatch in the beginning of April, and learned from it that we might shortly expect from General Smith information on the subject of these charges which might enable us to say whether they did or did not afford a ground for judicial proceedings on the part of the Crown. Expecting shortly to receive this communication from General Smith, we did not, immediately on the arrival of General Vivian's despatch, communicate it to General Beatson. We resolved, first, to wait until we learned from General Smith whether those charges could be so far substantiated as to furnish the ground for a full judicial investigation. That is the course which was pursued by the War Department. General Vivian, however, I should say, in the meanwhile arrived in this country on sick-leave, some time in April, and told General Beatson that he would furnish him with a copy of the communication he had made to General Smith on the subject of the charges against him. That communication, I believe, was accordingly made—about the 25th of April. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) says that the communication in question, which was certified to be a copy, was only an extract. Now, whether General Vivian's letter to General Beatson in this country purported to give more than an extract from this communication is a matter of which, as it did not pass through the War Department, I am unable to speak; but towards the beginning of May we received the result of the inquiry made by General Smith, at Schumla; and to show there was no desire to maintain any secrecy in this matter on the part of the War Department, I may state that, as soon as we received the result of that inquiry from General Smith, we communicated it to General Beatson. I will read to the House the letter which we wrote to General Beatson, giving him a copy of General Smith's despatch from Schumla with its enclosures. It was to this effect—

"War Department, May 17, 1856.

"Sir—I have the honour to transmit to you the accompanying copies of a despatch and its enclosures from Major General Smith, relative to circumstances reported to have occurred on the occasion of your being called upon to resign the command of the Osmanli Irregular Cavalry into the hands of that officer, which involve a very serious charge against you; and I have to state that I am prepared to receive any observation or explanation you may wish to tender upon the subject."

Now, I wish hon. Members to observe that the moment we were in possession of information as to the charges which were made, and which we received from General Vivian, we communicated that information to General Beatson. On the following day, May 18, General Beatson acknowledges the receipt of the despatch in these terms—

"4, Lower Grosvenor Place, Pimlico, May 18, 1856.

"My Lord—The more full and public the investigation of the charges is, the better pleased I shall be, as I shall then be able to prove them, not only false, but got up with malicious intent by the same party whose intrigues led to my resignation in September last. I shall rejoice in an opportunity of showing the injustice that has been done me; but, as I have papers to refer to, and some of the officers prominently named are absent from town, I shall require several days to reply fully to your Lordship's letter,"

Accordingly, I find that on the 4th of June General Beatson wrote a letter to the War Department, entering very fully into the charges against him, and beginning in these words—

"4, Lower Grosvenor Place, Pimlico, June 4, 1856.

"My Lord—I now gladly avail myself of your Lordship's permission to answer the extraordinary charges which have been brought against me by Lieutenant General Vivian upon an authority which that officer has not deemed it necessary even to cite in specific terms."

But I have stated that although he did not cite that authority, yet it was one which he could not disregard. ["Name!"] I have already named it to the House. He goes on to say—

"I understand, indeed, from your Lordship's communication of the 26th ult., that some further reference had been made to General Smith with regard to this matter; but it is extremely improbable that my reply will be at all affected by any explanations that may be yet forthcoming, nor would I have delayed even thus long to use my privilege of reply, but that a friend of his was out of town."

This is the correspondence which has passed between General Beatson and the War Department on the subject of these charges, which are said to have been treated so secretly. I may state to the House that, when we received General Smith's despatch, reporting to us the answers made to him by Colonel O'Reilly and Major Shelley, as to what passed on the occasion of this tranfer of the command, it appeared to us that, inasmuch as several officers were said to be present at the interview, it would be desirable, before instituting a judicial investigation, to know from those officers whether they could corroborate the statement of Colonel O'Reilly. Colonel O'Reilly had been called upon by letter to state whether he was able to confirm those charges, and he wrote a letter accordingly to General Smith, which was forwarded to this country. In that letter Colonel O'Reilly went into full details, and as it appeared that other officers besides himself and Major Shelley were present on the occasion in question, those officers were accordingly desired to say how far they were able to corroborate the statement made by Colonel O'Reilly. That, therefore, is the communication to which General Beatson refers in his letter; and to show again that we had no desire to proceed with any secrecy in the matter, the moment we instructed General Smith to make the second inquiry, and to receive from the other officers their statements with respect to the communication received from Colonel O'Reilly, we informed General Beatson that we were going to do so. On the 26th of May we wrote to General Beatson in these terms:—

"War Department, May 26, 1856.

"Sir—With reference to your communication of the 18th instant, I am directed by Lord Panmure to acquaint you that the subject of the imputations on your conduct at the Dardanelles has been again referred to Major General Smith, for further explanations."

Sir, I really do not know how it was possible for us to take any other course than that. These charges were not of such a nature that the War Department could come to any decision upon them at once. It was our duty, under the circumstances, to collect all the evidence which it was in our power to obtain; and if we had given publicity to these inquiries, and had sent them before the Board of General Officers at Chelsea without evidence to support them, which was what General Beatson solicited us to do, I think it will he allowed that we should have been pursuing a most injudicious course. In all such cases the usual practice is to collect evidence before charges of this sort are made the subject of decisive proceeding by the Government. That is the course we pursued. We endeavoured to obtain the materials upon which a judgment might be formed, and we did so by communicating with officers in the East, and by desiring them to examine other officers who were mixed up in these proceedings, at the same time informing General Beatson of the steps we were taking. No doubt this was a very disagreeable and unpleasant task. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has stated that General Beatson is an officer of long service and great merit, and I have no doubt that that is the case. It is very painful that charges should be made against an officer of that description, and every one must desire when such charges are made, that they should be proved to be unfounded. But it appears to me to be the bounden duty of the Government, however much they might desire to suppress these charges, to take steps in regard to them if they think there is a primâ facie ease, in order to ascertain whether it is desirable to proceed further or not. I am not conscious throughout this matter, that the War Department have acted any but a perfectly honourable and straightforward part, and I hope the House will not participate in the opinions expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and will not consent to the Motion which he has submitted to the House.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his I seat was somewhat inconsistent in one of the statements he made. The hon. Member now stated distinctly that the War Department had a primâ facie case against General Beatson. If that were so, there was but one course for them to pursue. In justice either to General Beatson or to their Sovereign, they ought to put that officer on his trial.

I did not say there was a primâ facie case, but only that the War Department wore justified in making further inquiries, in order to ascertain whether there was a primâ facie case.

On the contrary, the hon. Member distinctly stated that there was a primâ facie case.

said, he believed the rule of the House to be that, when an hon. Member denied having made use of a certain expression, his denial was received. If, however, he were bound to believe that the hon. Gentleman did not use those words, he (Mr. I. Butt) should certainly believe that some one else spoke them out of his mouth. But the hon. Gentleman was inconsistent in another respect. He said these accusations rested on no anonymous authority, but upon the authority of General Shirley, the officer who inspected the irregular troops; but if General Shirley put his hand to these charges there was a primâ facie case, and General Beat-son ought to have been tried by a court-martial. Did the hon. Gentleman assert that this statement was the statement of General Shirley? The hon. Gentleman had brought a serious charge against General Shirley and had placed General Vivian in even a worse position. No more serious charges could be conceived than those brought against that distinguished officer—they vitally affected his honour, and, in time of war, even his life; and he had a right to a court-martial, before which to establish his innocence. General Beatson applied to the War Department for a copy of the accusations made against him, and the private secretary to Lord Panmure certified a copy from which important passages were omitted. The signature "G. D. Ramsay" to the copy, after the words "A true copy," was that of the Private Secretary to Lord Panmure; and the other copy subsequently forwarded contained two paragraphs which were struck out of the first copy, it was said, at the instigation of General Vivian. Now that implied a grave reflection upon General Vivian, and the point ought to be cleared up. Was it or was it not the fact, that that gallant general, professing to give the accused officer the information which he sought, had been guilty of furnishing him with an imperfect copy of a despatch? On the 26th of May, General Beatson wrote to the War Department, demanding to be informed by whom the report was made which was given as a quotation in General Vivian's letter to Lord Panmure, dated from Kertch, 5th of March. In his reply, on the 26th of May, Lord Panmure said that he was not aware of the source from which the Lieutenant General derived the information contained in his despatch. [Mr. F. PEEL: Hear, hear!"] Was it not obvious, from this, that the information sent to Lord Panmure was anonymous? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Peel) must be mistaken in saying that General Shirley was the author of the language ascribed to him. It bore internal evidence of being the production of an anonymous spy or secret informer. General Shirley might possibly have reported the anonymous letter to General Vivian; but let the hon. Gentleman give his authority for asserting that General Shirley, in his communication to his commander, penned such sentences as those attributed to him. If the name of the writer of the letter was known, why was it withheld from the man who was slandered? General Vivian was in England in April, and in the interval between that date and the 26th of May, on which day Lord Panmure did not know who was the accuser, why did not the War Minister put himself in communication with that gallant officer, and ascertain who the accuser really was? That most important point, however, appeared never to have been thought of; and the House was now gravely told, that the charges against General Beatson did not rest on an anonymous letter. The War Department, when it received General Vivian's report of such serious charges against a distinguished officer, ought at once to have demanded "Who made them?" yet, strange to say, it appears never to have entered the head of any one in the department to put so obvious a question. General Beatson, after serving his country faithfully and honourably, had suffered a cruel wrong. He had demanded a public investigation of the accusations brought against him; his demand had been refused, and yet no declaration had come from a single Government authority to the effect, that these anonymous charges had been disproved. They were told, that proceedings like this were not unusual in that gallant service which they had been always taught to regard as the pattern of everything frank, generous, and honourable. Those who were connected with the army were the persons most competent to meet that assertion. If, however, treatment such as that to which General Beatson had been exposed was common to the distinguished profession of which that meritorious officer was a member, all that could be said of it was, that it was diametrically opposed to that spirit of manly honesty and fair play which had at all times characterised English gentlemen.

said, he rose to appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who generally supplied the omissions and atoned for the faults of his subordinates, whether it was not due to the character of an officer who had served his country with uniform fidelity and distinction, that it should be officially declared that the charges anonymously brought against him were utterly false and unfounded? He thought it was also due to the House that they should ho informed on what foundation the charges made by General Shirley rested. All the House knew was, that General Shirley was sent out to the East, and that certain rumours affecting General Beatson reached his ears; but some inquiry ought to be instituted as to the grounds on which the charges were made. So far as it at present appeared, the report sent to General Vivian was founded on mere gossip, and he (Colonel French) was of opinion, that a most unmilitary and unconstitutional course had been pursued in this case. He, therefore, appealed to the only quarter from which he believed there was any chance of obtaining justice—to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He had no doubt that the noble Lord had serious difficulties to contend with in connection with the War Department, which was under the control of a person who could scarcely be regarded as either a civilian or a military man, but who had under his direction all the experienced general officers in the service; and he (Colonel French) believed that even the noble Lord, with his great abilities, would find it no easy task to work the existing system satisfactorily.

Sir, I think one thing must be perfectly clear from what has passed during this discussion, namely, that the particular Resolulution proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield cannot be adopted, because the explanations which have been given clearly show that it does not apply to the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. The facts of the case, as they have been stated, appear to me to be of a nature to exempt from blame all the parties. It appears that when General Shirley made an inspection of the corps at Schumla, statements were made to him, or came to his knowledge, very much affecting the character of General Beatson. Well, Sir, it surely was the duty of General Shirley to make known these statements to the officer under whose authority he was acting. A general officer who had received statements of that sort would have been highly blameable if he had concealed them, or if he had allowed them to be made without affording the officer whom they affected an opportunity of refuting them. With regard to General Beatson himself, I must say that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the distinguished career which that gallant general had run before he proceeded upon the service out of which the circumstances now under discussion arose; and it was with great regret that Her Majesty's Government found, from events which had occurred, that it would be impossible to continue General Beatson in his command. The command in question did not correspond with the expectations of General Beatson, and though it was with regret we saw it, nevertheless the gallant general was perfectly welcome to retire from it if he chose. Well, General Shirley having been informed of the charges against General Beatson, how did he act? Why, he performed his duty by making them known to General Vivian, who had just arrived out in the East, and who was then at Kertch. Now, Sir, what was General Vivian to do? Was he to put those charges aside, or was he simply to content himself with reporting them to the War Department in England? As General Vivian was in communication with the officer in command at Schumla, I think he performed his duty best in immediately ordering that further inquiry should be made, and that the result of such inquiry should be transmitted to the War Department. It is said, however, that the charge ought to have been made known immediately to General Beatson; but I think that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War has given a good reason why that could not be done. General Vivian was in no official relation with General Beatson, who was in England. The War Department having received these communications, informed General Beatson that they had ordered further inquiries to be made, to ascertain more particularly what grounds there might be for the charges alleged against him. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. I. Butt) who I see is now on this side of the House—I hope he has changed his position—says, "If you had a primâ facie case against General Beatson you should immediately have tried him by court-martial." Sir, I dispute that doctrine. You may have a primâ facie case against an officer, and yet you would be very wrong to bring him before a court-martial. You should first ascertain whether that primâ facie case is sufficiently well founded to warrant so grave a step as that of bringing an officer of distinction to a court-martial—a step which would be, primâ facie, an imputation upon his honour. Nothing is more common in the service than, when there is a primâ facie case against an officer, for a court of inquiry to be ordered to investigate the case, and to ascertain whether there be ground for a court-martial. Now, Sir, as it was impossible to summon a court of inquiry in the ordinary way to investigate this case, the witnesses being at Schumla, and the person accused in England, the only course the War Department could pursue was to refer again to Schumla for more information, upon receiving which they would decide whether any further steps should be taken, and, if so, what those steps should be. I can very readily make full allowance for the nice sense of honour which has caused General Beatson to writhe under what he conceives to be an unjust imputation; and I can also make full allowance for his friends, who, unwilling to wait for the result of the investigation, call upon this House to interpose, and to pronounce an opinion pending the result of the inquiry in progress. I do not think, Sir, however, that either the appeals of General Beatson's friends or the natural feelings of General Beatson himself ought to induce this House to adopt such a course; and I entreat them to wait until the War Department shall have satisfied itself—which I believe it will have the means of doing very shortly—whether there be any sufficient grounds on which to found proceedings against General Beatson, or whether the investigation has cleared that officer from the imputations made against him. It has been said by more than one hon. Member that no steps ought to have been taken upon anonymous imputations; but supposing the accusation had been entirely anonymous, I hold that those to whom that accusation had been communicated were bound, by regard for the honour and character of General Beatson, to take steps to ascertain whether it could be sustained. In this case the charges were not made anonymously—that is, without knowing from whom they proceeded, but they were so far adopted by General Shirley, a man of rank, character, and standing in the service, that he felt it his duty to communicate them to General Vivian, under whom he served. General Vivian, receiving these charges from General Shirley, deemed it his duty to transmit them to the War Department. The communications, therefore, when they reached the War Department, did not bear an anonymous character. They came through two general officers employed in the service to which the matters related—namely, the Turkish Contingent. This, then, is not like the case of an anonymous letter received by a public department reflecting upon the character of a public servant. In this instance a communication was received by responsible officers, and was transmitted by them in the due performance of their duty. But, supposing a public department received an anonymous communication containing imputations against the character of a public servant, will the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken on this subject say that such a communication ought to be thrown aside? I contend that if the heads of departments receive any imputations or charges against persons in the public service, they are bound to take such steps as will enable the persons accused to vindicate themselves from the accusations; and, before taking steps for that purpose, it may be their duty to ascertain whether there is any primâ facie case at all against the parties accused. I can only say that, this matter having been put in course of investigation by the War Department in the only way in which I apprehend it is competent for them to proceed, and the fact having been made known to General Beatson, I think no charge lies either against my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War or the War Department. With regard to the concluding remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), who intimated that the conduct of the War Department must be a source of habitual anxiety and mortification to the Government, I can only say that we feel exceedingly obliged to Lord Panmure for the very able and zealous manner in which he has performed his duties. We have only to contrast the condition of the army in the Crimea, when he took charge of the department, with its condition when it returned from the seat of war, to be assured how efficiently he has discharged the duties of his laborious situation.

said, he did not know much of this particular case, but he must protest against imputations being thrown upon the honour and character of officers in Her Majesty's service upon the mere authority of anonymous communications. A case had occurred not many years ago, which excited considerable interest, with regard to which he ventured to think that the late Duke of Wellington had made a mistake, by listening to anonymous charges against an officer in Her Majesty's service. In his (Colonel Lindsay's) opinion, if a charge were preferred anonymously against an officer, the person accused should be informed of the fact; the accuser should be called upon to come forward; if he did so, the charge should be investigated, and if not, no farther notice should be taken of the matter. He had himself, on more than one occasion, received anonymous letters, on more insignificant matters, it was true, and he had always informed the persons whom they concerned of the receipts of them, and then threw them into the fire, and that course he should certainly always pursue. It was true that an anonymous letter might make him open his eyes and prick up his ears, but no officer in any civil or military department should be subjected to anonymous charges. To treat officers in such a manner was to encourage the cowardly proceedings of those who made such charges.

I think, Sir, that the hon. and gallant officer who has last addressed us, has misunderstood, and therefore unintentionally misrepresented the purport of what fell from my noble Friend. He has gone at length into a discussion as to what notice should in general be taken of anonymous letters, but what he has stated does not apply to the special case now before the House. I admit that there is great difficulty in laying down any universal rule as to the proper mode of dealing with anonymous letters, signed for example by "A Well-wisher "or" An Enemy to Corruption" so often received by the heads of public departments. I believe that the general practice in public departments, when such letters are received, is not to take any great notice of them, but to throw them into the waste-paper basket; but there may be particular cases in which it becomes a duty to make some inquiry as to the contents of an anonymous letter. An anonymous letter, for instance, may contain information so special as to indicate some knowledge of facts on the part of the writer, and then it becomes the duty of the person at the head of the department which has received the letter to take some steps to ascertain whether the information which it contains is founded upon fact or not. It is therefore impossible, I maintain, to lay down any invariable rule to be followed with regard to anonymous letters. What my noble Friend stated was, that he could not say that no attention was ever to be paid to letters of that description, because anonymous letters might contain specific charges against persons in the public service, and, from the peculiar circumstances of the case, it might be necessary to endeavour to obtain further information as to the grounds upon which those charges were made. In the present case, however, the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Lindsay) as to the proper mode of dealing with anonymous letters are not in the least applicable. The information received by the War Department in this case was not, properly speaking, anonymous information. The information was forwarded through two public officers in responsible situations, and when we first received it we had no knowledge that it was derived from an anonymous source. One general officer received the information, and thought it of so much importance that he communicated it to his superior officer, who, in his turn, deemed it of sufficient importance to transmit it to the War Department. Coming, therefore, in that form, it was not strictly speaking, anonymous information, so far as the War Department was concerned. It was forwarded through the regular official channels, and I think that it must be obvious to every one, that if that department had refused to take any notice of information thus received it might fairly have been charged with a grave neglect of its public duty. I think, therefore, that the general remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Wigan do not apply to this case, and that the House will agree with me that the information received by the War Department cannot, so far as that department is concerned, be looked upon as anonymous.

I think, Sir, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) by the observations they have just made have placed themselves in a worse position than ever. The noble Lord has publicly stated in his place that there is hanging over the head of General Beatson an imputation that he excited his officers to mutiny and got up a round-robin for the soldiers to sign. If General Shirley had been called upon to report, that report would, I believe, have made clear from what source the information had been derived, but no report has ever been given to General Beatson, although he has asked for it time out of mind, the answer always being that the inquiry was still going on. Now, Sir, the charge first made was that,—

"When General Smith arrived at the Dardanelles, General Beatson assembled the commanding officers of regiments, and actually endeavoured to persuade them to make a mutiny in their regiments against General Smith and against the authority of General Vivian. Two of these commanding officers then left the room, saying they were soldiers and could not listen to language which they thought most improper and mutinous. Those two officers were Lieutenant Colonels O'Reilly and Shelley."

Now, I have abstained from reading to the House what has been stated with regard to the transaction by Lieutenant Colonels O'Reilly and Shelley, but I will now read those statements. Colonel O'Reilly states:—

"When I entered General Beatson's room he called all the officers present round his bed. He said that he had called us together to let us know that the Ambassador had caused General Vivian to send General Smith to replace him, which he conceived he had no right to do, as he was under the orders of no one but Lord Panmure. Captain Burton then read the letter ordering General Beatson to give over the command to you. Captain Burton and Captain Berkeley both spoke for a long time about intriguing on the part of the embassy to deprive General Beatson of his position, which had produced the illegal order from General Vivian which had just been read. I asked whether we had not some time previously been placed under General Vivian's orders. General Beatson said that he had been ordered to correspond through the officer commanding the Contingent. Captain Burton said that that order had been virtually cancelled by Lord Panmure himself, who corresponded directly with General Beatson. He then produced an envelope addressed 'To the officer commanding Her Majesty's forces, Dardanelles,' and argued upon that that General Beatson was recognised as a Commander in Chief. I then insisted upon seeing all the letters from Lord Panmure relating to the connection of the Irregular Horse and Contingent. While Captain Burton was looking for them the officers present, with the exception of Major Copely, of the Osmanli Horse Artillery, and myself, entered into conversation at the other end of the room. Captain Burton having produced a letter, I called Major Shelley to hear it read. The letter placed us directly under the command of General Vivian, and made the Irregular Horse part of the Contingent. Captain Berkeley said that Lord Panmure had broken faith with us and the Bashi-Bazouks; that we had joined, and they had enlisted into the force as Beatson's Horse, and no one had a right to give the command to any one else. Captain Burton said 'that it was our duty to inform General Smith that it was impossible for him to take the command at present; that we should wait upon him in a body, and tell him that we could not answer for the fidelity of our regiment; and that if he persisted in taking the command we should resign.' I argued against the un-soldierly reasons which he was then giving for our required resignation, but, perceiving that General Beatson (who was suffering from a recent fall from his horse) did not appear to notice what was going on, nor say anything to terminate the discussion, Major Shelley and myself left the room."

Then again Lieutenant Colonel Shelley says:—

"To the best of my remembrance, shortly after your arrival at the Dardanelles I found myself, with the other commanding officers, at the quarters of General Beatson, when some conversation ensued, in the course of which a letter was produced, through which it appeared that the force was attached to the Turkish Contingent; immediately upon hearing which, both Lieutenant Colonel O'Reilly and myself proceeded to report and place ourselves under your command. Beyond this, I really cannot make any distinct statement."

Nor is there a word in either of those statements to justify the charge? Is it just or right that upon statements of that description a general officer is to have hanging over his head the imputation of exciting his officers to mutiny, and asking his soldiers to sign a round-robin? That serious charge was made against General Beatson in March last, it is now July, and yet the noble Lord, the First Minister of the Crown, says that the charge is still hanging over the head of General Beatson; that that officer is in the position of an accused man, and yet he is not allowed to take the trial which he has asked for time after time. As to the charge not being an anonymous one, it certainly, in my opinion, is an anonymous one. If not an anonymous charge, who is the person who made it, and whence did it come? The honour of the army, I maintain, is not safe under such a system; and I trust that the House, having a due regard to that honour, will vote for the Resolutions which I have brought forward.

Sir, I rise to move the second reading of this Bill. It must, I am sure, be admitted by everybody that it is of the highest importance that the great and extensive functions which are committed to Bishops of the Church should be adequately performed. My noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (the Marquess of Blandford) on a former occasion drew the attention of the House to the circumstance that, owing to age and infirmity, there were some Bishops now on the bench who were not able to discharge adequately the duties belonging to their high position. That statement of my noble Friend seemed to meet with the acquiescence of the House, and Her Majesty's Government were asked to take into their consideration the means of providing for those cases in which, from natural causes, the episcopal functions might not be fully and efficiently performed. I had an intention of proposing to Parliament a general measure to provide for cases of this kind, founded upon the analogy of the course of proceeding in regard to the Judges. My purpose was to establish some means by which Bishops who of their own accord might feel themselves no longer equal to their duties should, with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, retire; and also to provide for cases in which infirmity from age or otherwise, acknowledged and known to exist, should be ascertained, and in which Bishops who might not of their own accord wish to retire should, by reason of their being incapable of performing their functions, be placed upon a retired allowance. That measure, however, was necessarily deferred, and in the meantime I received communications from the Bishops of London and Durham intimating their desire to retire, being conscious, they stated, that the infirmity with which they were afflicted disqualified them for performing their duties in a manner consistent with their sense of the obligations attaching to the high station which they occupied in the Church. Thereupon Her Majesty's Government thought that the proper course would be to frame a Bill limited to those particular cases connected with which there are circumstances that, perhaps, would naturally render it necessary, at all events, that they should specially be provided for, because the emoluments hitherto received by those two Bishops are considerably greater than the regulated sums which will be paid to future occupants, and any Bill which provided retired allowances in proportion to fixed salaries would not apply to cases in which the revenues hitherto obtained were larger than those which would in future be paid to the Bishops of those sees. It is unnecessary for me to dilate upon the personal merits of the two Bishops to whom this Bill will apply. Everybody must know the high character which they have borne, the zeal with which they have performed their duties, their high attainments; and we must all of us, I feel certain, lament those physical infirmities with which they have been afflicted, and which now prevent them, unfortunately, from continuing in a satisfactory manner to discharge their episcopal functions. The letters which I have received from the two right rev. Prelates have been laid upon the table of the House, and are now in the hands of Members, who therefore know the propositions which were made by the Bishops, and which form the foundation of the present Bill. But those propositions have been objected to, and have been made subjects of animadversion. Those who have criticised it have talked of "negotiations," and have seemed to insinuate that Her Majesty's Government proposed to the Bishops to retire, holding out to them certain inducements, and that our object was that, vacancies being created, we should have an opportunity of making fresh appointments. Nothing of the kind, Sir, has taken place. The application of the Prelates was spontaneous on their part, was suggested to them by a high sense of duty, and was acquiesced in by Her Majesty's Government upon terms which we thought reasonable as arranged by them. Nor was there any bargain made between the Government and the right rev. Prelates. We undertook to propose to Parliament to make an arrangement in accordance with the conditions which the Bishops thought reasonable, and the bargain, if any, is to be made by the Legislature. There is nothing concealed in the transaction—nothing, I apprehend, that is not honourable to all parties concerned. It is well known that the Bishop of London has annually received a very large income, amounting, I believe, upon an average, to something like £18,000 a year; but it is equally well known to those who have watched his career, and to all conversant with his conduct, that he has disbursed that large income in the most generous manner for purposes of charity and public improvement; that he has been a great benefactor of his diocese; and that instead of laying up treasures on earth, he has sought rather for those treasures which are to be laid up elsewhere. It is known to all that in the performance of good actions he has not endeavoured to enrich himself—that, in point of fact, he has not made any provision for his family other than that which arises from an insurance which he has effected upon his life. Well, it is proposed that this Prelate, so generous and charitable, who is labouring under a great bodily infirmity, should not be disturbed in the enjoyment of that residence of Fulham which he has hitherto inhabited; and I think, when it is considered what is the nature of that infirmity by which he has been afflicted, and when it is considered also that there is another residence in London applicable to the purposes of the see, Parliament will not deem it unreasonable that the Bishop should not be removed during the remaining portion of his life from the residence which he has so long occupied. The question has been mooted whether the present occasion should not be taken for dividing the see of London into two. I must say, Sir, that I think that is a question well deserving of consideration; but, in communicating with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and with Lord Chichester, their president, it was represented to me that, whatever might ultimately be determined in regard to such a division, the present Session was not a fit opportunity for making the arrangement; that it would involve important details, requiring a great deal of time to investigate; and that any Bill which might be passed this year should be limited to the retirement of the Bishops of London and Durham. I am sorry to see that in the discussions which have taken place upon this question an attempt has been made to fix upon the resignation of the Bishops and the circumstances connected with it the imputation of what is called simony. Sir, there could not be an imputation more perfectly groundless, or more completely founded upon an abuse of terms. Simony implies some corrupt and secret transaction between the ecclesiastical person who retires and the patrons of the preferment. Nothing of the kind has taken place in the present instance. Nothing could be fairer or more entirely open than the whole transaction. The Bishops having stated their inability to continue in the exercise of their functions, Parliament has been called upon to make an arrangement for their retirement. It is true that other methods of providing for cases of this kind have been suggested. Some persons have proposed, for example, that the duties of the diocese of London should be performed by one of the other Bishops. I understand it has been said that the Prelate holding the appointment of Bishop of Oxford might undertake the work. I think there are many obvious reasons why that arrangement would not be a fitting one. There is no man more able from his talents and ability than the present Bishop of Oxford to perform any extra duty that might be imposed on him; but I think that no one could satisfactorily perform the duties of those two sees, and that the arrangement is one which Parliament would not for a moment be disposed to countenance. Well, then, other persons have proposed that coadjutor Bishops should be appointed; but I think that that arrangement is also exceedingly objectionable. If the coadjutor Bishop had no succession he would be simply in the position of a subordinate, and he would not exercise the influence which ought to belong to his office. Then it is said that we might appoint Bishops coadjutors with succession when a vacancy occurred; but I think that that would be a very objectionable and inconvenient state of things, because if the infirm Bishop and the coadjutor were to have co-ordinate authority you would have possibly a conflict of opinion and a diversity of judgment upon all the matters that belong to the functions of a Bishop. If on the other hand, to avoid those two inconveniences, you were to transfer the authority from the existing Bishop to the coadjutor, then you come to the very arrangement, substantially, which this Bill is calculated to establish. You would then have the coadjutor performing all the functions of the Bishop and exercising all the authority in the diocese, but still he would not have that influence and consideration which are essential to the due performance of the duties, and you would have two Bishops in one diocese, which in my opinion would be a highly objectionable arrangement. It appears to me, therefore, that when a Bishop, either by age or infirmity, is unfortunately disqualified from performing his functions, the only fitting arrangement is to allow him to retire, to deal with the see as if it were vacant in the ordinary course of nature, and to place in it a new Bishop, who should be invested with all the privileges, functions, and authority that belong to a Bishop. That is the arrangement which we now propose in regard to these two sees, and I should hope that the House will have no objection to such a measure. With regard to the bishopric of London. it must be remembered that the functions of that office are of all others the most important, and that they are those which can with the least convenience to the interests of the Church be suspended for any length of time. Not to mention the great and increasing population of the diocese, it is well known that he exercises functions with regard to places abroad, which require constant intercourse with other persons; and it is also well known that, independently of those duties which may be performed by correspondence, the Bishop of London is under the necessity of weekly personal intercourse with a great portion of the clergy of his diocese. It is, therefore, very important for all the interests of the Church and of the established religion that there should be in the diocese of London a person capable by health and age of effectually performing the duties attaching to his office. I therefore move, Sir, that this Bill be read a second time.

Sir, I will state as briefly as I can the reasons that induce me to ask the House to defer the second reading of this Bill. The importance of the question cannot be overrated. The Bill has not yet been delivered to Members, and I do not suppose any Government has ever asked the House to discuss any measure not in the hands of the Members.

A copy may be had at the Vote Office.

I am aware that a copy may be had at the Vote Office, but the Bill has been got up in such a hurry as to have inscribed on it that it is a Bill brought up from the Commons. I have no idea whether the Bill I have in my hand is the measure we are called upon to discuss. I cannot make my Motion without expressing my entire concurrence in what the noble Lord has said of the high qualities of the Prelates, especially the Bishop of London. It would be impossible for language to do justice to the way that Prelate has discharged his highly important duties. In moving that the debate be adjourned, I wish to say that I do not believe there has been any wish on the part of the noble Lord to take any step in this for the sake of patronage, and I believe the course he is taking is in the full persuasion it is for the public good. But, though I acquit the noble Lord on those points, that is no reason why the House should be hurried into a discussion of a measure of this importance. In proportion to the importance, so in proportion ought to be the deliberation with which we should discuss it. We ought not at that hour to lay down principles that may hamper us injuriously; and all those circumstances, I consider, are enough to induce me to ask the House to put off the discussion until to-morrow, when it can be fully discussed. What is the state of the case? From hon. Members not receiving the Bill, they could not expect the Bill would come on to-night. And when we come to the great importance of the Bill, that is an additional reason for having another day to consider the measure before we discuss it. A false step in this direction is not easily repaired. For though this Bill only applies to two Prelates it contains principles that are widely applicable, and appear to be such as ought to be comprehended in a general measure. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will consent to postpone the discussion.

Sir, I rise to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The request which he has made is so strongly recommended by those general rules for conducting the business of this House, the observance of which is absolutely necessary for the satisfactory performance of our duties here, that I scarcely think it is requisite for me to add anything to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. He has, in my belief, rather understated than overstated his case with regard to the printing and distributing of Bills. It would be hardly too much to say that it is an absolutely necessary and indispensable preliminary to the discussion of all measures, with the exception only of two classes. The first is, where the safety of the State being at issue from some apprehended disturbance, or from something connected with the security of the person of the Crown, we have seen Bills passed through all their stages at a single sitting. The other is that class of formal measures which are renewed regularly from year to year—such as Bills for the renewal of Exchequer bills, which run always in the same form totidem verbis, and with the printing of which—as Members are supposed to be acquainted with them—the House dispenses altogether. With these exceptions, I do not remember a single instance in which this House has been called upon to debate a Bill without it having been printed and distributed among Members, as it is quite plain this Bill has not been. I owe my possession of a copy of the Bill to a pure accident. I looked for it anxiously among the papers distributed this morning, but I did not find it. I have had no means of holding communications, therefore, with respect to it, or even of examining its terms with that care which such a measure demands. I doubt very much whether we have bad a Bill before us, during the present Session, involving such a number of points, or bringing before the House so many alternative methods of proceeding, or altogether raising questions of so great difficulty, and requiring such mature consideration. It is quite plain that the debate upon this Bill ought not to be restricted by anything like duress put upon Members of this House, and as no debate, therefore, upon the Bill can take place to-night which can satisfactorily deal with its merit, I do not apprehend that we shall really lose anything by complying with the very reasonable request of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) to postpone the second reading until to-morrow. I quite agree in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that the Government have not been actuated in this matter by any love of patronage; but nothing, I am sure, would be more likely to give rise to such an insinuation than that my noble Friend at the head of the Government should set at defiance the ordinary rules and forms of the House, not in a mere technical matter, but in one connected with the substantial securities for the satisfactory transaction of public business.

Sir, having received a copy of the Bill myself this morning, I was under the impression that it had been distributed among Members; but if it is stated that it has not been generally distributed, of course it would not be reasonable to expect Members to proceed with the discussion of it this evening. I agree, therefore, to the debate being adjourned until to-morrow, on the understanding that it will be taken the first thing.