said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations or instructions as to Cemeteries or Burial Grounds in the Metropolis have been, or are to be, issued under the powers of the Burial Act passed last Session.

said, that no regulations of any description had as yet been issued upon the subject, nor had any been prepared. The matter, however, was under the consideration of the Inspectors of Burial Grounds, and any regulations which they might frame with respect to it would be weighed, before they were issued, with due deliberation by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Home Department.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War whether any gentlemen have been admitted to the Royal Academy of Woolwich since the 1st of January last, who have not undergone the competitive examination rendered necessary by the Warrant promulgated by the late Secretary for War.

In answer, Sir, to the question of the hon. Member, I beg leave to state that no gentlemen have been admitted to the establishment at Woolwich except strictly in conformity with the principle laid down on the introduction of the system of competitive examination in the year 1855. When that principle was adopted all further admissions into the preparatory school at Carshalton was put a stop to; Lord Panmure, however, thought it absolutely necessary to keep faith with the cadets who were then in that establishment, and it was decided by him that on their attaining the age of fifteen they should be subjected to a modified examination equal in severity to that which they had previously to undergo for admission to Woolwich. On passing that examination, they were allowed to remain another year at Carshalton; and, at the expiration of that period, they were to be subjected to a second modified examination, increasing in severity in proportion to their advance in age. When they had passed that second examination, they were to be admitted to the academy at Woolwich, In this manner the cadets at Carshalton were being gradually absorbed into the academy at Woolwich; and in January last seven of them, having passed the second examination to which he had referred, had been admitted to that establishment. It was intended, by the plan which was adopted by the late Government when they were in office, but which has been repudiated by them since they quitted office, that those cadets at Carshalton should be transferred to Sandhurst; but as they will now be deprived of the advantage to which they were entitled—namely, admission to the scientific branch of the army—I cannot see any other means of keeping faith with them than by maintaining, at a great expense to the public, the establishment at Carshalton until their education shall be completed.

Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman below me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, told us the other night that we had now to pay no less a sum than a quarter of a million sterling, for years to come, to the Proctors in return for their allowing us to reform our Ecclesiastical Courts, I partook of the mild surprise which seemed to pervade this most amiable and liberal House. That communication might of itself have justified my present Motion, but notice of it had, in fact, been given some time before; and I am anxious now to call the attention of the House to two points, in order to show it how we stand with reference to the consideration we have received for the enormous payment out of the Consolidated Fund, which we sanctioned last Session. We, none of us, can have forgotten our exertions in respect of the demolition of the Ecclesiastical Courts and rearing new structures on their ruins. Our efforts were great; for we had to reduce a sort of ecclesiastical Sebastopol which had withstood a thirty years' siege, and even at last we could succeed only by bribing the garrison—that is, by making a vast payment to the Proctors. However, that is done, and we must stand to it. But I must observe that the Bill came down to us from the other House without exhibiting a trace of compensation to practitioners in the Ecclesiastical Courts. The then Lord Chancellor (Lord Cranworth) indeed, on a subsequent occasion, repudiated it in strong terms as highly objectionable in principle and likely to form a dangerous precedent. This House, however, was on the urgent and powerful entreaties of the Proctors, of a different opinion, and my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Wallingford, became their champion, and entered on their behalf into a deliberate compact with the Government, ratified by the House. He declared that, as far as he anti the Proctors were concerned, he would support the Bill on one understanding only—that those should be compensated whose whole prospects in life would be ruined by it. Now I don't stand here as the advocate of the legal profession or any branch of it, but in the interest of the public on whose behalf this bargain was made, and in language well-known to lawyers I shall try to show that a part of the consideration which we were to receive has failed. The two points to which I have alluded are, the exclusion of the great body of barristers-at-law from the non-contentious business of the Probate Court, and both barristers and attorneys from the Court of Admiralty. And, first of all, as to the non-contentious business of the Probate Court. Unless I am in error the proportion between contentious and non-contentious business is that between 30,000 causes of the latter and 1,300 or 1,400 of the former. That, at least, was the statement made during the Debates last Session in this or the other House. The distinction between the two kinds of business is carefully drawn by the Probate Act of last Session and the rules and orders issued by its authority, and may be stated as substantially this:—Non-contentious business consists of obtaining Probates and Administrations when the right to them is uncontested, and passing them after a contest to that right is at an end; of all Court business of a non-contentious nature in matters of testacy and intestacy not constituting proceedings in any suit; and the lodging and the warning of caveats. This is now the statutory definition of "non-contentious business;" and that of "contentious business" is, all proceedings in the Court of Probate or in its Registries except the above. Now from the whole of this immensely preponderating non-contentious business, sergeants and barristers-at-law are rigorously excluded, and either Proctors or attorneys and solicitors must employ advocates. Now I ask, is this right and fair? Is it in accordance with the understanding on which we proceeded last Session? That all monoply of practice should be done away with—that the New Court in its entirety of business was to be thrown open to the whole body of legal practitioners, thus affording the public the amplest choice of those in whom they had confidence? Proctors and attorneys and solicitors were, by the Probate Act, placed completely on a footing of equality, each eligible for practice in the Probate Court and in all Courts of Law and Equity. Advocates are also admitted without restriction of any sort to all Courts of Law and Equity, with the same eligibility to appointments as if they had been called to the Bar at the period of their having been admitted advocates. Now, Sir, I for one, as a member of the Common Law Bar, am glad of this; I am delighted that this select body of learned and accomplished gentlemen should be at once incorporated with the Bar at large. Several of them have since received the honour of silk gowns, have been elected Benchers of the Inns of Court, and admitted members of the circuits, and why, after all this, should they be invested with what they themselves, I am sure, must regard as an unjustifiable and invidious monopoly? Why, should they alone be capable of being selected by Proctors and attorneys and solicitors to conduct the cases of their clients? If this be allowed to continue, it will of itself, in a perfectly easy and intelligible way, practically attract to itself a monoply also of the contentious business, such as it is. But I may be told that the language of the Act—of the 40th section—is clear and precise. The 40th section, while admitting the Ecclesiastical Advocates to "practise as advocates or counsel in all matters and causes whatsoever in the Probate Court," restricts the right of serjeants and barristers at law "to practising as advocates or counsel in all contentious matters and causes in the said Court." Whether the distinction was or was not designed, I shall not stay to inquire. I must own, therefore, that the wording of this clause admits of no doubt—nay, more, that it stood so in the Bill when it came to us from the Lords, and so returned to them; but I must add that it was retained inadvertently without the distinction having challenged the attention of the Gentlemen of the long robe, as we are called in this House, for almost all of us were absent on circuit. But however this may be, the distinction appears to me altogether unjust and impolitic, and ought not to be maintained. Sir, I am very far indeed from wishing to make any attack on the Advocates of Doctors Commons in what I am saying, especially bearing in mind that not one of them happens at present to have the honour of a seat in this House to vindicate their rights, if so disposed. I wish indeed some of them were here; I do not think that they would seriously dissent from what I am saying on the question before us, and I must really put it to the candour of my hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General, whether—having regard to the whole tenor and scope of the measure which he introduced into and carried through this House with so much ability—he will support the exclusion of which I am complaining. I appeal, I say, confidently to the candour of my hon. and learned Friend, who exhibited throughout the whole conduct of the Bill scrupulous good faith. Probably the point wholly escaped his at- tention, as it was not brought under his notice specially in the House. The question has arisen directly, more than once already in the Probate Court, the Judge of which has declined to hear any but advocates in non-contentious business, properly saying that the plain words of the Act prevented his doing so. The common law counsel, who appeared before him, then asserted his common-law right, as a member of the bar, to practise in all the Queen's Courts, one of which this is declared by the Act to be—and that point the Judge expressed himself willing to hear argued, whenever the question arose between an advocate and a member of the common-law bar. And having mentioned the Judge of that Court, I take this opportunity of congratulating the late Government on their having selected for so important a post, or rather I congratulate them and the country on having had the good fortune to secure in the right hon. Judge of the New Court a gentleman in every way so admirably qualified to preside over it, and organize its procedure to the satisfaction of all branches of the legal profession and of the public. I pass on now to the second point to which I would bespeak the attention of the House, as one touching, as I think, its privileges—the total exclusion of the whole legal profession, except advocates and Proctors, from the Court of Admiralty. There seems a mystery about this matter, which it concerns this House to have cleared up. Let me premise that in the year 1840 the Court of Admiralty was entirely remodelled, and in many important particulars assimilated to the common-law courts. Its practice was greatly improved, and its civil jurisdiction also extended, its criminal jurisdiction, however, being taken away, and transferred to the Central Criminal Court and the Assize Courts in the last-mentioned year and the preceding year 1834. Its present jurisdiction comprises disputes relating to the ownership of ships, questions of collision, salvage, prize, booty of war, and bounty—all matters of great public interest and importance, but becoming infinitely more so in time of war than of peace, when the practice of the Court is of course rendered greatly more lucrative. In the year to which I first referred, the mode of taking evidence in this Court was totally altered. It was thenceforth to be taken vivâ voce, in open Court. The Judge may now order issues to be tried by a jury, and grant new trials. Appeals from the Court are made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the advocates, surrogates, and proctors of the Arches Court were in the year in question, admitted to practise in the Court. Now, in introducing the Probate Bill into this House, the Attorney General stated, and the Act now contains a corresponding provision, that as soon as the office of Judge of the Admiralty Court should become vacant, that Court should be united to the new Probate Court, thenceforth to be presided over by one and the same Judge; the present salary of the Judge of the Probate Court by the Act fixed at £4,000 a year, being in that event raised to £5,000. This arrangement is effected by the 10th and 11th sections of the Probate Act—which thus shows, that the Court of Admiralty was fully within the view of Parliament as the subject of legislation while founding the Probate Courts. Now as discussion proceeded on the Probate Bill, and after the principle of compensation had been assented to by the House, it occurred to Members, and particularly to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), that the Court of Admiralty ought to be no longer retained as a closed court in the hands of the old Ecclesiastical practitioners, who were being so largely compensated; and he gave due formal notice, in the votes, that on a future day he would move the insertion of a clause admitting attorneys and solicitors to practise in the Admiralty Court. On the 11th August the discussion came on, and the feeling of the House appearing in favour of the Motion, the Attorney General, sanctioned by the right hon. Baronet, the then Home Secretary (Sir George Grey), instead of going to a division, expressly assented, as also did the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, to the introduction into the 45th clause of the Bill, with reference to the rights of attorneys and solicitors to practice in the new Probate Court, of the words, "and also in the Court of Admiralty." Well, Sir, with these words the Bill went up to the Lords on the 12th August, and on the ensuing day the Bill and our Amendments, were ordered by the Lords to be printed. On the 18th they were taken into consideration, and the then Lord Chancellor moved that "with some verbal alterations" the Lords should agree to the Amendments of the Commons." Not a syllable was said as to the propriety of retaining the proctors' monopoly in the Ad- miralty Court, or as to the insertion or rejection of the clause in question; and on the 21st the Bill came down to the House, when we agreed not to insist on certain supposed inconsiderable Amendments so disagreed to by the Lords. These Amendments were not printed; and we all recollect the very hurried procedure of both Houses at the close of that protracted Session. The Bill—with this unexpected and serious omission—became law on the 25th August, Parliament being prorogued immediately afterwards; and as soon as the Act had been printed, it appeared that the words throwing open the Admiralty Court to attorneys and solicitors, were not there, but had been struck out without a syllable having been said to draw public attention to the subject, and thus the bargain we had made on the part of the public was violated in an essential particular. Thus the Court which we had expressly insisted on having opened to the public generally, as a part of the return for the compensation we had granted, remains as strictly and closely in the hands of the Proctors, as though they had not received a farthing of compensation—as though Parliament deliberately deemed it expedient to leave that Court thus fenced out from the great body of that branch of the profession specially trained to and familiar with the common-law method of procedure introduced there in the year 1840. Now, Sir, though I have heard a whisper on the subject, I do not profess to know how this strange interposition was effected, but I should much like to know—I think this House is entitled to know—whose were the hands dint thus manipulated the Bill after it had left the hands of those who, as the then Lord Chancellor, reminded the House of Lords, held the strings of the national purse. I must therefore ask for full explanation on this subject, from either the late or the present Government; and it will depend on the answer either may give me, whether I move for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, or myself bring in a Bill to rectify the miscarriage of which I complain. I must, therefore, particularly ask for explanations in the first instance, from my two hon. and learned Friends the late Attorney General and the Member for Wallingford, who were the parties to that compact, of the violation of which I complain. I perceive the impatience of the House, and its desire to proceed to more exciting matters, but I felt it my duty to bring dis- tinctly before them a matter affecting so materially the administration of justice.

said, that it had been with the consent of the Government that the clause had been introduced at his suggestion opening the Court of Admiralty to all departments of the profession. In the House of Lords, through some unexplained influence, the clause had been struck out, and that Court, which ought to be open, was now a close Court. He trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell) would explain to the House how it happened that the clause had been struck out in "another place."

was understood to say that he believed it was the intention of the Act that there should be no distinction in the practice of the Court of Probate between contentious and non-contentious business. It appeared, however, that some doubt having arisen as to the construction of the Act of Parliament, the learned Judge of the Court had given directions to have the point argued in order that the question might be settled. He could only add that if it was decided that that was not the proper construction, it was desirable that the matter should he rectified. As to the other point to which the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Warren) had alluded—the clause opening the Admiralty Court to the legal profession generally—he was not aware of the circumstances under which it had been struck out, but was told the reason was that it was deemed necessary that some further provisions should be introduced, and that if the clause had been allowed to remain it Would not have been sufficient for the object desired. He had intended to introduce a Bill for the purpose of throwing open the Court of Admiralty to the whole profession. He hoped that his hon. and learned Friend who had succeeded him in the office of Attorney General would direct his attention to the subject, and he (Sir R. Bethell) would be happy to give him any assistance for the attainment of the object in view.

said, he understood that a sum of £250,000 a year had been devoted under the Act of last Session as compensation to the proctors. If he had been present when that question was under consideration he should certainly have protested against any such preposition, believing it to be a most extravagant sum. The House would never have voted that sum, unless upon the understanding that the monopoly of the proctors was to be wholly abolished. They now learned that this monopoly of the proctors was, to a certain extent, to be continued. He protested against the whole arrangement.

said, after the statements which had been made he thought it right to set aside some erroneous impressions which seemed to prevail. It had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night that the compensations under the Act would amount to £250,000 a year. Assuming that to be the correct amount, they must remember that that included Mr. Moore's compensation, and that of all of the officers entitled to compensation. He believed, however, that it was an exaggerated estimate, and that the amount of compensation to the proctors would not exceed the estimate he had given when the Bill was under discussion, namely, £80,000 to £100,000 per annum. [Mr. Walpole: That is pretty well]. So it is pretty well; but he (Mr. Malins) trusted the House had not forgotten that he had said last year they were about to pay a price for what they would never get value for. He was told that they were going to make compensations to a body of men who would retain their practice. It might be satisfactory to the House to know that the Bill had utterly destroyed the proctors as a body; and if it had not been for the compensation provided by the Bill, they would have been left utterly destitute, That, however, was beside the present question. What he desired was to correct the statement as to the amount of compensation, which, he believed, had been greatly exaggerated. He thought also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in saving that the Consolidated Fund would have to bear the whole of the burden, for it received quite as much as it had to pay. There were certain fees payable under the Act by the suitors which would go to the Consolidated Fund, and which would in their aggregate amount to a sum quite equal to that which would be abstracted front it to pay those compensations; so that no additional burden was thrown on the country. Then as to opening the Court of Admiralty, it was true opening the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had introduced a clause, which had been struck out in the house of Lords; but he thought that his hon. Friend had been to blame for not remaining to see that the words which he had inserted were retained. When the Bill was sent back to that House he was not here to make his complaint, and surely there was no one else whose duty it was to complain. He (Mr. Malins) understood, however, that the clause as to the Court of Admiralty had been struck out because a learned Judge of that Court had represented that the machinery of the Court was not prepared for the change, and that they ought to wait for the introduction of a more general measure.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the recent appointment of Justices of the Peace for the City of Canterbury, and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. John Pout had been appointed one of such Justices, and whether he is the person mentioned in schedules C and F of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at the Election of Members to serve in Parliament for that City in the year 1852, and at previous Elections? He would not go into any detailed reference to the proceedings of the Commission which sat in 1853 to inquire into the corrupt practices that took place in Canterbury at the general election of 1852 and at the previous general election; but he believed there was no difference of opinion either as to the necessity of that inquiry or the conclusions to which the Commissioners came. Indeed it was unnecessary for him to refer to those proceedings as the evidence on which he relied was entirely documentary and a matter of record which could not be in any way controverted. He was sure the House would agree with him that it was their duty to mark their disapproval of every appointment to the magistracy that savoured of party objects. The House would bear in mind that in the appointment of magistrates for boroughs it was the invariable custom of the late Lord Chancellor to examine the names of the parties recommended to him, and carefully to abstain from appointing gentlemen of only one side in politics. ["Oh, oh !"] Hon. Gentlemen on the other side cried "oh, oh!" but he believed the facts would bear him out in the assertion that, with very few exceptions, the magistrates appointed by the late Chancellor were carefully selected, so many from one political party and se many from the other. If hon. Members, who seemed to doubt this were able to bring forward exceptions let them do so; but he would venture to affirm that if they went through the whole list of magistrates appointed during the five or six years the late Chancellor was in office, they would not find so many objectionable appointments as had been made during an equal number of days by the present Chancellor. It was the general complaint that the magisterial appointments of the present Government were all from the one side of polities; that throughout the country Tories only had been appointed, and that in almost every borough where the hand of power could place itself there was no exception to this rule—in no case had any Liberal been appointed. Hon. Gentlemen Opposite were right, perhaps, in endeavouring to prop up their party, and by making appointments of magistrates in the towns and boroughs from their own party endeavouring to obtain that influence which they did not at present possess. He (Mr. Locke) objected to this, for whatever might be done in that House to promote party purposes, the fountain of justice ought, at least, to be kept pure; and even if the contrary practice had prevailed in times past, it was high time that a stop should be put to it. It was stated in the Kentish Herald, of the 16th April, that six magistrates had just been appointed for the City of Canterbury, all of whom were Tories, and that amongst them was John Pout. Rather a singular name that, and one once heard not easily forgotten. Now this man—for he had no doubt it was the same—figured, by name, in the Report of the Commissioners who were sent down in 1853 to inquire into the corrupt practices that had taken place at Canterbury, and various other places. He would not quote any extract from that Report, but only the headings of two of the schedules, and show the way in Which this John Pout was connected with those practices. Schedule "C" was a list of persons who had paid money to voters to induce them to vote—for the Conservative candidates of course—at the general election of 1852. In that schedule was the name of John Pout. Again, schedule "F" was a list of persons who had given money to voters to induce them to vote—also for the Conservative candidates—at the general election of 1847; and here, too, they found the name of John Pout. It would be found the Report that this John Pout had figured in all the elections of late years, but for his efforts at these two particular elections he had been ticketed. Now, with that ticket upon him, it was rather extraordinary that the Chancellor should have selected him for the magistracy—for, talk as they might, it was practically the Chancellor who made these appointments. He made no charge against the hon. Member for Canterbury—for they might all be desirous to put forward au active partizan to the magistracy if the opportunity offered. But what he contended was, that those who were in authority, and were responsible, ought not to allow themselves to be led away to make appointments of this description for the benefit of their party. If there were a duty more responsible than another resting upon those who were high in authority—more especially the first Judge in the land—it was to take care that the administration of justice from the highest to the lowest office should be pure; and it ought to be their duty to protect it in its purity. Let them recollect that this man whose name appeared so ticketed in the schedules of the Commissioners' Report, would have to sit on the magisterial bench at Canterbury; and it might so happen that after an election a person might be brought before Justice John Pout charged with bribery. Sitting on the bench its a justice of the peace, he might be called upon to administer justice, and carry out the law against both bribers and bribed. In that case the briber might recriminate upon the magistrate. He might say—"This is not a proper bench of justices to decide my case, and to determine whether I ought to be committed for trial or not." And whose fault would it be if so unseemly a circumstance occurred in a court of justice? Would it be the fault of Mr. John Pout? Certainly not. The fault would be with those in high places, who bad appointed him. But there was another case—that of a Mr. Thomas White Collard. He was not so distinguished as Mr. Pout. But why? Because his name only appeared in one schedule. He believed it was in reference to the election of 1852 that Mr. Collard appeared ticketed for having given money to voters for the purpose of bribing them. He (Mr. Locke) had given notice of his intention to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole); but he almost thought, from what he had heard since, that that question, would be entirely superfluous. There was no doubt, he believed, that the John Pout referred to in the Schedule was the person who had been appointed by the Chancellor as one of the justices for the city of Canterbury, and since the notice of his (Mr. Locke's) question had been given he believed some steps bad been taken in the matter. He had given no notice in reference to the case of Mr. Collard, for he was not aware that he bad been appointed to the magistracy at the time; but Pout being so extraordinary a name, he thought there could be no mistake about him. Some inquiry, he understood, had been instituted, and he believed that his question would, in consequence, be answered by the right hon. Gentleman in the affirmative.

said, be was not going to find fault with the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing a matter of this kind under the notice of the Rouse. On the contrary, if anything likely to interfere with the proper administration of justice had taken place, the sooner it was corrected the better. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made two charges against his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor—the one, a particular charge in reference to the appointment of Mr. Pout—the other, a general charge, that his noble Friend had—to use a strong word—perverted the administration of justice, by making appointments of a political and party complexion in several towns and boroughs in various parts of the country. In answering those charges he would merely deal with facts, for it was unnecessary for him to enter into any general vindication of the motives by which his noble and learned Friend had been actuated in these appointments, inasmuch as he did not believe any one would impute to him the doing anything which he believed to be improper, or calculated to impair the due administration of justice. The facts in reference to the appointment of Mr. John Pout were these. Some time after his noble and learned Friend had entered upon his present office his attention was called to the state of the magistracy in the City of Canterbury. It appeared there were at that time several vacancies not filled up. There were eleven magistrates on the list, whereas there had usaally been sixteen, and sometimes more. Of these eleven magistrates in Canterbury, eight were on the one side of politics and three on the other. Eight were what were called Liberals and three what were called Conservatives. The Lord Chancellor received several recommendations sent to him from the local authorities of Canterbury, and from persons well acquainted with that city. Of the names so sent to him, his noble Friend objected to one on the ground that the party was a solicitor, it not being usual to place such gentlemen on the bench, and a second he objected to for some other reason; but the other appointments, to the number mentioned, were filled up on the recommendations so submitted to his noble and learned Friend. Among the names so placed on the list of magistrates were unquestionably the two the hon. Gentleman had mentioned—those of Mr. Pout and Mr. Collard. His noble Friend was, however, not in the least degree aware that the names of either of those persons was in the Schedule of the Commissioners' Report to which reference had been made. And the moment the case of Pout was brought to his attention by the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman he caused inquiry to be made. His noble and learned Friend was also informed of the case of Collard, in regard to which, however, no notice had been given; and, finding that the parties were the same as were implicated in the transactions referred to in the Commissioners' Report, he instantly sent down to Canterbury to say that he should require both those gentlemen to resign. The reply to that requisition had not reached his noble and learned Friend when he (Mr. Walpole) entered the Rouse; but he had no doubt that by this time it bad arrived, and that the resignations had been sent in. If not, the hon. Gentleman and the House might rest assured that his noble and learned Friend would take such steps as were necessary for the vindication of the pure administration of justice. But the hon. Gentleman had also brought forward a general charge. He had understood when the notice was given that it simply had reference to the case of Mr. Pout; but, fortunately, he had requested his noble and learned Friend to furnish him with a statement of the magistrates he had appointed in boroughs and towns since he had been in office, and he had accordingly in his hand an account of all the appointments that hail been made, with the names of the boroughs in which such appointments had been made—the political character of time magistracy in those towns and boroughs now, and what was its political character previous to such appointments—and it would be seen from that account that his noble and learned Friend had not been influenced by any desire to give an undue preponderance to the Conservative party in connexion with the magistracy. The first place on the list was Norwich. There there were fifteen magistrates of the Liberal party, and thirteen Conservatives. [An Hon. MEMBER: But how many have been appointed by the present Government?] Did the hon. Gentleman wish to have the whole statement read? He was quite prepared to give the whole of the particulars. The number of new magistrates appointed in Norwich was 6. There having been previously 15 Liberals and only 7 Conservatives, 6 Conservatives were put upon the Commission—leaving the total 15 Liberals and 13 Conservatives, The next borough was Warwick. When the Government came into office the state of the magistracy here was 3 Liberal, 1 Neutral, and 1 Conservative. His noble and learned Friend had put on 4 Conservative magistrates and 1 Liberal, leaving the state of the case in Warwick now—Liberals, 4; Conservatives, 5; Neutral, 1. In Poole there were, previous to any new appointments, 11 magistrates—8 Liberals and 3 Conservatives. His noble and learned Friend had put on 3 Conservatives, leaving now 8 Liberals and 6 Conservatives. The next was Shrewsbury. There there were, before the change, 13 magistrates—10 Liberal and 3 Conservative; 8 Conservatives had been added to the list there, making 10 Liberals and 11 Conservatives. He was simply stating facts, leaving hon. Gentlemen to draw their own inferences. At Gravesend there had been 3 Conservatives and 6 Liberals—4 Conservatives had been put on, leaving 6 Liberals, and increasing the Conservatives to 7. At Bath the relative numbers had been 11 Liberals to 4 Conservatives—7 Conservatives had since been put on. The result being, that where a preponderance had existed one way before. the change had brought the matter almost to a balance, but still leaving 12 Liberals to 11 Conservatives. At Bury there was no Conservative magistrate, but 3 Liberals; 4 Conservatives had been put on, leaving 4 Conservatives and 3 Liberals. In Carmarthen there were 4 Liberals, 2 Neutrals, and 3 Conservatives; 5 new magistrates had been added, and the state of the case now was 6 Liberals, 2 Neutrals, and 7 Conservatives. The last on the list was Canterbury. The original numbers were 8 Liberals and 3 Conservatives. His noble and learned Friend had put on 5 additional magistrates, leaving the balance still in favour of the Liberals by 9 to 8. [An Hon. MEMBER: Liverpool.] He had not the return of Liverpool. He had given all the information he had. He had intended merely to make a statement of fact in answer to the charge; but in consequence of the hon. Gentleman's observations he had gone into these details, and certain indications of opinion which he could not mistake tempted him to put it to the House whether these returns showed that an undue political preponderance of opinion had not previously been allowed to prevail in the appointment of magistrates to the various towns and boroughs. The cause of that preponderance no doubt was that the recommendation of the magistracy was left to the local authorities where the Conservatives were in a minority. But it was of immense importance, whatever Government was in power, that such a preponderance should not be allowed to continue, and if his noble Friend had inadvertently and from misinformation made improper appointments, he had certainly not acted wrongly in bringing the relative political state of the magistracy nearer to an equality.

said, there had been some cheers on both sides of the House during this short discussion, and he suspected after hearing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the present Lord Chancellor had only followed in the steps of his predecessor. He could not explain on any other grounds the fact that in some of the cases so few magistrates represented the Conservative party. The plan upon which the Lord Chancellor appeared to have acted was to balance accounts; but there was one thing that had been forgotten—namely, that a very large majority of the population of those towns did not happen to belong to the Conservative party. At a moderate computation three-fourths of the population of the towns were not Conservatives. ["No!"] Hon. Gentlemen seemed enthusiastic in their belief to the contrary, but the multiplication table remained as it was, and in the boroughs the Conservatives were generally in a minority among the electors, and always in a minority of the population. In the counties by far the largest number of magistrates were Conservatives, and it was not unreasonable to suppose that in the boroughs the majority of magistrates ought to be Liberals. He did not complain of it, for with the rapidity of conversion which had been found to prevail, Conservatives becoming neutrals, and neutrals becoming Liberals, in a very short time the preponderance even in those boroughs would remain with the Liberals. When the Municipal Reform Bill passed the House of Commons, he believed there was a clause in it which gave the Corporations the power of recommending persons for magistrates to the Lord Chancellor, or the Home Secretary, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. When the Bill went to the House of Lords the clause was struck out. He believed that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), when at the Home Office, adopted the plan which the Government of which he was a member recommended in the Bill; and the noble Lord no doubt entertained hopes that that course would be adopted by those who succeeded him in office. There would be great advantage if the present course were given up. The moment there was a change of Government, letters and deputations came up from boroughs, and there was a general scramble to put a number of men upon the bench, in order to balance political parties. As soon as the Government went out there was another scramble, and in that manner many unfit men were placed upon the bench, and in many towns the bench was much more numerous than was necessary. If the present Home Secretary would, during his career in office—and he did not particularly wish that it should be a short one—adopt the plan which the noble Lord the Member for the City of London began, of allowing the Corporations to have the recommendation, and if his successor would follow the same course, the custom would become established, and there would be no necessity to pass a law upon the subject. He thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) was as well disposed as any man in the House to put the matter on a right footing, and he believed there would be a very great advantage throughout the country if they removed the appointment of magistrates beyond what he called the discreditable scramble which took place whenever a new Government came into office.

said, he must throw himself upon the indulgence of the House whilst he said a few words in explanation of the course he had taken in this transaction, and he believed he could easily satisfy them that no blame could attach to the Lord Chancellor. There had been a great want of magistrates in the city of Canterbury, and the Mayor of the city sent up to him a list of gentlemen for appointment. He also sent strong recommendations of the two gentlemen in question. They were men of the highest standing in society—men of great respectability. He would convince the House of the truth of this assertion. He went with the recommendations to the Lord Chancellor, and told his Lordship that these were men of the highest respectability. The Lord Chancellor inquired of him the character of each gentleman severally. He assured his Lordship that each man of them stood high in the estimation of his fellow citizens. And that was the fact. [Laughter.] Why Mr. Pout was and had for some time been chairman of the income tax commissioners in the city of Canterbury. He was also one of the guardians of the poor. Mr. White Collard was chairman of the sanitary commission, of the finance committee, and of other boards. When such men were sent up, so respectably recommended by their fellow citizens, could lie have refrained from it? He assured the House, honestly and sincerely, that when he recommended those men to the Lord Chancellor, on his word and honour, he quite forgot their names were in the schedule. So much time had gone by that really the thing never entered into his mind. Since then he had spoken to the gentleman who was chiefly instrumental in the recommendation from Canterbury. He said "Oh, it is years since; no one remembers it; I assure you, Mr. Butler Johnstone, I never once thought of it." He assured the House he had not thought of it, or he should not have backed the recommendation. As to the matter being viewed in a party light, the Conservatives only preponderated by one in the magistracy. Looking to the station these gentlemen held, and the recommendation that came up with them, he would ask any hon. Member in the House to change places with him, and then say that he would not have acted as he (Mr. B. Johnstone) had done. He should say that he thought the case a very hard one. These men had come forward and given evidence before the Committee. He was no lawyer, he was sorry to say; but by the 9th sec. of the 15 & 16 Vict., c. 57, it was provided that persons who so gave evidence shall be released from all "penal consequences, difficulties and incapacities." That being the state of the law, he (Mr. B. Johnstone) said that it would be perfectly illegal to strike these men off. [Laughter.] He did assert that. Such a striking off came under the term "incapacities," according to his weak mind. He was extremely obliged to the House for the attention they had paid to his explanation, which was, he hoped, satisfactory.

said, the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) led him to address a few words to the House. He was about to allude to a borough with which he had had some connection, the Members for which were no doubt in the House—he spoke of the borough of Bath. The hon. Member for Birmingham had stated that by a clause in the Municipal Reform Bill, which was struck out in the Lords, the town councils or corporations were to have power to recommend persons for appointment as magistrates. Soon after the late change of Government took place, there occurred the scramble which the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) had described, and the town council, acting on the idea in question, sat, and sent up a list of names to the Lord Chancellor. At the same time a clique of the Conservatives of Bath also prepared a list, and both lists were sent up to the Lord Chancellor. The list of these latter gentlemen alone came down accepted by the Lord Chancellor. Every name sent up by the town council was passed over, and every one of those recommended by the clique of Conservative gentlemen was sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor. A remonstrance was made; and he (Mr. Roebuck) thought some alteration took place. It was the first effort of his Lordship's mind to throw himself into the arms of those Conservative gentlemen on the question of an appointment of persons, for what? To administer justice in the city of Bath. He considered his hon. Friend (Mr. Bright) was quite right in his remarks about the majority of the people being Liberals. He agreed with him that two-thirds of the inhabitants of the towns were Liberals. The Conservative part of the population were small compared with the Liberals; but he was bound to say they were "very select." The hon. Member for Canterbury had told the House that, by Act of Parliament, all persons giving evidence before a Committee, such as that which had been referred to in this case, were protected from all incapacities which might be incurred on account of their evidence. Now, he (Mr. Roebuck) did not think those who passed that Act intended that the fact of a man's being bribed should be a recommendation to him. What was wanted in the appointment of magistrates was, that the parties selected should be gentlemen of high character and unblemished reputation, from whose hands the administration of justice should be received without remonstrance. Could that be said of persons branded—of persons who had been notorious for having bribed at an election? If the hon. Member for Canterbury assured the House that he did not know of the bribery in this case, he (Mr. Roebuck) was bound to believe him. [Mr. B. JOHNSTONE: I did not think of it.] As to the hon. Member saying that he did not think of it, he should like to know what the hon. Member was thinking of? What he ought to have been thinking of in the discharge of his duty, when recommending people for the magistracy, was as to whether they were free from all blemish; and one of those very men had been before a Committee as a person branded with having been, in a former election of the hon. Member, concerned in the distribution of large sums in bribery. The hon. Member escaped himself on that occasion. He said he knew nothing about that distribution of money. The Committee believed and exculpated him; but, when the hon. Member said that he did not recollect the circumstance of that charge—that it had slipped out of his memory—he (Mr. Roebuck) should arrive at the conclusion that the recollection of his duty had slipped out of the hon. Member's recollection also.

observed, that knowing that this question was of extreme importance, he wished to say a word upon it, more particularly as a wholesale appointment of nine Conservative magistrates had been made in Dublin. He could not understand the reluctance of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department to grant a Return which he (Mr. O'Brien) had given notice he would move for, and which he had supposed would be unopposed until he had a conversation with the hon. Gentleman a short time ago, when he was told that the Government were not in a position to give him the information he wanted. What was his surprise, then, to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary get up, and by the desire of the Lord Chancellor give the House the very information which he had intended to move for. it was for the Liberal party to see that the proper administration of justice was regarded in these appointments, and he trusted the House would not endorse the creation of magistrates merely for party or political purposes.

said, he thought it fair that it should be understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had not produced a complete list of the places where new magistrates had been appointed, for in the pure borough (Maldon) which he (Mr. Western) represented, six new magistrates had been appointed, making twelve in all, which was at the rate of a magistrate to every criminal which was brought before them. He had no objection to the gentlemen who had been appointed, but he thought it right to mention the fact.

said, that the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. P. O'Brien) had, to his great astonishment, charged him with a breach of faith. In a conversation with the hon. Member, he (Mr. Hardy) told him that his Motion, which stood No. 6 on the paper, was on the face of it an attempt to cast an imputation on the Lord Chancellor, as it asked for a Return of the names of gentlemen appointed magistrates in England and Wales since the 1st of March last, but that, if he chose to make it a Return extending over five years, he (Mr. Hardy) would have no objection to it. He never told the hon. Member that they had a Return which they would not furnish. He at the same time told the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. J. Locke) that his Return would be granted also if he made it one for five years. The Government could not join in an imputation upon themselves; but it was quite a mistake to suppose that they had any objection to put the House in a position to judge of their appointments to the magisterial bench. The hon. Gentleman's imputation, therefore, was totally unfounded. He should be very glad if the whole question of the magistracy were examined into, for, so far as he had had an opportunity of ascertaining the facts during the short time he had been in office, there had hitherto been a very unfair preponderance, and it was high time that the best men should be selected, without reference to their political opinions, so that there might be no suspicion of party bias when questions involving party interests came before them.

said, he wished to explain that the hon. Member had misinterpreted him. He made no imputation of a want of faith, but had merely alluded to the circumstances; but there did not seem to be that concord between the head of his department and himself which might have been expected.

had no doubt that the hon. Member who brought forward this matter was actuated simply by a sincere respect for the administration of justice, and his anxiety for its purity. The hon. Gentleman had quoted front a blue-book; and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) was sure he would learn with surprise and regret that in that book was to be found the name of another respectable gentleman duly ticketed, but the circumstances of whose case had entirely escaped the research of the hon. Member. In page 22 of that book there was a passage in the Report of the Committee which sat on the Canterbury election of 1850. It was this:—

"We find that at the election which took place in 1850 in consequence of the elevation of Lord A. D. Conyngham to the peerage, the sum of £37 10s. was paid by Mr. Alderman Brent to a voter for the purpose of inducing him to give his vote for Colonel Romilly; but that this was done without the knowledge of the said Colonel Romilly."

Then when he (the Attorney General for Ireland) turned to the schedule he found the name of Alderman Brent. Now he subscribed readily to the doctrine that it was a mistake to recommend the gentleman whose name was now under discussion, and he concurred entirely in what the Lord Chancellor had done the moment the facts reached his knowledge; but what was to be said of those who, having this Report before them "ticketing" the worthy alderman as a briber, had allowed him to remain in the magistracy from 1850 up to the present time? How did it happen that the zeal of the hon. Gentleman for the pure administration of justice had not induced him to bring this case under the attention of the House? No doubt the alderman was a truly Liberal politician, or he would long ago have been displaced. But that was not all. There was a more startling fact to come. This gentleman had not only been allowed by the purists of the Liberal side of the House to remain a magistrate, but he had absolutely been appointed a deputy lieutenant. He begged to direct the parti- cular attention of the hon. Member for Southwark to this, for there was no knowing that the worthy alderman's promotion would stop at the deputy lieutenancy. Judging from the past it was not Clear that, if some one like the hon. Member for Southwark did not interpose, that the gentleman might not yet reach his full lieutenancy in consequence of this fresh publication of his virtues.

said, that but for the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) he should not have troubled the House. The case as brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark was that of certain gentlemen recently appointed to the commission of the peace. The case of Alderman Brent was a totally distinct and different one—and the right hon. Gentleman could charge no one with being guilty of an improper act with regard to Mr. Brent. But the case of the right hon. Gentleman was, that Mr. Brent had not only remained a magistrate of Canterbury, but that he had received a higher reward, being appointed a deputy lieutenant for the county of Kent. In the first place that was not a Government appointment, and for it neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Home Secretary was responsible. He would, however, contradict the statement which had been made. Mr. Brent was a particular friend of the late Earl Cowper, who, as a mark of respect, made him a deputy lieutenant in 1852, and the Commission to inquire into the Canterbury election did not sit until June 1853. He had disposed of that part of the case. With regard to the general question, his hon. Colleague had stated that there was a great want of magistrates it, Canterbury. It might be so. He (Sir W. Somerville) had not sufficient local knowledge of the borough to say that it was not so, but he had never heard of it. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham on the subject of appointments to the magistracy by the Lord Chancellor, he could say that since he had represented Canterbury he had made only one application for an appointment to the magistracy to a Lord Chancellor. On that occasion the names of two gentlemen came up to him recommended by the corporation, one of whom was a Conservative and the other a Liberal. The Lord Chancellor made inquiry into the character and position of the two gentlemen, and both were appointed.

said, he would beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works what progress has been made in the recasting of the Bell for the Clock Tower, and when it is probable that the Clock will be completed? also, what is the intention of the Government respecting the erection of the Statue of Richard Cœur de Lion by Baron Marochetti, purchased by public subscription, and presented to the Nation in 1856? Although there were clocks in almost every room of the House, there was not one outside the building. He had heard it said that the clock itself was lying in a barge on the Thames, opposite Mr. Dent's workshop; and as he presumed it had been paid for by the Nation, he wished to know whether it was in safe custody, and if it were not likely to be damaged in that position? The Nation took great interest in the erection of the statue, and when it was proposed to subscribe and purchase it, the subscription was well responded to. Last year he was told that a site for it had not been determined, but that it was probable that it would be placed north of Westminster Abbey, in a line with Great George Street and the bridge. if they were to wait till the Houses of Parliament were completed, and a square provided in which to place the statue, they would, he feared, have to wait a very indefinite time. He thought it was somewhat ungenerous on the part of the Government that they had not yet decided upon a place for it.

said, before the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works answered the question put, he wished to ask him a question relative to the statue of Dr. Jenner that had been placed in Trafalgar Square. He wished to say nothing in depreciation of the memory of Dr. Jenner or the profession to which he was so great an ornament. But he merely wished to submit to the noble Lord whether the site which had been selected was an eligible position for his statue. He also wished to know whether he (Lord J. Manners) had selected the site in Trafalgar Square, or whether it was decided upon by the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Ball) who preceded him in his office. He had heard out of doors that the public did not approve of the position selected, and that it would show good taste in the noble Lord if he would change the site.

said, he should not himself have brought this subject under consideration, for he did not like to be always putting himself forward with reference to these questions. But he thought it would be very desirable to know whether the Government had any fixed principles respecting the erection of statues in the metropolis, or whether any gentlemen who chose to subscribe for a statue of any public character they might think worthy of, were to be entitled to a site for that statue and were themselves to select it? Dr. Jenner's statue had been placed in a line with that of Sir Charles Napier. Now, he should like to know whether the Government intended to complete that line, and have a row of statues extending the whole length of Trafalgar Square. If so, was that line to be a single or a double one? The English formation was two, the French formation three deep,—was the French or the English system to be followed? This subject was really one of no little interest, because Trafalgar Square, which might be made a great ornament to the metropolis, would, unless some ruling principles were laid down respecting the erection of statues there, become nothing else than a disfigurement.

said, that in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) he had heard that day that the Bell for the Clock Tower had been re-cast, and would probably be fit for delivery in ten days; and he concluded that the other part of the works was in a satisfactory condition, and that as a vote was to be taken for the completion of the new Palace of West-minster this year the Clock Tower and the remaining works would be finished in a short time. He was glad to say that there was every prospect that the new Bell would have a remarkably fine tone. With regard to the statue of Cœur de Lion, he had to say that an offer of the statue to the public was made by the committee of purchasers in 1856, and in August of that year it was accepted. A reference was made to the Commission of the Fine Arts, and to Sir Charles Barry, as to the best site in which it could be placed, and there was a difference of opinion on the point, and since August 1856 nothing had transpired on the subject; and as his attention had only been recently called to the matter he had not had time to communicate with his colleagues as to any proposal. But he thought that until it was settled what was to be done with the law courts, the buildings in Palace Yard, and in front of the House of Lords, no decision could be come to on the subject. With respect to the question put by his noble Friend, the Member for Durham, (Lord V. Tempest) he believed that in August, 1857, an application was made by a Committee for a site for the statue in Trafalgar Square, and a site was granted by his right hon. Friend opposite. A short time ago an application was made to him by the members of the committee, who stated that the, statue was ready, that the pedestal was complete, and asking for instructions for its erection, and not thinking that he had any option in the matter, he had refrained from expressing any opinion as to the desirability, upon the ground of taste, of selecting the proposed site. His noble Friend, the Member for Haddington (Lord Elcho), wished to know the intention of the Government with respect to statues that might hereafter be proposed for erection in other parts of the metropolis, and especially in Trafalgar Square. The department with which he was connected had nothing to do with other parts of the metropolis, but with respect to Trafalgar Square he understood that the position assigned to the statue of Dr. Jenner was part of a general plan, and that three or four other statues would be placed in the same line. One to correspond with that of Dr. Jenner would be placed at the opposite corner, and one of Sir Henry Havelock would be placed so as to correspond with that of Sir Charles Napier.

said, that as the great bell which had been originally cast had been generally known as "Big Ben," he wished to know the intention of the Government with regard to the nomenclature of the new bell. If the Government would allow him to throw out a suggestion, he thought the new bell would be very appropriately designated as "Little John."

said, he bad in the course of that day received a letter from Lord Wensleydale, stating that the observations which he had upon the evening previous made in reference to the abovementioned case conveyed to that noble Lord the impression that he (Mr. Deasy) meant to cast upon him, as well as upon the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, some imputation in reference to the decision in the case which had been pronounced. Now, nothing could be further from his intention than to cast any such imputation, and it had given him the utmost pain to find that the impression to which he had just alluded should, even though it was owing to an erroneous interpretation of the expressions which he had used, have been produced upon the mind of a nobleman for whom he, in common with many hon. Members of that House, entertained the highest respect. Neither, although he might be or opinion that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords might be More perfect, was it his intention to cast any imputation upon that jurisdiction, whose functions Were from time to time, he was perfectly ready to admit, discharged by personages of the highest eminence.

said, he rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Her Majesty's Government will cause to be presented to the House a Copy of the Despatch referred to by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on Tuesday last, as having been received by Her Majesty's Government, stating that the Government of Sardinia cordially accepted the Despatch of Lord Malmesbury, and were prepared to act in accordance with the suggestions of that Despatch, and the spirit of the Protocol of the 14th of April; and also for a Copy of the above Despatch of Lord Malmesbury. His object in putting this question was to ask Her Majesty's Ministers to reconsider the decision at which they had arrived, and which had induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refuse the production of papers for which he had asked. On the 12th of March last he (Mr. Kinglake) brought forward a Motion with regard to the imprisonment of the two engineers at Naples, and he thought he might congratulate the House upon the fortunate results which had been brought about so far as the two unfortunate engineers were concerned since he had first invited the attention of hon. Members to the question. It had happily come to pass that when the words used by the noble Lord the Member for London, as well as by many other hon. Members in that house, in the debate which took place in consequence of his Motion, had been conveyed by electric telegraph to Naples, the liberation of those poor men had almost immediately taken place. He (Mr. Kinglake) had concluded his Motion by asking the Government if it would be convenient to produce the papers relating to the matter. That application was acceded to, and in the course of the Easter recess the documents were placed in the hands of hon. Members. Amongst those documents was an extraordinary despatch from the Earl of Malmesbury, in which the noble Lord took the singular and unusual course of communicating to the Government of Sardinia the particulars of a mistake in the Chancellerie of the Minister of Turin, That extraordinary despatch had excited all the astonishment it was calculated to produce. No one at Turin or elsewhere on the Continent could believe that any foreign Minister would have taken the pains to disavow a despatch signed by a Minister of this country accredited to a foreign Court, unless there had been a very strong determination on the part of the Government to recede from the first policy indicated in that mistaken despatch. Accordingly, a general impression prevailed that there was an intention to leave Sardinia isolated and abandoned by England, and the statement afterwards made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tended strongly to confirm that impression. Under these circumstances he (Mr. Kinglake) felt that he was entitled to deprecate a policy involving such abandonment. He felt this, not simply upon the ground that the battalions of Sardinia had not been wanting to us in the hour of need, nor because she almost alone of foreign States maintained with firmness and moderation institutions kindred to our own, but because the demands which had been made by her in the case of the Cagliari were made at the instigation of the British Government, not conveyed through Sir J. Hudson and the mistaken despatch of Mr. Erskine merely, but by the hand of Lord Clarendon himself when he held the seals of the Foreign Office. It was for that reason, above all others, that he thought England was bound to afford to Sardinia, not the cold comfort of good offices and advice, but a genuine and cordial support. Finding that his views were shared in by a large number of hon. Members, he gave notice of a Motion, which he was induced to postpone in consequence of the production of the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the very day for which his Motion was fixed. The next time on which he had the opportunity of bringing it forward was on Tuesday night, when the lateness of the hour at which the debate on the question of the union of the Danubian Principalities had closed on Tuesday last, had induced him to announce his intention to postpone it to the following week. On that occasion, however, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs rose and made a statement which had occasioned great surprise, for it gave him (Mr. Kinglake) to understand that the object of his Motion had been attained, and that Her Majesty's Government were acting in concert with that of Sardinia. The next day, however, he heard it rumoured that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had overstated the extent to which Sardinia was satisfied with the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. Last night, when the question was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt)—when the further papers referred to by the Under Secretary would be produced, he was surprised to hear not only that the right hon. Gentleman objected to their production, but placed his objection on a ground entirely inconsistent with the statement of the Under Secretary—namely, that negotiations were still pending, and that the production of the despatch by which the difficulties were said to have been concluded would be dangerous. Now, under these circumstances he submitted that the House was entitled to the production of these papers. The object of his Motion was to induce the Government to act cordially with Sardinia; and the Under Secretary said the despatch showed that the Sardinian Government was satisfied with the manner in which Her Majesty's Government were acting. He did not mean to say that the despatch had been referred to for the purpose of anticipating a debate; but the Under Secretary said on the occasion to which he had referred—

"He had certainly hoped that the explanation given by the noble Lord the head of the Foreign Department, in another place, would have been as satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman as he believed it had been generally satisfactory to the country. But at any rate he had the happiness of telling the hon. Gentleman that, although it was not satisfactory to him, it had proved entirely satisfactory to the Government of Sardinia. Her Majesty's Government had that afternoon received from Count Cavour a despatch, announcing that he cordially accepted the despatch which was sent to him by his noble Friend, and that in future he should act entirely in accordance with the suggestions contained in that despatch, and with the spirit of the Paris protocol of April the 14th."

Here was one Minister of the Crown, on Tuesday, stating, amidst the cheers of the House, that the difficulty had been got over by the expression of satisfaction on the part of Sardinia, and last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—

"At the present moment, when negotiations are being carried on, nothing could be more inconvenient than to lay the papers on the table. When, on Tuesday night, my hon. Friend the Under Secretary referred to the receipt of a despatch, he gave the general result as a matter which might be interesting to the House. But that is quite a different thing to laying it upon the table. Of course, when the proper time arrives, which I hope will not be long, it will be our duty to lay all the papers upon the table in relation to this subject; but at present nothing could be more injurious to the public service than to do so."

[Cheers.] Those hon. Gentlemen who cheered the notion that the production of a despatch would be injurious to the public service were probably the same hon. Gentlemen who on the preceding night cheered the assertion that the announcement would be grateful to all men. The despatches for which he asked were a continuation of those which have been already produced, and, therefore, upon that ground alone he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the answer which he gave on the former evening. He certainly thought he was entitled to ask which of the two versions he had mentioned was correct. If the Government of Sardinia was satisfied, as represented by the Under Secretary, he (Mr. Kinglake) would be happy to withdraw his Motion; but if the statement of The Chancellor of the Exchequer was accurate, and matters had not been settled, he should certainly continue his notice upon the paper, and he should endeavour to find an early day to bring it under the notice of the House.

I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that he has at last had an opportunity of making his speech upon the Sardinian question. When he asks me which version is to be accepted as correct, my own or my hon. Friend's, the Under Secretary of State, as to the present position of matters, I beg to say I cannot see the inconsistency upon which he has dwelt, and I am prepared, upon the contrary, to maintain that they are exactly in accordance. The question before us is a simple, but very important one. My hon. Friend was quite justified the other night in the statement which be made. What was that statement? It was that the Court of Sardinia had accepted the proposition made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his despatch to Count Cavour—namely, that this vexed question should be referred to mediation, according to the wise and beneficent protocol adopted at the Conference of Paris. That was the statement made by my hon. Friend, he having learnt the fact during the course of the evening, but not having seen the despatch. That statement he made, out of respect to the House believing that it would be received with pleasure by them. Let the House remember that when we have agreed with Sardinia as to the course that shall be adopted we must not suppose that therefore all difficulties are solved. Let me impress upon the House the importance of the questions which still have to be considered between Sardinia and ourselves before we can arrive at a complete solution of the difficulties which now encumber the matter. There is the question of indemnity the question of mediation both involved in the negotiations now commencing. They are two of the most difficult and delicate questions which can arise in diplomacy. Who is to be the mediator?—the objections to this Power,—the recommendations of that Power—what is to be the extent of reference?—all these are points which demand great confidence, great temper, and are liable in the course of management, to frequent misconceptions. It would be impossible to proceed if every despatch written during the course of such negotiations is, like the feuilleton of a French newspaper, to be published immediately to the world. If the House has not confidence in the management of this affair by her Majesty's present Ministers, let them say so distinctly, and then we shall understand the position in which we are placed; but I say again that these papers cannot be produced; the despatches which are daily passing between the two Governments cannot be produced as the hon. Gentleman desires without serious detriment to the public service, and I, for one, will not incur the responsibility attaching to such an act. Let me ask the House whether that which has taken place upon the subject of this misunderstanding between Sardinia and Naples, and the relations of this country with that question, lead it to believe that the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers has been such as to disentitle us to its confidence. We found the matter very complicated and in a very difficult position, and I think I may venture to say we have treated it with prudence, and not without success. What we have attempted we have succeeded in accomplishing, and we are prepared, to the utmost of our ability, to bring the matter to a complete and satisfactory termination. Our labours, however, will be seriously heightened if the House of Commons does not extend to us that fair confidence to which, I think, we are entitled, and therefore I must again say I decline to produce the papers which the hon. Gentleman has asked for.

I think the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) may be excused for asking for these papers, as a portion have already been laid upon the table; but at the same time I think, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that these papers cannot be produced without serious detriment to the public service, it is impossible that my hon. Friend can press his Motion. I must say further, with respect to the general course which the Government has taken upon this very difficult question, that I see no reason why the House should be dissatisfied with that course. It appears to me there were two very great objects, both of which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was bound to keep in view in dealing with this subject. One was not to desert Sardinia, but to endeavour to obtain for her that redress to which she is fairly and justly entitled. The other object was of scarcely less consequence—namely, how was the redress to be obtained without a risk of hostilities in Italy between the powers who held very opposite views in regard to affairs in that country, and which, if excited, would have lighted the flame of war, not only over the whole of Italy but over the continent generally. Having these two objects in view, I must say it appears to me that the course of the Government has been judicious, and if the representation which has been made of the present state of the negotiation be accurate, I can only add there appears to be a hope that they will lead to a satisfactory conclusion. There is one other point to which I would refer for a moment. We made an appeal with respect to the English engineers who had been suffering very severe treatment in the prisons at Naples, and treated with all that hardship and cruelty, and with all that disregard of everything like humanity or justice which distinguish what is called justice there. Those two men have been released and were delivered up very speedily after the representations made by our Government through Mr. Lyons, and the general question has now to be referred to the good offices of mediation and afterwards to arbitration, Bat what in the meantime is to become of those men belonging to the crew of the Cagliari who are subjected to the same course of treatment and confined in the same dungeons? I can understand, with respect to the condemnation or restoration of the Cagliari, that there may be perhaps a long course of negotiation; but I do not think that it would ba at all consistent with the justice, or with the character of this country if we did not use our good offices to prevent those unhappy men being longer detained in prison at Naples. I have heard that part of the proposal is that the crew of the Cagliari are to be immediately liberated and permitted to return to their country. I shall be happy to hear from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that that is the case, for I think it would be a great hardship if those men were to be longer incarcerated and exposed to the ill-treatment which they have borne for so protracted a period. Before concluding, I will add that I hope that some Member of Her Majesty's Government will state when the Commission on the subject of education is likely to meet.

, in reference to the last question of the noble Lord, said, that the Commission would issue very speedily.

In reply to the observations of the noble Lord, I am afraid I cannot give hint that satisfactory and explicit answer which he may think he is entitled to receive from me. I can only say, in reference to the communications which are now passing or have lately passed between this country and Sardinia, that our efforts to assist Sardinia are not in any way limited to the mere question of the ship, but that we also desire to extend our good offices to the utmost on behalf of the crew. Beyond that, however, as the matter is still pending, I cannot give the noble Lord that full and explicit answer which he expects. With respect to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake), I may be permitted to say that he seems entirely to have mistaken the object with which I addressed the few words to the House on Tuesday night to which he has referred. I did not make an announcement of the complete contents of the despatch in question, nor did I mean to convey to the House that I was really imparting to them the full contents of that despatch. All I wished to do was this. The hon. and learned Gentleman had had for many nights a notice of Motion on the paper on the subject of the Cagliari. I felt very strongly that that was a question which should be treated with great delicacy, and that it was one of the very gravest with which the House could interfere. I was, therefore, anxious to make a statement which should be so far satisfactory to the House as to induce the hon. and leagued Gentleman to refrain from bringing a question of such delicacy under its consideration. Therefore, I stated that the proposition that has been made by my noble Friend at the head of the Department for Foreign Affairs to Sardinia, had been satisfactory and accepted. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that rumours had reached him that my statement was inaccurate. How such rumours could have reached hint, or whence they emanated, I am at a loss to understand. They could not have come from any English source, and I must say it is much to be regretted that statements should be made by men who arc not in a situation as British subjects to speak in this House or elsewhere, and establish the allegations they have made to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman has chosen to say that the course taken by my noble Friend is such as to have led to the general impression that it was the intention of the Government to abandon Sardinia and to leave her in an isolated position in this matter. I can only say that nothing has been further from the intention of Her Majesty's Government than such a course, and that we have neither taken in the past, nor shall we take now any step whatever which shall justify the imputation that we have abandoned a brave and generous ally in the hour of danger.

I am glad that this conversation has cleared up any misunderstanding that has existed with respect to the answer of my hon. Friend; but I am bound to say, that I entertained the same impression with respect to its purport and effect as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridgwater. I think, certainly, the effect of his answer was, not merely that the proposal of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Fo- reign Affairs had been accepted by Sardinia, but likewise that the whole terms of that proposal were thoroughly and entirely satisfactory. That, however, is the point in difference, and I merely state my recollection. What we now understand is, that the proposal has been accepted by Sardinia, and that the matter does not reach beyond that point. [Mr. S. FITZGERALD: We are acting in entire accordance with Sardinia.] I wish to say one word with respect to the crew of the Cagliari. I am glad to learn that Her Majesty's Government have taken the condition of these unfortunate men into their consideration, and that their co-operation with Sardinia extends to the question of the crew as well as to that of the ship. But I venture to express a hope that, in considering that portion of the negotiation they will not fail to bear in mind the enormous importance of the element of time, because delays in the negotiations, so far as they relate to the crew, are a virtual ruling of the question against England and Sardinia. The sufferings of those persons have been already exceedingly severe, and I am sure I do not feel any distrust in the slightest degree as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, but I entertain a confident expectation that they will prosecute with the utmost despatch all that relates to the crew of the Cagliari. I quite agree with my noble Friend the Member for London in viewing with general satisfaction what Her Majesty's Government have done in this matter, and in retaining a perfect confidence with respect to their future intentions; but I am bound to say, that I think the despatch of the Earl of Malmesbury, in which he discussed the circumstances of the note of Sir James Hudson, did not do full justice to the views of Her Majesty's Government. When I read that despatch, and saw how minutely the Earl of Malmesbury had explained the error of Mr. Erskine, I gathered from the tendency and effect of it that it was not intended by the Government to act on the spirit of the letter of Sir James Hudson. I fully grant that an important error—a serious blunder—a most unhappy error was committed by all able and exemplary public servant, and I trust that past merits and important services will not be forgotten in the recollection of that error, and that those concerned in it need not rest under any blot. But I wish to state this opinion, that the obligation of England to Sardinia does not depend on the erroneously expressed note of Sir James Hudson. It arises, in my opinion, not formally, but substantially, with as much fulness and clearness out of the letter of the Earl of Clarendon of the 29th of December last, as out of the letter of Sir James Hudson of the 5th of January. It is true, that if we were seeking for technical grounds on which to attenuate a just claim, we might urge that Sir James Hudson states the intentions of the British Government, and that the Earl of Clarendon simply inquires the intentions of the Sardinian Government. But, having inquired the intentions of the Sardinian Government, Lord Clarendon goes on with great force, clearness, and felicity to state the arguments bearing upon the case, and to give direct and conclusive reasons as from himself, why the Sardinian Government should do the very thing which he directed Sir James Hudson to inquire whether they would do. Therefore, it does not arise out of any error or oversight on the part of Mr. Erskine, and I think it only just to the gentlemen at Turin to make that statement. It is material to bear that in mind, as it forms the groundwork of the whole question. The obligation has been acknowledged in the handsomest manner by the Government, and I do not take the slightest objection to their proceedings.

said, he fully agreed that this was a question of great importance and delicacy, and he thought the House had no reason to regret the course they had taken with regard to it. He deemed it due to Her Majesty's present Government to say that he fully concurred in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that when they acceded to office they had to deal with the question under circumstances of great difficulty and having taken much interest in the case of the English engineers he must express his gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for their prompt exertions on behalf of those unfortunate men, and he cordially congratulated them on their success in obtaining the liberation of Watt and Park. He could only express a hope that Her Majesty's Government might be equally successful in obtaining compensation for our unfortunate countrymen for the sufferings they had undergone during their painful imprisonment. He did not, however, understand the motives of the Government in withholding the papers to which reference had been made, or how their publication could be prejudicial to the public service. They were, at the present period, in a difficult position. He entertained a strong opinion that the question of the liberation of the Sardinian prisoners, who were now in the same position in which our countrymen stood some weeks ago, should be placed fairly before the House and the country; but it could not be fully discussed until they had fuller information. All that was at present known was, that Her Majesty's Government had tendered what they call their "good offices" between Sardinia and the King of the Two Sicilies, and that it was proposed to refer the matter to a foreign Power. It was impossible to imagine a more unsatisfactory position of affairs than that in which the matter now stood; and though he was forced to accept the statement of Her Majesty's Government, that the production of the papers would be prejudicial to the public interests, he must say that the reasons for withholding them were to him perfectly unintelligible, and he very much regretted that the Government considered themselves precluded from producing them.

said, that the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. FitzGerald), that his hon, and learned Friend (Mr. Kinglake) had had some communication with foreigners, or at all events with persons who were not Englishmen, and from whom he derived his information, was utterly contrary to the fact. He had had no such communication. He wished to know if the hon. Gentleman had read the report of the debates in the Sardinian Chamber, in which England was accused of deserting Sardinia. Had he considered that accusation in conjunction with the despatch of the Earl of Malmesbury, and the dignified remonstrance of Sardinia? His (Mr. Craufurd's) impression was that there had not been that cordial co-operation on our part which there ought to have been, and which he hoped there would be in consequence of the conversation which had taken place in that House this evening.

observed, that it was stated in the last Report of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners that there had been a considerable decrease in the number of vaccinations in that country in 1857 as compared with 1856. In the year 1856 there were 84,000 children vaccinated in Ireland, but in 1857 the number diminished to 47,000. In consequence of these facts, the Commissioners called attention to the danger which arose to human life from the present state of the law on the subject and recommended certain changes in that law. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Secretary for Ireland was prepared to introduce a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Report?

replied that the attention of the Government had been called to this important question, and he hoped that during the present Session he might be able to submit a measure to the House with a view of carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners. Although the number of vaccinations in Ireland had decreased in an extraordinary degree, he was glad to say there had not been anything like an outbreak of smallpox in the country.

said, he entertained no objection to the principle of the Bill. but it provided that the duty imposed should take effect immediately on its becoming law, and he would suggest that it was desirable to fix some certain time—say a fortnight after its passing—when the measure should come into operation. This arrangement would afford country bankers an opportunity of giving notice to their customers, who would thus be enabled to obtain stamps for their cheques on hand.

said, that the Government intended to take the tax from the 24th inst., and he was about to propose the insertion of words to Carry out that intention.

said, that would meet his views. He therefore withdrew his Amendment, and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was agreed to.

proposed an Amendment to omit from the operation of the clause, sums of money not exceeding £2, on the ground that in many districts wages were paid in cheques, which were taken by the trades people as money; and also because, in the case of benefit societies, small payments were made by order on the treasurer. A similar exemption of sums below £2 was made in respect to the receipt stamps.

objected to the Amendment on the ground that, on principle, all exemptions were bad, and more than that, that the Amendment would extend that exemption to cheques payable to order, which already, if the distance was more than fifteen miles required a penny stamp.

said, that the object of the Bill was to place cheques payable to order or to bearer on the same-footing, and make them pay a penny stamp irrespective of distance.

said, he rose to complain that in consequence of the manner in which the clause had been put he had not an opportunity of moving an Amendment which stood in his name.

said, he wished to ask whether the Government had considered his suggestion that they should allow postage stamps to be affixed to drafts as well as receipt stamps, as it would be a great convenience to the public at large.

said, that however convenient it might be, the practice would create such confusion in the public accounts that it was impossible he could assent to it.

observed, that there was a strong impression out of doors that this measure would nut be so productive to the Exchequer as the right hon. Gentleman expected, and expressed a doubt whether people would not substitute a stamped draft for a receipt.

said, that the present Bill left the law relating to receipts precisely in the same condition in which it Was at present.

repeated his conviction that people would use these stamped drafts instead of receipt stamps, and thus occasion a less to the revenue.

said, that there was no doubt that there would be some diminution on that source of the revenue alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, but that diminution had formed an clement in the calculations, and notwithstanding that diminution he still believed that the general result of the impost would be favourable.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether he could be allowed to move the Amendment to Clause I on any future stage of the Bill?

Certainly not.

suggested that drafts drawn by people connected with savings banks, and which were usually for very small amounts, should be exempted from the use of the stamp.

said, orders and cheques for the payment of money connected with savings banks and friendly societies, and payments under the Poor Law Act, were already exempted from stamps by the various acts relating to them.

said, he wished to know whether a stamped cheque payable "to bearer" would be a valid receipt?

said, it would not be a valid receipt.

Would a cheque payable "to order" be the same as a bill of exchange with the endorsement?

said, the law would be precisely the same as it was now with regard to cheques drawn beyond fifteen miles.

said, that it might not be considered a valid receipt for an account, but it would undoubtedly be received as evidence of the payment of the particular sum named in it, just the same as a bill of exchange.

believed that it would practically be found that people would content themselves with drawn cheques to order, and making an endorsement at the back of such cheques.

said, it was clear that, after this Bill was passed, there would be no further drawing of cheques to bearer. All cheques would necessarily be drawn to order, and they would, to a certain extent, be proof of the payment of the money.

remarked, that he could not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if this Bill passed, a cheque drawn "to bearer" would not have the operation of a receipt. He believed that a cheque drawn beyond fifteen miles, with a stamp, was tantamount to a penny receipt stamp whether it was drawn to order or to bearer. He was also afraid, that as the exemption in favour of savings banks was not expressed in the Bill, doubts might arise whether they really were exempt. It would surely be better to make the point clear by the insertion of a few words.

said, he thought that stamped cheques would not lead to any material decrease in the number of stamped receipts, and for an obvious reason. Few persons who paid away money would choose to rely upon such an unsatisfactory proof as the cheque; and when, therefore, they put a stamp upon a draft they would, generally speaking, require the person in whose favour it was drawn to contribute another penny to the revenue. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cox) need not be under doubt as to the exemption of the savings banks.

said, he could not help thinking that the House and the Government would do well to adopt the suggestion he had thrown out upon a preceding occasion—that a penny stamp payable by the customers should be affixed to all tradesmen's bills, above the sum of 10s. He believed that such a measure would be more productive to the revenue than the proposal which they were considering, while it would not be attended with any similar inconvenience.

said, he should oppose the clause. It would afford no sufficient security against fraud, and it was framed in violation of the principle on which the whole system of stamps was founded. That principle was that every instrument liable to a stamp should come at once into operation with the stamp upon it.

wished to know whether the Bill ought not to contain some provisions relative to the crossing of bankers' cheques?

said, that the question was important, but that the present Bill was not a fitting occasion for considering the subject.

said, he believed it would be quite unnecessary to make a new law hereafter.

remarked, that he feared that the bankers would have some difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of impressed stamps in time.

observed, that he was informed that the Board of Inland Revenue expected to have an ample supply of impressed stamps by the 24th. If they were not ready, adhesive stamps might be used.

Would bankers be allowed to use adhesive stamps on common paper?

Yes.

said, he rose to move as an Amendment to leave out the words "one of her principal Secretaries of State," and insert instead thereof—the words "a President of Council for the Government of India." He could not but express his satisfaction at the course the Government had taken in abandoning their own Bill, and in wisely accepting the middle and preparatory course proposed by his noble Friend, of proceeding by Resolution. He did hot consider it of any importance whether the new Indian Minister was called the President of a Board of Indian Commissioners or responsible Ministers for India; but he thought there was a wide distinction between such an officer and a Secretary of State. There were hon. Gentlemen who argued that if there were a Secretary of State, there ought to be no council at all, or at all events a Council so much in subordination to the Secretary that it would either be a mere nonentity or a political screen. For his own part he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that the office of Secretary of State was one of peculiar importance, and he held it to be very inexpedient to go on multiplying these high and important offices. Nor had our experiences of similar attempts been such as to tempt us to repeat them. During the last century there were practically only two Secretaryships. But in 1768, a Secretary was created for the Colonies, and it so happened that in a short time afterwards we lost the most important colonies committed to his charge, namely, those in America, and then this Secretaryship disappeared. In 1793 another was created. In that year a war broke out, and we made a Secretary for War. But with what result? Our navy, under the administration of a Board of Admiralty, covered itself with glory; but though the courage of our soldiers had never been disputed, nobody could look upon the military operations of those days with satisfaction. In 1802 the office of Secretary for War was merged in that of the Colonies, we haying acquired certain possessions in the West Indies and elsewhere. Now he (Mr. Rich) ventured to think that the history of the revived Colonial Secretaryship was not calculated to make the House much enamoured of the office. There was an inherent want of continuous experience, control and responsibility in it. The Secretary of State and the Governor acted in secret, and the despatches never came before Parliament till too late, till the mischief was done. Hence the Colonies were misgoverned; discontent and insurrection were caused; and at last they had a rebellion in Canada. The nation then awoke to the dangers of the system, and this led to Pie establishment of that control and publicity which has been found in the principle of colonial self-government; the legislative assemblies had thenceforth become efficient checks and counsellors of the Secretary for the Colonies. By their means everything that the Colonial Office did came before the public; but that obviously would not be the ease with India, if it was placed under a Secretary. He would adduce one more argument to show the unsatisfactory working of Secretaryships of State. The War Department, a few years ago, was not a double, but a sextuple government; for it was dispersed amongst the Colonial Office, the Home office, the Horse Guards, the War Office, the Treasury, and the Ordnance. He (Mr. Rich), supported the proposal to Consolidate these scattered elements, but it had unfortunately been done not by duly organizing, but by suppressing them under the dead weight of a new Secretary of State. He was bound to do his noble Friend (Lord Panmure) the justice to say that he had shown himself, able, zealous and vigorous in the discharge of his duties; and he had reason to hope that the right hon. Gentleman now in office would do the same; but he must say that both had been overweighted. There was more business than they could personally supervise, and they had to depend upon the ordinary civil servants, who, though admirable in their proper spheres were not meant to be councillors, and to direct great branches of the service. If the Minister of War had about him a Council composed of men each of whom was charged with the management of a particular department—one, for instance, having charge of the arming, another of the sanitary condition, and another of the discipline of the atimy—he would find their supervision and council of the greatest advantage. So likewise of an Indian Minister and Council. But if instead of these they were going to have a Secretary of State who should be almost totally uncontrolled, he thought the case of India would be full of peril. He bad supported the proposal to transfer the powers of the Company to the Crown; but if that meant that they must establish a nominally responsible, but practically irresponsible, and uncontrolled Secretary of State, he must say that he would rather that things remained as they were. He considered that the idea of a President would more naturally harmonize and dovetail with a Council than would a Secretary of State, and there would be the additional advantage that he would be assisted in the discharge of his duties not by an Under Secretary, but by a Vice President—that is to say, by an officer who by his higher rank would be of more weight, and be less of a bird of passage than an Under Secretary. At present the Under Secretaryships were not held by men or high official standing in that House. They were rather the stepping stones, the schools of instruction for younger Members who might afterwards become statesmen; for as soon as a gentleman had gained a hold upon that House, and had become well acquainted with the duties of his office, he was transferred to some high post. This was most especially the case with these Indian Under Secretaryships. Thus the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was first Secretary of the Board of Control, then Secretary of the Treasury, and afterwards Chancellor of the Exche- quer. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) was first, Secretary of the Board of Control, and then Secretary of the Treasury; and the right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), first appointed Secretary of the Board of Control, soon resigned that office and reappeared as Vice President of the Board of Trade. This would not have occurred if there had been a Vice Presidency of the former Board, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith), then new to the office, would at the outbreak of the mutiny have had the valuable assistance of all the experience of the right hon. Member for Kidderminster. But that was already carried off to a higher grade of office, as it almost always had been, and would be where it was worth promotion. For these reasons, both as regarded the office of President and as regarded the President personally, he trusted the Government would abandon the notion of creating another Secretary of State, and would accept of the Amendment he now proposed.

said, he attached to the Motion more importance than the hon. Gentleman himself seemed to do. He desired that his support of the Amendment should imply the strongest possible expression of his opinion, that though the East India Company in its integrity was destroyed, the great principle of initiatory and independent Government by which its power and prosperity had been so long sustained should not be lost sight of in making their new arrangements. As the Company was to be destroyed, all they, who believed it to have been a good Government, could do, was to assert in every way the principle of having real power vested in the Council, without offering any factious opposition to the Resolutions on which the Bill was to be founded. The office of Secretary of State carried with it certain definite ideas. With the consent of the Prime Minister and the Crown he was the absolute disposer of the affairs of his Department. If they were to have a Secretary of State for India, would he dispose of the des- tinies of 180,000,000 of men and the management of £30,000,000 of revenue? In some Governments the Prime Minister supervised each department, but it was more frequently the case that, except in great and general questions, he left each Department to manage its own business. He believed that when the troubles subsided, and India resumed its normal state, the House would hear very little of its government; and the gradations and steps which led to crises and convulsions would be suffered to go on, as they had been, unnoticed by that House, until the danger was too great, the evil was already done, and it was almost impossible for that House to apply a remedy. But it was said the Secretary of State would have associated with him a Council. Such a Council would have no real power; and no man of honour or susceptibility would consent to be placed in such a position. Everybody knew what was meant by asking advice, and the probability of its being acted on. It was a perfect delusion to talk of a Council which was only to give advice when it was asked by the Minister. The Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) was preferable in this respect, as it gave something like an initiative to the Council. But by constituting the new Minister President of a Council, the scheme would be very much improved, Very soon the question would arise who were to be the Council, what their numbers, and what their duties were to be, without any hon. Member of the House knowing what were to be the functions of the Council. If they were to be a mere shield for the ignorance of the Minister, he should prefer to have no Council at all, according to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). It would be far less dangerous that the Secretary of State should act upon his own responsibility, simply because there would be less probability in that case of his acting, and more probability of his allowing the affairs of the Indian Government to be managed by the Governor General and his Council. Before proceeding further, therefore, the Government ought distinctly to state whether the Council was to transact the affairs of India in any way analogous to that of the present Court of Directors. Were they to be a consultative or a governing body? If the former, he should vote against such a Council; if the latter, how were they to act? Were they to be formed into Committees for departments? For his own part, he believed it to be absolutely necessary that the Council should be the governing body of the ordinary affairs of India, preserving to the Minister, the Cabinet, and Parliament, the consideration of that class of questions which were analogous to imperial questions in colonial matters. They were totally in the dark as to the machinery by which the Council were to act; but before they came to an ultimate decision, the whole question of the form and action of the Council ought to be clearly laid before the House.

said, the Committee were exercising only a wise caution when they refused to assent to any Resolution without knowing what the proposers of that Resolution really meant by it, and consequently to what their assent might pledge them. Before the discussion began he was told by one who had looked a good deal into the subject that, however large might be the programme laid before Parliament, the greater part of the debates would turn upon the constitution of the Council, and the respective powers of the Council and Minister. He thought that the prediction had so far been verified, and that they had in fact been discussing the constitution of the Council upon a Resolution which dealt only with the title which the Minister for India was to take. That, however, was a question which did not properly arise upon the Resolution then under consideration. The question as to the responsibility of the future Minister for India was the substance of the Resolution that stood next in order. The constitution and powers of the Council were dealt with by another Resolution. The two subjects, no doubt, bore so closely upon each other that it was a matter of some difficulty to separate them in these discussions, and to wait until the respective Resolutions came regularly before them. But the Committee would not pledge itself to anything as regarded the power of the Minister by passing the Resolution before it. There was nothing in the mere name of Secretary of State which necessarily limited suited or defined with much accuracy the position he was to hold. For example, the Minister for War was termed a Secretary of State, yet his relations with the horse Guards and the Commander in Chief were somewhat peculiar. He did not mean to hold up the arrangements of that particular office as a model for their imitation. What he meant to say was this, that the mere title of Secretary of State did not of itself convey with strict and minute accuracy those peculiar functions that were to be performed by such an officer. He, however, dissented from the objections raised against this particular Resolution, and still more from the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. That hon. Gentleman objected to the Resolution, because he said that the number of such high offices should not be increased. But the number of high offices would remain the same, whether the Minister for India were styled a Secretary or a President. The hon. Member then referred to the colonial administration, which he considered a parallel case, and contended that the Colonies were badly governed under a Secretary of State. He (Lord Stanley) was not there to defend the colonial administration of England in times past. He was aware that it had been marked with many and grave faults; but most of those faults had originated in an error which at the present time was not likely to be committed—that of attempting to govern too much in England, and leaving too little responsibility to the local authorities. But every objection raised by the hon. Gentleman to the title of Secretary of State, when founded upon the analogy of the Colonial Office, was an objection not so much to the title of the Minister for India as to the office itself. That objection, would, however, equally apply to the whole principle of the Bill of the noble Viscount opposite; it was in fact an objection to that course of policy which a large majority of that House had already sanctioned, rather than to anything contained in the present Resolution. He did not think that the Committee would attach great weight to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman as regarded the difference of position between an Under Secretary and a Vice President. Substantially their positions were the same. They were in some sense subordinate colleagues, but still they were colleagues of the Minister. And when two men came together within the walls of an office, their mutual relations depended much less upon the particular titles by which they were designated than upon the ability and energy of the men themselves. No doubt there was a difference between the position of a President of Council and a Secretary of State. No doubt the latter designation more clearly than the former implied that Executive power and responsibility were to rest in the hands of the Minister; yet be the names what they might it was obvious that such power and responsibility were implied by the terms of the Resolutions before the Committee. The principle contended for was already asserted in the Resolutions, indeed it formed one of the leading principles of that course of legislation upon which the House had entered. An inference had been drawn from this Resolution which he did not think was just. The hon. Member said that if Parliament decreed this additional Secretary of State, such a Minister would become at once absolute in authority, and that his Council would have nothing to do but to give him advice when he condescended to ask for such. Now, that was a question entirely for future consideration. They had not properly opened it yet, and he apprehended it would be more regular to raise it upon the fourth Resolution. He was of opinion that the position in which they proposed to place the head of the Indian Executive in relation to the Council was more clearly represented by the title of Secretary of State than by that of President of the Council; and holding that opinion, he asked the Committee to pass the Resolution before them as it stood.

said, he agreed that it would be well to reserve the discussion on the Council until they came to the fourth Resolution; though perhaps the proposal that there should be a President of the Council raised the question whether there should be a Council at all. Further, the proposal to appoint a Secretary of State for India did carry with it the impression that he would have the sole power. He was also disposed to think that there was considerable force, in a constitutional point of view, in the argument which had been adduced against designating the Minister for India a Secretary of State. A Secretary of State would have to take the commands of Her Majesty, and it was certainly inconsistent with constitutional practice, that a high official, having taken the pleasure of Her Majesty, should afterwards have to consult a Council. Then there was an objection to multiplying Secretaries of State, as that would have the effect of increasing the facilities for the interchange of offices, and it was above all things desirable that the Indian Minister should be changed as seldom as possible. He thought it would be best to adopt the Resolution in the form first proposed, containing the words "by a responsible Minister of the Crown." That would probably meet all the difficulties that had been raised.

said, the Government would have no objection to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but still, as far as his own opinion went, he thought that the functions of the proposed Minister for India would be better described as those of a Secretary of State, and he should be very sorry to see him designated simply as a President of the Council. If he were a Secretary of State he might very easily consult his Council first, and take the pleasure of the Crown afterwards, and so the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman would be disposed of. But there was no reason why the question should not be left open for the present, until the functions of the Council had been decided.

said, he was glad to hear that the Government had acceded to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend. In their efforts to abolish one double Government they ought to take care they were not establishing another double Government. He did not think that that was a proper time to determine the new powers that ought to be given to the Council. They should wait until the Resolution bearing upon that point came regularly before them. He admitted, however, that it was difficult to discuss this question at all until they knew precisely what those powers were that it was proposed should be given to the Council. With regard to the constitutional position of Secretaries of State, it was their duty to take the pleasure of the Crown, and also to signify that pleasure, in connection with the business of their departments. There was no instance in which a Secretary of State was fettered by anything in the nature of a Council. The relations of the Secretary of State for War with the Commander in Chief and the Horse Guards bore no resemblance to the relations between a Secretary of State and a Council. When the Commander in Chief received the orders of the Queen through the Secretary of State for War, he had no discretion as to obeying the orders so signified. Under the Bill introduced by the late Government the assent of a majority of the Council was necessary before certain appointments could be made, and before any new charge could be placed upon the revenues of India. These restrictions were omitted from the Bill of the present Government, and so far they were consistent in proposing a Secretary of State instead of a President. But there would be a constitutional anomaly in requiring that a Secretary of State, before performing certain acts, should obtain the assent of the majority of a Council. No doubt the Secretary of State would wait until he had obtained that assent before taking the pleasure of the Crown; but it might happen that the Crown signified its pleasure on a point on which the President would be unable to obtain the assent of a majority. Though the present Government omitted from their measure all restraints upon the Secretary of State, he doubted whether the Bill would pass the House without their conferring on the Council some such powers as the late Government had proposed. It was not likely, for example, that they would accede to the principle that the Minister for India should be able, without the sanction of his Council, to place a new and indefinite charge on the revenues of that country, it would be competent for him to do under the present Bill. He gathered from the wording of the 12th Resolution that certain appointments were not to be made by the proposed Secretary of State without the consent of a majority of his Council. Of course Parliament, if it thought fit, might alter the existing rule as to the power of a Secretary of State; but he trusted that the Government, adopting a neutral term for the office of the new Minister, would take this matter into their consideration, and not unnecessarily depart from the established constitutional usage.

said, that he thought as the words proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond differed in no essential respect from those of which he had himself given notice, it would save the House trouble if the discussion were taken altogether upon that hon. Gentleman's Amendment. It was, however, quite impossible, in the present state of their information, to confine themselves, as suggested by the hon. Baronet who spoke last, to the bare and isolated point covered by the Resolution before them. All that they had yet decided upon was the extinction of the East India Company, the whole question of the substitute to be provided for that Government was still open for discussion. If the House omitted now to consider that question, they would be precluded from doing so until the Bill, to be hereafter founded on the Resolution, was before them. He begged at the outset distinctly to disclaim any desire to revive or protract the existence of the East India Company, whose power he thought ought to have been transferred to the Crown when the trading functions of that body were swept away twenty-five years ago. Why the Company had been allowed to remain after that event, it would puzzle any man to divine, unless, indeed, from the difficulty—a difficulty in which they were now placed—of finding a substitute for it. A more convenient time might have been chosen for terminating the existence of that great corporation; but the decision of the House on that point was conclusive, and the present Government had no alternative but to bring in their Bill. Still the question was involved in a degree of confusion, such as he had never seen before in regard to an equally important subject; a confusion, the necessary consequence of the seeming want of knowledge of all parties of the details of the administration) for which they had to provide. Although he did not agree with many of its provisions, he thought the Bill of the late Government was by far the most feasible scheme. Yet it proposed a Council much too limited in number, and without any security for its independence. The further provisions of that Bill afforded at least a scheme which by the introduction of Amendments might have been made a practicable substitute for the present Government. Then came the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, which was very little adapted to obtain the concurrence of the House. In that Bill, however, there was one principle in which he cordially concurred as the best means of securing the independence of the Council—namely, the principle of election, although the mode of election proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was open to objection. Afterwards came the proposal of the noble Lord to proceed by Resolution. If that course had been adopted at the outset it might have facilitated their proceedings; but the result of all that had taken place was that the whole question was thrown into such a state of confusion, that he had been induced to concur in the opinion of the noble Member for Durham (Lord H. Vane) that it would be better to take time for consideration before plunging into legislation which they might afterwards have cause to regret. He had been the more induced to take such a course from the opinion twice expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, that it would be better to continue the present state of things than to pass an ill-considered measure. The House was so ignorant of the business to be performed by the home Government of India that a reference of the subject to a Committee up stairs would have been a most advisable step. In such a Committee they might have been able to ascertain the nature of the system best calculated to supersede the present cumbersome machinery. From statements made to him of the extent and importance of that business, any scheme for uniting the administration of the India House and the Court of Directors under the sole management of a Secretary of State, without a Council, must end in inextricable confusion. In the military and financial departments alone a Council would have to deal with questions of very large dimensions. Despatches were received by the Court of Directors from the different Governments in India, enclosing collections of reports from the various departments—the financial department, the railway department, the electric telegraph department, the marine department, the statistical department, the military department, the ecclesiastical department, the public works, and the judicial department—on which subjects there were not less than 2,500 despatches with 30,000 paragraphs, each paragraph relating to a separate subject: in addition to which there were 16,950 collections of reports on which the despatches were founded. These despatches and reports were read and reviewed, and answers sent out, with observations on each subject. There were despatches from Madras and Bombay, with 17,000 paragraphs, and, in addition to these despatches, 1,741 letters had been received in the same year, from the Secretaries of the several Governments, relating to accounts and other subjects which required orders to be made thereupon. Then came the management of the Indian army, which amounted to 280,000 men in round numbers. Every act of the Government in India connected with the army, not sanctioned by official regulations, was reported to the Court of Directors—which was much the same principle as was adopted in the Queen's service. In the other departments of the army—the pay, ordnance, commissariat, and staff—all questions relating to promotions, honours, the Advocate's department, including reports of courts-martial, public works, surveys of India, and other miscellaneous matters, had to be considered. Were all these questions to be left solely, and without check, to the Government of India? The Government of India must transact it, in the first instance, it was true, but there would be no check of a court of review. Would the House agree to place the promotions of 280,000 men in the hands of the Secretary of State? The Secretary of War told him that nothing was so perfect as the commissariat, hospital, and transport arrangements in India. When called upon to supply means to meet an emergency like the present, they did not fail because the departments were kept under strict review by a set of merchants of whose capacities for the management of such affairs the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had no very high opinion. Having some experience of similar departments at home, he felt bound to say that this state of things bore a striking contrast to our arrangements in the same departments on the breaking out of the Russian war. Let them take care how they substituted the defective management of our Secretary at War for that which had worked so much better. He wished to call the attention of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, to the fact, that there were pensions amounting to nearly a million sterling paid out of the Indian revenue to the civil servants and soldiers of India, and it showed how lightly they were dealing with this subject when they proposed to legislate upon it without making any provision with regard to these pensions. The retired pay was £384,000; the pensions and annuities on the home establishment were £155,000; Lord Clive's fund, £87,000; these and other claims amounting to £945,000. Yet a Bill was brought in to settle the question of Indian government without any provision for securing these pensions and annuities. It appeared to him that if a Committee had sat upon this question in the first instance full information might have been obtained from witnesses competent to throw light on all these subjects, and they would be in a much better situation for providing adequate machinery on the abolition of the East India Company. His noble Friend the Member for Tiverton said he knew so little of the details of the home Government, that he was not prepared to give a decided opinion as to the members of a council—if a council was at all necessary for the management of the business hitherto conducted by the Directors and Board of Control. As almost every one had propounded his nostrum on this question, he might be pardoned for stating his. There would have been less difficulty in making the change proposed by his noble Friend had he proceeded cautiously and by steps to accomplish his object. If his noble Friend wished merely to have one body, his simplest plan would have been to unite the Board in Leadenhall Street, and Cannon Row. He might have taken the present Directors for his temporary Council, providing that three or five should retire annually, filling up their vacancies partly, as at present, by direct nomination, partly on the recommendation of the remaining members. He admitted that the great difficulty was that of election, and securing the independence of the Council. He believed that if a Bill was passed for four or five years, thus giving Parliament an opportunity to act after that period as experience might paint out—for nobody could suppose, do what they would now, that future legislation would not be wanted—they would be acting in a safe and wise manner. By the plan he proposed the Company would have been abolished, the Crown would have been put in possession, and the whole business of the Company might have been carried on without interruption. He hoped the Committee would pardon him if, amongst the other doctors who were called in, he ventured to give his opinion. But a more serious matter remained behind. Not one word had been said about the question of the patronage of India. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) said that India would be better managed by a responsible Secretary without being clogged by a Council. He agreed with his hon. Friend in that opinion, if the Council was not to be an independent one. Let them have no sham, at all events. If they were to have a Council, let it be a Council which would give the public assurance that the patronage and business of India should be conducted as well and as honestly as heretofore. The noble Lord who with so much advantage to the country and such public approbation had undertaken the administration of colonial affairs had just told the Committee that the Government of the Colonies was much less difficult now than in former times, and expressed a hope that the government of India also would be found to have changed for the better. But it should be recollected that Canada and Australia had now their own Parliaments, and were therefore to a great extent self-governed. Previous to the granting of those Powers, the state of the administration was the subject of constant grievance and complaint. Did any one propose that India should have a Parliament? This was only suggested in the petitions from English residents in Calcutta, who wished India to be granted for their sole advantage. He would assume that no member of the Committee desired a Parliament elected by this constituency for India. His noble Friend the Member for the City of London, one of the ablest and best Secretaries of State for the Colonies he never knew, could tell the Committee that one of the most difficult parts of his business consisted in listening to complaints of the colonists against those placed in temporary authority over them. It was the most difficult, because on the decision depended the fate and fortunes of individuals. Was it the intention of the noble Lord that the 900 civil servants of India, when aggrieved by the local authorities, should come to Parliament to state their complaints, and thus occupy its time, without, after all, being able to get justice? Parliament was a bad court of appeal, for such cases. It appeared to him that no individual, if a Secretary of State was to be appointed to undertake it, could bear the weight of so much business. He next came to the great question of patronage. The Bill of the Government and the Resolution of his noble Friend made their own dispositions of it. If India was to be governed by a Minister of State, and he was not to be controlled by a Council, what was to become of the patronage? His noble Friend the Member for London had an ingenious contrivance for disposing of the first appointments in the army, but he (Mr. Ellice) warned them against running too fast with this system of competitive examination. Officers for the cavalry and infantry could not be selected by competitive examination, which would afford no test of their moral or physical qualities. The best crammed boys do not turn out either the ablest men or most efficient soldiers. On the contrary, as mental faculties develope themselves, sometimes earlier, sometimes later in life, so early cramming had often the effect of weakening the intellect, and leading to relaxed and supine habits afterwards. He did not see why the appointment of the cadets should not be Left to the members of the Council. It was an inducement to accept the labour and responsibility of office. But beyond the first appointments, the patronage was to be left with the Secretary of State. At present the directors appointed to the Councils in India—did they propose to transfer that patronage to the Secretary of State? All the plans pointed to nomination by the Crown. Under the Court of Directors this patronage had been secured to the middle classes of England—and well might they be proud of the men they had produced—the Malcolms, Metcalfes, and others. Were they so certain that equally eminent men would be selected by the Minister under the pressure of Parliamentary Government. Experience in the Colonies did not justify that expectation. The pressure of the House of Commons was in this respect as much to be guarded against as any tendency to abuse his patronage by the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) had congratulated himself on the Increased power of the House from the breaking up of parties. Perhaps they might arrive at the American system, when every man would insist on naming his own cadet? It was proposed in the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, that in the first instance the Secretary of State should be appointed by the Crown, to be controlled by no Council. He was to name the Governor General, and the Governor General was to nominate the Indian Councils. The Secretary of State would thus directly or indirectly exercise the whole patronage of the Indian empire—the advancement of every man in the revenue department, in the diplomatic service, in the Residencies and in other branches. When they had dispensed with an independent Board to review and control this patronage, would not Members press the pretensions of their friends, connections, and constituents on the Minister, responsible to them for their share of patronage as well as for the due performance of his duties? But the mischief did not end there. In the great extension of our territories the necessity had been imposed upon us of appointing officers in the army to fill many civil appointments in India. Well, if they took the Company's officers for those duties, why should they not take the Queen's officers for the same service? The necessary con- sequence would be, that young gentlemen of rank and influence would be sent out as aides-de-camp, or other situations on the staff, to succeed to these offices. Of course it will be said this would not happen. Let them consult every day's experience at home for an answer. When the Government sent out the proposed Commissioners to inquire into the finances of India it would be discovered that they were very good men—that they had discharged their ditties efficiently, and their ultimate destination, of course, would be the Indian Council. In fact, the country ought to know, and the Committee must know, that if either Bill were consented to, without securing an independent Council to control and administer Indian government and patronage with as much purity and honour as they had hitherto been administered, the confidence and attachment of our officers in India, on which our tenure of the country depended, would be undermined, and the security of the empire endangered. He had heard it said that all officers in India were eager for the change; but his information led him to conclude directly the reverse. He had no doubt they would rather hold their appointments directly from the Crown than from the Company, but always on the condition, that they should have equal security, with that they enjoyed at present, for just and impartial promotion, according to service and merit. But one hon. Member said that all danger respecting the distribution of the patronage would soon be obviated by a reform in Parliament. Why, Sir, that would only reproduce the evil in an aggravated form, from the more direct pressure of popular impulse and jobbing. The hon. Gentleman who had served with him on the Committee up stairs would recollect the great anxiety of all the Members to extend the admission of Natives to office. No sooner had the mutiny broken out, than Lord Canning was denounced, for appointing one faithful Mahomedan to office. Would you govern India, according to the varying and conflicting prejudices and feelings out of doors, brought directly to bear on a popular assembly? Look also at the public meetings held with a view, as it was called, of christianising India. Did any man mean to tell him that if the opinions there expressed were to become the rule of our Indian Administration the stability of our empire would not be endangered? The danger would be great if popular feeling in England were permitted to act directly on the 180,000,000 of people in India. The right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis) said that the last twenty years had been the best period of the Directors' government, but had at the Same time deprecated the slowness of their movements. Now he (Mr. Ellice) believed the best part of the present system was its slowness and caution. He did not mean to say in case of war, when energy and promptitude were required, but in all matters where the sensitive feelings of 180,000,000 of Hindoos were concerned too much deliberation and consideration could not precede the introduction of change and even of reform. It appeared to him, in short, that we were legislating in the dark with regard to India, and that presumption, instead of caution, prompted our course. He should, however, throw no obstacles in the which of the very anomalous proceedings in which they had embarked, in which three great parties were supporting three diametrically opposite principles. The most important point at issue was the difference between a Council nominated by the Crown and an elective council. He was sure that neither the noble Lord at the head of the Government nor the right hon. Gentleman opposite would consent to be the lacquey of opinions of other men in which they did not concur. If they could not carry what they thought right they would not be parties to the passing of what they thought wrong. There was no difference between his two noble Friends, the Members for London and Tiverton, on the subject of the nomination of the Council, while the right hon. Gentleman advocated the principle of election. His plan would be to Make the new machinery differ as little as possible from the old, taking possession in the name of the Crown, but making as little change as might be necessary consistent with the amount. If they could net frame an independent Council, let them take the one they had. In conclusion he would say, "Pass your Bill temporarily, and review it when experience enables you to do it with confidence and safety; but do not, for God's sake, in exchanging new lights for old ones, make a false step, Which may shake our Indian empire to its foundation."

said, the Committee lied no doubt listened with attention and with instruction to the speech of his right hon. Friend. He was not going to answer it, but it must have struck every Member of the Committee that half of that, speech was too late and the other half too soon. A great part would have been an excellent speech on the Motion of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) and the remainder on the Amendment of the noble Member for South Durham (Lord H. Vane); but on both of those Motions the House had pronounced an opinion; and to ask the Committee now suddenly to reverse all that they had just decided, and to call on them upon the very threshold of their task to throw up their hands in despair, would be a course so mean-spirited and dastardly that he did not believe the Committee would ever think of adopting it. His right hon. Friend had gone through the various points embraced in these Resolutions and the Amendments proposed; but it was surely premature to discuss these at present. The whole benefit of proceeding in Committee was that they might consider each Resolution separately on its merits—with a view, no doubt, to what was to come after—but discussing each proposition by itself. He could not therefore consent to go into a re-argument with his right hon. Friend of questions respecting which the Committee had pronounced a final decision, It had been decided, for example, that the power of the Company was to be transferred to the Government of the Crown, and the settlement of that point had disposed of many of the meets of his right hon. Friend. Then his right hon. Friend had endeavoured to show that it would be quite impossible for any Secretary of State, with any Council you could frame, to carry on the government of India. Now, if arguments of this kind were listened to, he (Lord J. Russell) could easily demonstrate that it would be impossible for the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) with all his talents and application to carry on the business of Colonial Secretary. Even now, though a great many colonies governed themselves, there were some fifteen or twenty Crown colonies all with different constitutions and different laws. Some of those colonies were founded on the Dutch, some on the Spanish, some on the French law, and some on the ancient British colonial constitution; and if were to show that the Colonial Secretary had to examine all those laws, to decide upon fifty questions of administration which occurred daily in the Colonies, and to keep in view the position of the people from North America to Ceylon—if he were to draw a picture of all these diffi- culties the House would probably say,—"It is impossible for twenty men, let alone one man, to carry on such an administration." Now, he believed that the administration of India, although difficult, was not of so extremely varied a character as the business of the Colonial Secretary. There was more similarity in the questions which came before any Board of Control or Court of Directors than in those which were submitted to a Colonial Secretary. As to the much calumniated system of colonial administration in former days, it should be remembered that there then existed peculiar difficulties in the way of administration, which time and the change of manners and customs had now removed. This had been the case with the West Indies and with Australia. Slavery formerly existed in the West Indies, and it would have been impossible to give a constitution to a country where the persons who were to govern were masters, and those to be governed, slaves. Neither could we have at once given self-government to Australia, because we had sent there none but convicts. We could not form a House of Lords of housebreakers and a House of Commons of pickpockets. We were obliged to wait until emigration had produced in those colonies a population who were really fitted to govern themselves. When, therefore, it was said "How well the colonies are governed now, compared with their position formerly," he thought such a change was attributable more to circumstances than to any increased wisdom. The principles of self-government, it should be remembered, were the ancient principles on which in the beginning of the 17th century our colonization was founded; they were not now newly invented; and he held, therefore, that the extreme vituperation which had been bestowed upon the colonial administration of former times was not quite merited. He could say this with the more disinterestedness as his right hon. Friend had been pleased to exempt him from his censure. With regard to this particular Resolution, which was all the Committee had to decide upon, the question was whether a Minister of the Crown should exercise the power taken away from the Company by the first Resolution—the power of governing India—either with or without a Council. As to the distinction between the Secretary of State and the President of the Council, he was not very anxious on that point. He rather inclined, however, to the proposition of the Government, thinking that the Secretary of State for India might just as well, after procuring the opinion of the Council for India, take the pleasure of the Crown, as the Foreign or Colonial Secretaries, who, after laying the whole subject before the Cabinet, and collecting their opinion, took the pleasure of the Crown on the ultimate decision arrived at. He thought, therefore, that none of the technical difficulties which had been made to a Secretary of State were very material. But there was a question which was not only material, but which went to the root of the whole matter—a question which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Ellice) had raised to a certain degree, but had hardly attempted to solve. His right hon. Friend had exposed all the difficulties which might arise from transferring this government to the Crown; he had shown all the evils of corruption which might attend a change. But upon this proposition, affecting so greatly the future of India, both the late and the present Governments had proposed a Resolution which he thought presented the only right solution as to the relations between the Minister of the Crown and the Council. His right hon. Friend said, that if there were an independent Council, we might intrust to them as safely as to the Court of Directors the power of governing India. Now, he should wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of an independent Council, meant a Council which should have the entire power of governing India or not? The Bill of his noble Friend the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) gave to the proposed President of the Council of India the power of acting alone in those cases in which the Secret Committee might formerly have acted; and, although it might be said that the Secretary of State for India or the President of the Council should not have the power alone to decide that £20 a year should be given to an old Indian soldier who had served his country for fifty years, yet if he were to have the pourer of sending out on his own responsibility instructions to India by which a war might be incurred which would cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000., in his hands the real government of India would be vested. Was a power so great as that, he would ask, to be centred in a Minister of the Crown or in a Council? If it were to be centred in a Minister of the Crown, then would there be a person who, although he might advise with his Council, would be responsible to that House and to the country for his acts, and who might justly be called to account if he should adopt any measures wanting in prudence, vigour, or capacity. But if to a Council, let it be appointed for only six or eight years, or as he (Lord J. Russell) proposed, during good behaviour, the decision of great points relative to the welfare of India was to be committed, the double system of government would in reality still be maintained; that which was termed a sham would still continue to exist, in as much as, while the Minister of the Crown would have the name of governing India, his Council, whose members could not be removed except for some act nearly amounting to a crime, would constitute an irresponsible Government, and the country would thus labour under the evils arising from their misconduct without the advantage of that remedy which Parliament always possessed in the case of a responsible Minister. Under those circumstances, he felt that in agreeing to the Resolution under discussion, he was recording his opinion in favour of a proposition which had the Concurrent support of the late and the present Government—namely, the essential provision that there should be a Secretary of State or President of the Council, as it might be, who should be supreme, and consequently responsible. If his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) should raise the question that the decisions of the Minister should be valid only in case, they were made in Council, and that the voice of the majority was to be conclusive, then he must contend that in the event of such a proposition being carried into effect, the future government of India would be rendered less efficient than that which the House was asked to supersede; for although the principle which bad been laid down in the Bill of 1784 was that the power of governing India was to be left with the Company, yet subsequent legislation in 1793 completely vested all essential power in that respect in the hands of the Minister. One of the inconveniences of that system was that the Government appeared to be that of the Directors, while in reality it was centred in the President of the Board of Control. Now that Parliament was about to change the form of government for India, he thought it was bound to place the question upon a distinct footing, and he should therefore vote for the Resolution.

said he had never intended to suggest that the Minister for India, by whatever name he might be called, should have less power than the President of the Board of Control. The House might rest assured that the new Minister for India, whether a Secretary of State or President of a Council, would have sufficiently important duties to perform in directing the general policy of India, without interfering more than was absolutely necessary in those details of administration for the due discharge of which an independent Council would be required.

remarked, that the more the question was ventilated and discussed, the more must the opinion gain ground that it would be impossible to give the power to the Minister, and at the same time preserve the independent character of the Council. Due credit had not been given to the East India Company for what they had done, and he would therefore warn the Committee of the danger they would incur by altering the present system.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry has told us to-night that we are in a state of great confusion, and this is not the first time in the course of these debates that the right hon. Gentleman has apprised us of that fact. I know there are several hon. Gentlemen who agree with him on the subject. There is no doubt of the fact, that upon the Indian question there is in this house a party of confusion. But I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman in his elaborate and interesting address has at all substantiated his point. It is not by referring to the Bill of the noble Lord opposite, or to the Bill which Her Majesty's Ministers introduced, or to the Resolutions to which we now propose to apply ourselves, that the right hon. Gentleman will prove that the position we now occupy is one of a confused and perplexing character. It is not at all extraordinary that on this vast question of the government of India we should have gone through a train of doubt, perplexity, and dissatisfaction in the course of these debates. The thing constantly occurs when the House first attempts to grapple with a great question. How often has it happened that even powerful Ministers have been obliged to withdraw the Bills they had brought forward, and at a subsequent period, perhaps, the same Minister has introduced a large and satisfactory measure? And when it is remembered that the subject we are now discussing is not inferior in importance or difficulty to any which has ever engaged the attention of the House, I do not think that by dwelling upon difficulties which have been got over and obstacles that have been removed, hon. Members will be able to prove that this is especially a perplexing subject to deal with. That it is a most important subject no one can for a moment doubt. As to the question now before us, the Second Resolution asks the House to agree that, the government of India having been transferred from the Company to the Crown, all the functions hitherto fulfilled by the various bodies concerned in the administration of India shall be hereafter concentrated in one Minister of State. There is a controversy whether the Minister of State shall be be called a Secretary or a President. I confess the bias of my mind is rather in favour of a Secretary of State, and I think all the constitutional arguments which have been addressed to the House favour that arrangement; but I do not think that is a question of material importance at the present moment. The Resolution is only intended to express a sufficiently perspicuous manner what are the general intentions of the House upon the particular point before it, and it is needless to embarrass ourselves with questions of detail. I think, therefore, this question may well be postponed, and that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Vernon Smith) is well worthy of consideration. I think the best way will to be the clause read thus, "That for this purpose it is expedient to provide that Her Majesty, by one of the responsible Ministers of the Crown." If those words are adopted, I think they would obviate any serious objection, and I think, if the Clause thus Changed be agreed to, the next clause may be omitted. The object of the third clause is, that there shall be a specific declaration of opinion by the Committee that the responsibility of the Minister shall be complete and the same as that of other Secretaries of State. I shall, therefore, propose the words which I have mentioned, and if they are agreed to, I will withdraw the third clause.

said, the change would have an effect on which they might congratulate themselves, that it, would reduce the number of the Resolutions they had to encounter by one. He thought, however, the question as to whether the Minister was to be a Secretary of State or a President was not of the slight importance, that it had been considered by some who had spoken to-night. Two views prevailed in the House and in the country as to the government of India. Assuming that there was to be a Council, one or other of these views was implied by the adoption of the Resolution or of the Amendment. According to one view the Crown was to select for the advantage of the Minister a certain number of gentlemen supposed to be fitted to assist him; but it would depend upon the Minister how far he would act on their advice or not. According to the other view, which seemed to him the truer one, the Council for the affairs of India, would not be the occasional advisers of the Minister, but an essential part of the system of government. He was inclined to stick more closely to the Bill of the late Government than they were themselves.

said, he thought that there was no inconsistency in those who supported the Bill, which he had had the honour to introduce, voting for the Resolution as it now stood. But he must remind his hon. Friend that these Resolutions were not a Bill, and that they only laid down principles. He would only say that he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit the next Resolution, because he thought that objection might be taken to it, not only for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman had stated, but also from a defect inherent in the Resolution itself. It proposed that the business should be transacted by the Minister in the same manner as the business was transacted by the other Secretaries of State. But as it was proposed that there should be a Council to assist him, he would not administer the business of the department in the same manner as the other Secretaries of State. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman had not proposed that it should be omitted, he Viscount Palmerston) would have suggested that that Resolution should be altered.

replied, that had it been necessary, he believed he could have shown that the objection of the noble Lord to the third clause was quite inapplicable.

said, he wished that the opponents of the clause might perfectly understand their position. If they did not oppose time Resolution, he wished it to be understood that they should not be precluded hereafter from proposing. the establishment of an independent Council. If it was understood that they should hereafter be permitted to discuss that point, he thought it would be unnecessary to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. The Committee having adopted the first Resolution, it was evident that it would be necessary to provide for the government of India by a President of the Council or a Secretary of State, and he trusted that, whatever might be the title of the Minister who directed the government of India, they would limit his powers, control his action, and check his patronage.

said, that after the discussion which had taken place, and the admissions which had been made by the Government, he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment, for when the time arrived for deciding whether a Secretary of State or a President of the Council should direct the government of India, he thought it was not improbable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be induced to accede to his suggestion.

observed, that he was also willing to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the adoption of the Resolution did not pledge the Committee to the principle that India should be governed by a Secretary of State alone, but that conditions might hereafter be proposed with respect to the duties of the Council.

said, it became his duty, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to move the fourth Resolution in the following terms:—

"That in order to assist such Minister of the Crown in the discharge of his duties it is expedient that a Council be appointed of not less than twelve nor more than eighteen Members.

This Resolution would raise two questions of great importance—first, whether the Minister should have the assistance of a Council and, secondly, what should be the number of Members of such Council. This Resolution was proposed by Her Majesty's Government, in the belief that it was unquestionably desirable that the Minister of the Crown who directed the Government of India should be insisted by the advice of a Council. Her Majesty's Government also believed, judging from the experience of the government of India by the East India Company, and from all the information they could obtain, that unless there were a sufficient number of members of Council it would be impossible for them efficiently to transact the business which would devolve upon them. It would be necessary to divide the Council into three or four Committees, land it would be impossible, if the Council consisted of only eight members, as was originally proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, that such Committees could be formed. Supposing there were only twelve members of Council, if four Committees were requisite, they could only consist of three members each; but, by placing the, members of Council on more than one Committee, it might be possible for twelve members to discharge the duties. Her Majesty's Government believed, however, that a larger number of members was necessary, and accordingly their proposal was that the Council should consist of not less than twelve nor more than eighteen members.

said, that the discussion had commenced so late that evening that he really thought if they were to make that progress they all desired they should continue the debate somewhat longer.

said, the fact was, that this Resolution constituted the whole question in dispute; and, therefore, to commence discussing it at that hour was absurd.

hoped, that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite assented to the Motion for reporting progress, he would make arrangements for the debate to come on at an early hour in the evening on the next occasion. It was remarkable that those who were opposed to the measure should be most forward in offering obstruction to it.

denied that he and those who acted with him were guilty of pursuing an obstructive policy. They had not yet had an opportunity of discussing the most vital parts of the measure.

said, he was certainly not opposed to legislation during the present Session. At the same time, if they desired to have a consecutive and well-directed discussion on the clause he thought they ought to adjourn the debate to another day; and the more especially as before any of the numerous Amendments on the paper, regarding the composition of the Council came on to be discussed, he should like to raise the preliminary, whether there ought to be a Council at all.

said, he entirely agreed that, although it was desirable to avoid all unnecessary delay, yet that, as questions were coming on in connection with this Resolution that would require a long debate, it would be better to report progress, on the understanding that the debate should be resumed on Monday evening after the dispassion of the Lords' Amendments to the Oaths Bill, and should be proceeded with, without interruption, until they had gone through the Resolutions.

said, he would join in the proposal for reporting progress, but he thought they ought first to settle the order in which they should proceed. It seemed to him to be the most convenient course to discuss the composition and numbers of the Council seriatim, and, after disposing of them, to enter upon the discussion of the hon. Member for Sheffield's Amendment—namely, whether there should be a Council at all.

said, he would consent to the suggestion of the noble Lord, although he thought the more logical course would be to discuss his Amendment first.

said, he felt somewhat disappointed that the Committee had not made more progress with the Resolutions that evening, especially as he did not see that there was any chance of proceeding with the Amendments on Monday, when it had been arranged the House was to take into consideration the Amendments on the Oaths Bill as the first Order of the Day. So far as the Government were concerned, they would be prepared, on Friday, to go on with the Indian Resolutions. He would, however, suggest that some arrangement might be come to by which the intervening days between Monday and Friday might be devoted to this important subject. Of course that depended upon the inclination of hon. Members to waive precedence for their Motions. He would, therefore, fix the Resolutions for Tuesday, trusting that sonic arrangement might be made in the interval by hon. Members who had Motions for that day.

Then on Tuesday I will take the opinion of the Committee upon the Resolution asserting the expediency of appointing a Council for India.

said, he concurred in the mode of proceeding indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck).

said, he must protest against the omnivorous rapacity of the Government. Already Thursday was taken away from independent Members, and now it was proposed to take away Tuesday also. A Motion stood on the list for Tuesday, having in view the protection of certain inhabitants of the Potteries, who were being undermined, and were gradually sinking to the centre of the earth, and while that House was discussing a law for India which would probably not pass in the present Session, that Motion would be put of till next year, and he did not know what might happen in the meantime.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire and report upon the existing arrangements for the supply of gas to the Metropolis. About three weeks or a fortnight ago he accompanied a deputation to the Home Office from the inhabitants of many parishes in London, who represented that they were subject to what they considered a monopoly on the part of some of the gas companies. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, after courteously hearing the statements of the deputation, expressed his belief that it had made out a prima facie case. Subsequently the Home Secretary received a deputation from the metropolitan gas companies, by whom, as he understood, no objection was made to the appointment of a Committee, provided it was a fair one. The consumers complained that the gas companies had divided the metropolis among themselves into districts in such a way as to make a complete monopoly. They complained also of the hardship of incoming tenants being refused a supply of gas, unless they paid arrears which might have been left by previous occupants; likewise of the quality of the gas, and, generally speaking, of being totally at the mercy of the gas companies in regard to the supply of that article. On these grounds he moved the appointment of a Committee.

said, a numerous deputation from the parishes referred to by the hon. Member had waited on him and made such statements as led him to believe they had a prima faciecase of complaint against the gas companies of the metropolis. A deputation from the gas companies also waited on him and stated their case very fairly, expressing their perfect willingness to meet any inquire that might be instituted before a Committee. In these circumstances he thought nothing could be fairer than to appoint a Committee, and he assured the deputation that no effort would be wanting on his part to insure a satisfactory investigation.

, on the part of gas companies, stated that they cordially assented to the appointment of a Committee.

seconded the Motion.

said, he must disclaim any intention to offend the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. P. O'Brien) far less to cast any imputation upon his honour. What he objected to was to assent to a Motion which appeared on the face of it to be directed against particular individuals. He was not unwilling, however, on the part of the Government to agree to a return for die last five years, instead of one for the last three months.

said, he would suggest that the hon. Member for King's County should withdraw his Motion in favour of that which appeared on the paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. J. Locke) on the understanding that the return should be made out for the last five years, and also that it should be given in a tabular form.