said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home De- partment whether Her Majesty's Government have advised The Queen to sanction the sitting of Convocation in the provinces of Canterbury and York for any other than the ordinary purpose of adjournment?

said, that at the end of last February the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury passed a Resolution for an Address to the Crown praying that they might receive permission to revise the 29th Canon, the principal provision of which prevented a parent from being the godfather or godmother of his or her child. It was not by law com. potent for Convocation to consider the alteration of a canon without the previous permission of the Crown. That application had been taken into consideration by the Government, and they had advised Her Majesty that the prayer of the petition should be complied with, so that the Convocation of Canterbury had received permission to revise that Canon. In order to complete that revision it would then be necessary to submit the amended Canon to the Crown before it would have any valid effect. There had been no application from the Convocation of York for a like permission.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Land, or a portion of it, which has recently been bought at a high price by Government for the defences of Portsmouth, was not formerly in the possession of Government, and sold by them a few years back at a comparatively cheap rate; whether there was not, at the time of selling such Land, an official Flan for the defence of Portsmouth, embracing such Land, in the hands of Government, or of the Military Authorities; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the price at which the Land was sold, the price at which the laud has been re-bought, and the name of the Official who sanctioned the sale?

said, he had sent to Portsmouth to inquire into the facts of the case, and was therefore prepared to state what had occurred. About twenty years ago, some land at Stokes Bay belonging to the Government was sold for £8,000, which was its full market value at that time. It had since been re-bought at intervals for small sums, and in sec- tions; and the whole sum paid for it by the Government (£28,000) was no doubt greatly in excess of the sum for which it had been sold in 1839. There was no plan for the defence of Portsmouth at that time the adoption of which would have necessitated the retention of the land in question, except the old plan of the Duke of Richmond, made in Mr. Pitt's Administration. The sale was made by the Master General of the Ordnance of that Day.

said, he would now beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of the Imperial Government to deduct the English Income Tax from the interest payable on Promissory Notes of the Indian Government, where such interest is payable in this country by Drafts on the Indian Treasuries; whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to allow the Indian Government to deduct Indian Income Tax from the interest payable on Promissory Note; of the Indian Government after English Income Tax has been already deducted from such interest in this country; or whether, in other words, interest on Indian Promissory Notes is subject to a double Income Tax?

said, in answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, that the Indian Office acted ministerially for the Board of Inland Revenue. Whether the English income tax would be deducted was a legal point upon which he must decline to give any opinion. It would be premature to give an answer to the second question until the Indian income tax Bill arrived in this country. The answer to the third question would be found in his answer to the other two.

Sir, in pursuance of the notice which I gave yesterday afternoon, I rise to move that a Committee be appointed to search the Journals of the two Houses of Parliament in order to ascertain and report on the practice of each House with regard to the several descriptions of Bills imposing or repealing taxes. I shall abstain from going into any further detail at the present moment, and I trust the House also will see the advantage of not entering into any discussion upon matters upon which it is intended the Committee should furnish us with information. I apprehend that it will be better if hon. Gentlemen, whatever their opinions may be, would have the goodness to defer stating those opinions until the Committee shall have made their Report. This step, under any view, precludes nothing, and pledges nothing. It is one which I think the House would take under the circumstances, and it certainly leaves the matter entirely open for consideration, with this difference only, that we shall then be in possession of facts with regard to which different and contradictory assertions may otherwise be made.

It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that I have no intention, and I am not aware that any hon. Gentleman on this side of the House has the intention, to interpose any objection to the Motion of the noble Lord. On the contrary, after what has occurred I should have been surprised if the noble Lord had not taken that course. I agree that it would be premature on the present occasion to enter upon a discussion of the Motion or the circumstances that have induced him to make it. I heard with satisfaction from the noble Lord that no one in consenting to this Motion would be in the slightest degree fettered or compromised with regard to any course which it might be necessary to take upon the Report of the Committee. So far as my own vote is concerned I consent to the appointment of this Committee, and I do so with greater satisfaction on account of the assurance given by the noble Lord the other night, that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the appointment of the Committee should lead to any feeling of hostility between the two Houses of Parliament.

said, he regretted that he could not agree in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that it was not necessary to have some declaration from her Majesty's Government as to the course which they intended to pursue. He had waited, as a Member of that House, anxious with regard to a question which affected their dearest privileges, to learn from Her Majesty's Government the course they would adopt in consequence of that of which the House had now proper evidence—the rejection of the Bill for the repeal of the paper duty by the House of Lords. Any discussion the previous evening would have been premature, as the Report from the Journals of the other House had not then been received. But now that the House was formally in possession of the decision of the House of Lords respecting the Bill, all precedents justified them in taking some action on the subject. The Journals of the House of Commons told them, if they had writ their annals true, that they were in possession of abundant knowledge, and in a position to decide what course ought to be adopted. He had no desire to urge Her Majesty's Government to any premature step; but he thought that the country upon a question, in which it was deeply interested, and in which the dignity and honour of the House of Commons wore equally interested, had a right to know whether the Government had made up their minds to adopt any course in the matter. The established precedents justified him in saying that the matter was ripe for action on the part of that House. He believed the last case of the kind occurred in 1742. Hon. Members who were versed in Parliamentary history would have that case familiarly in their memory. It was a case in which a Committee of Inquiry was appointed upon the alleged corruption of Lord Orford, formerly Sir Robert Walpole. A Bill was sent up to the House of Lords to indemnify the witnesses who gave evidence before that Inquiry. The House of Lords rejected the Bill on the 26th of May. A Committee was appointed like that moved for by the noble Viscount, to search the Lords' Journals, and they ascertained the rejection of the Bill on the 26th of May, the same evening that it was thrown out. The House of Commons thereupon passed a Resolution the following day to the effect—

"That the refusal of the House of Lords to concur in the indemnity necessary to carry on the Inquiry by the House of Commons is an obstruction to justice, and fatal to the liberties of the nation."

It was, therefore, in his opinion, perfectly clear that as the House was now formally in possession of information as to the decision of the House of Lords, there was no necessity whatever for the appointment of a Committee to search for precedents; and he could not help thinking that such a course would lead to temporizing and delay, though he did not in the least impute that the Government desired such a result. He held that by precedent the House was now at liberty to act in this matter, and that, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government must, by the rejection of the Bill, be to some extent embarrassed in regard to the financial arrangements of the Session, it was due both to the interest which the House took in its invaluable privileges, and to the self-respect and dignity of the Government, that the noble Lord should announce what course the Government were prepared to follow on this question.

said, he had intended to address some observations to the House on this subject; but he felt that it would be disrespectful to the leader of the House if, after the appeal which he had made, he entered on the general question which was at issue. He would only say that he objected to the Committee now proposed, both on account of the terms of its appointment and of the manner in which it was composed. As to the terms of the Motion it proposed that the Committee should "ascertain and report upon the practice of each house with regard to the several descriptions of Bills imposing or repealing taxes." Now, he would submit that that language gave the Committee too much of the character of a roving commission. He believed that the practice of the other House as to Bills imposing or repealing taxes might be ascertained from such works as Mr. Hatsell's Precedents, and Mr. Erskine May's valuable work, without searching the Journals of Parliament. The simple question which had to be answered was, whether any precedent was to be found in the Journals of the House of Lords for the rejection of a Bill for the repeal of a tax under the same circumstances as the Paper Duty Repeal Bill. All that the Committee required to do was to ascertain whether any such precedent existed, leaving it to the House to say whether it applied to this particular question before them. According to the Motion of the noble Lord, the Committee might search all the Journals through and through, and yet conclude their labours without deciding whether there was any precedent whatever for what had just taken place. As to the composition of the Committee, he found upon it the names of four Cabinet Ministers, and the same number of Ex-Cabinet Ministers, but he regretted to see that it included the name of only one Gentleman sitting below the gangway—that of the hon. Member for Birmingham. There ought to be a larger infusion of the independent element in the Committee. He entertained no revolutionary views as to the other House, but he was anxious that this matter should be speedily and satisfactorily disposed of, and was satisfied that that end could only be attained by the appointment of a Committee in which the country had the fullest confidence. He thought that the legal profession ought to have been more largely represented in a Committee whose duty it would be to search for precedents, and balance minute points of difference or similarity. It was true that the hon. and learned Attorney General and Solicitor General were to be placed upon it, but he would suggest the addition of the names of the hon. Members for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), and Manchester (Mr. Bazley), as likely to give weight to the Committee.

said, he differed from the two learned Gentlemen who had just spoken in the view he took of the question, and would beg leave to set them right in one respect. It was a mistake to say that the House of Lords bad rejected the Paper Duty Repeal Bill. It had done no such thing. The House of Lords had only postponed the second reading of the Bill for six months. That was, no doubt, held to be tantamount to the rejection of the Bill, and the House of Lords intended that it should be so received. But there was no reason why, if the House of Commons could defeat the stratagem of the House of Lords and maintain the dignity of their own body, they should not do so. They ought to take the House of Lords at their word. Every one was of opinion that the paper duty was a bad duty—at least every one I who spoke in the House of Lords took that view, and insisted only that this was not the moment to repeal it. Well, let the Government wait and see whether six months hence their Lordships might not discover that the proper moment had arrived. The Bill would be rejected when the Government, by prorogation of Parliament put an extinguisher on the Bill; but till then it stood merely postponed. He believed that before they were many days older they would find a very strong opinion expressed throughout the country against the rejection of the Bill; and if, when the business of the Session was over, the Government would advise Her Majesty not to prorogue Parliament, but to adjourn it from time to time, so that it might sit till November, the country might then be so circumstanced, the revenue might be in such a position, the people might express so emphatic an opinion, and put such a pressure on the Lords, that they might, after all, come to the conclusion that it was right and expedient to pass the Bill. A very large meeting of delegates from the Metropolis and different parts of the country had been held that day, and he was authorized to say that the Amendment he had to propose, and on which he was determined to take the sense of the House, met with their sanction, and would receive every support from them if the House had a mind to test the feeling of the country on this matter. The Amendment lie proposed was as follows:—

"That this House having learned with deep regret that the further progress of a Bill passed by this House for the repeal of the Duty of Excise on Paper manufactured in the United Kingdom, has been postponed by the House of Lords for six months, it is the opinion of this House that when the state of public business permits, Parliament ought not then to adjourn beyond November next, whereby another opportunity will he afforded to the House of Lords of considering whether the said Bill may not be then advantageously agreed to."

Nothing, he maintained, could be milder or more consistent with common sense than that. The hon, and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) said that the object of the Motion in the House of Lords was to embarrass and hamper the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to obstruct the financial arrangements he proposed; and hon. Gentlemen opposite gave their assent to that view by a smile and almost by a cheer. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really the last man who ought to complain of what had happened. Generally speaking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reason to complain only when any great deficit had been created which he had to supply; but in the present case a surplus had been thrust upon him which he did not require. He believed, however, that the House and the Government had a right to complain that when a financial scheme was sent up to the House of Lords, they did not, as they ought to have clone, take all or none of it. The noble Lord at the head of the Government proposed to go in search of precedents. He would not follow the noble Lord in that wild-goose chase. He maintained that no precedent whatever was applicable to the present day. They lived in rather extraordinary times. They had a scheme of finance, including a commercial treaty with a foreign Power, and the repeal of the paper duty was part and parcel of it. The House of Lords had no business to separate one part from another. Looking to the state of affairs abroad, could any man say that a Continental war did not hang as it were by a thread? Great principles were coming into collision—the principles of constitutional freedom and the despotism of autocrats. The Emperor of the French was the first to set the hall rolling in Italy, and he fervently hoped that Garibaldi would be enabled to complete in the south that which the Emperor bad so nobly commenced in the north. [Cries of "Question."] It was of importance who should he at the head of a country like England at such a moment. They must not have men who would play into the hands of the great autocrats of Europe. They must have men who would give a chance to constitutional freedom. No one could say whether to-morrow it would be peace or war, and it was of importance that the financial schemes of the Government should not he lightly trifled with, as it had been by the House of Lords. It was quite right, according to constitutional law that the House of Lords should have the power to put a veto upon Bills which proceeded from this House, even Bills which applied to finance. From time immemorial money Bills had been sent up to the House of Lords, and if that House had not the power to put a veto on them, the House of Commons might insert in those Bills clauses affecting the rights, properties, and liberties of the subject. If the Lords had not the power of putting a veto, the Commons might put in a clause to abolish the bench of Bishops themselves. But from time immemorial, where the Bill was confined to a money Bill, the House of Lords had never deemed it right to reject or meddle with that Bill, as they had done upon this occasion. The noble Lord was going in search of precedents. He cared for none. He wanted no precedent. He knew what the House of Commons ought to do. He felt from the beginning—and the end of it in the House of Lords convinced him that it was intended to insult this House. [cries of "No."] Insult, he repeated, was intended from the manner in which it was done. [Repeated cries of "No."] It was notorious to every man, woman, and child that when notice was given to postpone the Bill for six months by the Controller of the Exchequer, the late Prime Minister jumped up and said in effect, "Every foot which I can bring to bear shall assist to give that Bill a kick." It was a gratuitous avowal at the time, and he could consider it in no other light than an insult to this House. The people were beginning to look at in that point of view. [Derisive Cheers from the Opposition.] He said they were beginning to look at it in that point of view. For the moment the public took a pounds-shillings-and-pence view of the question, and thought the Lords were right to postpone this Bill; but they were now separating the two questions, and were beginning to consider the measure as it affects the right of taxation of the separation of which from the right of representation they were extremely jealous. They were beginning to look at it in that point of view, because they naturally said, "How is ever a tax to be repealed if this is quietly submitted to?" The House of Commons ought not quietly to submit to it. They owed a duty not only to themselves, but to those who would come after them, not to establish precedent of this sort. They ought to put on record their sentiments, and he believed that if the House would do him the honour to take his Motion they might even now come to an understanding with the Lords upon the subject, and avoid any collision. At all events, it would be satisfactory to the country, and would prove that this House was ready and willing to maintain those privileges and those rights which the Constitution had conferred on them. It was with that view that he begged leave to move the Amendment which he had read.

said, he rose to second the Amendment, with the more readiness because it appeared to be a proposition which, reserving entire respect and deference to the House of Lords, attributed to them the best possible motives for the course which they had been pleased to adopt. The main argument used in that House in favour of postponing the second reading for six months was that the state of the revenue would within a few weeks or months be such as to render the tax absolutely necessary for the exigencies of the country. The only objection which could be fairly offered to the Amendment was that they might find themselves in November in the same position in which they now were. He had prepared a notice, which he intended to put upon the Votes, by which that difficulty would be obviated. He looked upon this not as a question between this House and the House of Lords, but between this House and Her Majesty's Ministers. He had voted 10d. in the pound income tax upon the distinct understanding that the paper duty was to be repealed, and he asked the Go- vernment how they could allow the House to separate with 10d. in the pound income tax and the paper duty not repealed, when it was a distinct understanding brought to the test of a division upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) that the consideration for that amount of income tax was the repeal of the paper duty. The notice which he intended to place on the paper was this:—

"That this House considers that Her Majesty's Ministers stand pledged to this House and to the country to carry out the financial arrangements submitted by the Government and adopted by this House, and that it is the duty of the Government to advise Her Majesty to take such measures as may be necessary for passing a Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duty through the House of Lords during the present Session.'

I have been sorry to observe, since this question has made its appearance before this House, that a few Members on the other side have been disposed to treat it as one of no importance. Now, if I were, unfortunately, a member of the party opposite, I hope I should he able to discover that there is something grave and important in this question, and in the position in which the House is placed with regard to it. I hope, also, that I should be able to dispossess my mind of any of those feelings which too often attend party triumphs, and which too often blind our eyes to the real consequences of the course we are taking. I presume that the noble Lord at the head of the Government and his Colleagues, who have a peculiar interest in the matter before us, do consider this a question of some moment; and I think the more it is brought before the House and discussed, the more the House will come to the same opinion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) in what he has said with respect to the growing opinion which is being manifested in the country with regard to it. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite bear in mind that never in the lifetime of the oldest Member of this House, or hardly in the lifetime of his father, has any great question arisen as to what may be termed the rights of the people through their representatives, or the rights of their representatives in this House. Generally men have assumed that certain things were irrevocably fixed; as, for example, that a man may travel in this country without a passport; or that a man's house cannot be broken into by the officers of the law without a warrant; or that if a man be apprehended he must be brought before some Judge or magistrate within a certain time, who may determine his case. These are questions which are fixed in the public mind, and men do not generally ask how they came to be fixed, but they take them as they take their daily bread, or their nightly sleep—as that which is natural and unchangeable in their condition. So with regard to this question of the administration of the finances of the country. Men have always understood, without being able to give chapter and verse for it any more than how it is they breathe, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an officer of the Government chosen by the Crown, and having the confidence of Parliament, especially of this House, for the purpose of arranging the finances of the country for the year, and they have always seen that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought his scheme before Parliament, and that scheme has received the assent of the House of Commons, it has invariably become law. Having seen that, and never having seen anything else, it is not to be wondered at that the great bulk of the people of this country have not instantly discovered, the very first day the Report of the division in the House of Lords went out, that there had been some serious infraction of the Constitution, and some great damage to the powers of this House, and to the liberties of those who pay taxes—taxes which are to be levied solely by the representatives of the people. And when at the same time there has been this unfortunate feature connected with this question, that the press, particularly the press of London, and that portion of it which is most ancient, which is the highest in price, and which has not undergone the revolution which is inevitably approaching the press—that the press of London, actuated, I will not say—by base motives, but actuated by alarms which we all can understand—has been anxious to cover the disaster which was attempted to be inflicted upon this House and the country, and has endeavoured to misrepresent the whole question to the nation. When we take this into our consideration, I say we may easily understand how it is that, within three or four days after the enactment of this great event, there has been no widespread expression of opinion throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. But, judging from what I see in the provincial press—from private letters which I have received—from what is tak- ing place in London now—and in some of the largest towns in the kingdom—I am perfectly satisfied that there will be existing in a few days a wide and almost universal discontent at the course which has been taken. And let the House believe me, as I think they will, when I say that, in considering this question, I have not, at this moment, the slightest regard to the importance of the particular tax which it was proposed to repeal. If it had been proposed to levy an additional Excise upon paper, and if that Bill had gone up to the House of Lords, and it had been rejected there as this Bill has been, I confess that I believe I should have been one of those who would have resisted, so far as I was able to resist, with all those with whom I sit in this House, an interference of that kind on the part of the other House of Parliament. And though I acknowledge myself for many years to have had a warm and growing interest in the question of the abolition of the duty upon paper, yet since that division has taken place, the question of the tax itself has fallen, as it were, into utter insignificance in my sight, as compared with the far graver question which the course taken by the House of Lords has opened to the consideration of Parliament and the country. Now, passing from these observations, which may be considered general, to the point which is strictly before us, I am willing to admit, that there is something to be said—perhaps a great deal—as to the ordinary course of proceeding, and the mode by which the noble Lord at the head of the Government intends to proceed to-night. The noble Lord has proposed a Committee, and if the House will exclude my name from it, I should say it was impossible to select eighteen names more calculated. I think, to represent the solid judgment of this House in any matter that might be referred to them. At the same time, I think there is some force in what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour), that a name or two more might have been chosen from this quarter of the House; but I am willing to believe that, from whatsoever quarter of the House the names are chosen to act upon this Committee, so far as an accurate search for precedents, and an honest Report to this House goes-—there are no nineteen Members of this House who might not be entirely trusted to do what is just and right in this great matter. But I complain—and in this I agree to some extent with the hon. and learned Member—I complain of the vagueness of the reference under which the Committee will act. I think the noble Lord has laid himself open—I will not say to suspicion, for I am not anxious to cultivate such a feeling—but he has laid himself open to some doubt as to the earnestness of his concern when he proposes simply that the Committee should ascertain and Report upon the practice of each House with regard to several descriptions of Bills for imposing or repealing taxes. When I read those words this morning it occurred to me that I was very unlucky in being named upon this Committee, for I concluded that we should have in all probability to offer to the House, at least, a volume upon this grave subject. Now, if I bad had the drawing up of this Resolution, it should have been different—it should have been more effectual, and it should have tended to keep the Committee more exactly and minutely to the point which is before the House. In a wide order of reference like this, every Gentleman, who has been in the habit of sitting upon Committees, must feel that there is some danger that the real pith and point of this question may be lost sight of. It appears to me that what we have to inquire into is this.—We find that the House of Lords has increased the taxation of the country during the present financial year without the consent of the House of Commons. Now, that is a grievance, if there be a grievance of which the House of Commons has to complain; and, as this question is not a question of the paper duty, of this Government, or of this Session, or of that Opposition, but is a question for years, it may be for generations—or it it may be for centuries in England, I hope I may appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to discuss and consider it as if it were a question which did not affect any of their party objects during this Session, but one to which they ought to direct their minds with a calmness demanded only by the greatest question that can come before a national legislature. Let me for one moment observe that the noble Lord states in this Resolution that the Committee are to Report upon the practice of each House with regard to several descriptions of Bills imposing or repealing taxes. Now, there are two descriptions of money Bills, which some people fancy are only one, but which are still two and very distinct. There are Bills which in former times have been passed for the protection or fo the regulation of particular trades, and those Bills have had in them provisions imposing taxes on imports of one kind or other, not intended for the purpose of revenue, but intended for the higher and the chief object of the Bill, namely, the protection or the regulation of some particular trade or industry. Now, that is one description of Bill which may be called in a subordinate sense, a Money Bill; and there are Bills of that kind which, I take for granted, have been interfered with, in some cases have been altered, and, at least I presume, in some cases rejected by the other House of Parliament. But then comes that description of Bills in which the Bill now before us must be included—namely, a Bill for revenue purposes only, connected with the Ways and Means for the service of the Crown. Now, if I could have advised with regard to this Motion for this Committee, the reference would have been of a more distinct character, because I would have asked the Committee to ascertain whether the House of Lords has in a recent period—confine it, if you like, to the Revolution, though I believe it goes further back than that—has the House of Lords refused to give effect to any Bill passed by the Commons for the repeal of a tax which they no longer deemed necessary for the service of the Crown, and for which a substitute has been provided. I am told that in a great speech on this question in "another place" it has been asserted that no substitute has been provided for the loss of the duty on paper; and I have read in the newspapers that at a certain house in St. James's Square a Member of the other House of Parliament, of dominant influence there, apparently in discussing this matter with a large deputation, gave them to understand that he had never even so much as heard that a substitute had been talked of, or provided by the House of Commons for this paper duty. I cannot conceive of anything more unfortunate than that the finances of the country should be placed in the hands of a man so little observant of what is passing in this House, and who knows so little of what had been done by the great party in this House which acknowledges him as its leader. Certainly the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) must have felt very much astonished that the patriotic, though mistaken, efforts which he made received so little recognition at the hands of his leader. That hon. Gentleman moved this Resolution:—

"That as it appears that the repeal of the duty on paper will necessitate the addition of one penny in the pound to the income tax, it is the opinion of the House that such repeal is, under the circumstances, inexpedient."

As far as I recollect the speeches delivered from that (the Opposition) side of the House, the whole discussion during one long night went upon this—not that the paper duty is a good duty in itself, because we all admit that it ought to be repealed. Nobody was more enthusiastic for its abolition hereafter than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, and now nobody is more enthusiastic than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton); you all admit the duty to be a bad one, but you say for the time, at all events, that you prefer the continuance of the bad duty, to the addition of 1d. in the pound to the income tax, which so grievously oppresses persons whose incomes are under £200 or £300 a year. That was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and also of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, and it was the argument of every speaker on the Opposition side of the House; and it was the precise point on which the House went to a division. And in a House of more than 440 Members it was decided by a majority of fifty-three, that the paper duty should be abolished, and in lieu of it, and to supply the void occasioned by its removal, one penny in the pound should be added to the income tax. Now, that being so, let us not be told that a noble Lord elsewhere was in ignorance of this question having been discussed and decided, or that the House of Commons has provided a substitute for that paper duty it determined to repeal. I think, therefore, that the question that should be put to the Committee is this:—"Has the House of Lords refused to give effect within recent times—within such a period as fixed by law of Parliament—to a Bill passed by the Commons for the repeal of a tax no longer deemed necessary fur the service of the Crown, and for which a substitute has been provided?" I object to the order of reference which has been proposed on these grounds. I think the noble Lord has not done justice to himself, to the Cabinet, of which he is the head, to this House, or to the strong claims of the country, which has so often maintained him in power, by not taking a line more decided on this great question. I am of opinion that the noble Lord has taken a course which is not only perilous to this House, but one that may prove fatal to the Administration of which he is the chief. When the present Parliament assembled at the beginning of this Session after the general election, the noble Lord had only a nominal majority in this House; and it was only by thirteen votes that he was placed in his present position. I am satisfied that be can retain that position no longer than he retains the confidence of all those on this side of the House, by whose votes he has been heretofore supported, and by that great party in the country that is represented on these benches. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury, I can assure the House I had not seen it till I came into the House, and I confess that it is one that had never suggested itself to me in the remotest degree. But to my mind that Amendment is dictated by a very clear and visible regard for the Constitution of this country; and for the honour and just functions of both Houses of Parliament. It was received with something like merriment; but the more the House considers it, the more they will feel, I am satisfied, that it is the best mode of maintaining the supremacy of this House as to matters of finance, while, at the same time, it maintains the dignity of the House of Lords, which I am one of the last who would seek to impair. [Laughter from the Opposition.] Do not let hon. Gentlemen for one moment fancy that I wish any governing power in this country to be degraded. If I were an avowed Republican—if I thought that in this country monarchy was no good, and the aristocracy no good, still so long as there is monarchy, and so long as there is an hereditary chamber, I say by all means maintain their dignity, and support them, as far as you can, in the true and honest estimation of the people; advise them, as I advise them—though they sometimes think in an unfriendly tone—so to rule and exercise their power, that their power may be perpetual. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury does not ask the House, as I understand him, to take any active steps in this matter—he does not ask you to express any resentment against the House of Lords for what has been done—he does not ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government to vary from the statement made the other night, when he said that he was anxious not to do anything to bring the Houses of Parliament into collision. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is of a totally opposite character, and I think it can be shown that it is one which, if time were granted for its full consideration, would be likely to be received with considerable favour. I am not at all sure but it will be more desirable to leave this matter for consideration until we next meet, in order that the Amendment of my hon. Friend may be more fully and fairly considered, both by the Government and this House. The noble Lord and his colleagues might then come to the conclusion that it was a mode of getting out of the difficulty in which we are placed, consistent with the dignity, the interests, and the just rights of both Houses of Parliament, and of the people whom we represent. What the hon. Gentleman proposes is just this; that time and reconsideration, which as we all know in private affairs are the great mediators in differences, should act similarly between this House and the House of Lords; and the difficulties which now present themselves would thus be absolutely surmounted, without any unpleasantness or jar. I am not profoundly informed on this subject. I suppose I shall be if this Committee is appointed; but I suspect there are precedents in favour of the course my hon. Friend has proposed. I know there are precedents in favour of a course which is not, at all events, a greater deviation from the ordinary rule. There have been cases in which the House of Lords has rejected a Bill which the Commons bad passed, and the Parliament has been prorogued for a week or a fortnight, and has met again, to enable the Government of the day to introduce for the second time the measure which, having been adopted by the Commons, was then sent up to receive the acceptance of the Lords. The hon. Gentleman does not propose that Parliament should be prorogued, or that the Session should be divided into two, for the purpose of enabling the Government to reintroduce the Bill; but he suggests that as soon as the business has terminated, the necessary adjournment of the House shall take place to November; and when the House assembles at that date it will be seen whether the House of Lords, upon reconsideration, and having discovered that the House of Commons is of opinion that the Bill may safely be passed, will not be disposed to accept the measure they have now resolved to postpone for six months. I would hope that the noble Lord, after what has taken place to-night, would not force the House to a division, either on his Motion for a Committee, or on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but would probably think it only just and advantageous that the debate should he adjourned to Thursday, with a view of giving to both sides of the House and to I all parties concerned an opportunity of coming to some decided opinion. I feel persuaded that the result of the discussion to-night will be satisfactory to the country, but I believe our decision will be still more so if the Government consent to the adjournment of the debate. I beg, therefore, to make this suggestion to the noble Lord, and with the permission of the House I shall move that this debate be adjourned till Thursday next.

Sir, it is not because I underrate the importance of the subject that is now before the House that I ask the House to consent to the Motion of my noble Friend, and not to agree to either of the Amendments that have been proposed. It certainly appears to me that there has not been within my memory a question of greater importance than the question before us. It is a question which undoubtedly affects a most essential function of the House of Commons; but for that reason, and especially bearing in mind that which I always must bear in mind—namely, the reflection which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham made, that there is no reason to suppose that any portion or any section of the Members of this House are either indifferent or lukewarm to the maintenance of our most sacred privileges—I would endeavour to do that which should most enlighten the House without calling upon it to come to anything like a premature decision: and that is the character of the proposition of my noble Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham says the Motion ought to have been of a different kind—that it should have been a proposal pointing out the difference of various kinds of taxes, and founding on that difference a reference to a Committee. Now, I will own to my hon. Friend that when I first considered this question I was disposed to take that view of it. There is undoubtedly a distinction—a very clear distinction—between different Bills. One set of these is for the purpose of imposing taxes or of relieving persons from taxation, and for providing those charges which are necessary for the supply of the year; and there is another kind of Bill in which the tax is merely incidental, as, for instance, where a very high duty in the nature of a prohibition is placed on foreign corn. There it would be obvious that the duty was imposed not for the purpose of revenue, but with a totally different object, and with a view to protection. In the same way, if a Bill placed a certain tax on barley used for distillation, the House of Lords might consider it a Bill, not for taxation, but for protection. Bills of this kind do undoubtedly exist; but it would not be advisable to make that distinction in our reference, because it might be supposed such a distinction did not leave the Committee totally free, and might lead to confusion. Besides, there are other descriptions of Bills besides those which my hon. Friend has mentioned, and to which I have alluded. Therefore it appears to me that the best and most prudent conclusion is that at which, after much deliberation, my noble Friend has arrived, that a Committee should be appointed to ascertain the difference between those various descriptions of Bills, and to point out the precedents that have been established in regard to them. Sir, those precedents, no doubt, will be found of various kinds; and it will be the business of the Committee to ascertain whether the House of Lords in this instance has gone beyond or varied from former precedents, and in what respects they have done so. There are certain questions connected with this subject of taxation upon which the House of Lords are jealous, and I think not unnaturally jealous, of their privileges. For instance, when this House has mixed with a Bill imposing taxation other questions not properly belonging to it—when they have endeavoured to fix upon points of legislation, and prescribed how these points should be settled, under the name of imposing or repealing a tax, the House of Lords have, I think, while making the admission as to the privileges of this House, rightly interfered to prevent any encroachment or any attempt on the part of the House of Commons to carry our privileges beyond the mark to which we ourselves press them. There is an instance in which that kind of objection did apply. I mention it only as an example; but it appears to have been on a question not totally dissimilar from the events of the present year—it was the case of a Bill passed by Mr. Pitt through the House after the negotiation of the Commercial Treaty with France in 1787. It was objected in the House of Lords by several noble Lords on that occasion that in the Bill three separate subjects were combined—the Commercial Treaty with France was sanctioned; new taxes were imposed beyond the scope of the commercial treaty; and besides this there was a great consolidation of duties, making a new species of legislation with regard to customs. It was objected that those three subjects ought not to have been contained in one Bill, but the objection was overruled. I mention it only as an instance of the great jealousy of the House of Lords with regard to Bills which go beyond the purpose of imposing or relieving taxes; but as it is clear that upon subjects of this kind there are many precedents, and precedents applying to various descriptions of Bills, it would be wise, I think, in the House to furnish itself with every kind of information, and enlighten itself in reference to those historical questions, before it comes to any conclusion at all. There can be no harm in doing so. Our powers are very great. I, at least, am not one of those who think that the powers and privileges of the House of Commons are about to succumb to the authority of the House of Lords. I believe that our privileges will be maintained, and I do not think that, taking time for the consideration of what we shall do—giving ourselves every chance of deliberation, and taking care that we walk in the path of the Constitution—I do not think that that course will at all prevent our coming to a right and deliberate decision upon this question, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury has moved an Amendment upon my noble Friend's Motion, and that Amendment seems to me certainly to go not only beyond the question, but far beyond the question—because, while the fault that many of us find is, that the House of Lords has trenched upon the privileges of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend's Amendment proposes that the House of Commons should trench upon the prerogative of the Crown. It may be the right course—I will not argue the question now, but it may be the right course that her Majesty should be advised not to prorogue Parliament, but that a long adjournment should take place. I do not discuss the question whether that would be a right or a good course; but, in the first instance, it certainly would not be right, it would not be respectful, it would not be constitutional for this House to declare by Resolution that Her Majesty's prerogative of prorogation should not be exercised. I will read the Amendment to show what is the fault I find with it:—

"That it is the opinion of this House that when the state of public business permits, Parliament ought not then to adjourn beyond November next, whereby another opportunity will be afforded to the House of Lords of considering whether the said Bill may not be then advantageously agreed to."

I will not dispute whether that may be a right course or a wrong course; but it is quite evident that it would be to interfere with the prerogative that is usually exercised by the Crown in the prorogation of Parliament. I own it appears to me that, without altering any portion of the Motion—which comprehends everything, and yet commits no one to any particular course—this House might now fairly proceed to agree to my noble Friend's Motion, and, when the Report of the Committee is brought up, hon. Gentlemen, when considering the privileges of this House, may come to a conclusion more consonant with that which has been done in former times, and more bearing the symptoms and fruits of deliberation than any conclusion we can arrive at at the present moment.

said, he could not support the Amendment. The best means of obtaining a repeal of the paper duty might not be the best means, or any means, of vindicating the privileges of the House of Commons. Suppose the House of Lords, at the end of six months, altered its mind and passed the Bill it had postponed, how much nearer would the House of Commons be to knowing whether the House of Lords had, or had not, trenched on their privileges? He should, therefore, support the Motion for a Committee that would inform them of their rights, and whether they depended on written law or ancient usage. When the House knew its rights, let it maintain them. He hoped the noble Lord would not alter the terms of the reference, though he should not therefore withdraw his support from the Motion. He was quite content to trust the defence of the rights of the House to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, than whom no man was better fitted by character, position, and name for the task.

said, he should support the Motion for Committee. If the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) was of opinion that the Lords had not virtually rejected the Bill, but had merely postponed it, and if that opinion was correct, then the House of Commons had no right to interfere in the matter at all.

said, he did not think that they were adopting the proper means for defending the privileges of the House. For his part, he had not the least doubt that the result of inquiry would be to reduce the question between the two Houses to a mere matter of the letter of the Constitution, by which the constitutional compact between the House of Commons and the Government would be entirely evaded. They were not now dealing with merely the amount of the paper duty, they were dealing with some £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 a year, over which, if they assented to the power claimed by the House of Lords, they would practically lose all control. He believed that the course about to be taken would be perfectly futile, and that it would still further endanger the constitutional rights of the House.

I need hardly say that my object in moving the adjournment of the debate was not to impede in any way the progress of the business of the House. I did so because I thought it might be convenient to hon. Members opposite, as well as to some hon. Members sitting upon this side of the House, that the consideration of the question raised by the Motion of the noble Lord at the head of the Government should be postponed until after the recess. After the observations which have been made by the noble Lord the Member for London, however, which seemed to meet with general assent, and looking also to the state of my own feelings, which have been somewhat altered by what has been said, I shall, with the permission of the House, withdraw my Amendment. I should also like to put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury whether, seeing that it has been stated by the noble Lord that his Amendment would, if adopted, tend to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, he would not consent to adopt a similar course.

I think that, under all the circumstances, I shall ask the House to permit me to withdraw the Amendment. I do so on the distinct understanding that when the Committee shall have made its Report with regard to precedents, I shall then have an opportunity of again moving it if it appears desirable to do so. With regard to some remarks made by an hon. Member opposite—

said, the hon. Member for Finsbury was not entitled to reply upon the question.

said, he should oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury. Tie thought it ought to be negatived in a becoming manner. Besides it had not appeared on the Notice Paper.

said, he was not aware until the evening before what course the noble Viscount proposed to take, and he had prepared his Amendment since he had read the notice of Motion on the Orders of the Day.

said, he would beg leave to ask whether, if the Committee were nominated, its numbers would not be enlarged. It would, he contended, be unfair to the two great sections on both sides of the House who sat below the gangway that they should not be represented upon it.

I hope the hon. Member opposite will not persist in adopting the somewhat unusual course of stopping in to prevent an hon. Gentleman who has made a Motion of this nature from withdrawing it, and thus saving the House the trouble of dividing. With respect to the question of the enlargement of the Committee, I may say that in my opinion the best time to discuss it would be when the Motion for the appointment of the Committee has been agreed to, and when I propose, as I intend to do, that it should consist of a certain number.

said, he had not the smallest wish to force the House to a division, but he simply desired to see the Amendment negatived.

said, that the course taken by the hon. Member would not effect that object. According to the forms of the House the Question that would be put was "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." No decision on that Question would give a direct negative to the Amendment.

suggested to his hon. Friend the expediency of not pressing his objection to the withdrawal of the Amendment.

thereupon moved that the Committee consist of nineteen Members.

expressed a wish to know whether the noble Lord intended that the Committee should meet the next day, or whether its sitting would be deferred until the reassembling of the House after the recess. It might be that some of the Members could not remain in town.

I think it would be convenient to hon. Members who are to serve on the Committee generally, that the usual course should be followed, and that the Committee should not meet until after the recess. As to the question whether it should consist of more than nineteen Members, I can only say that I have no particular objection to enlarge it beyond that number. It is, however, perhaps better to defer the consideration of that point until the House reassembles.

said, he happened to be one of those who, out of consideration to the request of the noble Lord that no remarks should be made upon the main question, had hitherto abstained from making any remarks, merely for the purpose of allowing the noble Lord, as leader of the House of Commons, to declare his policy on the subject. However, be thought—and many hon. Members were of the same opinion—that some deference ought to be paid to the two important sections of hon. Members below the gangway, in the selection of the names to be placed on the Committee. He himself was opposed to the view of the noble Lord with respect to the appointment of a Committee, but as the House had decided upon following that course, it was unfair that any of the large sections of that House should be unrepresented. There were a large number of hon. Members who sat below the gangway who entertained strong opinions on the subject, and he put it to the noble Lord whether he would not, for their satisfaction, then give notice that he meant to add the names of some hon. Members below the gangway on both sides of the House to the Committee.

said, he would move as an Amendment that the number of the Committee be increased by four Members, and that the number be twenty-three instead of nineteen.

said, that the Amendment was not regular. It was not competent for the hon. Member to move the enlargement of the Committee without giving notice of his intention. If, however, the nineteen Members proposed by the Government were appointed, the hon. Member could give notice of the names which he intended to move as an addition to the Committee. He did not think it would be wise to enlarge the Committee to the number proposed by the hon. Gentleman; but perhaps the noble Lord would have no objection to make an addition of two Members—one to be taken from each side of the House.

said, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. According to the rules of the House, when a question was put from the Chair any Amendment might be proposed, and consequently the hon. Member for Bodmin was in order.

said, he thought the question for consideration by the Committee was of sufficient importance to warrant him in testing the principle that hon. Members below the gangway on either side of the House should be represented upon it; and with the view of giving an opportunity for further consideration of that point he begged to move that the debate be adjourned.

Does any hon. Member second that Motion?

Yes, I second it.

said, he hoped to meet the views of the hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the adjournment by giving notice that on Thursday next he should move the addition of two members.

said, he had heard with great regret the decision of the noble Lord. Nothing was more inconvenient in practice than large Committees, and he was sorry to find there was a tendency to swell the numbers forming them. There was great difficulty in conducting the business when the number of members was large. He would rather the number in this instance had been fifteen instead of nineteen, but if the noble Lord was of opinion that it was desirable to increase that number to twenty-one, or even more, he (Sir John Pakington) would not oppose it. He highly approved of the fairness that had been displayed in the constitution of the Committee as regarded the balance of the two parties in the House. It was such as no one could take an exception to. As was usual when a Committee was moved for by a Government, ten members bad been selected from the Government side of the House and nine from the other side, which was as near an approach to equality as was possible under the circumstances. He hoped the noble Lord, immaking an addition to the numbers, would not take them all from the Government side of the House.

said, his noble Friend did not say that he intended to take them from the Government side of the House. It was suggested that one should be taken from each side below the gangway, and his noble Friend in what he had consented to do believed he was acting in accordance with the general usage of the House, and he (Sir George Grey) was surprised to hear any objection to it, especially as it was a proposition that met with the approval and support of the right I hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. S. Estcourt). It was competent for the House then to decide the number should be twenty-one instead of nineteen, but it was not usual to name the members until after I notice had been given. His noble Friend proposed to place the names on the paper that evening, and submit them to the House on their re-assembling after the recess.

said, he did not think the constitution of Committees was placed on a right basis. There were too many official Gentlemen, not fewer than twelve, who are or had been Cabinet Ministers, on this Committee. The various sections of opinion in that House could not he fairly represented with such a predominance of official members.

said, that on the understanding that the two additional members to be moved on Thursday should he taken from below the gangway, he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

said, he would also withdraw his Motion. His object in moving it had been to assert what he considered to be a right. Hon. Members below the gangway were always ready to support the Government when they felt they could do so consistently with principle. The Committee about to be appointed was one upon a subject which greatly affected their privileges, and they were entitled to be represented upon it. He had no intention to find fault with the constitution of the Committee.

said, he begged to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the question which stood upon the paper in his name. He maintained that the House had no right to suspend the issuing of the writ for the boroughs of Gloucester and Wakefield, upon the ground that there was nothing before the House to warrant that procedure. He himself had moved at an early period of the Session a Resolution in that House which would have had the effect of giving the House a ground upon which to suspend the issuing of the writs. He had proposed to bring in a Bill to enable the constituency of those two places to exercise their franchise under the protection of the ballot. While that Bill was pending it would, no doubt, have been perfectly constitutional to suspend the issue of the writs; but the House had not thought proper to adopt that Motion. Upon what ground, then, could the House suspend the issuing of the writ. There was no ground except the pleasure of Her Majesty's Government. Whenever writs had been suspended, a Motion had always been before the House in reference to some case of alleged bribery. No proceeding of the sort was then before the House. On that account he asked the right hon. Gentleman under what authority and for what purpose he was withholding these writs. It was quite true that the executive of the Crown was invested with the power of issuing writs; but why was it invested with that power? For the purpose, he maintained, of expediting the matter, and not for delay. The House had enfranchised by an Act of Parliament the boroughs of Gloucester and Wakefield, and that being so, nothing but an Act of Parliament could deprive them of their right to be represented. Unless, therefore, the House were prepared to disfranchise them, or to enlarge the limits of those boroughs, it had no right to suspend the issuing of the writs. As to Gloucester, a Report had been made by the Commission which completely exculpated both the candidates from bribery, and these gentlemen had received certificates. As to Wakefield, both the late Member and the opposing candidate were at that moment under an order for prosecution for a misdemeanour. He would ask, could two-thirds of that House with clean hands order the late Member to be prosecuted? He hoped no prosecution would take place. It would do no possible good. If such prosecutions wore right, why had they not taken place in the instances of Canterbury, Cambridge, Maldon, Barnstaple, and Hull? In the case of those boroughs, Commissioners were appointed, and reported that both bribery and intimidation had taken place; but the Members had not been prosecuted. Why should they now turn round and prosecute, when the individual, as far as they could judge, had given his evidence candidly before the Commissioners? The Corrupt Practices Act and the Act that enabled Parliament to issue those Commissions, were not passed for the purpose of prosecuting individuals, but for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of the bribery, corruption, and intimidation that prevailed in certain boroughs, with the view of seeing if some remedy could not be discovered by which that bribery, corruption, and intimidation might hereafter be prevented. The Acts were not directed against individuals, but they now proposed to satisfy themselves with prosecuting individuals instead of going into the whole question. To prosecute Mr. Leatham and Mr. Charlesworth was an act really unworthy of the House, and he hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would move that the order be discharged. He begged leave to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in consequence of the bribery and corruption reported to prevail at Elections for the City of Gloucester and the Borough of Wakefield, Her Majesty's Government has anything to propose upon the subject; if not, by what right, and for what purpose, he delays the issue of New Writs to those places?

Sir, before any Member of the Government rises to answer this question, I wish to say, locally interested as I am, and having had a long personal connection with one of the boroughs to which my hon. Friend has alluded, I cannot agree with him that the suspension of these writs, for the present at least, is not demanded both by public opinion and public justice. I believe that suspension is in itself a very severe punishment, and is felt to be so by the constituencies which have thus offended, and that it is also a punishment of the right kind. The offence is solely one of a political nature, and the punishment ought likewise to be solely political. I cannot, therefore, help thinking that the selection of one or two gentlemen of no especial culpability or viciousness of character, in order to hold them up as objects of public obloquy, is not a dignified proceeding on the part of this House, nor one likely to lead to any remedy for this great public evil. But in this case the painful position of these two gentlemen, with both of whom I have the honour to be personally acquainted, is most seriously aggravated by the peculiar constitution of the Commissions appointed by the House for inquiring into the corruption of delinquent boroughs, because by the very fact of issuing such a Commission, with its form of process, you hold out every inducement to the persons examined before it to make a clean breast and give every evidence in their power, even, it may be, against themselves. What is the meaning of that? Why, that much as you regret individual error, much as you abhor that low tone of political morality which allows men to traffic in votes themselves, or to incite others to do so, nevertheless your end is a public, not a personal one, and therefore you, as it were, encourage these avowals of past political delinquency to secure a future public good. But in refusing these two gentlemen those certificates of legal impunity which in these cases are generally so freely given, you not only render them liable to the unhappy consequences of a penal prosecution, but—which is far more serious—you imply that they have not acted honourably in the face of the Commission, and have not told it all that they knew about the matter. Now, from my personal knowledge of these gentlemen, I am convinced that the fact is quite different; that, whatever may have been their political errors, yet, appearing as they did before these Commissioners, and being asked as gentlemen to disclose on their honour what they had done, the evidence they gave was the truth and the entire truth. Therefore I would appeal to the Government not to press so cruelly and so partially on these two persons; because I am certain the public effects of such a harsh course will not be good; but that, on the contrary, it will be said there is some hypocrisy in the conduct of this House, that we are not acting sincerely or simply from a wish to eradicate this evil, but are ready to sacrifice two unfortunate gentlemen who may, from some accidental circumstance, have rendered themselves specially obnoxious to the law, and that we are doing this instead of endeavouring to discover, through the highest political sagacity we possess, by what means we can extirpate this disorder from the State. I implore the Government, then, not to continue a prosecution so unworthy both of themselves and of this House, but rather to set about the search for a remedy by totally different measures.

said, the noble Lord the Member for the City had acknowledged, in 1852, that the most appropriate way of dealing with such cases was to transfer the franchise from a borough proved to be corrupt, to another locality, and he considered that there was more justice in that proposition than in what had been urged by the noble Lord at a later period. Anything less than a suspension of the writs for ten years in the case of the peccant boroughs would be an inadequate punishment for their delinquencies. Indeed, it would be better to transfer their franchises altogether to other and purer constituencies. If such grave constitutional offences were to be treated with leniency, the country would put no faith in the sincerity of the House's professed abhorrence of electoral corruption. To suspend the writs, as had been proposed, merely till another Session, when it was intended that the franchise should be brought down to a lower and, if possible, even more venal class of voters than at present, would be to condone and encourage that very corruption which they all professed so much anxiety to repress.

said, he entirely concurred with everything that had fallen from the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes). He happened to be well acquainted with both of the individuals who were the subject of that discussion, and he was satisfied that what they had already suffered through the prosecution hanging over them was quite sufficient punishment for whatever offences they might be supposed to have committed. He was therefore persuaded that the hon. and learned Attorney General would gratify every Member on both sides of the House if he were to rise and announce that the legal period for it having now expired this prosecution would not be carried any further.

said, he hoped the Government would not consent to the issue of the writs for either of these boroughs during the present Parliament. There were grave objections, however, to their disfranchisement. The hon. Members for Glocestershire and the West Riding of Yorkshire doubtless would not like to have these corrupt towns merged in their respective constituencies. It would be better to suspend the writ for five years.

I wish to call the attention of the House to one view of this case, which appears to me of great importance, and with regard to which we may find ourselves in a difficulty if we proceed without considering well the course about to be taken. I shall not now say a word as to the general question of the best and most philosophical mode of treating boroughs which have been found guilty of great corruption. I wish to speak of an entirely different subject. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General a few nights ago informed the House, in answer, I think, to a question, that even although the time had expired for what we may call the statutory prosecution of the candidates at the late election for one of these boroughs, he believed, I dare say most correctly, there was room for an indictment against them for misdemeanour at common law, and that it would be his duty, as he conceived, to direct such an indictment to be brought forward. Now, it is very important that we should not, from a desire existing, no doubt, upon both sides of the House to repress corrupt practices of this kind, take a step which may have, or which may be represented out of doors as having the appearance of very great injustice towards these two gentlemen. I have not the honour of the acquaintance of either of those gentlemen, and I am only anxious to prevent the House committing an injustice by proceeding rashly in this matter. The House has often had its attention called to the Act of 1852, which authorized the making of these inquiries into corrupt practices at elections, and it knows that very precise and somewhat unusual clauses were introduced, and certainly not the least conspicuous of them is the clause which holds out to every person who may be called upon to give evidence before these Commissions the promise that if he gives full and fair evidence he shall be protected from all penal consequences what- ever. That clause is so strong that I hope the House will allow me to read it. It runs as follows:—

"IX. For the more effectually prosecuting any inquiry under this Act, every person who has been engaged in any corrupt practice at or connected with any election of Members or a Member to serve in Parliament for any county, division of a county, city, borough, University, or place to which any inquiry under this Act relates, and who is examined as a witness, and gives evidence touching such corrupt practice before the Commissioners appointed under this Act to make such inquiry, and who upon such examination makes a true discovery to the best of his knowledge touching all things to which he is so examined, shall he freed from all penal actions, forfeitures, punishments, disabilities, and incapacities, and all criminal prosecutions, to which he may have been or may become liable or subject at the suit of Her Majesty, her heirs, or successors, or any other person, for anything done by such person or persons in respect of such corrupt practice; and no person shall be excused from answering any question put to him by such Commissioners on the ground of any privilege, or on the ground that the answer to such question will tend to criminate such person."

Observe what is the consequence of that. You tell all persons who are summoned to give evidence before the Commission that, provided they make a full and fair discovery of everything, to the best of their knowledge, they shall be indemnified against every possible consequence that may happen; and more, that they are not to have that which is the ordinary protection of every subject of the realm, they are not to be allowed to refuse to answer a question on the ground that the answer may criminate them. They cannot do what the meanest witness in any of the courts of criminal jurisdiction can do; they cannot say, "I decline to answer that question because my reply may subject me to criminal prosecution." The answer would be, "No, it won't; if you tell the truth as to what you know you are indemnified by the clause in the Act of Parliament." The question may arise. "Is not that sufficient? How can there be any room for a prosecution against these gentlemen?" The only room for a prosecution arises from the next section, which provides that, in order to make their indemnity perfect, in order to enable them to plead it before the courts, they are to have a certificate under the hands of the Commissioners. Now, I apprehend that the meaning of that clause was clearly this, that the Commissioners who took the evidence should judge whether the witness who gave the evidence had made a full and fair discovery of every- thing within his knowledge before they gave the certificate in question. Now, what has happened in the case of the Wakefield election? Two gentlemen who were candidates at that election wore examined at great length and in great detail before the Commissioners. I have looked only cursorily at the report of their examinations; but it does seem to me that nothing appears upon the face of the proceedings which would enable any one reading the evidence to say that the persons giving it had not made a full and fair disclosure to the best of their knowledge. The Commissioners may have thought differently; the certificates have not been given to those two gentlemen. Now, my proposition is this:—I do not wish the House to limit the power of the Commissioners as to giving or refusing these certificates; but I do ask that when upon the face of the proceedings, as reported by the Commissioners, and laid before us, a witness appears to have made a full disclosure, but no certificate has been given to him, the House shall not make itself a party to his prosecution, without requiring the Commissioners to state why they refused to give him the certificate. In this case the Commissioners have made their Report, and have assigned no reason whatever for refusing these certificates. They have not said, "No matter what may appear upon the evidence, the air and manner of the witnesses were such as to lead to the belief that they had not made a true discovery, to the best of their knowledge, touching the things upon which they were examined." Had the Commissioners made such a Report to Her Majesty, I have no doubt that the House would have been satisfied with it, and would have given them credit for having formed a true judgment. But what I say is, that it behoves the House of Commons, before it directs, or invites, or urges a prosecution of these gentlemen, to have made known to it, in some way, why it was that they were deprived of that largo promise and inducement, which is held out, before examination, to witnesses, on condition that they answer truly and to the best of their knowledge. Just observe the position in which these gentlemen are placed. They cannot go to any Court of Appeal from the Commissioners, and say, "We ought to have had certificates, but have not got them;" nor could they, before giving their evidence, demand their certificates, because the Act of Parliament says, "You cannot have a certificate until you have given your evidence." Therefore, this is the state of things. The Commissioners refuse the certificates without assigning any reason; and these gentlemen have no appeal, have no means of insisting upon those certificates being given to them. They have done all they could. They have given all the evidence which they might have refused to give, had it not been for this Act of Parliament, and they are now left to a prosecution, which this House urges the Attorney General to undertake. I know there is no man in the House whose feelings of justice and propriety might better be trusted, than might those of my hon. and learned Friend, and I put it not only to the House, but also to him—although I know that in this matter he is acting more upon what appears to be the wish of the House, than upon any opinion or judgment of his own—whether the House of Commons, if it encourages or urges on this prosecution, may not be doing an act of the grossest injustice. It may be that there was a good reason for refusing these certificates; but the Commissioners have assigned none, and I say that, from all that appears upon their Report, we must presume that the witnesses gave their evidence upon the faith of this Parliamentary contract, and that they gave it fairly and truthfully; because I do not find that the Commissioners anywhere censure them for giving testimony of a different kind. If that is so, do not, for goodness' sake, let us, affecting a desire to punish and repress bribery and corruption—which I have no doubt we all feel—do not let us, simply because we can lay our fingers upon two individuals, urge a prosecution against them; at all events, without knowing why it is that they have not got the protection which the Act of Parliament promised them.

said, he took very much the same view as his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down; but he wished to add to his statement a fact which he considered to be of great importance. His hon. and learned Friend was right in stating that the Commissioners had not assigned their reasons for refusing their certificate; but he (Mr. Malins) had been informed by Mr. Serjeant Pigott, the senior Commissioner upon the Wakefield inquiry, that he thought that Mr. Leatham ought to have had his certificate, but that it was refused in consequence of the other two Commissioners, Messrs. Willes and Slade, being of a different opinion. The section quoted by his hon. and learned Friend amounted in reality to a Parliamentary contract with any person whom it might induce to give evidence, for if it were not so, let them consider what would be the position of persons who gave their evidence before the Commissioners. Having come there on the faith of a Parliamentary contract, and made a full disclosure of everything he knew, the witness would find himself at the mercy of the Commissioners, who might rightly or wrongly refuse the certificate. Now, in the case before the House, the chief Commissioner might have been wrong, and the junior Commissioner might have been right; but a higher question was raised, and that was whether, there being clearly a doubt, the House would not, acting on the well-known principle of the law, take a merciful view of the case, and giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, withdraw from the prosecution? He wished something could be done to show the determination of the House to prevent the continuance of bribery and corruption; still they were bound to act mercifully, not harshly, and above all they were bound to bear in mind the Parliamentary contract which the Act of Parliament made with the witnesses. There was another point he wished to press on the attention of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. When, in the course of the debate, upon the issuing of the Berwick Commission, he referred to what had taken place at Wakefield, he by no means intended to urge upon the Government that they should undertake a prosecution which, if instituted at all, ought to have been instituted directly the facts became known. The 14th section of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act provided that all proceedings under it should be commenced within a year after the Commission of the offence; but all these transactions occurred in April, 1859, and therefore the year had already expired. He submitted that the Government would not be justified in instituting a prosecution where there was a serious doubt whether the result would be favourable, and upon the whole he was decidedly of opinion that no further proceedings should be taken against individuals in the present case.

said, he took a somewhat different view of the reasons which ought to influence the House in its consideration of this matter, from his hon. and learned Friends opposite, though he arrived at pretty much the same conclusion. It appeared to him that an election Commission was intended to be, not a mere instrument for the prosecution of individuals for bribery, but a body to ascertain the extent to which corruption might prevail in a particular borough, with a view to legislative action. He therefore believed that it would be attended with the greatest danger to the success of such Commissions, if the strictest faith was not kept with the parties who came before the Commissioners to give evidence. In that particular case he had looked into the evidence, and he was at a loss to discover the grounds upon which a certificate was refused to Mr. Leatham. The differences of opinion between the Commissioners, stated by his hon. and learned Friend, were an additional reason why the prosecution should not be carried on; and he was certain that great mischief and inconvenience would occur if it were undertaken. As to the issue of the writ, it was known to every body that the Corrupt Practices Committee had recommended that for the future, when extensive bribery had been found to prevail in a borough, the writ should be suspended for a period of five years, without prejudice to the right of the House to take stronger measures by way of whole or partial disfranchisement. His chief regret was that hitherto the House had not disfranchised the borough where extensive bribery had prevailed, transferring the privilege to some other place; and, at all events, he hoped that in the present instance the Attorney General would seriously consider whether it could with propriety institute prosecutions against individuals.

said, he fully concurred in the statement of the law given by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns), and he had the authority of Mr. Serjeant Pigott for stating that, in his opinion, certificates ought to have been granted upon the ground that when the Commission was opened the parties were informed that if they came forward and made a full disclosure the Commissioners had power, under the Act of Parliament, to grant them certificates of indemnity. There would be great difficulty before a special jury in Westminster Hall in convicting any gentleman to whom it had been held out that if he made a full disclosure a certificate of indemnity would be granted. If a magistrate went into the cell of a prisoner and assured him that if he made a disclosure of the crime alleged against him he would receive a certificate of indemnity, no Judge on the bench would allow a state- ment so obtained to be recorded against the prisoner on a criminal trial.

The Addresses to which the House has listened have certainly placed me in a very painful position, because I must speak to you in a manner which must appear rather ungracious after the speeches you have heard from my hon. and learned Friends. They have told you things which are highly creditable to their humanity, their feelings as Gentlemen, and their kind consideration of the circumstances of the case; but undoubtedly not creditable to their reputation as lawyers. I have not heard a single argument broached that would for one moment be listened to in a court of law; but at the same time there have been many observations made, which, on the ground of humanity, may well be deemed worthy of attention in an assembly of Gentlemen. But you must remember that you have placed me in a false position, because you have delivered Addresses concluding with no Resolution. If the House has heard sufficient to influence their decision, declare an opinion at once that, under the circumstances, it is the duty of the Attorney General not to proceed with these prosecutions against individuals. No man in the House would more joyfully acquiesce in that conclusion than I; but it is impossible for you to leave me exposed to the whole weight of a public duty, and imagine that I can feel myself adequately discharged from that onerous obligation in consequence of certain Gentlemen, however much they may be entitled to respect and attention, having addressed a few speeches to the House characterized by feelings of humanity, kindness and forbearance. I cannot act upon addresses, however generous and humane; but if any hon. Gentleman will come forward with a Resolution, I shall certainly not oppose a single word to its adoption by the House. One or two points have been mooted, upon which I may be permitted to make a few remarks. Nothing is more to be deprecated than that you should constitute yourselves a Court of Appeal from any description of judicial authority, and I am extremely sorry that the kindly feelings of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast should have induced him to forget the lawyer in the man, because, undoubtedly, election Commissioners are armed with a great judicial authority. I am sorry to find that one of them has made that communication to which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) has referred, because he was bound by every consideration not to impeach the judgment which the majority of his colleagues gave, and my hon, and learned Friend (Mr. James) will permit me to say that so unadvised and indiscreet a communication ought not to have been stated to tins House. [Mr. E. James: I had his authority for stating it.] Then I regret it the more, because he was in a minority of three Judges, and he was bound to uphold the judicial decision which the majority had pronounced, and not to impugn it. But, I repeat, you should not constitute yourselves a Court of Appeal from those to whom you have intrusted a judicial duty. If you do so, who in future will be found willing to undertake that duty? Nor, I submit, can you properly call upon the Commissioners to state the grounds of their decision! You might as well call upon the Court of Queen's Bench to explain the reasons of their judgment in a particular case. You cannot sit in judgment on the Commissioners. They can determine what is committed to them by law, can judge of the credibility of a witness not only by the terms in which he couches his answers, but by his demeanour and appearance before them, and you have not the means of deciding as to the manner in which they discharge their duty. What the Act of Parliament has done is this:—the certificate of the Commissioners is the only evidence which the law permits to be offered that a witness has given satisfactory answers to the questions put to him. If a witness does not obtain that certificate, the law is bound to conclude that in the judgment of the Commissioners the witness was not entitled to the indemnity, though the Act of Parliament prevents his evidence being used against him. Therefore you do him no injury. You do not give him the indemnity, but at the same time what he has said is not to be used against him. The Act of Parliament itself protects him against any prosecution based upon evidence given by him the tendency of which would be to criminate himself.

Is that so?

Yes, that is so.

I do not find it in the Act.

Yes, it is so, undoubtedly. And when my hon. and learned Friend speaks of the senior Commissioner reading the Act of Parliament to the witnesses, as if that would make any difference, I am astonished at his observations. The Act of Parliament is known to every one, and it cannot affect the case one way or other whether it was read or not read to the witnesses by the Commissioners. Another element for our consideration, however, has been introduced in the course of the discussion—namely, that it is doubtful whether the time has not expired within which a prosecution ought properly to be instituted. If there were any doubt upon that point in my own mind, or in the mind of those to whom I have resorted for assistance, I should be most glad to give the accused persons all the advantage of it; but I have not the slightest doubt with respect to it. The limitation of time has no application to a criminal prosecution for misdemeanour; and the hon. and learned Member for Belfast misunderstood what I stated the other night. What I then said was, that I should prosecute for misdemeanour under the statute. If I had a doubt of the propriety of that mode of proceeding, I should not hesitate to resort to the common law; but I have no doubt, and, therefore, the prosecution will be under the statute. If I am wrong, though I think I am not, the accused will have the benefit of the error and will be protected by the Act of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member also spoke of the prosecution as if it had been directed by the House. [Sir H. CAIRNS was understood to explain that he said that it was urged, not ordered, by the House.] It was, indeed, urged by the House on a variety of occasions, unless this House has been guilty of the most solemn mockery and hypocrisy. You have urged it by passing the statute. Is that Act to be a real thing, or a mere piece of hypocrisy and imposition on the public? It has been urged again and again, and by no one more earnestly than by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), who blamed the Government for issuing Commissions which were productive of no good at all. And why were they productive of no good? Because, when the time comes for action, the House of Commons shrinks from enforcing the statute, and there is no one here who will throw the first stone. If that is to be the principle on which you act, confess it, be consistent, and repeal the Acts. But while those Acts of Parliament remain, and you have returned to you a mass of evidence which proves that there has been corruption in the grossest, most extrava- gant, and exaggerated manner, while this is brought publicly to the notice of the Attorney General, and the Attorney General is willing to perform his duty, I say you must allow him to perform it. Undoubtedly, you will be glad that those things which you affect to treasure so highly—namely, your enactments—are about to be tried, and that it will be shown whether this statute was passed for a real purpose or not. Such is the question, I say, that is about to be tried, and will be tried unless you come in to the rescue of those who are accused, and by a Resolution of the House, take off from the Attorney General that responsibility from which, as an individual, he would be most thankful and most happy to be relieved. Sir, I have undertaken this duty, as I hope everybody will give mo the credit for, most unwillingly; but the conviction has been forced on me that unless the whole thing is to be given up as a farce and a piece of hypocrisy, it is my bounden duty, in the position I occupy, having first ascertained that I have, as I believe I have, all the materials for a conviction, to enforce the law. But, now, remember, you introduce an exceptional case with regard to Mr. Leatham. It may be, and I think it was, a very hard case. But remember this—if you pass a Resolution with respect to Mr. Leatham—

I did not allude to him particularly. I spoke of both.

It was I who particularly mentioned Mr. Leatham.

Well, what I wish you to understand is this—that if you choose to take exception to the judgment of the Commissioners in the case of Mr. Leatham, I decline to prosecute any of them. For how can I tell that they may not have erred as greatly with regard to the rest as with respect to him? I will tell you what I have done. I have selected eight of the greatest culprits (using that word as denoting the greatest delinquents according to the evidence before me), and I have taken them without any difference or distinction, other than that four have been selected from the one side of politics and four from the other. Within two days, proceedings, I trust, will be commenced against them. I shall commit the prosecution of the four belonging to the one side to gentlemen of the bar, who are generally supposed to be of the opposite persuasion in politics, observing a similar impartiality with reference to the other four. That is the step which, as Attorney General, I shall take, though I repeat I shall be most happy to relinquish the prosecution under the authority of an express declaration by this House.

Sir, I shall not address the House with respect to any particular case, but, understanding this matter was coming forward, I have looked into the evidence and considered the Act of Parliament, and the result of my reflection is, not that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is departing from his duty in what he proposes to do, still less in the reasons he has assigned, but that if these prosecutions be pressed, two consequences must follow:—one, the perpetration of a great act of injustice; and the other, the risk of defeating the objects of the Act of Parliament. I will state my reasons for these two conclusions. I think that the Attorney General has not accurately represented the operation of the Act of Parliament in one particular. If I understand the Act rightly, there can be no defence to any prosecution for bribery instituted against persons who have given evidence before the Commissioners, except pleading the certificate given by the Commissioners, for the Act distinctly says, that where any person is examined before the Commissioners, such witness shall not be indemnified under the Act, unless he receives from the Commissioners a certificate in writing under their hands that he has made a true disclosure touching all things on which he was examined. Therefore, any admission which a witness has made against himself will be used against him, unless he has the indemnity secured by the certificate. The Attorney General seemed to think that under the 9th section of the Act the witness is protected from all the consequences of an admission against himself, that section declaring that the witness shall be free from all penalties, actions, forfeitures, disabilities, and criminal prosecutions. But he is only to be free from them, according to the same section, if on examination he makes a true disclosure of facts, and the only mode of testing that point is by the certificate of the Commissioners. If, therefore, the certificate is withheld, a prosecution may be instituted and a man may be convicted on admissions made by himself, although he is bound as a witness before the Commissioners to answer every question, notwithstanding that the answers may tend to criminate himself. If that be the true construction of the sta- tute, only conceive what you are about to do. You not only induce witnesses to come forward to disclose bribery and corruption, but you also say that those witnesses shall not be entitled to the ordinary protection which every accused person in this country has of not answering a single question, tending to criminate himself. Can that be a proper course either for the House or the Attorney General to pursue, if you mean to make use of the Act for the fair purpose of stopping corruption, but not for prosecuting individuals with undue severity on account of admissions which they would not have made if they had not thought themselves entitled to protection? I quite agree if a witness before the Commissioners had apparently not made a true disclosure, had prevaricated, and kept back the truth, then protection should not be extended to him; but in the Report of the Commissioners with respect to this particular case there is not one tittle of evidence to show that these persons from whom certificates were withheld had prevaricated or abstained from disclosing the truth so far as it was within their own knowledge. If so, they have performed their part of the Parliamentary contract, and we are bound to perform ours. Now, I have read the evidence of Mr. Leatham. I cannot say that, according to the evidence, Mr. Leatham has behaved with discretion or with prudence; and anybody may well suppose that he was led into the commission of acts for which he must now himself be sorry. But I cannot find one word in the evidence which tends to show that Mr. Leatham kept back any facts which it was important for the Commissioners to learn. If he has given a truthful relation of facts, you may make use of them and derive benefit from them in dealing with the case of Wakefield; but, assuming their truth, I think Mr. Leatham is entitled to a certificate of indemnity. See what the consequences of such a prosecution will be as regards the statute, and the offence to which the statute applies. If you proceed against the persons from whom a certificate is withheld, they not being open to the charge of having given unsatisfactory evidence, what witnesses will you ever get to come before such Commissions for the future? Your hands will henceforth be tied, the whole object of the Act of Parliament will he frustrated; you will have no means of ascertaining whether corruption exists or not, if you institute such prosecutions. The Attorney General says, and very properly, that, he ought not to be put in a position where he may be reproached for not prosecuting, when, in point of fact, he is willing to discharge that duty. In this I quite agree with him, and think he would be quite justified in going on with the prosecution, until, at all events, good reasons were adduced in this House to satisfy him that an injustice would be perpetrated if it were allowed to continue. I believe that an injustice would be committed by a conviction obtained through evidence given in the belief that the parties concerned would receive a certificate of indemnity; and believing that, I will not be a party to such a prosecution, but will join with those who have urged the Attorney General not to proceed any further in this matter. If blame is to attach to anybody, let it attach, not to the Attorney General or the Government, but to us who suggest the course. The hon. and learned Gentleman has done his duty so far, and I think he will not less discharge his duty now that the facts have been brought before him, if, upon considerations, not of humanity, but of justice and sound policy, he withdraws from these prosecutions.

I have some difficulty in saying anything on this matter, because, as the House knows, one of the gentlemen concerned is a near relative of mine. At the same time, there may be some points which have not been laid before the House, but which are familiar to me from my connection with him. The Attorney General has made a speech, Sir, with which I can find no fault. Ii was the speech of a great lawyer. Its law, I have no doubt, was in all points correct, and I do not complain that in his observations he went one hair's breadth beyond the line of his duty. But it is quite possible that everything he said may be true, and that at the same time everything else which has been said in the House to induce him not to proceed with these prosecutions is also true. It may be perfectly true that those gentlemen—and I may mention in particular the name of Mr. Leatham, in whom, it may be supposed, I take a somewhat warm interest— it may be true that they have been examined by the Commissioners, that they have not received a certificate, that the funds which they supplied have been expended in bribery, and that they are open to prosecution by the Attorney General; but I will put before the Attorney General, in two or three sentences, the case as it is presented to my mind, and I will not colour it too warmly because I have an immediate interest in one of the gentlemen. One of these gentlemen—Mr. Leatham, if you like—comes before the Commission. He is especially told of the Act of Parliament. On the opening of the Commission the Act is read in public Court, and witnesses are told, "If you make a full disclosure on all the matters about which you are examined, a certificate of indemnity will be given you." Mr. Leatham lived in the neighbourhood; he attended the Court several days; but he was only once examined. Not a single syllable was said by any one of the Commissioners during the examination, or after it, to show they regarded his evidence as unsatisfactory and incomplete. He might have been examined any day. He was there ready to answer any question which might have been suggested by the evidence of other witnesses. But neither when he was under examination, nor at the conclusion of it, nor at the termination of the inquiry, nor at any time, was there an intimation to him by the slightest word or look that the Commissioners were dissatisfied with his evidence. If they had said to him "There appear to be discrepancies in certain points. Can you clear them up?" he would have been most ready to do so if he could. But nothing of the sort was done, and therefore he left the Court with the perfect assurance that he had done all which the Commissioners expected from him, that the contract would be fulfilled, and that in due course of time a certificate would be sent to him. He had made a full disclosure. I speak, knowing the facts as completely, I believe, as Mr. Leatham knows them himself. Well, then, the Report comes out, and he finds that, without any statement made, without any reason given, without any fault found, the certificate is withheld from a certain number of persons, including himself. He immediately applies by letter to the Home Office, and takes steps to ascertain whether it was possible for him by the re-opening of the Commission, by application to any Court of Appeal, or by any other mode, to make a further statement if anybody chose to ask him anything further, in order that he might obtain the certificate, and remove the imputation that his evidence given on oath had not been as satisfactory as the Commissioners had a right to expect. I will not say that the Attorney General is not right in his law, but I think the House will feel at once that this is a case of grievous hardship, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted it. He says this House is not a Court of appeal. But if the Act of Parliament does not establish any Court of appeal, there still is one—namely, the consciences and the love of justice which prevail, I believe, universally among hon. Members of this House in matters of this nature.

I did not mean for a moment to dispute the authority of this House. On the contrary, if it expresses its opinion definitely, I shall at once bow to it.

I may have expressed myself too warmly, but I say again that I do not find fault with anything which the hon. and learned Gentleman said. He made an observation respecting the Chief Commissioner. Mr. Serjeant Pigott is known to many Members of this House. I have known him for some years, and he is a very good lawyer and an excellent and honourable man. The Attorney General says that he went a little beyond the ordinary etiquette of office in making the communication which has been referred to. Now, as the Act of Parliament docs not allow one of two persons to sign the certificate, and as Mr. Serjeant Pigott found that a grievous hardship was about to be committed, he intimated that, so far as he was concerned, he thought Mr. Leatham had made a full disclosure, and was, therefore, according to the Act, entitled to his certificate. And, moreover, he authorized the hon. and learned Members (Mr. James and Mr. Malins) to make that statement here. There is one point which I should like to put to the Attorney General. He repudiates the notion that the time for instituting these prosecutions is past. I will admit it to be so. But he cannot dispute that so lately; as 1854 an Act was passed "to consolidate and amend the laws relating to bribery, treating, and undue influence at elections of members of Parliament," by the 14th clause of which it is declared that

"No person shall be liable to any penalty or forfeiture hereby enacted or imposed, unles some prosecution, action, or suit for the offence committed shall be commenced against such person within the space of one year next after such offence against this Act shall be committed."

I am quite willing to agree with the Attorney General that this clause does not apply to the present case in the mode in which he proposes to proceed; but, seeing that this is the very last Act of Parliament on the subject of bribery, and that it is a consolidation Act, I think it fair to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to infer with me that the House at that time intended, when twelve months had elapsed after an offence of this nature, that no prosecution should take place. That may be so or not, but so it strikes my mind. I rely, however, on the other point. I say when a gentleman has made a full disclosure, and receives no intimation of his having given incomplete or unsatisfactory evidence—when a Chief Commissioner declares his belief that to withhold the certificate is contrary to an Act of Parliament—I very much mistake the character of the House of Commons, and I think I have mistaken, too, the character of the Attorney General if, under these circumstances, they do not admit it would be impossible to continue these prosecutions. I admit all the Attorney General has said, I see his difficulty. But I think, after the observations which have been made to-night, the facts being now more fully before the House, he will feel that though duty compelled him to commence a prosecution, it will not be inconsistent with his duty to proceed no further with it. I shall say no more, nearly related as I am to a Gentleman concerned in this matter, except to declare that if I was of opinion that that gentleman had acted in a manner which justified a prosecution being instituted against him, although he were my own brothei—so much do I abhor this corrupt system which obtains at elections—I should be the last person in the world to stand up in the House of Commons and shield him from the arm of the law.

The first discussion on this matter arose from a question incidentally put to the hon. and learned Attorney General. The House however, has never addressed Her Majesty to direct the Attorney General to prosecute. I certainly do not like to have it put to me as an alternative that the House of Commons shall interfere and coerce the hon. and learned Gentleman, against his sense of justice, not to prosecute, but I would say—having been a law officer of the Crown—if it was stated to me that of three Commissioners carrying out the provisions of this Act one was of opinion that a particular witness was entitled to a certificate, and that the others differed from him in that respect, I should hesitate to commence a prosecution under such circumstance. You may prosecute any of these persons for having given false evi- dence, and the fact that you do not prosecute them for giving false evidence is some proof that they have given true evidence. This Act of Parliament says any person giving false evidence shall be liable to the pains and penalties of perjury. Well, there is no prosecution for perjury in this case, but there is a prosecution for bribery. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) has raised a very nice point under the 8th section of this Act, and I give this warning to my hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney General, that a prosecution in a criminal court is wholly unlike a Chancery suit; that juries, somehow, will always take into consideration many other things besides the evidence in the case. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL—speeches in this House, for instance.] That shows great good sense on their part; and what juryman could be insensible to a speech of my hon. and learned Friend? I thought from what my hon. and learned Friend said on a former occasion, that the evidence he had was evidence which he had obtained from other sources than the Commission itself. I understand my hon. and learned Friend to mean that although he won't use evidence that A. B. gave against himself, yet that he will use against him evidence which C. D. or E. F. gave. But that is just doing the very same thing indirectly that you ought not to do directly. I agree it is difficult for this House to exercise jurisdiction over the three Commissioners, and to say that they ought to have given a certificate where they have not given one; but we have this fact before us, that those gentlemen differed in opinion as to whether a certificate ought to have been granted—the senior Commissioner holding one view upon that point, and the two others entertaining another—and I think that is a case in which the Attorney General should consider well before he prosecutes.

was understood to say that Mr. Serjeant Pigott had written a letter to his colleagues, stating the grounds on which he had arrived at the opinion he expressed.

said, he rose with reluctance to call the attention of that House, of the country, and of Europe, to the course which within the last few days the Irish Government had thought fit to take. At any time that course would have been extraordinary, but when it was contrasted with what the Government had done in England, it must be described as not only extraordinary but also as unjutifiable. Within the last few days the Government in Ireland had issued a procla- mation signed by the Chief Commissioner of Police, and purporting to be a caution against foreign enlistment. It seemed to have been put forward to prevent a few Irishmen from taking service in the army of the Pope. Let the House remember that England was not at war with the Pope, nor was she likely to be at war with him. He was not at war or likely to be at war with any one with whom England was in alliance. Why then should the Government arbitrarily interpose to prevent those Irishmen who sympathised with the Pope from taking service in his army? Let the House observe that, at the very same time when the Government were issuing that proclamation in Ireland, the Government in England were countenancing, and lie believed, actually encouraging the collection of subscriptions in aid of Garibaldi and others. These acts had been pronounced by law-years on both sides of the House to be illegal, and they were known to be contrary to the laws of nations. It was aiding men to make war upon sovereigns with whom ostensibly we were on terms of amity; and such conduct between individuals, in private life, would be considered treacherous and hypocritical, The case stood thus. The overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland were Catholics. They sympathized with the Pope, and, as the natural result, they were anxious to aid him in his distress. But the Government had no sympathy whatever with the Pope. That document was therefore circulated through the country, and the effect of it must be to produce in the public mind the impression that those Irishmen who took service in the Pope's army would be visited with severe penalties. In England, on the other hand, there was a feeling hostile to the Pope, and favourable to any persons who would assail his power, no matter what their antecedents or views might be. The consequence had been subscriptions in aid of Garibaldi and others. These subscriptions had been declared to be illegal, but the Government sympathized with the subscribers and with Garibaldi, and the result was that these subscriptions had been countenanced and encouraged. The very next day after the discussion in that House as to the subscriptions in aid of the Sicilians, when every legal Member of the House declared them to be contrary to law, there appeared in the columns of the Daily News a letter addressed to the editor of that paper, saying, "I send £50 in aid of the fund now raising to assist the gallant Garibaldi and the Sicilian patriots." That letter was signed by Sir Henry Hoare, an eminent banker, and at the end of the letter there was a note stating that the £50 had been duly forwarded to the Committee for the fund. A day or two afterwards a public meeting was held at St. Martin's Hall for the avowed purpose of raising money to assist Garibaldi. That meeting was addressed by many speakers, and, amongst others, by Mr. Washington Wilkes, who in the course of his speech uttered the following curious sentiment. He said—"By cheering on the Italians in their heroic efforts we should have the better heart to fight our own battles, whether with the Commons or that more imminent battle with the Lords." The report of his speech in The Star mentioned that this sentiment was received by the audience with loud cheers. He would call attention to this fact, that the ardent admirers of Garibaldi who wished him success in overthrowing the established Governments of Italy, seemed to look forward to the day when they would find themselves engaged in similar operations in this country, it was clear that as these subscriptions had been illegal the Government pursued one course in England and another in Ireland. They seemed to say to the people of Ireland, "If your actions coincide with our prejudices, you may violate the law with impunity; but, if you do your duty as Irishmen and Catholics, and endeavour to sustain the Pope, we will strain every point to crush the manifestation of your zeal." [Mr. BOWYER: Hear, hear!] He would affirm that this proclamation was oppressive and tyrannical, as an attempt to fetter freedom of action. It was justified neither by reason nor by precedent, and it looked very much like a triumph given to the Protestant feeling of this country at the expense of the Catholic feeling of Ireland. They read in the papers that volunteers for the service of the Pope were going to Rome from France, Austria, Spain, and the minor States of Italy. French noblemen and gentlemen subscribed money for the Pope, and he had not heard that in any of the countries he had named the Governments had issued proclamations against these persons. Irishmen believed that the Pope was attacked by conspirators who aimed at the destruction of legitimate authority all over the world. But Her Majesty's Government evidently wished success to the conspirators in Italy, and consequently were determined to crush the I expression of Irish zeal. This repression was an instance of tyranny in its most odious form. On a former occasion the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) sneered at; the possibility of a Catholic thinking that any outrage to the Pope or any assault upon his temporal power could be sacrilegious; but he would put the noble Lord in possession of the opinion of a states-man who, in the estimation of posterity, would be considered not to rank after the noble Lord. Mr. Pitt, when alluding, in a debate in that House, during the war with Napoleon, to the outrages and insults inflicted on Pius VII., that venerable Pontiff, declared, "that such conduct seems even to me, a Protestant, hardly short of the guilt of sacrilege." What would be the effect of this Proclamation on Ireland? It would, like all things of the kind, bring forth a crop of informers, transform every policeman in the country into a spy, and subject every man who wished to leave Ireland, no matter what might be his destination, to the intolerable nuisance of having his movements watched. Wherever there happened to be a bigoted magistrate or an officious constable in a hurry to be promoted, a story would be trumped up and forwarded to Dublin Castle. Then there would be the old story of State prosecutions over again; and as that venerable institution, a "packed jury," would, no doubt, be appealed to, the result would be the conviction of the accused persons. Supposing it was contrary to the law for British subjects to join the service of the Pope, why was it that the law was put in force in that case, and not also in the case of the illegal subscriptions in aid of the Sicilian insurgents, where the law was not less distinct? The Government ought either to carry out the law in this country, or withdraw the Proclamation they had issued in Ireland. That Proclamation would be deemed an insult by every Irishman not blinded by prejudice or interest, and would tend more than anything which had occurred for many years back to convince the people of Ireland that in matters of this nature they could not expect impartial justice at the hands of the British Government.

Sir, I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Tipperary should think the conduct of the Irish Government extraordinary. The conduct of that Government, whether right or wrong, has been simply this—obedience to the law. The hon. Member supposes we have issued a proclamation which he pronounces tyranical and oppressive. But, in the first place, the fact is that we have issued no proclamation at all; and, in the second place, when I state what we have done, I think it will appear that our motives and conduct were anything but tyrannical and oppressive. There is a law of the United Kingdom which renders it penal for any subject of Her Majesty, without Her Majesty's permission, to take service under a foreign Sovereign. That statute is clear and unmistakeable, and the provisions of that statute it is the duty of the Government, both in England and Ireland, to carry into effect. Knowing such was our duty, we did not desire to bring into the meshes of the law persons who might have offended against the statute in ignorance of its provisions, and who, had they known them, might have been ready and willing to obey. We, therefore, directed a notice containing the terms of that statute, in clear and unmistakeable language, to be printed and circulated, in order that it might be brought to the knowledge of those persons what the law was to which they were bound to conform. It was our plain duty, as long as Parliament kept the statute on the statute book, to enforce its provisions, and it was a course not of tyranny and oppression, but of common prudence and propriety, to circulate that notice, in order that the people of Ireland might receive due warning of the state of the law. The hon. Gentleman said also that the Government had pursued one course in England, and an entirely different course in Ireland, and that there was no equality of justice between the two parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that there has been any tendency to infringe that statute in England. If there had been, I have not the smallest doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with whom I have been in communication on this subject, would have issued in London the same notice we have issued in Ireland. It was said also by the hon. Gentleman that we have been parties to the encouragement of an illegal subscription for the purpose of getting up and supporting revolutionary interference in Italy. On the part of the Government I entirely deny that we have been parties to anything of the sort. If the hon. Gentleman possesses any evidence that we have done so let him produce it, and substantiate the accusation he brings against us. But I am not now going to renew the discussion which took place the other night about the difficulties that attend the execution of the law with regard to conspiracy. My object at the present moment is simply to state that the Irish Government, being desirous to give effect to a statute which Parliament continues, thought it also equitable and right to issue a notice calling the attention of those who would be likely otherwise to expose themselves to punishment to the terms and provisions of that statute, in order that it might be obeyed. The Government have instituted no prosecutions either in England or Ireland, for this reason I suppose in both countries, and I am certain in Ireland—because they have no grounds that would justify any such proceedings with regard to an infringement of the law. The hon. Gentleman anticipates very serious consequences from the issue of this notice. I have shown that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken with regard to the conduct of the Irish Government in the past, and I venture to say that with regard to the future he will be found not less mistaken. I believe that it is only fair to give people due warning of the law to which they are required to conform, that the publication of the notice by the Government was dictated by fairness, reason, and propriety, and that it has already been attended with the most beneficial results.

said, he had listened with much attention to the statement of his right hon. Friend, and he would put it to the House whether it was really an answer to the charge made by the hon. Member for Tipperary. The state of the case was this. Some four or five nights ago, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a speech in which, after admitting the opinion given by every legal Gentleman who spoke on the subject in this House, that the subscription for promoting the insurrection in Sicily was illegal, went on to compare Garibaldi to William III., and stated distinctly, pour en courager les autres, that he himself had been a subscriber to a fund for promoting such efforts in Greece, and had suffered no evil consequences from the course he then pursued. Now, what was the object and intention of that speech? Was it or was it not to encourage that subscription, and to inform the subscribers that no proceedings would be taken against them. Such was the attitude assumed by the noble Lord representing the Government in England, while at the very same moment a notice was issued in Ireland warning the people against enlisting under General Lamoriciere. Now, was it justice to encourage in the one country an act declared to be illegal, directed against a Sovereign with whom we were on terms of amity, and at the same time in the other country to mark with disapprobation acts against the letter of the law, but as they were not directed against a friendly Power, not contrary to the avowed policy on which that law was founded? The law as to foreign enlistment was clear and distinct, but it should be remembered that that Act was passed for a special purpose. According to the ancient custom which prevailed in this country, there was no prohibition against foreign enlistment. In the reign of George II., it was prohibited according to Sir James Mackintosh, in order to prevent a Jacobite army from being formed abroad. In 1819 an Act was introduced by the Government of the day to repeal the Act of George II., and to enact the present Foreign Enlistment Act with the object of putting the States of South America on the same footing as Spain. The first clause of that Act, repealing the statute of George II., met with general assent, but the other portion of it, enacting the present law, was opposed by the whole force of the Whig party, including Lord Denman, Sir James Mackintosh, Lord Brougham, and Lord John Russell himself. The then Attorney General, in introducing the Bill, stated that its object was to prevent British subjects from enlisting in the army of any State which was at war with another State in amity with ourselves. The people of Ireland would feel acutely and bitterly the different measure that was dealt to them, and to the people of England, who entertained opposite views. If there had been no steps at all taken by the Government on either side, there could have been no ground of complaint; or if warnings had been published in England as well as in Ireland, there would have been no injustice; but to adopt one course in one country, and a different one in regard to the other, must create an unfortunate feeling. The Government were bound to hold the balance justly between all parties, but he thought the course they had pursued in regard to foreign affairs for several months past, the moral support they had given to a united Italy against the recorded opinions of Italian patriots, such as Gioberti, Rosmini, and Cesare Balbo for a confederation of States was in oppo- sition to that judicious course which was to have been expected. The conduct of the Government in those matters, encouraging the demarcations between different countries to be broken through, and one State to unite itself with another without the sanction of a European Congress, had led to the union to France of Savoy and Nice. It had also led to the agitation now going on in the East respecting the Christian provinces of Turkey, and he only hoped it might not lead to a similar agitation in respect of Belgium and the Rhenish provinces. When a Government professed neutrality it was bound to carry it out fully and fairly, and not to allow one portion of the inhabitants of the country to gain a triumph over the other. He trusted that the Government would not persevere in such a course; but, under any circumstances, he felt grateful to the hon. Member who introduced this subject for affording the House an opportunity of expressing its opinions upon it.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to a most extraordinary despatch from Her Majesty's representative at Naples dated March 23, 1860. That despatch had been written with the full knowledge that it would probably be made public, and yet in the despatch be found a passage which was almost unparalleled in diplomatic correspondence—he could not say quite unparalleled, for the House bad seen certain despatches from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which resembled rather speeches to a Jacobin Club than documents addressed to a Minister resident in a friendly State. Mr. Elliot said,—

"In the present excited state of Italy the announcement that political refugees could find a safe asylum on board Her Majesty's ships would probably nearly suffice to produce an outbreak; but, on the other hand, it must be recollected that while a Government and its agents are persecuting individuals in defiance both of law and justice, a person flying from the police may fairly be considered as somewhat in the position of those who are escaping from the Lynch law of a mob."

He (Mr. Bowyer) was not about to give any opinion on the merits or demerits of the Neapolitan Government, and he should abstain from doing so because he was addressing the British House of Commons, and not a Neapolitan Parliament, and be- cause he conceived we had no business to meddle with the internal affairs of other countries. He must say, however, that if I a Minister accredited to a foreign Government was allowed to express himself in such gross terms of insult towards that Government it was an outrage against all the usages of diplomacy and the law of nations, and a violation of the decencies of civilized life. If such opinions had been expressed in private letters, nothing would have been said about them; but they had been set forth in a despatch which had been made public, and which the writer must have known would probably be made public. For a Minister publicly to insult the Sovereign of a foreign country was not only improper, but it led to the most serious inconvenience. It was indeed a part of that system which had made our diplomacy a nuisance to foreign countries. Would such a thing have been done towards France? Lord Cowley would never have dreamt of such a thing. Such insults were only offered to minor States. To large States there was nothing but culogium, sometimes amounting to almost fulsome adulation, but the minor States were bullied to satisfy the prejudices of this country. He did not believe that the noble Lord in his heart entertained those sentiments of bitterness which he declared in his despatches, but was pandering to an unwholesome feeling existing in this country, grounded partially upon a hatred to Catholic Sovereigns by bigoted Protestants. He wished to know what the Government intended to do after publishing a despatch so insulting in which the Government of the King of Naples, for taking measures for the maintenance of the throne of their Sovereign, when attacked by conspirators and rebels, had been compared to those who administered the Lynch law of a mob, was it possible for a Minister, who had made use of such gross and insulting language towards the Sovereign and Government of that country, to continue in any relation with the Court, or to serve this country usefully in the capacity of a diplomatic minister. He had always understood that the mission of an ambassador was one of peace, and that it was his duty to maintain the rights of his own country, to give protection to subjects of his own country, and to convey to the Government any information which they de* sired to know. But, at the same time, it was his duty to show the greatest respect and deference to the law of the country and the person of the Sovereign to whom he was accredited. Now, he must say this was an instance, and it was not the first instance, of a great deviation from those principles on the part of Ministers of this country. He believed that when this country ceased to have any relations with the Court of Naples that cessation was viewed with anything but regret, because it was known that the English Minister was making his house the focus for intrigue and mischief, and his language in some instances was most hostile and insulting to the Government to which he was accredited. A good deal had been said with regard to the expediency of diplomatic relations with the Holy Sec, but he could not help congratulating the Holy See upon not having an English Minister resident at Rome. He believed that if there were such a Minister he would employ himself in making political capital for the noble Lord and his friends on the Treasury Bench, by writing despatches of an equally offensive character. Unless the practice wa3 put a stop to, the diplomacy of the country would be viewed as a nuisance to Europe and an encouragement of every kind of political agitation. He wanted to know whether any representation would be made to Mr. Elliot of the impropriety of his language, in order to make satisfaction to the King of Naples for the insult offered to him, and to give the diplomacy of England that respectability which it must lose by such a despatch as that to which he had called the attention of the House. With regard to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary, he thought it most unsatisfactory. The warning of which he had spoken was very like a threat. Persons who were disposed to enlist in the service of the Pope were threatened that they were liable to penalties. It was not a kind and obliging piece of advice. It meant that if the Government found them out they intended to prosecute. He wanted to know why the same thing was not done in England with regard to the subscriptions to Garibaldi. There was no doubt that for a subject of the Queen to do anything, by subscription or otherwise, to encourage rebellion against a Sovereign who was in amity with the Crown was a gross offence against the law of nations. There was no doubt that the act of which Garibaldi had been guilty was an act of piracy, and that those who formed Committees or paid subscriptions were guilty of conspiring to do an act of piracy. He hoped that there would be an opportunity at some future period of discussing our foreign relations and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. He thought there would be no difficulty in showing that in their policy there was no impartiality and very curious neutrality. Her Majesty's Government always gave every moral support which they could to rebellion against Sovereigns whose principles they disliked, and they now discouraged in Ireland everything which was done to support the authority which they disapproved. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had told them the other evening that the English captain stationed in the waters of Marsala had with great propriety refused to send boats to take possession of the ships which Garibaldi had abandoned, because he was instructed to observe perfect impartiality and neutrality. He did not understand that kind of neutrality which was kept between a band of pirates attacking an Ally of the Crown and a recognized Government who had a Minister accredited to the English Court. If two or three footpads attacked the noble Lord in going home from the House, and if, when he called for assistance to half a dozen hon. Members on the other side of the street, they said, "No; we shall not interfere; we mean to keep a strict neutrality," what would the noble Lord think of them? The cases were exactly parallel, for every person in arms must either be a lawful belligerent or a pirate, and Garibaldi was clearly not a lawful belligerent. Such doctrines of impartiality and neutrality seemed to him subversive of the laws of nations, and he noticed them, because their operation must produce the greatest possible confusion throughout Europe. They would reproduce in other parts the state of things which existed between the King of Sardinia and his near neighbour, and in which the King of Sardinia seemed like a receiver of stolen goods — alieni appetens, sui profusus—ready to sell his subjects for the plunder which the Emperor of the French had succeeded in obtaining. It was a system which must lead to a European war, and the effect of it must be to strengthen a revolutionary Power, with which we should sooner or later have to grapple, and he feared to grapple with it, when our policy had made that Power so strong as to render it exceedingly difficult to cope with it. In conclusion he had to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Go- vernment for some explanation of the despatch he had mentioned, and he hoped, for the credit of this country and of the Government, that the noble Lord would disclaim the insulting language which had been used by Mr. Elliot, and would be able to state that means had been adopted to prevent the employment of similar language by a British envoy to a sovereign at peace and in alliance with Her Majesty.

I am afraid I cannot satisfy the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman by informing him that Her Majesty's Government have expressed any disapproval of the despatch which has met with his censure. The chief characteristic of that despatch is that it states the truth, and I apprehend that it is the duty of Her Majesty's diplomatic agents abroad to state the truth, however disagreeable to the Government whom they address, with regard to the facts upon which they have to communicate. This was not a volunteered communication from Mr. Elliot. It arose from a discussion which took place here as to the supposed conduct of a British naval officer in giving refuge to a Sicilian fleeing from persecution on shore. The standing orders which have been given on those matters are recorded on the other page of the paper, from which the hon. and learned Gentleman read an extract. They are in the shape of a communication to the Admiralty, given by my direction when at the head of the Foreign Office, and the orders under which all naval officers are acting, in places where these circumstances are likely to occur, are simply these,—that when any one flees from justice, to escape from a trial or from the condemnation of a tribunal, to any British ship of war which may be stationed in a foreign port, he is not to be received; but that if an individual flees from persecution on account of political opinions, or political conduct, and gains access to the ship, then the commanding officer is not to refuse him asylum. It is upon the principle that every British ship of war is British territory; and that principle has been acted upon in other places and with regard to other countries besides Sicily. During the civil wars of Spain, Gibraltar was the place of refuge alternately of all the different parties. Cat-lists at one time, Progresistas at another, fleeing from the power of their adversaries, triumphant for a moment, have equally found refuge under the sanction of the British flag at that place. On the same principle it would be an act of barbarous cruelty on the part of the commander of a ship to turn adrift and force back into the hands of his pursuers a man who had committed no distinct offence, who had been tried by no tribunal, who had been charged and found guilty of no civil or criminal offence, but who was persecuted simply on account of his political opinions, and sought a temporary refuge on board a British ship. Mr. Elliot states when he last wrote that the condition of Sicily at the time was such that persons flying for refuge from the police in this way, were like persons flying from the Lynch law of a mob. [Mr. HENNESSY: They were flying from the Government.] Yes, but the Government of Sicily is the police. That is the gravamen of the charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman says Mr. Elliot showed disrespect to the laws and institutions of the country, but I say, on the contrary, he showed respect to them. The laws and institutions of the Neapolitan kingdom are now entirely set aside, and consigned to oblivion— the whole Government of the country is in the hands of the police. In the kingdom of Naples there is an excellent code—[MR. BOWYER: Hear, hear.]—the Code Napoleon—[Mr. BOWYER: No, it is not so.]—adapted to local circumstances and suited to the habits and to the usages of the people. There is a Constitution and a Parliament, granted by the late King, sworn to by him in the most solemn manner, with adjurations of the vengeance of Heaven on himself and his successors if ever it were sot aside—but yet that Constitution is a dead letter. The police do everything—they arrest people without any charge against them, they keep them in prison without any trial, and if by any accident any prisoner is brought to trial and acquitted he is equally kept in prison, because it is said he is suspected. Innocence is no protection there, and the utmost barbarities have been perpetrated by the police of Sicily on the unfortunate population of the country. The hon and learned Gentleman does not know what is passing there; if he did, I am sure his generous feelings would revolt against the barbarities which we hear and which we know are practised in that country. I believe that no such case as that of M. Rosa, which has been brought forward, has occurred; the report is entirely unfounded. We do not know that there is such a person; but, putting a hypothetical case—if any man flying from the fangs of the police were to seek refuge on board a British ship, there is no man, I believe, in this country, who would not deem that that officer had misconducted himself, who, under those circumstances, should drive such an individual back to be the victim of the barbarities I have described. These are matters of feeling on which we must all think alike. It is no departure from our position of neutrality in regard to the contest now going on. No encouragement has been given to those who are subscribing to the fund in aid of Garibaldi. The hon. and learned Gentleman says the speech of my noble Friend the other night was an encouragement; because at the moment he compared Garibaldi to a great historical personage; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman has no other ground than that for asserting that the Government has given any such encouragement, he is rather straining facts and assertions, in order to prop up the opinions which he wishes us to receive as sound. Therefore, as far as this question goes, there is no censure to be applied to Mr. Elliot. With regard to the feelings of the Neapolitan Government upon that despatch, I should think when they read it, all they could have to say to it would be

"Pudet base opprobria nobis,

Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli."

In respect to the other point, there is a great distinction between the two cases. In the one case there is a positive statute, plain, intelligible, and simple, to the violation of which certain penalties are attached—that is the Foreign Enlistment Act. The other is an infraction of the law of nations, which may be punished; but every man must see that a prosecution in this case would be much more uncertain, than in the case of offences against the Foreign Enlistment Act. In the one case a warning was thought necessary to certain people in Ireland, who did not seem to be aware of the state of the law; in the other case it was stated by a hon. and learned Member opposite, that the discussion in this House would be sufficient warning to those who were supposed to be engaged in these subscriptions, which were deemed to be contrary to the law of nations.

said, the noble Lord's description of the state of Sicily reminded him of a statement which had been made some years ago by a colleague of his on a similar matter. In 1857 the Foreign Secretary of the noble Lord's then Government (the Earl of Clarendon) stated in "another place" that Baron Poerio had had an operation performed on him while still wearing the chains which caused the wounds for which that operation was required. That statement was also repeated in another form by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), whoso book about Naples was full of the grossest misconceptions. The moment that charge was made the Government of Naples took steps to give it a proper contradiction. A State paper was published to which were attached he certificates of the surgeons who performed the operation. They denied the story about the chains, for at that time the Baron wore no chains. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Oh, oh! I saw them myself.] Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to assert that the chains caused the wounds, and that those chains were worn during the operation—for that was the precise charge? It was met by the statement of the medical men that they saw no chains and no marks of chains, and they distinctly asserted that the malady for which the operation was performed was an hereditary malady, and had nothing to do with chains. They also stated that whilst in prison it appeared that the Baron was confined in comfortable rooms, where there was plenty of light and air; that he had, in fact, a suite of apartments, with access to his books and papers. The statement to which he had referred, however, was an example of the sort of statements on which the noble Viscount relied in his charge against the King of Naples. He had no wish to charge the noble Lord or his colleagues with seeking to overturn the King of Naples from anti-Catholic motives. The noble Lord was the leader of the Liberal party, perhaps it might be said, in Europe, certainly in this country, and he was acting consistently in using all his influence to promote the spread of Liberalism in Italy. For himself, he looked on Liberalism as a thing not to be approved of anywhere; and when the effects of the new liberal Budget were a little more developed, a great many other people would think the same. This was not a question of two religions, but of two different forms of politics. The noble Lord was endeavouring to spread liberal views throughout Europe, but he wished to point out to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the other side, who talked a good deal about economy, that it was not for them to support a Government which spread liberal views at the expense of the people of England. We had already a war with a Sovereign in the East, and we might have another now with a Sovereign in the West; for the noble Lord's speech might promote a rupture between Her Majesty's Government and the King of Naples. The noble Lord once talked of sending a fleet to the Bay of Naples, but he got a letter from the Emperor of Russia, which was circulated throughout Europe, informing him that the Russian Government would maintain the principle of non-intervention, and that they would not permit him to dictate to a small State because it was small; and then the noble Lord very wisely, though not with much dignity, retreated from his menacing position, for he felt that though he could bully Naples he could not bully Russia. Hon. Gentlemen would find that if they allowed the noble Lord to have his own way, he would get the country into all kinds of expensive and disastrous complications. He would only add the expression of his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not been as explicit and candid as usual in his answer. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had not issued any proclamation. Surely one which had been issued at the direction and by the advice of the Attorney General must be taken as the act of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

I said, that no proclamation was issued, and that what was issued was the ordinary police notice; and that is exactly the truth of the case.

said, that as a Roman Catholic he wished to preserve, if it were possible, the Romagn a, and the rest of his dominions in all their integrity to the Pope, because he considered, apart from any religious question, that it was absolutely necessary, in a political point of view, that the Pope should be independent. For the same reason he regretted the issuing of the proclamation by the Irish Government which had been referred to. At the same time he could not concur with his hon. Colleague in defending the Sicilian Government, which he believed was an abomination, and which he trusted one day or another would be compelled to succumb, not to Garibaldi, with whose projects he had no sympathy, but to popular opinion, aided and influenced as it was by the Roman Catholic clergy rising and overturning Neapolitan tyranny. He could not hear the statement made by his hon. Colleague without standing up and vindicating those principles of liberalism which that hon. Member had so openly repudiated. He admitted that it was contrary to law to interfere by subscriptions or otherwise in the affairs of other nations which were on terms of amity with Her Majesty's Government, but no law could prevent our feeling sympathy with those who were oppressed, and sympathy wherever expressed would always be found useful.

, in asking the Secretary of State for War how soon he will be prepared to lay on the Table the Report of the Commission on Fortifications, said, he hoped that if the Government were not prepared to do so immediately they would do so on the re-assembling of the House after the Whitsuntide holidays.

said, that he rose to move for an Address for copies of correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the clerk to the Spalding board of guardians, relative to prosecutions at the last assizes for the county of Lincoln against William and Martha Brightman for bigamy. He was unwilling in that House to animadvert upon the language of a Judge of the realm, as no one could feel a greater regard for judicial integrity than he did; but in this instance he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the circumstances of the case. It appeared that the two persons in question had been married about twenty years ago, but had, owing to some quarrel which had arisen between them, separated on the day of their wedding, and had never cohabited. Not very long after their separation the man had again gone through the ceremony of marriage with another woman with whom he lived, and at the lapse of a considerable number of years found himself obliged to apply to the Board of Guardians for Spalding for relief for himself, his nominal wife, and four children, who were of course illegitimate. The board, having had the circumstances of his case thus brought under their notice, had no other alternative but to institute proceedings against him, inasmuch as they could not charge the nominal wife and her children upon the funds of the union, her settlement I not being within its limit. A prosecution for bigamy had accordingly been instituted; against him. The case had been tried at Lincoln, and the accused bad pleaded guilty to the charge. The learned Judge who tried the case—Mr. Justice Willes, however, and it was to his conduct in the matter his Motion more particularly related—before be heard the case, and having simply read the depositions, had thought proper to make use of observations to the following effect in his charge to the grand jury. He said that the prisoner was alleged to have committed the offence about eighteen years before, and that he could not conceive, apart from pecuniary considerations, why his name should appear in the calendar, adding that, primâ facie, the case looked more like a persecution than a prosecution, and that it was productive of more harm to bring such cases before the court than if they were not proceeded with at all. It was quite clear from these remarks that the learned Judge seemed to have made up his mind about the matter; but when the case had conic on, the prisoner had, as he before stated, pleaded guilty, and the learned Judge, in passing-sentence upon him, had used language such as he was about to mention, which was taken from the report of the proceedings contained in a journal of large circulation, and which, having taken pains to ascertain the accuracy of the report, he believed to be the unexaggerated record of what actually took place on the occasion. The purport of the learned Judge's observations were, that no men possessed of the commonest feeling would venture to prosecute in such a case; that the prosecution was a cruel one; that it would seem to have been instituted for the purpose of torture; and, taking into account that the prisoner had applied for relief in consequence of indisposition, it was little short of murder; and that for his own part he would be rather in the place of any one in the calendar than in that of the prosecutors. The learned Judge concluded by sentencing the prisoner to one day's imprisonment. But that was not all. It appeared that the real wife of the prisoner had also been arraigned on a similar charge, and that Mr. Justice Willes said the case was one more fit for a romance than for a court of criminal justice, and that such a prosecution could he instituted only by some person with a heart of stone, adding that he would not make himself a party to it by sentencing the pri- soner to more than one day's imprisonment, and that the board of guardians should be condemned in the costs in both cases. Now the board very naturally felt aggrieved under these circumstances, and had applied to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department for redress, desiring that they should be cleared from the imputations which the learned Judge bad cast upon them. They were, however, informed in reply that the right hon. Gentleman had no power to interfere either with respect to the language of the Judge or the insufficiency of the sentence, the latter of which questions, he might add, the board of guardians did not raise. All the satisfaction that was got from his right hon. Friend was this curt reply. The guardians, however, were determined not to be held up to the world as persecutors and murderers, and they wrote a second letter to the Home Secretary, being more than ever desirous to free themselves from the imputations of the Judge, more especially as his words, describing them as persecutors and murderers, had been copied out of the local papers and posted in large handbills about the town. All the satisfaction obtained was the following letter from one of the authorities of the Home Department:—

"Sir, I am directed by Secretary Sir George Lewis to acknowledge the receipt of the letter on the subject of the late prosecution for bigamy at the last assizes for the county of Lincoln, and I am directed to inform you that Secretary Sir George Lewis declines to interfere in the matter."

The affair had, therefore, been placed in his hands, and he hoped to hear some explanation from the Home Secretary; and he would now ask that right hon. Gentleman whether he thought the language adopted by the Judge would tend to raise the dignity of the bench. He was sorry that the Judge should have committed himself to the use of language which he was sure the Home Secretary could not palliate or defend; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make such a statement as would soothe the wounded feelings of the gentlemen who had addressed the Home Office in vain.

said, that he had not a word to say against the manner in which his hon. Friend had brought forward the matter, which he would admit was one which quite justified him in calling for explanations. His hon. Friend said he did not wish to make any imputation on the integrity of the Bench, and always regretted when any circumstances arose to throw doubt on the decision of a Judge. But he must beg to point out to the House that whatever question might arise with regard to the conduct of the Judge in this case, no person could suppose that there was the smallest reflection on his judicial integrity. The only question was as to his discretion in the use of certain language when passing sentence. The merits of the case lay within a very narrow circle. Two persons of the labouring class were married according to the rites of the Church of England in 1838, but it so happened that before evening came on a quarrel arose and they separated, cohabitation not having taken place. They never met again, he believed, and they considered themselves as not having contracted a valid marriage. Among poisons of that class of life it was not an unusual error to suppose that under such circumstances no valid matrimonial connection was formed. He did not mean to justify that popular error, but the error, he believed, existed. About four years afterwards—i. e., in 1842—each of these parties married again other persons, believing that their second marriage was a valid one. They lived together for a number of years, and only by accident, when the man applied for relief to the Spalding Board of Guardians, it was discovered that his second marriage was invalid, Ids former wife being, in fact alive, and that the children of the second marriage were illegitimate. That, of course, had an effect on the administration of relief by the Board of Guardians, who directed that a prosecution for bigamy should he instituted against the husband at the next assizes. On investigation it also appeared that the wife had contracted a second marriage, and the Board of Guardians thought if they prosecuted the husband they were bound also to prosecute the wife. They gave directions accordingly to their clerk, who was also clerk to the Magistrates. The two cases came before Mr. Justice Willes. The first marriage had taken place in 1838, and 22 years had elapsed before the prosecutions were instituted. The Judge who tried them took a strong view as to the impropriety of the prosecutions. From circumstances that came under his observation, the Judge was of opinion that the prosecutions had been instituted for the sake of costs. His hon. Friend seemed to think that the Judge was imperfectly acquainted with the facts of the case. Now, the prisoners pleaded guilty, and the depositions were in his hand before he charged the grand jury; therefore, the Judge was acquainted with all the facts of the case before he passed sentence. The Judge certainly took a strong view as to the impropriety of the prosecutions, and, if correctly reported, the language was such as no doubt it was desirable a Judge should abstain from using in passing sentence There might have been something that came before the Court which appeared to the Judge to be a perversion of justice; it was impossible to suppose that he could be actuated by any impure motive. He certainly had no communication with the learned Judge, as had been stated in the letter read. He was responsible for that letter. If a similar case came before him he should be prepared to write a similar letter. He believed it was not the duty of the Secretary of State to pass any censure on the language used by a Judge, even if he were of opinion that the language was not altogether discreet. He thought the assumption of such a power by the Executive authority would be an undue interference with the course of justice. He, therefore, at the time declined to communicate with the Judge, in order to ascertain from him whether he admitted the accuracy of the Report brought under his notice by the Spalding Board of Guardians. But assuming that the Judge's words on the whole were correctly reported—that they approximated to the truth—some indiscretion of language had, no doubt, been committed; but the error, if there was error, did not go beyond some fault of temper in passing sentence. The Judge thought it a case in which there had been an improper use of the power of prosecution, and that the indictments ought not to have been brought before the grand jury. In passing sentence he might have used language which was indiscreet and went beyond the necessity of the case, but that was all he admitted.

said, that after the explanations which had been given, he thought it unnecessary to put the country to the expense of printing the correspondence; he would therefore withdraw the Motion. He would only add, in justification of the clerk to the magistrates and board of guardians, that he must have travelled forty miles to and from the county town, and resided there two or three days at the assizes; while the only allowance for expenses was £2 2s.; so that he stood clearly exonerated from having any pecuniary interest to serve.

said, he objected to proceed any further with the Bill. It ought to be styled a Bill for the protection of innkeepers. It proposed to alter the old-established law with regard to innkeepers, and relieve them from a responsibility under which the trade had hitherto been satisfactorily conducted. It was proposed that a traveller should have no security for his effects if they were above the value of £40, unless he deposited them with the innkeeper, telling him their value. Such a provision would lead to great inconvenience, and he did not see why a traveller should be required to expose himself to the risk and personal peril which such a statement might occasion. Guests had been murdered for the sake of their valuable property, and in an unfrequented district the disclosure required by the Bill might afford a temptation to the cupidity of those who were criminally disposed. Another proposal was that a person who should get "meat, drink, or lodging" at an inn, "without having the means to pay for the same," should be taken before a justice of the peace and be committed to prison for two months. Now, why should an innkeeper have the privilege of carrying his debtor at once before a justice of the peace; and, if this were a proper remedy, why was it not given to all parties? It was a most outrageous provision, and would expose a person who went into the country and forgot his purse to the risk of imprisonment. Instead of attempting to improve the Bill in Committee, he thought it better to dispose of it at once by moving that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

said, he had agreed to the second reading under the impression that there were certain cases in which the present law bore unjustly upon innkeepers. The preamble of the Bill expressed this rather curiously, reciting that, in consequence of the increase of travelling, it was desirable to diminish the amount of security afforded to travellers. But on consulting the law officers of the Crown he had come to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to make the change proposed by the Bill, and that on the whole it was better to leave the law as it stood. There was a maxim, well known in Westminster Hall, that "hard cases make bad law," and they must take care that hard cases did not induce them to make bad legislation. The conditions proposed by the Bill in respect to the custody of goods destroyed the value of the present remedy against the innkeeper, and the third section converted a debt into a criminal offence. As he feared that the Bill was not susceptible of Amendment, he had no alternative but to support the Amendment.

said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) felt it necessary to pursue the course he had intimated it was his intention to take. He was quite willing to accept any modification of the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman might suggest, for he was confident that the Bill would afford considerable relief to innkeepers in a direction that was much required. He was willing to give up the third clause, and with that alteration he should take the sense of the Committee on the Bill.

said, he thought that whatever legislation might be required upon the subject, the proposed Bill was one so unskilfully framed that it certainly would be productive of no good, and he quite approved of the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department (Sir George Lewis). But he did not consider that there was really any necessity for a change in the existing law. The preamble stated that property taken to inns by travellers had greatly increased since the formation of railways, whereas the very reverse was the case.

said, he thought the Bill was a very simple one; it was merely the application of the principle of limited liability to an hotelkeeper. A large number of his constituents were in favour of it, and he should, therefore, support it.

said, he was in favour of the Bill, but thought it might be improved by introducing Amendments.

remarked that the Bill was badly drawn, and that it would be far better to withdraw it for the purpose of allowing the Government to introduce one of a practicable nature.

observed that it was rather hard upon his hon, and gallant Friend who had introduced the Bill that, after it had passed the second reading with, as he understood, the support of the Government, the principle of it should now be opposed, and it should he thrown out in Committee. It would he best to let the Bill go through Committee pro formâ, to allow him to make the requisite alterations, and then go on with it.

said, he doubted whether it was desirable to go in Committee merely on the speculation that something good might come of it. As he had said, he had referred to the law advisers of the Crown for their opinion, and the opinion of the Solicitor General, from his legal experience, was that there existed no sufficient cases of hardship from the present law affecting innkeepers to justify so general an alteration as was contemplated by the Bill. He, therefore, founded his opposition to the Bill mainly upon that opinion, and upon the result of some inquiries which he had made. There might, perhaps, have been a few hard cases, but generally the law did not work in an unsatisfactory manner. The preamble of the Bill stated what was diametrically opposed to the fact, as the practice of taking much luggage for sleeping at inns had diminished since the introduction of railways.

said, he believed he had made out a good case for legislation, and could not consent to withdraw his Bill, the principle being generally admitted, unless the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to propose some other remedy for the hardship inflicted by the present law.