said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Convention recently concluded between Her Majesty and the Republic of Guatemala relative to the Boundary of British Honduras, to state out of what fund it is intended to defray the expenses of the proposed Survey, and the cost of constructing the Road to connect the capital of Guatemala with the Atlantic coast.

Sir, in answer to my hon. Friend I have to state that it was justly considered very important by Lord Malmesbury that the boundary between the British territory and the Republic of Guatemala should be thoroughly defined, and, accordingly, instructions were given to Mr. Wyke to negotiate for the settlement of that boundary. Mr. Wyke succeeded in that negotiation, but it was found that the Government of Guatemala were very desirous to have some assistance towards surveying the country for the purpose of making a road, that road being entirely in the district within the boundary of the Republic of Guatemala According to the Convention between the two countries it was agreed that officers should be sent out for the purpose of marking out the boundary of our colony, and at the same time surveying the country for the purpose of making this road. The expense of the survey by the officer sent out, and six others who accompanied him, will be borne by the British Government. It is supposed that the operations in which they are engaged will take about eighteen or twenty months; and with regard to any further expenses beyond the survey they will be defrayed by the Government of Guatemala. The whole of the expenses of the construction of the road will be borne by the Government of Guatemala, it not being intended that the British Government should be at any expense for that purpose.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether any measure will be introduced in the present Session to amend so much of the Act 22nd and 23rd Vict. c. 35, as related to investments by Trustees in East India Stock?

said, that the section of the Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred was introduced into a Bill that came down from the other House. It had, however, from the construction put upon it by the Courts been reduced to a dead letter. Lord St. Leonards, the author of the Bill, had introduced another measure into the House of Lords, and the probability was that it would come down to that House, and that hon. Members would then have an opportunity of discussing the subject.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure during the present Session for the regulation of Fairs and Markets in Ireland, and if so, whether such measure will be introduced upon an early opportunity?

said, that the subject had been considered by the Government, and he should be glad when the state of public business gave him an opportunity of bringing in a measure. He was not, however, at present able to say at what time of the Session he could introduce the Bill.

Sir, I wish to make an inquiry of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in reference to the rumoured annexation of the Duchy of Savoy and the County of Nice to the Empire of France. The Chief Minister of the Crown, in "another place" has stated that Her Majesty's Government have made a communication of their opinion on the subject of this annexation to the French Government. I wish to know whether this communication will he found among those Italian papers which have been promised, and which we await with great interest, and if not, whether the noble Lord will have any objection to lay it upon the Table?

Sir, the communication to which my noble Friend referred in "another place" was made in July last, and arose from a communication which the British Ambassador at Paris had received from our Minister in Switzerland, in which some alarm was expressed on the subject. As to the production of these papers, I would rather take a day or two to consider whether it can be done without inconvenience to the public service.

said, he would beg to ask the noble Viscount at the head of the Government Whether, considering the very important matters now pressing upon the attention of the Board of Works, it would be convenient for the Government to fill up the office of First Commissioner of Works, vacant by the death of Mr. FitzRoy, without delay.

Sir, it is the intention of the Government to fill up the appointment, and I trust to be able to do so very soon. In the meantime, if there are any matters of pressing importance to be disposed of, I apprehend the ex officio Commissioners ought, for purpose of that sort, to be competent to act; but I have not heard that there are any such matters to be attended to, or that any inconvenience has been caused by the temporary vacancy in the office.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department with respect to the lamentable proceedings which had taken place in the parish church of St. George's-in-the-East. The Question he had to ask of the right hon. Gentleman was, Whether Her Majesty's Government intended to introduce any measure for the relief of parishioners, in cases similar to that which had arisen in the parish of St. George's-in-the East? and whether he was taking, or intending to take, any steps for the purpose of enabling the parishioners in that unfortunate district to attend Divine service in their own parish church?

Perhaps the House may wish to know precisely the steps that have been taken with regard to the church of St. George's-in-the-East. That church was closed for Divine service for some time during the summer and autumn. Upon its re-opening application was made by the Rev. Bryan King, the clergyman, to myself and Sir Richard Mayne for protection, in the event of any disturbances taking place within the church. After a full consideration of the law on the subject, I found that there were considerable difficulties in the way of the interference of a police-constable in the case of any noise or disturbance within a church, not amounting to a breach of the peace. The law of brawling in a house of prayer is altogether inapplicable to such cases, and, being merely a remedy to be enforced by a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, arms the police with no authority whatever. There are other modes, defined by the Act of Uniformity, whereby any person who disturbs a church can he summoned before a magistrate; but neither does that enable a police constable to interfere summarily in the matter. After full consideration we found that there was an Act of Philip and Mary more or less applicable to the subject; but I must admit there is considerable difficulty in interpreting the statute law in regard to this class of offences, because it is one, fortunately, which has been so extremely rare that it has not of late years been made the subject of distinct enactment. Under these circumstances, after a conference with the clergyman and churchwardens, I agreed to authorize the stationing of a body of police, in their uniform, inside the church during Divine service, and the churchwardens undertook to assign places to them. The police, accordingly, attended on successive Sundays, and to a certain extentsuc-ceeded in preventing any open disturbance or breach of order during the services. At the same time, I am bound to admit that, owing to the state of the law, very scandalous interruptions of Divine worship took place, notwithstanding the presence of the police. At the end of the year Sir Richard Mayne represented to me that it was impossible permanently to continue the system of guarding any of the metropolitan churches by a body of police, and that at the beginning of the new year some change in the practice should take place. I therefore sanctioned the withdrawal of the police, who had been stationed in the church for six successive Sundays. I regret to say that the presence of the police has had no lasting effect, and that on their withdrawal the disturbances have been greater than previously. Yesterday, after the termination of the evening service, which is one in which certain rites and ceremonies are introduced by the Rev. Bryan King, which appear to be very distasteful to the parishioners, a very decided exhibition of disapprobation took place, which ended in a riot and tumult. I should have stated that when the police were withdrawn from the interior of the church, a large body of them were constantly stationed ill the vicinity during Divine service, so as to be within call in the event of any open breach of the peace. As soon, therefore, as the riot broke out yesterday evening, intelligence was conveyed to the Inspector, who at once entered the church with a strong force of police, put an end to the riot, and cleared the church; and I believe that no further breach of the peace took place. I have to-day had an interview with Sir Richard Mayne, who has learned from Mr. Bryan King the plan which that gentleman proposes for the maintenance of order on Sunday next. That plan has been acceded to, and is that a body of police should be stationed outside of the church, and that persons who appear to be entering it with the intention and design previously conceived of creating a disturbance during Divine worship, should not be admitted into the church. I confess I am not aware of any other means of preventing a breach of the peace during the services; and I think the House must sec that these interruptions are, to say the least, of a most unseemly and scandalous nature. I make no remarks upon the religious opinions or sentiments which may be involved in the controversy. I look at the question simply as one concerning the maintenance of the public peace; and I conceive I should be wanting in my duty if I did not take some steps to prevent the recurrence of such disturbances as occurred yesterday at the evening service. In reply to the question of the hon. Member, I have to say that it is not the intention of the Government at present to introduce any measure with the view of meeting such cases as that of St. Georgo's-in-the-East; but we will, of course, be quite ready to Consider any measure which any Gentleman may think appropriate to the subject. I may state thus much—that it appears to me that no remedy would be effectual in this or similar cases which merely provided for the removal of the clergyman on the ground of heresy. I do not understand that any of the doctrines promulgated by the Rev. Bryan King or any of his curates are heretical or contrary to the Articles or canons of the Church of England. What is objected to is the ceremonial which he has introduced, upon his own discretion, in the Divine service as performed in his own church; and it is not denied that an incumbent has a discretion in such matters. If the Legislature thought fit to deprive the incumbent of all discretion, and to give the Bishop the absolute power of prescribing rites and ceremonies which are in themselves indifferent and not defined by the Articles of the Church, and if the incumbent were obliged to yield to such authority, I think that would afford, practically, a complete remedy for such cases; because it seems to me very improbable that the unfortunate want of discretion and judgment that appears to distinguish some of our parochial clergymen, would be found upon the Episcopal Bench; and therefore I should look with great confidence to the success of a remedy which was left to the discretion of the Bishops. I may add that, personally, I am of opinion that great advantage might arise if power were given to the Crown by an order in council, upon proper ecclesiastical advice, to modify the rubrics of the Common Prayer-book. That is a subject, however, which is much litigated at the present moment, and which requires great consideration. In saying so, therefore, I merely express my own individual opinion, on which I have no intention of acting, and which I mention only as part of the difficulties of this question.

said, he rose to second the Motion. The people of England had borne this nuisance long enough. The fact of Protestant clergymen receiving their income from Protestant sources, and having in their hearts inclinations towards the Church of Rome, had tried the public patience long enough. This was a very grave question. It affected more than members of the Church of England, because, if some remedy were not devised, the people of England would take the law into their own hands; and then the clergy would hear of it in a form not very agreeable to themselves. The Nonconformists agreed in doctrine more than the members of the Church of England; there was not, in fact, more dissension between the different Nonconformist bodies than existed in the Church of England. Was there a member of the Church of Scotland who was not interested in the question? It was therefore high time that the Government took the matter into their own hands. If the Church of England was so crazy and so infirm that if a single brick were taken out of the edifice the whole would come down? If that were the state of the Church, the sooner the people of England knew it the better. He thought the Government had too long trifled with this subject. In former times people had made fortunes and been enobled by pandering to Church power; but it would be a bad speculation nowadays to attempt to make political capital out of the Establishment. But public opinion was rising—it had risen, and at present the Nonconformists outnumbered the members of the Church of England. ["No, no."] He said Yes. Such was the dissatisfaction which was felt with the Church of England, that, as was proved on Census Sunday, the number of Nonconformist worshippers was greater than those belonging to the Church. Look at the number of members of the Church compared with the population of the United Kingdom—what was their proportion? Not one-third of the whole country. But without counting numbers, he believed that the Protestant feeling of the country was sound, and every attempt to carry them over the line, and land them in the Church of Rome, he was confident, would fail. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might try to bolster up the Church as much as possible, but they would fail in so doing unless by a reform of the Church of England such as no Government had yet ventured to attempt.

rose to ask a question, of which he had given notice to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which was a matter of great interest to the whole commercial world—he alluded to the anticipated changes in the French tariff and in our commercial intercourse with the French nation. If there was any time more convenient than another at which these changes could be brought into operation it was at the present time; for the House was probably aware that the first week in February was the time when the buyers proceeded to lay in their stocks of French goods. The Question he wanted to put was, whether these changes in the tariff would accompany the financial statement which the right hon. Gentleman was about to make on Monday next, or in any other form? and whether these changes would take effect, as was usually the case, as soon as the Resolutions were passed by the Committee.

As I intimated with a less degree of certainty upon a former occasion, I now beg to say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the financial siatement for the year shall be made on Monday next. The ratification of the treaty of commerce with France, we have reason to believe, will be exchanged within the next few days. The House of Commons, we presume, would not wish to entertain the subjects which that treaty opens without likewise being made acquainted simultaneously with the whole proposals of the Government with regard to the financial year. On Monday next, therefore, it will be my duty to submit the whole proposals of the Government, including such as are related to the commercial treaty with France. I am well aware, as has been stated by the hon, Member, that this is a season of the year which is a critical one with respect to many branches of trade, and that it is of extreme importance that when the announcements are made the decision of the House should be taken at the earliest possible moment. It is, therefore, the desire of the Government, if they are permitted to do so by the House, to ask the House, after hearing the statement I shall make on Monday next, to proceed with the consideration of the subjects on the following Thursday; for, if we trusted only to that portion of Friday which by present practice of the House is left for purely public business, I am afraid the progress would be so slow as to be unsatisfactory to the British public. Of course, that is a matter upon which we shall be entirely in the hands of the House. I make the proposal now, in order that hon. Members may have an opportunity of considering its fairness; and if we find that its justice commends itself to other minds, as it does to ours, it will be necessary for me to move that Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion on Thursday week. With regard to the time when the projected changes will come into operation, I think I have stated as much as is within my duty to state. On Monday next it will be my duty and study fully and clearly to explain to the House the whole of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government.

Will copies of the treaty be in the hands of Members before the statement on Monday?

It will not be practicable to present the treaty to the House before Monday next; but I do not think the treaty will be so complex as not to be possible to convey in a general outline the principal subjects upon which it touches. I beg it will be understood that the Committee of the Whole House will not be asked to vote upon any subject of great importance—although there may be some minor matters which they may dispose of—without full notice and opportunity of consideration. I may add that it is my intention to propose a Committee of the Whole House on the Customs' Acts, that certain Resolutions maybe moved which these changes will render necessary.

said, that the subject had been often under the consideration of the House, and therefore a short statement only would be necessary of the provisions of the Bill. As the House had been often told, the annuity tax was a rate amounting to 4¼ per cent upon the rental of houses within a certain limited area of the city of Edinburgh, and which was laid upon the occupiers of those houses, the proceeds being applied to the support of eighteen Ministers of the Established Church within the city. He must also explain that the congregations covered a much larger area than the districts taxed; nor did the tax extend to all the occupiers, inasmuch as there was a special exemption of a large and wealthy class, consisting of members of the College of Justice—that was to say, the judges, barristers, and solicitors. Without entering into the question whether the principle of this taxation were right or wrong, no one could deny that it was very unjust in the mode of its imposition. Several plans for modifying it had been introduced into the House, and he would now proceed to state in what way he proposed to make a new attempt in the same direction. His hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) in the last Session and in the Session previous to that, had introduced a measure which on both occasions bad received the assent of the House on the second reading. By the provisions of those Bills the ministers of Edinburgh would be preserved in their existing interests; but when the present ministers were all dead, when the last vacancy occurred, the future ministers of Edinburgh would be dependent on seat-rents, church-door collections, and a sum of £2,000 which was drawn from the Exchequer, being part of a rent-charge levied from the docks of Leith. The principle of that proposal—the final abolition of this impost—had twice received the sanction of the House. Therefore the question was not now as to the continuance of the tax or its abolition, but upon what terms and conditions it should be abolished. The measure he was about to introduce was essentially different from the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh last Session, because the plan of the hon. Gentleman of a tax of 4¼ per cent was to be levied to pay the existing stipendiaries. An approximate calculation had been made of the amount which would have to be paid by the citizens of Edinburgh if the principle of maintaining the tax during the continuance of vested interests were acted on. Taking the assumed ages of the present incumbents as a basis, it had been estimated that for the first fifteen years a payment of £3 7s. 4d. per cent would be annually required from the citizens of Edinburgh; and that for a further period of sixteen years—making thirty-one years in all—there would be a total sum paid which would be equivalent to £63,000. Thus it was evident that the Bill of his hon. Friend would not, if adopted, have had the effect of extinguishing this burden for a considerable period. Within the present year two contingencies, which were not foreseen at the time the calculation was made, had taken place—one of these ministers having been appointed to a professorship, and a second translated to another benefice. Such contingencies might, of course, occur hereafter, but they were chances that could not be taken into calculation. With regard to the Bill of his hon. Friend for the total abolition of the tax he would offer no opinion whatever; but it was impossible not to see that the proposal, which to a great extent left the clergy dependent on voluntary contributions, would meet with very strenuous opposition, and that it was doubtful whether it would obtain the consent of both Houses of Parliament. The issue of a contest with the House of Lords might, as in other instances, prove successful, but a number of years would first be spent in the struggle; and, believing that the time and money requisite for that purpose might be more economically employed, he was about to make a proposition which would give immediate relief to the inhabitants of Edinburgh, which would completely extinguish the tax within a limited period, and which would also provide in its stead a just and equitable substitute to the ministers of that city. Some of the sources from which it had been proposed in former years to derive this substitute were no longer available. A law-suit had arisen with respect to the right of the Town-Council to dispose of the sum paid by the railway company for the site of Trinity College Church, which it had been proposed by a Parliamentary Committee that sat in 1851 to apply in aid of the extinction of this tax, but in consequence of the suit that bad arisen this fund was no longer available. There was also a sum payable to the Deans of the Chapel Royal, which it had been proposed to apply to this purpose; but these funds also were now beyond reach, the University Commissioners having recommended that they should be applied to increasing the number and efficiency of the Divinity Chairs in the University of Scotland. The third source was Government money; but he was happy to say he did not propose to have recourse to that. His proposition was one by which the citizens of Edinburgh would be enabled to redeem the tax. At all events, it contained the materials for an amicable settlement of the question. Great scandal resulted from the present mode of collecting the tax. The other day there was a trial for resisting the officers in the execution of these warrants, in which the prosecutor failed to get a verdict; and it was most desirable that the question should be settled. At present the ministers were eighteen in number. Three of the churches were collegiate. It appeared to him that they were not bound to provide for the second charges in those collegiate churches. He did not propose to abolish any of them; but, in providing a substitute for the annuity tax, and providing for existing interests, he did not think that it would be necessary to provide for those second interests; and that opinion was shared by many members of the Established Church. That would leave fifteen ministers—a larger proportion for Edinburgh than was provided for in other towns. He thought it too much. He wished to say nothing invidious against the Established Church, but still his measure was a practical one. In 1837, when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners reported, the attendance at the Established Churches of Edinburgh was very nearly equal to the aggregate of all other denominations put together. In 1843 there was an unfortunate disruption in the Church, and in the Census of 1851, by taking the attendance on a Sunday fixed by the Commissioners, it was found that of 48,000 attendants on Divine service in the mornings, about 8,000 only belonged to the Established Church; showing that the attendance had greatly fallen off. The seat-rents would also show the falling off in the attendance in the Established Church within the last twenty years. The seat-rents in the five years from 1832–37 amounted to £5,835; in the five years from 1853–58 they yielded only £3,235. The surplus derived from that source in the former period was £3,400 against £1,600 in the latter. He had no wish to pare down the revenues of the Established Church in proportion to the number of attendants, but it should be remembered that they were dealing with a question of an equitable adjustment. In the Old Church, Edinburgh, there were only forty-seven seats let, and 641 unlet—and the ordinary attendance was certainly not 200. Of the forty-seven seats let only one was let to a parishioner. The Old Church was under the roof of the High Church, and the High Church was a collegiate church. The Tolbooth Church had only fourteen seats let, against 634 unlet. He did not propose to abolish either of these. The present incumbents would retain the right to share in the annuity tax or in the substitute which by this Bill he was going to propose, as long as they lived; but they were not bound to make provision for future incumbents of those two churches. The Old Church was vacant at present, and he proposed that the minister to be appointed should not have the right to share in the annuity tax, He should therefore give power to the Commissioners to be appointed by this Bill to nominate one of the ministers in the Collegiate Church to the Old Church. His proposal was to the following effect:—An Ecclesiastical Commission to be appointed under the Bill; three members to be appointed by the Presbytery, two by the Town Council, one by the Faculty of Advocates, and one by the Society of Writers to the Signet. To those Commissioners would be transferred the property in the churches, the right to the seat-rents, and all liability for repairs. The seat-rents, now amounting to £1,600 a year, would be collected by them; it was quite certain the amount was far below what it ought to be; in all probability there would be an increase of about £60 a year. It was proposed that that fund of £1,600 a year should be accumulated for fifteen years at 3½ per cent interest, and supposing the fund to increase at the rate of £60 a year, the whole amount would be £33,600 at the end of that time. Then there was a sum of £2,000 a year paid from the Exchequer—part of a rent charge derivable from the docks at Leith. It had been said that, if the annuity tax were abolished, this charge ought to be remitted; but he saw no sound reason for doing that, and proposed that it should be continued. He would allow it to accumulate in the same way for fifteen years at 3½per cent interest, and the amount of the two funds at the end of that period would be about £80,000. He proposed that at the expiration of fifteen years the annuity tax should be abolished altogether, but that there should be laid on by the Town Council during that fifteen years an assessment of from 8d. to 10d. in the pound. The latter was lower than the present rate. A rate of 8d., if levied on the present police assessment, along with the police rate, and paid by all occupiers, would give a surplus produce in the year of £1,520, after paying the stipends of the ministers now chargeable on the fund. This annual surplus, accumulated in (he way he had described, would yield, at the end of fifteen years, a sum of £34,000 or £35,000. Then he proposed that the exemption in favour of the lawyers should be abolished—an exemption which ought never to have existed. If the lowest amount of rate were taken—8d. in the pound—the capital accumulated at the end of fifteen years would amount to £106,000. If 10d., the highest rate, were exacted (and that was lower than the existing rate), the capital would amount to no less than £160,000. That, however, would be more than sufficient; and what he proposed to do was either to take the sum to be collected at £120,000, or the sum to be furnished by the town at £42,000—the two things would be very nearly the same—and the result would be that at the expiration of fifteen years there would be an annual income to the ministers of the interest of £120,000, at 3½ per cent.—£4,200. There would be in addition£2,500 from the seat-rents, and £2,000 the rent-charge on the Leith docks—giving £8,700 a year. To give £600 a year to thir- teen ministers, £7,800 was all that was necessary, and there would still remain a balance in the hands of the Commissioners applicable to expenses. The plan would have this advantage; it would put an end to the tax altogether at the end of fifteen years, unless it should be found that the assessment on the town had not yielded £42,000; but he thought this was sure to be realized. He had made no allowance for the increase of the town, nor for a higher rate of interest than 3½ per cent being obtained on the accumulations. This proposal would not lay a greater burden on the ratepayers than the proposition made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Black) last year; for 8d. in the pound was only £3 6s. 8d. per cent, instead of £3 7s. 4d., and the whole amount of £60,000, payable on the other scheme, would be saved. He certainly did not expect that this measure would satisfy general or abstract views entertained by some on this troublesome question; but at all events it afforded a means of extrication. If the ratepayers considered the rate too heavy they might reduce it by spreading it over a greater number of years—over twenty, instead of fifteen; on the other hand, if they thought it desirable to terminate the tax sooner, they could do it by making the rate 10d. instead of 8d. It had been suggested before, and again to him on that occasion, that the salaries of the ministers might be reduced from £600 to £500, or £550. If the members of the Established Church thought that a more desirable plan, and proposed that reduction in order to maintain the two churches, he had no objection. But he had not made the proposal, because he thought it infinitely better for the Church that thirteen clergymen should be fully paid, though they had to extend their strength over a larger surface. The hon. and learned Gentleman then moved a Resolution.

"That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the Annuity Tax in Edinburgh, and to make provision in regard to the Stipends of the Clergy in that City."

said, that a measure such as that which the learned Lord sketched out, the object of which was to effect the settlement of a question which had excited much bitterness of feeling, was entitled to be received with the utmost respect, and being of that opinion, he for one did not rise to offer any opposition to its introduction. He wished how- ever, to make a few observations. He was, he might say, in the first place, glad to find that the learned Lord in framing the measure had proceeded on a different principle from that which characterized former measures which had been introduced to the House on the same subject. He had recognized the principle that it was the duty of the State to support the Established Church of the country, as well as the obligation which lay upon the people of Edinburgh to provide for the payment of the ministers of the Established Church in that city, the learned Lord had, however, in dealing with that subject passed over very lightly the history of the tax; nor would he (Sir James Fergusson) enter further in the points than simply to state that it was a tax which had been levied on a portion of the inhabitants of Edinburgh for a period of nearly two centuries and a half, and was originally the result of a compromise by which considerable advantages had been secured to the town itself by the voluntary cession of certain lands which had been formerly the property of the Church. The city of Edinburgh, which had so much benefited by that compromise, had the obligation imposed upon it to maintain the clergy of the Established Church within its confines; nor could he understand why they should be left dependant on voluntary support any more than other clergymen of the same communion whose stipends were paid out of the land of the country. The learned Lord, however, he was glad to find, did not propose to take that course, one of the main features of his scheme being to provide a substitute for a charge the complainants against which he (Sir James Fergusson) could not help thinking often had recourse to it as furnishing a sort of cheap martyrdom, and which was a charge, moreover, subject to which every individual who paid it entered upon the occupation of his house. But although it afforded him satisfaction to perceive that the learned Lord did not propose to leave the clergy belonging to the Established Church in Edinburgh dependant upon voluntary contributions, he thought there were one or two objections to the measure which might affect the progress of it. He must confess it appeared to him rather hard that no less than five of the Ministers of the Church in Edinburgh were to be swept away, under the operation of the Bill, and swept away too at a moment when the sphere of their duties was becoming rapidly extended. It had been found necessary to build new churches to meet the spiritual wants of the population, and it seemed to be very inconsistent to introduce at the same time a measure reducing the number of the ministers of the Church. There was, however, another feature of the measure which was even still more objectionable, and that was the proposal to perpetuate the imposition of seat-rents. Those rents were the property of the Corporation of Edinburgh, conferred, he believed, by Act of Parliament when that city was nearly bankrupt, and were so very high as to exclude from many of the churches in Edinburgh the great mass of the poorer classes resident in that city. He might add, that the Established Church was very anxious to reduce rents which so operated, but that it was unable to do so in consequence of their being the property of the Corporation, with whom he trusted the hon. and learned Lord would have no difficulty in coming to some satisfactory arrangement on the subject. If it were really the object of the Corporation to maintain an Established Church it should be one of their first objects to provide accommodation for the poorer classes. In conclusion, he should merely express a hope that the members of the Church of England would not fail to perceive that any attack made upon the property of the Established Church in Scotland tended equally to the prejudice of their own, and that they would, therefore, lend their aid to render this measure as little injurious as possible to its interests.

said, he should not resist the introduction of the Bill which proposed to deal with a tax which was of the most obnoxious character; but he thought he had seen other schemes much preferable to this,—indeed he thought that the scheme of the hon. and learned Lord was far from an improvement upon that which he himself had last year submitted to the House. He was, for instance, by no means satisfied with that portion of the Bill which provided for the continuance of the tax for a period of fifteen years and which virtually amounted to its imposition upon those by whom it was at present paid during the remainder of their lives. His opinion was that the people of Edinburgh would not be willing to bear it. He was himself willing to bear his proportion; he was so anxious to see an accommodation of so vexatious a question that he had supported almost every proposition that had been made for its settlement, and would submit to almost any personal inconvenience to get rid of it. The opposition to its settlement had been most injurious to the cause of religion. It had been said how beautiful upon the mountains were the feet of them who published peace, but the ministers of Edinburgh, who called themselves ministers of peace, sent messengers with manacles in their hands for the purpose of handcuffing and carrying to jail respectable men who refused to pay for their support. He thought it unjust that the present generation of the citizens of Edinburgh should bear the whole burden of the measure proposed by the hon. and learned Lord. He doubted, indeed, whether the inhabitants of Edinburgh in general would submit to it. He thought his own scheme—for which, perhaps, he felt the fondness of a parent—preferable. No doubt, some of the town ministers were very long-lived; but suppose a few of them should live to a very great age, yet, when the greater bulk had come under the new arrangement, the few that remained might be expected also to concur. The hon. Member who spoke last talked of what the city of Edinburgh got by the agreement to pay this tax; this only showed that he was utterly unacquainted with the history of this impost. If his argument had been based on a knowledge of facts he would not have made the statements he had done. In fact, the city got nothing for it. It was that religious Monarch, Charles II., who recommended it, and they all knew what was the value of such recommendations in the days of the Stuarts. The hon. Gentleman had also talked about seat-rents, and that seats ought to be free to the poor; but this was mere religious sentimentalism; the churches in Edinburgh were half empty, and the poor were quite welcome to sittings, but the poor would not attend the church if they were charged no seat-rents at all. There could be no doubt that for some time the Established Church in Edinburgh had been sinking. This very tax acted as a wet blanket, and was, to a great extent, the cause of the popular dislike to it, leading! them to regard the institution, not as one for promoting their welfare, but actually doing them an injury. It was impossible to believe that the Established Church in Edinburgh could prosper under such a system. The Bill he proposed did not interfere with the number of the clergy. He did not care what was the number; they might be fifty, provided those who appointed them paid for them. He thought the plan of the hon, and learned Lord would have a more injurious influence on the Established Church than that introduced by him last year. That would have given new life and energy to the Church, because it provided the clergy should be paid according to the talents and vigour displayed. He saw no reason why a man of talent, who paid great attention to his parish, and who was beloved by his people, should not have a higher income than a drone who cared nothing about his parish; hut by the plan now proposed the drones and the working tees would be paid alike. He had no idea of such a system. It was quite possible some modification might be made in the measure so as to render it more agreeable to the inhabitants of Edinburgh, and more useful to the Church; he would vote for the Resolution and see what shape it took in its progress through the House.

thought, if the Bill had proposed the abolition of the tax on the shipping interests in Leith, which dated from the time of Charles II., for the support of the established clergy of Edinburgh, it would have given more satisfaction. If the inhabitants of Edinburgh complained of the Annuity-tax, much more cause of complaint had his constituents, who were saddled with an onerous burden for supporting a clergy from whom they received no benefit whatever. The tax affected the shipping interest of the whole country. A ship coming from Liverpool to Leith, for instance, had to pay a specified sum for the support of the Established Church of Edinburgh. It would be much more to the honour and credit of the citizens of Edinburgh if they would maintain their own institutions. At a future stage of the measure he should object to that part of the Bill which affected the town of Leith, and hoped he should receive the support of the House.

thought the proposal unobjectionable, in so far as the new tax was less than that now in force; but with reference to the appropriation of the seat-rents considerable objections were stated by the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Sir J. Fergusson) and he, for one, also objected to the reduction of the number of Ministers from eighteen to fifteen. It would depend much on the details of the Bill whether he could give it his support, but no doubt there would be every disposition to have the matter settled.

wished to know whether the Lord Advocate meant the Ecclesiastical Commission to be a paid Commission; if so, from what source would their salaries be taken? Of course, if they were drawn from the Annuity Fund it would pro tanto be reduced.

said, he proposed that the Commission should be unpaid. He might take this opportunity of supplying an omission in his former statement. The seat-rents, to the extent of £300 a year, formed part of the ordinary revenue of the city of Edinburgh, and it would be necessary to provide a substitute by a rate to that extent, to be levied as a police-rate over the whole community.

Sir, the House are doubtless aware that when the Municipal Corporation Bill passed, an exception was made of the Corporation of the City of London. That exception was mainly founded upon the generally popular character of the municipal government of that body. Before the Municipal Act was introduced a very large number of the corporations of England were practically close; the governing body was confined and limited in its character, and frequently the vacancies which occurred were filled up by self-election. The main object of the Municipal Act was to popularize the constitution of the corporations of the country; but the Common-council of the City of London being already a popular body, and having in former times exercised a great influence for strengthening the popular party in this country, it was not thought necessary to include that corporation in the general Municipal Act. A separate Report was afterwards made with respect to the institutions of the City of London; and a few years ago it was found, after the reform which the other corporations had undergone, that that which had at one time been regarded as the model corporation of the country would not bear a favourable comparison with the bodies included in the Municipal Act. Accordingly a Commission, of which I had the honour to be a member, was issued to inquire into the Corporation of the City of London. That Commission made a Report, and a Bill was subsequently introduced into this House, founded on the Report of the Commissioners. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, who went through all its clauses, and reported it to the House with Amendments. The measure which I now seek to submit to the notice of the House is substantially the measure which was reported by that Select Committee, and may, therefore, be deemed the result of the recommendations of the Commission, revised by a Select Committee of this House. The Bill so framed is limited to the constitution of the Corporation and to certain duties of its officers. It does not include the financial part of the question—namely, the coal duties, the metage dues, or the fees on brokers, which are all omitted from the operation of the measure. I think it not improbable that in the course of the Session I may have to call the attention of the House to the subject of the coal duties—which will expire, or at least a portion of them, at a not very distant date—as well as to other points connected with them which require consideration by this House. That question I however reserve to a future opportunity, and at present I merely ask for leave to introduce the Bill the object of which I have generally described. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better Regulation of the Corporation of the City of London.

said, he did not intend to oppose the Motion, but must express his regret that the Government, having had ample time to consider that important subject, should have arrived at so feeble a result. The question of the City Corporation had engaged the attention of the House and of the metropolis for many years past, and he did not complain of the extreme candour of the right hon. Gentleman in giving the true reason for the maintenance of that particular municipality. No doubt it had for a long period strenuously supported Liberal principles. When reform began to be applied to the other corporations of England, it saw the necessity of allying itself strictly with the Liberal party in the House of Commons; and from that time to this it had pursued that exceedingly wise policy to which it owed its immunity from real reform. It was to be doubted, however, whether the service it had rendered to the Liberal party was a sufficient ground for keeping up an institution which had not only ceased to be of practical utility, but was of very serious inconvenience to the metropolis. The right hon. Gentleman had introduced a measure which contained provisions of a very curious character. The House would remember that in the last Session of the late Parliament a memorable discussion took place to determine what should be the proper basis for the elective franchise. The late Government thought it wise and politic to maintain a £10 franchise. The Whig leaders solemnly condemned that as too high a qualification for voters for Members of Parliament; and by a concerted movement—in which they were supported by the entire Liberal party—they contrived on that very question to turn their opponents out of office. Now, however, after a year's deliberation, the Whig Government came down to the House and proposed a £10 franchise for the constituency of this great municipality. One was at a loss to know how to deal with such a Government. When he assisted the present Government last year in ousting their predecessors, he never imagined that they would adhere to a limit for the franchise which they had so solemnly condemned. Surely it would not be said that a higher qualification was required from those who chose the members of a municipal corporation than from those who returned representatives to Parliament. He could discover no reason for retaining such an anomaly, except that that Corporation had attached itself so affectionately to the Whig party that it was absolutely necessary for those who directed the politics of the Liberals to look more to the combinations of City corporators in elections than to the great political principles which they had professed. They must either maintain the Corporation of the City of London as a curiosity and a thing of the past, or place it on a footing consonant with all other municipalities. In its origin it was not, as it had now become, a mere local institution, confined within the ancient walls of London. It was formerly a very remarkable combination of all the freemen engaged in trade in the city in its widest sense, namely, as the whole metropolis. The Corporation was based on the freedom of the City, and that freedom was connected with the freedom of the Livery companies, bodies representing every branch of trade then carried on in the metropolis. No man had a light to take his place in the municipality unless he was free not only of the City but of one of the Livery companies, which were not limited to the City bound- aries. These companies were all united into one Corporation, which was therefore not a mere municipal but a trading institution. The Mayor—an integral part of the Corporation, without whom nothing could be done—was elected entirely by the Livery, and was supposed to represent every branch of trade. It was now proposed, however, to divest the City Corporation of its trading character, and to reduce it within the limits of an ordinary municipal corporation, such as was to be found in any other part of the country. If it was dealt with in that way, it must abandon all its pretensions to represent the trading and commercial classes of the whole metropolis. If maintained, then, at all, its privileges ought to be extended to the entire metropolitan community. They last Session heard a good deal about the inconvenience resulting from the Government not possessing the confidence of the House of Commons; but in this case a Government which professed to enjoy that confidence was bringing forward a measure which was quite unworthy of the attention of the House. The same Government had recently entered into negotiations and concluded a treaty to relieve the manufacturers of Paris from a tax upon coal; but by this measure they proposed to continue a similar tax upon the manufacturers of London and about twenty-one miles round. Was it possible that a mere territorial municipality should be allowed to levy a tax upon the whole metropolis? The right hon. Gentle man, from his experience as a Commissioner appointed to inquire into this subject, knew perfectly well that the Corporation of London had at present no right to levy the smallest tax upon coal, or to levy any other tax whatever upon the metropolis. The coal tax was granted in times past, without any restriction, hut for specific purposes and objects. Those purposes and objects had been fulfilled, and more than fulfilled; and it was now continued for the benefit of the City, at the expense of the rest of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Yet, because the Government did not like to quarrel with the Corporation of the city of London, who were all-influential in the city elections, the interests of the inhabitants of the rest of the metropolis were to he sacrificed, and this tax was to continue to he levied. He hoped that the House would not sanction any such feeble and unsatisfactory legislation. No doubt they would be appealed to to maintain the corporation because it was antiquated, and had in times past been associated with the triumphs of liberalism. Probably the noble Lord the Member for London would tell them that the Corporation was mentioned in Magna Charta, and that when the Barons had signed that document they were so frightened that they ran into the city of London and made themselves secure behind its walls. This, like the story of the 40s. freeholder who said that he had held his freehold since the days of William the Conqueror, was no doubt a very interesting historical fact, but it ought not to be allowed to influence the decision of an important practical question. Some years ago the Legislature established a really useful and practical municipality to conduct the affairs of the inhabitants of the metropolis; and how could it now re-establish by the side of that, a crude and imperfect corporation elected upon quite a different principle? In former days, the Lord Mayor of Loudon was a person of considerable importance; but since the time of Beckford the municipality had been going down in public opinion, its chief offices were no longer sought for as distinctions, and it had become the mere plaything of people of no political importance, and served no useful purpose whatever. There were evils and inconveniences enough with which the right hon. Gentleman might have dealt; and which, if he refused to notice them, would, he hoped, be dealt with by a measure introduced by some independent Member. For instance, great loss and inconvenience arose from different parts of the metropolis being in different counties. For all municipal and legal purposes the metropolis ought to be formed into a single county, having one Recorder, with deputy Recorders for different districts, one nisi prius court, one jury system, and one sheriff; and thereby to secure uniformity of administration, a great relief to the inhabitants, and an impartial administration of justice. To effect such an arrangement would be worthy the exertions of a Secretary of State; but the measure now introduced was so incomplete and imperfect, that he trusted that the House would either send it to a Committee for improvement, or altogether refuse to proceed with it.

said, he thought the Bill so objectionable be should much prefer the postponement of all legislation on the subject to accepting it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), some time ago promised them a Bill on this subject. Now he (Mr. Williams) wished that that right hon. Gentleman would frame a measure, for he confessed he would feel greater confidence in the manner in which he would deal with it than in the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject that evening. It was perfectly well known that if a Lord Mayor did not treat the Common Council well, they held out a direct threat to him that they would not vote him thanks unless he mended his manners. Why should the Aldermen of London be elected for life in contradistinction to those of Manchester, Liverpool, and the other important cities and towns in England, who were elected for only six years. He should not oppose the introduction of the Bill, but if it were the same as that of last Session be hoped it would be dropped by the Government, or very materially altered. Such was the influence of the Corporation of London, arising from their convivial meetings at the Mansion House, that they had evidently triumphed over the good intentions of the Government. It remained for the House of Commons, however, to resist their attractions, and to hand over the municipal affairs of the metropolis to a governing body worthy of the name.

wished to say a few words on behalf of an important portion of the citizens of London. The Livery consisted of from 10,000 to 15,000 persons, a large proportion of whom were men of great influence and of the highest respectability. In the Bill of last Session their existence was entirely ignored, much to the dissatisfaction of the Corporation itself. He hoped the same error would not be committed in the measure about to be introduced. The Livery ought to be retained in their present position.

said, he perfectly agreed with the last speaker that the Livery of London ought not to be forgotten. They were not confined within the walls of the city of London, but were spread throughout the whole metropolis, and his principal objection to the measure proposed to be introduced by the Home Secretary was that it dealt with a comparatively small portion of the metropolis. The Corporation of the City of London had already extended its limits; for a number of wards in the City were composed of districts which from time to time had been taken into and incorporated with the City of London. The Metropolitan Board of Works was intended to be some thing like a corporation for the whole of London, controlling its municipal Government in an essential respect, having the power of levying rates for improvements—a body, too, which he felt bound to say almost everybody disliked. By the fusion of the Metropolitan Board of Works with the Corporation of London an effective body might be constituted. This would be much better than having a second Guildhall in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross, where on the site of Berkeley House they were building a Palace for the Metropolitan Board of Works. If this Bill of the Government passed we should have two kings—the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the Board of Works, with two grand establishments, the expense of which would fall on the inhabitants of the metropolis. Was this expedient? Why not, instead of passing this Bill, pursue the course formerly adopted, and extend and enlarge the Corporation—dividing the metropolis into wards, and making the Lord Mayor and Common Council the body which should govern the whole. To a body thus constituted the affairs of the entire metropolis might fairly be entrusted, and a great deal of unnecessary expense spared to the rate payers; for the funds and machinery of the Corporation were quite sufficient for a largely extended jurisdiction. But it had been said that by so doing we should create an imperium in imperio, and that even the Houses of Parliament and the Queen upon her throne would be obliged to succumb to the Corporation of London—but for these apprehensions there could be no grounds. The exisiting Corporation was powerful because it possessed large funds of its own, amounting to £60,000 a year, with which they could do as they pleased, derived not from rates but from property which it had inherited. But let the Corporation have a taxing power over the whole metropolis, and it would soon be unpopular enough. Devolve upon it the duties which were now performed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, convert it into a taxing body, and while its means of usefulness would be largely increased it would speedily find itself deprived of all that was improper in its influence. The Bill now brought in by the Government was, so far as he knew, totally inconsistent with its professed object, and was unworthy of the consideration of the House of Commons. He hoped to see before long a suitable measure laid before them.

hoped that the Home Secretary would not object to state whether it was intended to legislate in reference to a point of considerable importance, affecting towns in the neighbourhood of London. Certain towns within a radius of twenty miles round London, suffered materially from the coal-tax, and the inhabitants of those towns thought it a hardship to he taxed for metropolitan purposes. The town he represented (Hertford) was involved in this hardship, and a great stretch of authority seemed to be allowed to the Corporation of London, when it was permitted them not only to impose a coal-tax on the metropolitan district, but also to extend the tax to a radius of twenty miles round, thus compelling towns within that distance to subscribe to metropolitan objects. He hoped that the Home Secretary would not afford the Corporation of London any reason for believing that they might continue to impose so unjust a tax.

said, it was quite true that Hertford was interested in the coal-tax, inasmuch as that town was included within the area where the coal duties were levied. The House was aware that the coal duties were made up of three different amounts, which were each disposed of in a different way. The total of these three amounts was 13d. per ton. The 4d. tax which was levied for the benefit of the City of London, the City claimed as its property, putting it on the same footing as the town duties of Liverpool and other municipal taxes, which, as the House would remember, were made the subject of discussion two or three Sessions ago. Whatever opinion might be formed by hon. Members on the matter, the City claimed that portion of the coal duties as part of the income of the City, which it had a right to appropriate to its own uses, and that portion was charged with the repayment of certain capital sums raised for metropolitan improvements and other purposes, which would not be satisfied for some years to come. With respect to the two other portions of the coal-tax, the 8d. and 1d. duties, these were applied not to the purposes of the City. They were collected by the officers of the City, but were paid over to the officers of the Board of Works, and were made applicable to the redemption of certain debts created for general metropolitan improvements. The purpose to which the 1d. duty was applicable was satisfied, and the sums receivable under the 1d. duty were now accumulating at the Bank of England, under the control of the Commis- sioners of Works. The 8d. duty would expire about April in next year. Such was the state of the coal duties, and it would probably be his duty to bring the subject under the attention of the House in the course of the present Session. He should not express any opinion of his own as to the propriety of that tax being levied over a radius of twenty miles; but he might observe that the ground upon which the levy of the coal duties in towns within that radius was vindicated was, that those towns were virtually within the metropolitan district; that their communications with the metropolis were frequent; that the value of the land was greatly enhanced by the vicinity of the metropolis, and that they were interested in the improvement of the roads and streets and other communications of London. He now merely stated the ground on which it was contended that there was an equitable right to levy the coal duties in those towns, but did not offer any opinion of his own as to the sufficiency of that ground.

deprecated this sort of piecemeal legislation, and would much prefer seeing the whole question of civic rights and civic finance placed on a broad and intelligible footing, and dealt with in one comprehensive measure. The present state of things was most anomalous. One day the Court of Common Council sat at Guildhall, another day the Board of Works, both possessing large powers. It would surely be better to have one measure which should deal at the same time with the municipal and electoral Questions. Here was the Government proposing to make the electoral franchise for the Common Council a £10 rating, which at one time, at least, the noble Lord at the head of the Government thought a £5 rating a sufficient qualification to vote for a Member of Parliament. He must designate the Bill of the Government as a paltry Bill, and one unworthy of the subject with which it proposed to deal and of the sanction of the House of Commons.

said, he rose to propose the appointment of a Select Committee—

"To inquire into the manner in which Contracts extending over periods of years from time to time have been formed or modified by Her Majesty's Government with various Steam Packet Companies for the conveyance of Mails by Sea; and likewise into any agreements or other arrangements which have been adopted at the public charge, actual or prospective, for the purposes of telegraphic communications beyond sea, and to report their opinion thereon to the House; together with any Recommendations as to the rules to be observed hereafter by the Government in making Contracts for services which have not yet been sanctioned by Parliament, or which extend over a series of years."

He had little to do beyond proposing to the House the reappointment of the Committee, as the Motion carried with it its own recommendation, and he was not aware that there existed any intention to oppose the Motion. He only wished to say that one reason why he was anxious that the re-appointment of the Committee should take place at an early period was connected with the change which the Government were disposed to make in regard to a department which was henceforward to he considered responsible for what were called the packet estimates. At present, and for a considerable number of years, these packet estimates had been under the charge of the Admiralty; but the Government, after due examination of the matter, considered it desirable to make a change in that respect, and to hand over the principal charge and chief responsibility of them to the Post Office Department, with which they seemed more peculiarly connected. Upon the whole, that would be a more suitable arrangement. The Post Office would, of course, discharge its duty under the control of the Treasury, and in regard to the maritime portion of the duty would be assisted by the marine department of the Board of Trade, with the power of referring to the Admiralty in case of expediency. The Government thought the change desirable for the general advantage of the public service, but, at the same time, it would he proper that the Committee should have the opportunity of taking the subject under view if they thought fit, and delivering any opinion they might deem suitable to the merits of the case. With respect to the notice given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) it was, of course, perfectly open to him to make the present Motion an opportunity for offering any comments on the conduct of the Committee which sat last year. He would not now by anticipation vindicate the conduct of that Committee—first, because he had not been a member of it, and, secondly, because he was not aware of any ground for impeaching its conduct; and, further, because he understood that the proceedings of the Committee, so far as related to the extent of the subject-matters to which attention should be applied, were proceedings unanimously taken by the Committee. He did not mean to say that the Committee were unanimous on all the questions they had to decide upon, but he was not aware of any difference of opinion arising as to their competency to inquire into the matters to which they did apply their attention. If he did not now further notice the subject involved in the notice of the right hon. Baronet, it must not be considered that there was any disposition on the part of the Government to censure the Committee, or to acquiesce in any censure which others might be disposed to pronounce. He would conclude these few observations by placing his Motion in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, leaving the right hon. Baronet to address such remarks to the House as he might think fit. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by Moving the appointment of a Select Committee.

Sir, I rise now, according to the notice which I have given, to submit to the House certain considerations with regard to the manner in which the investigations of this Committee were conducted during the last Session of Parliament, and the manner in which, as it seems to me, it would he desirable they should he conducted during the present year. But, Sir, before I proceed to state those considerations, I wish to clear the ground by saying, that I do not intend on this occasion to enter at all into the evidence which has been printed in the blue-book, nor to touch upon the case of Mr. Churchward, and the contract that was made with him by the late Government for the conveyance of the mails from Dovor to Calais and Dovor to Ostend. The hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Captain Vernon) has given notice of a Resolution on this subject, which he intends to move next week. It is perfectly clear, I think, that a definite issue must be raised upon the report of that Committee, whether or not this House approves of the recommendation it contains that the contract with Mr. Churchward should be violated. It would not be consistent with the rules of Parliament that that issue should be raised on the Motion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made for the reappointment of that Committee. It is, therefore, the intention of my hon. and gallant Friend, if I rightly understand his purpose, to move the Resolution I have mentioned for the purpose of raising that issue. For the same reason I will not touch upon the censure which that Committee have in their report passed upon Mr. Murray. I confess that I have a very strong opinion as to the grounds upon which it is stated that censure proceeded. The evidence on this question is so very much mixed up with the evidence relating to the conduct of Mr. Churchward that I think that if I were to enter into it I should inevitably bring on a highly inconvenient discussion with regard to both matters. I shall, therefore, limit myself to the object which has induced me to give this notice—that object being to raise the question whether the mode in which the examinations were conducted by the Committee and the shape in which they have drawn their report are consistent with a strict regard to justice or Parliamentary usage, but more especially whether it is consistent with the practice of this House in relation to all matters (I think I may speak in these general terms) which involve anything like a charge of personal misconduct. Now, Sir, I wish very much to submit the views I desire to express to the House in the most temperate language. I very much wish not to express and not to excite anything like angry feeling. I think in the discussion of this question last Session (and perhaps it was very natural that it should be so) there was mixed up a good deal of party heat and party acrimony; hut it would be most desirable this year, at all events in this stage of the proceedings, that we should avoid so far as possible reviving any feeling of that sort. Now, I will, in the first place, remind the House of the acknowledged rule—and I believe that there is no rule more generally acknowledged—that our Select Committees are bound to keep themselves within the terms of their order of reference. For a long period this rule was what I may call part of the lex non scripta of this House; but in that very valuable work for which we are all, in my opinion, very much indebted to Mr. Erskine May, one of the clerks at the table, and which I believe is quite accepted as a manual of Parliamentary practice, the necessity of confining Committees to their order of reference is strictly laid down. It becomes, therefore, no longer a lexnon scripta, for Mr. May, in a few precise, strong words, has expressed it to be thus:—

"Like a Committee of the Whole House, a select Committee are restrained from considering matters not specially referred to them by the House. When it is thought necessary to extend their inquiries beyond the order of reference a special instruction from the House gives them authority for that purpose."

Now, I think that every Gentleman, on both sides of the House, will admit that if this be recognized as the law of Parliament in all cases, it is more especially necessary that it should be observed with greater stringency than ever in any case in which it becomes the duty of a Select Committee to investigate any questions touching the honour and character of an individual. Our honour and our character, as I need not state to the House, is the most precious possession that we have. No doubt it becomes our painful duty now and then to entertain in this House charges against the conduct of individuals; hut I am sure that there is not a man on either side of this House who will question the propriety of what I say, when I state broadly my opinion that whenever it becomes our duty to entertain charges of personal misconduct, be they what they may, it behoves us and our Committees to be scrupulously cautious that every such charge is treated with the strictest regard to all the requirements of justice. I will now, with the permission of the House, call its attention to the terms of that part of the order of reference which was to guide this Committee in its inquiries respecting the Mail Packet Contracts; but I shall pass over that which relates to the Telegraph Contracts, because it has nothing to do with the question now before us. It says,

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner in which Contracts extending over periods of years have from time to time been framed or modified by her Majesty's Government, with various Steam Packet Companies for the conveyance of the Mails by sea, together with any recommendation as to the rules to be observed hereafter by the Government in the making Contracts for services which have not yet been sanctioned by Parliament, or which extend over a series of years."

Those are the terms of the order of reference, and having read them I will now read a passage from the report of the Committee, which, I think, seems to show that the conduct of the Committee was not limited so strictly as it ought to have been by the terms of the order:—

"It further appears to your Committee that neither at the Admiralty nor at the Treasury were the officers with whom the decision rested influenced in granting the renewal of the contract by any corrupt or political motive. But your Committee consider that the conduct of Mr. Murray, the private Secretary of the First Lord of the Admiralty, was open to grave censure, but they have not sufficient evidence to show that any member of the Government was cognizant of the communications that took place between Mr. Murray, Mr. Churchward, and Captain Carnegie."

Now, I cannot help very confidently thinking that hardly any Gentleman will rise in his place to tell me that this paragraph in the report is in accordance with the order of reference. I cannot think that any Gentleman will be of opinion that the order of reference justified the Committee in undertaking either to acquit, to convict, or to censure any gentleman for personal misconduct. I certainly did expect, nay, more, I desired and fully expected that this Committee would institute a full and searching inquiry into the principles and the policy upon which these contracts had been made. I further expected that they would investigate and report their opinion upon the wisdom and prudence with which successive Governments may have made these contracts. But, Sir, I did not expect that they would enter into the question of personal corruption or personal misconduct, which, in my opinion, had not been referred to them, and with which, further, I maintain they were not competent to deal. If this Committee had the right or the authority to acquit, why, then, of course they had the right to convict and to censure. Perhaps it may be said that my colleagues and myself ought to be obliged to the Committee for having acquitted us of every charge of corruption. But, Sir, I answer that we were in no sense before them. No charge of political misconduct was preferred, and I maintain that they had not, morally or legally, the right to enter into any such question, nor had they the right to negative such issues as personal misconduct. The right to acquit or to convict involves, as a matter of course, a trial. To have a fair trial two things are essential—namely, a distinct and specific accusation, and a competent tribunal; and I am prepared to maintain that in this case both those elements were wanting. I have heard that in reply to observations of this kind it has been said on behalf of the Committee, "Very true, we had no authority to inquire into misconduct or to try any charge of corruption on the part of individuals, but there was an under- standing in the House that we should enter into these questions." Now I have two answers to that. In the first place I deny the existence of any such understanding. But even if there were the understanding I say further that I protest in the strongest terms against the idea that the conduct of any man—that a charge of corruption or misconduct against any man—can be referred to an incompetent tribunal upon an understanding unless the man is a party to that understanding. Therefore the Committee was not justified in travelling as they did beyond the powers which this House entrusted to them. But, Sir, I am prepared to deny that any such understanding took place, and I rest my denial upon the debates which took place last Session with respect to the appointment and the duties of this Committee. I think that the highest authority to which I can refer is the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who moved for the appointment of the Committee, and I beg to remind him and the House that he rested his Motion solely and exclusively on the ground of public policy. In his speech he referred to several considerations which rendered the appointment of such a Committee desirable. He dwelt upon the great extent to which these contracts had increased; and, if I recollect rightly, upon the question whether a system had not grown up with these contracts which practically had the effect of taking them out of the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. He also dwelt upon another most important question—namely, the policy of granting subsidies with these contracts. Then, after touching upon the increase of the expense which also had arisen, the right hon. Gentleman moved for this Committee, but throughout resting his Motion exclusively upon these important public grounds—amply sufficient, as I think the House will feel, for the Motion he made, but not intimating in any way, that I recollect, that this Committee was to be made the engine of attack or recrimination upon any individual. Well, then, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) also spoke upon that debate. He strongly approved of the appointment of the Committee, and dwelt, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, upon the public grounds by which it was supported. He used the expression that "He did not think it was so much a question whether the making of a particular contract was to be charged as a ground of censure against this or that Government. Other hon. Gentlemen also spoke. Some of the speeches made were of a strong party character. Party feeling, at all events, was strong at that moment. But I think I am justified in saying that the tone of the debate was entirely in harmony with the tone adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and tended to this view of the question, that the object of that Committee was to entertain questions of public policy alone. Well, Sir, another debate shortly after ensued. It arose in consequence of the presentation of a petition by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie), from Sir William Russell who prayed that the Committee might be restrained from entering into the question of the Dovor contract because they might prejudice his interests in respect of an election petition then pending. The speech in which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock introduced the Motion he made for that purpose was marked by a good deal of party spirit; but the reason why I have referred to it is, that in that speech the right hon. Gentleman expressed in very strong terms, in terms indeed as strong as I could use now, his opinion that the Committee was not a fit tribunal to investigate personal charges if personal charges should be preferred; and he gave his reasons for that opinion. In those reasons I entirely concurred; in some others that he gave at the same time I did not concur, hut I quite agreed with that conclusion. Well, Sir, he was followed amongst others by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), who, in a speech, not of the most kindly description as far as it regarded Gentlemen on this side of the House, also expressed an opinion in which again I entirely concurred, namely, that if personal charges were to be brought forward in connection with these contracts, they ought undoubtedly to be referred to a judicial Committee. The consequence of these two speeches was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose at the end of the debate, and particularly referring to the opinions they had expressed as to the unfitness of that Committee for judicial duties, he said,—

"The Committee was not appointed for the purpose of conducting certain cases of criminatory accusations against any Government in particular. It was not to try the case of Dovor or Galway in any other spirit than that in which it would be its duty to examine every other case of contract that might come before it."

Now, Sir, I do not know what construction the right hon. Gentleman may now put upon those words, but I have no hesitation in telling him the construction not only that I put upon them now, but that I placed upon them then; and it was this. They were uttered in answer to the objection that the Committee was not a competent judicial tribunal, and they meant, as I took them, that it was the intention of the Government and of right hon. Gentlemen that that Committee should enter into questions of public principle and public policy, and into nothing else. I feel convinced that that must have been the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, because if, at the moment he used those words, he had had it in his mind that the Committee were to be at liberty to asperse the character of an individual, and be at liberty to enter into charges of or accusations, whatever they might be, of corruption (none were ever before formally preferred that I know of), and to acquit or convict upon those charges, dealing, therefore, with the honour and character of individuals—if such were the case, I think the right hon. Gentleman was bound to state it to the House, after what had fallen from those other right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken before him. I accepted, therefore, the construction I had alluded to, and I made no objection whatever to the appointment of the Commmittee, thinking it a most proper step on the part of the Government to adopt. But I must at once state this to the House, that if I had at that moment had an idea that that Committee were going, not only to investigate the public policy involved in the making of those contracts, but the characters of individuals, and to presume to acquit and censure on imputations of personal misconduct or corruption, nothing would have induced me to consent to the appointment of that Committee, constituted as it was. But now, Sir, let me state to the House the grounds on which I rest my assertion of the unfitness of that Committee for the investigation of anything like personal character, and let me add that I do so from the conviction that there is no member of it who can feel the least objection to the grounds which I am obliged to state. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the speech I have referred to, said that he thought the Committee ought to be most carefully selected, and I am free to admit that he fully redeemed his pledge—I say this, keeping in mind the two speeches that he made, and the intention which I have stated was to be inferred from them—so far as the investigation of that important question, what were the principles and the public policy which ought to govern these contracts was concerned. I am free to admit that the time had arrived for that investigation, and I also admit that I do not think it was possible for the right hon. Gentleman to select a Committee better qualified for carrying out that object. It contained several very distinguished members, and it was presided over by a most able member of this House; indeed, in that unusually large Committee, I do not think there was one man to whom I should have taken exception as one not thoroughly qualified to deal with the question stated. I own that my own individual opinion is always opposed to extending the number of Members composing Committees beyond fifteen; this consisted of nineteen Members, and considering the work they were appointed to do, and the questions I supposed were submitted to them, they could not have been better chosen. But, Sir, I am bound to state at the same time, that I do not think nineteen gentlemen could have been selected more unfit to enter upon an investigation or trial of any charge affecting the character or honour of an individual hon. Member of this House, or, indeed, of any one else. In this I hope I may not be misunderstood. I say it with no disrespectful feeling towards any of the members of that Committee. But my charge against them is this:—In the first place, whatever I may think about the prudence of appointing very large Committees to conduct any ordinary matter, I have no hesitation in saying that the appointment of a very numerous Committee to investigate anything like personal charges is not only opposed to the practice of the House, but it is opposed to all notions of a prudential character. But who were these Gentlemen? I look down the names, and I find men of high character, position, and credit; but I look in vain (I hope I do none of them an injustice) throughout the whole of that list for one man connected with the profession of the law. I find scarcely one that can be acquainted with the laws of evidence. I do not find a single Gentleman amongst them who is conversant with the mode in which business is transacted in our courts of law, who has ever been accustomed to judicial investigation of any kind, and who, therefore, is at all capable of conducting a judicial investigation as it ought to be conducted. Now, Sir, I am not sure that I can give the House a better idea of the objection I feel to the constitution of that Committee for the purpose I am now referring to, than by alluding to the examination of witnesses as conducted by their very able Chairman (Mr. Cobden). He is not now present, but I presume I am not irregular in thus alluding to him. There is no Member of this House less inclined than I am to speak with disrespect of the hon. Member for Rochdale. I trust, therefore, that I shall not be misapprehended in the observations that I am about to make. But any hon. Gentleman reading the examinations conducted by the hon. Member for Rochdale, will come to the same conclusions that I have arrived at—first, that he is a very acute and able man; secondly, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have selected a better man to superintend an investigation into the policy of the contracts in question; but, thirdly, that he could not have selected a worse man to conduct an investigation into the conduct of individuals. I appeal with confidence to any lawyer who has read the questions that will be found in the blue-book containing the evidence taken on that inquiry, and which were put by the hon. Member for Rochdale, and I ask him his opinion of those questions. I say they were questions which I believe would never have been allowed to be put in any court of justice in the kingdom, or before any other judicial tribunal where a proper course of examination and investigation is understood and pursued. There are, in my opinion, strong reasons why the Committee fell into the error—the only error that I charge them with. I do not suppose that any member of the Committee intended to do that which was wrong, or unfair, or inconsistent with Parliamentary practice. I make no charge of that sort against them, but I wish to express my belief that the Committee were led into the error of assuming to themselves powers that they did not possess, and of discharging duties for which they were, for reasons I have mentioned, unfitted. Upon these grounds I certainly shall object to a repetition of any such an investigation on any such principle. What the intentions of the Government may be I know not, but I do think that the proceedings before the Committee last year were such as to make it very desirable that we should now distinctly understand what the Committee, if reappointed, is to be. If the Committee is to go into an investigation of those principles of public policy to which I have referred, I entirely concur in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman; nay, I will go further, and say I think that he could not do better than reappoint the same Committee. But, on the other hand, if that Committee, on its reappointment, is to deal with the character of individuals—if they are to entertain and to try anything like serious charges affecting the character of individuals—then I cannot consent to a repetition of such an investigation by a body of men, who, I think, are so entirely unfitted for the purpose. And here let me repudiate in the strongest terms—I beg it may not be for a moment thought that in the observations I am now making, the members of the late Government shrink from any investigation. On the contrary, we court it, we invite it. If there is any man in this House who thinks that any man connected with the late Government was influenced in the discharge of his public duties by motives of corruption, or by dishonest motives—from which I have no hesitation in saying we should shrink with indignation—if any such opinion as that is entertained, let it be avowed, and let the issue be tried. In that case I have a right to require and demand, that if such opinions are entertained no one should shrink from getting up to avow and proclaim them, and in that case I have a right to demand two conditions. The one is that there shall be a specific charge and accusation; and the other is that such specific charge shall be referred to a competent tribunal. I may remind the House that there is no lack of precedent upon the matter. Any hon. Gentleman who has sat for a considerable time in this House must recollect case after case of that painful kind in which charges against individuals have been brought forward, and I believe I am right in saying that the way in which the House has uniformly dealt with the matter, has been to appoint the Committee to investigate the particular subject, and not to enter into a fishing examination on the question to see if they could not find out any charges to be brought against the Government. The uniform practice of the House I believe has been this, to refer the charge to a Committee specially appointed with particular regard to its fitness for its duty, and as far as my experience goes, and I think no one will contradict me, there have been always three conditions observed in the selection of such a Committee. The first of these conditions has been, that instead of being an unusually largo Committee, such Committee has been unusually small, with the very obvious and proper motive of increasing and concentrating its responsibility. The second condition has been, that there shall be at least some Members of the learned profession on the Committee who should be capable of guiding the inquiries before such Committee in a proper manner, and taking care that no injustice was done to the parties whose conduct had to be inquired into. The third condition was, that the remaining members of the Committee should be constituted, so far as it was possible, of men who were perfectly free from any party prejudice or party interest. I trust, therefore, that in the remainder of the investigation—if there are any more grounds for suspicion with regard to the conduct of the late Government—I hope that what I say will not be forgotten. I hope we shall have a specific accusation brought before the House, and that a Committee will be appointed competent to try these matters. I trust that in making these observations I have adhered to the intention I began with of neither expressing nor exciting angry feelings. I have made these observations without questioning the motives of the Committee, and I hope without saying anything that any member of the Committee might take exception to; but I strongly hold, whatever may have led them into this course, that in so taking it they did not act consistently with the order of reference, and practically, although I am sure not with such an intention, consistently with the ends of justice. I do trust that if we are to have any painful investigation of this kind we shall take care not to infuse into it the elements of party feeling; but that after the investigation has taken place we shall all look back upon what we have done with a full conviction that we have done it with a proper regard to the interests of justice, and with a due consideration for the character and reputation of this House.

I am sorry the Chairman of the Committee is unfortunately absent, so that it falls to me to make some observations in answer to the right hon. Baronet. Any public man in the discharge of public duties is a legitimate object of criticism, and no member of the Committee has any reason to complain that the right hon. Baronet has thought fit to bring their conduct before the House. I am glad, however, that the right hon. Baronet has, by limiting his remarks to the question whether the Committee were justified in the course they took and fit to conduct the inquiries upon which they entered, relieved me of anything like pain in replying to him. I rejoice that the question has been brought forward now, because it relates not only to the past but to the future; and as a Committee is about to be appointed to investigate some other cases with regard to contracts, and as the conduct of Government officials in certain transactions has been questioned, it is right the Committee should know what course they are to pursue for the future in their inquiries, and whether they are or are not at liberty to extend their inquiries into matters which relate to personal misconduct. As far as I understand the tenor of the right hon. Baronet's observations, he maintains, first, that the Committee of last year was unfit to conduct a judicial inquiry, and next, that the order of reference gave them no authority for carrying their examination the length they did. Now, I am not prepared to stand up here and say that any Committee I ever saw appointed by this House was well fitted to conduct a judicial inquiry. You cannot, in this assembly, find judges on any question who shall come up to the standard of strict judicial impartiality, and are consequently obliged to select so many from one side and so many from the other, and allow the truth to be evolved by the discussions between them. But on the whole I do not think, as far as my experience goes, that upon a personal question you find that the verdict is dictated by party motives, not the honest feeling of honourable men, or that a political man seeks merely to gratify political animosity, and run down the personal character of his opponents. I may allude in proof of this to the very Committee we are speaking of. It so happens that we condemned both parties. I am afraid we must not look for thanks to the Treasury Bench, because we found fault with the conduct of the very men whose political supporters we are, and condemned an arrangement made by one of my most intimate personal friends upon this side of the House. It is not my business, however, to defend the composition of the Committee, that was the work of the House itself, and if faulty, or not properly cast, should have been objected to at the time it was nominated. When the right hon. Baronet spoke of a judicial inquiry, I would remind him that the verdict of a Committee, selected after the most approved fashion, is seldom more satisfactory to the parties whom it condemns than that of one appointed in the ordinary way. There was a great inquiry upon the administration of the Admiralty during the Government of which the right hon. Baronet was a member; it was conducted by five Gentlemen appointed by the Committee of Selection, in the most judicial manner, and who came to a unanimous decision. Surely the verdict of such a Committee, one would suppose, must have commanded the respect and confidence of the House. Not at all; it led to a long debate, and the right hon. Baronet himself so far from being satisfied with a decision arrived at in the most judicial manner, was among the first to denounce it as characterized by party prejudice and party bias. As I have said, it is not for me to defend the selection of the Committee, but I do not know that it would have been more likely to gain the confidence of the right hon. Baronet if it had been selected judicially. The next point is whether the House gave authority to the Committee to inquire into what we did inquire or not. I confess that the difficulty never struck me, and it is very remarkable that I do not think it ever struck any one member of the Committee. We had not the slightest notion that the construction which the right hon. Baronet seeks to put upon that order of reference was the construction which we were bound to observe. He has said that we were wanting in lawyers, but I am afraid that even some lawyers were on the Committee. At all events, we had Gentlemen who came from the opposite side, and I should have thought they would have stated any objection which they felt to our exceeding our power. But, if we look at the minutes of our proceedings, not the slightest objection will be found to have been taken by those Members to the course which we followed, or that they themselves abstained from going into those questions which it is now said we should have avoided. The right hon. Baronet says that in the course of the debate he understood distinctly that it was never intended the Committee should go into personal charges, and he quotes the discussion on Sir W. Russell's petition. I look back to that discussion, and I confess that I am surprised the right hon. Baronet after reading it should have given as the result that which, to my mind, is just the reverse. First we have the hon. Baronet (Sir S. Northcote), who claimed that the inquiry into transactions with regard to Dovor should not be skin deep. I think he was quite right. I am stating only what in his notion the inquiry ought to be, and, having mentioned his name, I may add that, although he took views in which a majority of the Committee did not concur, he gave every facility to make the inquiry efficient. Then we have the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside), who submitted that the late Government had a right to demand that the charges made against them should, without delay, be inquired into by that Committee, in whose honour every hon. Member ought to be prepared to repose the most implicit confidence. He said the late Government had a right to inquiry by that Committee, and now we are told that it was extremely improper that the Committee should have inquired at all. I am surprised that the right hon. Baronet, if he were in the House, did not rise to contradict his hon. and learned Friend, and to say that it was not in the least intended the inquiry should extend to anything connected with personal questions. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) followed, and, although he may not be a lawyer, he is a chairman of quarter sessions. That right hon. Member said, on that occasion, that everybody concurred in opinion that there ought to be an investigation into the charges which had been made. We did investigate. I do not suppose that every hon. Gentleman will agree in the opinion to which we came. Upon that there will naturally be a difference of opinion, but I do say the inquiry was as fairly conducted as it could well be. I think I have shown that, as far as regards the expectation of the House itself, the inquiry into personal charges was expected, and most of all by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. It was claimed and pressed by them, and I can hardly believe that Gentlemen will now change their tone and blame the Committee for doing that which they suffered those who sat by their side to demand when the Committee was first appointed. Is there anything in the words of the reference to prevent inquiry? The Committee are to inquire "into the mode in which contracts have been made." Supposing there had been a practice of regularly paying certain officers for passing contracts, what would be the use of the Committee if they were not to inquire into that? What is the use of telling certain gentlemen to inquire, and, at the same time, that the moment there is anything personal or not commonplace, their inquiry is to close? If the House think as I do, I hope they will say so. I only wish I had never been put on the Committee. It was by far the most disagreeable of any Committee upon which I ever sat in my life, and I shall be very glad to be relieved from it. But it is of importance that Committees in future should know whether, when the strict words of the reference are in their favour, they are to be stopped from going fully into the question of improper transactions. I hope that in some shape we shall ascertain what Committees are to do—whether they are to be free or tied down as the right hon. Baronet suggests. I have carefully avoided going into the details of the evidence, or anything which relates to personal questions. I have no wish at all—very far from it—to repeat opinions which I held in the Committee, and there is no Gentleman here but must feel that having to balance contradictory statements is an extremely painful and very unpleasant task. It was with great regret that I went into all those disagreeable matters, and I can assure the right hon. Baronet that, as far as I am concerned, I have no intention of saying a word unnecessarily in censure of any of the parties who were brought before the Committee.

I entirely agree with the observations of the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down on the great importance, with regard to the future conduct of this Committee, or of any similar Committee, that some expression of opinion on the part of the House should be given relative to the specific subjects of inquiry to be brought under their investigation. The impression that I derive from sitting day after day on that Committee was not the impression that was derived from it by the right hon. Baronet, and which he has just given to the House. The right hon. Baronet said there was no difference of opinion amongst the members of the Committee as to the validity of the course the Committee pursued, and I understood my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the few observations that he made, to intimate a similar opinion; but as a member of the Committee, I may say, that repeatedly were objections made in the Committee-room to the course of investigation that the Committee appeared to be determined to enter on; and if there was no actual division of opinion taken, it may easily be explained when one recollects that no fewer than four members of that Committee were members of the late Government, whose conduct was supposed to be impugned before that very Committee. Repeatedly did I say—"This is an investigation which, in justice to the parties implicated, ought not to be persevered in." I felt, however, as my colleagues in the late Government felt, that if we pressed and persevered in our opposition, it would at once be said by those who were actuated by party pique and party rancour that we were endeavouring to shield ourselves from an investigation that we fully courted. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) said, there was an inconsistency, because my right hon. Friend near me (Sir John Pakington) says the Committee was improperly constituted for the investigation of personal charges, whereas no such objection was raised at the time the Committee was appointed. But I agree with my right hon. Friend that when the Committee was appointed it was not anticipated that personal questions would be brought before us. The Committee was confined to the subject of contracts, and the reference on which we acted was couched in the most clear and explicit terms. Now, I draw the distinction, and I make this concession to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Portsmouth, that if the conduct of any members of the late Government should seem to have been implicated in the course of the investigation, for the conduct of which we were appointed, there would then be no objection to the course which the Committee actually took. But the complaint of my right hon. Friend and myself is that, travelling far beyond the legitimate limits of the questions which were referred to them, the Committee went wholly out of the beaten course, and implicated the conduct and character of individuals who were not before them, and who were not members of the late Government at all, in a way that was quite unprecedented, and that, as I felt then, and still feel, was eminently unfair. The right hon. Gentleman knows, that in the course of these proceedings repeated objections were taken by myself and by other members to this course of proceeding; I said then, and when the further occasion which we are promised arises I shall repeat, that this course was unfair. While entertaining the deepest respect for the members of that Committee, I am still anxious that the House shall say how far this great Committee, consisting of nineteen members, shall proceed in this special course of inquiry, because, as a member of the late Government, I feel, after what has already occurred, that I shall be out of my place on the Committee, and that if the same kind of questions as were brought up last year are to continue to be investigated, then the members of the late Government ought not to be upon it to decide on what, to some, may appear to be their own case; and, further, I feel that our presence is unfair to the claims of other persons not members of the late Government, whose claims might be defended with greater freedom than we can possibly do, on account of the offices we formerly held, and the charges that have been brought against us. I must solemnly protest if this investigation is to go on, against its being referred to a tribunal of the kind. Entertaining this opinion, if it is the pleasure of this House to re-appoint this Committee, and, if it is, further, the pleasure of the House to refer to it questions of this delicate and painful nature—a course against which I protest—I hope the House will relieve me from the unpleasant duty of being a member of a Committee where my services can be of no use, but must rather be a hindrance to a full investigation of the subject, and to that full and free defence which other persons not members of the Government are entitled to expect at our hands.

explained, that he certainly remembered a division of opinion in the Committee as to whether certain questions ought or ought not to be put, but with all deference to the noble Lord he did not remember any difference of opinion as to the course of the inquiry.

There is something peculiar in the speech of the noble Lord. He has now taken an opportunity to protest against the decision of a Committee of which he was a member, he, during the whole time, having sat patiently by, voted upon every question, and yet made no protest. I confess I have great temptation to go fully into this case, for I entertain a strong opinion both on the composition of the Committee and the judgment to which it came, but I shall resist that temptation; and I think it would have been wiser and more discreet on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) if, instead of now raising a debate on this question, he had left the matter in the hands of a Member of the Committee who has given notice of a Motion in reference to it for next week, since it is inconvenient to have two discussions upon the same subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich says that this was not a competent tribunal. I agree with him that it was not a competent tribunal, but I agree with him for different reasons. I think the present Government, or rather the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was greatly to blame for the formation of the Committee; but I don't find that the right hon. Gentleman took any exception to its constitution at the proper time. What were the circumstances attending its constitution? Instead of having the usual number of fifteen Members, nineteen were appointed; and what was the reason alleged for that course by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why, that he was obliged to put four extra members on the Committee, they being members of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich has been vapouring a little tonight. "Show me (says he) any specific charge." I took the liberty to bring forward a specific charge last Session, and to say that I suspected and had strong grounds for suspecting that the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty had tampered with the exercise of the elective franchise at Dovor by bringing the Admiralty influence to bear upon it. That was notorious, and was one reason for the appointment of the Committee. Sir William Russell made the same allegation in his Petition. So that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted a direct charge, there it stood, pointing directly at the late First Lord of the Admiralty and his private Secretary. When the Committee was appointed the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered into a private arrangement, as it appears to me, with the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), and with right hon. Gentlemen on the other side. It was, in fact, an agreement to hush up the inquiry altogether; and was nicely arranged on the old Scotch system of "Scratch me and I'll scratch you." The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) suspected as much, and protested at the time against the constitution of the Committee, adding that if the House really wished to have an impartial and trustworthy inquiry the Committee ought to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich talks about there being no legal members on the Committee. At least one-fifth of the Committee, however, were judges in their own case, and so much was this felt to be so that the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford, though he took part in the proceedings and put questions to bring out the case for his friends with more ability than most lawyers would have shown, could not sit in the Committee when it came to a vote, but left the room. The noble Lord (Lord J. Manners), however, voted manfully upon every division, and yet now, forsooth! he will not serve any longer. The truth is that this is an attempt to whitewash the private secretary of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich. He was a member of the Conservative Committee for managing the Elections—a circumstance to which the right hon. Gentleman must have been privy. There never was such a Committee in the world as that which sat to inquire into the Dovor contract. One fifth of them being accused of tampering with the elective franchise at Dovor were actually judges in their own case. Surely the House will see through the veil attempted to be thrown over this transaction. In spite of all the management exhibited, a verdict of guilty has been returned, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich, discontented with that, turns round and says the Committee did not quite act according to the order of reference. I have been looking back to that matter, and that being so I was a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman make such an assertion, remembering that for twenty-five years he was a chairman of quarter sessions, and that his public services have recently been commemorated by the presentation of a magnificent silver-gilt shield. I don't see in any of the compartments of that splendid shield, illustrating those branches of the public service to which the right hon. Baronet is supposed to have devoted himself—namely, the navy, the colonies, education, and justice—any view of Dovor, or any medallion of his private secretary; and I would recommend him, in the event of his having any supplementary shield presented to him, to devote a whole compartment of it to a pictorial illustration of that interesting seaport, What, I ask, were the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in moving for this Committee on the 7th of July? He said,

"If the Committee were appointed it would be the study of the Government—and he hoped they would receive the assistance of others who were qualified to aid them—to select the names of those hon. Members who were to constitute it, with the view of securing, as far as possible, an impartial and thorough-going inquiry."

Mr. Gladstone is not always so plain, and nobody could have been mistaken as to what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "an impartial and thorough-going inquiry." He added, "with regard to the scope of the inquiry, he was desirous that it should be as wide as possible." There was no mistake about that, but yet no objection was made on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich. Acting in accordance with the advice given by Lord Brougham to the late Mr. Zachary Macaulay in reference to his illustrious son, he generally speaks on every question. But on that occasion he never said a single word. But on the 12th of July, when the Committee was nominated, the hon. Member for Stamford, the late Secretary to the Treasury, was unusually animated. Laying aside his ordinarily calm, business-like manner, he became indignant:—

"This inquiry (said he) ought not to be skin-deep, but fully and properly gone into, and he believed the more the subject was inquired into, the more it would redound to the credit, and not discredit, of the late Government. The subject was one which could not properly be discussed in that House, but should be referred to a Select Committee; and if it were discussed without the assistance of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), it might be said that the Committee had not been appointed fairly, nor the subject properly gone into. This Committee would have to go into the whole question as to what were the principles upon which the packet contracts were founded, and they would have to state whether the Galway, Dovor, and other contracts were right or wrong."[3 Hansard, cliv. p. 1086.]

Did the hon. Baronet make any protest in the Committee as to the line of examination which was being pursued? No; but he put as able questions as any lawyer could have done; and, what was more, he refused—and properly refused—to vote on a matter in which he conceived himself to be a judge in his own case. I say it is a very unfortunate thing that the right hon. Baronet did not take this exception before. He is a chairman of quarter sessions, and ought to know that it is unlawyer-like to challenge the constitution of a jury to which he had assented. I say that the Committee from first to last had a most suspicious character. It was acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in its formation he found a great difficulty because of these four Gentlemen being put upon it. However, he got over it, and I will say no more about it; but I do hope that, on the appointment of this new Committee which the House is called upon to appoint, it will be appointed upon different grounds, and composed of different men from the last; and, in my judgment, the House would act wisely if it referred the nomination of the Committee to the Committee of Selection. Do not let us have any arrangements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his late private secretary the hon. Member for Stamford—no endeavours to hush up this question; and when the verdict has been delivered, do not let us have any of the members of the Committee coming here and declaring that he objects to the formation of the Committee and its conclusions. I thought at the time that the House made a false move, when a Petition was presented from Sir W. Russell, who had charged the late Government with having interfered with his election, that it should have gone into the Dovor case at all. How stands the case now? You are going next week to debate upon the evidence in this blue-book, and a Committee will probably be struck next week to try the Dovor election petition. I maintain, if the House wishes to retain public respect, and to avoid such scenes as this, it should refer the nomination of the Committee to the Committee of Selection upstairs. By the way, I may observe, that although the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) claims the verdict of the Committee as one of acquittal, in fact it was no such thing—it only amounted to a verdict of not proven; but I tell the right hon. Baronet fairly that I cannot believe that he, with his legal experience and his acquaintance with business, could ever have allowed his private secretary to take the part he did without his knowledge; and until he explicitly denies it I shall continue to disbelieve. The right hon. Gentleman volunteered to be examined before the Committee, but his memory was singularly defective in this case, and he quite forgot that he had given orders to Captain Carnegie to go down and contest Dovor, until Captain Carnegie produced a letter from his private secretary, and then the right hon. Gentleman found he had made a mistake. As far as Dovor is concerned, I bear the right hon. Gentleman no ill-will. I am disposed to say let bygones be bygones, for I feel rather grate- ful to him for getting me away from there. But there is another consideration. What is the effect upon the people of this country as to their views of Parliamentary Committees of this House? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) says that no Committee is to be trusted, and that is the decision to which the country is coming. You are urging on a measure of reform though the country is said to be so apathetic, and do you not see the end? If anybody will support me, I will oppose altogether the nomination of this Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I feel convinced, that if you are to have any fairness in the nomination you must refer it to the Committee upstairs. Let it not be a matter of arrangement between the two front benches. All Governments, no doubt, wish these things to be hushed up. They are disagreeable matters to raise; but if you wish the decision of the Committee to go to the public with authority and weight, let the Members of this House insist that the nomination be left to the Committee of Selection.

said, he had not intended to take any part in this discussion; but after the astonishing statement of the hon. Gentleman, who had just sat down, he felt bound to assure the House—and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear him out in it—that there had been no kind of agreement or private arrangement or compact whatever between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the appointment of this Committee, and he was quite at a loss to know on what grounds the hon. Gentleman made such a charge. He believed, indeed, the list of the Committee was shown him before the nomination; it was usual to show the list to those who took an interest in the question and to those who were asked to serve, and in both those capacities the list of the Committee, after it was drawn up, was shown to him. But as to any private arrangement or compact as to its composition he could assure the hon. Gentleman there was no foundation for it whatever. He differed from his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich to some extent as to the course taken by the Committee, for bearing in mind that this very Committee had arisen to some extent out of charges made against the late Government, he thought it probable that the Committee would inquire into those charges in respect to certain contracts that were challenged. And when Sir William Russell presented a petition, praying that the Committee would not enter into the case of the Dovor contract till his petition were considered in Committee, he (Sir S. North-cote), speaking on the part of himself and his colleagues, had felt it his duty to say they were anxious the matter should be inquired into. For himself, he never objected to the course the Committee took; but he could bear out the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord J. Manners), that once or twice in the course of the inquiry Members of the Committee expressed their opinion that they were travelling out of the record. He had never supported that view; the majority of the Committee was always against it; but he was bound to say that it had been urged. When he urged an inquiry, he did not expect the kind of evidence that would be brought before them. The charge against them was that they had renewed a particular contract without sufficient public grounds and from a suspected corrupt political motive. Now, as he knew that he was the person who in the last resort had sanctioned that contract, and that he had done so purely on public grounds, he was anxious that the matter should be thoroughly investigated. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. B. Osborne), had condemned the Committee because four members of the Government were appointed on it. But unless that were the cause the persons who were accused would have no opportunity of making their defence. Either they must appoint Gentlemen who understood the case, and then they ran a risk of partiality; or they must secure impartiality by appointing Gentlemen who knew nothing of the subject; and then the danger of a partial report was just as great, because there would be no one to elicit those facts which ought to be brought in justice to those interested in the case. He confessed he did not see his way to a solution of this problem, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that there was no foundation for his charge of a compact between the late and the present Government or to the appointment of a Committee.

said, that as a member of the Committee he felt bound to bear testimony to the fairness of its proceedings. He so far agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, that he did not recollect any substantial question being raised of the Committee going be-yond its legitimate bounds—at least there was no formal discussion on the point, and certainly no division was taken. He had objected at first to serve on the Committee because he foresaw that it would lead to strong personal conflicts, and he should be very happy to be relieved from future attendance. It was not for him to defend the composition of the Committee, but if the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) would look to the proceedings of the Committee he would find that in every division the Members of the late Government were in a minority, and therefore that no one of the recommendations made by the Committee were adopted in consequence of their opinion. In the main, however, he was happy to say the Committee were unanimous, and he would leave it to the House to say whether a Committee that was unanimous in its main decisions was not worthy of confidence.

said, he hoped that if the members of the Committee were to be reappointed there would be some distinct understanding as to how far it was to go, and how far the words of the reference were to cover its inquiry. Having taken a great interest in the debate which had so often been alluded to, he had certainly derived from it the impression that the inquiry was to be of a judicial character, and that it was appointed more or less to try, so to speak, the character and conduct of the late Government. In that impression he was fortified by the words of the right hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), who said on that occasion that as there seemed no chance of the Dovor Election Petition coming on for trial that Session, it would be unfair to the members of the late Administration to deprive them of the opportunity of promoting an investigation into all the circumstances of this case. Why should the right hon. Gentleman have said that, if the Committee were to be debarred from going into that case? So entirely was he impressed with the view he had stated, that although he was a member of the Committee, yet, having been prevented from serving by having to attend an Election Committee, when he was requested to be present at the drawing up of the report, he said that he did not think it was right that a member of a Committee who had not heard the evidence should assist in drawing up the report. Therefore he had certainly never been more astonished in his life than when he heard the right hon. Member for Droitwich get up and object to the course taken by the Committee. He might add that whatever might have been the impressions on the minds of hon. Members, they were caused mainly by the speeches of the right hon. Baronet's own friends.

said, he thought it might fairly be concluded from that discussion that it was not safe to entrust to a Committee of that House an inquiry of a judicial character, in which the reputation of private individuals was more or less involved. As a member of the late Government, he should state that he would be again prepared to pursue the course he had adopted in that matter; but that was a question into which he would not then enter. He had risen solely for the purpose of pointing out the extreme inconvenience which must arise from allowing the conduct of private individuals who had no opportunity of defending themselves to become the subject of inquiry before a Committee, which according to the confession of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth himself, partook more or less of a political character.

said, he should not then intrude on the time of the House were it not that he was anxious to notice an obervation which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which had been repeated by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he believed the Committee were unanimous with respect to the extent of the inquiry in which they were to engage. He (Captain Vernon) was himself an independent member of the Committee, and he felt bound to say that he was no party whatever to that unanimity. It was his opinion that the Committee, in entering rather into personal than public matters, had departed from its duties, and that when the House appointed the Committee there was no idea that it was to subserve political ends. When the Committee devoted nearly the whole of its time to inquiring into the question whether Captain Carnegie was right in coming to the rather astonishing opinion that Mr. Churchward, in offering him his political support, was attempting to seduce him from the paths of Admiralty virtue, he believed it was turning aside from its duty for peddling objects and postponing the interests of the public to those of individuals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might object that the proper place to make this remark was in the Committee, and the time when it showed an inclination to depart from its instructions; but he had taken both that time and place to make the objection, though he was put down by the argument that the public out of doors were anxious upon the "Carnegie and Churchward" question, and that they must be satisfied. He ventured to say, too, that the Committee had not so much to do with the public out of doors as with their own business; but still he was put down with the Shibboleth "the public out of doors." Now no one entertained a greater respect than he did for the public out of doors, but there was a time and a place for everything, and it certainly appeared to him that there was no reason why the Committee should have entered into many of the details they had investigated. Independent Members then found themselves, without the slightest reason, drawn into a perfect whirlpool of party conflict. They saw gentlemen on the jury whose proper place was in the witness box, and plaintiffs and defendants adjudicating on their own case. It was easy to foretell from the first that some over-nice and over-scrupulous persons would refrain from voting on matters which personally concerned themselves, and that others, not so scrupulous, would not be restrained by any such fanciful feelings, and it needed therefore no ghost from the grave to say what would be the inevitable verdict. To that verdict he intended to call attention on the 7th of February, but in the meantime he hoped that if the Committee were re-appointed, its duties would be strictly defined, and that it would have the hardihood to restrain itself within them. He had no intention, therefore, of drawing on two debates on the question, as the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) had accused some Members of wishing to do, neither had he any intention of whitewashing the private secretary of the late First Lord of the Admiralty. He had not the slightest doubt that when light was let into the affair that gentleman's character would need no whitewashing. The hon. Member for Liskeard, who evidently felt very sore at what he called the attempt of the late First Lord of the Admiralty to tamper with the constituency of Dovor, [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Hear, hear!] laid some stress on the fact that that right hon. Gentleman had volunteered to be examined, and insinuated that he had gained nothing by his motion. But the right hon. Gentleman was not the only person who had volunteered, and those other persons who had volunteered, as far as he recollected, had not taken much by their motion either.

I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard lay down the doctrine that it was the desire of all Governments to hush up these matters—for my hon. Friend has himself been a member of various Governments, and one is led, therefore, to suppose that when he makes so sweeping an assertion he is giving reminiscences of his own sentiments in such cases. For my own part, I beg leave to disclaim such a disposition. I am desirous that this matter should be fully inquired into. My hon. Friend gave loose to his imagination to an extraordinary extent in what he said about some secret understanding between mo and my hon. Friend opposite, with whom I had once the honour of being intimately connected in a public capacity. There never was any such understanding between us. I do not believe I ever exchanged a single word with my hon. Friend on the subject except across this table. A fertile imagination is certainly sometimes a most inconvenient thing. This question appears to me a very simple one. It would seem that if the Committee were not unanimous in the view they took with regard to the scope of their inquiry, at all events no Gentleman who differed from the rest of the Committee thought proper to place his dissent on record; it is also quite clear that a great majority of the Members entertained no doubt whatever as to the nature of their duties, and I am bound to say, as a question affecting the practice of the House of Commons, that it is very inconvenient that members of a Committee who entertain opinions with regard to the proper limits of their inquiry which differ from those of the majority, and which differ from the course which the Committee is actually pursuing, should remain silent in the Committee, being restrained by the fear of imputations from putting their views upon record, and then, not having stated their views to the Committee in an intelligible form, should afterwards make appeals to the House, and make complaints of the conduct of that Committee. Such a course appears to me to be hardly fair on the part of Gentlemen towards the other members of the Committee to which they belong. With regard to the merits of this particular case—the terms of the order of reference and the line of inquiry which was pursued—I confess that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, who introduced this question, I must say, in the most temperate manner, appears—if I may be permitted to say so—to be in error in the view which he has taken. The opinion of the House of Commons is generally in favour of the course which the Committee has pursued. I do not speak now of the judgment which they came to, for that is a perfectly proper matter for review and question by this House; but it is perfectly impossible for a Committee appointed under an order of reference such as was passed in this instance, altogether to avoid what may be called personal matter. Undoubtedly the inquiry was one directed in the main to the policy of certain measures, and therefore I think it would be an inconvenient course to refer the subject to the Committee of Selection; but although such was its character, it was not simply an inquiry into an abstract matter of policy, but into the conduct of Executive Governments; and collaterally and in a secondary manner it was, of course, a question involving praise or blame of the conduct of those Governments for the manner in which they had acted. How is it possible for a Committee required by this House to inquire into the manner in which contracts were framed or modified by Her Majesty's Government, to make their inquiry thorough and searching if they are restrained from pronouncing a sentence of either praise or blame on the men by whom those contracts have been so framed or modified. The right hon. Baronet very fairly and justly says that the inquiry was one into the wisdom and prudence of the conduct of the Government, and that if the Committee found that their conduct had been deficient in wisdom and prudence, no doubt they ought to express their sentiments with regard to it. But although he admitted that they might declare their conduct not to have been prudent, they were not from that circumstance to infer any blame. The right hon. Baronet also finds fault with the Committee for having alluded to "corrupt motives." It appears to me that the Committee, instead of being censured, deserve rather to be commended for the mention which they have made of this branch of the subject, because the Committee having, by a very large majority, arrived at the conclusion that the Dovor contract was made without sufficient inquiry into the grounds of the claim for its extension, and having gone on to express their views with respect to it, they afterwards, in a spirit of equity and of consideration for those whose conduct they had been condemning, inserted a paragraph declaring the opinion of the Committee that, notwithstanding an error had been committed, no ground existed for the imputation of corrupt motives. The Resolution was thus worded:—

"It further appears to the Committee that neither at the Admiralty nor at the Treasury were the officers with whom the decision rested, influenced in granting the renewal of the contract by any corrupt or political motive."

That passage appears to me clearly to show that the Committee not only acted with equity and fairness, but that they adopted it with a view of precluding any supposition of invidious interference that might otherwise be entertained. I believe, moreover, that the constitution of the Committee was well adapted for the purposes of the general inquiry for which it was appointed. I grant you that the mixture of what may be called personal matter is productive of much inconvenience, and is to be regretted when it comes incidentally under inquiry and cannot be made the subject of investigation by itself, without entailing other and very serious inconveniences; but this cannot be charged upon us by way of constraint—it is a matter of constant recurrence in inquiries by this House. The Committee on Contracts, for example, which sat in the years 1856, '57, and '58, was appointed not as a Committee for criminatory charge, notwithstanding which, in the investigation of a great number of proceedings of this nature, they found it necessary to express opinions in the nature both of praise and blame with reference to the conduct of those concerned in the making of those contracts. A great and natural desire has been expressed by members of the Committee that the sense of the House should be expressed as to whether they have exceeded their jurisdiction. Now, Sir, having listened attentively, and I hope calmly and impartially to this debate, I must say that I collect the sense of the House to be that the Committee did not exceed the jurisdiction given to them, and that they could not but pronounce a sentence of blame or praise upon the framing of the contracts which they were appointed to examine, when such an expression of opinion appeared to them to be called for. But it is of course my duty to remind the right hon. Baronet that if in his opinion the Com- mittee have exceeded the bounds assigned to them, and that for the future they will require to be limited in their proceedings otherwise than by the discretion of the members, it rests with him to move an Amendment in words, or in some other manner to obtain an expression of the positive opinion of the House; and I have no doubt that any opinion which may be expressed by the House will receive attention at the hands of the Committee.

said, that as one who had the remarkable pleasure of serving on the Committee, he must give it as his opinion that the grand question for which the Committee had been appointed had been almost lost sight of, when the inquiry passed from a consideration of the general policy which ought to regulate postal contracts, into details of a personal character. As far as the evidence had gone he was inclined to think that the points which had been complained of were occasioned by the absence of definite responsibility in any of the official departments. The Dovor case, which had assumed the dimensions rather of an election petition, might be taken as disposed of; but he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the Galway case remained still to be diposed of. Was it intended that nineteen Members of the House should be doomed for another Session to the wretched task of wading through a similar mass of evidence, altogether apart from the great object of the inquiry V Would it not be possible in some way to treat the charge of corruption as a separate inquiry, and to carry it on distinct from the main object of investigation? His experience of last year led him to believe that it was utterly impossible that practical benefit could result from a renewal of the course of proceeding which was then adopted. He thought it right, however, to state that as regarded the spirit by which the Committee had been animated, it was his firm conviction that they had carried out the very difficult undertaking in which they were engaged as fairly as was possible. With respect, however, to their proceedings as published, be found that some 300 questions and answers, composing the whole of the evidence taken in one day, had been omitted. This was the more to be regretted as it included the valuable testimony given by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Rose—one of whom was now in India and the other in Canada. The evidence, he knew, had been printed, but was not included in the Report which had been laid on the table.

explained, that when the evidence of the last two days on which the Committee sat had been printed, it was thought advisable that it should not be reported, as a fresh subject was therein opened up, the understanding being that they were to conclude with that portion of the testimony which related to Dovor.

said, that in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the consideration of an Ordinance which has been laid before Parliament in a Report of the Oxford University Commissioners, he wished to explain that the Ordinance to which the measure referred was one which regulated the constitution of St. John's College, Oxford; and the Bill proposed to provide a tribunal for the adjudication of a difference which had arisen between the College and the Commissioners.

said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had treated the Bill in so light and indifferent a manner, because, in point of fact, it was nothing less than a breach of the contract which was entered into between Parliament on the one band, and Oxford University on the other in the year 1854. At that time the state of the case was this:—A very complicated University Reform Bill had been brought forward by the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen, the earlier portions of which passed through Committee with great difficulty. The Government were beaten on several divisions and nearly beaten on several others; and at last, at Whitsuntide, despairing of carrying the measure that Session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer remodelled it altogether, reconstructing it on the principle of giving large discretionary powers to the Commissioners named in the Bill, and also allowing each college in the University, by a majority of two-thirds of its members, to negative any Ordinance that it considered objectionable. Upon the understanding that this negative was to be a practical one, the Opposition ceased to object to the Bill; subsequently it went up to the House of Lords, the University withdrew their opposition, and the measure been me law. What did the University do? Did it make use of this power in a factious manner? By no means. Except in the case of St. John's College no permanent opposition had been offered to the Commissioners. On many occasions the Commissioners had proposed changes to which strong objections were taken, but the Colleges were anxious to accommodate them, and it was only in this one instance, where the interests of a very important school in the City of London were most injuriously affected by an Ordinance, that the College resolved on exerting the power which was given it by the Act of Parliament. To meet this one case, then, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to invoke the authority of Parliament, and to destroy the veto which Parliament had solemnly conferred in 1854. If the Bill were allowed to pass it would throw the greatest reflection upon the Ministry of that day; because it was impossible to believe that the Ministry, when it proposed the veto, intended it to be a deceit and a sham. They, no doubt, intended it to be an honest protection to the University, and not that the absolute exercise of the power should terminate at the end of five years.