moved at the end to add "and for this purpose the area subject to the provisions of the Metropolis Local Man. agement Acts shall be a union." This subject had been brought before the consideration of the House so long ago year 1857 by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, who, like himself, represented a large class whose interests had materially suffered by the changes that had taken place in the Poor Law, in his Equalization of Rates Bill. The present Bill, however, made no attempt to grapple with the subject. His proposition, therefore, was that the area of rating should be extended so as to include the whole Metropolis, and that the Metropolis for the purposes of this Act should form one union. The Present state of things was this—that the poor had been removed from the richer to the poorer parishes; so that it had come to pass that in these parishes the poor were supporting the poorer. In the city of London, for example, where the great merchants carried on their business the parishes were charged with the support of comparatively few poor, though the labour of the working classes living in other districts was of the greatest advantages to them. In the same way the great employers of labour in other parts of the Metropolis were freed in great measure from the support of the poor. If it could be shown that this discrepancy arose from the effects of legislation, he thought it was not too much to ask that legislation should be called in to alter it. Now, so long ago as the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Bill, an alteration was made in the law of settlement; and a large amount of extra taxation was created. Part of the law of settlement was that of hired servants. Where a person bound himself for twelve months as a servant to another, by the performance of that service for a year and by forty day's residence in that parish he obtained a settlement. This state of the law was altered, mainly, he believed, from the reluctance of agricultural employers to hire labourers for a twelvemonth and thus enable them to obtain a settlement in the parish. It was altered for the purpose of enabling the working man to go from one parish to another without gaining a settlement. His opinion was that the law of settlement ought to be abolished. But, if so, the present parochial system could not be maintained. What was the present state of things? Take the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square; a man might hire himself, and pass the best years of his life in that parish, but he could gain no settlement there; he must look for his settlement in one of the poorer parishes. The dwellings of the poor were swept away in the richer parishes, where improvements were constantly made in the beauty, health, and convenience of the dwellings. Thus the servants of the richer classes were driven to settle in the poorer parishes, and the burthen of the rates was greatly increased upon them. And what happened then; Parliament again stepped in and said that where a person had an industrial residence in a parish for five years, and fell into want, he should be irremovable from that parish; and the present Bill proposed to substitute three years for five. He thought this would act well in the rural districts; but it was not applicable to the Metropolis. It would act with peculiar hardship upon the parishes of the district which he represented, particularly those of Bermondsey and St. George the Martyr, Southwark. The latter was a union of itself, and by this Bill they were imposing a new liability on the parish, without giving them any corresponding advantage whatever. This was a gross injustice. The poor of the Metropolis were as much entitled to consideration as those of any other part of the country, and, therefore, he proposed that the Metropolis should be dealt with as other parts of the country were, and that it should be formed into a union by itself. He proposed that "the charge of all the persons who might become chargeable under the Act within the limits of the Metropolis as defined by the Act for the better government of the Metropolis should be defrayed by all the parishes in the Metropolis as if the same were a union, and that the Poor Law Board should issue such orders as might be required for apportioning such charge and levying the contributions required for the payment thereof." This latter proposition, however, which he might call the machinery for carrying out his object, he would not move for the present, but would content himself with moving that the whole area of the Metropolis should be formed into a union.

suggested that the additional Amendment should be moved as a separate substantive clause.

said, he would move his original Amendment, and in case of its being carried, would then move the additional Amendment.

said, he wished to see the operation of the law of settlement readjusted, and referred to its unfair operation on the city of Norwich. The first clause of the Bill would increase the evil in such towns as Norwich, inasmuch as the poor would be forced into those towns while they worked in the parishes in the neighbourhood. He did not think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark would meet the case of London, much less the case of country towns. He was in favour of the Bill generally, but was opposed to the first clause.

said, he thought the city of Norwich had no reason to complain. It appeared that the rateable property in Norwich had increased within a short period from £70,000 to £290,000. What Norwich was suffering from was the circumstance of so large an area being included in one rating. Norwich, in fact, was calling upon the county to pay the wages of its workpeople. There was no ground why Norwich should seek to extend its area of rating.

contended that though a poor man worked in one parish and lived in another, the latter parish had the benefit derived from the expenditure of his wages, and when he needed relief it was but fair that that parish should give it. He admitted that while the area of rating might be made too large, it might also be confined within too small bounds. The best arrangement was that by which localities having a community of interest were united for the support of the poor. He could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark, which he believed would prove injurious to the poor themselves and to the poorer parishes by taking away all inducements to economy.

said, he should despair of getting through with this Bill if they were to enter upon the discussion of all the points raised. The Bill was a very simple one, the result of investigations before Committees, and founded upon the recommendations of a Committee. The Bill was one that related to the whole country; but the hon. Member for Southwark proposed to introduce a totally new and distinct question—namely the equalization of rates in the Metropolis. If his object were carried out a new administrative machinery would be necessary for the Metropolis. Indeed, it would require a new Bill altogether, and one of considerable complication and difficutly. He hoped the House would not agree to his Amendment, therefore, but would proceed with the real objects of the Bill, which would be highly beneficial to the landed interest.

thought the right hon. Gentleman was too sanguine if he expected that discussion on a question of this sort would be limited within a very small compass, for it was impossible that a Bill like this should not lead to long and desultory discussion. He was opposed to this Bill, because it would relieve the pressure upon the urban parishes at the expense of rural districts, and because the extension of area for rating purpose would lead to waste and extravagance. He trusted that at any rate the Bill would not be allowed to pass in its present state.

said, what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman reminded him of the contest as to whether a shield was made of gold or silver, the fact being that the shield was looked at from two different sides by different persons. The hon. Member looked to one side of the Bill and he (Sir George Lewis) was looking at another, when he said it would be favourable to the landed interest. The part of the Bill he referred to as favourable to the agricultural interest was that which changed the period of irremovability from five to three years, and that which extended the area of irremovability from the parish to the union. ["No, no!"] He said "Yes," and it was to relieve the agricultural interest that the principle of irremovability after five years' residence was introduced by Sir Robert Peel. The part of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred was, no doubt, the 9th Clause, which changed the mode by which the payment to the common fund was to be calculated. He was ready to admit that that change would be to some extent unfavourable to the rural parishes as compared with the urban; but it would only be unfavourable to the extent of the change made by the calculation being based on the rateable value instead of according to pauperism.

said, the right hon. Gentleman forgot that the whole amount of the rate would in many cases be doubled. The right hon. Gentleman asked them not to discuss the Bill, but to go on agreeing to its provisions. No doubt it would be easy enough to get through the Bill by reading its enactments, but it was much more important for the constituents that they should carefully consider the results, and he contended that they had not sufficient information to enable them to judge how the Bill would work. It was certain that it would work with great capriciousness, and if they proceeded with the Bill they would be taking a step in the dark. The present system of dealing with the poor was not a good one; but he did not think the Bill raised the question in a large spirit. He would recommend that the Bill should be put off till another Session, and that in the meantime the Government should prepare tables that would show them clearly what the probable consequences would be. It would be a great boon conferred upon the country if they could get rid of the question of settlement altogether by the adoption of some satisfactory rule of action. If they could be relieved, for example, from the risk of persoms coming back upon them from distant countries there would be a greater likelihood of coming to an agreement as to the mode of adjusting the burden. He would give no opinion as to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Southward, though he thought that that hon. Member was pursuing a very reasonable course when he did what was in his power to relieve his constituents of the heavy charge which would be thrown upon them.

considered that the principle of the Bill had been sufficiently discussed on a former occasion, and hoped the Committee would confine itself to a consideration of the clause now before them. He objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark, because he believed it would be impossible to carry out the principle of union rating on so large a scale as the Metropolis. Aboard of guardians for the whole of the Metropolis would be necessary, and he asked how such a board, having to deal with nearly 3,000,000, people was likely to work? He by no means thought that the injury to the poorer parishes which the hon. Member apprehanded would follow from the operation of the Bill, and trusted that the clause as it stood would be agreed to.

entirely apporved of the Bill. He thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark disposed of itself, when it was remembered that he proposed that the 3,000,0000 of inhabitants should be included in a single union. He thought it quite right that irremovability should depend upon a reasonable period of industrial residence, and was inclined to think that the reduction from five to three years would have a very limited operation.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark had proposed that addition, with the view of raising the question whether, if Parliament unduly increased the burden on certain parishes, it should not also provide a remedy? The Government had undertaken to consider the whole question during the recess and to do justice to the whole community; but, instead of that they had brought in a Bill which they thought did great injustice to the parishes which he and his hon. and learned Friend represented. Poor people entering the Metropolis from the west were not allowed even to rest in one of the richer parishes; but were obliged to "move on" till they came to some district like Southwark, and there they remained and became chargeable. It was no answer on the part of the Government to say that they had not considered this subject. If they had not they ought—what was expected from them was a Bill which shouldmeet the wants of the whole population of the country, and if they had not so sufficiently considered the question, thet was a good reason either for withdrawing the Bill or adopting Amendments proposed for others. All that his hon. Friend desired was that, inasmuch as the working man laboured in one parish while he resided in another, the two parishes ought to be rated for his support when he became chargeable.

regarded the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark as impracticable and unjust. He would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment and bring up a clause on the Report embracing the machinery by which he proposed to work out the object of his proposition. When at the Poor Law Board he had made an effort to carry out a scheme for the better relief of the casual poor of the Metropolis by dividing it into five or six districts, but he found that not above three or four of the parishes had the slightest desire to comply with the object he had in view. This showed the difficulty of dealing with so vast a field as the Metropolis, and he believed that in edeavouring to carry out the object of the hon. Member the difficulties would be insuperable. With regard to the clause, he agreed in the principle which it set forth. He was in favour of removing every inpediment to the free action of the poor man, and would not object to two years instead of three, for he thought the smaller the number of years that were fixed the better. He did not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire in the views he took of the Bill. He thought it required some amendment, but, on the whole, he believed it would be a great boon to the poor man. He thought it was based on a great principle of justice, and should give it his hearty support.

merely rose to express the hope that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) would be satisfied with the discussion of this question that had taken place, and not press his Amendment to a division. His hon. and learned Friend was perfectly justified in bringing the question forward. There was great force in the arguments he had used to show that the change proposed by this Bill would aggravate the burden now borne by his constituents. But, whatever justice there might be in the abstract in the principle he advocated, it was clearly impossible that it could be tacked on to a clause in a Bill of this kind. Even if the Amendment were to be adopted, there was no adequate machinery by which it could be carried out. He was not prepared to go all the length the hon. and learned Member proposed in regard to an adjustment of the Metropolitan districts; but it certainly appeared to him that there was great room for improvement, and that the subject would be a fair one for a committee of that House to consider, or for a separate Bill introduced by the Government. With regard to the particular clause before them, the tendency of that clause was to effect a movement in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) thought most desirable—the gradual abolition of the law of settlement. He (Mr. Walter) believed that was a consummation to which they were gradually tending. In proportion as they extended the principle of irremovability they weakened the law of settlement. The principle of the law of settlement was more a ratepayer's than a poor man's question. The question was not so much what particular parish a poor man was to have relief from, as it was certain that he must have relief either in one parish or another, as on what parish the burden of his relief was to fall, and that was an object of interest to the ratepayers. But the question of irremovability was a poor man's question; and the more it was carried out the more it must tend to that abolition of the law of settlement to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had called their attention. The incidence of taxation had always been one of the most difficult questions in social science, but, however much people might differ as to the shoulders on which taxation fell, one thing they all agreed upon was, that it was desirable to throw the burden on other shoulders than their own. As he thought the Bill would diminish this selfish tendency of our nature he cordially gave it his support.

said, that the object which the hon. and learned Member for Southwark and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had in view was to equalize the poor rates. Now, there was a great difference of opinion upon that subject, and he believed a majority of the ratepayers of the Metropolis would be proved to be against the hon. Members upon that point. But it was most unfair that a question of such vital importance should have been brought forward thus suddenly.

concurred in the general principle of the Bill, but he thought its details demanded the most ample discussion when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, with al his vast experience, declared himself quite in the dark as to the operation of the measure. With regard to the law of settlement, he thought it was a step in the right direction. The changes, however, which the Bill proposed to make in the apportionment of the charges would seriously affect many of the agricultural parishes, and would materially add to the rates. This question would require careful consideration when they came to the 9th Clause of the Bill. He thought the principle of the Bill a good one, and though he could not give his consent to the whole of the details he should be very unwilling to offer any opposition to the Bill passing.

thought this Bill placed a greater burden upon the rural parishes than existed at present. He considered that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman was very much to the purpose, and he thought it had hardly obtained the reception which it deserved.

said, he was satisfied, from the tone of the discussion, with the admission that the principle of his Amendment was a just one. He was prepared to bring forward a machinery for working out the proposal, but as it seemed to be the wish of the Committee, and inasmuch as legislation on the subject was expected to emanate from the Poor Law Board, he would withdraw his Amendment.

should be glad to have more information before coming to a decision whether or not this Bill was founded upon the principles of justice.

repeated his objection to the first clause, that these unions in the neighbourhood of close parishes would be seriously affected by it, and he expressed his intention to divide the Commitee upon he clause.

proposed to introduce after the word parish in line 12, the following words:—

"That five years' continuous residence in any parish shall confer a settlement therein, and four year's continuous non-residence in any parish shall forfeit and extinguish all claim to a settlement therein."

objected to this clause, because by it the charges ware made perpetual.

supported the clause, and asked what the hon. Member proposed to substitute?

objected to the passing of the Act in perpetuity. He moved the omission of the words making it perpetual.

proposed to insert the words—

"Upon an assessment calculated by adding to the annual value of the lands and hereditaments in each of the parishes, as hereinafter described, a sum equal in pounds sterling to the amount in numbers of the population of such parish, according to the last census."

At present the common fund of each union rested union what was commonly called averages. These averages were directed to be altered from time to time by the Poor Law Board. They represented the amount of pauperism in each parish. Now it was manifestly unjust to take the state of a parish twenty-five years ago as the standard of what it was to contribute to the common fund. According to his proposal, not only the value of property but the amount of population would enter into the calculation. He was quite aware that when the unions were in good circumstances his Amendment would make no difference. But where a combination of parishes was to be found in indifferent circumstances, it would take effect. He trusted the alteration would lead to the adoption of the parochial instead of union rating. He considered that the system of parochial rating was the cardinal point on which the question of economy turned.

said, he had had calculations made as to what the result would be with regard to payment if the element of population was added to the rateable value, and he found that there would be very little difference indeed. Seeing, then, that his right hon. Friend and himself agreed in principle as to having the contributions on the rateable value of the property assessed, he would leaved it to the Committee to decide the questions that remained between them. If the Committee were willing to accept the Amendment he was not prepared to offer any objection, though he thought it was calculated to produce complications and difficulty.

thought that the effect of this mode of legislation would be to cast upon the rural districts those charges which should be borne by others.

contended that this clause was so important that it needed more discussion than could be given to the at that late period of their deliberations.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he ha any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence between Captain Crofton and the Irish Government, complaining of the difficulties placed in his way in carrying out the Irish Convict System in consequence of the reduction in the number of Directors, and whether it is the intention of the Government to fill up the vacancy in the Direction?

said, he had no objection to production of the correspon- dence referred to, but it was not yet closed. With regard to the intentions of the Government as to the vacancy, the hon. Baronet might rest assured that they would first consult the efficiency of the service. The Government would intimate their intention as to whether it would be necessary to fill up the vacancy before doing so.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that there are no natural or geographical obstacles to prevent or retard the march of Troops from Tetuan to Tangier, a distance of one day's journey, by any Power having permanent possession of Tetuan? And, whether the acquisition of the coast district, continuing down to Tetuan from Ceuta, by any Power in possession of that fortress, would not render Ceuta, situated directly opposite to Gibraltar, and very much nearer to it than is Tangier, a place of great strategical importance, supported by a large acquired territory, and able to endanger the security of Gibraltar by threatening the independence of Tangier?

said, the Government were quite aware of the position of Tetuan. With regard, however, to the consequences of the possession of that place by Spain in reference to our possession of Gibralta he must decline to enter into that question.

rose to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the recent evictions at Partry, and into the expediency of devising some means to prevent the recurrence of such scenes. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he was aware that the subject of these evictions had been recently much considered by the House, and he apprehended that the felling which generally prevailed was that it was not desirable for the House to inquire into the way in which a landlord exercised the rights conferred upon him by the common law. But he should remind the House that there were special Acts passed in favour of the landlords in Ireland. Those Acts, however, were passed upon an implied understanding that the landlords would not abuse the powers which were thereby conferred on them. There was no necessity for such Acts in this country, inasmuch as English landlords never committed such outrages upon their tenantry as had been recently perpetrated in Ireland. If Parliament thought it necessary, at one time to grant these extraordinary powers, he apprehended that, upon its being shown they had been abused, it was competent for Parliament to modify or withdraw them. It was also understood, when those statutes were passed, that they were such as would be carried into effect by the civil power; while, in fact, to such an extent had those powers been put in force, that the ordinary civil power was found unequal to the execution of them; and, consequently, the aid of an armed police and a military force was required to protect those engaged in them. He submitted that it was a fit subject of inquiry whether it was the duty of the Government to lend the assistance of the armed force to support such cruel and extraordinary proceedings. He admitted the right of the landlord to evict his tenants under certain circumstances; but he denied the right of those armed authorities, after they had seen the landlord placed in possession, to assist in the levelling an destruction of the tenants' houses. With the exception of the Church question no great practical grievance was left in Ireland, except the state of the law which permitted such wholesale evictions being carried out as those of which the House had heard so much of late years. To such an extent had these wholesale evictions been carried, superadded to the effect of bad government, that coercive Acts were the order of the day, and the Volunteer movement was not allowed to operate in Ireland. The county of Galway was, comparatively speaking, in a very quiet state until the Bishop of tuam, Lord Plunket, a Member of the House of Lords, about five years ago purchased property in a portion of that county. He (Mr. M'Mahon) regretted being obliged to make a complaint against the son of a man to whom every Roman Catholic must ever feel grateful. The Lord Bishop of Tuam, soon after obtaining possession of his Partry estate, established proselytizing schools for the purpose of educating the children of his tanants in the Protestant religion. The rector of the parish, the Rev. Mr. Townsend, a mis- sionary connected with the Church Missionary Society, gave every assistance to the Bishop of Tuam to carry out his views. This rev. gentleman was examined as a witness in Galwy about two years ago in the case of a trial for lible on the Rev. Mr. Lavelle, the priest of the parish; and he swore upon his oath that he believed a Catholic priest to be the minister of Antichrist, and that he sent a challenge to the Rev. Mr. Lavelle to meet him in a controversial discussion. Dr. Townsend, with the Scripture readers and the bailiffs and agents of his Lordship's estates, want among the tenants and requested that the children might be sent to the school. There were printed rules with regard to the management of the estates; and the sixth stated that it was Lord Plunket's carnest desire that all the tenants should send their children to the school; but, it was added, his Lordship would not compel the observance of this rule by any person entertaining conscientious objections to doing so [derisive cheers.] He hoped that cheer would reach Lord Plunket. But, whatever might be Lord Plunket's intention, his conduct had led his tenants to the opinion that the "earnest desire" was to be enforced on pain of eviction. All the tenants who sent their children to the school were left on their farms; with only three exceptions, every tenant who did not send them was evicted. But there was a seventh rule, which stated that previous to the 1st of May in each year a notice to quit would be served on the tenants throughout the estate, the reason urged being to prevent a recurrence of the delay which had attended a refusal of the tenants to give up possession on demand by the agent when it was desirable to "strike the land." Now, was ever such a thing heard of in the world? Another rule required the tenants to adopt a proper course of husbandry in the cultivation of the land. If the proceedings of Lord Plunket had been in conformity with human principles, the noble Lord might have enforced his rights by means of the ordinary civil power, without the aid of a body of troops and armed police; but on that occasion a body of troops and 150 of the police were sent down to Partry to give the sheriff possession, and they stood by while the houses of twelve families were levelled to the ground, and the old, young, and helpless were left without shelter. Every one who had been so unfortunate as not to send his children to the proselytizing school was turned out. Since November there had been evictions on a smaller scale. Two families only had been turned out, and one of he persons evicted was a man who had sent his children to the proselytizing school, but who subsequently withdrew them. The result was that he and they were turned out but not for refusing to "strike" the land. Lord Plunket, not choosing to justify himself by declaring that every man had a right to do what he liked with his own, had given reasons for his conduct, and one reason was that some of these tenants had burnt their land contrary to the rules of the estate. This burning of the land was one of the best things to produce fertility, and it had always been done before, but it so happened that those persons, or some of them at least, who had to sent their children to the proselytizing school had burnt their land. Other reasons were given for the evictions, but it was a curious fact that all who had not sent their children to the school were turned out; and that several who had refused to "strike," but who had sent their children to the school, were never evicted. He supposed that it would be alleged by some hon. Member that the Ribbon conspiracy had something to do with this matter, but it appeared to him that this Ribbon conspiracy was a sort of myth, which was always brought forward whenever it was desired to justify some oppressive proceeding on the part of a landlord. He trusted that the House would be of opinion that he had laid a basis for his proposal for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances of these evictions, and also into the expediency of devising means to prevent the recurrence of such scenes as had been witnessed at Partry. He thought that he had now laid a basis for such an inquiry as he desired. As he should not have an opportunity of again addressing the House he must announce that it was his intention to go to a division. The hon. and learned Member then moved—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the recent evictions at Partry and into the expediency of devising some means to prevent the recurrence of such scenes."

seconded the Motion.

said, it was the earnest desire of the right rev. Prelate (Lord Plunket) to have the case fully investigated, and he (Mr. Lefroy) would himself have seconded the Motion but for the objectionable practice which appeared to be springing up of demanding Committees of that House to investigate the management of private estates, the effect of which could only be to create ill will between landlord and tenant. He was, nevertheless, rejoiced that the matter had been brought before the House, because they would now have the opportunity of judging on what utterly groundless charges an excellent Irish landlord had been held up to reprobation. He regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Wexford should have joined with those whom he must call clerical agitators in bringing such a charge forward; he should have remembered that the right rev. Prelate was the son of a great and distinguished man who had devoted the whole of a long life to advancing the cause of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and not thus ungratefully avail himself of the position he held in that House, partly through the efforts of that noble and learned Lord—to calumniate his son. One would have supposed from the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the evictions from this estate had been numerous and indiscriminate, that fifty or sixty families at the least had been evicted. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, moreover—

"That the notices to quit had been served to an enormous extent; and that the persons who had been evicted had been turned out because they refused to send their children to a Protestant school."

The hon. and learned Member, however, forgot to state that the notices were served upon tenants who were many years in arrear; that all the notices had been withdrawn except twelve, and that the twelve persons against who they had been put in force had all been directly or indirectly concerned in violations of the law. He (Mr. Lefroy) was prepared to detail the particular crimes for which ever one of the evicted persons had been convicted; they had acted in persevering and litigious opposition to the rules of the estate; and others were not tenants, but had located themselves upon the property without permission. He would read to the House a list of the individual offences of the evicted persons—

"Martin Lally—The father 'burned' his land, contrary to law and the rules of the estate; one son returned by coroner's jury as accessory to the murder of Lord Plunket's ploughman, a second convicted of 'brutal assault.' Edward Joyce—Tried for perjury; eleven jurors for his conviction. James Henaghan—charged with 'assault,' and pleaded guilty. Patrick Murray—The son convicted and imprisoned for 'brutal assault.' Michael Cavanagh—His son-in-law, engaged in 'riotous assault;' the father-in-law offered holding elsewhere. John Boyle—'Burned' his land, took defence, and vexatiously summoned Lord Plunket to appear as witness. Patrick Lally—Ditto. Mary Lally—Ditto. Thomas Lally—Ditto. Michael Henaghan—Ditto. Sally Lally—Squatter. Margaret Duffy—Ditto.'

Such was the character of the persons turned out of possession of their land because it was said by the hon. Gentleman "they did not send their children to Lord Plunket's school." The House could see what was the general state of insubordination in the district from the proceedings at a meeting of the Mayo magistrates in February, 1859, and presided over by the High Sheriff of the county. At that meeting the following Resolution was unanimously agreed to:—

"That we consider it our duty as magistrates, and resident proprietors in this district, to represent to his Excellency the Lord Licutenant the disturbed state of the district comprising the parish of Ballyovey, situate in the Barony of Carra, and county Mayo, and the townlands of Churchfield Lower and Churchfield Upper, situate in the baronyof Ross, and county of Galway. We are of opinion that sufficient protection is not given at present by the Government to the peaceable and unoffending inhabitants of that district For some time back there have been many outrages perpetrated therein. One man brutally beaten, inoffensive women assaulted, a house burned, large mobs collected to intimidate some of the people, witnesses attending sessions at Ballinrobe and Claremorris have not been able to do so except under the protection of the police. These offences have been followed by the murder of an inoffensive man. We, therefore, urgently recommend that the above-mentioned district should be proclaimed, in accordance with the provisions of the Crime and Outrage Act, and that his Excellency will be pleased to take such other steps as he may think desirable for the protection of the peaceable and well-disposed inhbitants of that district."

It had been urged that the conduct of the priests on these occasions had been meek and mild; but he (Mr. Lefroy) Would quote a specimen of the language employed by the priest of the district, Father Lavelle. That individual concluded a letter of denunciation in these words—

"You may draw the sword in aggression against the 'poor,' but the 'poor' are determined to a man to meet you. Let the 'notice to quit,' and the 'ejectment process,' and the 'sheriff,' and the 'crowbar'—let all come—there shall we remain to meet them, with the same stern courage as did the Ghebers their Moslem foe in a less holy cause; and when all this is dine the beginning has not yet arrived."

The right rev. Prelate having heard that it was the intention of the Bishop of Orleans to preach a sermon, in the course of which he was to charge him with having evicted from his estate a number of Roman Catholic tenants, in consequence of an alleged refusal on their parts to send their children to a Protestant school, wrote a letter to Lord Cowley, our Ambassador at Paris, to this effect—

"The facts of the case are simply these:— During the past year I have been compelled to evict from my estate twelve persons with their families; some of these were tenants who had been directly or indirectly concerned in serious violations of the law of the hand. Some were tenants who had acted in persevering and litigious opposition to the rules of the estate; others were not tenants, but had located themselves upon the property without permission. To have retained such persons upon my estate, after the continued and systematic provocation to which I have been subjected, would have only encouraged a spirit of general insubordination and lawlessness; and, therefore, in justice to myself, to my peaceabley-disposed tenants, and to my neighbours, I felt reluctantly compelled to remove these tenants from my property. Such were my only reasons for evicting them; and to state that I evicted them, or that I ever evicted any tenants, for refusing to send their children to a Protestant school, is to assert that which is absolutely untrue. I am aware that a number of most specious misrepesentations have been industriously circulated in reference to this matter. Your Lordship will be, doubtless, surprised to hear that even falsified reports of the very evidence which I have given upon oath in open court have been furnished to the press, and words which I have never uttered have been published, and quoted as mine, with a view to convict me of prevarication and falsehood."

I shall now beg to call the attention of the House to the two following facts, which are open to investigation. At present there are 179 Roman Catholic tenants on Lord Plunket's estate, none of whom send their children to a Protestant school; and at the time when his Lordship first acquainted the twelve families with his intention of evicting them, he could not have been influenced by any refusal upon their parts to send their children to his schools, for there was not, a it happened, amongst them all at that time, with perhaps one exception, a child of an age suitable for attendance at school. With respect to the rev. Gentlemen from whom the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) had obtained much of his information. He (Mr. Lefroy) much infrom the House, and he did so with much regret, that the Rev. Mr. Lavelle was obliged to leave Paris for misconduct of some sort; when he came to this side of the Channel, thinking, perhaps, that he might take greater liberties. The rev. gentleman attended a meeting in the round room of the Rotunda in Dublin, upon which occasion the Rev. Mr. Anderdon, formerly a Protestant clergyman, now a Roman Catholic priest, gave a reading of his translation of the sermon then lately preached in Paris by M. Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans. The proceeds of this meeting, it was stated, were, as in the case of the French bishop's sermon, to be applied to the relief of the "victims" of Partry, and of "similar cases of unmerited distress." What were the real motives which underlay this system of tenant commiseration and landlord denunciation might be gathered from the concluding proceedings of the meeting. On that occasion Mr. Kavanagh, of the Catholic University, moved a vote of thanks to the Rev. Mr. Anderdon, and the Rev. Patrick Lavelle seconded the Motion, and concluded, in the words of the report, in these terms—

"We are all Nationalists. [Great cheering.] We have all one end in view—the liberation of our dear, suffering, bleeding country. [Tremendous cheering, and waving of hats.] Do you know my creed at this moment? I know I am looked upon by the magnates of the land, and by the powers that be, as a firebrand. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] Well, I proclaim this:— give me Jew, Turk, Heathen—give me anything for twelve months—but send away the English tyranny. [Loud and long-continued cheering.]

Such was the language in which it was sought to raise up the worst passions of the people of Ireland, and such was an instance of the meekness for the rev. gentleman on whose authority the hon. and learned Member relied. He would leave it to the House to say how far they were disposed to come to a decision adverse to Lord Plunket on such evidence. Before the House appointed a Committee as was moved for to inquire into "the expediency of devising some means to prevent the recurrence of such scenes," it should at least be ascertained that the cases which were supposed to warrant an investigation were neither doubtful nor paltry. It appeared to him upon every consideration that he had given to the subject that not a single fact had been stated to warrant the Committee which the hon. and learned Gentleman required.

said, that after the clear and complete answer which had just been given to the charges of the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, he should not have risen but that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lefroy) seemed to admit that the House had jurisdiction in these questions. On the contrary, he submitted that a greater abuse of the time of Parliament, and a greater outrage on the attention of Members, could not be perpetrated than by occupying the House with a mere question of the relations between a landlord and his tenants. In the county where he lived there had been cases of men having been put out of their holdings for acting in discharge of their political convictions, but it never entered into their head to bring their grievances before the House. But what was the charge against the right rev. Prelate? It was that he had attempted on a grand scale a system of proselytism. Why, what should he do? If the hon. Gentleman had seen Ireland as he did in 1847, when he could have taken a line and marked out the townships where famine and death and starvation extended almost precisely according to the jurisdiction and control and power of the Roman Catholic priests. ["Oh, oh!"] What should any right-minded and benevolent man then desire so much as to establish a system of proselytizm? He wondered what the rev. rector of Partry should have done, when at his ordination he recognized the religion which they not only tolerated but encouraged and paid for as "blasphemous and idolatrous." Every clergyman was called upon to preach against the "blasphemy and idolatry of Popery." He was not using his own words. Why, then, should a right rev. Prelate be attacked as for doing something wrong when he had merely endeavoured to proselytize and to win people away from a system which those who had examined it knew to be injurious, and to produce misery and all those miseries which were the natural results of its teaching? It was a first principle of that religion that no one should be at liberty to exercise his own judgment—that no one should read the books they pleased, but implicitly rely on what they were told, and thus, as it were, emasculate themselves, and render themselves incompetent to discharge the civil duties of life. Why, then, should hon. Gentlemen presume on their position in that House to make a charge against the right rev. Prelate of proselytizm, when he had endeavoured to reclaim his tenants, not for the sake of religion merely, but for the sake of civil society, for the sake of the welfare and material interest of the country, from such a system of religion as that? ["Question."] It was the question. If hon. Members wished let them discuss the matter as it was discussed in 1688, when it was declared that the first principle of the Constitution should be Protestantism, and that Romanism, the effects of which they had then experienced more recently than now, should by all possible and tolerant means be discouraged. Was it, then, right that the House should be occupied for two or three hours with a discussion like that because a landlord and a Bishop had endeavoured to exercise his authority as a landlord to reclaim his tenants from the social evils of Rome?—[Laughter.]— well, was it not a social evil when these evictions could not be carried out without police and without putting the country to expense? But it was the result of the education which was given at Maynooth, as he knew full well. It was in precise conformity with the doctrines and principles there taught that the law could not be carried out without the assistance of the police and military. Should the hon. Gentleman go to a division, he (Mr. Whalley) should go with him, in order, if possible, that they might have some principle laid down as to whether the time of the House should be occupied in discussing the relations between landlords and tenants, and especially to see whether it was not the duty of every man in the country, to the extent of his ability, to proselytize and to maintain and extend that Protestantism which was recognized as part of the Constitution.

Sir, I do not intend to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken into the horrors of the social evil, or the iniquities of the Scarlet Lady, in dismissing which rather complicated question the hon. Gentleman has not only confounded himself, but utterly bewildered the House. Neither shall I attempt to follow him through the maze of his mental vagaries, which would not be a very useful or profitable pursuit. I assume that the hon. Gentleman had forgotten part of the famous Maynooth harangue, which was to have astonished the House and the country, and pluverized the College, if not demolished Popery in Ireland; and that he has, therefore, thought it right to supplement that magnificent oration by the speech which we have just heard. I can assure that hon. Gentleman that Catholic Members have heard that great as well as that supplemental speech, not only with the most perfect satisfaction, but with a sense of pleasure which it is almost impossible to describe. The hon. Gentleman has taken upon himself to decide on the propriety of bringing questions such as the present before Parliament, and he has gone so far as to designate their introduction "an abuse and an outrage." But I put it to the hon. Member for Peterborough himself, who, if he could only get rid of his nonsense about Popery, would be a useful and, indeed, efficient Member—that is, with respect to small Bills—whether there is any other course left to a persecuted tenantry than an appeal to public opinion, through the medium of this House? Let us really see what the state of things is. We find that the vast majority of the tenants of Ireland are tenants-at-will, that they hold their farms from year to year, and that they can be removed from them at any moment by the owners of the land which they cultivate by their capital and labour. It is a fact beyond controversy that about nine-tenths of the tenants of Ireland stand in this precarious position. Now, I not only admit, but, as an Irishman, I am proud to state, that we have in Ireland numbers of landlords—Protestant landlords of Catholic tenants— who are an honour to their country, and towards whom their tenants display a feeling of clannish attachment and devotion such as cannot be exceeded in any country whatever among a class holding similar relations with the owners of the soil. For such landlords changes in the laws are unnecessary; for not only do they deal with their tenants kindly, humanely, generously, and according to the principles of justice and equity, but they act wisely and prudently by encouraging the industry and protecting the interests of those on their estate; for they well know that the more their tenants are prosperous and contented, the more certain must they be of their own prosperity and that of their estates. But unhappily, there are landlords in Ireland who entertain different notions of their duties, and who regard their tenants in a very different light; and it is against this class that protective laws are necessary— or, if changes in the law cannot be obtained, that the aid of public opinion is to be invoked. The right of the landlord is clear and unmistakeable. Where the tenant does not hold by lease, the tenant is absolutely at his mercy. If the landlaord have 100 tenants, or 1,000 tenants, on his estate, he can, at any moment, or from any motive, whether of caprice, love of gain, or desire of vangeance—clear these 100 or these 1,000 tenants from off his property. If this be so, and it is so, I ask is not the landlord endowed with the most extraordinary powers over the tenant—a power almost of life and death? Then, in case that wrong is inflicted by those who hold and exercise such powers, and that there is no redress to be had in the ordinary tribunals, what is to be done? Public opinion alone is influential in checking the undue exercise of these tremendous powers. In a court of law, save where the law has been violated, the tenant cannot be heard with much practical effect; and if the voice of oppressed and persecuted men is not be heard in this House, where, in God's name, is it to be heard? There is no Parliament in Dublin—I wish there was; and I confess, for my own part, I would gladly surrender the honour of belonging to an assembly which legislates for and concerns itself with interests that embrace so large a portion of the world — I say I would cheerfully exchange all the honour and glory of forming part of this great Assembly, for the opportunity of devoting all my energies to the improvement and happiness of that country which I love with the ardour and earnestness of one sprung from the soil. But, as there is no Parliament in Dublin, I would look upon the Irish representative as a dastard and a coward who, being a Member of this House, did not raise his voice to proclaim and denounce any wrong to which his humble countrymen had been subjected. It is true, Parliament has no power or authority to restore these unhappy victims of Lord Plunket to their holdings, and to reinstate those against whom this grievous wrong has been done; but it has the influence to check, by the expression of its opinion, the intentions of those who might be inclined to imitate so evil an example. And it is in this spirit that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) has brought forward this question. As to this case of Lord Plunket, we have abundant evidence to prove that he had acted harshly and inhumanly towards those people whom he has banished from his property. It has been established by sworn evidence, given before a Judge and jury, that this right rev. Prelate—this Bishop of a Christian Church—this gentleman of high rank and illustrious lineage—has transgressed every principle not only of Apostolic teaching, but of ordinary justice and fairness. No doubt he has acted strictly in accordance with the law of the land; but it is because he has done so that it is necessary to appeal to public opinion against the law as well as against him. The friends of Lord Plunket seek to defend their noble client by attempting to damage the Rev. Mr. Lavelle; and the hon. Member (Mr. Lefroy) stated that Mr. Lavelle had been driven out of Paris—thereby endeavouring to produce an unfavourable impression against him on that account. But the simple part of the case was this—Mr. Lavelle, being a Professor of the Irish College at Paris, had a dispute with the President of that establishment as to its internal organization; and I am authorized to state, on behalf of Mr. Lavelle, that he had the approval of the Catholic Prelates of Ireland for his conduct on the occasion. So much for that accusation. A speech attributed to Mr. Lavelle has been also quoted against him. With that speech, whether it were "incendiary" or not, I have nothing whatever to do, as I know nothing whatever respecting it. If Mr. Lavelle speaks as a freeman ought, he is entitled to every protection; and if he transgress the law, there are those who can take cognizance of his indiscretion. But the question is not as to whether Mr. Lavelle was driven from Paris or not, but whether this Bishop of a Christian Church did turn out the people or not? It is not whether Mr. Lavelle spoke a certain speech or not, but whether this Protestant Prelate exercised his enormous power as a landlord for an unworthy purpose? My hon. and learned Friend mentioned only twelve cases of evictions; but there have been twenty-eight cases; 165 people having been turned out within the last five or six years by the right rev. Prelate—all of them with the exception of a few families who had been evicted by a near relative of his. It has been asserted that these persons who were evicted had no children—no children of a sufficient age to be sent to school—no children of such an age that the proselytizers would desire to get hold of them. In justice to these proselytizing gentry, it must be admitted that they are not at all particular, and that if they cannot procure a child of eight, or ten, or fourteen years of age, an infant of two will answer their purpose—which is to make a show in their schools. If there were no children, then the charge against Lord Plunket at once falls to the ground. But were there no children? If there were no children, why the "earnest desire" that they should be sent?—why the repeated applications to their parents by the agent, the missionary parson, the bailiff, and the daughters of Lord Plunket? It is said that the people last evicted had no children. That statement is entirely unfounded. The direct opposite is the fact. When these poor people were expelled from their homes in that merciless weather, by a more merciless act, there were seen hanging about them children of all ages, who had to follow their wretched parents into desolation and misery. Over and over again the representatives of Lord Plunket called upon these Catholic parents, importuned them, besought them, threatened them — used every influence to induce them to send their children to his schools, the avowed object of whose teaching was to make them Protestants. The evidence of the Rev. Mr. Townsend is conclusive as to the object in obtaining these children. There was no disguise whatever about it. The mothers of the children were in the habit of resorting to all sorts of expedients to escape this shameful persecution. Sometimes the child was hidden behind a box, at another time under a bed, at the approach of Miss Plunket and the Scripture readers, and one child narrowly escaped suffocation in consequence. It was proved that the Rev. Mr. Townsend went to poke with his stick under the bed to discover if any juvenile recusant were there concealed. Before I give evidence—sworn evidence—upon this question of the children being sought after by Lord Plunket and his agents, I may allude to the striping of the land, which has been given as the alleged reason for these evictions. Now, what is the fact in reference to these twelve cases? With the exception of two holdings, all the rest had been striped for several years before. Here, in this single fact, is the answer to that alleged reason for demanding possession. At the trial at Galway eighteen witnesses were examined on Mr. Lavelle's side to prove this system of proselytizing by threats of extermination. Mr. Lavelle had sixty witnesses to prove to the same effect; but the Judge and jury were wearied with a trial that had extended over six days, and only the number I mentioned were examined. Lord Plunket was present, looking down from the Bench on many of the victims of his landlord cruelty; and his agents, of all kinds, were likewise present. But not one of them was able to answer the main allegations of those poor people. [The hon. Member then read extracts from the evidence of several witnesses, in corroboration of the facts he had before stated; and then proceeded]— I could multiply these facts to show that the landlord's agent, the bailiffs, the proselytizing minister, the daughters of Lord Plunket—in fine, every one who had authority or influence over the people—came to them, over and over again, to induce them, by threats as well as by persuasion, to send their children to schools which, according to the sworn admission of the Rev. Mr. Townsend, were intended, by their teaching, to make Protestants of them. What did Lord Plunket say, in reply? He said "I expressed my earnest desire that my tenants should send their children to my schools." His "earnest desire!"—the "earnest desire" of a man who had the power of life and death over these poor helpless people. Of course, charges are now trumped up against the unhappy victims of this merciless system—this system of fraud and tyranny. One of these tenants was found guilty of an assault? A Scripture-reader went one day into one of the cottages, and seeing a scapular—which is a symbol of a particular devotion—suspended from the neck of the woman of the House, he rushed at her, told her that it was an emblem of the devil, and tore it from her bosom. The woman struck him, and her son afterwards punished him for this ruffianly outrage; and I think those who hear me will agree with me when I say, in the language of a certain finding of a jury— "Served him right." We are told not to judge of Lord Plunket's motives. But the motives cannot be mistaken; they lie on the surface, and are patent to all men. Here is a grand fact—every tenant evicted was a tenant who refused to send his or her children to the proselytizing schools, while all those who yielded, and sent their children, have not been disturbed. When Mr. Lavelle came to Partry he found the Catholic chapel almost empty, and the Catholic school without children; but being a man of energy and zeal he set about remedying such a state of things, the result of which is that his chapel is crowded with pious worshippers, and that his schools are filled with children whose faith is protected against the base and dishonest artifices of the proselytizer. Hence the enmity to Mr. Lavelle—hence these evictions. Mr. Lavelle would have failed in his duty if he had not acted as he did. A Protestant clergyman, under similar circumstances, would have done the very same. It has been said that Lord Plunket had a right to preach the doctrines of his church, and endeavour to win converts to his creed. That I do not deny. On the contrary, I admit it. Let him preach on the highway if he please, provided that he does not provoke to a riot thereby. There is, however, a more suitable and a more potent way of preaching his doctrines—by the gentleness of his manner, by the beneficence of his acts, by the virtue and holiness of his life. But I hold it is contrary to the principles of justice, of liberty, and of Christianity, that Lord Plunket should wield his enormons power as a landlord against these unhappy people, not to make them converts to his creed from a sincere belief in the truth of Protestantism, but to make them liars and hypocrites, sacrificing their unfortunate offspring for some temporary gain. The whole system is one of the meanest imposture and of the most fiendish cruelty; and what I desire to elicit is some generous expression of opinion by some influential English Member against any attempt to propagate religion by such abominable and iniquitous means. The greatest misery and wretchedness are inflicted upon the humbler classes of the people of Ireland by this madness for proselytizing. I know of a striking example of it in my own county. In a certain rural parish of that county the priest and the parson lived together on terms of neighbourly kindness and Christian amity. Each respected the other, and the other's faith. In works of charity and kindness they were sure to be found associated together; and in the hour of emergency, when their people suffered from any cause, the united appeal of these two worthy ministers of the Gospel was irresistible in their behalf. In the fulness of time it pleased God to remove the worthy Protestant clergyman from his earthly labours, to the grief of the priest and his flock. The successor was a man of a different stamp, and was one of those who happened to be in connection with Exeter Hall, or one of its missionary and aggressive associations. Soon after his arrival peace fled from that once quiet parish, and hate and discord prevailed. The fruits of his zeal were visible ere long in riots on the highway, in prosecutions at petty sessions, quarter sessions, and even at the assizes; and for years this wretched locality was torn asunder by strife, malice, and hate, disgraceful to a civilized community, and degrading to the name of religion. It has been said, in vindication of Lord Plunket, that he has 175 Roman Catholic tenants still on his estate. My answer is his Lordship may not find it over convenient to eject them; for not only would such folly be sure not to pay, but he may not desire to brave public opinion farther than he ahs already done. Mr. Lavelle has been stigmatized as a "priestly agitator;" but Mr. Lavelle was bound to defend his people, and to protect their faith; and it is not because a priest is a minister of religion that he loses his rights as a citizen on that account—and, in my opinion, the clergy of Ireland would be guilty of a dereliction of duty, as citizens, if they did not appeal against laws which oppressed and demoralized their people, or if they did not seek redress for such flagrant wrongs as that which Lord Plunket has inflicted on the victims of his power. If the tenants of Ireland do pay their rent honestly, then there is a law to compel them to do so; but there should be no authority given to coerce their conscience. I yield to no man in the feeling of reverence which I entertain for the great name borne by Lord Plunket—I honour the memory of the illustrious man who made that name famous. I am proud of his glorious genius, and prouder of the still more glorious use to which it was directed; and, therefore, my regret is the deeper when I see a degenerate son of that great man practically repudiating every one of those principles which his illustrious father so eloquently proclaimed, not alone for the guidance of his own time and country, but for that of the world and posterity. Sir, I call upon this House not to be guilty of the folly, the insanity, of refusing to listen to such an appeal as is now made to it. Do not close your doors or shut your cars to the recital of wrongs such as have been described. Let no feeling of impatience or annoyance, let no considerations of momentary convenience prevent you showing that you are not indifferent to evils which inflict misery upon the poor and the helpless. This, I say, is the right place, and the only place, where an appeal against legal injustice can be made with a hope of advantage, and I beseech the House to listen to the appeal now made on behalf of a suffering and a persecuted people.

Sir, this Motion is one of considerable importance, because, unless the House interposes to check such Motions, it will find itself involved in great difficulty, and it will become what the late Mr. Drummond styled it in reference to a similar Motion, "a tremendous Inquisition." Mr. Drummond made use of this observation on the occasion of a Motion made by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford some time ago, under similar unfortunate circumstances in connection with the conduct of Mr. Pollock, who had bought a large property in Ireland, and had made some useful and permanent improvements upon his estate. The hon. and learned Member for Wexford brought that gentleman under the attention of the House, and entered into a statement in which he described the number of tenants that he had evicted and expatriated. But what turned out to be the facts of that case? The very tenants who were said to have been thus persecuted had actually signed a paper expressive of their gratitude to Mr. Pollock for his generous conduct towards them. The hon. and learned Member for Wexford, in the face of the real facts of the case, excused himself by saying, that that part of the country with which he was connected being situated at a great distance from the scene of those alleged occurrences, he was not thoroughly acquainted with the facts, and he proceeded to make the best justification he could for his unwarrantable attack upon a gentleman who was deserving of the highest commendation. Well, what difference is there between that Motion and the present one? We have heard of sixty or seventy ejectments brought by Lord Plunket against his tenantry. His tenants, however, did the same thing as the tenants of Mr. Pollock had done. They had some difference with their landlord; but they addressed their landlord in the following terms:—

"TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD PLUNRET.

"Castlebar, March, 12, 1860.

"We, your Lordship's tenants in this present ejectment, feel much grieved at being in a position antagonistic to your Lordship. It is not, nor ever was, our wish to interfere with your Lordship's rights on your property. We now beg to leave ourselves entirely in your Lordship's hands, and to withdraw all further defence."

(Signed by all the Defendants.)

Upon receiving this memorial Lord Plunket directed his counsel (Mr. Robinson) to take the opportunity of stating in Court that it was not intended to evict any of those sixty cases, with the exception of fourteen, affecting individuals who had been concerned in serious infractions of the law of the land, or of the rules of the estate. The truth is that those persons were advised not to quarrel with their landlord when they had no defence. The Bishop then offered to restore all those persons to their holdings except such as he felt he had serious charges against. I distinctly say that a more unjust and studious misapprehension of the facts cannot be made than to say that sixty or seventy families had been evicted. It appears that Lord Plunket had a very worthy man, a ploughman, in his employ. This unfortunate man, for no other offence than that he was Lord Plunket's ploughman, was shot dead at his own door. The House will judge of the nature of this circumstance by the following facts:—The family of a man named Lally was the first evicted. The Bishop I admit was inexorable as to this man—he said "Tom Lally, the son, stands at present charged with having been concerned in the murder of a poor man of the name of Harrison who had been employed by me as a ploughman." I rather think that the Crown had directed a prosecution for the murder. The evidence against the accused was that he was seen close to the spot where the murder was committed, and that on the ground was found the piece of paper which had been used in loading the gun; on it was written the name of Thomas Lally; and in a box at the head of his bed was found the sheet of paper from which it had been torn; and also in the same room the gun recently discharged. This, you will see, was rather suspicious evidence against him. I should certainly like to live out of reach of Thomas Lally's gun. The case came on for investigation; but as it could not be proved that Lally Lally had actually fired the shot, he was admitted to bail, and the case was ordered to stand over until further evidence was procured. When the case came on at the assizes the counsel for the prisoner applied to have his client admitted to hail. The House will, no doubt, be startled to hear that the Rev. Mr. Lavelle, the Roman Catholic priest of Partry, came forward as his bailsman and stood security for this man. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) must admit that in each of the cases of evictions there was a distinct accusation of crime, of one sort or another, brought against the evicted persons. The facts of the case of Prendergast, in the words of his agent, are these:—" It is now about two years ago since Lord Plunket resolved to remove Prendergast and his family from the estate in consequence of the part which his son had taken in the illegal pro- ceeding of removing the stones of Miss Plunket's house. In common with others he took defence, put Lord Plunket to great expense, and vexatiously summoned him and his daughter to appear as witnesses at Castlebar. When upon that occasion the tenants yielded an unconditional submission, Prendergast and twelve other tenants received notice that they would be evicted in November. They were thus given six months to prepare for their departure. But when November came, instead of yielding peaceable possession, they compelled Lord Plunket to resort to forcible eviction. It was upon this occasion that, just as Prendergast was about to be evicted he was permitted by Lord Plunket, at the request of a friend, to remain upon the estate, on the condition that when a farm should be provided for him upon another part of the property he should leave his present holding. To this arrangement he them gladly and gratefully agreed. Since that time, however, it appeared that other influences had been brought to bear upon him. When the time for moving to the new holding arrived, he refused sturdily to go, asserting that he would not accept the best farm on Lord Plunket's property. He felt, no doubt, that it was more advantageous to his interests to be evicted and a martyr, as it were, in the cause." But a further charge was made against Lord Plunket, that he had evicted those tenants in the month of November. He did so at that time—but why? The tenants had sown their seed crops. They had been served with notice eight months before; but Lord Plunket allowed them to remain until November, because, as he humanely said, as they had sown the seed they should reap the crops. Well, what is the grievance? The grievance is that these tenants walked out of their buildings in November, owing one and a half year's rent each, and taking with them their crops. My notion of Lord Plunket as a landlord is this, that a kinder-hearted and a better man does not live. The hon. Member for Dungarvan said that these tenants had been evicted because they had refused to send their children to Lord Plunket's schools. Why, what was the fact? Not one of those twelve families evicted had any children fit to send to those schools. As to the Rev. Mr. Lavelle, he, no doubt, had a perfect right to fill his church and his school by every means in his power. Now, I do not believe that in Her Majesty's dominions there is to be found a speaker who can express himself with more force than the Rev. Mr. Lavelle. I understand that the rev. gentleman sometimes displays his cloquence in the shape of appeals to the Irish people to relieve themselves from what he calls English connection and English tyranny. I believe, too, that he has been a professor in the Irish College of Paris. But the laws of France are rather sharper than those of England. I once met him on the occasion of the late Mr. O'Connell's departure for Italy. The rev. Dr. Miley was the gentleman to whom I allude. Dr. Miley whilst at the head of the College referred to, had, unluckily for him, the rev. Mr. Lavelle as a professor. The House may from a judgment of the peace and happiness of the College with a professor of such literary ability and warm temper as the rev. Mr. Lavelle. Differences arose between him and Dr. Miley. At length it was determined that one or other should go. Mr. Lavelle said, "I will not go." Under those circumstances an order was given on a certain day by Dr. Miley to the porter not to admit Mr. Lavelle into the College when he should return from a walk. Mr. Lavelle having presented himself at the door about eight o'clock in the morning, was informed by the porter that he could not be admitted. Mr. Lavelle insisted upon his right to enter, and suddenly darted down the street. In a few minutes he returned with a ladder, and before the President of the College or the porter could prevent him he ascended the wall and leaped down inside, and thus again was entrenched within the premises. As soon as Dr. Miley found he was within the building he consulted the Minister of Education. The Minister of Public Instruction sent a polite message to inquire of Mr. Lavelle whether he intended to persevere in his intention to remain against the command of his superior. On Mr. Lavelle replying that he did, the minister of Public Instruction communicated with another gentleman of considerable authority—the Prefect of Police. He sent a hussier to invite Mr. Lavelle to leave; but he preferred to stay. The Prefect then drew out a paper, which, after referring to several articles of the Code, stated that for the preservation of public order it was necessary Mr. Lavelle should quit Paris within two hours. Mr. Lavelle then left France, when he could no longer remain there, and, unfortunately for the peace of mind of Lord Plunket and the tranquillity of his estate, settled himself down in Partry, and from that moment, with admirable skill, contrived to keep the place in hot water. Now, as to the question of education, it should be recollected that the Roman Catholics possessed about eleven-twelfths of the grant given for the education of all classes in Ireland. Surely, then, the Bishop of Tuam had a perfect right to establish a school at his own expense for communicating religious instruction in the way he thought best. Mr. Lavelle had succeeded in emptying the Bishop's school; but he hoped he would not succeed in inducing the House to listen to a Motion that was totally destitute of foundation, in point of fact, and contained no priciple that could justify the House in adopting it. He believed the object of the Motion was to terrify landlords from taking any proceedings against their tenantry that might not be approved by those who exercised an authority over them to which they had no right by law. He wished the House not to suppose that there was a great quarrel existing between Irish landlords and their tenants; on the contrary, an agent with whom he had travelled told him that, instead of running after the tenants for the rent, they now came forward to pay it. The tenants were as a class meritorious and industrious, and were living on the best terms with nine-tenths of the gentry, who were recovering that consequence to which their position entitled them. For his own part, he detested ejectments without good cause. In the north of Ireland they were almost unknown, and the tenantry were prosperous and comfortable. He wished them to be equally so in the west, and he was quite sure the kindhearted people of that district would get on well with the Bishop and the gentry of the country if they were not stimulated into a course of conduct which brought them into trouble and did no possible good to the country.

The right hon. Gentleman has, with usual ability, contrived to make an amusing speech on a subject which is of the most painful description to every one else. I wish to confine myself strictly to the question before the House, which is, whether this House will grant a Committee to inquire into the case that has been brought before them. Of the main facts there can be no doubt. That Lord Plunket is an amiable man is known to all who have the advantage of his friendship. That he has spent large sums on the improvement of the district is known to all who are acquainted with that part of the country. That he and his friends have been zealous promoters of conversion to the Protestant faith of the Roman Catholics in the district is also true, and the result which unfortunately so often happens in Ireland under these circumstances followed in this case. In particular, during the last three years, since Mr. Lavelle has been settled in the district, a state of society arose deeply painful to those who are entrusted with the peace of the country; and at last a murder—the murder of Lord Plunket's ploughman—led to the application of the extraordinary powers entrusted to the Executive for the preservation of the peace. But I must say that there is no resemblance between this case and that which was discussed a few evenings ago, for there is here no charge of Ribbonism. In the case of the Derryveagh evictions there was a wholesale ejectment of families on general grounds, without any personal application to any of the families evicted. In the case now before us it is charged on the one hand that all the evictions took place because the parents declined to send their children to the Protestant schools. On the other side that statement is met by a pointed and explicit declaration by Lord Plunket given on oath. ["No!"] I am speaking from a newspaper account of the trial where Lord Plunket was a witness, and where he made a statement on oath that on one of the persons evicted was evicted for this reason. This House has not the power to administer an oath, and if it had I do not think it would be disposed to exercise it in the present case. Would there be any use, then, in appointing a Committee to hear these motives ascribed to Lord Plunket on the one side, and to hear his Lordship on the other repeat the statements which he had already made in a more solemn manner, denying them, and which he has since reiterated in his published letter to Lord Cowley? Every argument that had weight against the Motion for inquiry the other evening had increased force now. Such an inquiry would be wholly without profit; it would not tend to elevate the character of the House; but it would make the House for the first time usurp the functions of the tribunals in a way that had undoubtedly never been done before. The powers of this House are without limit; but they are limited by our own sense of discretion and guided by the precedents of former generations, and I believe that no precedent can be produced of the House having acted in a manner so contrary to its functions, and so inconsistent with its prudence. I feel I shall best discharge the duty which devolves upon me by avoiding all discussion on the details of this most painful case. The feeling I entertain is one of deep regret that our common faith should become, not the cement of cordial union and good-will in this district, but a cause of discord and strife. I should deeply regret if one word were to fall from me tending to increase those feelings, and happy should I be if the discussion in this House, and the expressions of feeling which have come from both sides, were to reach that district, and tend to the restoration of unity and concord in that portion of the community.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made towards effecting those "full and adequate arrangements" which, in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech addressed to the Houses of Parliament in August last, were expressed to be confidently looked forward to as the means for "securing the neutrality and independence of the Swiss Confederation;" and whether (pending the Negotiations referred to in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech) the continued occupation by France of Territories which have been declared to "form part of the neutrality of Switzerland" is sanctioned by any Provisional Agreement or understanding between the guaranteeing Powers? The hon. Member said, that if he had for a long time abstained from bringing this subject before the House it was because there was any inclination on his part to desert the duty he had undertaken, nor from any belief that the subject had by any means diminished in importance; but he had remained silent because the declarations of Her Majesty's Minister in the course of last Session coincided with the views which he entertained; and, therefore, he left the matter in the hands of the Government. He acknowledged that he knew of no act done, or words spoken or written, by Her majesty's Ministers which should lead him to withdraw his confidence in them; but, considering that eleven months had now elapsed since the House had received any authentic information respecting the negotiations, and that during that interval France had remained in occupation of that territory which was the subject of dispute, and, considering the silence he had hitherto maintained, he thought he was justified in now venturing to call the attention of the House to the matter. He would endeavour to deserve the indulgence of the House by abstaining with great care from going again over the ground of last year; but it would be necessary, in order that he should be intelligible, that he should remind the House on one or two points. He would remind them, in the first place, that at the close of last Session the Royal Commissioners declared that Her Majesty confidently trusted that adequate arrangements would be made for maintaining the neutrality and independence of Switzerland. In 1815 arrangements were made, in terms not perhaps very grammatical but perfectly clear, by which it was declared that the provinces which were the subject of his Motion should form a part of the neutrality of Switzerland. Under these arrangements, it was provided that when war should actually occur, or even be imminent, the Sardinian troops should march out of this territory, and that the Swiss should be competent to occupy them with their own troops. In fact, the peculiar position of these provinces might perhaps be best understood by saving that, although for mere municipal and domestic purposes they were a part of the Sardinian Kingdom, yet, for what might be called European purposes, they were a part of Switzerland. That arrangement was obtained by Switzerland for her own benefit, as the result of earnest entreaties addressed by her to the English Minister of that day. It was most favourable to her, because she had a comparatively weak Power for her neighbour; and for all practical purposes she was as well situated as if those provinces had actually belonged to her. This being the case, Switzerland having this benefit provided for her, and being also entrusted with the duty of maintaining the neutrality of those provinces, as well as the neutrality of her own States, it was obvious that neither her right nor her duty could be annulled by any transaction to which she and the Great Powers of Europe were not parties. That was the view of the whole of Europe; because, when the Emperor of the French entered into the Treaty of Turin with the King of Sardinia, he acknow ledged in very fair terms that he had no right to acquire that territory, except upon the same conditions as Sardinia held it. The contracting parties went on to say that it would be the duty (l'appartiendra) of the Emperor of the French to come to an understanding on the subject, both with the Great powers and with the Swiss Confederation. It became important, therefore, with a view to the restoration of that tranquillity which had been disturbed by the annexation of Savoy and Nice, to see whether it was possible in any way to reconcile the acquisition of the main part of those provinces with the rights of both Switzerland and of Europe. It would have been easy for the Emperor, by giving up to the Swiss Confederation those provinces, or even the portion of them required to give Switzerland a good military frontier, to have done much towards allaying the indignation occasioned by the act of annexation last year. At one time, indeed, it was supposed that that would have taken place. The Emperor of the French, as they all knew, promised that these provinces should be given to Switzerland. That promise was afterwards withdrawn; but still it was hoped that a mere belt of mountains — which would have answered the purposes of Switzerland without in any way hurting the frontier of France—would have been conceded to Switzerland to replace her in the position she occupied before the Treaty of Turin. Such was the posture of affairs last year. It was then felt in this country that, if matters were allowed to remain in the condition to which that treaty had brought them, Switzerland would be grievously damaged; and he regretted to say that all the gloomy anticipations last year entertained on that head had been realized. Alarm and anxiety, varying in intensity from time to time, prevailed in Switzerland, and especially in that part which the French journals were beginning to call French Switzerland. The manner in a which that country was affected by the late change in the map of Europe was very intelligible. In the first place those provinces which used to be the most valuable barriers for Switzerland had been converted not only into no barrier at all, but into what might be accurately described as the hostile lodgement of a great Power. The result was that the cantons of Geneva and Vaud were so hemmed in that their position became, as it were, paradoxical. They had France on all sides of them. Moreover, the inhabitants of Chablais, Faucigny, and Genevois were by the Treaty of Turin converted into Frenchmen. They were actually French subjects. It so happened that a very large portion of the inhabitants of Geneva were persons who had been born in those provinces; and the consequence, was that there having been a very large body of Frenchmen resident in Geneva, the number was now enormously increased by the operation of the Treaty of Turin. Any one who knew the configuration of the country would readily understand that there must necessarily be a very strong attraction continuing between Geneva and the inhabitants of those provinces. It would be recollected that in the course of last year an earnest effort was made by the people of Chablais and Faucigny to become annexed to the Swiss Confederation. That effort failed; and the result of the existing state of things was that the very men who had been the most anxious for annexation to Geneva, having themselves been annexed to France, were for the very same reasons now anxious to draw Geneva to themselves, and bring it into the same strait in which they themselves were placed. There was another difficulty caused by this treaty to which he wished the more to direct attention, because since he last had the honour of addressing the House there had returned something like French statesmen. Opportunity had been given for discussion, of which in former years France had been deprived; and, as the view which he was now about to take was the one most important, he would not say to the Emperor, but to France and the French people, he trusted it would receive the consideration it deserved. Look how the arrangements for the neutrality of those provinces would operate if nothing were done by the French Emperor. As matters stood before, the configuration of the country made it quite certain that the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna would be literally executed—because it was practically impossible for the King of Sardinia, even if he wished, to retain provinces situated like Chablais and Faucigny; and he must, therefore, have marched out his troops whenever war was imminent. But, supposing nothing was done, he entreated the House to reflect on what would be the operation of those stipulations which the French Emperor admitted to be binding. If war between neighbouring Powers should break out or should impend, what would be the duty of Switzerland? It would be to maintain the neutrality of those provinces. In case of war it would be the duty of Switzerland to call on France to evacuate those provinces, and to allow the Swiss to march in. But did any man believe that that was a stipulation which would or could be acceded to by the Emperor of the French? Did any one imagine that at the call of Switzerland he would march out of a territory which he alleged to be French? If he did not do so what would be the duty of Switzerland? Why, to attempt to make him by force of arms. Of course, that would be quite impossible. It would be preposterous to ask Switzerland to attempt it; and if she should not do it, what would be the consequence? That Switzerland would be in default towards the other Powers of Europe, who would be entitled to say, "Swiss neutrality has ceased:" the moment it was declared to have ceased for one side it would cease for the other; and the object which was so sedulously sought to be gained by the parties to the Treaty of Vienna would be for ever defeated. He believed that Swiss neutrality was an object more important to France than to Austria, or any of the German Powers. When they remembered that in 1814 it was by violating the Swiss neutrality and entering Franche Compté that Prince Schwartzemberg invaded France, every one would see that the neutrality of Switzerland was no less valuable to France than to the German Powers. He hoped, therefore, that this consideration would weigh with Frenchmen and that they would be disposed to influence the Emperor, so far as they could, towards rendering justice to Switzerland and reconstituting that neutrality of Switzerland which had been shaken and tampered with in the manner he had described. He was sorry to say that since the Treaty of Turin much been done towards increasing the anxiety felt in the canton of Geneva, and that by many a new annexation to France was believed to be inevitable. It was said that in order to obtain votes persons known to be in the French interest had come into that canton as settlers; and that the fatal words "universal suffrage" had been again pronounced. The House might know, as a matter of common report, that a French Prince whose name was familiar to them had gone so far as to say that before long French Switzerland, as he called it, would be annexed to France, and that it would be annexed to France on its own petition. Those and other cries might appear slight when taken separately, but when taken together they were of considerable moment, more especially when looked to with the light afforded by the transactions of last year. The Emperor of the French must pardon him when he said that he felt it his duty to consider all his actions and all his words with constant reference, not to the mere fact of the annexation of Savoy and Nice, but with constant reference to the particular process by which that operation was effected. Well, now, taking that formula of the annexation of Savoy and Nice as his guide, he found we were now in what we might call "the denial stage." We were in the stage in which it would be formally denied that there was any intention to annex to France any portion of French Switzerland. Ascertaining that we were now in the denial stage, he ventured, following up his formula, to ask what would be the next? and his guide told him that the next stage would be that of solemn assurance that there would never be any annexation of French Switzerland to France without consulting the great Powers of Europe. The stage following that would be an actual annexation, accompained by a mere statement of the fact to the great Powers of Europe, and perhaps a despatch to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary; after which, when the noble Lord imagined himself to be consulted, and proceeded to give his reasons for thinking an annexation should not take place, he would be told that the discussion was one which could have no practical effect. He had never desired to occasion unnecessary alarm, and he was glad to be able to state that in this instance, so far from being an exciter of alarm, he ventured to think that the words which would come from him would rather have a contrary effect. Notwithstanding all those reasons for anxiety which he had ventured to refer to, it was not his belief that this annexation would take place;—but in saying that he must also express his belief that if it did not take place it would be prevented by the firmness of England. But for the firmness of England he would despair for Switzerland; but his opinion was that if the policy which Her Majesty's Government had hitherto adopted was continued with firmness the evil which many anticipated would not take place. The treatment which Switzerland had recently undergone at the hands of France had been accompanied by a very singular statement on the part of the French Government. It was alleged that in some of the communications on this subject to the Swiss Confederation the French Government distinctly stated that but for the interference of England, in endeavouring to prevent the annexation of Savoy and Nice, the Emperor of the French would have kept his promise, and ceded Chablais and Faueigny to the Swiss Confederation. What principle was this? That because England interfered a promise to Switzerland should be violated? What violence, what lawlessness, and, at the same time, what miserable weakness was implied in such a statement? The statement was unjust to Switzerland, and it was offensive in a high degree to England. He hoped that among the papers which the noble Lord would be able to give him was a despatch said to have been written by Captain Harris; and he further hoped that the noble Lord would make a statement which would satisfy the House that if a charge of so serious a description had been made it had been met in the way it deserved. It was admitted by every one—by the French Emperor as emphatically as by others—that some arrangement must be made with the great Powers. England had declared more than once that the present state of things was inconsistent with the public law of Europe. By the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the present Session they were led to expect that negotiations would be entered into on the subject. The Emperor of the French had said that Savoy and Nice were irrevocably annexed to France. He thought he went somewhat further, for, after giving a statement of the principles of the maintenance of rights and the generosity on which the Government had acted, he said, "Thus it is that Savoy and Nice are irrevocably annexed to France." At the same time there was laid before the Chambers a volume of despatches, compiled somewhat in the way that blue books were supplied to this House; and there was among these papers a despatch of so singular a description, as far as concerned Her Majesty's Government, that he thought it right to read a passage from it to the House, which he would do without comment, leaving to Her Majesty's Ministers to make what reply to it they thought proper. The despatch to which he referred was a circular addressed to the diplomatic representatives of France in all the Courts of Europe, dated the 30th of April, and it stated that the Government of the Emperor thought it important to enlighten the English Cabinet on the consequences of the annexation of the Italian provinces to Sardinia, and the connection it would have with Savoy and the county of Nice. The Ambassador of the Emperor entered into explanations on this subject, in the most positive terms, at the beginning of December. Not only had the Government of the Emperor no intention to conceal from the Ministers of the Queen their opinion on this subject, but Count Persigny had on his responsibility put forward the idea that England herself should propose to Europe this transference of Savoy to France. Now, that was so singular a statement that he had thought it right to draw the attention of the House to it; for they had always been told and belived—he was sure he now believed—that Her Majesty's Government had lost no opportunity of stating in the most express terms that they entirely disapproved, and that they would not for a moment listen to, the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France—not that they were perpetually saying this, but they would omit no fair opportunity of saying that was the case. Yet here was this strange statement by M. Persigny that the communications with the English Government were constant, and that they had gone to such a length—the House would see how much was implied in the statement—that M. Persigny had thought it right to suggest to the noble Lord that he himself should take the initiative and propose to Europe the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. The diplomatic representative of France was ordered to read the despatch but not to leave a copy with the Ministers of foreign Courts, and, therefore, naturally it formed no part of the papers laid before the House of Commons. Now, so far as he was able to see, there remained this state of actual antagonism upon this subject between the Governments of France and England, and if that was so he must own he was not surprised to find that in France there was considerable stagnation of commerce. It would be strange if commercial men entered upon their enterprises at a time when this antagonism between two great Powers of Europe was actually ascertained to exist. As he understood it, he should say the policy of Her Majesty's Government was extremely well fitted for the peculiar occasion. At a time when a certain disturbance of the existing state of Europe was from time to time threatened, it was of great importance that there should be something like an intermediate state between perfect acquiescence and that greatest of all miseries, actual and flagrant war. Therefore, he thought that Her Majesty's Government did wisely in determining that when the French Government had, if he might so speak, dislocated the European system in such a way as not necessarily to force on England the duty of an appeal to arms, yet still in a manner so serious that acquiescence would be culpable—that deviation from the true course should be so manifested to Europe upon the authority of the English Government, that what France might gain in position she should lose in credit, and that the distrust which such a transaction was calculated to excite should be proportioned—more than proportioned—to the advancement she gained. Well, now, the papers which he was anxious to obtain, if there should be no objection, were of three kinds—first he wished any papers relating to the negotiations referred to by Her Majesty's Speech of last year. If the probability of attaining the result to which Her Majesty then looked forward had ceased, the means by which the Government attained to that knowledge must, he supposed, have some trace in writing, and if so, as he understood no negotiation was pending, he hoped there would be no objection to produce that class of papers. Then he should also be glad to receive papers respecting M. Thouvenel's circular of the 30th of April. Thirdly, he wished Captain Harris' note, and any other papers relating to the same subject. If the Secretary of State led them to think that there was not altogether a failure of all hope that something might be done by negotiations between Switzerland and France, he must say he believed that within a few days—on Monday last, he could answer for it—there was no prospect of effecting anything like a beneficial result by that means. If he were asked at what practical result he aimed in putting this question, he would say his object was to shut the stable door before it was too late by calling attention to the danger in which the Swiss Confederation was placed. He should be the very last person to press on Government the fruitlessness of negotiation if he saw the way to any practical result; but if there was noting of this kind to be relied on—if they were to remain at arm's length—if after hopes had been raised by Her Majesty's Speech in August last nothing was to be done—if the Government were to do nothing, the responsibility of private Members of Parliament would begin; and he for one would certainly think it his duty, if nothing were done to carry out the policy of Her Majesty's Government as declared last year, to throw on the French Emperor the moral responsibility of the situation, and extend that circle of distrust which was fast gathering around him.

I cannot say with my hon. Friend that I have not addressed the House before this Session, but I trust the House will allow me to offer a few remarks on a subject in which I have taken a great interest before the noble Lord rises to reply. The House will not, I am sure, grudge the time necessary for a brief discussion of this important question, which has excited very great alarm both in this country and on the Continent, and which, it is admitted by Her Majesty's Government, has imperilled the peace and security of Europe. My hon. Friend is right in saying that this is the first time this Session that we have ventured to bring the independence and neutrality of Switzerland before the House. But this has been, not because we believe that the subject is of less importance than it was last year, and certainly not because we believe the House of Commons will manifest a less generous spirit than it did last year, but because we have been desirous to avoid recrimination, to manifest a spirit of conciliation, and because we have been in the hope of meeting reciprocal assurances on the part of the Government of France. I think Her Majesty's Government will admit that we have been disappointed in that hope. There are a very few in this House, and I hope not many in the country, who maintain that England ought not to occupy herself with the affairs of the Continent. There are also some—but I trust they are not many—who may think that the treaty stipulations in which this country may have engaged are of no importance. I believe, on the contrary, that we are as much consulting the real interests of this country in taking up a question of this kind in a fair, liberal, and honest spirit, as in considering anything that can happen to the country. I must say I deplore on public grounds—I say nothing of my own personal feelings in regard to switzerland—this series of annexations that is taking place during the rule of the noble Lord the present Foreign Secretary, to the positive detriment of the trade and commerce of this country in one place, and to the destruction of our honour and interests in another. I think that once this Session we ought to bring the subject under the notice of the House. My hon. Friend has alluded to two subjects. First, he adverted to the influence which the annexation of Savoy has had by the augmentation of the territory of France; and, next, he alluded to the influence of that annexation on the independence of Switzerland as guaranteed by the great Powers. These are the two views discussed by the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, in his circular of last year to foreign Courts. My hon. Friend has touched on the events of 1815, in which I will not follow him. I regard the annexation of Savoy to France as a fait accompli—there is no use, therefore, in discussing with France her past policy with Sardinia;—but in regard to Switzerland we are bound by treaty obligations to Europe, and by the prestige and honour of our own character, to consider the question in a public spirit. Her Majesty's Government told us at the close of last Session that they were going to enter into negotitations with France; but I am bound to say that if the Government have been disappointed in the expectations held out last August in the Speech from the Throne as to what they hoped to be able to accomplish with regard to the neutral provinces of Switzerland, the blame and the responsibility must rest entirely with them. From the very earliest time I have followed this question throughout, I have read all the documents published, not only in this country, but by the French Government and that of Switzerland; and I am bound to say that Her Majesty's Government, in their treatment of this question, so far as Switzerland is concerned, have acted to my judgment with the ability and the spirit that I expected from them. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has written several despatches, which may be found in our blue books, of remarkable interest. I would refer more especially to his despatches dated April 24, May 15, and July 18 of the present year, which both here and in Switzerland are considered honourably to represent the opinion of this country. In his despatch of the 24th of April to Lord Cowley, the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary remarks on the French arguments respecting neutral Savoy, and ably recapitulates the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the manner in which the question might be settled to the satisfaction of Switzerland and Europe. In the noble Lord's despatch to Lord Cowley of May 15, he defines the position which Her Majesty's Government mean to assume respecting the neutral territory, and boldly asserts that the manner in which the vote of the people of Faucigny, Chablais, and the Genevois was taken deprives it, in the sight of Her Majesty's Government, of all authority, The despatch of July 18, addressed to Lord Cowley for communication to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, although written at M. Thouvenel's earnest request, was evidently written by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary de son propre chef—at his own proper inspiration. The noble Lord in that despatch told Lord Cowley to communicate to M. Thouvenel that "the recognition of the annexation of Savoy to France was positively refused so long as the just and legitimate demands of Switzerland relative to the neutralized territory had not been taken into account by the Power." For all these three despatches I give the noble Lord my most cordial thanks; and the noble Lord my most cordial thanks; and the people of Switzerland will, I am sure, reciprocate my views. The noble Lord the Prime Minister went even further. He alluded to this subject on the 14th of August last year in this House, and his opinions were so much more stringent even than those of the Foreign Secretary, that I shall be glad to recall them to my noble Friend's mind. The noble Lord the Prime Minister said—

"The neutrality and independence of Switzerland are for the interests of all Europe. It was not simply and solely from a regard to the Swiss that the arrangement was made. It was from a wise and well-considered regard for the general interests of Europe, and the maintenance, as far as possible, of the peace of Europe."—3 Hansard, clx 1809.]

This speech was made at the close of last Session, at the time when it was announced in the Speech from the Throne that the Government were then engaged in negotiations with a view of settling this most unhappy and unfortunate matter. But I will ask the House what has been the result of all these assurances? Absolutely nothing. All the Powers of Europe had been consulted. They had all ex- pressed a strong condemnation of the policy of France. But although that condemnation may be some comfort to Switzerland, I greatly regret that nothing whatever has been done. I cannot help thinking that the position of England is wrongly interpreted. The people of Switzerland say, "Why does not England go on and support us?" But England was only one of the contracting parties to the Treaty of Vienna. I say, in the interests of Switzerland, it is idle to suppose that England will venture herself alone in a quarrel for that which the whole of Europe equally guaranteed. Russia, Sweden, Austria, Prussia, Portugal and Spain were all parties to the Treaty of Vienna. They all said they were anxious to defend the independence of Switzerland, and to meet in a Conference last year. But none was held. Why? It was impossible to hold it after the circular despatch of M. Thouvenel. He said the Powers might meet and discuss the matter, but they must recollect that the whole of Savoy was irrevocably attached to France, and they could not, therefore, treat that subject. Of course, when the French Government shut out the possibility of treating the only subject that could bring the Conference together the Conference was of no use. Then occurred the events in Syria, and other matters; and so nothing was done. But the noble Lord has said that, as the representative of this country, he will never recognize the annexation of the whole of Savoy to France until the just and legitimate rights of Switzerland have been acknowledged by the Powers of Europe. It is very curious on this subject to hear M. Thouvenel and the French Emperor talk of the uselessness of the Treaty of Vienna. But the other day, when Spain and Austria asked France to join them in supporting the Pope at Rome, what was the answer of the French Emperor? He said, "I should be very glad to join you, but the Treaty of Vienna maintained the position of the Pope as it stands, and without the consent of the Powers of Europe who are parties to that treaty I can do nothing." I want the French Government to follow that reply in their action with respect to the neutral provinces of Savoy. Let them adhere to the stipulations of that treaty, and all will be well, and then they would settle this miserable dispute, they would pacify that portion of Switzerland, and satisfy the just requirements of Europe. I go no further back than last year. The most positive assurances were then given to Europe as regards these neutralized provinces. The King of Sardinia from the Throne, in language most emphatic, stated—

"That in making a sacrifice which, although necessary, cost him a good deal, he reserved its ratification to Parliament and universal suffrage, and he expressly reserved, as regards Switzerland, the guarantees of international right she was entitled to lay claim to."

I find these assurances were repeated by Cavour, who said that the Treaty of Turin was only made on the distinct understanding of an adhesion to the 92nd Article of the Treaty of Vienna. Lord Cowley received repeated assurances to the same effect. My hon. Friend referred to the account of a conversation with un membre important du Cabinet, which had been laid before the French Chambers, and one or two extraordinary assertions made in that despatch from this country written by M. Persigny the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department must explain. I hope the noble Lord will state who is the Cabinet Minister so distinctly referred to in that despatch. I am quite sure it was not the noble Lord himself, or the Prime Minister, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must have been the Postmaster General or some subordinate member of the Cabinet at the time who made use of the extraordinary expressions contained in that document. At the very time that Sir James Hudson was giving assurances that nothing was done with respect to the provinces of Savoy, and while M. Thouvenel was making the same statement to Lord Cowley, M. Persigny writes from London to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs as follows;—

" I think it desirable that I should submit for your information details of an interview I yesterday had with an important Member of the Cabinet."

This, as I said before, must have been the Postmaster General, or, perhaps, the Duke of Argyll. M. Persigny said—

" If you could construct a submarine tunnel between Dover and Calais, this would be all very well in times of peace, and without any serious inconvenience in times of war, for each country would have the control of either extremity of the tunnel; but if one or other possessed the two extremities of the tunnel—that is to say, in this case, Dover and Calais—there would be very great danger to the other Power."

The membre important du Cabinet replies "True," and says no more. M. Persigny observed—

"Well, if the two slopes of the Alps were in the hands of one and the same Power, there would be a corresponding advantage either for defensive or offensive operations, and the tunnel through the Alps actually in course of construction replaces in our mind the imaginary submarine tunnel I have already alluded to."

The "important Member of the Cabinet" said in answer, "Indeed, that is true." M. Persigny continued—

"But that is not all, the advantage which Savoy, in the event of a European war, would offer to the Italian kingdom, or rather to the allies of that kingdom, to attack France, would, in a strategical point of view, be infinitely greater than our imaginary submarine tunnel between Dover and Calais in the hands of the English, for an English army starting from Calais would only attack France at one of its extremities, while a European army deploying from Chambery might in twenty-four hours take possession, between Vienne and Lyons, of our great line of communication between Paris and the Mediterranean, and cut France in two."

The important Member of the Cabinet answered, "Again too true." M. Persigny said—

"Well, it was this eventuality which the Emperor foresaw at the commencement of the Italian campaign; the independence of Italy could only estabilsh itself in two ways, either by a confederation of the several Italian States or by the formation of one great State in the north of the Peninsula, and the Emperor declared to Sardinia, who consented, that in the latter alternative he would claim for the protection of France the French slopes of the Alps, and France would have been obliged to make this claim, even although she had not borne the brunt of the expenses of the struggle for Italian independence."

The reply of the membre important du Cabinet is, "that is true," and, indeed, he appears to have said nothing but "C'est vrai," "C'est bien vrai," and "C' est encore bien vrai." M. Persigny proceeds—

" I ask you if the two schemes of Italian independence—namely, a confederation of States or an Italian unity; one giving Savoy to France, the other retaining Savoy, which of these two schemes has the Emperor constantly advocated and recommended? Is it not the scheme which left Savoy to Sardinia?"

"True again," replied the important Member of the Cabinet. Thus, it appears that France actually proposed to leave Savoy to Sardinia. We never heard that from the noble Lord. M. Persigny continued—

"And if now the Emperor appears rather to incline to the scheme of a great kingdom of Italy, is it not owing to the recommendation and advice of the British Government?"

The reply was, "C' est encore vrai." M. Persigny said—

"What, therefore, in the conduct of the Emperor during all these transactions is more conspicuous than his thorough frankness."

The answer is not given, but, no doubt, it must have been—"C'est bien vrai." This despatch, I think, requires some explanation from the Cabinet Minister in question. My hon. Friend has alluded to the intelligence from Berne relative to the assertion made by the Political Department to the Federal Councillors, that it was owing to England alone that France had not given to Switzerland those neutral Provinces, and has asked the Government to produce the despatch which the British Minister at Berne had written in reply. It is a good despatch, and at once repudiates, on the part of the Government, such a representation. The British Minister at Berne wrote to the Federal Council a note of which the following is an extract:—

"Berne, June 13.

"Monsieur le President,—In the officially published report of the Political Department, to be submitted to the Federal Councillors, who will arrive in Berne on the 1st of July next, I have read, not without some surprise, the following passage in reference to the question of Savoy:—

" 'In conclusion, we believe that, in giving an unprejudiced representation of affairs, we cannot omit to mention the fact that, on the part of France, it has been repeatedly maintained that it was the obstinate opposition of England to any annexation which had principally compelled France to retract the promises given by her in February, 1860, with reference to the cession of Northern Savoy to Switzerland.'

"I have carefully re-perused the voluminous correspondence published on this question, but do not find such a motive anywhere mentioned as having determined France to secede from her promise. On the contrary, I find it repeatedly stated that the sole motive for this proceeding on the part of France originated in the disinclination of the people of Savoy for any dismemberment of the country."

I see with great jealousy the visits of General Dufour to Paris at present, I only wish to impress on Swiss statesmen the expediency of refusing to treat in any underhand or private manner with France. This is a European question, and is not to be dealt with by private negotiation, and if Switzerland attempts without the consent of the Powers of Europe to treat with France, the consequences might be extremely detrimental to the iterests of Switzerland. I am quite ready to admit that there is an apparent lull about Switzerland at this time. It has been said in "another place" that Switzerland was perfectly quiet; but I can tell the House that there are at this moment preparations going on, silently but steadily, in that country. It is but natural that this should be the case. A large French army is now being drawn towards the borders of the Lake of Geneva. There are 60,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry on active service in France more than appear in the official returns. That was stated in the French Chambers the other day, and has never been denied. But, to return to what occurred in "another place" with respect to this question, I find that Lord Carnarvon, who brought the subject forward, said that the fortresses of Switzerland were unguarded because the leading men of the country feared to take any step to place them in a state of defence lest it might be construed into a measure of defiance. He added—and it would perhaps be desirable that I should read what he did say to the House, as his words ought not, in my opinion, to be allowed to pass without comment. ["Order!"] Well, I shall content myself with simply observing that it was a few days ago stated in "another place" that there existed in every part of Switzerland apprehensions of some impending calamity, and that the recent visit of Prince Napoleon the Geneva had filled the public mind in that country with alarm. Now, that is not the case. Prince Napoleon, indeed, did not enter Geneva at all on the occasion alluded to; but, be that as it may, the Swiss—though they may see great danger in the movements of France—yet entertain no fear. They are not like the Savoyards. On the contrary, they have from the very first moment when this question began to be agitated displayed an energy and a determination which show that they are deserving the approval of Europe. They have manifested no craven spirit. The first decision of the Conseil Federal, upon the receipt of the intelligence to which I have adverted, was to order 25,000 men to be sent into Western Switzerland and to issue instruction that 100,000 men should be prepared to march, Le Grand Conseil de Berne took immediate steps to support the policy of the Federal Council. They said, we regard this question of Savoy "comme une question vitale pour la Suisse," and therefore it is that we are ready—"se declare pret d'accord"—to undergo every sacrifice "pour atteindre ce but"—the maintenance of the independence of their native land. Well, this declaration was made on the 20th of March, 1860. The general elections in Switzerland took place in the following October, and the result was that the people of that country gave energetic expression to their approval of the policy of the Federal Government. Only two cantons, Vaud and Zurich, showed a hesitating spirit. What was the consequence? The people in those cantons strongly condemned the intrigues which their leaders sought to promote, and returned members to the Swiss Chamber who now support the views of the Federal Government. But that is not all. General Dufour, one of their most distinguished men, made a speech the other day, and I may be permitted to take this opportunity of expressing a hope that he will not, in the course of his present mission to France, vary from the determination at which he on the occasion to which I am alluding declared himself to have arrived. General Dufour on the 25th of January last said:—"We must repel without hesitation offers the most seductive, and, in appearance, the most profitable." Now, I too, would recommend the people of Switzerland to resist these seductive offers, and to place themselves in the hands of Europe. It was, I may add, only this morning that I received a copy of the speech delivered by the President of the Confederation on the 1st of July on the occasion of the opening of the Swiss Chambers, and I find that in that speech he says, alluding to the dangers by which his country is surrounded—

"Switzerland must be prepared to spare no sacrifice, for none is too great for the defence of our liberties; neglect nothing to complete our system of defence; let us complete the armament of our troops; let us complete the fortifications upon all the points which require them, and let us open those means of internal communication which will facilitate the movements of our men."

That extract, I think, shows that Switzerland is taking most active steps in making preparations for defending herself against any attack which she may anticipate. But it was, as I before stated, said in "another place" that the fortresses of Switzerland and her military stores were practically unguarded, because, although the inhabitants of the country recognized the danger which impended over them, her leading men feared to take any step to place her in a state of defence, lest it might be construed into a defiance towards France. Now, I have here a statement made by General Dufour of the military preparations of Switzerland at this moment, and it may be interesting to hon. Members to know what would be likely to be her position in this respect in case any attack were made upon her. General Dufour says:—"We have an army of more than 100,000 men, and the Landwehr makes 50,000 more—that is to say, we can calculate on an army of 150,000 soldiers, armed, equipped, and sufficiently instructed to be opposed to the best disciplined troops"—and the House should recollect that the surface of the country is such that skilful manoeuvring and charges of cavalry are almost impossible. He goes on to say "we possess a number of skilful marksmen, as well as of volunteer corps; our parks of artillery are at full strength, our batteries are numerous, well equipped, and ready for immediate service." "The Confederation," he adds, "has procured all the guns of large calibre which will be necessary for the armament of our fortifications, our arsenals are well secured, and all the arrangements for the commissariat are made." He concludes with this remarkable sentence—" The expense which results from all this organization is in itself a proof that Switzerland sets a high value on her neutrality, and that she is determined to defend it most earnestly." Now, I submit that Switzerland is resolved to defend her liberties, and I know that any political menoeuveres resorted to with the view of extorting from her an acquiescence in the policy of France cannot intimidate her into submission. Such an attempt may be made, but I am quite certain it will fail. The other day at a meeting of French officers in the neighbourhood of Switzerland, the effect of what was styled the glorious policy of the new Emperor in restoring Savoy to her destinies formed the topic of consideration, and, no doubt, the principle of universal suffrage—that admired instrument in the hands of despotism—would seem to have elicited in favour of that project an apparent unanimity on the part of the Savoyards. I, however, maintain that that apparent unanimity is contrary to the real feelings of the people of that country, and that every one who listens to me must be thoroughly alive to the absurdity of the operation by which that solemn act of adhesion on the part of Savoy to France was effected. I have here and elsewhere resisted that annexation, and I think the nations of Europe did wrong in permitting the matter to proceed as they did. The statesmen of this country will, I am afraid, sooner or later regret the conclusion at which the question arrived; but, be that as it may, the case of Switzerland and that of Savoy are widely different. The Savoyards fell into the trap which was laid for them. Disorganized, deceived, and neglected, they became the ready victims of a conspiracy by means of which their ancient rights and liberties were sacrificed. It is not so with Switzerland. The French Emperor may tempt her with promises. All the schemes which a subtle Macchiavellian policy can suggest may be laid against her liberties; but will they be successful? I, who am acquainted with that country, am happy to think that such will not be the case. I know that in the bosoms of these men still exist the patriotic sentiments, and the Swiss still pride themselves on the glorious traditions of their race. Louis Napoleon will find it a more difficult task to deal with them than with the Savoyards. I would simply add that a second edition of an admirable work on Italy by Lord Broughton has been recently published. The history of Julius Caesar, is there referred to, and if the Emperor of the French will dwell upon that history, he will find that Julius Caesar, in the words of Suetonius, jure coesus existimetur because he attempted to destory the liberties of his own people. Now, I would ask Louis Napoleon to reflect what may possibly be the lot of a man whose policy—God forbid it should ever happen—leads him without reason or justice, or any offence on their part, to destroy the freedom of an ancient and a friendly people? I feel certain that Louis Napoleon will not succeed; and this I can predict that if he dares to take a single step beyond the limit to which he has already gone, he will find that, so far from grinding down the Swiss people or humbling them to his will, his policy will only have the effect of rousing every man in Switzerland to engage in a patriotic struggle, and of causing the brave people of that country to spurn unanimously the smiles and flattery of a despot.

Sir, I cannot deny that it is perfectly natural that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater should ask for some explanation with respect to the statement made in Her Majesty's gracious Speech at the close of the last Session of Parliament to the effect that, although the proposed Conference on the subject of the cession of Savoy and of Nice to France had not been held, Her Majesty confidently trusted that in any negotiations which might take place full and adequate arrangements would be made for securing, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, the neutrality and independence of the Swiss Confederation. But, before I enter upon that question, it may be as well to refer to some circumstances which have been mentioned in the course of this debate, and which, although they have been explained before, perhaps require some further elucidation. It appears now to be perfectly clear—not from any diplomatic documents, but from what has been reported and not denied—that before the Italian war took place, in the summer or autumn of 1858, an agreement was come to between the Emperor of the French and the Prime Minister of the King of Sardinia by which hopes were held out that French troops would be sent to the assistance of the King of Sardinia in case he should be attacked by Austria, and by which it was stipulated that if the result of the war should be to give Lombardy and Venice to Sardinia, in that event Savoy and Nice should be surrendered to France. As I have heard the story, Count Cavour is reported to have said "That is a matter to be considered;" and the expression of his opinion or wish that it should be considered was taken by France as an assent. The war took place in the following spring, but the result was not the conquest of Lombardy and Venice, because the Peace of Villafranca provided only that Lombardy should be surrendered to France, in order that France might afterwards transfer it to Sardinia. But consequent upon that war insurrections took place in Modena, Parma and Tuscany, and those central duchies declared that their wish was to annex themselves to the kingdom of Sardinia. There is a phrase which has been used more than once by French Ministers, and which was referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth—namely, that the favour which was given by England to these annexations was the cause of the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. I understand the meaning of that phrase to be that, Venice not having been conquered by France or given to Sardinia, it was not in contemplation for a considerable time that the proposed cession of Savoy and Nice to France should take place. But then it was said that if England had interfered in order to procure the restoration of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma to their former Sovereigns, the aggrandizement of Sardinia would not have been such that the Emperor of the French would have asked for the cession of Savoy and Nice. Whatever may be the truth with respect to these allegations, it was, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, impossible for them to be a party in any way to counsel or to advise that force should be used against the people of Central Italy, with the view of obliging them to recall the Sovereigns whom they had ejected, and whose rule they repudiated. Therefore, if the non-annexation of Savoy and Nice to France was to be bought by the use of force, or the consent to the use of force, to subjugate the people of Central Italy, it was our opinion that it would be far better not to interfere with the inhabitants of the three dechies, but to proclaim aloud the principles of non-intervention, be the conquences what they might. The duchies did declare in a very solemn way, by their representative assemblies, their wish to be annexed to the kingdom of Sardinia. The question of the cession of Savoy and Nice was again brought forward, and the consequent negotiations terminated in the Treaty of Turin, by which Savoy and Nice were surrendered by the King of Sardinia to the Emperor of the French. I shall not revert to the correspondence which took place upon that subject. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth has admitted that we used the strongest language which was compatible with friendly relations in order to express our objections to the Treaty of Turin. Upon various occasions we stated that we did not agree in the opinion that this extended frontier was necessary to France. We said even that we considered it would be a disadvantage to France to give the example of that annexation; and we pointed out—as a separate, but, at the same time, a very considerable question—that the neutrality and independence of Switzerland would be impaired by the transfer of Savoy to France, instead of remaining part of the dominions of the King of Sardinia. That question led to further debate, and in one of the last despatches published in the blue book, M. Thouvenel stated that the Treaty of Turin having referred to an understanding to be come to among the great Powers, such understanding might be arrived at in one of the several ways. He said it was proposed to reconcile the 92nd Article of the Act of Vienna with the 2nd Article of the Treaty of Turin, and he pointed out how that might be done. It might be done by a conference of the Powers of Europe; it might be done by notes giving the consent of Europe to the transfer, the Emperor assuming towards the Powers those obligations which the King of Sardinia had previously fulfilled—namely, that in case of war the King of Sardinia should evacuate a certain portion of Savoy, called the neutralized territory, and that Switzerland should have military command in that neutralized territory, during the continuance of such war; or, thirdly, it might be done by an understanding between France and Switzerland, which should be communicated to the Powers of Europe. The opinion of Her Majesty's Government was very promptly formed, and that despatch of M. Thouvenel being dated June 20, on the 25th of the same month a despatch was addressed by me to Lord Cowley, in which I stated that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to accept a conference on the mode in which this very important question should be settled. M. Thouvenel replied that the Government of the Emperor were ready, on their part, to adopt the course which the other Cabinets might desire, and which might seem to them best suited to the subject. That was the course which Her Majesty's Government desired, and it was the course which Switzerland had always proposed. The only request made by Switzerland to the Government of Her Majesty was that this question should be settled in a conference of the great Powers of Europe. In proposing to assent to a conference, therefore, we did everything that Switzerland had ever asked. But it was of no use for the Emperor of the French to propose this course, or for Her Majesty's Government to assent to it, as long as the other Powers of Europe were not consenting parties. The consent of the other Powers was not obtained. Prince Gortschakoff, the Minister of the Emperor of Russia, declared himself perfectly satified. He said that Russia considered that, provided Sardinia was willing to cede this territory, and the Emperor of the French was willing to accept it—provided that the Emperor of the French accepted it with the obligations, or servitudes, as they are called, to which the King of Sardinia had been subjected by the Treaty of Vienna—the transaction was complete; Russia had not a word of objection to offer, and so no need of any further conference or negotiations. Russia, therefore, was not prepared to send a representative to the proposed conference. The Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia expressed no wish to have a conference. Their opinion was that no advantage could be derived from a conference; and they, therefore, expressed by notes that they did not desire a conference. The French Minister even interpreted a note of the Minister of the Emperor of Austria as being an acquiescence in what had taken place, and an admission that the possession of Savoy and Nice by France was thence-forward part of the public law of Europe. Her Majesty's Government, of course, could not press for a conference in which the other Powers were not willing to take part; but they could do one thing, and that one thing they did. They could say that, sufficient security not having been provided for Switzerland, and the neutrality and independence of that country having, in their opinion, been impaired by the Treaty of Turin, they could not, without further negotiation, whether in the shape of conferences or otherwise, hold that the annexation of Savoy and Nice was part of the acknowledged public law of Europe. That was stated in a diplomatic document; and, having done that, they could not have gone further unless they had found a disposition in Austria, Russia, and Prussia to agree with them in endeavouring to arrange such terms as would place the neutrality of Switzerland in a state of greater security. But, though no such conference was assembled and no such agreement was come to, the question of the neutrality and independence of Switzerland as guaranteed by the Treaty of Vienna still remained so guaranteed, and it is an obligation which I trust the Powers will not repudiate. It was an additional security to that neutrality and integrity that such a Power as Sardinia should hold Savoy, and that a portion of the territory should be neutralized in case of war; but that was not the neutrality and independence of Switzerland herself, though it was an additional security to her. What remains to be done has been eloquently stated by the hon. Baronet; it is that Switzerland should herself assert, without delay and by every means, her determination to defend her own independence, and to maintain that neutrality which has been guaranteed by the Powers of Europe. I know not what dangers may threaten Switzerland, but of this I fell certain—that if the Powers abandoned a cause so just and so strongly guaranteed as the neutrality of that country, they would not only fail in the obligations of treaties, they would not only commit a dishonourableact, but they would shake the security of every State in Europe. The hon. Baronet has truly said that Great Britain, in this case, cannot act alone; but I entirely agree with him as to the interest which he says this country has in preserving her connections and alliances with the various Powers, and in maintaining that independence of the several States of Europe which is generally known by the name of the "balance of power." I believe that if she tried in any selfish spirit to set aside any part of her moral obligations, and endeavoured to insulate herself from the other Powers, though there might be seeming security in that position, it would soon fail, and she would find herself abandoned by all the States whose interests she had herself disregarded. We have seen in recent transactions the advantage of European concert. There was considerable danger, many persons thought, in what happened last year in Syria, when the whole mind of Europe was shocked by the dreadful massacres which took place in that quarter. We appeared to be placed between two dangers. The one was that the massacres would be repeated in various parts of the Turkish Empire, and that Mahommedan fanaticism would have its full sway, and play a part of blood and rapine which would raise all the Powers of Europe against the maintenance of the Turkish Empire. On the other hand, if European occupation were permitted, there was the danger that the occupation by one Power might be continued, and that the example might be followed by others of the Powers who were neighbours of Turkey. The Powers agreed in concert at Paris that a body of French troops should go to Syria, with a view to prevent a repetition of the massacres and their extension to other parts of the Turkish Empire. The time came when it appeared to us that the occupation might be safely discontinued, and that there was, in fact, far more danger in its continuance than in its cessation, and that opinion was expressed to the assembled Powers at Paris. The Russian Government gave the directly opposite opinion that there would be the greatest danger in France relinquishing the occupation of Syria; but the determination to which Her Majesty's Government had come was, in fact, binding on all the Powers. They all agreed that if the Sultan required that the occupation should cease, it was impossible that the Powers could insist on its prolongation, and Her Majesty's Government supported the Sultan in that demand. The French Emperor showed his good faith, as I stated in this House that I fully expected he would, by withdrawing his troops on the very day that had been stipulated. That is one indication that the Powers are disposed to treat questions such as these in such a manner as may lead to their pacific solution. Again, there is this very question of Italy. It is well known that the French Government have repeatedly expressed their preference for a confederation of States—for one Italian Power in the north, another in the centre with the Pope at its head, and another in the south, with perhaps other smaller States interspersed—to the unity of Italy. But the people of the country declared in favour of unity; and the Emperor of the French has amply acknowledged the legitimacy of the title of the King of Italy. Here also Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French are entirely agreed in respecting the principle of the national will of a people who, I trust, are destined to renew their former glory in arms and in the arts of peace. Other questions are still pending, some of them on the Continent of Europe, and some may also arise in the unhappy war which is now taking place in America. If France and England can act in harmony on these subjects it will be a great benefit, not only to the two countries themselves, but to Europe and the world. We have on every occasion made the frankest communication to France of our opinions and views in regard to them, and I must say that we have been met by France in a very proper spirit. I trust that, whatever unfortunate differences may have existed at any time last year, we shall now continue to act in concert and harmony, that the peace of the world may be preserved, and that these two great nations may combine to promote the best interests of the world.

rose to call the attention of the House to the recent changes in the Board of Directors of Irish Convict Prisons, and said that at the time of the abolition of the transportation system, in 1854, an inquiry was made into the convict establishments of Ireland, which were found to be in a state of the greatest disorder, and a thorough reform took place; and he believed that the new system, under the direction of Captain Crofton, had proved a complete success. When transportation ceased it was feared that great evils would arise from the necessity of maintaining so many unreformed men at home, but in Ireland that apprehension had been proved to be unfounded. A new system had been established in that country. Convicts, in the earlier stage of their detention, were subjected to almost complete separation. They were then placed at work in the open air. They were then passed to an intermediate prison, where they enjoyed a modified freedom, and they were finally released on tickets-of-leave, which differed from tickets-of-leave in England, inasmuch as the men were still kept under the supervision of the police. Knowledge of each individual's character was sought. Industrial training was offered, and by a judicious system of marks the convicts could shorten the period of their detention, and on their release receive a small sum to put them in the way of earning their livelihood. The experiment of the intermediate prisons had been completely successful, as not a single instance of attempting to escape had occurred; and another advantage which was obtained was that a most complete supervision was obtained over the convicts after they had left the prison. The directors of prisons were acquainted with the exact condition and state of those who had been under their care, and it was not, therefore, assumed that every man who did not bring himself within the purview of the criminal law was put down, as a matter of course, as doing well. In addition to other advances, the Irish convict system had been the means of furnishing more valuable criminal statistics to the country than had ever been furnished before. In order to show the House how complete had been the success of the licence system, he would state a few statistics on that point. In 1854 the number of prisoners detained in the Government prisons in Ireland was 3,933, and on the 1st of January, 1861, it was only 1,492. The number of licences issued was 1,462, and the number revoked 89, of which 30 were revocations for irregularity. Only 10 per cent of those who had passed through the intermediate prisons had returned to them. The success of this system in an economical point of view was quite as extra-ordinary. They cost of Irish convict establishments was £28,000 a year loss in 1860 than in 1856, and the cost of maintaining 2,220 convicts at Chatham and Dartmoor was £28,000 a year more than the cost of the whole of the Irish establishments, which contained about the same number. With such results it was no wonder that the system should have been lauded by the press both at home and abroad, and that distinguished foreigners who had seen it in operation should attempt to introduce it into their own countries. It was, therefore, with great regret that he saw it was proposed to make an important change in the Prisons Board, by not filling up a vacancy in the Board of Directors. At all events that seemed to be their intention, from the somewhat ambiguous answers which had been made by the Irish Secretary in that House in reply to questions which had been put to him on the subject. The duties of Chairman of that Board were very onerous, there being no less than five prisons, two refuges, and nine reformatories to manage. The Government would probably defend their proceedings on the ground that three Directors managed the prisons of England, and a smaller number might manage those of Ireland. As far as saving was concerned, the full salary of a Director was only £600 a year, and since the vacancy the services of an assistant had been obliged to be had recourse to, so that the actual saving was only £300. He would also point out that the governors of prisons in England received a much higher salary than those of Ireland, and performed duties somewhat akin to that of Directors in Ireland. The system went on and worked well; but more assistance would be required for the future. It was said that three Directors were found sufficient in England, and that a smaller number would be sufficient for Ireland. The circumstances of the two countries were, however, widely different. A high authority in Ireland had given it as his opinion, that it was utterly impossible that the duties of the Irish Board could be performed, unless further assistance was rendered by the Government. He (Lord Naas) thought that alarming disturbances which lately occurred in Chatham were owing to the want of some central directing authority. There was not one such instance in the convict prisons in Ireland. Captain Crofton, who had had the management of the convict department in Ireland, and to whom the public were deeply indebted for the success of his experiment, was resolved to retire unless he was supplied with sufficient means to carry out his system. He thought it would be a great public misfortune if Captain Crofton resigned the office which he had filled with so much credit to himself and satisfaction to the public. He hoped that he had stated such facts as would induce the Government to reconsider their determination, and to make such arrangements with Captain Crofton as would induce him to remain some time longer in the service of the public. He thought that if it were shown to Captain Crofton that he would have the cordial assistance of the Government, he would not, under the pressing circumstances of the case, be disposed to carry out his present out his present resolution to retire.

could assure the noble Lord it was not necessary, as far as the Government were concerned, to show the value of the convict system in Ireland. That system was instituted by the Government of Lord Aberdeen, and it had been followed by the most satisfactory results. He (Mr. Cardwell) had always given that system his most cordial support. He concurred entirely with the noble Lord as to the value of the services of Captain Crofton, and had recommended the Treasury to increase the remuneration of that able officer, when he added to his other duties those of inspector of reformatories. As to the intention of the Government with respect to the Prisons Board the circumstances were these. The other day there occurred a vacancy in the County Prisons Board, and it occurred to the Irish Government that by appointing one of the Convict Directors to the vacancy, and thus forming a union between the two Boards, increased efficiency would be obtained. With this view it was intended that Mr. Lantaigne should be appointed to the vacancy without resigning his seat at the Convict Board; but it was found that there was a difficulty in the way, and Mr. Lantaigne was then appointed to the County Prisons Board, and resigned his seat at the Convict Prisons Board. It then became necessary to consider whether the vacancy should be filled up or not. When the system was first established it was the intention of Parliament that the number of Directors should be reviewed from time to time. The system then was new, and the number of convicts was 4,000. Now it was working excellently, and the number of convicts was less than 1,500—a result, no doubt, very creditable to the system. In the month of May he received from the Directors a proposal that, inasmuch as the time of Captain Barlow, the Inspector of convicts at Spike Island, had been relieved by the removal of the convicts from Forts Carlisle and Campbell, he should be taken to Dublin to assist the Directors. That was carried into effect, and he was now engaged in further inquiry as to whether or not it was right to fill up the vacancy. The Irish convict system was established by a Government of which he had the honour to be a member. To that system he had always given, and should continue to give, the most cordial support—no object of small economy would induce the Government to impair its efficiency—but when a vacancy occurred in any department it was the duty of the Government carefully to consider whether or not it was necessary to fill it up. Captain Crofton would have the best support of the Government in the discharge of his laborious duties. He was sorry to hear that the health that of that gentleman was so bad, but hoped that it would soon be sufficiently restored to enable him to continue the discharge of his duties.

trusted that the expression of opinion by the House would prevent a valuable department being sacrificed by a course which the right hon. Gentleman was rashly going to take. The gentleman who was at the head of this department had a peculiar genius for the office. Captain Crofton had succeeded in accomplishing what no other man, perhaps, had been able to effect—namely, in showing that no criminal, however great, was incapable of being reclaimed. Captain Crofton had succeeded in a great degree in his noble task of reformation. When the late Government proposed to consider whether the punishment of death might not be abolished for a great many offences, he (Mr. Whiteside) was induced, from his observations of Captain Crofton's system of secondary punishment, to concur in the opinion that the punishment of death might be abolished for all crimes except that of murder. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to be advised by anybody in Ireland who could give him sound advice, and it was believed that he had intimated his intention to change a system that had worked extremely well, without having the courtesy to consult the eminent gentleman who was at the head of the department. The excuse of ill-health put forward by Captain Crofton was, it was generally supposed, but the way in which he had been treated by the Government. He (Mr. Whiteside) asked whether this was the act of Lord Carlisle, or whether it was re-commended by Colonel Larcom? Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to break up a system which had proved so successful, and which had given satisfaction to the people of all religious denominations? He did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman's wishes—it was of his conduct he complained. It appeared that the right hon. Gentleman had borrowed the services of the Inspector of Spike Island, when Captain Crofton said it was impossible to do without further assistance. In acting thus the Government were enabled to save £200 a year, at the risk of breaking up the department which had attracted the notice of every philanthropist in Europe. He had a high respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he could not help thinking that there was great danger and mischief in his attempting to undertake the Government of Ireland alone.

had never heard a charge which had less foundation than that which had been made against his right hon. Friend, of endeavouring to over-throw the convict system of Ireland. That system had been strictly adhered to by his right hon. Friend, and there was not the smallest ground for the imputations which has been cast upon him. What he had done he was called upon by his duty to the public to do—namely, when an office fell vacant, to consider whether the public service required that it should be filled up. In England the number of convicts was 8,000, while in Ireland it was only 1,500; or rather less. The Board of Management in England consisted of only three persons; and as he was convinced that the recent disturbances at Chatham, to which reference had been made, arose in no degree from insufficiency of superintendence, there was a prima facie case that the number in Ireland was unnecessarily large. Something had been said of the greater expense of English as compared with Irish convicts; but, in making such a comparison, it was necessary to bear in mind the earnings of the English convicts. It appeared to him that the course which had been taken by his right hon. Friend was fully justified by the circumstances, and he trusted that these continual appeals for the increase, or against the diminution of establishments would not discourage the Executive in performing what used to be thought one of its most important duties—namely, keeping the expenditure of the administrative departments within reasonable bounds.

said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) involved a complete fallacy. His strong point was that as the 8,000 English convicts were managed by three Directors Ireland could not require so many to manage 1,500. But the difference between the two countries was this—that the work left to be done in England by the governors of the prisons was in Ireland done by the Directors themselves—they became acquainted with each individual convict, and kept their eye on them for years after they had left the prison. The right hon. Gentleman talked of economy; but he believed there would be no economy at all, for what was taken from the Directors would be added to the governors of prisons. But if they wanted economy—though he did not think there were too many offices in Ireland—he would recommend the Government to abolish an aide-de-camp or two, which Ireland would cheerfully sacrifice rather than risk the abandonment of a system of prison discipline which was attracting the attention, not of this country alone, but of the whole civilized world.

said, the impression seemed to prevail that his right hon. Friend was about to make important changes in the system of prison discipline. But his right hon. Friend had stated in the most explicit terms that he contemplated no change whatever, and that the only question was whether, seeing an establishment of three Directors was thought sufficient when the Irish convicts amounted to 4,000, a smaller number of Directors might not be adequate now that the convicts had fallen to 1,500? But his right hon. Friend had not even decided on that step; he was only trying whether the experiment would answer, and he hoped the House would not force the Government to fill up the appointment before the experiment was fairly tried. He could not believe that Captain Crofton, for whom he had the highest respect, was at all concerned in this attempt to force the Government to fill up the vacancy.

was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have made this imputation on Captain Crofton. That Gentleman had taken no steps whatever in opposition to the Government; he offered to resign his appointment. It was they who believed that the system of Captain Crofton was a most admirable one, and who believed that it was in jeopardy from Captain Crofton's resignation in consequence of the increased duties put upon him, that they were induced to come forward and insist that his duties should be lightened by the vacancy being filled up.

said, that the right hon. Baronet had put the case in a most unfair light to the House. What was the state of the case? Here was a system of convict discipline not only far superior to that in England, but such that it had attracted the attention and was commented on by all who took an interest in these questions throughout Europe. Captain Crofton's system was, he believed, the most perfect system of convict discipline that had yet been adopted. But it was not the Government that could claim any credit for this system; it was not the Government that commenced the system; the whole credit of it was due to Captain Crofton. Now, that system being perfectly successful, a vacancy occurred, and the Government hesitated to fill it up, their plea being economy. He believed the saving would be somewhere about £200 a year; and for that sum this admirable system was to be put in jeopardy. What they said was this—that when Captain Crofton had established a system the beneficial results of which had attracted the notice of statesmen and philanthropists all over Europe, it was only fair that the Government, before making any change in the appointments, should have consulted Captain Crofton. ["Hear!"] He observed that hon. Gentleman opposite cheered that statement, but he believed no communication had been made to Captain Crofton whatever; or if there was, it was made in such a manner as left him no room to express his opinion. Captain Crofton felt that as he was not properly supported by the Government, nor supplied with the proper assistants to work out his plans, it would be better for him to resign, and it was to prevent that they now urged on the Government to give him that support to which he was so well entitled.

strongly urged on the Government to support Captain Crofton, as the results of his system were more than enough to justify a greater outlay than it incurred.

said, that having been Chief Commissioner to inquire into the corruption practices at a recent election for the borough, he rose to state his conclusion that the writ ought not to issue. The hon. Member for Beverley (Major Edward) who had moved the writ had stated no sufficient reason why the writ should issue for a borough of which the Commission of Inquiry had reported that the electors had been guilty of gross corruption and bribery, and that these practices had been committed by all parties. If wakefield suffered any inconvenience from not being represented, it was the proper consequence of its own act. The Report of the Commission was entirely borne out by the evidence. Should the writ issue, it would seem as if the House, instead of marking its sense of the corruption to the electors, intended to give them a second opportunity of displaying it in the same Parliament. This question ought not to be treated with the levity with which it seemed to be met on the former evening, when it was said there were Members in the House who were known to have obtained their seats by bribery. [Cheers from the opposition, and cries of "Reading."] Let the House consider what bribery was. ["Oh, oh!"] Mr. Justice Blackstone called it "the infamous practice of corruption;" and an-other high authority declared it to be "poisoning the fountain of public security." The House should express its determination in tones that admitted of no mistake to do its best to repress bribery. What was the use of issuing a Commission of Inquiry if they did not act upon their Report? The object and end of such a Commission was to punish a place where bribery had extensively prevailed. If one party only in a borough was implicated it would be unjust to suspend the writ, because in doing so they would confound the innocent with the guilty; but where it was found that the heads and subordinates of all parties were engaged in the same corrupt work, surely the borough ought to be punished. It might be said that the steps taken by the House should be definite, and that it was unconstitutional to keep the writ in abeyance. But was it not both constitutional and according to precedent that the House should suspend a writ in such a case during its pleasure? It was done with regard to Liverpool in 1831. The Committee declared that gross bribery, treating, and corruption prevailed at the election for that borough in 1830, and it was decided by the House that the writ should not go. Again, in the case of Stafford, the writ was suspended in 1835 on the same grounds, after the Report of a Select Committee. More recently the House also to suspend the writ for Nottingham, but without a Report from a Select Committee. These instances showed that the House had full power, if it chose to exercise it, to suspend the writ in the present case. There would be no injustice in punishing the whole borough for bribery which was common to the whole borough. He believed it would be a wholesome lesson to consituencies if the writ were suspended. Bribery was not more engrafted in society now than was duelling formerly. The latter was put an end to by a firm exposition of the law on the part of a Judge whom they had lately lost, and he believed the former would be put down too by a firm declaration of the opinion of the House. He should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member opposite.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, after the clear and distinct promise which he had given on that night week, would not oppose the issue of the writ. He admitted that there were precedents for the suspension of writs; but the course, except while inquiries were in progress, was inexpedient and unconstituional. If the places were really corrupt, the proper course was to follow the precedent set with respect to Sudbury and St. Albans, and to disfranchise them altogether. But such a course ought not to be pursued in isolated instances; it ought to be extended to all place in which corruption was shown to be deep-rooted and wide spread. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had accused him of levity in speaking of the subject of bribery. He denied that he had treated the matter in any such spirit. The hon. and learned Gentleman certainly could not be accused of having spoken with levity, for he had rarely listened to a more solemn or, he would add, dreary speech. Nobody denied that bribery had taken place at Wakefield; but anybody who read the Reports of Committees or Commissions which had sat elsewhere would have arrived at precisely the same conclusion. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary the other day seemed perfectly shocked at the idea of a writ being issued to a corrupt place like Wakefield. But how had the Government treated candidates who corrupted constituencies? It was all very well for Committees to draw up a Report in a stereotyped form, to the effect that sufficient information had not been brought before them to prove that the bribery or corruption had taken place with the knowledge or sanction of the candidates; but could any sane or reasonable man doubt where the money came from? Possibly, the money was originally subscirbed to a general fund. He was happy to say he knew nothing of such arrangements, for he did not represent a borough. A very ordinary practice was for certain funds to be subscribed, of which the Gentleman going down to contest a corrupt borough usually contributed the largest portion, or possibly he might avail himself of the accommodating and useful assistance of some political friend like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells or Honiton, who might be able to make arrangement for the transmission to its destination of this general fund. Now, how had the Government treated Gentlemen who were instrumental in corrupting constituencies? Immidiately after the last general election, one of the Members for the town of Norwich was convicted through his agents—of course, the noble Lord knew nothing of the circumstances—of gross, glaring, wholesale bribery. Yet, he now sat on the Treasury Bench, and occupied a high and responsible station in Her Majesty's House-hold. He alluded to the noble Lord at present Member for the Wick Boroughs (Viscount Bury). Another noble Lord was also convicted on a former occasion of gross, glaring, and wholesale corruption in the town of Hull. That noble now occupied a yet more responsible position in Her Majesty's Government in "another place." He alluded to Lord De Grey, who was well known in that House as Lord Goderich, who had been convicted of gross bribery. The House of Commons having condoned the offences of those corrupt constituencies, and Her Majesty's Government having rewarded the Gentlemen who corrupted them, it was perfectly preposterous for the House to affect precise puritanical scruples about issuing writs for Wakefield or Gloucester, the circumstances of which were in no way distinguishable from those of the other towns to which he had alluded.

regretted that the hon. Gentleman should have introduced any personal question into the discussion. He should have remembered that now Election Committees were bound, when they found bribery to exist, to report whether knowledge or consent of the candidates or Members. In both cases of Hull and Norwich Committees reported that the bribery had been without the knowledge or consent of the noble Lords who had been referred to. [Mr. KNIGHTLEY: But by their agents.] Every one professed to be desirous of putting an end to bribery, and complaints were made that the Reports of Committees and of Commissioners had not been productive of greater results—that those Reports were laid upon the table, and nothing was done upon them. he thought there would be less justice in these complaints if some more decisive and less cautious attempts were made to check bribery. Disfranchisement did not follow where the corruption was not nearly universal, and as long as they adhered to that rule there would be but few cases of disfranchisement. Much might, no doubt, be said about the extent of constituencies like those of Gloucester and Wakefield, and it may be urged that it would be hard to disfranchise the whole for the faults of a portion of the constituency. But in the case of Wakefield, not only were a large number of votes corrupt, but the Commissioners called attention to the fact that what was called the respectable part of the constituency had not exercised that influence which they possessed to prevent bribery as they might have done, and, therefore, the corruption in that place must be assumed to have gone beyond the voters actually bribed. With respect to boroughs so situated he last year stated the course proposed by the Government—that where the corruption was extensive, but not sufficient to deserve disfranchisement, a temporary suspension of the writ was expedient. He also stated that the Government would have introduced a Bill to apply that principle to these two boroughs, had it not been that a Reform Bill was then before Parliament, which if adopted would have created many new voters. The subject having been referred to a Committee, that Committee made a recommendation in accordance with that suggestion. After the time which had elapsed since the election, the Government did not think it expedient to introduce a Bill specifically applicable to these two boroughs; but the question now coming before the House must be considered together with that recommendation, and it would be for the House to determine whether such a rule should be prospective or retropective. In any case, if the House was inclined to discourage bribery by suspending the issue of writs for corrupt boroughs for a minimum period of five years, as recommended by the Committee, it would be improper after the lapse of less than two years to allow those boroughs the opportunity of repeating perhaps the same practices as those of which they had before been guilty. He did not think a sufficient time had elapsed. The hon. Member who spoke last had taunted the Government and the House with punishing the constituencies and allowing the candidates to pass by unnoticed. He must remind the hon. Member that in the cases where a candidate had been open to prosecution, in consequence of not receiving a certificate from the Commissioners, the Attorney General had instituted proceedings. In one case the prosecution was for a time defeated by the obstinacy of a witness in refusing to repeat the evidence he had given before the Commissioners. In another case—that of Berwick—the Attorney General had stated that he did not prosecute the candidate because the principle witness had absconded. He was glad the question was now discussed in a full House, when it could be deliberately considered.

said, that the precedents quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Mr. Serjeant Pigott) had convinced him that the writ for Wakefield should be issued. In the case of Stafford the House had passed a Bill of disfranchisement, but in consequence of a difference with the other House the writ only remained suspended. It was, no doubt, in the power of the House to suspend a writ for as indefinite time; but whether it was right or constitutional he could not say. Suspension of the writ was clearly a penal proceeding, and the question now was whether the suspension had lasted sufficiently long. No one had proposed a Bill to dis- franchise this borough, and if the Government had thought that five years' suspension was the proper punishment, they should have introduced a Bill to the effect immediately after the Report of the Commissioners. They not having done that, and believing that indefinite punishment was wrong, he should vote for the issue of the writ.

regarded this as no party question. Every one admitted that bribery had been practised at the last election for Wakefield. He deplored the fact, and he was authorized by the two gentlemen who were candidates upon that occasion to express their regret. The question was whether Wakefield had not been sufficiently punished already. Two years of disfranchisement to a large commercial town was a heavy penalty to endure. Not only so, but Wakefield had also been deprived by the Appropriation of Seats Bill of the important position which it hitherto held in connection with the elections for the county. He must say he had been startled and surprised at the declaration of the Home Secretary. When the debate was commenced that night week that right hon. Gentleman clearly stated that if the second division then taken went against the Government, as the first one had gone, he would support the issue of the writ, ["No!" and "Hear, hear,"] He mentioned this with pain, but the right hon. Gentleman was so reported in The Times of the following day. The House was entitled to look for straightforward conduct on the part of those who were its leaders, and he must, therefore, now call upon the right hon. Gentleman to act according to his own declaration. The right hon. Gentleman was afterwards urged the same night to go into the lobby in opposition to that declaration; but it was to be hoped that he would be prepared to-night to say, no behalf of the Government that he would not further resist the issue of the writs for Wakefield and Gloucester, and he would thereby regain the confidence which he had heretofore most deservedly enjoyed on that side of the House.

contended, notwithstanding the reproof administered by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in regard to the introduction of personal matters into that discussion, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Knightley) was perfectly justified in the illustration he had used in support of his argument. The report of the inquiry re- lating to Kingston-upon-Hull declared that systematic bribery had been committed on behalf of Lord Goderich; that it was not proved that such bribery was committed with Lord Goderich's knowledge, but that it was proved that he had a knowledge of facts which should have caused him to inquire into the mode in which the money was expended, and that such an inquiry must have led him to the conclusion that bribery was being practised on his behalf. If the Government would bring forward a Motion for the disfranchisement of Wakefield and Gloucester he was prepared to vote for it, but he thought it unjust to deal out one punishement to one delinquent borough and another punishment to another. With respect to the constitutional part of the question, he could not understand a more unconstitutional course of proceeding than that the right of dealing with questions of this description of delinquency should rest either with the caprice of the House of Commons, or the caprice of the Government of the day. There ought to be some clear and definite rule of action. The Government ought to follow one of two courses—either to sanction the issuing of the writ or deal dealt with. He firmly believed that nothing would stop bribery, and the course the House adopted was to encourage it at elections. The real fact was that in the country there was no feeling against it, and no belief in the mind of the public that there was any turpitude in either giving or taking a bribe. He was not so sanguine as the hon. and learned Member as to believe that the House had only to express its reprobation of such delinquencies in order to effectually eradicate electoral corruption. Bribery could only be dealt with by making the penalties and the punishment so heavy that it would be dangerous to commit it.

I think there is a great deal of force in the observation that we ought to take some decided course in regard to these boroughs. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had explained why, when the Bill that now lies on the table was brought in, it was not deemed proper to apply to these boroughs the clause which provides that constituencies so convicted shall not be allowed for five years to return Members to this House. But I think it would be fair for the House to consider whether, under the altered circumstances of the case, it would not be right to include Wakefield and Gloucester in that clause, and that when we come to consider the Bill in Committee, a proviso should be added to prevent their electing representatives until the period of five years has expired. If the House should be of opinion that that would be a fit question to discuss in Committee on the Bill, then surely we ought not to withdraw these boroughs from consideration by now issuing their writs. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Bentinck) is prepared to vote for the disfranchisement of these two towns; but I think there are obvious reasons why we should pause before proceeding to that extremity. The House ought to consider the effect that would be produced on the public mind by adopting the Motion before us. For what purpose, I would ask, are Commissioners appointed to investigate cases of gross and extensive bribery? Is it that the House may have the satisfaction of knowing that corruption exists and then doing nothing? Is it for the sake of informing the public mind that borough after borough is convicted of flagrant venality, and that all this House does, after letting the Report of the Committee lie on the table for a year or so, is to issue the writ and treat the delinquent constituency as if nothing at all had happened? Why, if that is not trifling—if it is not indirectly avowing that we consider bribery and corruption a trivial and venial offence, hardly deserving of any consideration and certainly of no punishment—I do not know what the consequences of any given line of conduct can possibly be. I entreat the House to pause, and remember that its own character is here involved. The Wakefield election took place about two years ago. An investigation was instituted, and I do not believe the Report has been much more than a twelvemonth lying on our table. Circumstances have prevented that Report being taken into serious consideration; and now the first result of all these proceedings is to be that we are to issue the writ, just as if a vacancy had occurred in a common and natural manner. I, therefore, humbly propose to the House that we should not now issue the writ, but that we should reserve for subsequent discussion the question whether it would not be well to visit on these two delinquent constituencies that five years' deprivation of electoral privileges which is prescribed by the clause in the measure to which I have referred.

I cannot but think that the House is in a very unsatisfactory position in respect to these two boroughs; but, at the same time, I do not see that the proposition of the noble Lord will remove the difficulty. If the proposition is one to extricate us from the difficulty by what is, after all, only ex post facto legislation, I do not think it is one which the House is likely to favour. To-night we are discussing the question of the corruption of a particular borough, and that, to my mind, has nothing to do with the point before us. The point is much more important than the question of the corruption of a particular borough. It is, whether we shall suspend a writ without the authority of law. Really that is the important matter which we have to decide. If, without any violation of the law, we could sufficiently punish Wakefield and Gloucester, I should be most willing to support any Motion having that for its object; but it appears to me that in our eagerness to punish those boroughs we may be laying the foundation of a system which may be found hereafter very injurious to that public liberty and security which—not withstanding some of the statements which have been made in the course of this debate—I am willing to believe both sides of the House are anxious to preserve. Is that a satisfactory state of affairs by which we may suspend the issuing of a writ at the caprice of an individual, or to suit the fashion of a party? What can be more unsatifactory than those precedents cited by the hon. and learned Serjeant, which show that the suspension or the issue of a writ may depend upon a majority of one. I think we should lay down some invariable principle which should apply to all cases, and which should remove the difficulty in which the House has been placed, both on the last night when this subject was under discussion and on the present occasion. From all I can learn, if a division had been taken on the preceding night, the writ would have been issued; and surely nothing can be more unsatisfactory than that a matter of great importance should depend upon the chance attendance of hon. Members or the caprice of a Minister. A question of this kind ought to be decided in a manner that should apply inflexibly to all cases, and that should leave no room for cavil. There is no machinery to meet the case at present. It is no answer to the general objections which can be urged against the arbitrary and capricious suspension of a writ to say that Her Majesty's Ministers are sensible that some thing ought to be done, and that an oppor- tunity will hereafter occur, of which the House may avail themselves in order to do that something. The House ought not to be influenced in its opinion by such vague promises as that which the noble Lord has given us, and which, even if it be realized, will result in legislation of a retrospective character. It appears to me that the best thing we can do now is to assent to the issue of the writ, and take the earliest opportunity of giving the whole subject our attentive consideration, with a view to providing for future cases. If we act in this way, we can hereafter lay down a mode of action which will leave no room for doubt, and which will relieve the House in future of discussions of this character. Though as willing as any one to show my sense of the conduct of the electors of Wakefield, I feel bound to support our constitutional rights, and vote for the issue of the writ.

I have heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regret, for, whatever may be the decision of the House on the present Motion, and though I hope that decision may be adverse, I am sorry that among the leading Members of this House there should be any difference of opinion as to the course which ought to be pursued in such cases. The first objection of the right hon. Gentleman to the proposition referred to by my noble Friend is, that it is one for ex post facto legislation. If that be a valid objection, everything which the House has hitherto done in the matter of disfranchisement is hard and unjust. It was wrong of the old Parliament to disfranchise Penryn and Grampound, and it was wrong in the new to disfranchise Sudbury and St. Albans. The right hon. Gentleman says that we ought not to suspend a writ in an arbitrary manner. He is right; but it is perfectly within the spirit of the Constitution to suspend the issue of a writ till we have had an opportunity of considering what final course we ought to take. My right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) has explained that the Reform Bill of last year afforded a sufficient reason for not bringing in a Bill applying more directly to cases such as those now under discussion; but as to the present Session my noble Friend at the head of the Government has just declared that the House will have an opportunity afforded to them of considering the amount of punishment in the shape of disfranchisement which ought to be inflicted in such cases. The right hon. Gentleman says that we ought to have some defined and invariable rule—I presume he means as to the character of the punishment, for he cannot mean that all offences of this kind, whether great or small, should receive exactly the same amount of punishment. It would be a proper subject of consideration for the House whether in some instances there should not be absolute and in others only partial disfranchisement. After the passing of the Reform Act the attention of Parliament and the country was directed to this subject, and at length we adopted a machinery, which is formal, solemn, and of a very costly character, by which you have judicial inquiry as the foundation of your subsequent proceedings. We have now got before us one of the first Reports consequent on such an inquiry, and we are called on to declare how we intend to deal with those Reports. This is a question of great importance. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) declared his intention to deal severely with cases of bribery. He has on former occasions shown his indisposition to extensive—perhaps to any—changes in the constitution of Parliament. An opponent of Parliamentary Reform in general, he would be just and severe in dealing with particular cases of electoral corruption. I do not know whether some of those who are most friendly to sweeping changes in the constitution of this House may not be favourable to the issue of this writ, because they may consider that to treat such cases lightly may stimulate in the nation a desire for extensive and organic changes. But let the House see the serious alternative before it. If the country is little disposed to deal with the general question of disfranchisement it becomes doubly necessary that we should deal gravely, severely, and effectively with particular cases of disfranchisement. But if we are to say when particular cases of gross corruption come before us, established by indubitable evidence, that the writ may issue, as is now proposed with regard to Wakefield, then I say that is a mode of proceeding which this House, great as it is, cannot afford to pursue without forfeiting much of the esteem, respect, and confidence of the country.

said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had not disposed him to vote against the Motion, more particularly as the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues seemed to arrogate to themselves a peculiar regard for the preservation of electoral purity. He denied that these were first Reports of Royal Commissions. Commissions had, in fact, been issued so far back as 1853, and there had been half a dozen or half a score towns which had been visited by them. When the noble Lord said that after the issuing of a Commission, and the Commission had reported they ought to punish the borough or the Commission was of no use. He would remind the House in the first place that the foundation of the inquiry by the Commissioners was absolute impunity and indemnity of all the parties who gave the information. In the next place, in all cases where Commissions had been issued the elections which had followed them were not marked by those practices which had called the Commissions into existence. This showed that the Commissions were not entirely without their value in eradicating the evil which they were intended to correct.

hoped the House would allow him to give some explanation of an insinuation which had been thown out against him by the hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The hon. Baronet had stated that the reason why the Attorney General had not directed a prosecution against him for bribery at the election for Berwick-upon-Tweed was that a material witness had absconded. Now, the hon. Baronet, who lived within a few miles of that borough, might have known the fact that the witness to whom he referred had not at the time absconded; he was resident in Berwick," was there now, and had been for weeks. So far from his shirking any evidence brought against him, he had from first to last taken every means in his power to challenge investigation into his conduct. The witness had been already tried at the Old Bailey, being prosecuted by the Attorney General; and it was at his instance that he had been enabled to meet that trial, which ended in an acquittal.

denied that he had made any insinuation against the hon. Member. What he stated was that the Attorney General had prosecuted in two cases in which the candidates had not received the certificate from the Commissioners, and that in one of the cases the prosecution failed from the refusal of a witness to answer the questions put to him; and with regard to the hon. Member for Berwick, he stated that the Attorney General was justified in not prosecuting by the fact that the witness had absconded. The hon. Gentleman said he knew that the witness had not absconded. He only regretted that the hon. Gentleman did not give that information to the Attorney General.

said, the arguments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire had not in any way been answered. It was a new thing altogether to say that there was a Bill on the Table to meet the present case, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, the other night, that the Government would consent to the issue of the writ.

said, that as several hon. Members had adverted to what had fallen from him on the last occasion, he begged to explain what he really had said. The House on that occasion did not seem disposed to enter into the question of the issue of the writ, and a series of Adjournments had been moved. He knew from experience that Motions of that sort were not very agreeable to the House, and it was always unpleasant to the Government to take part in Motions the effect of which was the retardation of public business. He had, therefore, proposed that the division on the Motion for Adjournment should be taken as indicating the disposition of the House, and that no division should be taken on the Motion itself when it was put. Well, if the House had been disposed to adopt that course he should have acquiesced in it. But that was not the case. Hon. Gentleman continued to move Adjournments, and the consequence was that the Government, not being masters of the majority of the House, acquiesced in what appeared to be the wish of the majority. It was not possible, therefore, to adopt the suggestion he had thrown out. It was a mere matter of convenience, and he saw no inconsistency between the suggestion he had made and the course which the Government had eventually adopted.

said, that although he had listened very attentively to this discussion, he had not heard any substantial reason adduced to justify the exceptional mode of proceeding that had been adopted with reference to Wakefield and Gloucester. His connections with the West Riding of Yorkshire enabled him to speak with certainty respecting the first-mentioned constituency, which had a strong claim on the House from its numbers, wealth, and intelligence. He had been very much surprised at the attack which had been made upon him by the hon. and learned Member for Reading. It was the first time, in the whole of his experience in Parliament since 1847, that he had heard of an hon. Member being censured for not making a long speech at two o'clock in the morning; and when he had been as long a Member of that house, he would have learnt, that if not usually impracticable, at all events such an attempt would be injudicious and indiscreet. He had been more astonished still to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the speech he had made, stated the matter which he (Major Edwards) had made use of was irrelavent and inconclusive. He would say farther, that he never was more astonished in his life than when he heard the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had been a personal friend of Mr. Leatham, and supposed to be an active partisan in the Wakefield election, was placed at the head of the commission by the present Government. He was the last man in the world that ought to have been appointed to that Commission, and he said it advisedly, the fact had given the greatest dissatisfaction to the inhabitants of Wakefield and the district. The justice of the report of that Commission was therefore disputed, and this he had no hesitation in stating in the face of the House of Commons. With regard to with-holding the writ, it had already been with-held two years, although it had been asserted that less than one-eighth of the constituency of Wakefield had been charged with corrupt practices, and 20,000 persons were to be punished for that small fraction of the inhabitants. Such a punishment savoured of injustice, if not vindictiveness, and was unprecedented. Since the Reform Bill he believed no writ had been withheld for so long a period, and it is especially hard in the case of Wakefield, for it is the first time any proceedings have been taken against the borough on the ground of corruption, while other boroughs have frequently been the subject of inquiry. The register is now almost entirely purged of the guilty parties, and 200 new electors are now enfranchised. They had heard for the first time this evening something about legislation on the subject, and the country would, he felt confident, receive with enthusiasm any well digested measure that the Government thought fit to introduce for the prevention of bribery and corruption. Why did not the Government bring in such a Bill at the commencement of last year? Why did they wait until this moment, when they found that one half of the House of Commons was prepared to vote for the immediate issue of the writ for Wakefield? Why did they now, at the eleventh hour, come down on their knees and beg hon. Members to withhold their votes, to give them a last opportunity to produce a Bill that would satisfy the House of Commons on the subject? It was a sop to certain Members who would only be too happy to have an excuse for voting against the issuing of the writ, and such was the object. There was one thing, nevertheless, the Government never could get over; the Home Secretary had stated in the presence of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and he (Major Edwards) hoped it would go forth to the country—he had stated that if the Government were beaten on the second division on Friday last, he would withhold all further opposition, and that the writ for Wakefield should be issued. He now called upon the Government as a point of honour to fulfil their pledge, and to let no quibble interfere with its performance.

begged to say that he had never had anything to do with an election for Wakefield, and that he never could have been a partisan, as alleged by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The only thing that he could remember in connection with the borough was that he was once counsel for the brother of one of the candidates. There must be some mistake. He had enjoyed the friendship of the hon. Gentleman himself up to that moment, and he was sure he should not have done so if he had been so unworthy as the hon. Member imputed to him.