said, that pursuant to notice he rose to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition of Hugh C. E. Childers, Esq., presented yesterday.

said, he could assure the House that he felt no small degree of humiliation and mortification that the first occasion on which he had the honour of addressing was in justification of his own conduct and vindication of his own honour. However, he did not complain that his Friend, Mr. Childers, had presented this petition, because if that gentleman entertained the feeling that he (Mr. Overend) had been guilty of a breach of duty, it was much more agreeable to his feelings to have it stated openly in that House, instead of expressing his opinion in private to his friends, and so allow him the opportunity of meeting the allegation and giving it all the refutation in his power. Moreover, he was greatly obliged to the hon. Member for Birmingham for having moved that this Committee of inquiry should be appointed, for his sole desire was that the whole thing should he thoroughly sifted. He did not desire to conceal anything; but he hoped that the subject would be fully investigated, for he believed the purity of his conduct would be established. On the very same day on which this matter was investigated before another tribunal he had notice to appear in his place in that House. That was on Friday, and he did attend; but on the following day (Saturday) he left for his professional duties in the north without having received the slightest intimation that any Motion was to be brought before the House. It was not till yesterday that he received a telegram at Lancaster that the matter was to come before the House this day. He thought in his absence— when no person acquainted with the circumstances and who could make any statement on his behalf was present in the House—it would have been fairer towards him if the hon. Member for Birmingham had at all events abstained from using one strong expression which was never applied to any gentleman except under circumstances of clear and distinct proof. He thought it was a great hardship to him that a word which had for the first time been used in connection with his name should have been applied to him in his absence. [Mr. BRIGHT: What word?] He referred to the word "defrauded." He would say no more upon that point, but he would proceed to make such a statement to the House as to show that at all events in regard to the question of fraud or mala fides there was not the slightest imputation upon him. It was true, as was stated in the petition, that he and Mr. Childers were opponents at the last election for Pontefract, and that he (Mr. Overend) was the successful candidate, having been returned by a majority of ten. Immediately after the election he had certainly heard that a petition had been presented to the House, imputing bribery and all the usual charges in such cases against him; and he need scarcely assure the House that it gave him considerable pain, for although he was perfectly conscious of the purity of his own conduct, nobody could be sure of the conduct of his agents. He therefore made inquiries into the matter, and instructed his agents to defend his seat. He went into evidence at considerable trouble and expense, with the view of ascertaining what was his real position; and he was instructed that he had as good a chance as any man could have of successfully defending his seat. Having received that assurance, having retained counsel, and done everything in his power in the expectation of fighting the petition, he went on circuit. He had no communication, either with his London agent, Mr. Rose, or with his agent in the country, Mr. Cariss. In fact, he knew nothing about what was done in London or the country; but presumed that they were preparing evidence, and getting up the case for the defence of the seat, and preparing for the fight whenever it might come off. Whilst at York, in the midst of conducting a trial, without any previous notice that any communication or negotiation had taken place between Mr. Leeman, the agent of Mr. Childers, and Mr. Rose, he received the following telegram from the latter, dated the 19th of July:—

"L. [meaning Mr. Leeman] offers to withdraw the record upon my agreeing with him to refer all questions arising out of the late action [which meant the election] to a Member of the House of high standing on our side; both parties to be bound by his decision. May I consent? I think it a fair offer and intended for a dignified withdrawal. Telegraph reply at once."

What he understood from that telegram was that it was proposed that certain questions arising out of the petition should be referred to some hon. Member of that House, and that the proposal was intended to pave the way for the more dignified retirement of Mr. Childers. Thereupon, feeling that it would be absurd to refer the question of the seat, he took the opinion of two learned Friends of his, one of them being the brother of a distinguished Member of that House, and the other one of the counsel engaged to defend his seat before the Committee, with regard to the meaning of the telegram. He said to them at the time, "It is absurd to refer the question of the seat, for see in what a position I shall be placed. If I refer that question to a private gentleman I shall have no opportunity of calling witnesses before him; he will not be able to administer oaths; we cannot have the advantage of a cross-examination in public; nor would there be any power of preferring indictments for perjury if that offence should be committed. The result of such a reference would, therefore, be to place my character and my seat entirely at the mercy of any bad or wicked man who might come up from Pontefract and tell any falsehood he pleased." He and his Friends discussed the subject fully, and they came to the conclusion that it was impossible any question as to the seat could be intended, as that would be usurping the functions of a Committee of the House of Commons, and would involve a breach of the privileges of that House, for which the persons concerned might be called to account. After an elaborate discussion, it being stated distinctly that this was a dignified withdrawal on the part of Mr. Childers, he came to the conclusion without the slightest doubt, that the seat, which he had determined he would not submit to reference, because he was certain he had every chance of success if the matter went before a Committee, was not in jeopardy, nor was the question of the seat at issue. He therefore sent a telegram, of which he had not the exact terms, but which was to this effect:—"Do the best for me—I place myself in your hands." In order to show the bonâ fides of his conduct, and what was the impression upon his mind, he might read a letter he had addressed to Mr. Lefroy, a gentleman who had assisted him during his canvass, along with a copy of the telegram he had received from his agent. The letter was in these terms:—

"On the other side you will see my telegram. I do not understand it, but I have put myself in Rose's hands, and told him to do the best for me. 'All questions arising out of the late election' cannot possibly involve my giving up the seat, in any event, I should think."

Therefore, on receiving that telegram, and before anything took place, he assumed that it was meant as a dignified withdrawal on the part of Mr. Childers. He had so stated to his friends whom he had consulted. He had also written to his Friend Mr, Lefroy that such was his impression, and then he waited to see what would be the result of the next day's communication from Mr. Rose. Next day, therefore, there came down the memorandum he would now read to the House, and which was dated the 19th July, 1859.

said, he was not about to offer any reply to the speech of the hon. and learned Member, as he did not stand there in the position of an accuser. He was as anxious to leave town as other hon. Members, but when Mr. Childers and his friends asked him to present this petition he felt that the case was one which was of a nature that scarcely allowed him to refuse. He had, therefore, presented it to the House, and he now submitted a list of hon. Members who, it must be admitted on both sides, would form a fair and impartial Committee for the examination of the allegations contained in the petition. The hon. and learned Member had rather complained that proper notice had not been given him of the proceeding; but according to a memorandum with which he (Mr. Bright) had been furnished he was assured that the hon. and learned Member had received verbal notice that the petition would be presented to the House before he left the referee at three o'clock on Friday; that Mr. Cariss, his agent, had waited outside the House to see if any petition would be presented; and that Mr. Childers, who had been seated under the gallery, went into the lobby at midnight and asked him where Mr. Overend was, and requested him to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the petition would not be presented that night; that about two o'clock in the afternoon of Monday, Mr. Rose received a written notice that the petition would be presented that day, and that at a late hour that night a notice was written to Mr. Rose that it would be presented at one o'clock on Tuesday. There might have been some delay in the delivery of the latter note; but upon the whole he (Mr. Bright) thought the hon. and learned Member had not much reason to complain on the ground of a want of notice. There was, indeed, no intention whatever not to give him fair notice. The hon. and learned Member had alluded to a word which he said that he (Mr. Bright) had used in presenting the petition. He had not seen the report of his observations; but what he had meant to say, and what he believed he had said, was that the whole matter looked as if Mr. Childers had been— and he then paused a moment and said he wished he could find another word for it, because he did not wish to make any accusation against the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it seemed as if Mr. Childers had been jockeyed—"defrauded" was, he believed, the epithet he had employed— out of the seat. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman himself would admit that Mr. Rose had been a little too sharp in his practice. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said at the close of his speech that he at last agreed to refer that which he had all along protested against referring to arbitration. There was no use disguising what all the world is supposed to know—that Lord March was the nobleman to whom the reference was to be made, and he had no doubt but that both sides were right in asking that noble Lord to decide. But the fact, as he was informed, was that it was not until Mr. Leeman and his friends had shut up their papers and withdrawn that the hon. and learned Gentleman consented to do that which he had all through protested against doing. He was further given to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not been willing, in consequence of Lord March's scruples as to a breach of privilege, to agree to a reference to some other hon. Member, as had been originally proposed, in the case of any difficulty with that nobleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had all along assumed that the seat was not involved. He was not about to dispute that. But they all knew very well what was generally involved in an election petition and an election committee; and, as Mr. Leeman had positively refused to have anything to do with any money consideration, or the payment of expenses by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it seemed clear to a non-legal mind like his own, that the only question which could arise was whether the seat rightfully belonged to him or to his opponent, Mr. Childers. There never were two men so utterly childlike as Mr. Leeman and Mr. Childers if they went through all those negotiations without those negotiations or the proposed reference in any degree affecting the question who was to be Member for the borough of Pontefract. Then came another point. The hon. and learned Gentleman had apparently been in the hands of an agent whom he did not know anything about. But it was a rule with Election Committees that if they could only catch the agent to a Member, the Member was made responsible for his acts. It was also consonant with a rule of law, which no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman had often sustained with force before a jury, that it could be no answer to Mr. Childers to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in bad hands. In his telegram, the hon. and learned Gentleman told his agent, "Do your best for me: I leave myself in your hands." And if Mr. Rose thought it was an "illusory engagement"—if he thought it was a matter that he would chuckle over, to show how nicely he had managed Mr. Leeman and Mr. Childers, then Mr. Rose was not the man to conduct matters of that kind for Members of that House, or to have any transactions as a Parliamentary agent with them. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was not to be bound by the acts of his agent, that he would only leave for his own decision. He made no charge against him. He stated the allegations of the petition, which, from all he could hear, were fairly drawn. He had proposed an unexceptionable Committee of hon. Members of that House to inquire into those allegations. His duty was fulfilled. He was not to be a member of that Committee, and would have nothing to do with the award. But if the matter was investigated, he hoped that the Committee would give an opinion which would at any rate satisfy the House that there had been nothing unfair or dishonourable on the part of the hon. and learned Member and his agent. He trusted likewise that their decision would be such as to satisfy the wounded and, he might add, irritated feelings of Mr. Childers and Mr. Leeman, who had been the victims of that transaction.

said, he rose to—

said, it was competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain, but not to make a reply.

said, it was his wish to explain. It was not the fact, as stated by the hon. Member, that the papers of the other parties had been folded up when he offered to agree to the reference. With respect to his agent, the communications alluded to by the hon. Gentleman took place after the agreement had been signed.

observed, that he should not have said a single word on this subject, had it not been for the observations that fell from the hon. Member for Birmingham at the conclusion of his speech. The hon. Member had obtained what he had sought for—the investigation of a Committee; and therefore he regretted that the hon. Gentleman should have so far prejudiced the matter as to make a downright condemnatory censure upon one of the parties concerned. For himself he must say, that the first time he heard of this matter was when the petition was withdrawn. He knew nothing of any arrangement entered into in the matter; and he had only heard of the controversy when it was proposed to be gone into before his noble Friend. He had attended at that meeting; but the whole of what took place had been described with so much fulness and accuracy by his hon. and learned Friend, that there was nothing left for him to describe to the House except this one fact, that he certainly understood that Mr. Leeman fully admitted that all through the course of these transactions Mr. Rose had declared to him that on no account would he allow the seat to be called in question; and he even admitted that when the agreement was brought to him to sign, some controversy took place on the question whether it did or did not involve the question of the seat. But in the face of all that Mr. Rose stated on that head to Mr. Leeman, he on the part of Mr. Childers put his name to the agreement. How that gentleman, whose acuteness was beyond dispute, and who admitted that all through these negotiations Mr. Rose insisted that the seat was not to be called in question— how in the face of all this he could put his name to an agreement drawn up like the one before them, and which would not bear the interpretation now sought to be put upon it, he (Sir William Jolliffe) could not conceive. That act alone would have justified Mr. Rose in thinking that he had placed the right interpretation upon the nature of the agreement; and it was therefore rather hard that, or. a mere ex parte statement, Mr. Rose should be characterized as unfit to conduct any Parliamentary business before that House.

Sir, I think it will be admitted that the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract has set himself quite right with the House on this matter. Whatever may be the general decision of the House on the subject itself, I believe he has shown that he has been actuated throughout this business, as far as he was himself concerned, by that sense of honour which I trust will always regulate the conduct of every Member of this House. I have no desire in any way to question the motives which may influence Mr. Childers. I remember Mr. Childers when he was a Member of this House. ["No."] I thought that the petitioner was the gentleman whom we all remember with respect; and if it had been he, I was about to say that I should be glad to see him again in this House; although perhaps he and I might not often have met in the same lobby. But I see no reason to doubt that the gentleman whose petition is before us has been guided by motives as correct as those which have unquestionably guided the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract. I know very little of these transactions. I read the petition this morning, and it is only, I believe, within the last forty-eight hours that I have heard of the possibility of the subject being brought before us; and, indeed, when the hon. Member for Birmingham alluded the other night to a borough in the north of England where there had been a compromise, I was quite in the dark as to the case to which he referred. But I read this petition this morning, and certainly it is a very remarkable petition. My impression is that it treats of circumstances which, strictly speaking, ought not to be brought under the cognizance of this House. They are circumstances with regard to which we must appeal to that principle of honour which, in my opinion, is not a fit subject to be dealt with by a Committee of the House of Commons. But, as the question has been introduced here, it may be better, on the whole, that the investigation should now proceed, although I think we are laying the foundation of a precedent which may hereafter prove inconvenient. There are one or two observations which I cannot refrain from making on this petition. In the first place, if the seat of the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract was to be vacated in consequence of an agreement, it is very remarkable that that which was a principal object of the agreement, according to the statement of the petitioners, was not expressed in the document. It is not an unusual thing, when an election petition is withdrawn, for an agreement to be entered into that one of the Members against whom the petition is presented should vacate his seat. That, I say, is not an unusual course; although in my opinion it is one which ought not to be encouraged. I opposed that practice some years ago. I supported the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in his Motion the other night, the object of which was to arrest and discourage such proceedings; and I have no cause whatever to regret the vote I then gave. I think the House, in a somewhat precipitate manner, took a step the consequences of which may be very injurious to its own character. I remember that some years ago, when that very question was before us on a Motion made by the same hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck), the noble Lord the Member for London, then the leader of this House, and Sir Robert Peel, sitting on these benches, both concurred in voting in disapproval of the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, or any other office of that kind, being granted under these circumstances to any Member of this House. And no one then stopped to calculate whether the advantage of such a Motion would be on the one side or on the other; but the leaders of both sides agreed that its adoption would in all probability be most conducive to public justice, and must tend to check corrupt practices. They therefore gave the vote which I myself gave under similar circumstances a few nights ago. But if it be the fact, as we all know it is, and as we have ample evidence in the proceedings before our Parliamentary Committees, that when these agreements are made, they are always specified in writing, and there is an undertaking from the hon. Member who intends to retire that he will apply for an office under the Crown, how is it that in this case, where Mr. Childers was represented by a very able and experienced election agent, that condition is not laid down? It ought to be referred to, if referred to at all, in precise language; and certainly if such a condition was meant to be binding, there is no reason of a satisfactory or even imaginable kind why it should not have been expressed. If that condition had been expressed there could have been no difficulty upon the subject. Some observations have been made upon the conduct of the gentleman who was the Parliamentary agent of the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract. The hon. Member for Birmingham made a very severe attack upon that gentleman, which it appears to me, considering that he was moving for a Committee of inquiry, and that the present was not the moment for discussing the merits of the case, was not conceived in that spirit which we had a right to expect to be displayed by the hon. Member. I, therefore, feel it to be my duty to say that I have with Mr. Rose an acquaintance which has existed for many years. He is a member of a family that lives in my neighbourhood in the country—a family that ha3 existed in Buckinghamshire for several generations in a position of great and deserved respectability. I do not know an individual in whose integrity I have more confidence. He is a gentleman who, from his large transactions in London, is known to a considerable number of persons, including I dare say many hon. Members of this House, and I am quite sure that no gentleman can ever have been placed in communication with him without feeling that he was dealing with an honourable, honest, and straightforward man. I have no doubt that when the proposed Committee investigate the whole of this matter, and Mr. Rose is brought before them, they will draw from the manner in which he gives his evidence the same inferences which I have always drawn from my experience of his conduct through life, which has been a course of unvarying, and I may say distinguished integrity. I shall not stop to inquire why the hon. Member for Birmingham made so severe an attack upon Mr. Rose, nor shall I ask whether it may not have arisen from the exertions of Mr. Rose in other boroughs. I think, however, it would have been better if the hon. Member had refrained upon the present occasion from avenging any injury which he fancies he may have experienced on a different scene. As the House seems to think that this gentleman having been brought before us, it is better that a Committee should be appointed, I shall not resist the Motion to that effect. I dare say, if we had been as well acquainted yesterday as we are now with the statement which the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract has made, we should have hesitated before we called in the authority of a Committee of this House to investigate a matter which, after all, had better have been left to those means which are usually employed to investigate circumstances affecting private character. I do not well see what we can do, even if the allegations in the petition of Mr. Childers be proved to the satisfaction of the Committee. We can only exercise over those who are supposed to have injured Mr. Childers such influence as may consist in an expression of moral indignation; but that might have been equally done, if, when this misunderstanding had taken place, it had been referred privately to a gentleman who, his character and position in this House or in society being beyond reproach, would have been able to arrive at a decision which would satisfy the demands of justice. But to withdraw after the manner in which this question has been brought before the House might lead to inferences which, perhaps, we ought not to encourage, and on the whole it is better when a misunderstanding of this kind has arisen—a misunderstanding which was originally supposed to involve the character of a Member of this House, and which the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham might lead us to suppose involves the character of a gentleman connected in a more humble position with this House —that an inquiry should take place. I must congratulate the House upon the explanations that have been given in their places both by the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract and by the late Member for Bodmin (Dr. Mitchell). It must be a source of satisfaction to the House, that both in this and in the other case the gentlemen concerned have shown that they were in every way worthy of sitting in this House among those who are now Members of it. I may take this opportunity of stating, that in the vote I gave the other night in a case analogous to the present, I was not in the least influenced by any consideration affecting the individual principally concerned. It was the first opportunity I had of expressing the strong opinion I entertain upon the system of granting nominal offices under the Crown to those Members of Parliament whose returns are petitioned against for corrupt practices. The Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was one which I did not approve as far as its formal expression was concerned, and I said so at the time; but as I, and almost every Member of the House, agreed in the spirit of that Resolution, I felt it my duty to vote for it, in order to express my opinion that the general course which it recommended should be adopted. I regret that it was not adopted, and in the present case, which is not identical though analogous, the course which is recommended by the hon. Member for Birmingham will receive my support. But I want to ask the House what is the remedy that is to be given to Mr. Childers, if the House is of opinion that he has received sharp practice at the hands of the sitting Member or his agents, which I believe, however, he has not received? Can we allow Mr. Childers to renew his election petition when the House meets again next year? I do not think we have any such power, but it would be as well to consider whether the means of permitting him to do so may not be found. That would be a more satisfactory solution of the difficulty than any which we are likely to arrive at by the appointment of a Committee, because a Committee can practically do nothing in the way of affording a remedy to Mr. Childers, while it may usurp a duty which society at large, and not a Committee of this House, ought to perform.

I agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield that, as it seems to be the general opinion of the House that the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham should be carried, we should abstain upon the present occasion from entering into a discussion of the merits of a question which is to be submitted to the consideration and investigation of a Committee. I therefore regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) should have given us his opinion as to the effect and tenour of the agreement of which we have heard so much, because that is one of the points which must come before the Committee. I ventured' yesterday to suggest to the House that if the mere question raised by the petition was whether, a compromise having been entered into by the hon. Member for Pontefract with Mr. Childers, the former had not fairly fulfilled his agreement, although that might be a matter affecting the character of the sitting Member as a gentleman, I doubted whether the House could entertain it as a question over which it had any jurisdiction. But that is not the whole question now raised. The Motion submitted by the hon. Member for Birmingham is that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which the Pontefract election petition was withdrawn. Now, giving credit to the hon. Member for Pontefract for his explanation, I am bound to say that I was struck by one remarkable omission in his statement. He did not even hint at the question as to what the points were that were to be submitted to the referee under the agreement. Surely something was to be submitted to the referee. We have this remarkable statement in the petition—a statement which has not been contradicted or explained, and which, undoubtedly, deserves inquiry:—

"Mr. Cariss then stated that he had been with Mr. Overend at Newcastle throughout the previous day (Sunday); that Mr. Overend had instructed him not to enter into any examination, or to draw up any statement whatever, and that Mr. Overend said he did not understand that the seat was involved in the reference; that Mr. Wilkinson thereupon expressed the greatest surprise, reminding Mr. Cariss of all that had passed at the inter views in London, and asked, if the seat was not the question, what was? That Mr. Cariss was long unwilling to answer, but at length said it was the sum Mr. Overend should pay Mr. Childers as consideration for giving up the petition, and, perhaps, that Mr. Overend should not stand at another election."

I do not apprehend it will be denied that, if there is an election petition pending, an arrangement entered into that the sitting Member shall pay a sum of money to the petitioner to withdraw his petition must he regarded as a corrupt compromise, which this House will visit with the punishment it deserves. The hon. and learned Member for Pontefract has said that he did not authorize any transaction with regard to money, but he told us at the same time, though it was hardly necessary to do so, that he had placed himself absolutely in the hands of his agents. It is due, therefore, to the House that an inquiry should be made into the circumstances mentioned in the petition, in order that we may see whether there are agents practising under the authority of this House who are guilty of such acts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire has adverted to his vote the other night upon the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). I must say that I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in the opinion that the course then proposed was one calculated to check these corrupt compromises or corrupt practices at elections. I believe that when Gentlemen, feeling that their seats would be endangered if they had to go before an Election Committee, agree to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds with a view to retire from this House, the proper course to adopt, if you are honest in your endeavours to check corrupt compromises or corrupt practices at elections, would be not to impose upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the obligation of refusing the Chiltern Hundreds in any such case, but to allow the Member to incur the penalty of the loss of his seat by his own voluntary act, and then, if there are circumstances sufficient to justify suspicion, to suspend the writ, institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the election, and, having ascertained all the facts, apply a remedy.

said, he would then move that Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. CRAUFURD, Captain JERVIS, Lord ROBERT CLINTON, Mr. SELWTN, MR, PHILLIPS, and Mr. G. C. GLYN be appointed the Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the allegations in the petition.

said, before the question was put he wished to ask a question as to what mode of inquiry was proposed, and how it should be conducted? Did the hon. Member for Birmingham propose himself for conducting the case on one side, and another gentleman for the other side. The gentlemen concerned could not, of course, conduct their own case, and the hon. Member for Birmingham could scarcely expect the Committee to initiate the inquiry.

said, he would suggest that the Committee should call the agents before them, and then decide upon the best course to be pursued.

said, the evidence in the case was in the hands of so few persons that no difficulty could arise as to how they should take it or go into it. He was not the accuser of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, and therefore he should not conduct the case against him.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Her Majesty's Government has received any official information as to the gross outrages committed in the early part of the year in the Province of Travancore by the Natives of the Soodra caste upon the Shanars and others of like caste, and if any authentic intelligence has been received as to the discontinuance of such outrages, and if Her Majesty's Government has sent any instructions to the Governor of Madras or any other Indian authorities in relation to this case?

said, information had been received from the Governor of Madras, disclosing the grounds of this transaction, which took place some time ago. The Government had prepared a despatch upon the subject, but before it was sent off a second despatch had been received from the Governor of Madras stating that the whole matter had been settled to his satisfaction, and the Government had approved of that settlement. He might at the same time mention that it took place with the authority of the Governor of Travancore, and if the hon. Member would move for the Papers they should be laid upon the Table.

said, he wished to make an inquiry of the Government as to an alleged appointment which he had been informed by a high authority had been made. It was understood that the First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister had offered to an hon. Gentleman to promote him to the office of Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and it would be interesting to the House to know whether that office had been vacated, and when the new appointment took place.

said, he was not aware that the office in question had been vacated, nor had he had any knowledge of the fact which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned. He had heard it stated as a rumour that the present Vice-President of Trade was considering a proposal which had been made to him, but his information did not extend further.

said, he rose to move that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, in order that the House might go into Committee on this Bill.

said, he merely wished to observe that he had recently presented two petitions from Scotland against the provisions of this Bill.

said, that in order that the provisions of the Bill might be effectually carried out, it was thought expedient to give borough justices large powers.

objected to the inspectors of gasmeters, who had to decide questions between both vendors and purchasers, being nominated by the purchasers only— namely, by the town council. He therefore would propose an Amendment, the effect of which would be to insert words giving the nomination of these officers to the recorders in those boroughs which had separate sessions.

said, he thought that the appointment ought to be left to the town council in every case, who were always the proper and best guardians of their own funds.

said, he thought the Amendment ought to be allowed. He was not aware that in Sunderland, of which town he was recorder, or anywhere else, any objection had been made to the exercise of this power by the recorder.

objected strongly to placing this appointment in the hands of recorders, as the power might very possibly lead to jobbery.

suggested that recorders of places which were counties as well as boroughs were not at present excluded by the existing language of the Act.

observed that, in his opinion, the Amendment was a very good one, and as to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester, he imagined there was no foundation for it, as recorders, generally speaking, possessed no local inte- rest. He thought there would be great ground for jobbery if the appointment were left to the town council.

said, he could not agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He thought the recorder was the very worst person who could be selected to make these appointments; because he could know nothing whatever of the merits of the inspectors except through the town council. He did not see why inspectors of gas should be appointed by different authorities than those who had the appointment of inspectors of weights and measures.

remarked, that considering the interests of the public, the Committee would do well to leave these appointments in the hands of the town councils.

observed, that to say that a town council could not be trusted to appoint an inspector when they had so many other appointments in their hands seemed ridiculous. Speaking for himself as a recorder, he should be glad to be relieved of the responsibility; but the truth was, as had been stated, that the recorders had only a very transitory acquaintance with boroughs, and these appointments would often become the mere nomination of a clique.

said, he thought it wrong upon principle that these appointments should be in the hands of a town council, when there was an officer of superior authority in the borough, who was perfectly independent.

said, he represented a town which had a town council, but not a recorder. He must therefore vote against his hon. Friend if he persevered in his Amendment. But he went further, and thought that no worse authority could be selected for these appointments than the recorders, who had little or no local knowledge.

said, that as the Committee had decided who were to be the appointers, he thought it was now right to decide who were to be the appointees. He would, therefore, move an Amendment which would have the effect of providing that a certain number of these inspectors should not be police constables.

said, he must oppose the Amendment.

said, he wished to express his concurrence in this objection, so far as Ireland was concerned.

said, he would move that the Chairman report progress.

said, he should have no objection to withdraw the clauses relating to Ireland, but he begged to say that these clauses were strictly copied from the Weights and Measures Act.

suggested that, as there had not been time to communicate with constituencies in Scotland, the measure should be confined to England.

hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley would not allow the success of this Bill to be imperilled, as be believed it would be of such great advantage to England. There was no reason why it should not be of equal advantage to the gas consumers in Ireland. He proposed, therefore, that the clauses relating to Scotland and Ireland should be omitted for the present, and that his hon. Friend should bring up a clause relating to Scotland and Ireland on the Report.

said, that on this understanding he begged to withdraw his Motion.

said, he would move the omission of the clause,

defended the charge, observing that the meters at Liverpool were perfect, and that the people of that town were entirely satisfied with them.

said, that when the Bill was last before the House an arrangement had been entered into by which the Bill had been allowed to pass through its second reading without discussion, on condition that he should at the present stage give some explanation of its object and provisions. He would therefore at once proceed to redeem the pledge he gave on that occasion, and state the reasons why it was necessary at so late a period of the Session to pass the measure. Almost from the earliest period of the existence of the East India Company, they had power to maintain a certain number of European troops in India. Previous to 1799, the portion of those troops who were undergoing training in England or were on their passage, were not under military discipline. In 1799 an Act passed which removed that anomaly, and brought them under military law, but the number was limited to 2,000. In 1853, when he was President of the Board of Control, an application was made to him by the Marquess of Dalhousie, then Governor General, to increase the number of Company's troops beyond the then existing limit—12,000. The first step he took in consequence of that application was to consult Lord Hardinge, who had been Governor General of India, and who was then Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, and who united in his person the best means of forming a sound opinion, and by Lord Hardinge's advice, he assented to the proposal to increase the number of Company's troops by three regiments. In order to do so, it was necessary to increase the limit imposed by the Act of Parliament, and in the 31st clause of the Act of 1853 the limit of the number to be maintained out of the Indian revenues was increased to 20,000, and the number training in England or on passage to India to 4,000. There was a doubt whether the gross amount of troops chargeable on the Indian revenues was 20,000 or 24,000. Up to the period of the mutiny there was no question as to the legal effect of the clause, because the number did not approach to 20,000, and therefore it was immaterial whether the correct interpretation was a gross limit of 20,000 or 24,000. When the mutiny broke out it became desirable to increase the number of European troops, and, proceeding on the supposition that 24,000 was the legal limit, without giving sufficient attention to the point, the number was increased beyond 20,000, and at one time approached, if it did not exceed 24,000. It was obviously desirable that the doubt should no longer exist, and the present Bill had been introduced with that object. The late Government went so far as to sanction the establishment in India of 25,500, exclusive of troops in training or on their passage to India, and that showed that sufficient at-attention had not been paid to the legal limit, because a much larger number was sanctioned than could be maintained either under the interpretation that the limit was 20,000 or 24,000. He did not find, however, that the number sanctioned had been actually reached, as according to the latest returns, the number borne on the rolls in India was 20,110, and the number in England was about 2,000. As soon as these facts were brought to his notice it seemed to him an indispensable duty to bring in a Bill to legalize what had been done, and to cover anything which might be illegal. According to the interpretation of 24,000 being the legal limit, there had been nothing illegal, as the total number of troops was only about 22,000, but the question ought to be beyond doubt or suspicion, and therefore this Bill had been introduced. The House would remember that the Bill would not render it necessary to keep up the number to the limit, it only required that that number should not be exceeded. The Bill would in no degree prejudice any question which might be raised about the Indian army. If the Government wished to increase the number they must come to Parliament again, and this measure would have nothing to do with the organization of the Indian army. Having said this much with respect to the object of the Bill he would take the opportunity, in accordance with the understanding with the House, of offering some few remarks on the general question of the nature of the force henceforward to be kept on foot in India. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that a Commission had sat upon the organization of troops maintained in India. The first and most important question which that Commission had to consider was, whether the European force to be maintained in India should be exclusively regiments of the line, or a mixed force composed partly of regiments of the line and partly of local troops—in other words whether they should be troops for general service, or troops partly for general and partly for local service. A majority of the Commission reported in favour of troops exclusively for general service; but a very large minority entertained a different view. It was evident, however, from the opinions given and from the evidence, that the decision of the Commission could not be considered as very impartial, because officers of the Queen's troops were in favour of a force exclusively for general service, and Indian officers were in favour of the maintenance of a local force. It was very natural such should be the case, but it diminished the value of the opinion pronounced, as both parties might quite naturally and imperceptibly be strongly biased in favour of the service to which they belonged. Whatever was the opinion of the Commissioners, he thought that the weight of authority was in favour of the maintenance of a local force. He had already stated what was the opinion of Viscount Hardinge as to the increase of the local force, and no one could be so well qualified to offer an opinion upon the subject. The same opinion was entertained by men like Sir J. Lawrence, who were intimately acquainted with India and the Indian service. With reference to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) that there would be great economy in employing troops of the line, he was inclined to think that, whatever other advantages there might be, it would entail a heavier expense if the force in India was composed entirely of troops of the line. Another reason which weighed with him (Sir Charles Wood) in favour of a local force was the advantage of thus providing a number of educated and able men who, looking forward to passing their lives in India and earning there a position which their energies could command, would study the habits and language of the Natives and fit themselves for the discharge of those duties, other than military, which were indispensable for the good government of India. There were many instances in which men so qualified not only took an important part in active service in the field, but in the government of the outlying provinces of that empire. Influenced by these and other considerations, the late Government came to the conclusion that a local army should be maintained. Her Majesty's present Government, soon after they came into office, came to the same decision. Recent occurrences in India, might produce some effect upon men's minds in relation to the question of maintaining a local force. It seemed to him that those occurrences were of an exceptional nature, and, serious as they were, they hardly ought to alter the decision which had been arrived at upon other grounds. He did not think that the local army had any substantial grievance, or that the precedent of the St. Helena regiment was at all in their favour. It was enlisted for local service in St. Helena; in 1830, it was transferred to the Crown and served under the Crown for upwards of a year. It was determined not to keep up a local force at that island, and therefore if they had remained as a Queen's regiment there would have been a complete change in the terms of their service. Instead of serving only in St. Helena, the men might have been sent to serve in the West Indies, and therefore it was perfectly just in that case to offer the men their discharge, with the option of volunteering into Queen's regiments. The case was a precedent against the local force in India rather than one in their favour. The oath taken by the men who enlisted into the Company's service was the same as that taken by every man who enlisted in the Queen's service, with the addition of a reference to their serving the East India Company. When the rule of the Company was terminated so much of the oath was void, but it did not affect the former part of the oath, which bound every man who enlisted to obey the Queen's officers. He, therefore, retained the opinion which he had stated, that he did not think the men had any substantial grievance. At the same time he must admit that there was a great deal to be said, not in excuse of their insubordinate conduct, but in justification of the view which they took. Many officers of high rank took the same view, and as they had a very strong interest in taking that view, he was inclined to think that it was not fair or right to treat the men as mutineers. The question was referred to the Government of India, and by them to the Government at home. Both stated their opinion that the claim of the men as a matter of right was inadmissible. The home Government, however, gave Earl Canning power to act as he thought best under the circumstances which existed at the time he received the despatch. Thus matters stood when he succeeded to the office which he had now the honour to hold, and he thought the only course was to confirm the discretionary power which had been vested in Lord Canning by his predecessor; and he informed Earl Canning that whatever he might think fit to do would receive every support in their power. By the last accounts the Government had received an announcement of the measures which had been taken, and he must say he thought they were the best which could be taken under the circumstances. Earl Canning bad said that he could not admit the claim for bounty or discharge, but, considering that the men thought they had not entered into obligations to serve the Crown, and that with very few exceptions their conduct had not been of a violent description, he was prepared, with the entire concurrence of the Commander-in-Chief, to allow each man who wished his discharge to take it and return to England in the same way as if he had been discharged under ordinary circumstances. There was one further remark which he wished to make. It seemed that almost the whole of the persons who had made complaint were recruits recently sent out to India. He thought it was a great mistake to send a great number of raw recruits to be drilled and trained in India. It was not the best mode for making them think the military service the most agreeable in the world. He believed it would be found that a large proportion of those who took their discharge could hardly be called soldiers. They were men not yet trained. A great number was raised in the manufacturing towns. A great number, too, was raised in London, and it might fairly be considered more as a strike than a mutiny. Not a word could be said in palliation of soldiers who acted as they had done; but it was not fair to consider these men as mutineers in the strict sense of the term. He did not think the circumstances such as to justify departing from the decision of the late and the present Government, to maintain a local force in India. But as to the question how it was to be organized, and of what proportions of the different arms it was to be composed, he wished to reserve complete discretion to the Government, as those points must depend, to a considerable extent, upon information which had not yet been received. He wished to make only one further ob- servation. The hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughhy) had the other day called attention to the large number of officers of the Indian army who were entitled to the most considerate attention from the House and from the country. By far the greater part would probably be employed in the European or Native forces, or in political, civil, and engineering services. He hoped the whole number would be absorbed; but if not, their claims must, in some way or another, be fully and fairly considered. He was quite sure it would be as unjust to them as it would be discreditable to the Government if such men, who had behaved so nobly, were treated with the slightest disregard or without the fullest consideration. In conclusion, he would repeat that this Bill would not prejudice the many questions connected with the subject of our Indian forces, which must be left open for the full consideration of the Government and Parliament at a future period.

said, he fully agreed with the right hon. Baronet on one point— that the day when the Government commemorated the close of the Session was not a proper time to enter into a discussion of the great question—the organization of the Indian army, and he therefore objected to this very important branch of that question being brought forward at such a period. He must also complain of the way in which the Bill had been hurried on. It was introduced on Saturday morning last, was read a second time at the morning sitting of the same day, without any explanation, passed through Committee yesterday morning, and was now brought forward for a third reading. A Bill of such importance ought not to be dealt with in that manner, and he did not think there were sufficient grounds for it. The Royal Commission, by a majority, had recommended that no local army should be maintained at all, and if with the view of leaving undisturbed existing interests a local European force should be maintained, it ought to be kept within the present limit. In the face of that recommendation it was proposed, however, by this Bill to increase the number beyond the present limit. He could not speak in the same light terms as the right hon. Baronet of the mutiny which had occurred in the local forces. He did not say the men had no grievance, but there was a proper manner in which they could have made their grievances known. A serious feature of that mutiny was the corres- pondence which went on from one regiment to another, and from one local army to another, without a single soldier or non-commissioned officer coming forward to acquaint their officers with what was going forward. An army in which such a low state of discipline as that existed was not to be trusted. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Government had received any communications from Lord Clyde and General Mansfield upon the subject. General Mansfield, he believed, had been in favour of a local army. Lord Clyde had not formed any very strong opinion either way; but since the mutiny of the local forces he was led to believe that both those gallant officers had come to the conclusion that a local European army could not safely exist in India. He wished to know whether the Government had received such communications from them, and whether they would be prepared to lay them on the table of the House. He wished to know, if the number of local troops was to be increased, in what manner it would be done. The sanction which the late Government gave to the number being exceeded had remedied itself, because 8,000 men had claimed their discharge and were now on their way home, probably to take a new bounty and to be sent back to India. There was only a certain number of men to be raised by voluntary enlistment, and that number did not exceed what we required for our own service. At the present moment there were some thousands wanting to make up the number voted, and one-third of the militia only existed on paper. Under these circumstances, were the Government about to allow the enlistment of men in the recruiting market of England who would not be available for general service? If it were absolutely necessary that a local army should be raised for India, they might do it in another way. They had already a German regiment in the Indian service. No doubt they would make better soldiers than they made colonists. He did not see why the Government could not have recourse to the same area of recruiting. They could not do so in recruiting for the regular army, because only 3 per cent of foreigners was allowed in a regiment of the line. During the latter portion of the time he was in office he had recourse as far as he could to that class, and enlisted some capital recuits who were foreigners. The restriction to 3 per cent did not apply to the Indian army, and he did not see why, if it were necessary to increase the local force, they should not enlist foreigners to a greater extent than at present. He was glad that the Secretary for War was present, because he wished to correct a mistake into which that right hon. Gentleman had fallen. The right hon. Gentleman stated the other night that it was not fair to include the depôts of Indian regiments in the strength of the national forces, because they could not be made use of in case of emergency without their volunteering. That was an entire mistake, as the depôts could be called upon to do garrison or any other duty, the same as other soldiers. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman upon what terms the officers would be admitted into the local army, if it were increased, as it was the unanimous opinion of the Commissioners that it would be a great advantage if the two armies were placed on the same footing and exchange allowed from one to the other. The great difficulty, however, which stood in the way arose from the different funds in which the Indian Army was interested. He did not entirely agree with the majority of the Commission with regard to the local army. He thought it would be the greatest possible advantage to have but one army, and that the Queen's army under the same command and the same discipline; but he did not think it possible at once to do away with the local army, in which so many officers were entitled to certain rights and privileges. At the same time he objected most strongly to any increase in the local army. If there were any chance of getting the number, there might be some reason for passing this Bill; but, taking the number of recruits enlisted weekly for Indian service, it was obvious that they would not reach the number who were about to accept their discharge, and therefore the question could not arise until next Session. The right hon. Baronet had adopted a purely Indian view of the question. Every officer of the Indian army took one view, and every officer of the English army took the other, so that when he knew to which service the officer belonged he could tell beforehand what evidence he would give the Commission. He believed that the pressure upon the right hon. Baronet had come from the Council. It was nothing more nor less than a question of patronage. It was a proposal to increase the Indian army that the Council might get the patronage. It was his firm conviction that they could better do without the Council than leave them any patronage. They might give the Council any salaries they pleased in order to get the best men, but India never would thrive if it were considered as the property of individuals instead of part and parcel of the British dominions. He appealed to the right hon. Baronet whether upon his own view it was necessary to press this Bill at the present period of the Session, when it was impossible that the subject could receive a free and a full discussion.

said, he entirely concurred with the right hon. and gallant Officer that depôts and recruits were completely available for the service of Her Majesty in England as well as in India. He believed they were as amenable for any duty that may be assigned to them as were the Grenadier Guards. He should be very sorry if it were otherwise. But he entirely disagreed with the right hon. and gallant Member as to a German army. It was to be regretted that German legionaries were sent to India and were there now. He did not believe that they had fired a shot, but according to reports from Southern Africa he was afraid that, unless they were looked very sharply after, ill consequences would occur between them and the Natives. Circumstances in former times had obliged the English Government to take considerable bodies of foreign troops into their pay. Nothing, however, but the necessity and emergency of a great war could render such a measure expedient. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed deeply impressed with the guilt of the local troops in India, speaking of their conduct as a great and serious mutiny, which had changed the opinion of Lord Clyde and General Mansfield as to local troops being maintained. There was no extenuation admitted for their insubordination. But for his own part, he would not call it a mutiny. Eighteen months ago, in February 1858, the Prime Minister of England stated that the army in India would consist of the Queen's troops and a local corps whose service would be confined to that country. With regard to the Queen's troops no change, the Prime Minister stated, would be necessary; but the troops of the Company would be transferred to the Crown, and those soldiers who disliked the change would, he thought, in common justice, be entitled to their discharge. This declaration of the Prime Minister was widely circulated in India, and passed from one regiment to another, in which there were many men both intelligent and well educated. How could it be accounted for that after this declaration the Government of India had so bungled the matter? Why was it referred to a military lawyer? When the men had been told by the highest authority what they had a right to, was it in equity or fairness to be treated as a mutiny? With regard to the present Bill, he approved its object; he thought a local army indispensable in India. The gallant General (General Peel) had stated that the Bill was entirely opposed to the recommendations of the Commission. It was very injudicious to place His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief on that Commission, as his influence might have operated to bias the opinions of the subordinate members. As President of the Board, the Commander-in-Chief must have been placed in an invidious position. What rendered the statements of the gallant officer the more remarkable was, that they were directly in contradiction to those of the Government of which the gallant Gentleman had been a Member. When it was said that all the regiments serving in India should belong to one army, it should be remembered that there were many special points to be considered, which rendered a distinction between the two armies highly desirable. He believed both the officers and men of the Indian army had fully deserved the confidence of the country. Who was it that retrieved the disasters into which they had fallen at Cabul. Why Pollock and Nott, two of the Company's officers. The turning point of the late mutiny was the capture of Delhi; that also was performed by an officer of the local force. He should at present only observe, that on various grounds, he should be prepared to support the Bill.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member (General Peel) had misunderstood what he had stated in reference to the Indian depôts; he said that the best way to make use of these men in the event of their service being required would be to distribute them amongst the other battalions, which could not be done unless they volunteered from their own regiments. No doubt they could be used as depot battalions at any moment or any service that the Crown might choose. The hon. and gallant General had addressed the House in two characters, as one of the majority of the Commission which reported against a local force, and as a Member of the Govern- ment which decided on maintaining it. The Bill would not make any alteration in the existing state of things; it would not add a single battalion to the force, and there was no intention on the part of the Government to depart in any way from the conclusion at which the late Government was understood to have arrived.

said, that in his opinion the European regiments of the Indian army had committed a gross act of insubordination; but it did not amount to a military mutiny, except in the case of the regiment that had intrenched itself in its quarters, and elected its own officers. In the other regiments no bad feeling on the part of the men towards the officers had been exhibited. Never was a thing so grossly mismanaged by the Indian Government as this had been from the beginning. If such a feeling had arisen in any regiment of the Crown, the circumstances would have been fully explained to the men. In this case the soldiers were told that the Attorney General had decided against them; had they been told the Adjutant General had decided against them they would have been quite satisfied. He agreed with the right hon. and gallant General (General Peel) in thinking that the worst feature in the case was the fact that all this correspondence had taken place between the various regiments without its coming to the knowledge of the officers. In another point, the Indian Government had been unjust to part of the Native army. The customary donation batta was withheld from the army that went through the Persian war. A greater mistake could not have been made. The Native troops were embarked at Bombay for the sea voyage without making any objection, though it was repugnant to their religious prejudices, and on previous occasions the Bengal troops had refused to embark. They brought the war to an end in six months. On returning home they found the other Native regiments of the Bengal Presidency in open mutiny, and murdering their officers. Two of the Queen's regiments that made the campaign in Persia afterwards formed the column that relieved the garrison of Lucknow; the native troops of the Persian army under Sir H. Rose, gained the victories of his campaign in Centra! India. Was this an army that should have been made an exception to the usual custom, by refusing it the batta? These troops vo- luntarily gave up the treasure and arms taken during the operations in Persia, in the full belief that the allowance would be granted to them. It was a great mistake, and he gave notice that, early in the next Session, he should bring the subject before the House. As to the European regiments of the Indian army, he did not believe a mutinous feeling existed among them; the men thought they had a grievance, and he hoped it would be properly remedied. But even if matters were set right, the country would have lost a large number of good soldiers.

said, it was to be regretted that a Bill relating to such an important subject as the organization of the Indian army should have been brought in at the very end of the Session. Earl Canning had the right of deciding what should be done with the European regiments, and he appeared to have gone wrong at first, and then to have stuck to his first decision. When he was told that the law officers of the Crown had given an opinion on the case he should like to see what case was submitted to them. The attestation of men enlisting for the Indian army was such that the soldiers might well believe that they were in the right. He quite agreed with the determination of the late and present Governments to maintain a local European force in India; the question was as to the amount of it. The objection to raising that force above a certain amount was, that it interfered with the recruiting for the Queen's army in this country. The Government had not dealt fairly with the soldiers in reference to their pensions, a subject he should bring before the House next Session.

said, that in vindication of what he had said on a former occasion as to the needlessly large proportion of European officers in the Native Indian regiments, he wished to state that the opinion he had expressed was that of officers of great Indian experience, as was shown by many passages in reports by Sir H. Frere, Colonel Green, and General Jacobs, who had all testified to the necessity of changing the system, and of causing the cadets first to join European regiments, and having learned their duty in them, and passed their examination, then being appointed to Native regiments. He thought the gallant officer (Colonel Sykes) owed him an apology for the remarks he had made in reference to him, though the gallant officer's authority did not appear to be so great as it used to be, since his former colleagues did not require his services.

said, he would give his hearty support to the Bill. He had read the evidence before the Commission with great attention, and it had convinced him that the maintenance of a local European force in India was a necessity'; the great question was as to its numbers. By law it was limited to 20,000 men, or with the number in the depôts of this country, 24,000 men. The object of the right hon. Gentleman was to increase that number to 30,000. There were at present 23,800 Europeans in the Indian service, and 92,000 of the Queen's troops. He did not think there was much force in the objection of the gallant officer (General Peel); they had the men in one force or the other. As to what was called the mutiny or insubordination of the European regiments, he took the view of the Secretary for India. He could not call that a mutiny where the men had such a strong case. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) on the training of the officers of the Indian army, he believed they were trained as well and their attainments stood as high as the officers of any service in the world.

said, that in reference to the opinions quoted by the Member for the Tower Hamlets, he might to observe that Sir H. Frere was a civilian; Colonel Green's remarks he thought an error of judgment, and the statements of General Jacobs only applied to local and irregular troops. A Native regiment that in cantonments was so tractable that it gave no more trouble than a child, became useless in battle the moment it lost its European officers. The more European officers there were to a Native regiment, the more certain they could be of its services. A Native regiment of 1,000 men might be managed by four European officers when in cantonments, but not on the line of march or in battle array. As to the Bill before the House, he entirely concurred in the necessity of it. India could not be governed without a local army acquainted with Indian habits and associations, and accustomed to regard India as its home. Without such an army the Indian Government would be placed in the utmost possible danger. The opinion of the Commission that had been alluded to was only the opinion of the majority of officers upon it who had no Indian experience, against the minority who had had great experience in India. As to the mutiny of the European troops, he believed the men were technically wrong, but morally in the right. The men attested for the service of the East India Company could not be transferred to the service of the Crown without a renewal of their engagement. When recruits were taken be fore the magistrate the oath of allegiance to the Crown was administered; but in the copy of the attestation given to them, the oath of allegiance was omitted. Every man now in India had this copy of his attestation to the service of the Company only, without any reference to the oath he had taken to the Crown.

said, he thought the Indian Government was not exclusively responsible for the Indian mutiny. The House of Commons was in some degree to blame. When the settlement of the Indian Government was under discussion, it omitted to make the transfer of the service of the Indian army quite clear, in the section of the Act relating to the military force. A small donation on their being transferred to the service of the Crown would probably have prevented the difficulty that had arisen as to the Company's forces. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster on the question of a local force and the troops of the line. The House should bear in mind that these troops were paid for out of the Indian revenue over which they had no control. It had always been a constitutional principle that the army of this country should be paid by money voted by the House, and he thought that the army for India ought to be a local force, maintained out of the revenues of that country.

remarked, that when he was in India he always found that the Company's officers regretted most strongly that the army was not one body instead of being two distinct forces. In his opinion, fifteen years was quite long enough for European regiments to remain in India.

said, he was convinced that the existence of a local European force would be the sole means of preventing India being denuded of European troops. He wished, however, that some arrangement could be made for the appointment of the officers of this local army by the Horse Guards instead of the East India Company. He felt sure it would be for the benefit of India if they had only one class of officers in place of two.

said, he rose to ask at what time during the sitting the Bill would be taken the next day, for they had been waiting for it for two days, but it was so low down in the Orders that it was impossible to judge when it would come on. He wished, therefore, to obtain an accurate idea of the time when the Bill would be proceeded with.

replied, that the Bill would stand the first on the paper for next day.

said, be wished to be informed at what time the House would meet.

The House will meet at two o'clock to-morrow.

said, that in the absence of the Chairman of the Select Committee which had lately reported on the Wakefield Election, he rose to move an Address for a Commission to inquire into the corrupt practices at the late election for the borough of Wakefield. The Committee met on the 27th of July, and after one day's examination of witnesses agreed to the following Resolutions:—

"That William Henry Leatham was by his agents guilty of bribery at the last election for the borough of Wakefield.

"That William Henry Leatham is not duly elected a burgess to serve in the present Parliament for the borough of Wakefield.

"That the last election for the said borough is a void election.

"That it was proved to the Committee that Thomas Beaumont has been bribed by the payment of £10; that John Jackson has been bribed by the payment of £30; that John Cousins has been bribed by the payment of £25; and that George Senior has been bribed by the payment of £30.

"That it was not proved that such bribery was committed with the consent of the sitting Member.

"That there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last election for the borough of Wakefield."

The only point in the report of the Select Committee which seemed worthy of remark was the fact, that while only four cases of bribery appeared to have been distinctly proved, the Committee felt it their duty to report that they bad reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. In explanation of that he might state, that after one day's evidence the sitting Member retired from the contest, but the petitioners declared that they never intended to impute bribery personally to him. Under these circumstances the Committee felt it their duty to report that in their opinion bribery had extensively prevailed at the late election. They did not call for all the evidence they might have called for on that point, but the evidence laid before them was quite sufficient to induce them to believe, he might say, unanimously, that extensive bribery had prevailed on both sides. These circumstances—first, the retirement of the sitting Member after one day's examination of witnesses; secondly, the appearance of strangers in the borough who had not been found since, although every means had been taken to ascertain their whereabouts; thirdly, the large amount that was paid to those voters who had been proved to have been bribed; fourthly, the general concurrence of all the witnesses that there never was an election at which so much money was spent as at this last election, induced the Committee unanimously to come to the conclusion that there never was a case in which a Commission of inquiry was more necessary than in the present. It was, therefore, his duty to move, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a Commission might be appointed to inquire into the corrupt practices which prevailed at the late election for the borough of Wakefield, and that Mr. Serjeant Pigott, Mr. Henry Willes, and Mr. W. Slade, be the Commissioners.

said, it was not his duty to defend the conduct of the constituency of Wakefield at the late election, but he would appeal to the House whether there were sufficient grounds for the inquiry for which the hon. Gentleman had moved. This, he believed, was the first instance in which any charge of any description had been made with regard to the borough of Wakefield. He happened to reside in the neighbourhood, and he knew that hitherto the elections had been conducted with great purity, and he believed he was justified in saying that there was a unanimous desire on the part of both the political sections in the town and on the part of men of all classes that another election should immediately take place. His reason for saying this was that at the present moment there was considerable political excitement in the town, occasioned not so much by the late election as by the party feeling that had sprung up since the Select Committee inquired into the late election. It would be a great misfortune to the town if that state of feeling were allowed to exist throughout the recess. If any advantage could be obtained by the Commission which the hon. Member had moved for, he would at once assent to his Motion; but there was no instance on record of such Commissions having been of any service at all. In this case some more instances of bribery might probably be ascertained by a Commission, but their ascertainment would create a great deal of bad feeling and acrimony in the town. He would admit the justice of the Select Committee's decision, but he hoped that no such step would be taken against the borough as the hon. Member had suggested, inasmuch as it was not the case of a borough lying under the charge of electoral corruption on former occasions.

said, the evidence taken before a Select Committee was no test of the extent to which bribery had prevailed at an election, and the circumstances detailed by the hon. Member showed the necessity of an inquiry by a Commission in this case. If a Commission were not appointed, the country would expect that at least the Committee would continue the inquiry they had begun. But that mode of inquiry would impose too great a burden on hon. Members, and considerable expense would be incurred in bringing witnesses up to London. He therefore cordially supported the Motion for a Commission.

said, that he opposed the Motion not on the grounds stated by the hon. and gallant Colonel, but on the ground that Commissions were always jobs. He never knew an instance in which a Commission such as had been moved for was appointed that some lawyers were not enabled to make a grand job of it. For instance, a short time ago there was a Commission to inquire into certain acts of bribery which were alleged to have been committed in Galway, and what had been the result? The Commission reported, but no further step was taken. A writ was moved for Galway, and Galway, he supposed, had been entirely cleared of bribery. Why should not those who had been proved to have bribed voters at the late election at Wakefield, as well as those voters themselves, be prosecuted, as had been recommended in the case of the Beverley election? Wakefield, said the hon. and gallant Colonel, hitherto had been perfectly pure. Wakefield, no doubt, was pure till it was found out, but now that it had been found out he hoped that the bribers and the bribed would be prosecuted. He protested against putting the country to the expense of a Commission.

said, one of the objections of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was that nothing followed from the appointment of a Commission in the case of Galway. But although nothing was done in that case, the facts elicited by that Commission would probably have great effect in the discussion of the forthcoming Reform Bill next Session. In this case of Wakefield the fact that sums of £40 and £50 had been paid to voters, who, however, in every case voted against the man from whom they took the money, showed clearly that there must have been very strong reasons indeed to have influenced them thus to vote. He had sat upon the Committee. and although their inquiry had been a short one it was their unanimous opinion that there was the strongest ground for issuing a Commission.

brought up the Report of the Committee on packet and telegraphic contracts, and moved that it be printed with the evidence.

said, this was a Report of very considerable interest, and he thought that, instead of the Motion that it he printed with the evidence, it would be advisable to print it separately, so that it might very shortly be in the hands of hon. Members. If the two were printed together, they would have to wait a month or six weeks before they could look over the Report.

said, the Report was founded on the evidence, and would he of little use without it.

said, it would be departing from the usual custom to print the Report and the evidence separately.

said, the usual course was that the Chairman of the Committee who brought up the Report moved that it and the evidence be printed, and they were consequently printed together. But if any alteration of that course were made it could only be by the desire of the House or of the Chairman who brought up the Report.